Rest redistribution functions as a free and Ad-Hoc equivalent to commonly used velocity-based training thresholds during clean pulls at different loads

Kód výsledku v IS VaVaI

<a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F00216208%3A11510%2F19%3A10398417" target="_blank" >RIV/00216208:11510/19:10398417 - isvavai.cz</a>

Výsledek na webu

<a href="https://verso.is.cuni.cz/pub/verso.fpl?fname=obd_publikace_handle&handle=iYb3cEm5IQ" target="_blank" >https://verso.is.cuni.cz/pub/verso.fpl?fname=obd_publikace_handle&handle=iYb3cEm5IQ</a>

DOI - Digital Object Identifier

<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.2478/hukin-2019-0052" target="_blank" >10.2478/hukin-2019-0052</a>

Jazyk výsledku

angličtina

Název v původním jazyce

Rest redistribution functions as a free and Ad-Hoc equivalent to commonly used velocity-based training thresholds during clean pulls at different loads

Popis výsledku v původním jazyce

This study determined whether redistributing total rest time into shorter, but more frequent rest periods could maintain velocity and power output during 3 traditional sets of 6 clean pulls using 80% (TS80), 100% (TS100) and 120% (TS120) of power clean 1RM with 180 seconds of inter-set rest and during 3 &quot;rest redistribution&quot; protocols of 9 sets of 2 clean pulls using 80% (RR80), 100% (RR100) and 120% (RR120) of power clean 1RM with 45 seconds of inter-set rest. The total number of repetitions performed above 10 and 20% velocity loss thresholds, mean and peak velocity maintenance (the average of all 18 repetitions relative to the best repetition; MVM, PVM), and decline (the worst repetition relative to the best repetition; MVD, PVD) were calculated. For MVM, PVM, MVD, and PVD, there were small-to-moderate effect sizes in favour of RR80 and RR100, but large effects favouring RR120, compared to their respective TS protocols. The number of repetitions within a 20% velocity loss threshold was 17.7 +- 0.6 during RR and 16.5 +- 2.4 during TS (effect size 0.69); and the number of repetitions within a 10% velocity loss threshold was about 13.1 +- 3.7 during RR and 10.7 +- 3.6 during TS (effect size 0.66). Therefore, RR generally allowed for a better overall maintenance of velocity and power, especially at heavy loads. Coaches who wish to implement velocity-based training, but who do not wish to purchase or use the associated equipment, may consider rest-redistribution to encourage similar training stimuli.

Název v anglickém jazyce

Rest redistribution functions as a free and Ad-Hoc equivalent to commonly used velocity-based training thresholds during clean pulls at different loads

Popis výsledku anglicky

This study determined whether redistributing total rest time into shorter, but more frequent rest periods could maintain velocity and power output during 3 traditional sets of 6 clean pulls using 80% (TS80), 100% (TS100) and 120% (TS120) of power clean 1RM with 180 seconds of inter-set rest and during 3 &quot;rest redistribution&quot; protocols of 9 sets of 2 clean pulls using 80% (RR80), 100% (RR100) and 120% (RR120) of power clean 1RM with 45 seconds of inter-set rest. The total number of repetitions performed above 10 and 20% velocity loss thresholds, mean and peak velocity maintenance (the average of all 18 repetitions relative to the best repetition; MVM, PVM), and decline (the worst repetition relative to the best repetition; MVD, PVD) were calculated. For MVM, PVM, MVD, and PVD, there were small-to-moderate effect sizes in favour of RR80 and RR100, but large effects favouring RR120, compared to their respective TS protocols. The number of repetitions within a 20% velocity loss threshold was 17.7 +- 0.6 during RR and 16.5 +- 2.4 during TS (effect size 0.69); and the number of repetitions within a 10% velocity loss threshold was about 13.1 +- 3.7 during RR and 10.7 +- 3.6 during TS (effect size 0.66). Therefore, RR generally allowed for a better overall maintenance of velocity and power, especially at heavy loads. Coaches who wish to implement velocity-based training, but who do not wish to purchase or use the associated equipment, may consider rest-redistribution to encourage similar training stimuli.

Druh

J_imp - Článek v periodiku v databázi Web of Science

CEP obor

—

OECD FORD obor

30306 - Sport and fitness sciences

Projekt

—

Návaznosti

I - Institucionalni podpora na dlouhodoby koncepcni rozvoj vyzkumne organizace

Rok uplatnění

2019

Kód důvěrnosti údajů

S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů

Název periodika

Journal of Human Kinetics

ISSN

1640-5544

e-ISSN

—

Svazek periodika

68

Číslo periodika v rámci svazku

1

Stát vydavatele periodika

PL - Polská republika

Počet stran výsledku

12

Strana od-do

5-16

Kód UT WoS článku

000487060000001

EID výsledku v databázi Scopus

2-s2.0-85072596101