Objectives: The aim of this investigation was to compare peak power between the mid-thigh power clean, squat jump and push press. Design and Methods: Eleven recreationally trained men (age 22.2 ± 3.5 yrs; height 178.6 ± 8.5 cm; body mass 88.7 ± 13.5 kg) performed one set of three repetitions of the mid-thigh power clean, squat jump and push press, with 50, 60 and 70% of respective 1RM, while standing on two force platforms. The effect of load and lift on peak power was analyzed with two-way analysis of variance. Results: Peak power was highest during mid-thigh power clean (4739.2 ± 1015.8 W), but was not significantly higher than the squat jump (4430.4 ± 1140.3 W, Cohen’s d = 0.29) and push press (4071.1 ± 1552.3 W, Cohen’s d = 0.51) performed at equiva lent intensities. Similarly, the load effect on peak power was non-significant and trivial (Cohen’s d < 0.35). Conclusions: The findings of this study show that when training to maximize peak power output the mid-thigh power clean, squat jump and push press performed at 50-70% of 1RM could be incorporated interchangeably without any detriment to peak power output.
Objectives: Sport plays a major role in the physical activity, wellbeing and socialisation of children and adults. However, a growing prevalence of concussions in sports persists, furthermore, that subconcussive forces are responsible for neurodegenerative conditions. Current approaches towards concussion prevention are dependent upon coaching strategies and enforcement by referees, or only attempt to reduce further injury, not prevent initial injury occurring. A growing body of research has shown that strengthening the muscles of the neck might serve to reduce head acceleration, change in velocity and dissipate kinetic energy from concussive and subconcussive forces. Design: Following ethical approval and parental consent a single arm, pilot study recruited 13 male and 13 female high school stu dents to undertake 8 weeks of neck strengthening exercises 2 d.wk-1. Method: A low-volume, time-efficient approach considered progressive strength training for neck extension, flexion, and right- and left-lateral flexion exercises for a single set to muscular failure. Results: Strength outcome data was analysed using paired samples t-tests comparing predicted 1-repetition maximum for week 1 and week 8 revealing significant strength improvements for both males and females for all exercises; p < 0.001. Effect sizes were very large (2.3-4.3) for all exercises for both males and females. Conclusions: Participants showed very large increases in neck strength suggesting previous detrained condition and the potential to significantly improve strength using a simple, low volume, resistance training protocol. Athletic training should prioritise health of participants and longevity of career and as such the authors present a neck strengthening protocol with a view to reducing injury risks.
Resistance training increases muscle size and strength and is associated with numerous health benefits. For many, periodization serves as the cornerstone of programming for resistance training and is commonly touted in the literature as a superior method of training. Objective: To review the literature on the effects of periodization for those looking to improve muscle size and strength. Design and Methods: Non-systematic review. Research articles were collected using search terms such as linear periodization, non-linear periodization, non-periodized, undulating periodization, and strength training models. Results: Previous research has found no differences in muscle size between periodized and non-periodized training programs. Further, there are conflicting reports on what periodized program is superior for increasing muscle strength. It is our contention that the proposed superiority in strength with periodized programs is often explained by the principle of specificity. Conclusion: The use of a periodized program may be advantageous for an athlete in certain sports due to practice and competi tions throughout the season. However, we wish to suggest that the proposed benefits of periodization for those only interested in increasing muscle size and strength are largely founded in conjecture and that there is little compelling evidence that periodization is a superior method of training.