A rationale for assessing the lower-body power profile in team sport athletes

Maria Nibali, Dale W. Chapman, Robert Robergs, Eric Drinkwater

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

13 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Training at the load that maximizes peak mechanical power (Pmax) is considered superior for the development of power. We aimed to identify the Pmax load ('optimal load') in the jump squat and to quantify small, moderate, large, and very large substantial differences in power output across a spectrum of loads to identify loads that are substantially different to the optimal, and lastly, to investigate the nature of power production (load-force-velocity profiles). Professional Australian Rules Football (ARF; n = 16) and highly trained Rugby Union (RU; n = 20) players (subdivided into stronger [SP] vs. weaker [WP] players) performed jump squats across incremental loads (0'60 kg). Substantial differences in peak power (W·kg'1) were quantified as 0.2'2.0 of the log transformed between-athlete SD at each load, backtransformed and expressed as a percent with 90% confidence limits (CL). A 0-kg jump squat maximized peak power (ARF: 57.7 ± 10.8 W·kg'1; RU: 61.4 ± 8.5 W·kg'1; SP: 64.4 ± 7.5 W·kg'1; WP: 54.8 ± 9.5 W·kg'1). The range for small to very large substantial differences in power output was 4.5'55.9% (CL: ×/÷1.36) and 2.8'32.4% (CL: ×/÷1.31) in ARF and RU players, whereas in SP and WP, it was 3.7'43.1% (CL: ×/÷1.32) and 4.3'51.7% (CL: ×/÷1.36). Power declined per 10-kg increment in load, 14.1% (CL: ±1.6) and 10.5% (CL: ±1.5) in ARF and RU players and 12.8% (CL: ±1.9) and 11.3% (CL: ±1.7) in SP and WP. The use of a 0-kg load is superior for the development of jump squat maximal power, with moderate to very large declines in power output observed at 10- to 60-kg loads. Yet, performance of heavier load jump squats that are substantially different to the optimal load are important in the development of sport-specific force-velocity qualities and should not be excluded.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)388-397
Number of pages10
JournalJournal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Volume27
Issue number2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Feb 2013

Fingerprint

Football
Athletes
Sports
WP 1

Cite this

Nibali, Maria ; Chapman, Dale W. ; Robergs, Robert ; Drinkwater, Eric. / A rationale for assessing the lower-body power profile in team sport athletes. In: Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. 2013 ; Vol. 27, No. 2. pp. 388-397.
@article{fe2d2c58d13b42c789f9cb1b1d3ef9ed,
title = "A rationale for assessing the lower-body power profile in team sport athletes",
abstract = "Training at the load that maximizes peak mechanical power (Pmax) is considered superior for the development of power. We aimed to identify the Pmax load ('optimal load') in the jump squat and to quantify small, moderate, large, and very large substantial differences in power output across a spectrum of loads to identify loads that are substantially different to the optimal, and lastly, to investigate the nature of power production (load-force-velocity profiles). Professional Australian Rules Football (ARF; n = 16) and highly trained Rugby Union (RU; n = 20) players (subdivided into stronger [SP] vs. weaker [WP] players) performed jump squats across incremental loads (0'60 kg). Substantial differences in peak power (W{\^A}·kg'1) were quantified as 0.2'2.0 of the log transformed between-athlete SD at each load, backtransformed and expressed as a percent with 90{\%} confidence limits (CL). A 0-kg jump squat maximized peak power (ARF: 57.7 ± 10.8 W{\^A}·kg'1; RU: 61.4 ± 8.5 W{\^A}·kg'1; SP: 64.4 ± 7.5 W{\^A}·kg'1; WP: 54.8 ± 9.5 W{\^A}·kg'1). The range for small to very large substantial differences in power output was 4.5'55.9{\%} (CL: {\~A}—/{\~A}·1.36) and 2.8'32.4{\%} (CL: {\~A}—/{\~A}·1.31) in ARF and RU players, whereas in SP and WP, it was 3.7'43.1{\%} (CL: {\~A}—/{\~A}·1.32) and 4.3'51.7{\%} (CL: {\~A}—/{\~A}·1.36). Power declined per 10-kg increment in load, 14.1{\%} (CL: ±1.6) and 10.5{\%} (CL: ±1.5) in ARF and RU players and 12.8{\%} (CL: ±1.9) and 11.3{\%} (CL: ±1.7) in SP and WP. The use of a 0-kg load is superior for the development of jump squat maximal power, with moderate to very large declines in power output observed at 10- to 60-kg loads. Yet, performance of heavier load jump squats that are substantially different to the optimal load are important in the development of sport-specific force-velocity qualities and should not be excluded.",
author = "Maria Nibali and Chapman, {Dale W.} and Robert Robergs and Eric Drinkwater",
note = "Imported on 12 Apr 2017 - DigiTool details were: month (773h) = February, 2013; Journal title (773t) = Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. ISSNs: 1064-8011;",
year = "2013",
month = "2",
doi = "10.1519/JSC.0b013e3182576feb",
language = "English",
volume = "27",
pages = "388--397",
journal = "Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research",
issn = "1064-8011",
publisher = "NSCA National Strength and Conditioning Association",
number = "2",

}

A rationale for assessing the lower-body power profile in team sport athletes. / Nibali, Maria; Chapman, Dale W.; Robergs, Robert; Drinkwater, Eric.

In: Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, Vol. 27, No. 2, 02.2013, p. 388-397.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - A rationale for assessing the lower-body power profile in team sport athletes

AU - Nibali, Maria

AU - Chapman, Dale W.

AU - Robergs, Robert

AU - Drinkwater, Eric

N1 - Imported on 12 Apr 2017 - DigiTool details were: month (773h) = February, 2013; Journal title (773t) = Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. ISSNs: 1064-8011;

PY - 2013/2

Y1 - 2013/2

N2 - Training at the load that maximizes peak mechanical power (Pmax) is considered superior for the development of power. We aimed to identify the Pmax load ('optimal load') in the jump squat and to quantify small, moderate, large, and very large substantial differences in power output across a spectrum of loads to identify loads that are substantially different to the optimal, and lastly, to investigate the nature of power production (load-force-velocity profiles). Professional Australian Rules Football (ARF; n = 16) and highly trained Rugby Union (RU; n = 20) players (subdivided into stronger [SP] vs. weaker [WP] players) performed jump squats across incremental loads (0'60 kg). Substantial differences in peak power (W·kg'1) were quantified as 0.2'2.0 of the log transformed between-athlete SD at each load, backtransformed and expressed as a percent with 90% confidence limits (CL). A 0-kg jump squat maximized peak power (ARF: 57.7 ± 10.8 W·kg'1; RU: 61.4 ± 8.5 W·kg'1; SP: 64.4 ± 7.5 W·kg'1; WP: 54.8 ± 9.5 W·kg'1). The range for small to very large substantial differences in power output was 4.5'55.9% (CL: ×/÷1.36) and 2.8'32.4% (CL: ×/÷1.31) in ARF and RU players, whereas in SP and WP, it was 3.7'43.1% (CL: ×/÷1.32) and 4.3'51.7% (CL: ×/÷1.36). Power declined per 10-kg increment in load, 14.1% (CL: ±1.6) and 10.5% (CL: ±1.5) in ARF and RU players and 12.8% (CL: ±1.9) and 11.3% (CL: ±1.7) in SP and WP. The use of a 0-kg load is superior for the development of jump squat maximal power, with moderate to very large declines in power output observed at 10- to 60-kg loads. Yet, performance of heavier load jump squats that are substantially different to the optimal load are important in the development of sport-specific force-velocity qualities and should not be excluded.

AB - Training at the load that maximizes peak mechanical power (Pmax) is considered superior for the development of power. We aimed to identify the Pmax load ('optimal load') in the jump squat and to quantify small, moderate, large, and very large substantial differences in power output across a spectrum of loads to identify loads that are substantially different to the optimal, and lastly, to investigate the nature of power production (load-force-velocity profiles). Professional Australian Rules Football (ARF; n = 16) and highly trained Rugby Union (RU; n = 20) players (subdivided into stronger [SP] vs. weaker [WP] players) performed jump squats across incremental loads (0'60 kg). Substantial differences in peak power (W·kg'1) were quantified as 0.2'2.0 of the log transformed between-athlete SD at each load, backtransformed and expressed as a percent with 90% confidence limits (CL). A 0-kg jump squat maximized peak power (ARF: 57.7 ± 10.8 W·kg'1; RU: 61.4 ± 8.5 W·kg'1; SP: 64.4 ± 7.5 W·kg'1; WP: 54.8 ± 9.5 W·kg'1). The range for small to very large substantial differences in power output was 4.5'55.9% (CL: ×/÷1.36) and 2.8'32.4% (CL: ×/÷1.31) in ARF and RU players, whereas in SP and WP, it was 3.7'43.1% (CL: ×/÷1.32) and 4.3'51.7% (CL: ×/÷1.36). Power declined per 10-kg increment in load, 14.1% (CL: ±1.6) and 10.5% (CL: ±1.5) in ARF and RU players and 12.8% (CL: ±1.9) and 11.3% (CL: ±1.7) in SP and WP. The use of a 0-kg load is superior for the development of jump squat maximal power, with moderate to very large declines in power output observed at 10- to 60-kg loads. Yet, performance of heavier load jump squats that are substantially different to the optimal load are important in the development of sport-specific force-velocity qualities and should not be excluded.

U2 - 10.1519/JSC.0b013e3182576feb

DO - 10.1519/JSC.0b013e3182576feb

M3 - Article

C2 - 22505130

VL - 27

SP - 388

EP - 397

JO - Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

JF - Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

SN - 1064-8011

IS - 2

ER -