This investigation indicates that the optimal load for maximal power output occurs at various percentages of 1RM in the JS, S, and PC.

The purpose of this investigation was to determine the relationship between countermovement vertical jump (CMJ) performance and various methods used to assess isometric and dynamic multijoint strength. Twelve NCAA Division I-AA male football and track and field athletes (age, 19.83 +/- 1.40 years; height, 179.10 +/- 4.56 cm; mass, 90.08 +/- 14.81 kg; percentage of body fat, 11.85 +/- 5.47%) participated in 2 testing sessions. The first session involved 1 repetition maximum (1RM) (kg) testing in the squat and power clean. During the second session, peak force (N), relative peak force (N x kg(-1)), peak power (W), relative peak power (W x kg(-1)), peak velocity (m x s(-1)), and jump height (meters) in a CMJ, and peak force and rate of force development (RFD) (N x s(-1)) in a maximal isometric squat (ISO squat) and maximal isometric mid-thigh pull (ISO mid-thigh) were assessed. Significant correlations (P < or = 0.05) were found when comparing relative 1RMs (1RM/body mass), in both the squat and power clean, to relative CMJ peak power, CMJ peak velocity, and CMJ height. No significant correlations existed between the 4 measures of absolute strength, which did not account for body mass (squat 1RM, power clean 1RM, ISO squat peak force, and ISO mid-thigh peak force) when compared to CMJ peak velocity and CMJ height. In conclusion, multijoint dynamic tests of strength (squat 1RM and power clean 1RM), expressed relative to body mass, are most closely correlated with CMJ performance. These results suggest that increasing maximal strength relative to body mass can improve performance in explosive lower body movements. The squat and power clean, used in a concurrent strength and power training program, are recommended for optimizing lower body power.

The purpose of this investigation was to examine the impact of training on the power-, force-, and velocity-time curves of the countermovement jump (CMJ) through both cross-sectional and longitudinal comparisons. The most novel aspect of this study was the analysis of these curves for the entire movement at a sampling frequency of 386-506 Hz averaged across 30 subjects. Thirty subjects, all men, participated in this investigation and included 12 athletes and 18 untrained men. Two major comparisons were conducted: 1) an acute, cross-sectional examination comparing experienced jumpers (jump height > 0.50 m; n = 12 men's athletes) with nonjumpers (jump height < 0.50 m; n = 14 untrained men), and 2) a longitudinal examination comparing performance before and after 12 weeks of power training (training group n = 10 untrained men; control group n = 8 untrained men). Data obtained from the baseline testing session of 14 subjects involved in the longitudinal study were used for the cross-sectional examination to represent the nonjumper group. The cross-sectional examination revealed significant (p

The purpose of the current study was to determine the acute neuroendocrine response to hypertrophy (H), strength (S), and power (P) type resistance exercise (RE) equated for total volume. Ten male subjects completed three RE protocols and a rest day (R) using a randomized cross-over design. The protocols included (1) H: 4 sets of 10 repetitions in the squat at 75% of 1RM (90 s rest periods); (2) S: 11 sets of three repetitions at 90% of 1RM (5 min rest periods); and (3) P: 8 sets of 6 repetitions of jump squats at 0% of 1RM (3 min rest periods). Total testosterone (T), cortisol (C), and sex hormone binding globulin (SHBG) were determined prior to (PRE), immediately post (IP), 60 min post, 24 h post, and 48 h post exercise bout. Peak force, rate of force development, and muscle activity from the vastus medialis (VM) and biceps femoris (BF) were determined during a maximal isometric squat test. A unique pattern of response was observed in T, C, and SHBG for each RE protocol. The percent change in T, C, and SHBG from PRE to IP was significantly (p

The objective of this study was to investigate the validity of power measurement techniques utilizing various kinematic and kinetic devices during the jump squat (JS), squat (S) and power clean (PC). Ten Division I male athletes were assessed for power output across various intensities: 0, 12, 27, 42, 56, 71, and 85% of one repetition maximum strength (1RM) in the JS and S and 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, and 90% of 1RM in the PC. During the execution of each lift, six different data collection systems were utilized; (1) one linear position transducer (1-LPT); (2) one linear position transducer with the system mass representing the force (1-LPT+MASS); (3) two linear position transducers (2-LPT); (4) the force plate (FP); (5) one linear position transducer and a force plate (1-LPT+FP); (6) two linear position transducers and a force place (2-LPT+FP). Kinetic and kinematic variables calculated using the six methodologies were compared. Vertical power, force, and velocity differed significantly between 2-LPT+FP and 1-LPT, 1-LPT+MASS, 2-LPT, and FP methodologies across various intensities throughout the JS, S, and PC. These differences affected the load–power relationship and resulted in the transfer of the optimal load to a number of different intensities. This examination clearly indicates that data collection and analysis procedures influence the power output calculated as well as the load–power relationship of dynamic lower body movements.