Purpose: To determine if jumping-performance changes during a peaking phase differed among returners and new players on a female collegiate volleyball team and to determine which variables best explained the variation in performance changes. Methods: Fourteen volleyball players were divided into 2 groups—returners (n = 7) and new players (n = 7)—who completed a 5-wk peaking phase prior to conference championships. Players were tested at baseline before the preseason on measures of the vastus lateralis cross-sectional area using ultrasonography, estimated back-squat 1-repetition maximum, countermovement jump height (JH), and relative peak power on a force platform. Jumping performance, rating of perceived exertion training load, and sets played were recorded weekly during the peaking phase. Results: There were moderate to very large (P < .01, Glass Δ = 1.74) and trivial to very large (P = .07, Δ = 1.09) differences in JH and relative peak power changes in favor of returners over new players, respectively, during the peaking phase. Irrespective of group, 7 of 14 players achieved peak JH 2 wk after the initial overreach. The number of sets played (r = .78, P < .01) and the athlete’s preseason relative 1-repetition maximum (r = .54, P = .05) were the strongest correlates of JH changes during the peaking phase. Conclusions: Returners achieved greater improvements in jumping performance during the peaking phase compared with new players, which may be explained by the returners’ greater relative maximal strength, time spent competing, and training experience. Thus, volleyball and strength coaches should consider these factors when prescribing training during a peaking phase to ensure their players are prepared for important competitions.
Caleb D. Bazyler, Satoshi Mizuguchi, Ashley A. Kavanaugh, John J. McMahon, Paul Comfort and Michael H. Stone
Paul Comfort, Thomas Dos’Santos, Paul A. Jones, John J. McMahon, Timothy J. Suchomel, Caleb Bazyler and Michael H. Stone
Purpose: To determine the reliability of early force production (50, 100, 150, 200, and 250 ms) relative to peak force (PF) during an isometric mid-thigh pull and to assess the relationships between these variables. Methods: Male collegiate athletes (N = 29; age 21.1 [2.9] y, height 1.71 [0.07] m, body mass 71.3 [13.6] kg) performed isometric mid-thigh pulls during 2 separate testing sessions. Net PF and net force produced at each epoch were calculated. Within- and between-session reliabilities were determined using intraclass correlation coefficients and coefficient of variation percentages. In addition, Pearson correlation coefficients and coefficient of determination were calculated to examine the relationships between PF and time-specific force production. Results: Net PF and time-specific force demonstrated very high to almost perfect reliability both within and between sessions (intraclass correlation coefficients .82–.97; coefficient of variation percentages 0.35%–1.23%). Similarly, time-specific force expressed as a percentage of PF demonstrated very high to almost perfect reliability both within and between sessions (intraclass correlation coefficients .76–.86; coefficient of variation percentages 0.32%–2.51%). Strong to nearly perfect relationships (r = .615–.881) exist between net PF and time-specific net force, with relationships improving over longer epochs. Conclusion: Based on the smallest detectable difference, a change in force at 50 milliseconds expressed relative to PF > 10% and early force production (100, 150, 200, and 250 ms) expressed relative to PF of >2% should be considered meaningful. Expressing early force production as a percentage of PF is reliable and may provide greater insight into the adaptations to the previous training phase than PF alone.
Kevin M. Carroll, Jake R. Bernards, Caleb D. Bazyler, Christopher B. Taber, Charles A. Stuart, Brad H. DeWeese, Kimitake Sato and Michael H. Stone
Purpose: To compare repetition maximum (RM) to relative intensity using sets and repetitions (RISR) resistance training on measures of training load, vertical jump, and force production in well-trained lifters. Methods: Fifteen well-trained (isometric peak force = 4403.61 [664.69] N, mean [SD]) males underwent resistance training 3 d/wk for 10 wk in either an RM group (n = 8) or RISR group (n = 7). Weeks 8 to 10 consisted of a tapering period for both groups. The RM group achieved a relative maximum each day, whereas the RISR group trained based on percentages. Testing at 5 time points included unweighted (<1 kg) and 20-kg squat jumps, countermovement jumps, and isometric midthigh pulls. Mixed-design analyses of variance and effect size using Hedge’s g were used to assess within- and between-groups alterations. Results: Moderate between-groups effect sizes were observed for all squat-jump and countermovement-jump conditions supporting the RISR group (g = 0.76–1.07). A small between-groups effect size supported RISR for allometrically scaled isometric peak force (g = 0.20). Large and moderate between-groups effect sizes supported RISR for rate of force development from 0 to 50 ms (g = 1.25) and 0 to 100 ms (g = 0.89). Weekly volume load displacement was not different between groups (P > .05); however, training strain was statistically greater in the RM group (P < .05). Conclusions: Overall, this study demonstrated that RISR training yielded greater improvements in vertical jump, rate of force development, and maximal strength compared with RM training, which may be explained partly by differences in the imposed training stress and the use of failure/nonfailure training in a well-trained population.