Thanks, Nikoluski. Other performance measures include squat jumps, vertical jumps, certain sport executions, and other less-transferable measures such as single-joint measures on isokenitic machines, etc. Rate of force development has been found to be much quicker under potentiation, whereas peak force tends to drop a little. In most explosive sport, peak force is rarely reached, but time-to-peak force is critical. Because the drop in peak force is actually so little, it may be thought that the FASTER rate of force development may be advantageous.
I don’t think you need this post-activation potentiation before a high-intensity track workout, because a claim of sort wouldn’t be supported by any study (that I know of). Obviously, more investigations into its effect on sprint performance specifically are needed. But the literature that shows positive performance increases under the state of potentiation is out there, and some coaches are starting to use this effect for their athletes in various sports. It may be interesting for sprinters to experiment with this. Again, refer to previous posts and the references for appropriate parameters that elicit potentiation.
I’ve made no claim of my own, other than offering studies that I’ve seen and sharing a procedure used by some coaches.
Firebird, thanks for posting an excerpt from Dr. Siff’s work. Post-activation potentiation is more complex than was explained in your original post. Your interpretation was, by all means, correct, but post-activation potentiation’s effect on rate of force development goes beyond the “after-effect” you had described using the grass analogy. In fact, in the same section of Dr. Mel Siff’s Supertraining, he goes on to explain the more intricate details of this phenomenon:
Dynamic work with heavy weights (i.e. high tension with relatively few repititions) also elicits a positive after-effect in the central nervous system (CNS), which produces a general toning influence on the motor apparatus and an improvement in speed and strength (Portnove, 1955; Ratov, 1957; Diachov, 1961; Muravov and Tkachev, 1964; Letunov, 1965).
The section goes further:
In practice, the after-effect phenomenon of strength work is used to exploit its immediate and delayed effects. It should be noted that there is an improvement in performance immediately following strong tension; i.e. this is an immediate after-effect. In addition, intense preliminary strength tension improves results in jumping exercises (Diachkov, 1958; 1961; Verkhoshansky, 1961; Tatian, 1964; Tkachev, 1967), in shotputting (Fritsch, 1961; Ivanova, 1964; Markov, 1966), and in rowing (Ermishkin & Vozniak, 1965; Chuprun, 1966).
Dr. Siff continues:
For the delayed effects, the preliminary stimulation is used to improve the functional state of the neuromuscular apparatus during the athlete’s preparation for competition or in training for speed-strength (Diachkov, 1961; Vrzhesnevsky, 1964; Khodykin, 1976).
And to stress the importance of proper stimulus:
The positive effect is obtained only if this state is promoted at an optimal level of stimulation. Over-excitation of the CNS has a negative effect on the precision and coordination of the movements, i.e. on athletic skill (Diachkov, 1961; Yakimova, 1964).
Firebird, the section goes into much greater detail about potentiation. Also, last year, at the National Strength and Conditioning Association Annual Conference, a session was devoted entirely to the current research into post-activation potentiation. And to address your curiosity as to where I’m learning about “PAP,” I’ve learned it from the same source that you quoted, from some of the studies that I referenced, as well as from some coaches with practical experience.
It is an interesting area that I think is gaining grounds in the strength and conditioning area.
Complex training is one type, although I think recent research has found that the timing and alternating method of max-strength and speed-strength exercise sequence doesn’t produce the same potentiation.
I don’t remember the origination of Complex Training (I’m not convinced it was Dr. Don Chu), but I wouldn’t be surprised if it had been a slight mutation or variation of post-activation potentiation. Does anyone know its origination?
All of the above. Recall your analogy’s ending statement:
“Because of this, strength activities before technical activities should closely mimic each other. This is why a max squat is inadvisable soon before sprinting.”
Although your statement is correct under the circumstance of learning technically-complex motor activities, it misses the essence of potentiation for trained athletes.
what about injury potential? as well i believe it is shown that the more experienced an athlete is, the less the potentiation effect, as they become much more proficient as MU recruitment. But as well what about fatigue of the very high thresh hold MU’s, that have a small amount of work capacity, would this not be better spent on the specific skill(ie sprinting).
To be honest, I am not entirely convinced about this; for reasons that VitaminR mentioned, for example and because I believe performance and technique are both negatively influenced by such previous practices, even in high-level athletes; lastly, because it would be difficult to correctly judge the “right” stimulus, so as to have the positives on the track afterwards, if any, so I would play it safe. If these don’t refer to track practice only, my apologies. I might be wrong, of course!
as well, why limit yourself to what you can lift? suppose you have a dissapointing lift, that may kill the athletes confidence for the session! As well what about the tension brought on by heavy lifting? this is inappropriate for sprinting, as the game is being able to relax the muscles.
The problems I see with PAP is that you when you do a squat even at %60 you contract your muscles concentrically/eccentrically/isometrically at different points and times. Now the question is, does the squat contract these same muscles when compared to the sprint, at the same rate and way I mentioned in the previous sentenance? I don’t think so. So then the next question becomes, will the mind and body be able to recognize these two different activies so that when one does sprint they don’t accidentally eccentrically contract their quads on the landing phase; as opposed to, initally in the landing phase they should isometrically contract their quads and later in the landing phase they should be eccentrically contracting their quads (I might have the analogy mixed up backwards but you get the point)?
If the answer (to the bold print question above) is yes, then I see no problem with PAP at %60 of 1RM of a persons squat. This will excite the CNS and your muscles will be able to fire in a more efficient manner.
If the answer (to the bold print question above) is no, then possible problems are hamstring pulls and tears. This problem however, could be fixed with a good massage therapist right before doing your track work. The massage therapist would have to do PNF stretching to set your muscles back to their normal length before sprinting; furthermore, this way the CNS is still highly excited yet, your chance of injury is much lower.
PAP has been shown to work better with higher trained athletes, who can effectively recruit more fast motor units.
Anything lower than 85% provides insufficient stimulus for PAP to occur, and anything higher than 95% creates fatigue.
PAP is a central neural reflex that may increase rate of force development in muscles not specific to the preliminary exercise (circa max squats), because it is thought that synchronization may help with increased numbers of stimulated motor units.
My thoughts on PAP is that it works with the proper amount of stimulus for many of the athletes that I train, as well as for athletes of other coaches I have spoken with. I also have seen studies on it. I am still undecided, however, on its application to sprinting. With that said, I do not think that, during certain sprint-training phases, a diligent experiment with PAP will be the end of the world for the athletes. Given a fair and proper chance, the athlete and the coach will figure out if PAP is a valid training modality or not.
Read the article at the link in Pakewi’s post. There is a lot of research on PAP; I’m not trying to sell anything.
After having a look at Pakewi’s link (thanks!) I am still (rather more) inclined towards not using weights this way, or for this purpose, rather than employing it. There is research that supports it, but there are quite a few difficulties in controlling things, which I don’t really like; the potential might be there, but I’d rather play it safe till I have the means to monitor things more effectively. Just my opinion on the subject.
Based on citations by Loren Chiu during the NSCA National Conference, 2 to 3 reps for 2 to 3 sets, of 85% to 95%. Studies I’ve read have offered around the same parameters.
It may be wise to experiment with your own parameters but not stray too far from what has been established thus far in literature.
It comes down to how comfortable you are in using PAP in the first place. In the end I think that this has been a good thread that offers an additional tool to consider.
Any idea on what the optimum time would be between lifting and sprinting using this approach? I suspect it that the sooner you do the sprinting, the better (to a point), though I have not seen anything to quantify that. I wonder how long the positive effects last using this approach. Hours? Minutes?
If high level athletes are capable of recruiting FT fibres to a much higher extent vs. slower runners, why is the use of PAP necessary pre-workout? Won’t they be able to employ them during sprinting anyway?
How has the ~90% intensity come up? Is it from the papers you posted? If yes, how has this been measured/monitored? Have different intensities being compared?
Is this increased number of stimulated motor units specific to the event? Any event? If not, is it worth stimulating extra, non-specific motor units, putting extra CNS stress perhaps to the system?
Experimentation is good! I would just try and be more consistent with such applications vs. using them per training phase(s), if decided to be used; conclusions will be more valid this way, I believe. However, if someone decides to go all the way with this approach and intensity is/should be “restricted” in the 90% range, how would you manage the rest of the strength training programme? Or a PAP approach would be on top of that?!?! And
Of course, you are not trying to sell it ( :eek: ) and because it’s interesting, posts are coming.