Changes in Sprint Kinematics Between Phase Potentiation and Linear PRogressive Models of Resistance Training
James A. Miller
Abstract
James A. Miller
Abstract
Fifteen well-trained males, mid-thigh pull peak force (IPF 4403.61 ± 664.69N) and isometric peak force allometrically scaled (IPFa 226.04 ± 25.81) were assigned to two groups: repetition maximum training (RM) and relative intensity training (RI) for a twelve-week training intervention. The main effect of time showed a statistically significant difference in mean sprint performance and IPFa at the different time points (p < 0.001). There was a larger magnitude of within-subject effect with respect to sprint performance pre – post with the RI group (ES = 1.06, 7.19%) as compared to the RM group (ES = 0.567, 4.23%, p < 0.001), as well as a larger magnitude of within-subject effect with respect to IPFa pre – post with the RI group (ES = 0.426, 7.51%) as compared to the RM group (ES = 0.270, 13.29%). Furthermore, there was a non-statistically significant, moderate between-group difference in the change in IPFa from pre-post in favor of the RI group (ES=.75), and a large between-group difference in the change in sprint performance pre-post in favor of the RI group (ES=1.50). Results lead investigators to suggest the utilization of RI training tactics for the development of sprint performance when minimal sprint skill training is available.
A significance statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.
A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.
Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Fifteen well-trained males, mid-thigh pull peak force (IPF 4403.61 ± 664.69N) and isometric peak force allometrically scaled (IPFa 226.04 ± 25.81) were assigned to two groups: repetition maximum training (RM) and relative intensity training (RI) for a twelve-week training intervention. The main effect of time showed a statistically significant difference in mean sprint performance and IPFa at the different time points (p < 0.001). There was a larger magnitude of within-subject effect with respect to sprint performance pre – post with the RI group (ES = 1.06, 7.19%) as compared to the RM group (ES = 0.567, 4.23%, p < 0.001), as well as a larger magnitude of within-subject effect with respect to IPFa pre – post with the RI group (ES = 0.426, 7.51%) as compared to the RM group (ES = 0.270, 13.29%). Furthermore, there was a non-statistically significant, moderate between-group difference in the change in IPFa from pre-post in favor of the RI group (ES=.75), and a large between-group difference in the change in sprint performance pre-post in favor of the RI group (ES=1.50). Results lead investigators to suggest the utilization of RI training tactics for the development of sprint performance when minimal sprint skill training is available.
Key concepts: Sprint, Kinematics, Resistance training, Training (meteorology), Phase (matter), Mathematics, Computer science, Physics