Eight Weeks of Strength and Power Training Improves ...

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research Publish Ahead of Print DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000002505

Eight Weeks of Strength and Power Training Improves Club Head Speed in Collegiate Golfers

D

Running Head: Strength and Power Training on CHS

*Corresponding author: Dustin J. Oranchuk

C EP

+64 027 800 8555

TE

*Dustin J. Oranchuk1,3, Jason M. Mannerberg1, Tracey L. Robinson1 & Megan C. Nelson1,2

AUT-Millennium, 17 Antares Place, Mairangi Bay Auckland, New Zealand

[email protected]

Adams State University, Department of Human Performance & Physical Education

2

University of Idaho, Department of Movement Sciences

3

Sports Performance Research Institute New Zealand, Auckland University of

A

C

1

Technology, Auckland New Zealand

Funding Disclosure: None.

Conflict of Interest There are no conflicts of interest to disclose in this study.

Copyright ª 2018 National Strength and Conditioning Association

Strength and Power Training on CHS

1

Abstract

Club head speed (CHS) is a major determinant of drive distance, a key component of golf performance. The purpose of this study was to determine the indirect effects of an eightweek strength and power program on CHS. Twelve (6 male, 6 female) NCAA Division II golfers (20.3±1.5 years) randomly assigned to an intervention or control group, underwent

D

either a periodized strength and power program consisting of high-load barbell movements or a bodyweight and rotational movement focused resistance training program. Outcomes were

TE

CHS, countermovement jump (CMJ) height, and 1RM back squat (BS), power clean (PC), and deadlift (DL). Dependent t-tests were utilized to assess differences in outcome variables pre-to-post for each group, independent t-tests were utilized to assess differences between

C EP

groups, and Pearson correlations were utilized to assess associations between CHS and outcome variables. On average, the intervention group experienced improvements in all outcome variables except peak CHS (p=0.60); the control group displayed no changes in any outcome variable except a decrease in average CHS (p=0.028). Compared to the control group, the intervention group experienced greater improvements in average CHS, BS, PC,

C

and average and peak CMJ height (p 0.89 (13). CMJ height was measured via contact mat (Just Jump, Probotics Inc, Huntsville, AL, USA) (21). The contact mat calculates vertical jump height by measuring the time between ground contacts from takeoff to landing. Despite systematically over-estimating vertical jump height, contact mats has been found to have nearly perfect correlations to 3-camera motion

D

capture (r = 0.97, +0.5 ± 0.12 cm) (21) and force plates (r = 0.99, +1.55 ± 0.02 cm) (29). One-repetition max (1RM) testing for PC, BS, and DL were conducted according to the

Club Head Speed and Vertical Jump Assessment

TE

National Strength and Conditioning Association’s (NSCA) testing protocol (2).

C EP

Participants were instructed to use their natural swing with maximal effort prior to the CHS measurement. Each participant was allowed three practice swings followed by a selfselected rest period of 2-5 minutes. The participants then performed three maximal effort swings with two minutes of rest between attempts. The average of the three swing velocities and peak swing velocity, defined as the highest recorded swing velocity, were recorded for

C

analysis. Five minutes after the final swing, the participants began the CMJ testing protocol. To adequately prepare the tissues of the lower leg and potentiate jump performance, each

A

participant was instructed to complete ankle hops for two sets of 10 repetitions (3). The participants stood in front of the jump mat until instructed to step onto the device. Participants then performed a maximal effort countermovement jump before landing on the mat. Each jump was performed while positioning the hands on the hips to minimize the contribution of the upper extremities and to increase reliability (23). Each participant was given three attempts separated by two minutes of rest. Both peak CMJ height and an average height of the three CMJ’s performed were used for the statistical analysis.



6

Maximal Strength Assessment Forty-eight hours later, the participants performed a 1RM testing battery of, in order, the PC, SQ, and DL. The protocol established by the NSCA (2), and also utilized by Alvarez et al. (1) was as follows: 5-10 repetitions with a light resistance, 5 repetitions at 60%, 3 repetitions at 75%, 2 repetitions at 85%, 1 repetition at 90% and 1 repetition at 95% of

D

predicted 1RM. After the specific warm-up protocol was completed, participants were given a maximum of four attempts to achieve their 1RM (1, 2). Each movement followed the same

TE

protocol and was separated by a five-minute rest between exercises (1, 2). All attempts were separated by three to five minutes of rest and monitored by an experienced strength and

Training Protocol

C EP

conditioning coach.

The participants then proceeded to undergo an eight-week resistance training program. The intervention group performed a golf-specific, high-load strength and power resistance training intervention (Tables 2 & 3). The control group performed a low-load

C

training program (Table 1). The participants trained three days a week, with at least one day

A

of recovery separating each training session. Scheduled team training took place on the Monday, Wednesday, and Friday of each week. If a session(s) was missed, the participant(s) were allowed to complete it on the following day. Following the eight-week intervention, participants were given 72 hours to rest before beginning the post-intervention testing which followed the same procedures as the baseline testing.



7

Statistical Analysis Results are expressed as mean ± SD. The statistical analyses were performed using the 2016 SPSS Version 24 (IBM Corporation, Armonk, NY) statistical analysis software. Assumptions were checked visually with normality and residual plots, and the Levene’s test for variance homogeneity. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) using a two-way

D

random effects model and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were computed to evaluate the reliability of CHS assessed with the photo-sensing device within each testing session along

TE

with the standard error of the mean (SEM) and coefficient of variation (CV) (37). The ICC for baseline testing CHS was 0.91 (95% CI [0.79-0.97]), SEM = 6.36 km/h, and CV = 3.9%. The ICC for post-testing CHS was 0.96 (95% CI [0.90-0.99]), SEM = 4.44 km/h, and CV =

C EP

2.7%. Reliability metrics for CHS trials during both sessions indicated acceptable reliability. Two-tailed dependent t-tests were used to determine within-group changes (baseline to posttest) for both the control and intervention group for each dependent variable. A nonparametric Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used for variables violating assumptions. Difference scores were computed for each variable by subtracting the pre-test value from the

C

post-test value. Differences between the control and intervention group were evaluated by two-tailed independent t-tests. For variables that violated assumptions, independent samples

A

Mann-Whitney U tests were used to evaluate differences between the control and intervention group. Due to the limited sample size, Hedge’s effect sizes (ES) were calculated to measure the magnitude of practical effect (7). As recommended by Rhea (28), effect sizes were interpreted as: trivial < 0.35, small = 0.35-0.80, medium = 0.80-1.50, and large > 1.50. Hedge’s g ≥ 0.35 was considered to be a practically important difference. Correlation analysis was performed for dependent variables using a Pearson (r) product-moment correlation test. Correlation coefficients of 0.1, 0.3, 0.5, 0.7 and 0.9 were considered small, moderate, large, very large and nearly perfect, respectively (14). A probability level of p < Copyright ª 2018 National Strength and Conditioning Association


8

0.05 was considered statistically significant. For parametric tests, 95% CI of the sample mean difference are reported; for non-parametric tests, 95% CI around the sample median are reported.

D

RESULTS Despite minor illnesses and scheduling issues causing three participants to undertake

TE

an altered training schedule, all participants (n = 12) fully completed each training session. Although the intervention group scored higher on most variables at baseline, no statistically

C EP

significant differences were found between groups for any variable (Table 4, p > 0.05).

The pre- and post-test results for the control and intervention group are shown in Tables 5 and 6. The control group exhibited no statistically significant changes from baseline to post-test for all dependent variables, except for a decrease in average CHS (p = 0.028, 95% CI [-13.41, -0.054], ES = 0.20). The intervention group displayed a significant increase in

C

average CHS (p = 0.024, 95% CI [1.01, 9.43], ES = 0.38), 1RM back squat (p = 0.036, 95% CI [1.60, 32.42], ES = 0.39), 1RM deadlift (p = 0.005, 95% CI [6.59, 22.14], ES = 0.32),

A

1RM clean (p = 0.003, 95% CI [7.21, 21.16], ES = 0.67), average CMJ (p = 0.012, 95% CI [1.83, 9.35], ES = 0.56), and peak CMJ (p = 0.009, 95% CI [2.12, 9.31], ES = 0.55). There were statistically significant differences in outcomes of strength, power, and

CHS between the control and intervention groups (Tables 5, 6 and Figure 1). Compared to the control group, the intervention group’s change scores were significantly higher for average CHS (p = 0.005, 95% CI [-18.91, -4.51], ES = 2.02), 1RM back squat (p = 0.026, 95% CI [-14.23, 1.02], ES = 1.11), 1RM power clean (p = 0.031, 95% CI [-16.06, -0.96], ES = 1.34), average CMJ (p = 0.024, 95% CI [-9.65, -0.86], ES = 1.42), and peak CMJ (p = Copyright ª 2018 National Strength and Conditioning Association


9

0.019, 95% CI [-10.34, -1.17], ES = 1.49). No statistically significant results were found between groups for change in peak CHS (p = 0.12, 95% CI [-18.04, 2.54], ES = 0.89) or change in 1RM deadlift (p = 0.087, 95% CI [-17.26, 1.39], ES = 1.01) despite moderate effect sizes.

D

(Table 5 about here)

(Figure 1 about here)

TE


C EP

Correlation analysis revealed significant positive associations with post-test measures of CHS and strength and power indicators in this study (Table 7). Both peak and average CHS had moderate to large correlations with 1RM back squat (r = 0.64, p = 0.025 and r = 0.67, p = 0.016, respectively). Additionally, peak and average CHS were moderately correlated with 1RM deadlift (r = 0.54 and 0.57, respectively) although these correlations

C

were not quite statistically significant (p = 0.068 and 0.054, respectively). Similarly, average and peak CHS had very large correlations with 1RM clean (r = 0.70, p = 0.012 and r = 0.72,

A

p = 0.008, respectively), average CMJ (r = 0.73, p = 0.007, and r = 0.77, p = 0.004,

respectively), and peak CMJ (r = 0.72, p = 0.009 and r = 0.76, p = 0.004, respectively).




10

DISCUSSION The purpose of this study was to examine if an eight-week strength and power resistance training program would result in greater increases in CHS compared to a generic resistance training protocol in collegiate golfers. The present study demonstrated a significantly higher change in average CHS in the strength and power group when compared

D

to the control group. Additionally, results display large to very large correlations between CHS and the barbell exercises BS (r = 0.64, p = 0.025) and PC (r = 0.70, p = 0.016). Due to

TE

the greater increases in strength and CHS evidenced by the intervention group compared to the control group, the data from the current study supports the hypothesis that the implementation of a barbell-focused resistance training program is associated with an

C EP

increase in CHS.

These findings are supported by Fletcher and Hartwell (8) who examined the effects of an eight-week combined weights and plyometric training program on golf drive performance. The intervention group participated in an eight-week strength training program

C

with similar exercises, volumes, and intensities to the current study (8). Fletcher and Hartwell’s (8) intervention group increased CHS by 1.5% resulting in an increased drive

A

distance of 4.3%, whereas the control group increased CHS by 0.5%, but slightly decreased drive distance by 0.7%. The findings in the current study are also supported by Westcott et al.’s (39) research examining the effects of an eight-week generic strength and flexibility program on CHS, strength, and range of motion, while the control group only performed preand post-treatment measures of CHS, strength, and flexibility. After the eight-week intervention, the intervention group showed large increases (56%) in strength, yielding a 6.0% increase in CHS. The control group showed no change in CHS posting a 149.9 km/h



11

pre-test score compared to 149.7 km/h post-test score (39). Although the methods used to elicit strength and power in the current study differ from the existing literature, the focus on increasing strength and power remained consistent, and ultimately resulted in statistically significant and practically meaningful improvements in CHS (3.2%, p = 0.024, ES = 0.38) with experienced athletes. Although the participants in Westcott et al.’s (39) study

D

experienced a 6% increase in CHS compared to the 3.2% increase observed in the current study, it is important to note that the golfers included in Westcott’s intervention group began

TE

with an average CHS of 132.6 km/h compared to the baseline of 163.1 km/h in the current study.

C EP

It was also an objective of the present study to examine if an increase in CMJ height would correlate to an increase in CHS, as CMJ height is a common measure of explosive ability. There were very large correlations between CMJ height and CHS which supports previous findings that jumping has a strong relationship with CHS (1, 24, 38). Research by Lewis et al. (24) found a very large correlation (r = 0.82, p < 0.05) between performance in

C

the squat jump and CHS in professional golfers. Lewis and colleagues (24) also discovered that the squat jump and the seated medicine-ball throw explained 74% of the variance in CHS

A

between young (< 30 years) and older (> 30 years) golfers. Wells et al. (38) found that unilateral jump height with the dominant (r = 0.77, p < 0.05) and non-dominant leg (r = 0.73,

p < 0.05) are positively correlated with drive performance and CHS in male and female Canadian national golf team members. Therefore, improving jump performance by including explosive lower body exercises, such as plyometric or weightlifting movements, may be important in developing and maintaining CHS and thus driving performance.



12

Transfer of training is a factor that should be taken into consideration when implementing strength and power training in athletes, including golfers (1, 40). Although strength and power improvements can be observed in only a few weeks, it may take much longer to see an improvement in sports performance (1, 40). An 18-week training study by Alvarez et al. (1) found that, although strength and power measures improved significantly in

D

only six weeks of training, it took an additional six weeks of golf-specific training to see an improvement in driving performance. Therefore, future studies may wish to examine the

TE

effect of different resistance training programs on the biomechanics of the golf swing by

utilizing motion capture, as a negative change in swing technique or range of motion could

C EP

have unwanted effects on live golf performance (15, 30, 40).

Although the primary aim of this study was accomplished, there are several limitations and suggestions for future research. Firstly, the addition of a true control group that only participated in golf practices would have been ideal. However, when researching sports teams, a control group is often not practical since excluding some athletes from all

C

resistance training may compromise the overall development of the team. Furthermore, finding NCAA or low handicap golfers is typically difficult (1, 5), so it was decided not to

A

further reduce the number of subjects in each group. Secondly, total volume and load were not equated between the two groups in the study. Therefore, it is possible that the larger increase in strength and CHS experienced by the intervention group compared to the control group could have been due to the increased training load, and not necessarily exercise selection (4, 9). However, this limitation would be difficult to avoid as one of the wellaccepted advantages to barbell training is increased muscular loading compared to dumbbells or bodyweight movements. It may have also been worthwhile to measure changes in grip strength from the two resistance training programs as grip strength has been found to increase Copyright ª 2018 National Strength and Conditioning Association


13

CHS in skilled golfers (5, 38). It is also important to point out that the strength testing variables of the PC, BS, and DL were only performed in training by the intervention group, and the CMJ was the only variable measured that was not directly trained by either group. Therefore it would be logical that only the intervention group would improve in the barbell movements due to a learning effect. Additionally, including a mid-test between strength and

D

power phases would have allowed the researchers to extricate the effects of each block individually. Similarly, including a post-testing battery at a future date may have been useful.

TE

Although a majority of trainees have been found to completely recover from resistance

training in under 72 hours, some individuals may require as many as 120 hours (16). Lastly, although the vertical photo-sensing device used to estimate bat speed has been found to be

C EP

highly reliable (13), it has not been previously used to estimate CHS via the golf swing. Therefore, caution should be exercised when directly comparing CHS in the current study with previous or future research. Although a reliability study was not purposely conducted, the ICC, SEM, and CV were calculated within each testing session and revealed good reliability metrics with high ICC and low CV. Our results suggest the photo-sensing device

C

may have the ability to assess CHS during a golf swing consistently within a session.

A

PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS Strength and conditioning professionals may be able to apply the findings from this

study to determine the most efficient method in designing resistance programs for high-level golfers. The results of the current study have shown that incorporating heavy strength and power resistance training has a positive effect on CHS in experienced golfers. These results may provide a reference for designing resistance training for golf athletes. However, practitioners should also pay attention to factors other than strength and power.



14

Although golf is generally considered a skill-based sport, a well-rounded program, including flexibility, balance, sport-specific movements, and technique, need to be considered when designing a physical preparation program for golfers (1, 11, 24, 26, 30, 38). Along with the aforementioned qualities, aiming to develop strength and power of the prime movers through weightlifting and powerlifting derivatives result in greater CHS, while an incomplete

D

strength and conditioning program without significant overload and explosive movements

TE

can result in detrimental effects on performance.

References

3.

4. 5.

6.

A

7.

C EP

2.

Álvarez M, Sedano S, Cuadrado G, and Redondo JC. Effects of an 18-week strength training program on low-handicap golfers' performance. J Strength Cond Res 26: 1110-1121, 2012. Baechle TR and Earle RW. Essentials of Strength Training and Conditioning. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 2008. Bergmann J, Kramer A, and Gruber M. Repetitive hops induce postactivation potentiation in triceps surae as well as increase in the jump height of subsequent maximal drop jumps. PLoS One, 2013. Borresen J and Lambert M. The quantification of training load, the training response and the effect on performance. Sports Med 39: 779-795, 2009. Cummings P, Waldman H, Krings B, Smith J, and McAllister M. Fat grip resistance training improves driving performance in Division I male golfers. J Strength Cond Res Post Acceptance, 2017. Doan B, Newton R, Kwon Y, and Kraemer W. Effects of physical conditioning on intercollegiate golfer performance. J Strength Cond Res 20: 62-72, 2006. Ellis PD. The Essential Guide to Effect Sizes: Statistical Power, Meta-Analysis, and the Interpretation of Research Results. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2010. Fletcher IM and Hartwell M. Effect of an 8-week combined weights and plyometrics training program on golf drive performance. J Strength Cond Res 18: 59-62, 2004. Foster C, Daines E, Hector L, Snyder A, and Welsh R. Athletic performance in relation to training load. Wis Med J 95: 370-374, 1996. Fradkin AJ, Sherman CA, and Finch CF. How well does club head speed correlate with golf handicaps? J Sci Med Sport 7: 465-472, 2004. Gordon BS, Moir GL, Davis SE, Witmer CA, and Cummings DM. An investigation into the relationship of flexibility, power, and strength to club head speed in male golfers. J Strength Cond Res 23: 1606-1610, 2009. Hetu FE and Christie CA. Effects of conditioning on physical fitness and club head speed in mature golfers. Percept Motor Skills 86: 811, 1998.

C

1.

8.

9.

10. 11.

12.



17.

18. 19. 20.

21.

22.

23. 24. 25. 26.

A

27.

D

16.

TE

15.

C EP

14.

Higuchi T, Nagami T, Mizuguchi N, and Anderson T. The acute and chronic effects on isometric contraction conditioning on baseball bat velocity. J Strength Cond Res 27: 216-222, 2013. Hopkins WG, Marshall SW, Batterham AM, and Hanin J. Progressive statistics for studies in sports medicine and exercise science. Med Sci Sports Exerc 41: 3-12, 2008. Hume PA, Keogh J, and Reid D. The role of biomechanics in maximising distance and accuracy of golf shots. Sports Med 35: 429-449, 2005. Jones EJ, Bishop PA, Richardson MT, and Smith JF. Stability of a practical measure of recovery from resistance training. J Strength Cond Res 20: 756-759, 2006. Keogh JW, Marnewick MC, Maulder PS, Nortje JP, Hume PA, and Bradshaw EJ. Are anthropometric, flexibility, muscular strength, and endurance variables related to clubhead velocity in low- and high-handicap golfers? J Strength Cond Res 23: 18411850, 2009. Kovacs MS. Applied physiology of tennis performance. Br J Sports Med 40: 381-386, 2006. Kraemer W and Ratamess N. Fundamentals of resistance training: Progression and exercise prescription. Med Sci Sports Exerc 36: 674-688, 2004. Lamberth J, Hale B, Knight A, Boyd J, and Luczak T. Effectiveness of a six-week strength and functional training program on golf performance. International Journal of Golf Science 2: 33-42, 2013. Leard JS, Cirello MA, Katsnelson E, Kimiatek SA, Miller TW, Trebincevic K, and Garbalosa JC. Validity of two alternate systems for measuring vertical jump height. J Strength Cond Res 21: 1296-1299, 2007. Leary BK, Statler J, Hopkins B, Fitzwater R, Kesling T, Lyon J, Phillips B, Bryner RW, Cormie P, and Haff GG. The relationship between isometric force-time curve characteristics and club head speed in recreational golfers. J Strength Cond Res 26: 2685-2697, 2012. Lees A, Vanrentergham J, and De Clercq D. Understanding how an arm swing enhances performance in the vertical jump. J Biomech 37: 1929-1940, 2004. Lewis AL, Ward N, Bishop C, Maloney S, and Turner AN. Determinants of club head speed in PGA professional golfers. J Strength Cond Res 30: 2266-2270, 2016. McHardy A and Pollard H. Muscle activity during the golf swing. Br J Sports Med 39: 799-804, 2005. Read PJ and Lloyd RS. Strength and conditioning considerations for golf. Strength Cond J 36: 24-33, 2014. Read PJ, Lloyd RS, De Ste Croix M, and Oliver JL. Relationships between fieldbased measures of strength and power and golf club head speed. J Strength Cond Res 27: 2708-2713, 2013. Rhea MR. Determining the magnitude of treatment effects in strength training research through the use of the effect size. J Strength Cond Res 18: 918-920, 2004. Rogan S, Radlinger L, Imhasly C, Kneubuehler A, and Hilfiker R. Validity study of a jump mat compared to the reference standard force plate. Asian Journal of Sports Medicine 6: e25561, 2015. Sell TC, Tsia Y-S, Smoliga JM, Myers JB, and Lephart SM. Strength, flexibility, and balance characteristics of highly proficient golfers. J Strength Cond Res 21: 11661171, 2007. Smith CJ, Callister R, and Lubans DR. A systematic review of strength and conditioning programs designed to improve fitness characteristics in golfers. J Sports Sci 29: 933-943, 2011.

C

13.

15

28.

29.

30.

31.



35. 36.

37. 38. 39. 40.

D

34.

Figure Legends:

TE

33.

Suchomel TJ, Nimphius S, and Stone MH. The importance of muscular strength in athletic performance. Sports Med 46: 1419-1449, 2016. Szymanski DJ, DeRenne C, and Spaniol FJ. Contributing factors for increased bat swing velocity. J Strength Cond Res 23: 1338-1352, 2009. Thompson CJ, Cobb K, and Blackwell J. Functional training improves club head speed and functional fitness in older golfers. J Strength Cond Res 21: 131-137, 2007. Torres-Ronda L, Sanches-Medina L, and Gonzalez-Badillo J. Muscle strength and golf performance: A critical review. J Sports Sci Med 10: 9-18, 2011. Versteegh TH, Vandervoort AA, Linsday DM, and Lynn SK. Fitness, performance and injury prevention strategies for the senior golfer. Int J Sports Sci Coach 3: 199214, 2008. Weir JP. Quantifying test-retest reliability using the intraclass correlation coefficient and the SEM. J Strength Cond Res 19: 231-240, 2005. Wells GD, Elmi M, and Thomas S. Physiological correlates of golf performance. J Strength Cond Res 23: 741-750, 2009. Westcott WL, Dolan F, and Cavicchi T. Golf and strength training are compatible activities. Strength Cond J 18: 54-56, 1996. Young WB. Transfer of strength and power trianing to sports performance. Int J Sports Physiol Perform 1: 74-83, 2006.

C EP

32.

16

Figure 1. Average club head of the control (dashed line) and intervention group (solid line)

A

C

pre and post eight-week intervention.


Table 1

Control Resistance Training Program

Week 3-4

Week 5-6

Week 7-8

Exercise (Monday)

Sets x Reps / Rest

Sets x Reps / Rest

Sets x Reps / Rest

Sets x Reps / Rest

A: BW Single Leg Squat

4 Sets X 6-8 Reps / 45s

4 Sets X 8-10 Reps /45 s



B1: DB SL-RDL



B2: Leg Curl



C1: Plate Sit-up



C2: MB Twist



Exercise (Wednesday)

Sets x Reps / Rest

Sets x Reps / Rest

A: Pull-Up


B1: DB 1-Arm Bench


B2: Band Pull-Apart


C1: Face-Pulls


C2: MB Golf Swing


Exercise (Friday)

Sets x Reps / Rest

A: MB Walking Lunge


B1: Cable Internal Rotation


B2: Cable Wood-Chop

TE D

Week 1-2








Sets x Reps / Rest

Sets x Reps / Rest

C EP
















Sets x Reps / Rest

Sets x Reps / Rest

Sets x Reps / Rest











C1: MB Sit-up





C2: 1-Leg Back Extension





A

C

4 Sets X 6-8 Reps /45 s


Table 2

Strength & Power Resistance Training Program: Strength Phase

Week 1

Week 2

Week 3

Week 4

Exercise (Monday)

Sets X Reps X Load / Rest

Sets x Reps x Load x Rest



A: Hang Clean

5 Sets X 6 Reps @ 85% / 120s

5 Sets X 5 Reps @ 87.5% / 120s

5 Sets X 4 Reps @ 90% / 120s

3 Sets X 5 Reps @ 75% / 120s

B: Push Press

5 Sets X 6 Reps @ 85% / 120s

5 Sets X 5 Reps @ 87.5% / 120s

C: Front Squat

5 Sets X 6 Reps @ 85% / 120s

5 Sets X 5 Reps @ 87.5% / 120s

D1: Incline DB Bench

3 Sets X 8 Reps / 60s


D2: Seated Row






A: Deadlift

5 Sets X 6 Reps @ 85% / 120s

B: Back Squat

5 Sets X 6 Reps @ 85% / 120s

C: Trap-Bar Jump


D1: DB Shoulder Press

3 Sets X 8 Reps @ 65% / 60s

D2: Pull-Up

3 Sets X 8 Reps @ BW /60s

Exercise (Friday)


A: Power Clean

5 Sets X 6 Reps @ 85% / 120s

B: BB RDL

5 Sets X 6 Reps @ 85% / 120s

C1: DB Bench Press C2: BB Rows

TE D

Strength Phase

3 Sets X 5 Reps @ 75% / 120s

5 Sets X 4 Reps @ 90% / 120s

3 Sets X 5 Reps @ 75% / 120s







C EP

5 Sets X 4 Reps @ 90% / 120s

5 Sets X 4 Reps @ 90% / 120s

3 Sets X 5 Reps @ 75% / 120s

5 Sets X 5 Reps @ 87.5% / 120s

5 Sets X 4 Reps @ 90% / 120s

3 Sets X 5 Reps @ 75% / 120s




3 Sets X 8 Reps @ 65% / 60s

3 Sets X 8 Reps @ 65% / 60s

3 Sets X 8 Reps @ 65% / 60s

3 Sets X 8 Reps @ BW / 60s






5 Sets X 5 Reps @ 87.5% / 120s

5 Sets X 4 Reps @ 90% / 120s

3 Sets X 5 Reps @ 75% / 120s

5 Sets X 5 Reps @ 87.5% / 120s

5 Sets X 4 Reps @ 90% / 120s

3 Sets X 5 Reps @ 75% / 120s









A

C

5 Sets X 5 Reps @ 87.5% / 120s


Table 3

Strength & Power Resistance Training Program: Power Phase

Week 5

Week 6

Week 7

Week 8

Exercise (Monday)





A: Hang Clean

5 Sets X 3 Reps @ 92.5% / 120s

4 Sets X 3 Reps @ 92.5% / 120s

4 Sets X 2 Reps @ 95% / 120s

6 Sets X 1 Reps @ 100% / 120s

B: Push Press

5 Sets X 3 Reps @ 92.5% / 120s

4 Sets X 3 Reps @ 92.5% / 120s

C: Front Squat

5 Sets X 3 Reps @ 92.5% / 120s

4 Sets X 3 Reps @ 92.5% / 120s

D1: Incline DB Bench



D2: Seated Row






A: Deadlift

5 Sets X 3 Reps @ 92.5% / 120s

B: Back Squat

5 Sets X 3 Reps @ 92.5% / 120s

C: Trap-Bar Jump


D1: DB Shoulder Press


D2: Pull-Up

3 Sets X 8 Reps @ BW+ / 60s

Exercise (Friday)


A: Hang Clean

TE D

Power Phase

6 Sets X 1 Reps @ 100% / 120s

4 Sets X 2 Reps @ 95% / 120s

6 Sets X 1 Reps @ 100% / 120s







C EP

4 Sets X 2 Reps @ 95% / 120s

4 Sets X 2 Reps @ 95% / 120s

6 Sets X 1 Reps @ 100% / 120s

4 Sets X 3 Reps @ 92.5% / 120s

4 Sets X 2 Reps @ 95% / 120s

6 Sets X 1 Reps @ 100% / 120s













5 Sets X 3 Reps @ 92.5% / 120s

4 Sets X 3 Reps @ 92.5% / 120s

4 Sets X 2 Reps @ 95% / 120s

6 Sets X 1 Reps @ 100% / 120s

B: BB RDL

5 Sets X 3 Reps @ 92.5% / 120s

4 Sets X 3 Reps @ 92.5% / 120s

4 Sets X 2 Reps @ 95% / 120s

6 Sets X 1 Reps @ 100% / 120s

C1: Lunge Jumps





C2: Plate Sit-up





A

C

4 Sets X 3 Reps @ 92.5% / 120s


Table 4. Descriptive characteristics of the participants at baseline Intervention (Mean ± SD)

Age (y)

19.5 ± 1.5

21.2 ± 0.9

Mass (kg)

67.5 ± 11.0

67.4 ± 9.4

Average CHS (km/h)

163.2 ± 28.7

163.1 ± 12.1

Peak CHS (km/h)

166.7 ± 30.4

168.9 ± 14.8

1RM Back Squat (kg)

91.5 ± 36.9

98.3 ± 37.2

1RM Deadlift (kg)

104.3 ± 19.6

1RM Clean (kg)

45.0 ± 15.2

Average CMJ height (cm)

50.6 ± 17.6

Peak CMJ height (cm)

51.9 ± 18.2

0.052

0.987

0.937

0.872

0.757

116.8 ± 39.1

0.501

53.3 ± 19.7

0.430

48.4 ± 9.6

0.798

49.3 ± 9.6

0.763

* denotes significant difference (p < 0.05)

A

C

n = 6 control and 6 intervention

p-value

TE D

Control (Mean ± SD)

C EP

Variable


Table 5. Results summary: Control group (n = 6) Pre (Mean ± SD)

Post (Mean ± SD)

Average CHS (km/h)

163.2 ± 28.7

157.1 ± 27.7

Peak CHS (km/h)

166.7 ± 30.4

160.6 ± 28.8

1 RM Back Squat (kg)

91.5 ± 36.9

94.9 ± 38.5

1 RM Deadlift (kg)

104.3 ± 19.6

110.8 ± 23.9

1 RM Clean (kg)

45.0 ± 15.2

50.7 ± 18.8

Average CMJ (cm)

50.6 ± 17.6

Peak CMJ (cm)

51.9 ± 18.2

% change

Effect size

TE D

Variable

0.20

-3.7

0.19

+3.7

0.08

+6.2

0.27

+12.8

0.31

51.0 ± 16.9

+0.75

0.02

51.9 ± 17.3

-0.08

0.00

A

C

C EP

-3.8


Table 6. Results summary: Intervention group (n = 6) Pre (Mean ± SD)

Post (Mean ± SD)

Average CHS (km/h)

163.1 ± 12.1

168.4 ± 13.5

Peak CHS (km/h)

169.0 ± 14.8

170.7 ± 13.3

1 RM Back Squat (kg)

98.3 ± 37.2

115.3 ± 42.8

1 RM Deadlift (kg)

116.8 ± 39.1

131.2 ± 44.3

1 RM Clean (kg)

53.3 ± 19.7

67.5 ± 19.4

Average CMJ (cm)

48.4 ± 9.6

Peak CMJ (cm)

49.3 ± 9.6

% change

Effect size

TE D

Variable

0.38

+1.0

0.11

+17.3

0.39

+12.3

0.32

+26.6

0.67

54.0 ± 9.0

+11.5

0.56

55.0 ± 9.5

+11.6

0.55

A

C

C EP

+3.2


Table 7. Correlation analysis results: Post-test scores Average CHS (km/h)

1RM Deadlift (kg) 1RM Clean (kg) Average CMJ height (cm)

r

0.640

p-value

*0.025

r

0.543

p-value

0.068

r

0.696

p-value

*0.012

r

0.728

p-value Peak CMJ height (cm)

0.674

C EP

1RM Back Squat (kg)

Peak CHS (km/h)

TE D

Variable

r

0.568

0.054

0.724

*0.008

0.767

*0.007

*0.004

0.717

0.757

*0.009 *0.004 * denotes significant difference (p < 0.05)

A

C

p-value n = 6 control and 6 intervention

*0.016


205 195

175 165

D

Average CHS (km/h)

185

155

135 125

Post

A

C

C EP

Pre

TE

145


Eight Weeks of Strength and Power Training Improves ...

Eight Weeks of Strength and Power Training Improves ...

Suggest Documents

Eight weeks of Capoeira progressive training program

Effect of Eight Weeks of Aerobic Training and Green Tea ...

Inspiratory muscle strength training improves

Eight weeks of resistance training in conjunction with glutathione and ...

Inspiratory muscle training improves strength and ...

eight-week battle rope training improves multiple

Strength training improves muscle quality and

Five Weeks Of Sprint And High Intensity Interval Training Improves ...

Effect of eight weeks of strength training on fatigue ... - IOS Press

Effects of eight weeks of resistance training on the ... - BioMedSearch

effects of eight weeks of functional training in the

Eight Weeks of Kettlebell Swing Training Does not Improve Sprint ...

eight weeks of resistance training can significantly alter body ...

effects of eight weeks pilates training on jump ...

Eight Weeks of Local Vibration Training Do Not

Effects of six weeks sprint-strength and agility training

Six Weeks of Strength and Proprioception Training Does Not Affect ...

The Effect of Eight Weeks Plyometric Training On Anaerobic ... - Eric

Effect of Eight Weeks High Intensity Aerobic Training on Migrane ...

Eight weeks of stretching training reduces aortic wave ... - Nature

Effects of Strength and Power Training on

Unilateral arm strength training improves ... - Semantic Scholar

Isokinetic Strength Training Improves Knee Symptoms ... - MedCrave

Isokinetic Strength Training Improves Knee Symptoms ... - MedCrave