hh.sePublications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Training Strategies to Improve Muscle Power: Is Olympic-style Weightlifting Relevant?
The Norwegian Olympic and Paralympic Committee and Confederation of Sports, Oslo, Norway.
The Norwegian Olympic and Paralympic Committee and Confederation of Sports, Oslo, Norway.
The Norwegian Olympic and Paralympic Committee and Confederation of Sports, Oslo, Norway.
Halmstad University, School of Business, Engineering and Science, The Rydberg Laboratory for Applied Sciences (RLAS). (Biosystem)ORCID iD: 0000-0002-9337-5113
Show others and affiliations
2017 (English)In: Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, ISSN 0195-9131, E-ISSN 1530-0315, Vol. 49, no 4, 736-745 p.Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

INTRODUCTION: This efficacy study investigated the effects of (1) Olympic-style weightlifting (OWL), (2) motorized strength and power training (MSPT), and (3) free weight strength and power training (FSPT) on muscle power.

METHODS: Thirty-nine young athletes (20±3 yr.; ice hockey, volleyball and badminton) were randomized into the three training groups. All groups participated in 2-3 sessions/week for 8 weeks. The MSPT and FSPT groups trained using squats (two legs and single leg) with high force and high power, while the OWL group trained using clean and snatch exercises. MSPT was conducted as slow-speed isokinetic strength training and isotonic power training with augmented eccentric load, controlled by a computerized robotic engine system. FSPT used free weights. The training volume (sum of repetitions x kg) was similar between all three groups. Vertical jumping capabilities were assessed by countermovement jump (CMJ), squat jump (SJ), drop jump (DJ), and loaded CMJs (10-80 kg). Sprinting capacity was assessed in a 30 m sprint. Secondary variables were squat 1-repetition-maximum, body composition and quadriceps thickness and architecture.

RESULTS: OWL resulted in trivial improvements, and inferior gains compared to FSPT and MSPT for CMJ, SJ, and DJ. MSPT demonstrated small, but robust effects on SJ, DJ and loaded CMJs (3-12%). MSPT was superior to FSPT in improving 30 m sprint performance. FSPT and MSPT, but not OWL, demonstrated increased thickness in the vastus lateralis and rectus femoris (4-7%).

CONCLUSION: MSPT was time-efficient and equally or more effective than FSPT training in improving vertical jumping and sprinting performance. OWL was generally ineffective and inferior to the two other interventions. Copyright © 2016 by the American College of Sports Medicine.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2017. Vol. 49, no 4, 736-745 p.
Keyword [en]
Athletes, power training, strength training, jump performance, sprint running, muscle architecture
National Category
Sport and Fitness Sciences
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:hh:diva-32464DOI: 10.1249/MSS.0000000000001145ISI: 000397910300015PubMedID: 27820725Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-85016247606OAI: oai:DiVA.org:hh-32464DiVA: diva2:1141564
Projects
KK-hög: Successful injury-free golfing
Funder
Knowledge Foundation, 2012/0319
Available from: 2017-09-15 Created: 2017-09-15 Last updated: 2017-09-19Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMedScopus

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Olsson, Monica Charlotte
By organisation
The Rydberg Laboratory for Applied Sciences (RLAS)
In the same journal
Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise
Sport and Fitness Sciences

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

Altmetric score

CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf