Options
Mixed model lower body power training approach on female athletes
Author
Chua, Kwee Hao
Supervisor
Kong, Pui Wah
Abstract
Recent studies have shown that training at optimal power load (OPL) has positive short and long term effects on athletic performance. The OPL is capable of distinguishing athletes based on various factors such as sports performance levels, disciplines, age, and gender. (Loturco et al., 2022). Mixed model training (MMT) approaches, where training loads vary between sets or sessions, is shown to improve strength and performance in jumping (Hernandez-Davo et al., 2022). By variating training load, coaches are able to better manage fatigue, training adaptation optimization and potentially improve sporting performance (DeWeese et al., 2015). At present, it is unclear which method, either OPL or MMT, would be more beneficial in enhancing physical performance. The objective of this study was to examine if there were any variations in the impact of MMT and OPL training on the physical abilities of female athletes engaged in team sports, specifically focusing on lower limb strength, jumping, sprinting, and change of direction skills. The research involved the involvement of seventeen female representative athletes (average age 22 ± 2.9 years, body mass 60.52 ± 9.62 kg, height 162.69 ± 5.2 cm) who were selected from the Singapore national women softball team. Pre- and post-tests included the isometric mid-thigh pull test, , 5-0-5 change of direction test, countermovement jump test, 20m sprint test and the OPL test. The participants in the study were randomly assigned to either the MMT group or the OPL group. Both groups underwent a six-week training program consisting of two training sessions per week. Participants in the MMT group performed a 20% overload of their individual OPL on day 1 with a 20% underload on day 2. Participants in the OPL group trained at the OPL load on both training days. The findings indicated that there were no notable disparities between the MMT and OPL groups concerning the measurements taken prior to and after the training program. Specifically, the study found no noteworthy differences between the MMT and OPL groups when it came to various measurements such as concentric peak force (MMT 1284 ± 181.80 N to 1270 ± 163.30 N p = 0.228, OPL 1406 ± 208.5 N to 1461 ± 154.6 N p = 0.121), jump height (MMT 31.51 ± 6.12 cm to 31.54 ± 4.263 cm p = 0.98, OPL 28.98 ± 5.594 cm to 28.38 ± 4.965 cm p = 0.417), peak vertical force (MMT 1841 ± 204.10 N to 1818 ± 288.30 N p = 0.617, OPL 1934 ± 256.7 N to 2056 ± 267.5 N p = 0.108), force at 100ms (MMT 884 ± 138.60 N to 924.5 ± 132.60 N p = 0.423, OPL 995.3 ± 209.8 N to 909.9 ± 124.9 N p = 0.184), and rate of force development (MMT 2897 ± 1504 N/s to 3539 ± 1629 N/s p = 0.188, OPL 3093 ± 2004 N/s to 2853 ± 1281 N/s p = 0.572) in the isometric mid-thigh pull test. Additionally, no significant differences were found in the time taken for 5-0-5 change of direction time (MMT 2.547 ± 0.09 s to 2.537 ± 0.13 s p = 0.797, OPL 2.622 ± 0.231 s to 2.594 ± 0.266 s p = 0.525), peak power (MMT 3201 ± 493 W to 3090 ± 556.60 W p = 0.35, OPL 3233 ± 457.8 W to 3314 ± 484.2 W p = 0.589), and 20m sprint time (MMT 3.415 ± 0.25 s to 3.345 ± 0.15 s p = 0.311, OPL 3.483 ± 0.294 s to 3.507 ± 0.285 s p = 0.635) for both groups. Based on this study, significant distinctions were not observed in the pre- and post-test assessments of concentric peak force and jump height during the countermovement jump test. Similarly, no notable differences were found in peak vertical force, force at 100ms, and rate of force development during the isometric mid-thigh pull test, as well as the time taken for the 5-0-5 change of direction test, peak power, and 20m sprint time for both the MMT and OPL groups. There is a notable rise in the OPL load for participants in the OPL condition (31.06 ± 7.08 kg to 39.01 ± 5.63 kg p = 0.012) only. To conclude, this study demonstrated that introducing a variation in load during power training does not result in an enhancement of power output as measured by power-based testing outcomes. With the use of real time data, coaches are encouraged to plan load variations during power training to add friendly competition within the team to enhance training intent and experience.
Date Issued
2023
Call Number
GV709.18.S55 Chu