Search

Objective: The present study compared the effects of two different resistance types (pneumatic resistance and free weight) of 6-week squat training on the performance for young female judo athletes in linear speed and vertical jump by utilizing the maximum power of each set of squats in each training session as the monitoring vehicle. Monitoring data were used to assess the effects and trends of the two resistance types on 70% 1RM weight-bearing during the 6-week intervention training.Methods: In a 6 weeks squat training (2 reps/week with a constant load), 23 adolescent female judo athletes (Age span: 13–16 years, 14.58 ± 0.96) were randomly selected and then divided into the traditional barbell (FW) group (n = 12) and the pneumatic resistance (PN) (n = 11) group according to different resistance types (free weight and pneumatic resistance), with 10 in FW group and 9 in PN group actually completed the study. Before and after training, the 30-m Sprint time (T-30M), vertical jump height and relative power (countermovement jump, static-squat jump, and drop jump), reactive strength index (DJ-RSI), and maximal strength were assessed. One-Way ANOVA was used to examine the pre-test differences of groups (FW and PN). A 2-factor mixed-model analysis of variance was used to examine the independent effects of group (FW and PN) and time (pre and post) on each dependent measure. Scheffe post hoc comparisons were used to examine the differences. Pre- and post-experimental differences between the two groups were analyzed using independent samples t-tests and magnitude-based inferences (MBI) derived from their p values, and effect statistics were applied to compare the pre- and post-changes exhibited by each group to identify the potential beneficiary groups.Results: The PN group outperformed the FW group in terms of maximal power output per training session (822.5 ± 55.22 vs. 927.42 ± 48.15, conventional vs. pneumatic, p < 0.001, effect size = −2.02). After 6 weeks of training, the FW group showed significant increases in vertical jump height and relative strength (CMJ, SJ, DJ), with no significant gains observed in T-30 and maximal strength. The PN group showed significant improvements in maximal strength; however, no significant improvements were observed in the other tests. In addition, there was no significant difference in DJ-RSI between the two groups before and after training.Discussion: At 70% weight bearing, free weight resistance appears to be more conducive to vertical jump growth, while pneumatic resistance appears to be more conducive to maximal strength gains; however, the maximal strength gains from pneumatic resistance may not be well applied to athletic performance. In addition, the body adapts more quickly to pneumatic resistance than to free weight resistance.

Introduction: The study compared the effects of 6-week (2 sessions/week) velocity-based resistance training (VBRT) and percentage-based resistance training (PBRT) on athletic performance in Sport-College female basketball players.Methods: Fifteen participants were assigned to the VBRT (n = 8) or PBRT (n = 7) groups. The load in VBRT group were determined through the sessional target velocity and velocity loss monitoring, whereas PBRT group used a fixed-load based on percentage of 1-repetition maximum (1RM). Both groups completed intervention that involved the free weight back squat and bench press using the same relative load (linear periodization from 65% to 95% 1RM). Training loads data was continuously recorded. Measurements at baseline (T0) and post-training (T2) included 1RM, countermovement-jump (CMJ), squat-jump (SJ), eccentric-utilization-ratio (EUR), drop-jump height and reactive-strength-index (DJ, DJ-RSI), plyometric-push-up (PPU), 505 change-of-direction (COD), 10-m、20-m sprint (T-10、T-20), 17 × 15 m drill-lines (17-drill), Hexagon agility, and functional movement screen (FMS). A mid-term (T1) assessment was included to investigate the short-term effects of both methods and the fluctuation of personalized 1RM.Results: No between-group differences were observed at T0 for descriptive variables (p > 0.05). Both groups showed significant improvement in strength gains for back squat and bench press, but VBRT showed likely to very likely favorable improvements in CMJ, SJ, EUR, DJ-RSI, Hexagon and COD among athletic performance. The VBRT showed likely to very likely improvements in 17-drill and DJ, while PBRT showed unclear effects. The lifted weights adjusted by VBRT method were higher than prescribed by PBRT (p < 0.05) for the same subjects.Conclusion: Compared with fixed-load PBRT, VBRT enhanced power and athletic performance despite similar strength gains. VBRT can be regarded as a more functional resistance-training method under linear periodization.