ABSTRACT
The relationship between asymmetry and performance is still undetermined in the literature. Methods of assessing asymmetry have been inconsistent and focused on the analysis of jumping asymmetry. Dual ground reaction forces are prevalent in athlete monitoring, though underutilized in asymmetry research. The purpose of this study was to assess the relationship of countermovement jump (CMJ) impulse asymmetry to performance in collegiate soccer athletes. Male and female athletes were selected from an ongoing athlete research repository database of NCAA D-I soccer athletes. All athletes contributed two maximal effort unweighted (CMJ0) and weighted countermovement jumps (CMJ20) using the mean for calculations. Propulsive phase asymmetry scores (PrPAS) and positive impulse asymmetry scores (PIAS) were calculated to determine the magnitude of asymmetry for each prospective phase. Statistically significant correlations were found between CMJ0 jump height and unweighted PIAS (r = −0.43) in females. Males had statistically significant correlations between CMJ20 jump height and weighted PIAS (r = −0.49). Neither unweighted PrPAS nor weighted PrPAS produced statistically significant correlations (r < 0.26) to their prospective jump heights. When assessing CMJ asymmetry, it is recommended to conduct both weighted and unweighted CMJ testing, utilizing PIAS as the metric to be assessed.
ABSTRACT
Daily undulating periodization (DUP), using daily alterations in repetitions, has been advocated as a superior method of resistance training, while traditional forms of programming for periodization (Block) have been questioned. Nineteen Division I track and field athletes were assigned to either a 10-week Block or DUP training group. Year and event were controlled. Over the course of the study, there were four testing sessions, which were used to evaluate a variety of strength characteristics, including maximum isometric strength, rate of force development, and one repetition maximum (1RM). Although, performance trends favored the Block group for strength and rate of force development, no statistical differences were found between the two groups. However, different (p ≤ 0.05) estimated volumes of work (VL) and amounts of improvement per VL were found between groups. Based upon calculated training efficiency scores, these data indicate that a Block training model is more efficient in producing strength gains than a DUP model. Additionally, alterations in testosterone (T), cortisol (C) and the T:C ratio were measured. Although there were no statistically (p ≤ 0.05) different hormone alterations between groups, relationships between training variables and hormone concentrations including the T:C ratio, indicate that Block may be more efficacious in terms of fatigue management.
ABSTRACT
Recently, the comparison of "periodized" strength training methods has been a focus of both exercise and sport science. Daily undulating periodization (DUP), using daily alterations in repetitions, has been developed and touted as a superior method of training, while block forms of programming for periodization have been questioned. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to compare block to DUP in Division I track and field athletes. Thirty-one athletes were assigned to either a 10-wk block or DUP training group in which sex, year, and event were matched. Over the course of the study, there were 4 testing sessions, which were used to evaluate a variety of strength characteristics. Although performance trends favored the block group for strength and rate of force development, no statistically significant differences were found between the 2 training groups. However, statistically different (P ≤ .05) values were found for estimated volume of work (volume load) and the amount of improvement per volume load between block and DUP groups. Based on calculated training efficiency scores, these data indicate that a block training model is more efficient than a DUP model in producing strength gains.
