See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/312542196

Effects of Different Relative Loads on Power

Performance during the Ballistic Push-Up

Article in The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research January 2017

DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000001784

CITATIONS READS

0 6

7 authors, including:

Ran Wang Jay R Hoffman

University of Central Florida University of Central Florida
33 PUBLICATIONS 20 CITATIONS 374 PUBLICATIONS 6,378 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Sandro Bartolomei David H Fukuda

University of Central Florida University of Central Florida
13 PUBLICATIONS 24 CITATIONS 169 PUBLICATIONS 572 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Tyler W.D. Muddle on 22 January 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. All in-text references underlined in blue are added to the original document
and are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately.
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research Publish Ahead of Print
DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000001784

Effects of Different Relative Loads on Power Performance during the Ballistic Push-Up

Ran Wang1, Jay R. Hoffman1, *, Eliahu Sadres1, 2, Sandro Bartolomei1, Tyler W.D. Muddle1,

David H. Fukuda1 and Jeffrey R. Stout1

D
TE
1
Institute of Exercise Physiology & Wellness, University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL, USA

2
The Nat Holman School for Coaches and Instructors, Wingate Institute for Physical Education

and Sport, Netanya, Israel

EP
*Corresponding author: Jay R. Hoffman, Ph.D.
C

Institute of Exercise Physiology and Wellness,

University of Central Florida

C

Orlando, FL, 32816

A

jay.hoffman@ucf.edu

Tel: 407:823-1272

Copyright 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this investigation was to examine the effect of load on force and power

performance during a ballistic push-up. Methods: Sixty (24.54.3 y, 1.750.07 m, 80.813.5 kg)

recreationally-active men who participated in this investigation completed all testing and were

included in the data analysis. All participants were required to perform a one repetition

D
maximum (1RM) bench press, and ballistic push-ups without external load (T1), with 10% (T2)

and 20% (T3) of their body mass. Ballistic push-ups during T2 and T3 were performed using a

TE
weight loaded vest. Peak and mean force, power, as well as net impulse and flight time were

determined for each ballistic push-up. Results: Peak and mean force were both significantly

greater (p < 0.01) during T3 (1062202 and 901154 N, respectively), than both T2 (1017202
EP
and 842151 N, respectively) and T1 (960188 and 792140 N, respectively). Peak and mean

power were significantly greater (p < 0.01) during T1 (950257 and 521148 W, respectively),

than both T2 (872246 and 485143 W, respectively) and T3 (814275 and 485162 W,

respectively). Peak and mean power was greatest during T1, regardless of participants strength
C

levels. Significant (p < 0.01) greater net impulse and smaller peak velocity and flight time were

also noted from T1 to T3. Conclusions: Results of this investigation indicated that maximal
C

power outputs were achieved without the use of an external load when performing the ballistic

push-up, regardless of the participants level of strength.

A

Key Words: Optimal Intensity; Strength; Force-time Curve; Upper-body Strength

Copyright 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association

Introduction

Muscular power is considered to be one of the main determinants for many explosive, short

duration sporting events (24). The determination of muscular power originates from the force-

velocity relationship proposed by Hill (12), who found that an isolated muscle contracts at a

D
velocity inversely proportional to the intensity of the action. During single joint movements,

peak power was reported to be achieved at approximately 30% of maximal isometric strength

TE
(16), or at 35% of one repetition maximum (1RM) (22). For multi-joint muscle actions, the

optimal intensity varies with the exercise. Baker and colleagues (4) reported that peak power

occurred at an intensity ranging between 55-59% of the participants 1RM in the jump squat
EP
exercise. Others have reported that peak power in Olympic weightlifting movements occur

between 70-80% 1RM (17). Cronin and colleagues (8) reported that peak power was noted at 50-

70% 1RM during bench press and bench throw exercises. The resistance of body mass need to be

overcome during the aforementioned multi-joint exercises. However, most studies have
C

neglected this issue which may explain the variation in the optimal intensity for certain exercises.

McBride and colleagues (19) examined jump squat performance with various loads and reported
C

that peak power was significantly higher at unloaded conditions (body mass only) in comparison

with 20% and 40% of 1RM. In consideration of the importance associated with maximizing
A

power performance during resistance training, identifying the optimal intensity for certain

exercises, especially those involved with body mass resistance, becomes important.

Resistance training programs incorporating explosive movements such as the power clean

and squat jump have been demonstrated to be superior for developing peak power than

traditional power lifting movements (14, 18, 27). However, there appears to be limits in the

Copyright 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association

explosive movements that can be used as an upper-body exercise to enhance power performance

in that specific region of the body. Although the bench press throw has been investigated (4, 8,

23), the need for specific equipment and spotters may limit its use during daily training. Push-

ups have been proposed to be an alternative exercise to enhance upper body power gains if

muscle activation is sufficient (5). Previously, it has been demonstrated that the inclusion of the

D
ballistic push-up could benefit upper-body strength and power (18). However, some investigators

have indicated that push-ups performed unloaded (individuals body mass only) may not

TE
maximize upper-body strength and power gains (10, 11). As such, it has been proposed that

increasing the intensity of the exercise by wearing a weighted vest may improve performance

outcomes (6, 10). However, to the best of our knowledge, no study has investigated the effect of

different loads, expressed as a percentage of body mass, on maximizing power output during the
EP
ballistic push-up.

Therefore, the purpose of this investigation was to determine whether external load is

needed to maximize power output in the ballistic push-up in recreationally-active men. We

C

sought to further examine the influence of strength, as determined by relative 1RM bench press,

on this load-power relationship for the ballistic push-up. Our directional hypothesis is that body
C

mass alone is sufficient to provide enough resistance to produce greater power output than

loaded with 10% and 20% body mass in the ballistic push-up, regardless of the strength level of
A

the participant.

Copyright 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association

Methods

Experimental Approach to the Problem

A cross-sectional design was used to examine the optimal load for the ballistic push-up. All

study participants reported to the laboratory on three separate occasions. During the first visit,

participants were familiarized with the ballistic push-up. During the following two visits,

D
participants completed ballistic push-up testing and 1RM bench press testing in a random order.

Participants

TE
Eighty-four recreationally-active men who were familiar with weight lifting volunteered to

participate in this investigation. Sixty participants (24.5 4.3 years, 1.75 0.07 m, and 80.8

13.5 kg) completed all testing. The study was approved by the Universitys Institutional Review
EP
Board. Testing procedures were fully explained to each participant prior to obtaining their signed

informed consent. In an attempt to eliminate the potential of fatigue, participants were asked to

refrain from any strenuous physical activity for the previous 48 hours.
C

Ballistic Push-up Testing

Prior to beginning the test, each participant completed a general warm-up that included dynamic
C

movements and 5 minutes of cycling exercise. They were instructed to adopt a prone position on

the force plate (AccuPower, AMTI, Watertown, USA) with their hands placed approximately
A

shoulder width apart at a self-selected, comfortable distance. They were asked to move into the

starting position by lowering themselves until their chest made contact with the force plate, while

keeping their body straight. Once stable in the starting position, participants were then instructed

to push as explosively as possible to full arm extension and achieve as much height as possible

with hands leaving the force plate. They performed six ballistic push-up trials, two at each

Copyright 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association

condition: without external load (T1), with a weighted vest containing resistance equaling 10%

(T2) and 20% (T3) of their body mass. The order of the trials were not randomized, and occurred

from T1-T3. A rest interval of 3-5 minutes was provided between trials to ensure recovery. All

trials were completed under the supervision of a certified strength and conditioning specialist.

Maximal Strength Testing

D
A 1RM bench press test was performed using methods previously described by Hoffman (13).

Prior to beginning the test, each participant completed a general warm-up that included dynamic

TE
movements and 5 minutes of cycling exercise. Each participant then performed two warm-up

sets using a resistance that was approximately 40 60% and 60 80% of their estimated 1RM,

respectively. The third set was the first attempt at the participants 1RM. If the set was
EP
successfully completed, then weight was added and another set was attempted. If the set was not

successfully completed, then the weight was reduced and another set was attempted. A 3-5

minute rest period was provided between each set. This process of adding and removing weight

was continued until a 1RM was reached. Attempts that did not meet the range of motion criterion
C

for each exercise, as determined by the researcher, were discarded. The participants were
C

required to lower the bar to their chest before initiating concentric movement. Their grip widths

were measured and recorded for later use. All testing was completed under the supervision of a
A

certified strength and conditioning specialist. In order to examine the effect of strength on power

performance, participants were separated into three groups (G1, G2 and G3) based upon relative

1RM bench press strength criteria previously published by the American College of Sports

Medicine (20).

Copyright 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association

Data Processing

The vertical force-time data for each ballistic push-up trial was recorded with a sample rate of

1,000 Hz and then processed using a customized MATLAB (The MathWorks, Inc., Natick, USA)

program. The initial mass was determined from the stable phase in the starting position. Peak

force and mean force were defined as the highest and average force achieved during the

D
concentric phase of the push-up movement, respectively. The test-retest reliability for peak and

mean force was ICC = 0.97 (SEM = 45 N) and 0.99 (SEM = 21N), respectively. Net impulse was

TE
defined as the area under the force-time curve and above the initiation weight line within the

concentric phase of the push-up movement. The test-retest reliability for net impulse was ICC =

0.96 (SEM = 5.9 Ns). Peak power and mean power was defined as the highest and average
EP
power output resulted from the impulse-momentum relationship, as described previously (7).

The test-retest reliability for peak and mean power was ICC = 0.88 (SEM = 123 W) and 0.90

(SEM = 66 W), respectively. Peak velocity was defined as the highest velocity resulted from the

accumulation of force over time. Flight time was defined as the time in the air and determined
C

from the vertical force-time data. The test-retest reliability for peak velocity and flight time was

ICC = 0.86 (SEM = 0.12 ms-1) and 0.75 (SEM = 0.05 s), respectively.
C

Statistical Analysis
A

The best trial at each loading condition, as determined by mean power output, was included into

the statistical analysis. The Shapiro-Wilk test were conducted to test normality of each variable.

Comparisons between trials (T1, T2, and T3) was performed with a one-way analysis of variance

(ANOVA) with repeated measures. To compare the effect of strength on both peak and mean

power performance we performed a two-way mixed (group x trial) ANOVA with repeated

measures. In the event of a significant F ratio, pairwise comparisons with Bonferroni correction

Copyright 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association

were used to determine significant differences. Greenhouse-Geisser correction was used in the

case of the violation of Mauchly's test of sphericity. As suggested previously (21), the effect size

was determined by partial eta squared (2) and interpreted as small (0.01), medium (0.06), and

large (0.14). The concurrent changes in velocity as the external load increases was also examined

and the linear regression line was derived for each group. All data were analyzed using IBM

D
SPSS Statistics for Windows version 22.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY). Data are presented as

mean SD.

TE
[Place Table 1 here]

Results
The Effect of Different Loads on Performance Measurements
EP
Differences in performance measurements between T1, T2, and T3 can be observed in Figure 1.

Significant differences were observed in both peak force (F (2, 118) = 100.794, p < 0.001, 2 =

0.631) and mean force (F (2, 118) = 370.505, p < 0.001, 2 = 0.863) between trials. Pairwise
C

comparisons revealed that both peak and mean force were significantly lower during T1 than T2

(p < 0.001) and T3 (p < 0.001).

C

Net impulse was significantly different between trials (F (2, 118) = 19.583, p < 0.001, 2

= 0.249). Pairwise comparisons demonstrated that net impulse increased significantly from T1 to
A

T2 (p = 0.001) and T3 (p < 0.001). Significant differences were also noted for peak (F (2, 118) =

31.500, p < 0.001, 2 = 0.348) and mean power (F (2, 118) = 21.112, p < 0.001, 2 = 0.264).

Pairwise comparisons indicated that peak power decreased significantly from T1 to T2 (p <

0.001) and T3 (p < 0.001). Differences between T2 and T3 were also significant (p < 0.001).

Significant decreases in mean power were observed between T1 and both T2 (p = 0.001) and T3

(p < 0.001). Differences were also noted between T2 and T3 (p = 0.004) in mean power.

Copyright 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association

 Peak velocity differed significantly between trials (F (2, 118) = 161.700, p < 0.001, 2 =

0.733). Pairwise comparisons demonstrated that peak velocity increased significantly from T1 to

both T2 (p < 0.001) and T3 (p < 0.001). Significant differences were also observed between T2

and T3 (p < 0.001). A significant difference in flight time was noted between trials (F (2, 118) =

68.801, p < 0.001, 2 = 0.538). Pairwise comparisons indicated that the flight time decreased

D
significantly from T1 to T2 (p < 0.001) and T3 (p < 0.001). Differences in flight time were also

observed between T2 and T3 (p < 0.001).

TE
[Place Figure 1 here]

The Effect of Strength on Peak and Mean Power Outputs

No interactions were found between groups and trials for either peak (F (4, 92.2) = 0.786,
EP
p = 0.513, 2 = 0.027) or mean power (F (4, 97.9) = 0.906, p < 0.452, 2 = 0.031). However, a

main effect for trials was noted in both peak (F (4, 92.2) = 31.833, p < 0.001, 2 = 0.358) and

mean power (F (4, 97.9) = 21.558, p < 0.001, 2 = 0.274). Pairwise comparisons with groups
C

combined revealed that peak and mean power during T1 was significantly greater than T2 (p <

0.001 and p= 0.001, respectively) and T3 (p < 0.001 and p < 0.001, respectively). Peak and mean
C

power during T2 was also significantly greater than T3 (p < 0.001 and p = 0.004, respectively).

Regardless of the participants strength level, both peak and mean power during T1 were
A

significantly greater than T2 or T3. A main effect for group (collapsed across trials) was also

observed for both peak (F (2, 57) = 7.606, p = 0.001, 2 = 0.211) and mean power (F (2, 57) =

6.705, p = 0.002, 2 = 0.190). Pairwise comparisons indicated that peak power in G1 was

significantly lower than only G3 (p = 0.001). No differences were observed between G1 and G2

(p = 0.163) or between G2 and G3 (p = 0.232). Similarly, mean power in G1 was significantly

Copyright 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association

lower than that observed in G3 (p = 0.002), and no differences were noted between G1 and G2 (p

= 0.220) or G2 and G3 (p = 0.279).

Figure 2 depicts peak velocity and relative mean force averaged across the participants in

each group for all three trials. A line of best fit was derived from T1, T2, and T3 for each group,

respectively. The slope values for each group indicated that changes in relative mean force was

D
inversely related to changes in peak velocity. The decrease in peak velocity, as determined by the

slope of the regression line, were similar between groups (F (2, 56) = 2.196, p = 0.121).

TE
[Place Figure 2 here]

Discussion
The aim of the current study was to identify the optimal load for power performance in the
EP
ballistic push-up, and to examine the influence of strength level on the optimal load for this

exercise. We employed three different loading conditions: without external load (T1), with

external load equaling to 10% (T2) and 20% (T3) of body mass. We hypothesized that the power

output from the ballistic push-up could be maximized using just body mass, regardless of the
C

strength level of the participants. Results from this study provide evidence to support the first
C

part of our hypothesis, as the highest power output was achieved at T1 without external load.

Since power is calculated as the product of force and velocity, and its optimization relies on the
A

balance between force and velocity, we also quantified the corresponding change in each of these

variables. Both peak and mean force increased between 10% and 13% on average as load

increased from T1 to T3. As load increased from T1 to T3, peak velocity decreased by 25%.

Flight time also decreased by 40%, indicating that take-off velocity was reduced at higher loads.

The reduced peak and mean power outputs at the heavier loading reflected an inability of

elevations in force output to compensate for the decrement in velocity. In contrast from previous

10

Copyright 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association

suggestions that bodyweight push-ups may be disadvantageous due to the lack of resistance (10,

11), our results indicate that an unloaded ballistic push-up provides sufficient external resistance

to generate high movement velocities resulting in greater power production than loaded with

10% and 20% of body mass. Our findings are also supported by Winter et al. (28), who

suggested that power reflects the impulse-momentum relationship. Similarly, net impulse

D
recorded in this investigation was observed to decrease with power as load was elevated.

Power performance did not appear to be influenced by strength level. Participants in all

TE
three strength groups maximized their power output when performing the ballistic push-up at T1

without external load. Although body mass was similar between groups, body mass

corresponded to 66.6 7.2%, 55.3 3.1 %, and 48.3 3.9 % of 1RM bench press for G1, G2 and
EP
G3, respectively. Moreover, relative strength, as determined by the ratio of 1RM bench press and

body mass, was 1.15 0.11, 1.39 0.05, 1.62 0.10 for all three groups, respectively. Our

results indicated that body mass alone, appears to be the optimal load to maximize power output,

regardless of strength level. It has been reported that stronger individuals are capable of
C

maintaining peak velocity as external load increases (25). However, this contention is not

supported by our findings. As shown in Figure 2, the slope of the linear regression line was -
C

0.272, -0.225, and -0.235 for G1, G2, and G3, respectively, indicating that peak velocity

decreased at a similar rate between groups as the external load increased. It also highlights the
A

dominant contribution of velocity over force for power production in the ballistic push-up. The

greater power outputs observed during T1 (lowest load) is similar to previous investigations

reporting on the optimal intensity for power production in the ballistic bench press throw (3, 9).

Baker and colleagues (3) have suggested that maximal power outputs are generally observed at

low intensity levels (around 50% 1RM bench press) in competitive strength/power athletes. Its

11

Copyright 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association

not surprising considering that the bench press throw and ballistic push-up are both ballistic

movements recruiting similar muscle groups. However, the biomechanical differences between

these two exercises should not be neglected. The bench press throw is an open-chain, single-

plane exercise while the effective propulsive phase of the ballistic push-up is a closed-chain,

multi-plane exercise. Therefore, the muscles activated and the order of muscle activation may

D
not be the same. It should be noted that body mass was the minimum load examined for

participants in our study. This indicates the optimal load might be lighter than body mass for

TE
individuals with relative low strength levels to maximize the power output in the ballistic push-

up. From a training perspective, our findings may have important implications for individuals

with similar strength levels with G1 since up to 75% of the body mass was supported by hands

during push-up (26). Considering the fact that knee push-up reduced the percentage supported by
EP
hands to 60% of the body mass (26), it might be a better option for these individuals.

There are several limitations of this study. The data were derived from only three loads,

which is less than that used in examinations of other upper body power modalities (e.g. bench
C

press throw) (1-4). Future studies may consider examining the ballistic push-up power output at

lower loads through elevating the upper body position, or using a knee push-up position,
C

especially in weaker individuals. Participants in this study were all men. Future studies should

explore the optimal load for power performance in women in consideration of the gender
A

differences known in body mass distribution and upper-body strength level (15).

12

Copyright 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association

Practical Applications

Traditionally, strength and conditioning professionals have had few choices for exercises

targeted at upper body power, which is crucial for athletes in various sports. The ballistic push-

up requires no equipment and provides a feasible and cost-effective option that can serve as an

alternative to bench press throw for upper body power. The results of this study indicated that

D
greater power outputs occurred while performing the ballistic push-up without any additional

weight. This is consistent across individuals with varying strength levels. It should also be noted

TE
that the intensity associated with body mass may still be too high for untrained and novice

athletes.
EP
References

1. Argus CK, Gill ND, Keogh JW, and Hopkins WG. Assessing the variation in the load

that produces maximal upper-body power. J Strength Cond Res 28: 240-244, 2014.

2. Baker D. Comparison of upper-body strength and power between professional and

C

college-aged rugby league players. J Strength Cond Res 15: 30-35, 2001.

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

C

league football players. J Strength Cond Res 15: 198-209, 2001.

4. Baker D, Nance S, and Moore M. The load that maximizes the average mechanical power
A

output during explosive bench press throws in highly trained athletes. J Strength Cond

Res 15: 20-24, 2001.

5. Calatayud J, Borreani S, Colado JC, Martin F, Tella V, and Andersen LL. Bench press

and push-up at comparable levels of muscle activity results in similar strength gains. J

Strength Cond Res 29: 246-253, 2015.

13

Copyright 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association

6. Contreras B, Schoenfeld B, Mike J, Tiryaki-Sonmez G, Cronin J, and Vaino E. The

Biomechanics of the Push-up: Implications for resistance training programs. Strength

Cond J 34: 41-46, 2012.

7. Cormie P, McBride JM, and McCaulley GO. Validation of power measurement

techniques in dynamic lower body resistance exercises. J Appl Biomech 23: 103-118,

D
2007.

8. Cronin J, McNair PJ, and Marshall RN. Developing explosive power: a comparison of

TE
technique and training. J Sci Med Sport 4: 59-70, 2001.

9. Cronin J and Sleivert G. Challenges in understanding the influence of maximal power

training on improving athletic performance. Sports Med 35: 213, 2005.

10. Ghigiarelli JJ. Advanced Loading Variations in the Push-up Exercise. Strength Cond J 35:
EP
107-110, 2013.

11. Harrison JS. Bodyweight training: A return to basics. Strength Cond J 32: 52-55, 2010.

12. Hill AV. The Effect of Load on the Heat of Shortening of Muscle. Proc R Soc Lond B
C

Biol Sci 159: 297-318, 1964.

13. Hoffman JR. Physiological aspects of sport training and performance. Champaign, IL:
C

Human Kinetics, 2014.

14. Hoffman JR, Cooper J, Wendell M, and Kang J. Comparison of Olympic vs. traditional
A

power lifting training programs in football players. J Strength Cond Res 18: 129-135,

2004.

15. Janssen I, Heymsfield SB, Wang Z, and Ross R. Skeletal muscle mass and distribution in

468 men and women aged 1888 yr. J Appl Physiol 89: 81-88, 2000.

14

Copyright 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association

16. Kaneko M, Fuchimoto T, Toji H, and Suei K. Training effect of different loads on the

force-velocity relationship and mechanical power output in human muscle. Scand J

Sports Sci 5: 50-55, 1983.

17. Kawamori N, Crum AJ, Blumert PA, Kulik JR, Childers JT, Wood JA, Stone MH, and

Haff GG. Influence of different relative intensities on power output during the hang

D
power clean: identification of the optimal load. J Strength Cond Res 19: 698-708, 2005.

18. Mangine GT, Ratamess NA, Hoffman JR, Faigenbaum AD, Kang J, and Chilakos A. The

TE
effects of combined ballistic and heavy resistance training on maximal lower-and upper-

body strength in recreationally trained men. J Strength Cond Res 22: 132-139, 2008.

19. McBride JM, Kirby TJ, Haines TL, and Skinner J. Relationship between relative net

vertical impulse and jump height in jump squats performed to various squat depths and
EP
with various loads. Int J Sports Physiol Perform 5: 484-496, 2010.

20. Medicine ACoS. ACSM's guidelines for exercise testing and prescription. Philadelphia,

PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2013.

C

21. Miles J and Shevlin M. Applying regression and correlation: A guide for students and

researchers. Sage, 2001.

C

22. Moss B, Refsnes P, Abildgaard A, Nicolaysen K, and Jensen J. Effects of maximal effort

strength training with different loads on dynamic strength, cross-sectional area, load-
A

power and load-velocity relationships. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol 75: 193-199,

1997.

23. Newton RU, Murphy AJ, Humphries BJ, Wilson GJ, Kraemer WJ, and Hkkinen K.

Influence of load and stretch shortening cycle on the kinematics, kinetics and muscle

15

Copyright 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association

 activation that occurs during explosive upper-body movements. Eur J Appl Physiol

Occup Physiol 75: 333-342, 1997.

24. Seitz LB, Reyes A, Tran TT, de Villarreal ES, and Haff GG. Increases in lower-body

strength transfer positively to sprint performance: a systematic review with meta-analysis.

Sports Med 44: 1693-1702, 2014.

D
25. Sheppard JM, Cormack S, Taylor K-L, McGuigan MR, and Newton RU. Assessing the

force-velocity characteristics of the leg extensors in well-trained athletes: the incremental

TE
load power profile. J Strength Cond Res 22: 1320-1326, 2008.

26. Suprak DN, Dawes J, and Stephenson MD. The effect of position on the percentage of

body mass supported during traditional and modified push-up variants. J Strength Cond

Res 25: 497-503, 2011.

EP
27. Vissing K, Brink M, Lnbro S, Srensen H, Overgaard K, Danborg K, Mortensen J,

Elstrm O, Rosenhj N, and Ringgaard S. Muscle adaptations to plyometric vs. resistance

training in untrained young men. J Strength Cond Res 22: 1799-1810, 2008.
C

28. Winter EM, Abt G, Brookes FB, Challis JH, Fowler NE, Knudson DV, Knuttgen HG,

Kraemer WJ, Lane AM, van Mechelen W, Morton RH, Newton RU, Williams C, and
C

Yeadon MR. Misuse of "Power" and Other Mechanical Terms in Sport and Exercise

Science Research. J Strength Cond Res 30: 292-300, 2016.

A

16

Copyright 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association

 Table 1. Comparison of anthropometric measures of participants between groups.
Group G1 G2 G3
Age (y) 24.72 4.16 24.22 4.17 24.54 4.75
Height (m) 1.77 0.07 1.76 0.07 1.74 0.07
Body Mass (kg) 80.19 15.29 80.80 13.47 81.15 12.71
#
1RM (kg) 92.17 18.42 112.37 17.11 131.35 22.17 #*
1RM/Body Mass 1.15 0.11 1.39 0.05 # 1.62 0.10 #*
T1 Peak Power (W) 805 187 950 218 1057 283

D
T2 Peak Power (W) 734 163 850 198 993 276
T3 Peak Power (W) 638 171 817 210 944 313

TE
T1 Mean Power (W) 447 107 517 116 581 172
T2 Mean Power (W) 406 82 474 124 554 161
T3 Mean Power (W) 359 117 462 128 530 181

# indicates significantly different from G1;

* indicates significantly different from G2.
EP
C
C
A

Copyright 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association

 D
TE
EP
Figure 1. Comparisons in peak force, mean force, peak power, mean power, net impulse and
flight time between three trials. # indicates significantly different from T1; * indicates
C

significantly different from T2.

C
A

Copyright 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association

 D
TE
EP
Figure 2. Scatter plot between peak velocity and relative mean force (normalized to body mass)
averaged across the participants in G1 (triangle), G2 (circle) and G3 (square) for all three trials.
The linear regression lines are also shown for G1 (dot line), G2 (dash line), and G3 (solid line),
C

respectively.
C
A

View publication stats Copyright 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association