See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/38034748

The Acute Effects of Heavy and Light

Resistances on the Flight Time of a Basketball
Push-Pass During Upper Body Com....

Article in The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research · October 2009

DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0b013e3181b3e076 · Source: PubMed

CITATIONS READS

10 142

3 authors, including:

Martyn Matthews Paul Comfort

University of Salford University of Salford
27 PUBLICATIONS 462 CITATIONS 137 PUBLICATIONS 844 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

The effect of training with a force-velocity overload stimulus using weightlifting derivatives View
project

Optimal cluster set configuration for the midthigh clean pull View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Paul Comfort on 06 November 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 “The Acute Effects of Heavy and Light Resistances on the Flight Time of a
Basketball Push Pass During Upper Body Complex Training”

Martyn Matthews, MSc, BSc (Hons), CSCS. Senior Lecturer. University of Salford,
Frederick Street, Salford, Greater Manchester, M33 5PX, UK.
0161 295 2298
m.j.matthews@salford.ac.uk

Cian O Conchuir, BSc (Hons) University of Salford, Frederick Street, Salford, Greater
Manchester, M33 5PX

Paul Comfort, MSc, BSc (Hons), CSCS. Senior Lecturer. University of Salford, Frederick
Street, Salford, Greater Manchester, M33 5PX

Abstract

The aim of this study was to investigate the acute effect of high-load and low-load

exercises on the speed of a basketball throws. Twelve competitive male athletes (21.8

±4.5years, 82.0 ± 11.7kg, 181.6 ±5.6cm), with at least 6 months upper body weight

training experience and no apparent musculoskeletal disorders, undertook three testing

conditions prior to the performance of a basketball throw. Condition 1 involved five

repetitions at 85% of a 1RM bench press, Condition 2 - five repetitions of a 2.3 kg

medicine ball push pass, and Condition 3 – control, where participants rested for the

equivalent time of the other conditions (~20 seconds). The strength of the subjects,

determined by 1RM bench press weight, was used to categorise subjects into high- and

low- strength groups. Results indicate a significant (3.99%, p=0.001) reduction in flight

time following the completion of Condition 1 (85% 1RM) but no significant changes

(1.96%, p=0.154) following Condition 2 (medicine ball push-pass). Furthermore there

was a significant difference (p=0.016) between Condition 1 (85% 1RM) and Condition 2

(medicine ball throw). No significant differences were observed between low and high

1
strength groups (p = 0.326). This study appears to confirm previous research suggesting

that high loads are required to elicit a potentiation effect. For those athletes wishing to

produce a short-term enhancement of power they should consider loads in the region of

85% 1RM. The potentiation response from the lower load appears to be highly

individual. We therefore recommend that, when equipment is limited, athletes and

coaches experiment with a range of loads when performing contrast training, as there

appears to be an individual PAP response to lighter loads.

Key words: Post-activation potentiation, power, performance, upper-body

INTRODUCTION

Complex training, or the use of contrasting loads to elicit an acute enhancement in power

output (Fleck and Kontor, 1986), has gained much interest in recent years, both as a

training method for developing power and as a warm-up (Radcliffe and Radcliffe, 1999;

Burger et al., 2000; Matthews et al., 2004).

In practice, complex training involves exercise sets whereby a traditional strength

movement is followed by a biomechanically similar power exercise (Adams et al., 1992;

Baker, 2001). This leads to an enhanced performance of the subsequent lighter set over

and above that which would occur without the prior heavy resistance set (Baker, 2003).

The short-term augmentation of subsequent power exercise is unlikely to be

2
morphological (Gullich and Schmidtbleicher, 1995) but may be a result of enhanced

twitch potentiation (Vandervoort et al., 1983; Hamada et al., 2000; Hamada et al., 2007)

following the heavy resistance exercise. This is usually termed post-activation

potentiation (PAP) in situations where the muscle actions are voluntary.

We recognize that post-activation potentiation (PAP) may be responsible for such

improvements and probably the result of increased Ca2+ sensitivity of actin-myosin

binding sites due to myosin light chain phosphorylation following maximal contraction

(Hamada et al., 2000). Phosphorylation of myosin light chains during maximal or near

maximal contractions (Sweeney et al., 1993) increases the sensitivity of actin-myosin

binding sites to Ca2+ during subsequent contractions (Palmer and Moore, 1989) resulting

in an increase in rate of force development (Petrella et al., 1989; Grange et al., 1993) and

decreasing twitch contraction and half relaxation time during subsequent contractions

(Belanger et al., 1983; Green and Jones, 1989; Smith and Fry, 2007).

Although myosin light chain phosphorylation and subsequent increase in Ca2+ sensitivity

seems the most likely mechanism for PAP a number of other neurological mechanisms

may account for this. Baker (2001) suggested several possible mechanisms including:

increased synchronization of motor unit firing, reduced peripheral inhibition from the

Golgi tendon organs, and reduced central inhibition from the Renshaw cell. Fleck and

Kontor (1986) postulated that an enhanced state of neurological arousal following intense

exercise to near failure may account for improvement in performance. Subjects

performing such tasks require high levels of arousal and motivation, increasing

3
stimulation from the higher motor centers and releasing hormones and neuro-transmitters

that may accumulate and benefit subsequent performance. This link between arousal and

the performance of other gross motor skills such as weightlifting has been noticed

previously by Kopysov & Lelikov (1981) and Fry et al. (1995).

Previous studies have investigate the use of complex training for the acute enhancement

lower-body power, with several studies demonstrating significant improvements using

this approach (Gullich and Schmidtbleicher, 1996; Young et al., 1998; Radcliffe and

Radcliffe, 1999; French et al, 2003; Gourgoulis et al., 2003; Matthews et al. 2004), while

others found no such change (Duthie et al., 2002; Jones and Lees, 2003; Scott and

Docherty, 2004).

This method has proved particularly successful in improving jump performance (Young

et al., 1998; Radcliffe and Radcliffe 1999; Baker 2001) and short sprint ability (Matthews

et al., 2004). Young et al. (1998) reported a 2.8% increase in loaded counter movement

jump (CMJ) height when jumps were performed four minutes after a set of heavy squats

(5RM); Baker (2001) reported a 5.4% increase in power output during a loaded jump

squat (40Kg) when this followed a set of jump-squats with a higher load (60Kg);

Radcliffe and Radcliffe (1999) reported increased standing long jump performance when

preceded by a warm-up consisting of four sets of four repetitions of the power snatch,

with three minutes between sets; and Matthews et al. (2004) reported a mean

improvement of 3.3% in sprint time following back-squats (5 x 5RM).

4
The results for the acute enhancement of power in the lower body seem unequivocal.

Results for the upper body, however, appear less clear.

Gullich and Schmidtbleicher (1996) observed a significant reduction in the movement

time of a rapid bench press movement after isometric MVC’s. Evans et al. (2000)

observed a significant increase in medicine ball put distance following the performance

of a 5RM bench press. Baker (2003) reported a 4.5% increase in power output after 65%

of 1RM bench press throws with a resistance of 50kg in a specially designed plyometric

apparatus. In contrast, Ebben et al. (2000) observed no enhancement of medicine ball

power drop performance following a 3-5RM bench press. Hrysomallis and Kidgell

(2001) also reported improvement in performance of the power exercise (explosive push-

ups) following the performance of a heavy resistance 5RM bench press set. Brandenburg

(2005) found that a set of bench press at varying intensities (100%, 75% or 50% of 5RM)

did not have a positive effect on subsequent bench press throws.

Maximal upper body power and the ability to produce high rates of force development

(Newton et al., 1996) is important to athletes in many sports such as rugby, basketball,

boxing, and martial arts, where the ability to pass quickly, or push away or strike

opponents is paramount.

Both the intensity of the pre-load and the length of the recovery appear to have a

significant impact on the magnitude of PAP and resultant increase in power production.

5
Optimal Load

Much of the previous research on complex training has used heavy loads for the strength

movement (typically 5RM), requiring participants to lift at intensities approaching 85%

of their 1RM for five repetitions, before performance of the subsequent power exercise.

Significant increases in the performance of the subsequent power activity have been

observed following these heavy load protocols (Radcliffe and Radcliffe, 1996; Young et

al., 1998; Evans et al., 2000; Matthews et al., 2004).

Other studies have investigated the use of lighter loads (Baker, 2003; Gourgoulis et al.,

2003; Smillios et al., 2005). Baker (2003) found that a 65% load for the bench press

enhanced the performance of an explosive bench-press style throw. Smilios et al. (2005)

observed an increase in countermovement jump performance following intensities of

30% and 60% of 1RM for back squats and jump squats. Gourgoulis et al. (2003) observed

a 2.39% improvement in jump height for the counter movement jump (CMJ) following a

series of half-squat sets of 2 repetitions at 20, 40, 60, 80 and 90% of 1RM. Although it is

possible that some improvement can be attributed to the lower loads it is not possible, to

identify which load or combination of loads produced the potentiated response.

Although improvements in subsequent power output have been observed following loads

ranging from 30 to 85% of 1RM, there appears to be little research into the effectiveness

of even lighter loads – specifically those achieved through the use of medicine balls.

Rest Interval

When seeking to enhance performance through the use of PAP there is a trade off

6
between the degree and time course of potentiation and the fatigue induced by the preload

stimulus (Güllich and Schmidtbleicher, 1996; Chiu et al., 2003). It is important,

therefore, to identify the time when the muscle has recovered from the fatiguing preload,

but is still potentiated.

Most of the research showing a positive effect of complex training use time periods

between 3 and 4 minutes (Evans et al., 2000; Güllick and Schmidtbleicher, 1996;

Radcliffe and Radcliffe, 1996; Young et al., 1999; Baker, 2003; Gourgoulis et al., 2003

Matthews et al., 2004; Baker, 2005).

Aims

On the basis of previous work and in light of the paucity of studies in this area, the aim of

this study was to investigate the acute effect of high-load and low-load exercises on the

flight time of a basketball push-pass. The low-load exercise for this study will be a

medicine ball throw, a load considerably lighter than that used in previous studies.

METHODS

Approach to the Problem: A same-subject repeated-measures design was used to

establish the effect of three conditions on the flight time of a basketball push-pass. During

Condition 1 participants performed five repetitions at 85% of a 1RM bench press. During

Condition 2 participants performed five repetitions of a 2.3 kg medicine ball push pass.

Condition 3 was a control where participants rested for the equivalent time of the other

conditions (~20 seconds). Each condition was preceded with the pre-test and followed by

a post-test. The pre- and post-test consisted of a maximal basketball push pass with the

7
flight time recorded with digital timing equipment.

The conditions were timed as follows. Pre-test, 60 seconds, Condition (1, 2, or 3), 240

seconds, Post-test. A 240 second rest interval was selected as this allows time for full PCr

resynthesis after Condition 1 and 2 and is comparable with that used in previous studies

(Gullich and Schmidtbleicher, 1996; Young et al., 1998; Radcliffe and Radcliffe, 1999;

Evans et al., 2000; Matthews et al., 2004).

SUBJECTS: Twelve recreationally active male subjects (mean ±SD Age=21.8

±4.5years, Weight=82.0 ± 11.7kg, Height= 181.6 ±5.6cm), with at least 6 months upper

body weight training experience and no apparent musculoskeletal disorders, participated

in this study. Approval was granted by the University of Salford Ethics Committee.

Procedures

All testing took place at the Human Performance Laboratory of the University of Salford.

An initial visit was arranged to determine the 1RM bench press (PowerLift multi-rack;

Hampson bar) for each participant using the procedure identified by Fleck and Kraemer

(1997). Following this, testing occurred on non-consecutive days, during which

participants performed one of the three conditions. The order of testing was randomized

to minimize any potential familiarization bias.

Both the medicine ball (Everlast 6504, 2.3Kg) push pass (Condition 2) and the basketball

push pass (pre and post-tests) were completed from a standing position. Participants

adopted a standardized stance with their feet on pre-arranged floor markers. While

holding the medicine ball or basketball, they explosively performed a chest pass, pushing

the ball outwards horizontally from the chest.

8
In the case of the basketball pass (Mitre; mass = 0.624Kg), the ball passes through the

photocell gate and hits the wall-mounted contact mat starting and stopping the digital

timer and recording the flight time (Newtest Powertimer testing system (1998)

Kiviharjuntie II, Fin-90220, OULU, Finland). The shorter the flight time the greater the

speed of the ball at release.

Each condition involved a pre-test and a post-test. The pretest consisted of 3 consecutive

push passes with the basketball. The repetition with the fastest time was recorded for

analysis.

Fig. 1: Five Repetitions of 85% of 1RM

Fig 2: Newtest Powertimer Testing System (1998). Participant performing a timed

basketball push pass.

Fig. 3: Medicine Ball Throw

Statistical Analysis

All statistical analysis was conducted using SPSS for Windows (11.0.1). A 2-way

analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to determine differences in power output

between the conditions and between high- and low-strength groups. Significance was

accepted at an alpha level or p≤0.05. Paired t-tests were then used post-hoc to determine

where the differences occurred and an appropriate Bonferoni correction used to account

9
for multiple tests.

Results:

Figures 4, 5, and 6 illustrate the differences in time scores for pre- and post-tests between

Condition 1 (85% 1RM), Condition 2 (Medicine Ball Throw) and Condition 3 (control)

for each participant. Scores represent the fastest score out of three trials. Individual

scores are presented in table 1.

Fig. 4: Condition 3 (Control) Time Output Scores

Fig. 5: Condition 2 (Medicine Ball Throw) Time Output Scores

Fig.6: Condition 1 (85% 1RM) Time Output Scores

Table 1: Individual scores.

The mean results for the pre and post-test fastest time scores for each condition are

presented in Table 2 and figure 7.

Table 2: Means (msec) & Standard Deviations (SD)

Fig 7: Pre- and Post-test Fastest Time Scores for Conditioning Protocols

10
The 2-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) general linear model with repeated measures

indicated that both Condition 1 (85% 1RM) and Condition 2 (medicine ball throw)

elicited a significant difference in peak power output from pre- to post-conditioning

protocol (p≤ 0.05) as demonstrated by the test of within-subject effects (sphericity

assumed). However, to find out where the differences occurred a post-hoc paired t-test

with Bonferroni correction was applied. Significant differences existed between

Condition 1 (85% 1RM) and Condition 2 (medicine ball push pass) and between

Condition 1 (85% 1RM) and Condition 3 (control). There was no significant difference

between Condition 2 (medicine ball push pass) and Condition 3 (control).

Table 3: Results from Post-hoc paired t-test. Significance (*) was accepted at an alpha

level of 0.0167 to account for multiple tests.

The strength of the subjects, determined by 1RM bench press weight, was used to

categorise subjects into high- and low- strength groups. For the purpose of analysis 85 Kg

marked the boundary between the high strength group and low strength group. Table 4

illustrates whether subjects were categorised into high- and low- strength groups in

relation to 1RM.

Table 4: Low and High Strength Groups

11
No significant differences were observed between low and high strength groups (p =

0.326).

Discussion

Results indicate a significant (3.99%, p=0.001) reduction in flight time following the

completion of Condition 1 (85% 1RM) but no significant changes (1.96%, p=0.154)

following Condition 2 (medicine ball push-pass). Furthermore there was a significant

difference (p=0.016) between Condition 1 (85% 1RM) and Condition 2 (medicine ball

throw).

From these results it appears that, overall, the degree of potentiation following a

resistance exercise depends upon the magnitude of the resistance used, with higher loads

eliciting greater potentiation. These findings are broadly in line with Young et al. (1998)

and Evans et al. (2000), which suggest that the intensity of the resistance exercise must be

high in order to elicit potentiation (≥85-90% 1RM).

Closer inspection of the individual scores for Condition 2, however, reveals that, whilst

no improvement was observed in the group as a whole, several individuals within the

group made improvements that may be meaningful in the real world. For example half of

the participants (6 out of 12) showed a greater than 2.5% improvement following the

medicine ball condition and a third of the participants (4 out of 12) showed improvements

of 4% or more. It is possible that, whilst there was a consistent and significant

improvement following the 85% 1RM bench press (11 out of 12, mean = 3.99%,

p=0.001), the response to the lighter load is more individual and varied. One possible

12
reason for these differences is variations in the time course of the individual potentiation

response in line with the findings of Güllich and Schmidtbleicher (1996).

No differences were observed between the high- and low-strength groups. This is in

contrast to research by Güllich and Schmidtbleicher (1996), Young et al. (1998), Evans,

(2000), Duthie et al. (2002), and Matthews and Morris (2006) which suggests that

complex training is advantageous for athletes with relatively high strength levels.

Although the participants in this study were not particularly strong, they were all

experienced athletes, competing in power dependant sports and therefore used to high-

level training. Participants defined as athletically trained, as well as participants

competing in power sports, appear more able to capitalize on PAP compared with groups

described as recreationally trained or physical education students (Baker 2003; Chiu et

al., 2003; Gourgoulis et al., 2003). More specifically Rixon et al., (2007) found a greater

level of PAP in experienced lifters. This is reinforced by Hamada et al., (2007) and Smith

and Fry (2007) who observed that those participants with shorter twitch contraction times

and greater percentage of type II fibres exhibited greater post activation potentiation. It is

not surprising, therefore, that the low-strength group benefited as much as the high-

strength group in this particular study. The similarity in response between the high- and

low- strength groups may reflect the fact that all participants are successfully involved in

power-based sports and likely, therefore, to all have a similar distribution of type II

fibres.

13
We recognize that post-activation potentiation (PAP) may be responsible for any

improvements observed, and probably occurred via a combination of mechanisms

summarised elsewhere (Matthews et al. 2004).

Practical Applications

This study appears to confirm previous research (Güllich and Schmidtbleicher, 1996;

Young et al., 1998; Evans, 2000; Duthie et al., 2002; and Matthews and Morris, 2006)

suggesting that high loads are required to elicit a potentiation effect. For those athletes

wishing to produce a short-term enhancement of power – whether for training or

competition – they should consider loads in the region of 85% 1RM.

It is, however, common practice for athletes to use lighter loads (slightly heavier than

normal balls, bats, or throwing implements) both as a warm-up and as a stimulus to

contrast with subsequent, lighter, sets. Although the results of this study do not support

this practice it should be noted that overall the medicine ball condition elicited a mean

improvement of 1.99% with 10 out of 12 participants showing an improvement with this

method. The potentiation response from lower loads appears to be highly individual, with

some athletes gaining meaningful benefits and others not. It may well be that the level of

improvement required for statistical significance differs from that required to make a

difference in the real world, particularly for some athletes.

It should also be noted that strength-training equipment (bench, bars, plate weights) is not

always available, but that medicine balls are considerably more mobile and therefore

convenient as a training tool. We therefore recommend that, when equipment is limited,

14
athletes and coaches experiment with a range of loads when performing contrast training,

as there appears to be an individual PAP response to lighter loads.

References:

1. Adams, K., O’Shea, J.P., O’Shea, K.L. and Climstein, M. The Effect of Six

Weeks of Squat, Plyometric and Squat-Plyometric Training on Power Production.

J Appl Sports Sci Res. 6(1): 6-41. 1992

2. Baker, D. A series of studies on training of high-intensity muscle power in rugby

league football players. J Strength Cond Res. 15(2): 198-209. 2001.

3. Baker, D. Acute effect of alternating heavy and light resistances on power output

during upper-body Complex Power training. J Strength Cond Res. 17(3), 493–

497. 2003.

4. Baker, D. Specific Strength / Power Training for Elite Divers. Case Study from

the Australian Institute of Sport. Strength Cond Coach. 2(1): 20-27. 2004.

5. Baker, D. and Newton, R. U. Methods to increase the effectiveness of maximal

power training for the upper body. Strength Cond J. 27 (6), 24-32. 2005a

6. Baker, D. and Newton, R. U. Acute effect on power output of alternating an

agonist and antagonist muscle exercise during complex training. J Strength Cond

Res. 19 (1), 202-205. 2005b.

7. Brandenburg, J. The acute effects of prior dynamic resistance exercise using

different loads on subsequent upper-body explosive performance in resistance-

trained men. J Strength Cond Res. 19 (2), 427-432. 2005.

15
8. Burger, T., Boyer-Kendrick, T. and Dolny, D. Complex training compared to a

combined weight training and plyometric training program. J Strength Cond Res.

14(3): 360. 2000.

9. Chiu, L., Fry, L., Weiss, W., Schilling, B., Brown, L., Smith, S. Postactivation

Potentiation Response in Athletic and Recreationally Trained Individuals. J

Strength Cond Res. 17(4), 671–677. 2003.

10. Chu, D.A. (1996) Explosive Power and Strength. Human Kinetics, UK. 141-179.

11. Ebben, W.P. and Blackard, D. Paired for strength: A look at combined weight

training and plyometric training with an emphasis on increasing the vertical jump.

Training and Conditioning. 8(3): 55-63. 1998.

12. Ebben, W.P., Watts, P.B., Jensen, R.L. and Blackard, D.O. EMG and kinetic

analysis of complex training exercise variables. J Strength Cond Res. 14( 4): 451-

456. 2000.

13. Evans, A.K., Hodgkins, T.D., Durham, M.P., Berning, J.M., and Adams, K.J.

The acute effects of a 5RM bench press on power output. Med Sci Sports Exe.

32(5), S311. 2000.

14. Fatourous, I.G., Jamurtas, A.Z., Leontsini, D., Taxildaris, K., Aggelousis, N.,

Kostopoulos, N. and Buckenmeyer, P. Evaluation of plyometric exercise training,

weight training, and their combination on vertical jump and leg strength. J

Strength Cond Res. 14(4): 470-476. 2000.

15. Fleck, S. and Kontor, K. Complex Training. Nat Strength Cond Ass J. 8(5): 66-

68. 1986.

16
16. Fleck, S. and Kraemer, W. (1997) Designing Resistance Training Programmes.

Human Kinetics. ISBN ………..

17. Fry, A.C., Stone, M.H., Thrush, J.T. and Fleck, S.J. Precompetition Training

Sessions Enhance Competitive Performance of High Anxiety Junior Weightlifters.

J Strength Cond Res. 9(1): 37-42. 1995.

18. Grange, R.W., Vandenboom, R., and Houston, M.E. Physiological significance of

myosin phosphorylation in skeletal muscle. Can J App Physiol. 18: 229-242.

1993.

19. Green, H.J., and Jones, S.R. Does post-tetanic potentiation compensate for low

frequency fatigue? Clin Physiol. 9: 499-514. 1989

20. Gossen, E.R., and D.G. Sale. Effect of postactivation potentiation on dynamic

knee extension performance. J App Physiol, 83:524–530. 1998.

21. Gourgoulis, V., Aggeloussis, N., Kasimatis, P., Mavromatis, G. and Garas, A.

Effect of a submaximal half squats warm-up program on vertical jumping ability.

J Strength Cond Res. 17 (2), 342-344. 2003.

22. Gullich, A. and Schmidtbleicher, D. (1995) Short-Term Potentiation of Power

Performance Induced by Maximal voluntary Contractions. In: Häkkinen, K.,

Keskinen, K.L., Komi, P.V. and Mero, A. (Eds), Book of Abstracts – XVth

Congress of the International Society of Biomechanics. Jyväskylä: ISB. 348-349.

23. Hamada, T., Sale, D.G. and MacDougall, J.D. Post Activation Potentiation in

Endurance Trained Male Athletes. Med Sci Sports Exe. 32(3): 403-411. 2000.

17
24. Hamada, T., Sale, D. G., MacDougal, J. D. and Tarnopolsky, M. A. Postactivation

potentiation, fibre type, and twitch contrction time in human knee extensor

muscles. J Appl Physiol. 88: 2131-2137. 2007.

25. Hrysomallis, C. and Kidgell, D. Effect of heavy dynamic resistive exercise on

acute upper body power. J Strength Cond Res. 15(4), 426–430. 2001.

26. Houston, M.E., and Grange, R.W. Myosin phosphorylation, twitch potentiation,

and fatigue in human skeletal muscle. Can J Physiol Pharmacol. 68: 908-913.

1990.

27. Jensen, R. and Ebben, W. Kinetic analysis of complex training rest interval effect

on vertical jump performance. J Strength Cond Res. 17 (2): 345–349. 2003.

28. Jones, P. and Lees, A. A biomechanical analysis of the acute effects of complex

training using lower limb exercises. J Strength Cond Res. 17(4): 694-700. 2003.

29. Kokkonen, J., Nelson, A.G. and Cornwell, A. Acute Muscle Stretching Inhibits

Maximal Strength Performance. Res Q Exerc Sport. 69(4): 411-415. 1998.

30. Kopysov, V.S. and Lelikov, S.I. (1981) Success of Competitive Performance of

Weightlifters. Theory and Practice in Physical Culture. 7: 22-24.

31. Kraemer, W.J. and Newton, R.U. Developing Explosive Muscular Power:

Implications for a mixed methods training strategy. NSCA Journal. 16(5): 20-31.

1994.

32. Matthews, M., Matthews, H., Snook, B. The acute effects of a resistance training

warm up on sprint performance. Research in Sports Medicine 12,2,151-160. 2004.

18
33. Matthews, M. and Morris J. (2006) Differential effect of complex training

methods in high- and low-strength individuals. Abstract. Commonwealth

International Sports Conference, Melbourne, Australia.

34. Palmer, B.M., and Moore, R.L. Myosin light chain phosphorylation and tension

potentiation in mouse skeletal muscle. Am J Physiol Cell Physiol. 257: C1012 –

C1019. 1989.

35. Petrella, R.J., Cunningham, D.A., Vandervoot, A.A. Comparison of twitch

potentiation in the gastrocnemius of young and elderly men. Eur J Appl Physiol

Occup Physiol. 58 (4): 395-399. 1989.

36. Radcliffe, J. C. and Radcliffe, J. L. Effects of different warm-up protocols on peak

power output during a single response jump task. Med Sci Sports Exe. 38(5):

S189. 1999.

37. Rixon, K. P., Lamont, H. S. and Bemben, M. G. Influence of type of muscle

contraction, gender, and lifting experience on postactivation potentiation

experience. J Strength Cond Res. 21 (2): 500-505. 2007.

38. Scott, S.L. and Docherty, D. Acute effects of heavy preloading on vertical and

horizontal jump performance. J Strength Cond Res. 18 (2): 201-205. 2004.

39. Smilios, I., Pilianidis, T., Sotiropoulos, K., Antonakis, M. and Tokmakidis, S.P.

Short-term effects of selected exercise and load in contrast training on vertical

jump performance. J Strength Cond Res. 19 (1): 135-139. 2005.

40. Smith, J. C. and Fry, A. C. Effects of a ten-second maximum voluntary

contraction on regulatory myosin light-chain phosphorylation and dynamic

performance measures. J Strength Cond Res. 21 (1): 73-76. 2007.

19
41. Sweeney, H.L., Bowman, B.F., and Stull, J.T. Myosin light chain phosphorylation

in vertebrate striated muscle: regulation and function. Am J Physiol. 264 (5):

C1085 – C1095. 1993.

42. Vandervoort, A.A., Quinlan, J., and McComas, A.J. Twitch potentiation after

voluntary contraction. Exp Neurol. 81: 141-152. 1983.

43. Verkhoshansky, Y. Speed-Strength Preparation and Development of Strength

Endurance of Athletes in Various Specializations. Soviet Sports Review. 21(3):

120-124. 1986.

44. Verkhoshansky, Y. and Tetyan, V. Speed-strength preparation of future

champions. Legkaya Athletika. 2: 12-13. 1973.

45. Young, W.B., Jenner, A. and Grffiths, K. Acute enhancement of power

performance from heavy load squats. J Strength Cond Res. 12(2): 82-84. 1989.

46. Young, W.B., McLean, B. and Ardagna, J. Relationship Between Strength

Qualities and Sprinting Performance. J Sports Med Phys Fitness. 35(1): 13-19.

1995.

20
Figure Legends

Fig. 1: Five Repetitions of 85% of 1RM

21
Fig 2: Newtest Powertimer Testing System (1998). Participant performing a timed

basketball push pass.

22
Fig. 3: Medicine Ball Throw

23
Fig. 4: Condition 3 (Control) Time Output Scores

Pre- and post-test flight time scores

250
Control
200

150

100
Pre-test
50 Post-test
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Participant number

24
Fig. 5: Condition 2 (Medicine Ball Throw) Time Output Scores

Pre- and post-test flight time scores

250
Medicine Ball Throw
200

150

100
Pre-test
50 Post-test
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Participant number

25
Fig.6: Condition 1 (85% 1RM) Time Output Scores

Pre- and post-test flight time

250
scores
200

150

100
Pre-test
50
Post-test
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Participant number

26
Fig 7: Pre- and Post-test Fastest Time Scores for Conditioning Protocols

Time Scores

210 Mean
Time (msec)

200
190
180
170
160
150
Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post
Control Med Ball Throw 85% 1RM

27
Table 1: Individual scores.

Control (msec) Med Ball Throw (msec) 85% 1RM (msec)

Pre Post % change Pre Post % change Pre Post % change
1 197 201 -2.03 193 182 5.70 190 182 4.21
2 172 168 2.33 163 156 4.29 175 162 7.43
3 180 189 -5.00 180 185 -2.77 188 190 -1.06
4 196 192 2.04 193 191 1.04 195 189 3.08
5 204 198 2.94 190 194 -2.11 200 191 4.50
6 190 187 1.58 189 181 4.23 191 178 6.81
7 203 199 1.97 198 196 1.01 200 192 4.00
8 195 197 -1.03 195 193 1.03 190 184 3.16
9 195 188 3.59 194 188 3.09 190 185 2.63
10 191 199 -4.19 200 190 5.00 199 185 7.04
11 203 188 7.39 193 188 2.59 197 194 1.52
12 219 221 -0.91 213 212 0.47 216 206 4.63
Mean 195.42 193.92 0.72 191.75 188 1.96 194.25 186.5 3.99
SD 12 12.36 3.49 11.89 12.91 2.69 9.74 10.48 2.43

28
Table 2: Means (msec) & Standard Deviations (SD)

Conditions Control Medicine Ball 85% 1RM

Throw
Time (msec) Time (msec) Time (msec)

Tests Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post

Mean 195.42 193.92 191.75 188.00 194.25 186.50

SD 11.995 12.354 11.886 12.905 9.743 10.483

%Change (reduction in time) 0.72% 1.96% 3.99%*

29
Table 3: Results from Post-hoc paired t-test. Significance (*) was accepted at an alpha

level of 0.0167 to account for multiple tests.

Tests P Value

Control- 85% 1RM 0.001*

Control- Medicine Ball Throw 0.154

85% 1RM- Medicine Ball Throw 0.016*

30
 Table 4: Low and High Strength Groups

Subject Low Strength (<85 kg) Subject High Strength (≥85 Kg)
(no) (no)
3 70 1 85

5 62.5 2 95

7 80 4 92.5

10 65 6 102.5

11 80 8 95

12 65 9 125

31

View publication stats