4.6 Review

Ballistic Exercise as a Pre-Activation Stimulus: A Review of the Literature and Practical Applications

期刊

SPORTS MEDICINE
卷 44, 期 10, 页码 1347-1359

出版社

ADIS INT LTD
DOI: 10.1007/s40279-014-0214-6

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Post-activation potentiation (PAP) refers to the acute enhancement of muscular function as a direct result of its contractile history. Protocols designed to elicit PAP have commonly employed heavy resistance exercise (HRE) as the pre-activation stimulus; however, a growing body of research suggests that low-load ballistic exercises (BE) may also provide an effective stimulus. The ability to elicit PAP without the need for heavy equipment would make it easier to utilise prior to competition. It is hypothesised that BE can induce PAP given the high recruitment of type II muscle fibres associated with its performance. The literature has reported augmentations in power performance typically ranging from 2 to 5 %. The performance effects of BE are modulated by loading, recovery and physical characteristics. Jumps performed with an additional loading, such as depth jumps or weighted jumps, appear to be the most effective activities for inducing PAP. Whilst the impact of recovery duration on subsequent performance requires further research, durations of 1-6 min have been prescribed successfully in multiple instances. The effect of strength and sex on the PAP response to BE is not yet clear. Direct comparisons of BE and HRE, to date, suggest a tendency for HRE protocols to be more effective; future research should consider that these strategies must be optimised in different ways. The role of acute augmentations in lower limb stiffness is proposed as an additional mechanism that may further explain the PAP response following BE. In summary, BE demonstrates the potential to enhance performance in power tasks such as jumps and sprints. This review provides the reader with some practical recommendations for the application of BE as a pre-activation stimulus.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据