Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > Effect of different types of conditioning contr...
View graph of relations

Effect of different types of conditioning contraction on upper body postactivation potentiation

Research output: Contribution to Journal/MagazineJournal articlepeer-review

<mark>Journal publication date</mark>1/01/2011
<mark>Journal</mark>Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Issue number1
Number of pages6
Pages (from-to)143-148
Publication StatusPublished
<mark>Original language</mark>English


Esformes, JI, Keenan, M, Moody, J, and Bampouras, TM. Effect of different types of conditioning contraction on upper body postactivation potentiation. J Strength Cond Res 25(1): 143-148, 2011-Muscle contractions preceding an activity can result in increased force generation (postactivation potentiation [PAP]). Although the type of muscular contractions could affect subsequent strength and power performance, little information exists on their effects. The purpose of this study was to examine PAP effects produced by isometric (ISO), concentric (CON), eccentric (ECC), or concentric-eccentric (DYN) conditioning contractions on upper body force and power performance. Ten male, competitive rugby players (mean ± SD: age 20.4 ± 0.8 years, height 177.0 ± 8.1 cm, body mass 90.2 ± 13.8 kg) performed a ballistic bench press throw (BBPT) followed by a 10-minute rest and one of the conditioning contractions. After a 12-minute rest, the subjects performed another BBPT (post-BBPT). The conditioning contractions, applied on separate days and in counterbalanced randomized order, were a 7-second isometric barbell bench press for ISO and 1 set of 3 bench press repetitions at 3 repetition maximum for CON, ECC, and DYN (each repetition lasting 2 seconds for CON and ECC, overall execution time ,7 seconds for DYN). Peak power (Ppeak), peak force (Fpeak), maximum distance (Dmax) and rate of force development (RFD) were measured using a linear position transducer. Electromyography (EMG) of the pectoralis major and triceps brachii was also recorded. The ISO produced significantly higher Ppeak (587 ±116 and 605 ± 126 W for pre-and post-BBPT, respectively; p < 0.05). No significant differences in P peak were revealed for CON, ECC, and DYN (p > 0.05), and no significant differences existed in Fpeak, Dmax, and RFD for ISO, CON, ECC, and DYN (p > 0.05). Finally, EMG was not significantly different between pre- and post-BBPT for any of the conditioning contractions (p > 0.05). Isometric contractions appear to be the only conditioning contractions increasing upper body power output after long resting periods.