Vis enkel innførsel

dc.contributor.authorHelland, Christian
dc.contributor.authorHole, Eirik
dc.contributor.authorIversen, Erik
dc.contributor.authorOlsson, Monica Charlotte
dc.contributor.authorSeynnes, Olivier R.
dc.contributor.authorSolberg, Paul André
dc.contributor.authorPaulsen, Gøran
dc.date.accessioned2017-10-17T11:39:06Z
dc.date.available2017-10-17T11:39:06Z
dc.date.issued2017
dc.identifier.citationMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise. 2017, 49, 736-745nb_NO
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11250/2460562
dc.descriptionI Brage finner du siste tekst-versjon av artikkelen, og den kan inneholde ubetydelige forskjeller fra forlagets pdf-versjon. Forlagets pdf-versjon finner du på insights.ovid.com / In Brage you'll find the final text version of the article, and it may contain insignificant differences from the journal's pdf version. The definitive version is available at insights.ovid.comnb_NO
dc.description.abstractIntroduction: This efficacy study investigated the effects of 1) Olympic-style weightlifting (OWL), 2) motorized strength and power training (MSPT), and 3) free weight strength and power training (FSPT) on muscle power. Methods: Thirty-nine young athletes (20 T 3 yr; ice hockey, volleyball, and badminton) were randomized into the three training groups. All groups participated in two to three sessions per week for 8 wk. The MSPT and FSPT groups trained using squats (two legs and single leg) with high force and high power, whereas the OWL group trained using clean and snatch exercises. MSPT was conducted as slow-speed isokinetic strength training and isotonic power training with augmented eccentric load, controlled by a computerized robotic engine system. FSPT used free weights. The training volume (sum of repetitions kg) was similar between all three groups. Vertical jumping capabilities were assessed by countermovement jump (CMJ), squat jump (SJ), drop jump (DJ), and loaded CMJ (10–80 kg). Sprinting capacity was assessed in a 30-m sprint. Secondary variables were squat one-repetition maximum (1RM), body composition, quadriceps thickness, and architecture. Results: OWL resulted in trivial improvements and inferior gains compared with FSPT and MSPT for CMJ, SJ, DJ, and 1RM. MSPT demonstrated small but robust effects on SJ, DJ, loaded CMJ, and 1RM (3%–13%). MSPT was superior to FSPT in improving 30-m sprint performance. FSPT and MSPT, but not OWL, demonstrated increased thickness in the vastus lateralis and rectus femoris (4%–7%). Conclusions: MSPT was time-efficient and equally or more effective than FSPT training in improving vertical jumping and sprinting performance. OWL was generally ineffective and inferior to the two other interventionsnb_NO
dc.language.isoengnb_NO
dc.publisherOvidnb_NO
dc.subjectathletesnb_NO
dc.subjectpower trainingnb_NO
dc.subjectstrength trainingnb_NO
dc.subjectjump performancenb_NO
dc.subjectsprint runningnb_NO
dc.subjectmuscle architecturenb_NO
dc.titleTraining strategies to improve muscle power: Is Olympic-style weightlifting relevant?nb_NO
dc.typeJournal articlenb_NO
dc.typePeer reviewednb_NO
dc.source.journalMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercisenb_NO
dc.identifier.doi10.1249/MSS.0000000000001145
dc.description.localcodeSeksjon for fysisk prestasjonsevne /Department of Physical Performancenb_NO


Tilhørende fil(er)

Thumbnail

Denne innførselen finnes i følgende samling(er)

Vis enkel innførsel