Differences In Peak Power Output Research Articles

Different ramp-incremental slopes elicit similar V̇O2max and fatigability profiles in females and males despite differences in peak power output.

to investigate the effects of different ramp incremental (RI) slopes on fatigability and its recovery in females and males. Ten females and 11 males performed RI tests with distinct slopes, in separated and randomized sessions, 15 (RI15), 30 (RI30), and 45 (RI45) W·min-1. Performance fatigability was assessed by femoral nerve electrical stimuli evoked during and after isometric maximal voluntary contraction (IMVC) of knee extensors at baseline and after task failure at min 0.5,1.5, 2.5, 5 and 10. Maximal oxygen uptake (V̇O2max) and peak power output (POpeak) were also measured. There were significant and similar declines from pre to post RI test in RI15, RI30 and RI45 for IMVC (-23%; -25%; -25%, respectively; p<0.05) and potentiated single twitch (-46%; -47%; -49%; p<0.05) whereas, voluntary activation did not change (-1%; -1%; 0%; p>0.05). There were no RI condition effects, nor time × condition interaction for IMVC, potentiated single twitch and voluntary activation (all p > 0.05). V̇O2maxwas not different amongst RI15, RI30 and RI45 conditions (3.30, 3.29, 3.26 L·min-1, respectively; p=0.717), but POpeak was (272, 304, 337 W, respectively; p<0.001). Overall, performance fatigability profiles were similar between sexes after the RI tests and during recovery. Additionally, during recovery, high-frequency doublets and single twitch recovered faster after RI30 and RI45 compared to RI15, regardless of sex (all p>0.05 for sex-differences). RI tests of different slopes that elicited similar V̇O2max but different POpeakdid not affect the profile of performance fatigability at task failure in females and males.

Can the Cambered Bar Enhance Acute Performance in the Bench Press Exercise?

The main goal of this study was to assess the impact of the cambered bar (CB) during the bench press exercise on power output and bar velocity when compared to a standard bar (SB). Ten healthy strength-trained men (age = 27.9 ± 3.7 years; body mass = 90.1 ± 12.5 kg; resistance training experience = 6.5 ± 2.7 years; bench press one-repetition maximum (1RM) = 118.5 ± 21 kg) performed a single set of 3 repetitions of the bench press exercise with an SB and a CB at 50%1RM to assess differences in peak power output (PP), mean power output (MP), peak bar velocity (PV), and mean bar velocity (MV), range of motion (ROM), and positive work time under load (TUL) between conditions. The t-test indicated significantly higher mean ROM for the cambered bar in comparison to the standard bar (52.7 vs. 44.9 cm; P < 0.01; ES = 1.40). Further, there was a significantly higher PP (907 vs. 817 W; P < 0.01; ES = 0.35), MP (556 vs. 496 W; P < 0.01; ES = 0.46), PV (1.24 vs. 1.14 m/s; P < 0.01; ES = 0.35) and MV (0.89 vs. 0.82 m/s; P < 0.01; ES = 0.34) for the CB condition when compared to the SB. A significantly longer TUL for the CB was observed, when compared to the SB (1.89 vs. 1.51 s; P < 0.01; ES = 1.38). The results of this study showed that the CB significantly increased power output and bar velocity in the bench press exercise at 50%1RM compared to the SB. Therefore, the additional ROM, made possible through the use of the CB, allows for the acceleration of the bar through a significantly longer displacement, which has a positive impact on power output. However, a simultaneous increase in TUL may cause higher fatigue when the bench press is performed with the CB compared to the SB.

The Effects of Plyometric Conditioning on Post-Activation Bench Press Performance.

The present study aimed to determine the effects of plyometric push-ups as a conditioning activity (CA) on high-loaded bench press performance. Two groups of resistance-trained males age (24.5 ± 2.6 years, body mass 84.8 ± 8 kg) performed one of two CA protocols: 3 sets of 5 repetitions of plyometric push-ups with a 1 min rest interval between sets (PAPE; n=12) or equal time aerobic warm-up (CONT; n=12). Four minutes after completion of the CA protocols the participants performed 3 sets of 3 repetitions of the bench press exercise at 70%1RM and 4 min rest interval between sets to assess post-activation differences in peak power output (PP), mean power output (MP), peak bar velocity (PV), and mean bar velocity (MV) between conditions. The two-way ANOVA revealed significant condition × set interaction effect for PP (p<0.01), MP (p<0.05), PV (p<0.01), and MV (p=0.02). The post hoc for condition × set interaction showed that PAPE caused a significant decrease in PP and PV for P-Set2 and P-Set3 when compared to baseline (BA). The MP and MV for the PAPE condition decreased significantly during the P-Set3 compared to BA and to P-Set1. The t-test comparisons for delta values showed significant differences between PAPE and CONT in PP for P-Set1 – BA (p<0.01), in MP for P-Set2 – P-Set1 (p<0.03) and for P-Set3 – P-Set1 (p=0.04). Furthermore, there were significant differences in PV for P-Set3 – BA; P-Set2 – P-Set1; P-Set3 – P-Set1 (p<0.01; p<0.01; p<0.02 respectively). Finally, there were significant differences in MV for P-Set1 – BA; P-Set2 – P-Set1 and P-Set3 – P-Set1 (p<0.01; p<0.01; p<0.02 respectively). This study demonstrated that plyometric push-ups lead to performance enhancement of the bench press exercise at 70%1RM. The increases in performance were observed only in the first set following the CA, while a significant decrease of these variables was registered in P-Set2 and P-Set3.

The Acute Impact of External Compression on Back Squat Performance in Competitive Athletes.

The aim of the present study was to evaluate the effects of external compression with blood flow restriction on power output and bar velocity changes during the back-squat exercise (SQ). The study included 10 judo athletes (age = 28.4 ± 5.8 years; body mass = 81.3 ± 13.1 kg; SQ one-repetition maximum (1-RM) 152 ± 34 kg; training experience 10.7 ± 2.3 years). Methods: The experiment was performed following a randomized crossover design, where each participant performed three different exercise protocols: (1) control, without external compression (CONT); (2) intermittent external compression with pressure of 100% arterial occlusion pressure (AOP) (EC-100); and (3) intermittent external compression with pressure of 150% AOP (EC-150). To assess the differences between conditions, the participants performed 3 sets of 3 repetitions of the SQ at 70% 1-RM. The differences in peak power output (PP), mean power output (MP), peak bar velocity (PV), and mean bar velocity (MV) between the three conditions were examined using repeated measures two-way ANOVA. Results: The post hoc analysis for the main effect of conditions showed a significant increase in PP (p = 0.03), PV (p = 0.02), MP (p = 0.04), and MV (p = 0.03), for the EC-150, compared to the CONT. Furthermore, a statistically significant increase in PP (p = 0.04), PV (p = 0.03), MP (p = 0.02), and MV (p = 0.01) were observed for the EC-150 compared to EC-100. There were no significant changes in PP, PV, MP, and MV, between EC-100 and CONT conditions. Conclusion: The results indicate that the use of extremely high-pressure external compression (150% AOP) during high-loaded (70% 1-RM) lower limb resistance exercise elicits an acute increase in power output and bar velocity.

Does Post-Activation Performance Enhancement Occur During the Bench Press Exercise under Blood Flow Restriction?

Background: The aim of the present study was to evaluate the effects of post-activation performance enhancement (PAPE) during successive sets of the bench press (BP) exercise under blood flow restriction (BFR). Methods: The study included 10 strength-trained males (age = 29.8 ± 4.6 years; body mass = 94.3 ± 3.6 kg; BP 1-repetition maximum (1RM) = 168.5 ± 26.4 kg). The experiment was performed following a randomized crossover design, where each participant performed two different exercise protocols: under blood flow restriction (BFR) and control test protocol (CONT) without blood flow restriction. During the experimental sessions, the study participants performed 3 sets of 3 repetitions of the BP exercise at 70%1RM with a 5 min rest interval between sets. The differences in peak power output (PP), mean power output (MP), peak bar velocity (PV), and mean bar velocity (MV) between the CONT and BFR conditions were examined using 2-way (condition × set) repeated measures ANOVA. Furthermore, t-test comparisons between conditions were made for the set 2–set 1, set 3–set 1, and set 3–set 2 delta values for all variables. Results: The post hoc results for condition × set interaction in PP showed a significant increase in set 2 compared to set 1 for BFR (p < 0.01) and CONT (p = 0.01) conditions, a significant increase in set 3 compared to set 1 for the CONT (p = 0.01) condition, as well as a significant decrease in set 3 compared to set 1 for BFR condition occurred (p < 0.01). The post hoc results for condition × set interaction in PV showed a significant increase in set 2 compared to set 1 for BFR (p < 0.01) and CONT (p = 0.01) conditions, a significant increase in set 3 compared to set 1 for CONT (p = 0.03) condition, as well as a significant decrease in set 3 compared to set 1 for BFR condition (p < 0.01). The t-test comparisons showed significant differences in PP (p < 0.01) and PV (p = 0.01) for set 3–set 2 delta values between BFR and CONT conditions. Conclusion: The PAPE effect was analyzed through changes in power output and bar velocity that occurred under both the CONT and BFR conditions. However, the effects of PAPE have different kinetics in successive sets for BFR and for CONT conditions.

Comparison of Acute Responses to Two Different Cycling Sprint Interval Exercise Protocols with Different Recovery Durations.

Background: Knowledge of acute responses to different sprint interval exercise (SIE) helps to implement new training programs. The aim of this study was to compare the acute physiological, metabolic and perceptual responses to two different SIE cycling protocols with different recovery durations. Methods: Twelve healthy, active male participants took part in this study and completed four testing sessions in the laboratory separated by a minimum of 72h. Two SIE protocols were applied in randomized order: SIE6×10”/4’—six “all-out” repeated 10-s bouts, interspersed with 4-min recovery; and SIESERIES—two series of three “all-out” repeated 10-s bouts, separated by 30-s recovery and 18-min recovery between series. Protocols were matched for the total work time (1 min) and recovery (20 min). Results: In SIESERIES, peak oxygen uptake and peak heart rate were significantly higher (p < 0.05), without differences in peak blood lactate concentration and mean rating of perceived exertion compared to SIE6×10”/4’. There were no differences in peak power output, peak oxygen uptake and peak heart rate between both series in SIESERIES. Conclusions: Two series composed of three 10-s “all-out” bouts in SIESERIES protocol evoked higher cardiorespiratory responses, which can provide higher stimulus to improve aerobic fitness in regular training.

Comparison of peak oxygen uptake and exercise efficiency between upper-body poling and arm crank ergometry in trained paraplegic and able-bodied participants

PurposeTo compare peak oxygen uptake (VO2peak) and exercise efficiency between upper-body poling (UBP) and arm crank ergometry (ACE) in able-bodied (AB) and paraplegic participants (PARA).MethodsSeven PARA and eleven AB upper-body trained participants performed four 5-min submaximal stages, and an incremental test to exhaustion in UBP and ACE. VO2peak was the highest 30-s average during the incremental test. Metabolic rate (joule/second = watt) at fixed power outputs of 40, 60, and 80 W was estimated using linear regression analysis on the original power-output-metabolic-rate data and used to compare exercise efficiency between exercise modes and groups.ResultsVO2peak did not significantly differ between UBP and ACE (p = 0.101), although peak power output was 19% lower in UBP (p < 0.001). Metabolic rate at fixed power outputs was 24% higher in UBP compared to ACE (p < 0.001), i.e., exercise efficiency was lower in UBP. PARA had 24% lower VO2peak compared to AB (p = 0.010), although there were no significant differences in peak power output between PARA and AB (p = 0.209).ConclusionsIn upper-body-trained PARA and AB participants, VO2peak did not differ between UBP and ACE, indicating that these two test modes tax the cardiovascular system similarly when the upper body is restricted. As such, the 19% lower peak power output in UBP compared to ACE may be explained by the coinciding lower efficiency.

Comparison Of Peak Power In The High Bar And Low Bar Squat Across Eight Loads

PURPOSE: To examine differences in peak power output between high bar (HBS) and low bar back squats (LBS). METHODS: Six trained males (25.0 ± 3.1 years, 1.78 ± 0.04 m, 87.6 ± 7.5 kg) with previous squatting experience (experience: 7.5 ± 4.1 years, HBS 1RM: 157.0 ± 15.3 kg, squat/bodyweight: 1.8 ± 0.18) completed the study using a crossover design. Subjects completed a 4-week familiarization phase with both conditions. Peak power data was collected over 2 sessions using dual uniplanar force plates synchronized with 2 string potentiometers on each side of the bar collecting at a sampling frequency of 1000 Hz using a BNC 2110 connector with an analog to digital converter. Subjects were randomly assigned to the HBS or LBS for 1 set of 3 repetitions at 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, and 90% of their most recent HBS training 1RM with 3 to 5 minutes’ rest between sets and >72 hours between testing conditions. A 2x8 repeated measures analysis of variance was used to determine interactions and main effects for condition and load with post-hoc tests conducted for statistical main effects. RESULTS: Analysis revealed significant main effects for load (p < 0.01) but not for condition. Peak power output was greatest at 70% of HBS 1RM for the LBS, and 80% of HBS 1RM for the HBS. CONCLUSIONS: According to this pilot data, athletes seeking to increase power production ability should choose a squatting style in which they feel most proficient and comfortable. Furthermore, either the HBS or LBS can be used as the primary squatting movement, or as a secondary movement to provide variation and remove linearity from the training program. However, based on previous research it is likely that sport specific biomechanical parameters will influence the squatting style selection for the majority of athletes who participate in sports that involve jumping, sprinting, and change of direction. Training with loads between 70% and 80% of HBS 1RM may be optimal for increasing power production ability. Further research using a larger population of well-trained athletes is suggested in order to more precisely compare HBS and LBS power outputs.

Effect of shoes cleat position on physiological and biomechanical variables of cycling performance

Introduction: The cleat under the cycling shoe is generally positioned below the first metatarsal head, directly over the pedal axis (Silberman et al., 2005, Clinical Journal of Sport Medicine, 15, 271-276). Previous studies did not found significant change of oxygen consumption (VO2) with moving forward or backward the cleat position (Van Sickle & Hull, 2007, Journal of Biomechanics, 40, 1262-1267; Paton, 2009, International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, 4, 517-523) although small changes in electromyography (EMG) activity in leg and thigh muscles have been observed (Ericson et al., 1985, Scandinavian Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 17, 53-61; Litzenberger et al., 2008, The Engineering of Sport 7, 1, 215-222). However, these changes have been observed with non cyclist subjects for larger shoe cleat displacements (+ 50 mm).  Purpose: The aim of this study was to investigate the acute effects of small variation of cleat position on the energy cost and pedalling technique (kinetics, kinematics and electromyography) during submaximal cycling. The second purpose was to analyze their effects on supramaximal cycling performance.  Methods: Twelve cyclists participated (25 ± 6 years; 69 ± 7 kg; 1.78 ± 0.05 m; Maximal Aerobic Power: 406 ± 40 W), being amateur and elite cyclists, according to previous conventions (Ansley and Cangley, 2009, European Journal of Sport Science, 9(2), 61-85). They performed three 5-min submaximal pedalling exercises (35, 50 and 65% MAP) and one 10-s supramaximal test (sprint) on Lode Excalibur electromagnetically braked cycle ergometer (Lode B. V., Groningen, The Netherlands). Three different cleat positions were studied in a randomized order: under the first metatarsal head, 15 mm forward and 15 mm backward. Power output, oxygen consumption, kinematics of lower limb joints and surface EMG activity (EMG) of six lower limb muscles (rectus femoris: RF, vastus lateralis: VL, biceps femoris: BF, tibialis anterior: TA, gastrocnemius lateralis: GL, soleus: SOL) were recorded during all the pedalling exercises, at 1, breath-by-breath, 200 and 1000 Hz, respectively. The kinematics and RMS over whole crank cycle of EMG activity were computed during 30 consecutives pedalling cycles. One-way ANOVA for repeated measures was performed to analyse the effect of cleat position on biomechanical and physiological variables.   Results and Discussion: Hip ROM was lower in forward position and ankle ROM was lower in backward position compared to the metatarsal position (Figure 1). None significant differences between the three cleat positions were found for knee ROM and RMS despite trends can be observed in backward position for SOL and GL activity to decrease and for RF and TA activity to increase. These tendencies are consistent with previous studies (Ericson et al., 1985; Litzenberger et al., 2008). Like in previous studies (Van Sickle & Hull, 2007; Paton, 2009), small changes of cleat position had no significant effects on VO2, nor on gross efficiency (19.9 ± 1.9 % ; 19.5 ± 2.1 % ;19.4 ± 2.0 % respectively for forward, metatarsal and backward cleat positions). No significant differences in peak power output were found during the supramaximal test between forward (18.9 ± 3.2 W.kg-1), metatarsal (19.0 ± 3.4 W.kg-1) and backward (19.0 ± 2.9 W.kg-1) cleat positions.  To conclude, the main finding of this study is that small changes of cleat position (± 15 mm) involve slight changes of kinematic of the hip and ankle joints without altering cycling efficiency and maximal power output during supramaximal sprints. Although muscular activity level remains unchanged by variation ± 15 mm of cleat position, these results should be completed by the analysis of the muscle timing activation.

Coffee and Caffeine Ingestion Have Little Effect on Repeated Sprint Cycling in Relatively Untrained Males.

The present study investigated the effect of ingesting caffeine-dose-matched anhydrous caffeine or coffee on the performance of repeated sprints. Twelve recreationally active males (mean ± SD age: 22 ± 2 years, height: 1.78 ± 0.07 m, body mass: 81 ± 16 kg) completed eighteen 4 s sprints with 116 s recovery on a cycle ergometer on four separate occasions in a double-blind, randomised, counterbalanced crossover design. Participants ingested either 3 mg·kg−1 of caffeine (CAF), 0.09 g·kg−1 coffee, which provided 3 mg·kg−1 of caffeine (COF), a taste-matched placebo beverage (PLA), or a control condition (CON) 45 min prior to commencing the exercise protocol. Peak and mean power output and rating of perceived exertion (RPE) were recorded for each sprint. There were no significant differences in peak power output (CAF: 949 ± 199 W, COF: 949 ± 174 W, PLA: 971 ± 149 W and CON: 975 ± 170 W; p = 0.872; = 0.02) or mean power output (CAF: 873 ± 172 W, COF: 862 ± 44 W, PLA: 887 ± 119 W and CON: 892 ± 143 W; p = 0.819; = 0.03) between experimental conditions. Mean RPE was similar for all trials (CAF: 11 ± 2, COF: 11 ± 2, PLA: 11 ± 2 and CON: 11 ± 2; p = 0.927; = 0.01). Neither the ingestion of COF or CAF improved repeated sprint cycling performance in relatively untrained males.

Overestimation of required recovery time during repeated sprint exercise with self-regulated recovery.

This study investigated the reliability and accuracy of self-regulated recovery time and performance during repeated sprinting. On 4 occasions, 14 men (24.5 ± 5.0 years) completed 10 × 6 seconds cycle sprints against 7.5% body mass, self-regulating (SR) recovery time to maintain performance. Subjects then repeated the test, but with a reduced recovery (RR) of 10% less recovery time. Across the first 4 trials, there were no between-trial differences in peak power output (PPO) or mean power output (MPO), recovery time, or fatigue index (p > 0.05). Random variation in recovery time was reduced across trials 3-4 (coefficient of variation [CV] = 7.5%, 95% confidence limits [CL] = 5.4-12.4%) compared with trials 1-2 (CV = 16.0, 95% CL = 11.4-27.0%) and 2-3 (CV = 10.1%, 95% CL = 7.2-16.7%) but was consistent across trials for PPO and MPO (between-trials CV, ≤3.3%). There were no trial effects for any performance, physiological, or perceptual measures when comparing SR with RR (p > 0.05), although heart rate and perceptual measures increased with subsequent sprint efforts (p ≤ 0.05). After 2 familiarization trials, subjects can reliably self-regulate recovery time to maintain performance during repeated sprints. However, subjects overestimate the amount of recovery time required, as reducing this time by 10% had no effect on performance, perceptual, or physiological parameters. Self-regulated sprinting is potentially a reliable training tool, particularly for sprint training where maintenance of work is desired. However, overestimation of required recovery time means that performance improvements may not be achieved if the goal of training is improvement of repeated sprint performance with incomplete recovery.

The influence of acetaminophen on repeated sprint cycling performance

The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of acetaminophen on repeated sprint cycling performance. Nine recreationally active male participants completed a graded exercise test, a familiarisation set of Wingate Anaerobic Tests (WAnTs) and two experimental sets of WAnTs (8 × 30 s sprints, 2 min active rest intervals). In the experimental WAnTs, participants ingested either 1.5 g acetaminophen or a placebo in a double-blind, randomised, crossover design. During the WAnT trials, participants provided ratings of perceived pain 20 s into each sprint. Mean and peak power output and heart rate were recorded immediately following each sprint, and percentage decrement in mean power output was subsequently calculated. Participants cycled at a significantly greater mean power output over the course of 8 WAnTs (p < 0.05) following the ingestion of acetaminophen (391 ± 74 vs. 372 ± 90 W), due to a significantly greater mean power output during sprints 6, 7 and 8 (p < 0.05). Percentage decrements in mean power output were also significantly reduced (p < 0.05) following acetaminophen ingestion (17 ± 14 vs. 24 ± 17 %). No significant differences in peak power output, perceived pain or heart rate were observed between conditions. Acetaminophen may have improved performance through the reduction of pain for a given work rate, thereby enabling participants to exercise closer to a true physiological limit. These results suggest that exercise may be regulated by pain perception, and that an increased pain tolerance can improve exercise performance.

Anaerobic performances in Black and White subjects

The anaerobic performance characteristics of 15 Black males of African ancestry (25 +/- 2 yr; mean +/- SD) and 17 White males of French Canadian ancestry (22 +/- 2 yr) were compared. All subjects were sedentary. Morphological characteristics and body composition were similar in both groups. They were tested for maximal force during voluntary isometric contraction of the knee extensors and for total work output during 10 s, 30 s, and 90 s of maximal and repetitive knee extensions. Results indicated no significant differences between Blacks and Whites in maximal force of the knee extensors (736 +/- 78 N vs 722 +/- 11 N, respectively) and in total work output during the 10-s (1134 +/- 246 J vs 1124 +/- 207 J) and 30-s (2735 +/- 519 J vs 2779 +/- 647 J) tests. There was a difference of about 400 J between Blacks and Whites in the total work output during the 90-s test, but this difference was not statistically significant. However, significant differences were found between Blacks and Whites in the peak power output decrement during the last 60 s of the 90-s anaerobic test. These differences in peak power output between the two groups ranged between 7 and 10 W during the last 30 s of the 90-s test. The results indicate that knee extensor muscles of sedentary Black and White males have similar anaerobic performance power and capacities. However, the results reveal that sedentary Black subjects experience a greater degree of fatigue than sedentary Whites during an anaerobic exercise lasting longer than 30 s.