1. PREVIOUS DYNAMIC AND BALISTIC
CONDITIONING CONTRACTIONS CAN ENHANCE
SUBSEQUENT THROWING PERFORMANCE
Theodoros M. Bampouras1
, Alex Gill2
, Irini Tzidimopoulou3
, Dr Joseph I. Esformes2
1
Faculty of Health and Wellbeing, University of Cumbria, Lancaster, UK
2
Cardiff School of Sport, University of Wales Institute, Cardiff, Cardiff, UK
3
Tae-Kwon-Do Athletic Club Egaleo, Athens, Greece
19th International Congress of Physical Education and Sport
Democritus University of Thrace
Komotini, Greece, 20-22 May 2011
Introduction
Previous muscle activity can potentiate subsequent muscle
performance, a phenomenon known as postactivation potentiation
(Tillin and Bishop, 2009). Although heavy load dynamic exercise has
been successfully used to acutely enhance subsequent explosive
performance (Esformes et al, 2010), little information exists for
ballistic activity as a conditioning contraction (CC). The purpose of
this study was to determine whether throwing performance could be
enhanced if preceded by heavy dynamic (DYN) or ballistic (BAL) CCs.
Methods
Eleven male, competitive rugby players (mean±SD: age 21.0±1.1; body
mass 91.3±10.2 kg; height 179.7±3.7 cm) performed a ballistic bench press
throw (pre-BBPT) at 40% of 1 repetition maximum (1RM) followed by a
10-min rest and one of the CCs. The CCs, applied on separate days and in
counterbalanced randomized order, were 1 set of 3 repetitions of bench press
(DYN) at ~85% of 1RM or BBPT at 30% of 1RM (BAL). After a 4-minute rest,
the subjects performed another BBPT (post-BBPT). A schematic diagram of
the experimental procedures can be seen in Fig. 1. Peak power (Ppeak), force
(Fpeak), distance (Dmax), and velocity (Vpeak), and rate of force development
(RFD), force at peak power (F@Ppeak), and velocity at peak power
(V@Ppeak) were measured using a linear position transducer (Ballistic
Measurement System, Fitness Technology, Skye, South Australia, Australia).
Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of the experimental procedures. Measures of
performance during a ballistic bench press throw (BBPT) were taken before
(baseline; pre-BBPT) and after (post-contraction; post-BBPT) the conditioning
stimuli, which were either 1 set of 3 repetitions of bench press at ~85%
of 1RM or a BBPT at 30% of 1RM performed on separate days and in
randomised, counterbalanced order.
Statistical analysis
As some data were not normally distributed, Friedman’s test was employed
to examine for differences within each variable, followed by Wilcoxon’s
test when significant differences were identified. No correction for pairwise
comparison was applied and significance level was set at 0.05.
Results
No significant differences were revealed for Fpeak, F@Ppeak, Ppeak, and RFD
(P>0.05) for any CC (Table 1). However, significant differences were revealed
for Dpeak for the BAL only (P<0.05), and for Vpeak (P<0.05) and V@Ppeak
(P<0.05) for both interventions (Table 1).
Table 1. Pre- and post-BBPT performance variables scores (mean±SD)
following heavy load dynamic (DYN) and ballistic (BAL) conditioning
contractions.
Discussion
Our findings indicate that ballistic conditioning contractions can improve
subsequent throwing performance, while performance improvements that
relate to velocity can be enhanced by both ballistic and dynamic contractions.
Although, on this occasion, the change in velocity was not sufficient to cause
a change in power or indeed a shift of the power curve (Cormie et al, 2009),
future studies should explore different loads and rest intervals, as power-
curve changes have been shown to be of great importance in monitoring
and performance.
References
Cormie P, McBride JM, McCaulley GO. (2009). J Strength Cond Res, 23, 177-186.
Esformes JI, Cameron N, Bampouras TM. (2010). J Strength Cond Res, 24, 1911-1916.
Tillin NA, Bishop D. (2009). Sports Med, 39, 147-166.
Contact
Theodoros M. Bampouras
Senior Lecturer in Sport Mechanics and Performance Analysis
E-mail: theodoros.bampouras@cumbria.ac.uk
Pre-BBPT 10’ rest Conditioning
Contraction
4’ rest Post-BBPT
BAL DYN
Variables Pre Post Pre Post
Ppeak (W) 378.7 ± 68.5 436.8 ± 71.5 350.1 ± 118.7 451.9 ± 103.2
Fpeak (N) 380.2 ± 75.6 413.3 ± 110.2 416.1 ± 71.7 390.8 ± 94.9
Dpeak (m) 0.20 ± 0.05 0.25 ± 0.05* 0.25 ± 0.14 0.26 ± 0.06
Vpeak (ms-1
) 1.1 ± 0.4 1.2 ± 0.3* 1.0 ± 0.5 1.3 ± 0.2*
RFD (Ns-1
) 9291 ± 1904 9563 ± 1980 10550 ± 1562 9441 ± 1866
F@Ppeak (ms-1
) 319.0 ± 58.6 328.1 ± 63.0 349.5 ± 47.0 326.3 ± 70.1
V@Ppeak ((ms-1
) 1.0 ± 0.4 1.2 ± 0.2* 0.9 ± 0.5 1.2 ± 0.2*
Ppeak, Peak power; Fpeak, peak force; Dpeak, maximal displacement; Vpeak, peak
velocity; RFD, rate of force development; F@Ppeak, force at peak power; V@Ppeak,
velocity at peak power.
* indicates significant pre-post difference (P<0.05).

2. AGILITY PERFORMANCE IS CORRELATED TO
POWER BUT NOT TO STRENGTH OR SPEED
Dr Joseph I. Esformes1
, Duncan Fulling1
, Theodoros M. Bampouras2
1
Cardiff School of Sport, University of Wales Institute, Cardiff, Cardiff, UK
2
Faculty of Health and Wellbeing, University of Cumbria, Lancaster, UK
Introduction
Agility is an important physical component for successful
performance in many opposition sports, combining perceptual
and decision-making abilities and rapid change of direction
(Sheppard et al, 2006; Young et al, 2002). Although previous studies
have examined the relationship between agility and other physical
attributes (Jones et al, 2009; Young et al, 2002), the agility task
used did not account for the decision-making component.
Therefore, the aim of the present study was to investigate the
relationship of agility to power, strength, and speed.
Methods
Twelve male, competitive rugby players (mean±SD: age 20.5±0.6 years,
height 1.86±0.06 m, body mass 92.5±9.1 kg) performed an agility test (AGI),
a half squat strength test (HS), a power test (5 rebound jumps test (5RJ),
and a 40m sprint test (SPRINT). For AGI, subjects run a 15m course, passing
through two sets of timing gates (Smartspeed Timing Gates, Fusion Sport,
Brisbane, Australia). The first set was 5m away from the start and the second
5m away from the first set and the course end. The first left or right turn was
unanticipated and the direction was indicated by a visual stimulus from the
second set of timing gates once the first gate was broken (Oliver and Meyers,
2009; Fig.1). 5m splits and total time was recorded. Strength was assessed by 1
repetition maximum for the HS. 5RJ took place on a contact mat (Smartjump,
Fusion Sport, Brisbane, Australia) and power output was calculated. Finally,
SPRINT 0-10m, 10-40m, and 0-40m times were recorded.
Statistical analysis
As data was normally distributed, Pearson’s correlation (r) was used to
examine for relationships between these measurements, with significance
level for any correlation set at 0.05.
Results
The results obtained from the various tests can be found in Table 1.
Table 1. Results (mean±SD) for agility (all distances), sprint (all distances),
strength (half squat, HS) and power (5 rebound jumps, 5RJ) tests.
Pearson’s correlation revealed a significant and high relationship between
AGI 5-10m AGI total time (0-15m) (P=0.001, r=0.852) as well as a significant
and moderate relationship between AGI 10-15m and power output (P=0.020,
r=0.686). No other significant correlation was revealed (P>0.05).
Discussion
These findings suggest that agility performance is related to quick decision-
making. In addition, once that decision has been made, lower limb power
is important to enable fast movement. Our findings disagree with previous
studies reporting speed and strength as two factors related to agility
performance (Jones et al, 2009; Sheppard et al, 2006). However, the use of
decision-making in the current study could explain this discrepancy, indicating
its significant role in agility performance (Sheppard et al, 2006; Young et
al, 2002). Therefore, agility assessment should take this component into
consideration.
References
Jones P, Bampouras TM, Marrin K. (2009). J Sports Med Phys Fitness, 49, 97-104.
Oliver JL, Meyers RW. (2009). Int J Sports Physiol Perform, 4, 345-354.
Sheppard JM, Young WB, Doyle TLA, Sheppard TA, Newton RU. (2006). J Sci Med Sport, 9, 342-349.
Young WB, James R, Montgomery I. (2002). J Sport Med Phys Fit, 43, 282-288.
Contact
Dr Joseph I. Esformes
Lecturer in Physiology
E-mail: j.esformes@uwic.ac.uk
Distance (m) Agility (s) Distance (m) Sprint (s) HS (kg) 5RJ (W)
0-5 1.99±0.18 0-10 1.88±0.11 212.1±18.3 1125.5±157.3
5-10 1.57±0.19 10-40 3.72±0.20
10-15 1.15±0.88 0-40 5.70±0.37
0-15 4.71±0.37
5m
5m
5m
3m
4m
1m
Straight
RightLeft
Middle
timing gate
Start
Photoelectric cell
Reflective cell
Foam barrier (70cm high x
90cm long x 30cm wide)
Fig. 1. Experimental set
up for the agility test
(Taken by Oliver and
Meyers, 2009).
5m
5m
5m
3m
4m
1m
Straight
Righteft
Middle
ming gate
Start
Photoelectric cell
Reflective cell
Foam barrier (70cm high x
90cm long x 30cm wide)
5m
5m
5m
3m
4m
1m
Straight
RightLeft
Middle
timing gate
Start
Photoelectric cell
Reflective cell
Foam barrier (70cm high x
90cm long x 30cm wide)
19th International Congress of Physical Education and Sport
Democritus University of Thrace
Komotini, Greece, 20-22 May 2011