東華大學圖書館 |

語系: 繁體中文

說明(常見問題)

回圖書館首頁

手機版館藏查詢

登入

回首頁

切換: 標籤 | MARC模式 | ISBD

Effects of an Upper Body Conditionin...

Laskin, Grant .

FindBook

Google Book

Amazon

博客來

Effects of an Upper Body Conditioning Stimulus on Lower Body Post-Activation Potentiation.

紀錄類型:	書目-電子資源 : Monograph/item
正題名/作者:	Effects of an Upper Body Conditioning Stimulus on Lower Body Post-Activation Potentiation./
作者:	Laskin, Grant .
出版者:	Ann Arbor : ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, : 2020,
面頁冊數:	78 p.
附註:	Source: Masters Abstracts International, Volume: 82-02.
Contained By:	Masters Abstracts International82-02.
標題:	Kinesiology. -
電子資源:	https://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=28025768
ISBN:	9798662576865

Effects of an Upper Body Conditioning Stimulus on Lower Body Post-Activation Potentiation.
Laskin, Grant .

Effects of an Upper Body Conditioning Stimulus on Lower Body Post-Activation Potentiation. - Ann Arbor : ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, 2020 - 78 p.

Source: Masters Abstracts International, Volume: 82-02.

Thesis (M.S.)--Southern Connecticut State University, 2020.

This item must not be sold to any third party vendors.

One strategy to improve strength and power development in athletes is by implementing complex training, where both high-load and plyometric movements are alternated one after the other throughout a workout. Research suggests that when a high-load, low-velocity conditioning stimulus (CS) is performed just prior to a biomechanically similar plyometric movement, the performance of the plyometric movement is acutely enhanced in a phenomenon called post-activation potentiation (PAP). Despite the positive influence PAP can have on power production, research has only investigated the existence of PAP when comparing biomechanically similar movements. PURPOSE: To determine if an upper body CS can elicit a PAP response in a lower body plyometric exercise and to investigate the optimal time course for PAP between an upper body CS and lower body plyometric exercise. METHODS: Eight (8) resistance-trained males (23.5 ± 2.7 y; 177.5 ± 3.2 cm; 81.7 ± 5.8 kg) participated in the study. Participants performed one set of three countermovement jumps (CMJs) before (pre-CS) and three sets of three CMJs after (post-CS) an upper body CS. Muscle activation in the vastus lateralis, gastrocnemius, and gluteus maximus were compared between pre-CS and the three post-CS conditions using surface electromyography. Changes in jump height, work, power output, and rate of force development (RFD) during the early and late stages of the CMJ take-off between the conditions were analyzed using a force plate. A repeated-measures MANOVA with LSD post-hoc testing was used to determine differences using SPSS. The level of significance was set at p < .10. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in muscle activation for any of the muscles measured, jump height, work, or the early stage of RFD (p < .10). There was a significant decrease in power output between pre-CS and the final set of jumps post-CS (p = .057). There was a significant increase in the late stage of RFD between pre-CS and the final set of jumps post-CS (p = .01). CONCLUSIONS: The results of the study suggest that an upper body CS may not be a useful tool to influence PAP in the lower body. Performing an upper body strength exercise complexed with a lower body plyometric does not seem to have disadvantages, and could still be a useful strategy to maximize workout efficiency and organization as long as proper fatigue management is incorporated. Strength coaches desiring to use an upper-lower complex should individualize volume, intensity, and rest periods for the athlete to optimize the relationship between workout efficiency and acute fatigue.

ISBN: 9798662576865Subjects--Topical Terms:

517627
Kinesiology.
Subjects--Index Terms:

Conditioning stimulus

Effects of an Upper Body Conditioning Stimulus on Lower Body Post-Activation Potentiation.
LDR:03870nmm a2200385 4500 001 2279104
005 20210730131543.5
008 220723s2020 ||||||||||||||||| ||eng d
020 $a 9798662576865
035 $a (MiAaPQ)AAI28025768
035 $a AAI28025768
040 $a MiAaPQ $c MiAaPQ
100 1 $a Laskin, Grant . $3 3557518
245 1 0 $a Effects of an Upper Body Conditioning Stimulus on Lower Body Post-Activation Potentiation.
260 1 $a Ann Arbor : $b ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, $c 2020
300 $a 78 p.
500 $a Source: Masters Abstracts International, Volume: 82-02.
500 $a Advisor: Gregory, Robert W.;Talpey, Scott W.
502 $a Thesis (M.S.)--Southern Connecticut State University, 2020.
506 $a This item must not be sold to any third party vendors.
520 $a One strategy to improve strength and power development in athletes is by implementing complex training, where both high-load and plyometric movements are alternated one after the other throughout a workout. Research suggests that when a high-load, low-velocity conditioning stimulus (CS) is performed just prior to a biomechanically similar plyometric movement, the performance of the plyometric movement is acutely enhanced in a phenomenon called post-activation potentiation (PAP). Despite the positive influence PAP can have on power production, research has only investigated the existence of PAP when comparing biomechanically similar movements. PURPOSE: To determine if an upper body CS can elicit a PAP response in a lower body plyometric exercise and to investigate the optimal time course for PAP between an upper body CS and lower body plyometric exercise. METHODS: Eight (8) resistance-trained males (23.5 ± 2.7 y; 177.5 ± 3.2 cm; 81.7 ± 5.8 kg) participated in the study. Participants performed one set of three countermovement jumps (CMJs) before (pre-CS) and three sets of three CMJs after (post-CS) an upper body CS. Muscle activation in the vastus lateralis, gastrocnemius, and gluteus maximus were compared between pre-CS and the three post-CS conditions using surface electromyography. Changes in jump height, work, power output, and rate of force development (RFD) during the early and late stages of the CMJ take-off between the conditions were analyzed using a force plate. A repeated-measures MANOVA with LSD post-hoc testing was used to determine differences using SPSS. The level of significance was set at p < .10. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in muscle activation for any of the muscles measured, jump height, work, or the early stage of RFD (p < .10). There was a significant decrease in power output between pre-CS and the final set of jumps post-CS (p = .057). There was a significant increase in the late stage of RFD between pre-CS and the final set of jumps post-CS (p = .01). CONCLUSIONS: The results of the study suggest that an upper body CS may not be a useful tool to influence PAP in the lower body. Performing an upper body strength exercise complexed with a lower body plyometric does not seem to have disadvantages, and could still be a useful strategy to maximize workout efficiency and organization as long as proper fatigue management is incorporated. Strength coaches desiring to use an upper-lower complex should individualize volume, intensity, and rest periods for the athlete to optimize the relationship between workout efficiency and acute fatigue.
590 $a School code: 0928.
650 4 $a Kinesiology. $3 517627
650 4 $a Biomechanics. $3 548685
650 4 $a Physiology. $3 518431
653 $a Conditioning stimulus
653 $a Countermovement jump
653 $a Post-activation potentiation
653 $a Power development
653 $a Rate of force development
653 $a Sport biomechanics
690 $a 0575
690 $a 0648
690 $a 0719
710 2 $a Southern Connecticut State University. $b Exercise Science. $3 3347690
773 0 $t Masters Abstracts International $g 82-02.
790 $a 0928
791 $a M.S.
792 $a 2020
793 $a English
856 4 0 $u https://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=28025768