Naclerio, F., Faigenbaum, A., Larumbe, E., Friedman, P. E., & Ratamess, N. (2012). Effects of eight post-activation potentiation protocols on jump and sprint performance in college athletes. Presentation 599 at the 59th Annual Meeting of the American College of Sports Medicine, San Francisco, California; May 29-June 2, 2012.

red line

This study examined the effects of eight different parallel squat (PS) post-activation potentiation (PAP) protocols, with and without neuromuscular vibration, on jumping and sprint performance in male college athletes (N = 15). Ss were exposed to three conditions: 1) parallel squat with 80% 1 RM on stable surface; 2) parallel squat with 80% 1 RM onto a whole body vibration platform (1.7 to 2.3 mm amplitude and 40Hz); and 3) control sham condition with no parallel squat or vibration. Each of the conditions was performed for one set of three reps or three sets of three reps followed by a passive period of one or four minutes rest before performing three repetitions of a countermovement jump, one drop jump, and a 30 m sprint. Before the intervention, Ss performed a 1 RM squat, a countermovement jump, a progressive drop jump test on the force plate, and a maximum 30 m sprint on a Woodway Force 3.0 treadmill. The countermovement jump, drop-jump height, power, as well as the velocity and power of the 30m sprint were measured after each protocol and compared with the pre-performance measures as well as between the results obtained in each of the conditions.

There were no significant differences in speed or power between the height, power, or velocity assessed through the three activities. Different rest periods had no effect. Large variability in performances was observed.

Implication. Post-activation potentiation did not affect speed or power in college males.

Return to Table of Contents for this issue.

red line