velocity specificity, combination training and sport specific tasks

Velocity Specificity, Combination Training and Sport Specific Tasks

John Cronin 1, Peter J McNair 2 & Robert N Marshall 3

1Sport Performance Centre, Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand. 2Neuromuscular Research Unit, School of Physiotherapy, Auckland, NZ.

3Department of Sport and Exercise Science, University of Auckland, NZ.

Cronin, J., McNair, P.J., & Marshall, R.N. (2001). Velocity specificity, combination training and sport specific tasks. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport 4(2}: 168-178.

Whether velocity-specific resistance training is important for improving functional sporting performance was investigated by studying the effect of isoinertial training velocity on netball chest pass throwing velocity. Twenty-one female netball players were randomly assigned to a strength-trained group (80% 1RM - average training velocity = .308 m/s), power-trained group (600/0 1RM - average training velocity = .398 m/s) and a control group. Resistance training was combined with sport specific motion training for both groups over a ten-week training duration. Pre- and post-training testing revealed that the training velocity associated with the strength-trained group produced significantly greater improvement in mean volume of weight lifted (85kg) and inean power output (13.25 W) as compared to the power and control groups (P< 0.05}, The strength-trained and power-trained groups significantly improved netball throw velocity by 12.4% and 8.8% respectively. There was no significant difference between the two groups. The validity of velocity-specific training and subsequent adaptations to improve functional sporting performance appears highly questionable, due to the disparity between training velocity and actual movement velocity (11.38 m.s -1) for a given sport specific task such as the netball throw it was proposed that the repeated intent to move an isoinertial load as rapidly as possible coupled with performance of the sport-specific movement promote efficient coordination and activation patterns. Such mechanisms might be more important determinants of sport-specific high velocity adaptation.

Introduction Attempts to improve per formance involve a considerable inves tment of time for mos t athletes, t rainers and coaches. The training methods used to achieve improved performance wilt depend u p o n the athlete 's skill level and training experience. In novice athletes, improving both control of the movemen t and muscle s t rength allow improved performance. For elite athletes, where technique and control are at ~ high level, improving muscle s t rength m a y become the training focus (Almasbakk & Hoff, 1996). Given the relative impor tance of resistance training, there is a need to determine the t raining s t imulus tha t maximizes functional per formance improvement in the athlete 's respective discipline. One variable considered w h e n designing programs to optimize athletic per formance is movement velocity. It h a s been suggested tha t training at a specific velocity improves s t rength mainly at tha t velocity. As training deviates f rom the veloqjty occurr ing in the athlete 's sport, the less effective training will be (Caiozzo,

168


Perrine & Edgerton, 1981; Coyle, Feiring, Rotkis, Cote, Roby, Lee & Wilmore, 1981; Kanehisa & Miyashita, 1983). Thus, it has been suggested that athletes should perform resistance training at the velocity encountered during their event (Fleck & Kraemer, 1987; Sale & MacDougall, 1981).

The mechanisms underlying velocity-specific adaptation and the transference of these adaptations to other movement velocities is by no means clear. Firstly, the problem is associated with a lack of agreement as to what constitutes fast and slow velocity training. As well, there is a lack of research relating training velocity to actual movement velocity for sport specific tasks. It may be that the training velocity is quite different to the actual movement velocity of sport specific tasks. Secondly, most of the literature in this area has used isokinetic rather than isoinertial testing the latter however, is more specific to the athlete's competitive and training environment. The application of isokinetic training studies to most athletic training appears questionable in terms of external validity (Abernethy, Wilson & Logan, 1995). Almasbakk and Hoff (1996) maintain that isoinertial training allows greater exploration of the coordination dynamics of movement.

An issue related to that of velocity specificity is whether one exercise speed is optimal for improving functional performance. Realizing that high load and high velocity resistance training affect different parts of the force-velocity curve, some authors have suggested combining both slow and fast movements to optimize adaptation within the nervous system (Kraemer, Deschenes & Fleck, 1988; Sale & MacDougall, 1981). The effects of combined training have been investigated in programs that combined: isometrics and isotonic muscle action (McKethan & Mayhew, 1974; Toji, Suei & Kaneko, 1991; Toji, Suei & Kaneko, 1997); isoinertial and plyometric training (Blakey & Southard, 1987; Hakkinen, Komi &Alen, 1985; Lytfle, Wilson & Ostrowski, 1996); and periodised slow and fast resistance training (Doherty & Campagna, 1993). Most of this research however, investigated velocity-specific adaptation and changes to various kinematic and kinetic variables with little relation of research findings to sports performance.

Some research has investigated combinations of isoinertial and sport specific motion training. It is thought that combining heavy load training with the sport specific motion may better train both the force and velocity components of the muscle respectively. Mayhew, Ware, Johns and Bemben (1997) reported no transference of strength and power to seated shotput performance after a 12- week isoinertial training program. The seated shotput however, was only used for assessment purposes. Voight and Klausen (1990) showed that maximal heavy load training enhanced the speed of an unloaded movement, but only when combined with specific training of that movement. Similarly, heavy load resistance training that was combined with sport specific throw training produced greater throw velocity than sport specific training only, for both handball and baseball throwers (Hoff & Almasbakk, 1995; Lachowetz, Evon & Pastiglione, 1998). In each of these studies, the throw training occurred separately to the resistance training session as part of a practice or as separate throw programs. Combining sport specific motion with weight training in the same session needs investigation. Such a combination may offer a superior training stimulus to "tune" the control mechanisms to the strength gains. Bobbert and Van Soest (1994) demonstrated that increasing strength alone does not necessarily improve performance. They found that in a program aimed at improving jumping performance, muscle training exercises need to be accompanied by exercises in which the athletes

169

velocity Specificity, Combination Training and Sport Specific Tasks

practice with their changed muscle properties. Failure to "tune" in such a ma imer may render weight t raining ineffective or detr imental to improving the performance of a given motor task. However, there is little literature in this area as to the optimal time after weight training and the number of repetitions required for "tuning".

A further area of interest is the magnitude of the load used in training. The research cited earlier (Hoff and Almasbakk, 1995; Lachowetz et al., 1998; Voight and Klausen, 1990) utilized heavy load intensities (74-88% 1RM) in their programs. The utilization of loads that maximize power output in combination with sport specific motion training may be more effective. Such loading may have greater velocity specificity than the loading cited in the research above and therefore offer greater potential for velocity-specific adaptation. Isoinertial training that utilizes loads maximizing power output and allows unloading may optimize training further. Supporting this hypothesis is research that showed the velocity and force curves associated with a bench press throw as compared to a traditional bench press (not thrown) were more similar to the forces and velocities associated with throwing implements (Newton, Kraemer, Hakkinen, Humphries & Murphy, 1996).

The purpose of this s tudy was to investigate the effect of isoinertial training velocity on netball chest pass throwing velocity. The effect of training velocities associated with heavy load training (80% 1RM) and power training (60% 1RM) combined with same session sport specific motion was examined. It was hypothesized that velocities associated with loads that maximize power output and allow unloading would offer greater velocity-specific adaptation and transfer to sport specific motion.

Methods and procedures Subjects Twenty-one female netball players volunteered to participate in this research. The subject details for each group are presented in Table 1. Statistical analysis revealed no significant differences between groups in body mass (F = 1.164, df =18, p = .335), height (F = .541, d f= 18, p = .591) and age (F = 1.101, d f= 18, p = .354). All of the subjects were of a provincial representative background with no previous weight training history. The Human Subject Ethics Committee of the Auckland University of Technology approved all the procedures under taken and all subjects and / o r guardians signed an informed consent form.

Equ ipment Modified smith press machine Subjects performed bench presses on a modified Smith Press machine. A linear

Group ' Age (years) Body Mass (kg) Height (cm)

M SD M SD M SD

Power Group 17.4 1.2 63.48 6.54 167.4 14.6 Strength Group 17.3 1.1 71.85 13.77 171.9 5.9 Control Group 16.6 0.5 71.10 12.39 167.5 5.4

Table 1: ~ Age and physical characteristics of subjects on a group basis.

170


t ransducer (Unimeasure, Oregon) was at tached to the bar and measured vertical bar displacement relative to the ground with an accuracy of 0. lcm. These data were sampled at 200Hz by a computer based data acquisition and analysis program.

The displacement-time data were filtered using a low pass filter with a cutoff frequency of 10 Hz. The filtered data were then differentiated using a finite differences algorithm to determine velocity and acceleration data. The following variables were examined during the concentric muscle action phase: average velocity, peak velocity, peak acceleration, mean force, peak force, mean power and peak power.

Video analysis Subjects were videotaped at 60 frames per second as they chest passed a netball horizontally from a sitting position. The camera was positioned with the focal axis of the lens perpendicular to the line with the plane of motion of the throw and the camera-subject distance large enough to minimize perspective error. Four max imum effort chest pass throws were videotaped and subsequently captured by an Intel III video capture board. Digitizing and kinematic analysis of the video was performed using Video Expert II Software (Sport and Physical Education Technology Ltd., Dunedin, New Zealand). The variable of interest was the forward velocity of the ball at the time of release from the subject 's hands.

Testing procedures Testing involved a standardized warm-up followed by the recording of the maximal effort netball chest passes aimed at a target five metres from the subject. Instructing the subject 's to begin each pass with the ball touching the chest at nipple height standardized the start of the throw. To ensure and standardize the contribution of the muscula ture of the upper body, the subject performed the netball pass from a seated position with their chest s trapped to the back of a vertically inclined bench.

Following the netball throw assessment the subjects were familiarized with the bench press throw performed on the Smith press machine. Subjects were instructed to throw the bar as high as possible in an explosive fashion. The vertical displacement of each throw was recorded. Familiarization continued until there was no increase in vertical displacement. Strength assessment involved bench-pressing 25kg for as many repetitions as possible. Twenty-five kilograms was selected based on pilot testing and previous assessment in this area with young female athletes. Such an approach was taken due to the novice s ta tus of the athletes, the degree of inhibition and subsequent learning effects associated with heavy loads and various position s ta tements on maximal strength testing of adolescent athletes. A repetition to failure a ssessment was therefore considered the safest and mos t reliable method to map strength changes over the course of the s tudy (Fleck and Kraemer, 1987). Each subject 's 1RM was predicted by dividing the weight lifted (25kg) by a co-efficient based on the repetitions completed (Poliquin, 1988). Research has shown high reliability (r > 0.90) between actual 1RM and predicted 1RM from multiple repetition to failure testing (Mayhew, Ball & Bowen, 1992). Following a rest of 15 minutes, velocity and power profiles for a bench press throw at 40% of predicted 1RM were undertaken. Loading of 40% 1RM was chosen for testing as it was a load that neither t reatment

171


group utilized in training, hence t reatment effects could be noted on the lighter loads more commonly associated with power training (Faulkner, Claflin & Cully, 1986; Perrine, 1986). The same testing protocol was replicated at the completion of the intervention.

Training The subjects were randomly assigned to either a strength load (80% IRM} group or power load (60% 1RM) group or a control group. Loading of 60% 1RM was chosen as research (Baker, 1992; Newton et al., 1996) deemed such a load as an effective power load for the bench press. Unpublished research by the authors of this article also found the load that maximized mechanical power output with novice female weight trainers for the bench press throw was 60% 1RM. The strength and power groups performed a four-week pre-conditioning and a six- week conditioning program.

Phase I - P r e - c o n d i t i o n i n g Phase:

During this phase the strength and power subjects performed a supervised upper body strength-training program aimed at preconditioning the muscles and tendons for the higher intensity explosive training encountered in phase two of the program. During the first two weeks, 3 sets of 15RM training was used, followed by two weeks of 3 sets of 10RM training. The exercises used were the bench press and seated row. These sessions were performed twice a week.

Phase 2 - C o n d i t i o n i n g P h a s e (6 w e e k s ) The training volume between groups was equated over the t reatment phase. The strength group performed 3 sets of 6 repetitions at 80% 1RM. The power group performed 3 sets of 8 reps at 60% 1RM. Both groups were instructed to move their respective loads as rapidly as possible. Each subject performed 20 explosive netball passes at the conclusion of each set. The exercises and training frequency were similar to phase 1.

Statistical analysis Changes in training volume, bar kinetics and kinematics at 40% 1RM and netball throw velocity were analyzed. No significant differences were found between groups in relation to pre-training testing volume (F= .661, df= 18, p= .528) and throw velocity (F= 1.466, df= 18, p= .257). As such, a 2 x 3 (time x group) repeated measures ANOVA was used to determine any difference between pre- and post- training results. Tukey post-hoc comparisons were used to distinguish the between group differences. The a lpha level was set at 0.05.

A post hoc analysis examining statistical power for pre- post differences based on the 8.8-12.5% increases in throw velocity was performed. For a 10% increase in velocity the effect size was 1.3 and the power was .76 for seven subjects in each group. For a 12.5% increase in velocity the effect size was 3.01 and the power was .99 for seven subjecLs in each group. The results suggest adequate subject numbers to detect significant differences.

Results During the first four weeks all training subjects performed a pre-conditioning program that resulted in a 38.8% increase in testing volume (number of repetitions of 25kg} as compared to their baseline testing volume. However, no significant differences in bench press ldnematics and kinetics were associated

172


600 .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

000 T T . T ] P o w e r Group

I Strorlgth Group

D Control Group

Pre~Treatment Post~Treatn'ent

Figure 1: Mean volume of weight lifted (reps x kg) and standard deviations pre- and post.treatment for power trained, strength trained and control groups. • Denotes significant difference between pre. and post- mean volumes to the control group. ** Denotes significant difference between pre- and post- mean volumes to the power and control groups.

variable Power Group Strength Group Control Group

Peak Velocity (m/s) 0.045 *0.089 0.022 Time to Peak Velocity (secs) *-0.025 *-0.04 0.028 Peak Force (N) *5.2 *2.50 -3.88 Mean Power (Watts) 2.74 *'13.25 6.13 Peak Power (Watts) 7.76 "16.44 0

* Denotes a significant difference between that treatment group and the control group. ** Denotes a significant difference between the strength trained group and both the power and

control groups.

Table 2: The difference between the pre- and post-treatment values for velocity, force and power as measured by a bench press throw using a load of 40% IRM. The negative sign denotes a decrease in time between pre- and post-testing occasions.

with this increase in testing volume. During the conditioning phase the strength- trained group significantly increased testing volume as compared to the power and control groups (F= 6.544, df = 18, p= .007). A 4.6%, 18.2% and 6.1% increase in testing volume over the six weeks of training was recorded for the power, strength and control groups respectively (see Figure 1)

Assessment of bar kinematics and kinematics for the bench press throw at 40% 1RM following training showed significantly (P< 0.05) greater peak force and shorter time to peak velocities for both the strength and power trained groups as compared to the control group. The power-trained group did not differ significantly from the control group in terms of power outputs and peak velocity. The strength-trained group produced greater peak velocity and peak power output than the control but not compared to the power-trained group. The only significant difference between the strength and power trained groups was that the strength-trained group produced superior mean power output at 40% 1RM.

The changes in mean throwing velocity presented in Figure 2 show that both the power and strength-trained groups produced significantly greater peak velocity during the netbaU chest pass after six weeks of training (8.8% and 12.4% respectively). There was no significant difference between the two groups.

173


13 [ ] Power Group

T5 • Strength Group 12 - ~ 1 9 - - [~ Control Group

Pre-Treatment Post-Treatment

Figure 2: Pre; and post-treatment mean netball throwing velocity and standard deviations for power trained, strength trained and control groups. • Denotes significant difference between pre- and post- mean netball throwing velocity to the control group.

.~A ~ /) Low Velocity ~'raining

VELOCITY (m.s q )

I 2) High Velocity Training

C

, >

Figure 3: Schematic force velocity relationship for concentric muscle action, demonstrating the disparity between average training velocity (bench press throw. A: strength group 80% 1-RM -0.308m.s~; B: power group 60% 1.RM -0.398m.s 1 and sport specific movement velocity; C: netball throw average velocity -11.98m.s "1. Note: arrows indicate 1) low velocity training - the current area of training emphasis, and 2) high velocity training- area of training need.

It was apparent that there was a disparity between the velocities performed in training and those attained dunng the netball Chest pass (see Figure 3). Average training velocity for the strength and power trained groups were .308m.s -I and .398 m.s -1 respectively. The actual mean netball chest pass velocity was 11.38 m.s -1, 28-37 times greater than the training velocities. It would seem that most weight training could be classified as low Velocity training in relation to high velocity~ sporting movements such as the netball throw.

174


DiSCuSSiOn The four-week pre-conditioning phase during which subjects trained two sessions per week produced large strength changes in untrained athletes (38.8% increase in testing volume). This change did not transfer to improved velocity, acceleration, force and power at the 40% 1RM testing intensity. Therefore, the nature of the stimulus did not lead to changes in factors influencing power production. These findings can be explained, if changes in testing volume can be equated to changes in strength endurance. As such, it has been suggested that strength endurance, strength and power are relatively independent motor qualities (Schmidtbleicher, 1985). Therefore improving strength endurance does not necessarily improve power and vice versa.

In respect to the conditioning phase the strength-trained group significantly improved testing volume by 18.2%. The power trained group however, did not produce significant gains in testing volume. McDonagh and Davies (1984) stated that loads greater than 66% 1RM are necessary for maximal strength development. Thus the lighter loading of the power trained group may not have been of sufficient intensity to alter testing volume values over the six weeks of the conditioning phase.

The effect of the training programs on various kinematic and kinetic variables measured during the bench press motion, showed that heavy load training produced superior results in terms of mean power output. Otherwise, the two groups did not differ significantly on the other variables tested. This may be in part be a result of the similar load intensity and subsequent training velocity. Nonetheless these are the loads and velocities associated with power and maximal strength training. Additionally the finding of interest is not necessarily the differences between training groups, but rather the improvement in post-training chest pass velocity in the absence of training velocities that approach the actual movement velocity of the task. A number of factors may be responsible for this finding. Firstly, in terms of velocity-specific training, some investigations have found training to produce improvement in performance at or close to the training velocities (Caiozzo et al., 1981; Coyle et al., 1981; Kanehisa & Miyashita, 1983). Other investigators have reported improvements in muscular force at all velocities of contraction at and below training velocity, after low-load, high-velocity training (Adeyanju, Crews & Meadors, 1983; Mastropaolo & Takei, 1991). Furthermore an intermediate training velocity may exist which can enhance performance over a wide range of contraction velocities (Ewing, Wolfe, Rogers, Amundson & Stull, 1990; Poliquin, 1990; Sale & MacDougall, 1981). The basis for velocity-specific adaptation and subsequent transference to performance however, is that training velocities should simulate the movement velocity of a specific activity. The training velocities used in the isokinetic research cited above and the isoinertial loading of this research do not approach the actual movement velocity of specific sporting tasks. The delineation into slow velocity and high velocity training therefore would appear somewhat arbitrary and lacking construct validity if related to functional performance.

However, chest pass velocity did increase significantly. A factor that may be responsible for the similar improvements in the ball throwing velocity of both the strength and power trained groups is the manner in which the two groups were asked to perform the task. Both groups were instructed to perform the bench press movements as "explosively" as possible for each of their respective rep-

175


etitions and sets. As actual training velocity cannot account for velocity-specific adaptation, it may be that the intention to move the bar as rapidly as possible provides the training stimulus for the improved netball throwing velocity. That is, irrespective of load and limb velocity, the repeated intent to move "explosively" is the principal stimuli for high velocity adaptation. The findings of Behm and Sale (1993) support such a notion, as they found that regardless of the actual velocity of movement (isometric versus isokinetic), it was the intention (neural) to execute a high-velocity movement, which resulted in a high velocity-specific training effect. These results indicate the importance of the instructions given to subjects / athletes as to the mental approach (neural intent) of their resistance training.

Bobbert and vanSoest (1994) have commented that muscle-training exercises need to be accompanied by sport specific motion so that the athletes can adjust their control to take advantage of their improved muscle properties. Combining weight training with sport specific co-ordination training is not often performed due to the proposed negative effects of intensive strength training on the level of muscular co-ordination. Krzysztof and colleagues (2000) have shown that bimanual co-ordination as evaluated by a computer-tracking task did not significantly differ after successive bouts of bench presses performed to fatigue. The effectiveness of both training groups in improving throw velocity in this study may be attributed to the isoinertial training methods used and the tuning of weight training with netball throwing immediately after each bench press set. Such training may positively influence both intramuscular and intermuscular coordination. Intramuscular coordination refers to the interaction between excitatory and inhibitory mechanisms that control a muscle (Schmidtbleicher, 1992; Zatsiorsky, 1995). These authors contend that maximum excitation and minimum inhibition of a specific muscle facilitates intramuscular coordination. Maximal ballistic contractions and lifting maximal loads result in maximal number of motor units being activated, the fastest motor units being recruited and the discharge frequency of motoneurons being at their highest frequency (Desmedt & Godaux, 1979; Sale, 1988; Zatsiorsky, 1992). Furthermore, by exposing the neuromuscular system to relatively high loads the sensitivity of inhibitory mechanisms such as the Golgi tendon organs may be reduced through a process known as disinhibition, which in turn produces greater force output (Caiozzo et al., 1981; Fleck & Kraemer, 1987; Wilson, Lyttle, Ostrowski & Murphy, 1995).

Intermuscular coordination refers to the interaction of the agonistic, synergistic and antagonistic muscles, during the performance of movement (Schmidtbleicher, 1992). Supplementing the slow-velocity, heavy-load training with sport-specific, high-velocity training also allows intermuscular coordination to be developed. Repeatedly simulating movement pattern, velocity, contraction type and contraction force during training has been shown to increase activation and coordination of these muscles, resulting in enhanced sports performance (Sale. 1992; Sale &"MacDougall, 1981). Co-activation of antagonists impairs agonist activation by reciprocal inhibition, therefore reducing motor unit firing and force production. This co-activation is especially prevalent in high velocity explosive tasks (Sale, 1992). Some research (Baratta, Solomonow, Zhou, Leston, Chuinard & D'Ambrosia, 1988) has indicated that the role of co-contracting antagonists can be altered due to neural adaptations to strength training. This relationship needs clarification bu t it is thought that practice and training may

176


facilitate the reduct ion of co-activation of an tagonis t s , thereby allowing greater force output . Improvement of this type is movemen t specific a nd bes t facilitated by coordinat ion t ra in ing (Sale, 1988; Sale, 1992; Schmidtbleicher, 1992).

Conclusion The resul t s of this s tudy ques t ion velocity-specific t ra in ing a nd adap ta t ion in relat ion to ne tba l l chest pass throwing velocity. Explana t ions other t h a n velocity- specificity are necessary to explain the improvement in t h r o ~ n g velocity found in this research. It may be tha t the in ten t ion to move a n isoinertial load as rapidly as possible coupled with performance of the sport specific movemen t immedia te ly after a weights set, allows improved adap ta t ion a n d increased control of musc le to occur The combina t ion of bo th types of t r a in ing m a y provide a bet ter m e a n s for bo th morphological and neu ra l adapta t ion to occur in synchrony, a n d a be t te r method to promote the t ransference of s t rength ga ins to improve a nd e n h a n c e sport-specific activation a n d coordination.

References Abernethy, P., Wilson, G., & Logan, P. (1995). Strength and power assessment: issues,

controversies and challenges. Sports Medicine 19 (6):41-417. Adeyanju, K., Crews, T.R., & Meadors, W.J. (1983). Effects of two speeds of isokinetic training on

muscular strength, power and endurance. Jou~al of Sports Medicine 23:352-356. Almasbakk, B., & Hoff, J. (1996). Coordination, the determinant of velocity specificity. Journal

of Applied Physiology 80 (5):2046-2052. Baker, D. (1992). Selecting the appropriate exercises and loads for speed-strength development.

Strength and Conditioning Coach 3 (2):8-14. Baratta, R., Solomonow, M., Zhou, B.H., Leston, D., Chuinard, R., & D'Ambrosia, R. (1988).

Muscular coactivation. The role of antagonist musculature in maintaining knee stability. The American Journal of Sports Medicine 16:113-122.

Behm, D., & Sale, D.J. (1993). Velocity specificity of resistance training. Sports Medicine 15 (6):374-388.

Blakey, J.B., & Southard, D. (1987). The combined effects of weight training and plyometrics on dynamic leg strength and leg power. Journal of Applied Sport Science Research I (1):14- 16.

Bobbert, M.F., & Soest, A.J.V. (1994). Effects of muscle strengthening on vertical jump height: a simulation study. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise 26 (8):1012-1020.

Caiozzo, V.J., Perrine, J.J., & Edgerton, V.R. (1981). Training-induced alterations of the in vivo force-velocity relationship of human muscle. Journal of Applied Physiology 51 (3):750-754.

Coyle, E.F., Feiring, D.C., Rotkis, T.C., Cote, R.W., Roby, F.B., Lee, W., & Wilmore, J.H. (1981). Specificity of power improvements through slow and fast isokinetic training. Journal of Applied Physiology 51 {6): 1437-1442.

Desmedt, E.J., & Godaux, E. (1979). Voluntary motor commands in human ballistic movements. Annals of Neurology 5:415-421.

Doherty, T.J., & Campagna, P.D. (1993). The effects of periodized velocity-specific resistance training on maximal and sustained force production in women. Journal of Sports Sciences 11:77-82.

Ewing, J.L., Wolfe, D., Rogers, M., Amundson, M., & Stull, G. (1990). Effects of velocity of isokinetic training on strength, power, and quadriceps muscle fibre characteristics. Journal of Applied Physiology 61:159-162.

Faulkner, J.A., Claflin, D.R., & Cully, K.K. (1986). Power output of fast and slow fibres from human skeletal muscles., In Human Muscle Power Jones, N. L., McCartney, N. & McComas, A. J. (Eds.). Human Kinetics. Champaign, Illinois.

Fleck, S.J., & Kraemer, W.J. (1987). Designing resistance training programs, Human Kinetics. Champaign, Illinois, pp.81-94.

Hakkinen, K., Komi, P.V., & Alen, M. (1985). Effect of explosive type strength training on isometric force- and relaxation-time, electromyographic and muscle fibre characteristics of leg extensor muscles. Acta Physiol Scand 125:587 - 600.

Hoff, J., & Almasbakk, B. (1995). The effects of maximum strength training on throwing velocity and muscle strength in female team-handball players. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 9 (4): 255-258.

177


Eanehisa, H., & Miyashita, M. (1983). Specificity of velocity in strength training. Journal of Applied Physiology 52:104-106.

Kraemer, W.J., Deschenes, M.R., & Fleck, S.J. (1988). Physiological adaptions to resistance exercise. Sports Medicine 6:246-256.

Krzystzof, N., Waskiewicz, Z., Zajac, A., & Goralczyk, R. (2000). The effects of exhaustive bench press on bimanual coordination. In, C.P. Lee (Ed.) Proceedings of 2nd International Conference on Weightlifting and Strength Training, 86.

Lachowetz, T., Evon, J., & Pastiglione, J. (1998). The effect of an upper body strength program on intercollegiate baseball throwing velocity. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 12 (2):116-119.

Lytfle, A.D., Wilson, G.J., & Ostrowski, K.J. (1996). Enhancing performance: maximal power versus combined weights and plyometrics training. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 10 (3):173-179.

Mastropaolo, J., & Takei, Y. (1991). Weight training pivoted the force-velocity curve. International Journal of Sports Medicine 12:345.

Mayhew, J.L., Ball, T.E., & Bowen, J.C. (1992). Prediction of bench press lifting ability from sub maximal repetitions before and after training. Sports Medicine 3:195-201.

Mayhew, J.L., Ware, J.S., Johns, R.A., & Bemben, M.G. (1997). Changes in upper body power following heavy-resistance strength training in college men. Journal of Sports Medicine 18:516-520.

McDonagh, M.J.N., & Davies, C.T.M. (1984). Adaptive response of mammalian skeletal muscle to exercise with high loads. European Journal of Applied Physiology 52:139-155.

McKethan, J.F., & Mayhew, J.L. (1974). Effects of isometrics, isotonics and combined isometrics- isotonics on quadriceps strength and vertical jump. Journal of Sports Medicine 14:224- 229.

Newton, R.U., Kraemer, W.J., Hakkinen, K., Humphries, B.J., & Murphy, A.J. (1996). Kinematics and kinetics and muscle activation during explosive upper body movements. Journal of Applied Biomechanics 12:31-43.

Perrine, J .J . (1986). The biophysics of maximal muscle power output: methods and problems with measurement, In Human Muscle Power Jones, N. L., McCartney, N., & McComas, A. J. (Eds.). Human Kinetics. Champaign, Illinois, pp.15-25.

Poliquin, C. (1988). Variety in strength training. Sports Science Periodical on Research and Technology in Sport 8 (8): 1-7.

Poliqnin, C. (1990). Theory and methodology of strength training: at which speed should repetitions be performed. Sports Coach April-June:35-38.

Sale, D. (1988). Neural adaptations to resistance training. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise 20 (5) :S135-S144.

Sale, D. (1992). Neural adaptation to strength training. In Strength and Power in Sport, Komi, P.V. (Ed.), pp.249-265. Blackwell Scientific Publications. Oxford.

Sale, D., & MacDougall, D. {1981). Specificity in strength training; A review for the coach and athlete. Science Periodical on Research and Technology in Sport (March): i-7.

Schmidtbleicher, D. (1985). Strength training (part two): structural analysis of motor strength qualities and its application to training. Science Periodical on Research and Technology in Sport (September): 1-10.

Schmidtbleicher, D. (1992) Training for power events. In Strength and Power in Sport (pp.381- 395). Komi, P. V. (Ed.). Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford.

Toji, H., Suei, K., & Kaneko, M. (1991). Effects of combined training programs on force - velocity relation and power output in human muscle. Presented at International Society of Biomechanics XIII Congress. Perth, Australia, 756.

Toji, H., Suei, K., & Kaneko, M. (1997). Effects of combined training loads on relations among force, velocity, and power development. Canadian Journal of Applied Biomechanics 22 (4):328-336.

Voight, M., & Klausen, K~ (1990). Changes in muscle strength and speed of movement after various training programs. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol 60:370-376.

Wilson, G.J., Lyttle, A.D., Ostrowski, K.J., & Murphy, A.J. (1995). Assessing dynamic performance: a comparison of rate of force development tests. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 9 (3): 176-181.

Zatsiorsky, V.M. (1992). Intensity of strength training facts and theory: Russian and East European approach. National Strength and Conditioning Association Journal 14 (5):46- 57.

Zatsiorsky, V.M. (1995) Science and practice of strength training. Human Kinetics. Chi~mpaign.

178

velocity specificity, combination training and sport specific tasks

Documents