4.6 Article

Comparison of post-activation performance enhancement (PAPE) after isometric and isotonic exercise on vertical jump performance

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 16, 期 12, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0260866

关键词

-

资金

  1. University of Malaga (Campus of International Excellence Andalucia Tech)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study aimed to compare the post-activation performance enhancement (PAPE) induced by isometric and isotonic exercise on vertical jump performance. Both protocols showed similar PAPE effects on CMJ height after set 1, but neither demonstrated greater efficacy in increasing subsequent performance in healthy trained men.
Purpose This study aimed to compare the post-activation performance enhancement (PAPE) induced by isometric and isotonic exercise on vertical jump performance. Methods 18 healthy trained men (25.82.7 years; 78.48.2 kg; 175.7 +/- 6.1 cm; 25.4 +/- 1.8 BMI; 126.72 +/- 10.8 kg squat 1-RM) volunteered for this study. They randomly performed two different PAPE protocols: Isotonic squats (ISOTS), which consisted of 2 sets of 3 repetitions at 75% of one-maximum repetition (1-RM); and isometric squats (ISOMS), which consisted of 2 sets of 4 seconds of submaximal (75% of 1-RM) isometric contraction at 90 degrees -knee flexion. Countermovement jump (CMJ) height was tested at baseline and 4 minutes after each conditioning set. Results CMJ height significantly increased after set 1 in both PAPE protocols (ISOMS: p <0.001; ES = 0.34; ISOTS: p <0.001; ES = 0.24), with respect to the baseline jump. However, after set 2 no significant changes in CMJ height were observed for any protocol (ISOMS: p = 0.162; ES = 0.11; ISOTS: p = 0.976; ES = 0.06). No significant differences (p>0.05) were found between both isometric and isotonic exercise conditions. Conclusions Despite both protocols showed similar PAPE effects on CMJ height after set 1, none of the protocols demonstrated greater efficacy in increasing subsequent performance in healthy trained men.

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