This review discusses previous literature that has examined the influence of muscular strength on various factors associated with athletic performance and the benefits of achieving greater muscular strength. Greater muscular strength is strongly associated with improved force-time characteristics that contribute to an athlete’s overall performance. Much research supports the notion that greater muscular strength can enhance the ability to perform general sport skills such as jumping, sprinting, and change of direction tasks. Further research indicates that stronger athletes produce superior performances during sport specific tasks. Greater muscular strength allows an individual to potentiate earlier and to a greater extent, but also decreases the risk of injury. Sport scientists and practitioners may monitor an individual’s strength characteristics using isometric, dynamic, and reactive strength tests and variables. Relative strength may be classified into strength deficit, strength association, or strength reserve phases. The phase an individual falls into may directly affect their level of performance or training emphasis. Based on the extant literature, it appears that there may be no substitute for greater muscular strength when it comes to improving an individual’s performance across a wide range of both general and sport specific skills while simultaneously reducing their risk of injury when performing these skills. Therefore, sport scientists and practitioners should implement long-term training strategies that promote the greatest muscular strength within the required context of each sport/event. Future research should examine how force-time characteristics, general and specific sport skills, potentiation ability, and injury rates change as individuals transition from certain standards or the suggested phases of strength to another.

The Importance of Muscular Strength in Athletic Performance

This series of reviews focuses on the most important neuromuscular function in many sport performances: the ability to generate maximal muscular power. Part 1, published in an earlier issue of Sports Medicine, focused on the factors that affect maximal power production while part 2 explores the practical application of these findings by reviewing the scientific literature relevant to the development of training programmes that most effectively enhance maximal power production. The ability to generate maximal power during complex motor skills is of paramount importance to successful athletic performance across many sports. A crucial issue faced by scientists and coaches is the development of effective and efficient training programmes that improve maximal power production in dynamic, multi-joint movements. Such training is referred to as ‘power training’ for the purposes of this review. Although further research is required in order to gain a deeper understanding of the optimal training techniques for maximizing power in complex, sportsspecific movements and the precise mechanisms underlying adaptation, several key conclusions can be drawn from this review. First, a fundamental relationship exists between strength and power, which dictates that an individual cannot possess a high level of power without first being relatively strong. Thus, enhancing and maintaining maximal strength is essential when considering the long-term development of power. Second, consideration of movement pattern, load and velocity specificity is essential when designing power training programmes. Ballistic, plyometric and weightlifting exercises can be used effectively as primary exercises within a power training programme that enhances maximal power. The loads applied to these exercises will depend on the specific requirements of each particular sport and the type of movement being trained. The use of ballistic exercises with loads ranging from 0% to 50% of one-repetition maximum (1RM) and/or weightlifting exercises performed with loads ranging from 50% to 90% of 1RM appears to be the most potent loading stimulus for improving maximal power in complex movements. Furthermore, plyometric exercises should involve stretch rates as well as stretch loads that are similar to those encountered in each specific sport and involve little to no external resistance. These loading conditions allow for superior transfer to performance because they require similar movement velocities to those typically encountered in sport. Third, it is vital to consider the individual athlete’s window of adaptation (i.e. the magnitude of potential for improvement) for each neuromuscular factor contributing to maximal power production when developing an effective and efficient power training programme. A training programme that focuses on the least developed factor contributing to maximal power will prompt the greatest neuromuscular adaptations and therefore result in superior performance improvements for that individual. Finally, a key consideration for the long-term development of an athlete’s maximal power production capacity is the need for an integration of numerous power training techniques. This integration allows for variation within power meso-/micro-cycles while still maintaining specificity, which is theorized to lead to the greatest long-term improvement in maximal power.

/pdf/developing-maximal-neuromuscular-power-part-2-training-2zh4zw3rn7.pdf

Developing maximal neuromuscular power: part 2 - training considerations for improving maximal power production.

This series of reviews focuses on the most important neuromuscular function in many sport performances, the ability to generate maximal muscular power. Part 1 focuses on the factors that affect maximal power production, while part 2, which will follow in a forthcoming edition of Sports Medicine, explores the practical application of these findings by reviewing the scientific literature relevant to the development of training programmes that most effectively enhance maximal power production. The ability of the neuromuscular system to generate maximal power is affected by a range of interrelated factors. Maximal muscular power is defined and limited by the force-velocity relationship and affected by the length-tension relationship. The ability to generate maximal power is influenced by the type of muscle action involved and, in particular, the time available to develop force, storage and utilization of elastic energy, interactions of contractile and elastic elements, potentiation of contractile and elastic filaments as well as stretch reflexes. Furthermore, maximal power production is influenced by morphological factors including fibre type contribution to whole muscle area, muscle architectural features and tendon properties as well as neural factors including motor unit recruitment, firing frequency, synchronization and intermuscular coordination. In addition, acute changes in the muscle environment (i.e. alterations resulting from fatigue, changes in hormone milieu and muscle temperature) impact the ability to generate maximal power. Resistance training has been shown to impact each of these neuromuscular factors in quite specific ways. Therefore, an understanding of the biological basis of maximal power production is essential for developing training programmes that effectively enhance maximal power production in the human.

/pdf/developing-maximal-neuromuscular-power-part-1-biological-2cykcx276d.pdf

Developing maximal neuromuscular power: Part 1--biological basis of maximal power production.

Research has often examined the relationship between 1 or 2 measures of strength and change of direction (COD) ability reporting inconsistent relationships to performance. These inconsistencies may be the result of the strength assessment used and the assumption that 1 measure of strength can represent all "types" of strength required during a COD task. Therefore the purpose of this study was to determine the relationship between several lower-body strength and power measures, COD, and agility performance. Twelve (n = 12) elite female basketball athletes completed a maximal dynamic back squat, isometric midthigh pull, eccentric and concentric only back squat, and a countermovement jump, followed by 2 COD tests (505 and T-test) and a reactive agility test. Pearson product-moment correlation and stepwise regression analysis were performed on all variables. The percentage contribution of each strength measure to an athletes total strength score was also determined. Our results demonstrated that both COD tests were significantly correlated to maximal dynamic, isometric, concentric, and eccentric strength (r = -0.79 to -0.89), with eccentric strength identified as the sole predictor of COD performance. Agility performance did not correlate with any measure of strength (r = -0.08 to -0.36), whereas lower-body power demonstrated no correlation to either agility or COD performance (r = -0.19 to -0.46). These findings demonstrate the importance of multiple strength components for COD ability, highlighting eccentric strength as a deterministic factor of COD performance. Coaches should aim to develop a well-rounded strength base in athletes; ensuring eccentric strength is developed as effectively as the often-emphasized concentric or overall dynamic strength capacity.

Contribution of strength characteristics to change of direction and agility performance in female basketball athletes.

Although lower-body strength is correlated with sprint performance, whether increases in lower-body strength transfer positively to sprint performance remain unclear. This meta-analysis determined whether increases in lower-body strength (measured with the free-weight back squat exercise) transfer positively to sprint performance, and identified the effects of various subject characteristics and resistance-training variables on the magnitude of sprint improvement. A computerized search was conducted in ADONIS, ERIC, SPORTDiscus, EBSCOhost, Google Scholar, MEDLINE and PubMed databases, and references of original studies and reviews were searched for further relevant studies. The analysis comprised 510 subjects and 85 effect sizes (ESs), nested with 26 experimental and 11 control groups and 15 studies. There is a transfer between increases in lower-body strength and sprint performance as indicated by a very large significant correlation (r = −0.77; p = 0.0001) between squat strength ES and sprint ES. Additionally, the magnitude of sprint improvement is affected by the level of practice (p = 0.03) and body mass (r = 0.35; p = 0.011) of the subject, the frequency of resistance-training sessions per week (r = 0.50; p = 0.001) and the rest interval between sets of resistance-training exercises (r = −0.47; p ≤ 0.001). Conversely, the magnitude of sprint improvement is not affected by the athlete’s age (p = 0.86) and height (p = 0.08), the resistance-training methods used through the training intervention, (p = 0.06), average load intensity [% of 1 repetition maximum (RM)] used during the resistance-training sessions (p = 0.34), training program duration (p = 0.16), number of exercises per session (p = 0.16), number of sets per exercise (p = 0.06) and number of repetitions per set (p = 0.48). Increases in lower-body strength transfer positively to sprint performance. The magnitude of sprint improvement is affected by numerous subject characteristics and resistance-training variables, but the large difference in number of ESs available should be taken into consideration. Overall, the reported improvement in sprint performance (sprint ES = −0.87, mean sprint improvement = 3.11 %) resulting from resistance training is of practical relevance for coaches and athletes in sport activities requiring high levels of speed.

Increases in Lower-Body Strength Transfer Positively to Sprint Performance: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis

The primary purpose of this study was to investigate whether the athlete who has high performance in hang power clean, a common weightlifting exercise, has high performances in sprinting, jumping, and changing of direction (COD). As the secondary purpose, relationships between hang power clean performance, maximum strength, power and performance of jumping, sprinting, and COD also were investigated. Twenty-nine semiprofessional Australian Rules football players (age, height, and body mass [mean +/- SD]: 21.3 +/- 2.7 years, 1.8 +/- 0.1 m, and 83.6 +/- 8.2 kg) were tested for one repetition maximum (1RM) hang power clean, 1RM front squat, power output during countermovement jump with 40-kg barbell and without external load (CMJ), height of CMJ, 20-m sprint time, and 5-5 COD time. The subjects were divided into top and bottom half groups (n = 14 for each group) based on their 1RM hang power clean score relative to body mass, then measures from all other tests were compared with one-way analyses of variance. In addition, Pearson's product moment correlations between measurements were calculated among all subjects (n = 29). The top half group possessed higher maximum strength (P < 0.01), power (P < 0.01), performance of jumping (P < 0.05), and sprinting (P < 0.01). However, there was no significant difference between groups in 5-5 COD time, possibly because of important contributing factors other than strength and power. There were significant correlations between most of, but not all, combinations of performances of hang power clean, jumping, sprinting, COD, maximum strength, and power. Therefore, it seems likely there are underlying strength qualities that are common to the hang power clean, jumping, and sprinting.

Does Performance of Hang Power Clean Differentiate Performance of Jumping, Sprinting, and Changing of Direction?

The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of weighted jump squat training with and without eccentric braking. Twenty male subjects were divided into two groups (n = 10 per group), Non-Braking Group and Braking Group. The subjects were physically active, but not highly trained. The program for Non-Braking Group consisted of 6 sets of 6 repetitions of weighted jump squats without reduction of eccentric load for 8 weeks. The training program for the Braking Group consisted of the same sets and repetitions, but eccentric load was reduced by using an electromagnetic braking mechanism. Jump and reach, countermovement jump, static jump, drop jump, one repetition maximum half squat, weighted jump squat, and isometric/isokinetic knee extension/flexion at several different positions/angular velocities were tested pre- and posttraining intervention. The Non-Braking Group exhibited greater improvement in peak torque during isokinetic concentric knee flexion at 300 degrees/s [Non-Braking Group: (mean +/- SD) 124.0 +/- 22.6 Nm at pre- and 134.1 +/- 18.4 Nm at posttraining, and Braking Group: 118.5 +/- 32.7 Nm at pre- and 113.2 +/- 26.7 Nm at posttraining]. Braking Group exhibited superior adaptations in peak power relative to body mass during weighted jump squat [Non-Braking Group: (mean +/- SD) 49.1 +/- 8.6 W/kg at pre- and 50.9 +/- 6.2 W/kg at posttraining, and Braking Group: 47.9 +/- 6.9 W/kg at pre- and 53.7 +/- 7.3 W/kg at posttraining]. It appears that power output in relatively slow movement (weighted jump squat) was improved more in the Braking Group, however strength in high velocity movements (isokinetic knee flexion at 300 degrees/s) was improved more in Non-Braking Group. This study supports load and velocity specific effects of weighted jump squat training.

/pdf/comparison-of-weighted-jump-squat-training-with-and-without-1dijgitze6.pdf

Comparison of weighted jump squat training with and without eccentric braking

Lifting straps (LS) are often used by individuals to aid in the execution of the power clean (PC) as they aid in the hand coupling with the lifting bar. PURPOSE: This study analyzed the PC exercise in regards to ground reaction force (GRF), rate of force development (RFD) and 1RM, both with and without lifting LS. METHODS: There were 13 participants in this study comprised of male high school basketball players with an age range of 13-17. All participants have had a minimum of one year of proper weight lifting training provided by a certified personal trainer, and experienced Olympic style weight lifter. The study used a repeated measures cross over study design where the participants performed two sets of two reps of the PC, both with and without LS. The athletes performed a dynamic warm-up followed by progressive sets of the PC at low intensity (50% of their 1RM). Following the dynamic warm-up and PC progression sets the participants performed two sets of two repetitions with and without LS at an intensity of 70% 1RM while standing on a force plate. The peak vertical GRF (Newtons-N) and RFD (N/second) were assessed for second pull of the PC. The peak GRF and RFD were compared between conditions with paired t-tests. The force plate collected data at a sampling rate of 1000 hertz and the subsequent data was filtered at 100 hertz. RESULTS: The 1RM PC with no LS was significantly lower (72.7±15.9 kgs*) than the 1RM PC with LS (79.0±18.4 kgs). Peak vertical GRF was significantly lower for the LS conditions (1953.3±450.7 N*) compared to the no LS conditions (2004.0±443.7 N) (p<0.05). Peak vertical RFD was not significantly different between the LS conditions (16011.7±8301.5 N/sec) and no LS Conditions (16012.3±7341.5 N/sec) (p>0.05). CONCLUSION: Within the parameters of this study, the use of lifting LS did improve PC 1RM. However, LS did not improve the ability to generate greater vertical GRF or RFD. Coaches should work with their athletes on an individual basis to determine if the use of LS would be advantageous when performing the PC.

/pdf/the-effect-of-lifting-straps-on-peak-velocity-force-and-oalef2khb2.pdf

The effect of lifting straps on peak velocity, force, and power during clean pull

Measurement of power output during resistance training is becoming ubiquitous in strength and conditioning programs, but there is great variation in the methods used. The main purposes of this study were to compare the power output values obtained from 4 different methods and to examine the relationships between these values. Male semiprofessional Australian rules football players (n = 30) performed hang power clean and weighted jump squat while ground reaction force (GRF)-time data and barbell displacement-time data were sampled simultaneously using a force platform and a linear position transducer attached to the barbell. Peak and mean power applied to the barbell was obtained from barbell displacement-time data (method 1). Peak and mean power applied to the system (barbell + lifter) was obtained from 3 other methods: (a) using GRF-time data (method 2), (b) using barbell displacement-time data (method 3), and (c) using both barbell displacement-time data and GRF-time data (method 4). The peak power values (W) obtained from methods 1, 2, 3, and 4 were (mean +/- SD) 1,644 +/- 295, 3,079 +/- 638, 3,821 +/- 917, and 4,017 +/- 833 in hang power clean and 1,184 +/- 115, 3,866 +/- 451, 3,567 +/- 494, and 4,427 +/- 557 in weighted jump squat. There were significant differences between power output values obtained from method 1 vs. methods 2, 3, and 4, as well as method 2 vs. methods 3 and 4. The power output applied to the barbell and that applied to the system was significantly correlated (r = 0.65-0.81). As a practical application, it is important to understand the characteristics of each method and consider how power output should be measured during the hang power clean and the weighted jump squat.

/pdf/comparison-of-four-different-methods-to-measure-power-output-1kvaxvwi79.pdf

Comparison of four different methods to measure power output during the hang power clean and the weighted jump squat.

Handle everyday research tasks with reliable, citation-backed results

Your personal Research Agent to handle research tasks with citation-backed results

Popular Tasks used by Researchers

How can I help with your research?

Meet SciSpace

Get more enhanced response by uploading the PDFs you want me to reference.

No relevant PDFs in your library

SciSpace is the AI research assistant for academics. Run systematic literature reviews on 280M+ papers, and write papers with cited sources. Trusted by 1M+ students, PhDs & researchers.

SciSpace | AI for Research

Analyze PDFs

Code & Manuscripts

Funding & Grants

Literature & Patents

Medical & Clinical Data

Systematic Review

Visualize & Present

Web & Data

Build a Google Scholar-like website for your research.

Build a website

Create charts and images for your research

Create a Chart

Write a paper for submission to a journal

Draft a manuscript

Patent Search

Design eye-catching scientific posters in minutes.

Scientific Poster Generation

Systematic Literature Review

One task is running at the moment. Your messages will be shown right after.

Drag and drop or click here to browse

Loved by <highlight>1 million+</highlight> researchers

Extract a list of specific topics and their sources from unstructured text

Topics

Compare and analyze relevant papers that matches with your search

Papers

Get insights from PDFs and bookmarked papers from your library

My library

Recent searches

Try searching for:

Catch AI-generated content in scholarly and non-scholarly content

{ai} Detector

Ai Writer

Get PDF Summaries, highlighted text explanations 

Chat with PDF

Effortlessly create in-text citations and bibliographies in APA and 2,500 other formats

Citation generator

Get explanations, summaries, and answers on academic papers

Ease up your research workflow with {scispace}'s cohort of exciting AI tools

Elevate your academic writing skills and convey your ideas the way you want

Paraphraser

Explore our range of reading and writing tools

Your file is being prepared and should be ready in a few minutes. If it's a large file, it might take a bit longer. You can close this window, and we'll email you the file when it's done.

You have reached a maximum limit of <strong>{limit}</strong> columns in the table. Remove at least <strong>1</strong> column to add or create another one.

Warren A. Andrews

Author Tools

Chat about Author

Papers

Does Performance of Hang Power Clean Differentiate Performance of Jumping, Sprinting, and Changing of Direction?

Comparison of weighted jump squat training with and without eccentric braking

The effect of lifting straps on peak velocity, force, and power during clean pull

Comparison of four different methods to measure power output during the hang power clean and the weighted jump squat.