| Literature DB >> 35010722 |
Lamberto Villalon-Gasch1, Alfonso Penichet-Tomas1, Sergio Sebastia-Amat1, Basilio Pueo1, Jose M Jimenez-Olmedo1.
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to verify if a conditioning activity was effective to elicit postactivation performance enhancement (PAPE) and to increase the performance in vertical jump (VJ) in elite female volleyball players. Eleven national Superliga-2 volleyball players (22.6 ± 3.5 years) were randomly assigned to an experimental and control group. Countermovement jumps (CMJ) were performed on eight occasions: before (Pre-PAPE) and after activation (Post-PAPE), after the match (Pre-Match), and after each of the five-match sets (Set 1 to 5). ANOVA showed significantly increased jump performance for the experiment between baseline (Pre-PAPE) and all the following tests: +1.3 cm (Post-PAPE), +3.0 cm (Pre-Match), +4.8 cm (Set 1), +7.3 cm (Set 2), +5.1 cm (Set 3), +3.6 cm (Set 4), and +4.0 cm (Set 5), all showing medium to large effect size (0.7 < ES < 2.4). The performance of the control group did not show significant increases until Set 3 (+3.2 cm) and Set 5 (+2.9 cm), although jump heights were always lower for the control group than the experimental. The use of conditioning activity generates increased VJ performance in Post-PAPE tests and elicited larger PAPE effects that remain until the second set of a volleyball match.Entities:
Keywords: PAP; RM; back squat; countermovement jump; sports performance; training
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35010722 PMCID: PMC8744649 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19010462
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Characteristics of the subjects aggregated by group (mean ± SD).
| Experimental ( | Control ( | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | 21.33 ± 3.0 | 23.2 ± 3.8 | 22.2 ± 3.3 |
| Height (cm) | 171.3 ± 7.0 | 172.4 ± 8.7 | 171.8 ± 7.8 |
| Body mass (kg) | 64.0 ± 5.3 | 63.0 ± 3.8 | 63.5 ± 4.5 |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 21.8 ± 5.3 | 21.3 ± 2.0 | 21.6 ± 1.6 |
| Volleyball Experience (years) | 8.8 ± 2.7 | 11.0 ± 2.6 | 9.8 ± 2.7 |
| Strength Experience (years) | 3.2 ± 1.8 | 3.2 ± 2.0 | 3.2 ± 1.9 |
BMI: body mass index, n: number of subjects, Volleyball experience: years the subjects have been playing volleyball; strength experience: time that subjects have been doing specific workouts.
Figure 1Experimental design of the study¸ RM: Repetition maximum; CMJ: Countermovement jump; PAPE: Post-activation performance enhancement FIVB: Fedération Internationalle de Volleyball.
Vertical jump height performance (mean ± SD).
| CMJ Experimental (cm) | CMJ Control (cm) |
| ES ( | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pre-PAPE | 34.08 ± 3.98 | 31.35 ± 4.28 | 0.302 | 0.66 [Moderate] |
| Post-PAPE | 35.40 ± 3.69 * | 29.61 ± 4.10 | 0.036 | 1.49 [Large] |
| Pre-Match | 37.10 ± 4.09 *# | 31.38 ± 3.99 | 0.045 | 1.41 [Large] |
| Set 1 | 38.84 ± 4.74 *# | 31.22 ±2.61 | 0.011 | 1.94 [Large] |
| Set 2 | 41.37 ± 4.91 *# | 32.75 ±4.47 | 0.015 | 1.83 [Large] |
| Set 3 | 39.15 ± 4.19 # | 34.60 ± 4.43 # | 0.115 | 1.05 [Large] |
| Set 4 | 37.66 ± 3.98 # | 32.76 ± 2.44 | 0.073 | 1.23 [Large] |
| Set 5 | 38.11 ± 5.40 *# | 34.32 ± 3.26 # | 0.205 | 0.83 [Moderate] |
* Significant difference between control and experimental groups at the same time point (p ˂ 0.05); # Intragroup significant difference between Pre-PAPE and the other post-intervention tests.
Effect size of intragroup differences in CMJ for Pre-PAPE and Pre-Match vs. the rest of the tests for control and experimental groups.
| Experimental | Control | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ES ( |
| ES ( | |
| Pre-PAPE vs. Post-PAPE | 0.147 | 0.70 [Moderate] | 0.127 | 0.87 [Moderate] |
| Pre-PAPE vs. Pre-Match | 0.005 | 1.94 [Large] # | 0.922 | 0.04 [Trivial] |
| Pre-PAPE vs. Set 1 | 0.002 | 2.31 [Large] # | 0.903 | 0.05 [Trivial] |
| Pre-PAPE vs. Set 2 | 0.004 | 2.08 [Large] # | 0.069 | 1.10 [Large] |
| Pre-PAPE vs. Set 3 | 0.002 | 2.40 [Large] # | 0.009 | 2.14 [Large] # |
| Pre-PAPE vs. Set 4 | 0.012 | 1.60 [Large] # | 0.313 | 0.51 [Moderate] |
| Pre-PAPE vs. Set 5 | 0.013 | 1.53 [Large] # | 0.046 | 1.28 [Large] # |
| Pre-Match vs. Set 1 | 0.106 | 0.62 [Moderate] | 0.834 | 0.09 [Trivial] |
| Pre-Match vs. Set 2 | 0.022 | 1.50 [Large] # | 0.050 | 0.74 [Moderate] |
| Pre-Match vs. Set 3 | 0.057 | 0.79 [Moderate] | 0.003 | 1.76 [Large] # |
| Pre-Match vs. Set 4 | 0.508 | 0.01 [Trivial] | 0.268 | 0.76 [Moderate] |
| Pre-Match vs. Set 5 | 0.503 | 0.36 [Low] | 0.015 | 1.61 [Large] # |
# Intragroup Significant difference between Pre-PAPE and Pre -Match with the rest of post-intervention tests.
Figure 2Comparison of the improvement values from Pre-PAPE performance expressed as percentage. * Significant difference between experimental and control groups at the time points: pre-PAPE, Pre-match and Set 1, Set 2, Set 3, Set 4, and Set 5. Bars, whiskers, and dots represent mean, standard deviation and individual values, respectively.