Vis enkel innførsel

dc.contributor.authorSæterbakken, Atle Hole
dc.contributor.authorLøken, Jørund
dc.contributor.authorSolstad, Tom Erik Jorung
dc.contributor.authorStien, Nicolay
dc.contributor.authorPrieske, Olaf
dc.contributor.authorScott, Suzanne
dc.contributor.authorAndersen, Vidar
dc.date.accessioned2023-02-16T10:53:19Z
dc.date.available2023-02-16T10:53:19Z
dc.date.created2022-09-29T11:15:46Z
dc.date.issued2022
dc.identifier.citationFrontiers in Physiology. 2022, 13 .en_US
dc.identifier.issn1664-042X
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/11250/3051437
dc.description.abstractThe aims of this study were to compare power output during a bench press throw (BPT) executed with (BPTbounce) and without (BPT) the barbell bounce technique, and examine the effect of cueing different barbell descent velocities on BPT power output in resistance-trained males. In total, 27 males (age 23.1 ± 2.1 years; body mass 79.4 ± 7.4 kg; height 178.8 ± 5.5 cm; and 4.6 ± 1.9 years of resistance training experience) were recruited and attended one familiarization session and two experimental sessions (EXP 1 and EXP 2). The force–velocity profile during maximal BPT and BPTbounce (randomized order) under different loads (30–60 kg) was established (EXP 1), and the effect of varying external barbell descent velocity cues “slow, medium, and as fast as possible” (i.e., “fast”) on the power output for each technique (BPT and BPTbounce) was examined (EXP 2). Comparing two BPT techniques (EXP 1), BPTbounce demonstrated 7.9–14.1% greater average power (p ≤ 0.001, ES = 0.48–0.90), 6.5–12.1% greater average velocity (p ≤ 0.001, ES = 0.48–0.91), and 11.9–31.3% shorter time to peak power (p ≤ 0.001–0.05, ES = 0.33–0.83) across the loads 30–60 kg than BPT. The cueing condition “fast” (EXP 2) resulted in greater power outcomes for both BPT and BPTbounce than “slow.” No statistically significant differences in any of the power outcomes were observed between “medium” and “slow” cuing conditions for BPT (p = 0.097–1.000), whereas BPTbounce demonstrated increased average power and velocity under the “medium” cuing condition, compared to “slow” (p = 0.006–0.007, ES = 0.25–0.28). No statistically significant differences were observed in barbell throw height comparing BPT and BPTbounce under each cuing condition (p = 0.225–1.000). Overall, results indicate that both bouncing the barbell and emphasizing barbell descent velocity be considered to improve upper body power in athlete and non-athlete resistance-training programs.en_US
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.publisherFrontiers Media S.A.en_US
dc.rightsNavngivelse 4.0 Internasjonal*
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.no*
dc.titleAcute Effects of Barbell Bouncing and External Cueing on Power Output in Bench Press Throw in Resistance-Trained Menen_US
dc.typePeer revieweden_US
dc.typeJournal articleen_US
dc.description.versionpublishedVersionen_US
dc.rights.holder© 2022 Saeterbakken, Loken, Solstad, Stien, Prieske, Scott and Andersen.en_US
dc.source.pagenumber10en_US
dc.source.volume13en_US
dc.source.journalFrontiers in Physiologyen_US
dc.identifier.doi10.3389/fphys.2022.899078
dc.identifier.cristin2056781
cristin.ispublishedtrue
cristin.fulltextoriginal
cristin.qualitycode1


Tilhørende fil(er)

Thumbnail

Denne innførselen finnes i følgende samling(er)

Vis enkel innførsel

Navngivelse 4.0 Internasjonal
Med mindre annet er angitt, så er denne innførselen lisensiert som Navngivelse 4.0 Internasjonal