maximum strength-power-performance relationships in...

739

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 2003, 17(4), 739–745q 2003 National Strength & Conditioning Association

Maximum Strength-Power-PerformanceRelationships in Collegiate Throwers

MICHAEL H. STONE,1 KIM SANBORN,2 HAROLD S. O’BRYANT,3MICHAEL HARTMAN,1 MARGARET E. STONE,4 CHRIS PROULX,5BARRYMORE WARD,6 AND JOE HRUBY3

1Sports Science USOC, Colorado Springs, Colorado 80909; 2Victoria Institute of Sports, Melbourne, Australia;3Biomechanics Laboratory, Appalachian State University, Boone, North Carolina 28607; 4Carmichael TrainingSystems, Colorado Springs, Colorado 80903; 5Hesser College, Manchester, New Hampshire 03103; 6SportsScience, Southern Cross University, Lismore, Australia.

ABSTRACT

Presently the degree to which peak force influences powerproduction or explosive performance such as strength train-ing movements or throwing (shot-put and weight-throw) isunclear. This study describes the relationships between ameasure of maximum strength, isometric peak force (IPF),dynamic peak force (PF), peak power (PP), the 1-repetitionmovement power snatch (SN), and throwing ability over an8-week training period. Five male and 6 female (n 5 11)well-trained collegiate throwers participated. PF was mea-sured using an AMTI force plate; PP was measured usingan infrared-ultrasonic tracking device (V-Scope, LipmanElectronics). Clean pulls from the midthigh position wereassessed isometrically and dynamically at a constant load,30% and 60% of IPF. Specific explosive strength was evalu-ated using an SN and using the shot-put (SP) and weight-throw (WGT) measured under meet conditions. Variables(PF, PP, SN) were assessed 3 times at 0 weeks, 4 weeks, and8 weeks. Each measurement period preceded a field meet by3 days. Peak force, peak rate of force development, and PPincreased over the 8 weeks. Correlation coefficients (r) indi-cate that IPF is strongly related to dynamic PF and PP 30%,60% of the IPF. Furthermore, strong correlations were foundfor the SN and the distance for the SP and WGT, and theserelationships tended to increase over time. Results suggestthat maximum strength (i.e., IPF) is strongly associated withdynamic PF. In addition, maximum strength is strongly as-sociated with PP even at relatively light loads such as thoseassociated with sport-specific dynamic explosiveness (i.e.,SN, SP, WGT).

Key Words: strength, power, throwing

Reference Data: Stone, M.H., K. Sanborn, H.S.O’Bryant, M. Hartman, M.E. Stone, C. Proulx, B. Ward,and J. Hruby. Maximum strength-power-performancerelationships in collegiate throwers. J. Strength Cond.Res. 17(4):739–745. 2003.

Introduction

Strength can be defined as the ability to produceforce (22, 24). As force is a vector quantity, the dis-

play of strength will have a magnitude and direction.Strength can also be associated with a rate of produc-tion. Strength can be displayed isometrically or dy-namically and depends on a number of factors such asthe type of contraction, rate of motor unit activation,and degree of activation. Because power is the productof force and velocity, then alterations in force shouldaffect changes in power production.

Schmidtbleicher (21) indicates that maximumstrength is the basic quality affecting power output.Potentially maximum strength could effect peak pow-er because: (a) a given load would represent a smallerpercentage of maximum, thus making this load easierto accelerate; (b) it is possible that a person with ahigher maximum strength level would have a greaterpercentage or greater cross-sectional area of type IIfibers, which strongly contribute to high power out-puts; and (c) as a result of strength training (i.e., at-taining greater maximum strength) several power-im-proving alterations occur simultaneously, these alter-ations could include hypertrophy of type II fibers, in-creases in the type II/I cross-sectional ratio, andalterations in motor unit activation (10).

Although it is generally believed that maximumstrength should have its greatest effect on power pro-duced at heavy loads, some evidence indicates thatmaximum strength influences power over a much wid-er range than might be expected (18, 25). Review ofthe literature indicates that the association of maxi-mum strength with power accounts for 50% or moreof the variance (24). However, the exact relation ofmaximum strength with peak power and the contextof explosive strength performance, particularly withlight loads, remain unclear.

740 Stone, Sanborn, O’Bryant, Hartman, Stone, Proulx, Ward, and Hruby

Schmidtbleicher (21) has characterized explosiveexercise as having maximum or near maximum ratesof force development (RFD). Thus, either isometric ordynamic exercises can be classified as explosive, pro-vided maximum RFD is attained. Explosive strengthis defined as the peak RFD and has been associatedwith acceleration capabilities (21). It can be arguedthat for many sports the ability to produce force rap-idly may be more important than maximum force pro-duction. Rate of force production is a change in forcedivided by change in time. The rate of force develop-ment is primarily a function of the rate of increase inmuscle activation by the nervous system (13, 32). Al-though force is directly responsible for the accelerationof an object, it may be argued that the faster a givenforce is attained, the more rapid the corresponding ac-celeration occurs. Thus rate of force development canbe associated with the ability to accelerate objects (21).So, attaining a high peak rate of force development orexplosive strength would be associated with high ac-celeration capabilities.

From a practical or applied standpoint, it is alsoimportant to understand the relation between maxi-mum strength, rate of force development, and power-oriented explosive sport performance, such as throw-ing. These relations could influence the degree of em-phasis placed on maximum strength training as partof the overall training program. Resistance training,simply providing a strength overload may not be suf-ficient to optimize the training effect. It may be arguedthat to most effectively enhance strength or power at-tributes for a specific sport, the training programshould contain exercises that address the concept ofmechanical specificity (4, 29). It can be further arguedthat to effectively measure force-power, alterations re-sulting from training or measure performance transferas a result of training that mechanically specific exer-cises or tests must be included. Mechanical specificityis not limited to movement patterns or velocity con-siderations but also is concerned with peak force, rateof force development, and positional characteristics.Positional characteristics (as opposed to movementpattern) concern using appropriate relative trunk andlimb positions for isometric testing (19, 29, 33). Someevidence indicates that the most appropriate positionfor isometric maximum strength testing is likely to bethe joint angle(s) at which peak forces are developed(33). This angle(s) or position may allow the best in-ference to dynamic activity. Thus, it may be arguedthat isometric tests, provided positional characteristicscan be satisfied (19, 29), could potentially be used tocharacterize the results of a strength-power trainingprogram.

The primary purpose of this study was to examinethe relations between maximum strength (peak iso-metric force) and dynamic peak force, rate of force de-velopment, and peak power measured during mid-

thigh pulls and to relate this variable to the 1 repeti-tion maximum (1RM) snatch, and throwing ability(shot-put and weight-throw). Potential variations inthese relationships were assessed over an 8-weektraining period.

MethodsExperimental Approach to the ProblemThe relationship of maximum strength to varioustypes of performance is unclear, especially potentialchanges in relationship over a training period. To bet-ter understand this relationship, a group of well-trained collegiate throwers were followed up (mea-sured) over an 8-week portion of their general prepa-ration phase training. In this experimental observation,a single group, repeated measures design was incor-porated to ascertain statistically significant alterationsin the dependent variables associated with maximumstrength and power. The relationships between a mea-sure of maximum strength (IPF) and dynamic mea-sures of performance were determined using a Pear-son’s product moment correlation.

SubjectsFive male and 6 female (n 5 11, age 5 18–21 years,initial body mass 5 101.3 6 25.3 kg; % fat 5 21.9 68.9) collegiate throwers participated in the study. Allsubjects signed informed consents prior to the study.Previous strength training experience ranged from0.5–4 years, and previous throwing experience rangedfrom 1 to 6 years. The group included 2 NCAA na-tional provisional qualifiers.

TrainingThis study deals with the observation of collegiatethrowers during a planned preparation phase prior tothe indoor season. All throwers had just finished a 6-week high-volume training period prior to the initia-tion of the study. The high-volume phase emphasizedstrength-endurance. The following 8-week trainingprogram emphasized increased maximum strength(weeks 1–4) and strength-power (weeks 5–8; Tables 1and 2). During a training session, maximum effortswere emphasized on all exercises regardless of theload.

Body Mass and CompositionBody mass was measured to the nearest 0.1 kg usingan electronic scale. A 7-site skin-fold (SF) was used todetermine approximate body fat percentages (12). Ex-perience laboratory personnel measured all SFs on theright side (Table 3).

Performance TestsAll subjects had been familiarized with the tests beforethe testing began. Isometric and dynamic peak force(PF) was measured using an AMTI force plate (500Hz). Peak power (PP) was measured using the V-

Maximum Strength Relationships 741

Table 1. Experimental training protocol.

High-volume phase 6 weeks* (3 3 10)

Tests (T1)Training

Week 1: 3 3 5 (1 3 5)Week 2: 3 3 5 (1 3 5)Week 3: 3 3 3 (1 3 5)Week 4: 3 3 3 (1 3 5)

Test (T2)Week 5: 5 3 5Week 6: 3 3 5 (1 3 5)Week 7: 3 3 3 (1 3 5)Week 8: 3 3 2 (1 3 5)

Test (T3)

* Sets in parentheses are down sets performed at 40–50%of estimated 1RM.

Table 2. Exercise protocol.

Weeks 1–4Monday and Friday

1. Squats2. Push press (front squat 1st rep)3. Bench press (108 incline)

Tuesday, Thursday, SaturdayVarious sprints, agility work, fast foot work, throw (overweight from

front 3 sets and reps), midsection work, flexibility work

Wednesday1. Shoulder shrugs (1st from floor)2. Clean pulls (from floor)3. Clean pulls (from mid-thigh)4. Stiff legged deadlift

Friday15–20% lighter than Monday

Saturday1. Snatch grip shoulder shrug2. Power snatch

Weeks 5–8Monday and Friday

1. Heavy ¼ squats*2. Weighted jumps3. Dumbbell bench press (108 incline)

Tuesday, Thursday, SaturdayVarious sprints, agility work, fast foot work, throw (overweight from

front 3 sets and reps), midsection work, flexibility work

Wednesday1. Shoulder shrugs (1st from floor)2. Clean pulls (from mid-thigh)3. Stiff legged deadlift

Friday15–20% lighter than Monday

Saturday1. Power snatch

* Exercises 1 and 2 complexed.

scope; an infrared-ultrasonic tracing device (LipmanElectronic Engineering Ltd., Ramat Hahayal, Israel). Amore detailed characterization of the V-scope has beenpresented by Stone et al. (25). Isometric midthigh pullswere measured from a position identical to that usedin training (knee angle 1358–1458, hip angle 155–1658).Dynamic midthigh pulls began at a position identicalto the isometric position: dynamic pulls were finishedwith a simultaneous maximum effort shoulder shrugand plantar flexion. This method (midthigh pulls) of

assessing PF and PP was chosen because it was amovement-position used in training, previous research(9) had established its potential usefulness as a test,and the positions (hip and knee angle) achieved in thetest and the explosive nature of the tests are similar tothat of critical aspects and positions of weightliftingand throwing movements (4, 5, 14, 15, 28). Measure-ments were made isometrically and dynamically at30% and 60% of the IPF using a specially designedadjustable power rack (Sorinex, Orange, SC). Peak rateof force development was measured using a 5-milli-second window. Test-retest reliability was PF (ICC) 50.98, peak rate of force development (PRFD) (ICC 50.81) and PP (ICC) 5 0.86. Sport-specific explosivestrength was measured using a power snatch (SN), theshot-put (SP) and the weight throw (WGT) under meetconditions. Throwing implements were those used formen and women (shot, men 5 7.26 kg; women 5 4kg; weight, men 5 15.9 kg; women 5 9.1 kg). Peakforce, PRFD, PP variables, and SN were measured 3and 2 days, respectively, prior to each meet.

Statistical Analyses

Longitudinal data were analyzed using linear poly-nomial contrasts. Effect size and statistical power werecalculated (see Table 4). Correlations were calculatedusing Pearson’s r.


Table 3. Body mass and composition alterations (n 5 11).

T1 T2 T3 p Value Eta2 Power

Body mass (kg)Lean body mass (kg)Percent fat

101 6 25.378.3 6 18.621.9 6 8.7

101.5 6 27.178.8 6 18.621.5 6 7.9

103 6 27.480.2 6 14.721.5 6 7.7

0.0040.0150.481

0.5890.4630.051

0.9260.7540.102

* T1 5 0 weeks; T2 5 4 weeks; T3 5 8 weeks; Eta2 5 effect size.

Table 4. Mean force and power values for the midthigh pull (n 5 11).*

T1 T2 T3

% Change

T1–T2 T2–T3 T1–T3

IPF30 PF60 PFPP30 PP

2,881 6 9212,370 6 6272,809 6 7451,909 6 8582,065 6 921

2,894 6 8362,393 6 5812,851 6 7652,243 6 9592,427 6 871

3,002 6 9332,566 6 5173,006 6 6772,326 6 6512,434 6 683

0.51.01.5

17.517.5

3.77.25.43.70.4

4.18.37.0

21.817.9

60 PPIPRFDPRFD30PRFD60

1,621 6 58915,047 6 5,24325,161 6 6,22121,315 6 5,851

2,025 6 79218,873 6 7,65929,010 6 7,63225,932 6 7,613

2,178 6 68618,000 6 8,35731,446 6 7,73427,262 6 7,041

24.925.415.317.8

7.524.6

8.45.1

34.419.624.927.9

* T1 5 0 weeks; T2 5 4 weeks; T3 5 8 weeks; IPF 5 peak isometric force; 30 PF 5 peak force at 30% of IPF; 60 PF 5 peakforce at 60% of IPF; 30 PP 5 peak power at 30% of IPF; 60 PP 5 peak power at 60% of IPF; IPRFD 5 isometric peak rate offorce development; PRFD30 5 peak rate of force development at 30% of IPF; PRFD60 5 peak rate of force development at 60%of IPF; force 5 newtons; power 5 watts.

Table 4a. Statistical analyses for PF and PP variables.

Variable p Value Eta2 Power

Peak forceIPFPF30PF60Power

0.00010.1150.0170.0100.0001

0.5570.1140.2430.2770.533

0.9980.3490.6980.7710.997

PP30PP60PRFDIPRFDPRFD30PRFD60

0.0150.00010.00010.1150.0010.001

0.2490.5630.4410.1140.4220.443

0.7100.9990.9980.3490.9610.973

* PF 5 peak force; PP 5 peak power; Eta2 5 effect size;Peak force 5 total peak force (IPF 1 PF30 1 PF60); power5 total power (PP30 1 PP60); PRFD 5 total PRFD (IPRFD1 PRFD30 1 PRFD60); IPF 5 peak isometric force; PF30 5peak force at 30% of IPF; PF60 5 peak force at 60% of IPF;PP30 5 peak power at 30% of IPF; PP60 5 peak power at60% of IPF; IPRFD 5 isometric peak rate of force develop-ment; PRFD30 5 peak rate of force development at 30% ofIPF; PRFD60 5 peak rate of force development at 60% of IPF.

Results

Analyses of men vs. women showed no differences inthe rates of adaptation to the program. Thus, data arepresented as one group. Alterations in body mass andbody composition are shown in Table 3. Body massand lean body mass (LBM) increased over time.Changes in peak force, peak rate of force developmentand power outputs are shown in Tables 4 and 4a. Al-though measures of PF, PRFD, and PP increased overtime, both PRFD and PP had greater increases duringthe first 4 weeks, and PF generally had the greatestincreases during the second 4 weeks of training. Theresults of the sport performance variables, SN, SP, andWGT are shown in Table 5, all variables showed sig-nificant increases over time. Correlations between IPF,the mid-thigh force and power variables and perfor-mance variables are shown in Table 6. Measures ofPRFD did not correlate well with any variable (r valuesranged from 0 to 0.27). The results of this correlationalstudy indicated that maximum strength (IPF) isstrongly related to PP and dynamic sports perfor-mance but not PRFD.

Discussion

The findings of this study indicated that a measure ofIPF can be strongly associated with power and explo-


Table 5. Mean values for the snatch (SN), shot-put (SH),and weight throw (WGT) (n 5 11).

SN SP WGT

T1T2T3

61.8 6 19.865.5 6 20.367.7 6 21.4

11.99 6 1.912.25 6 1.812.63 6 1.7

11.55 6 2.912.43 6 2.612.97 6 2.5

p Value Effect size Power

SNSHWGT

0.0030.0060.008

0.6020.5410.517

0.9380.8710.838

Table 6. Correlation of IPF with midthigh pull and per-formance variables.*

30PF 60PF 30PP 60PP SN SP WGT

T1T2T3

0.770.880.85

0.850.870.92

0.770.810.80

0.600.690.87

0.950.980.94

0.670.740.75

0.700.760.79

* T1 5 0 weeks; T2 5 4 weeks; T3 5 8 weeks; IPF 5 peakisometric force; 30PF 5 peak force at 30% of IPF; 60 PF 5peak force at 60% of IPF; 30 PP 5 peak power at 30% of IPF;60 PP 5 peak power at 60% of IPF; SN 5 snatch; SP 5 shot-put; WGT 5 weight throw.

siveness. It should be noted that the number of sub-jects was relatively small (n 5 11); however, this groupwas made up of well-trained collegiate throwers andcontained 2 NCAA national provisional qualifiers. Thegroup all had a strength training and throwing back-ground and was strength trained in the same mannerfor 6 weeks prior to the initiation of the study and thusrepresented a relatively homogenous group from atraining protocol standpoint. Furthermore, conceptu-ally, the results agree with the observations of recentstudies and review indicating a strong relationship be-tween dynamic measures of maximum strength andpeak power (18, 24, 25).

Specificity of training was exhibited in that IPFshowed the smallest percent gain, which was not sta-tistically significant. The percent gains associated withpeak force at 30% of IPF and peak force at 60% of IPFwere larger and reflect the dynamic nature of thetraining program.

Increasing power output (or work rate) is likely themost important aspect in improving the performanceof a specific movement. Peak power represents themaximum power produced at a particular movementduring a brief moment under given set of conditions.

The results of this study suggest that improvingmaximum strength can result in the improvement ofpeak power output during lifting at percentages ofmaximum ability. The results of this study also indi-

cate that maximum strength markedly contributes topower production during the movement of light resis-tances as well as heavy resistances. Thus, improvingmaximum strength could improve movements withlight (or zero) external loads. Indeed the improvementin maximum strength and power likely contributed tothe gains noted in the sports performance variables(SN, SP, WGT).

Of particular interest is the differential effect oftraining on PF, PRFD, and PP. Generally, PP showedits greatest improvements during the first 4 weeks andPF generally showed the most improvements duringthe last 4 weeks. This observation is particularly inter-esting in that the first 4 weeks of training emphasizedmaximum strength rather than power. Explanationsfor this differential effect include:

• Stimulus-fatigue-recovery-adaptation. Conceptuallyan appropriate stimulus can result in fatigue-recov-ery and an adaptation such that performance is even-tually improved (i.e., supercompensation). This con-cept is not limited to a single exercise response butmay be viewed on a longer basis producing trainingadaptations. Verkhoshansky (30, 31) noted that aconcentrated load of strength or strength-endurancetraining for several weeks could result in a dimin-ished speed-strength (power) capability among trackand field athletes. On returning to normal training,increased power performance can often be observed,sometimes beyond baseline values. Similar resultshave been observed among young weightlifters aftera planned high volume overreaching phase (8, 23)and may be linked to alterations in anabolic-catabolichormones. Thus, a high-volume strength-endurancephase may have potentiated gains in power whenmoving to lower volume phases. This phenomenonmay have played a role in the relatively large PP(and PRFD) increase noted during the first 4 weeksof strength training after the high-volume phase.

• Potentiation and different rates of adaptation. Asso-ciated with the concentrated loading theory is theconcept of sequenced training and one trainingphase potentiating the subsequent phase. Wilson etal. (34) demonstrated that among heavy weight-trained subjects with reasonable maximum strengthlevels, switching to high power training (squats) im-proved a variety of performance variables beyondthat of continued heavy weight training. Similar ob-servations have been made among elite weightlifters(17) and American collegiate football players (11). Itmay be argued that because the subjects in the pre-sent study were already reasonably strong, a switchfrom high-volume strength- and endurance-orientedtraining to a lower volume of strength training con-taining a reasonable amount of power-oriented ex-ercises potentiated improved power but did not pro-duce marked increase in PF (because they were al-


ready reasonably strong). This concept is supportedby the observation that the greatest PF measurementsoccurred as lean body mass (LBM) increased overthe last 4 weeks. Thus, an increase in LBM was nec-essary for the additional enhancement of maximumstrength (PF) to occur.

• Sufficient power-oriented training. Evidence indi-cates that PP power occurs at approximately 30–60%of 1RM; training at these loads may enhance powerbetter than training at heavier loads. Although max-imum strength was being emphasized during thefirst 4 weeks, there was a considerable amount ofpower-oriented exercises included. Major exercisessuch as pulls and squats all had down sets per-formed at 40–50% of the 1RM. Furthermore, therewere light and heavy days included. For example, theloading for squats on Thursday was reduced by 15–20%, compared with the loading on Monday. Be-cause maximum efforts were encouraged, movementspeed and power would be increased. Thus, manyof the movements were in fact high power in natureduring the first 4 weeks. McBride et al. (16) haveshown that training at weights (squats) producinghigher peak power outputs, compared with heavierloads have greater effects on power over a short-termtraining period. Baker et al. (2, 3) have noted similarimprovements in average power among rugby play-ers over a season. Thus, although the emphasis wason maximum strength development, the inclusion ofpower-oriented movements during the first 4 weeksmay have contributed to the relatively large initialadaptations in PP.

As observed in the present study and previousstudy (9), higher power movements are also accom-panied by higher PRFD. Thus, power training mayalso optimize adaptations in PRFD. Increases in PRFDacross time may also be related to the same trainingfactors associated with the increased power produc-tion. It is also possible that combinations of the abovefactors are responsible for the observed alterations inperformance.

It is also of interest to note that the correlationsamong IPF, PF, PP, and the performance variables tend-ed to increase over time, agreeing with the observa-tions of Robinson et al. (20). It has been previouslypostulated that there is a lag time in being able toincorporate alterations in maximum strength (or pow-er) into a specific performance (1, 7). The general in-creases in relationship between IPF and dynamic var-iables may indicate that as training preceded, the abil-ity to use maximum strength (or a higher percentageof maximum) was enhanced (i.e., a lag time). For ex-ample, the improvements in the weight throw mayhave occurred, at least partially, as a result of beingable to incorporate the increased levels of maximumstrength (or power) into the technique of the throw.

Exactly how PRFD affects the types of performancemeasured in this study is not clear. PRFD measuresdid not correlate well with IPF, nor did PRFD mea-sures correlate well with any variable (data notshown). However, if one assumes that there are criticaltime periods (and therefore positions) within a move-ment, in which performance depends on achieving thehighest possible force development (6), then RFD dur-ing this critical period would contribute markedly tothe overall performance of the movement. In thisstudy, PRFD increased with training time but was notstatistically associated with improved performance.However, the measurement procedures used did notinclude characterization of critical time periods for theperformance variables measured. Measurement offorce during these critical time periods may be moreimportant then simply measuring PRFD, which maynot occur during the critical time period.

Specifically these results indicate that: (a) a mea-sure of isometric maximum strength (i.e., IPF) isstrongly related to the ability to generate PF dynami-cally; (b) maximum strength is strongly related withPP, even at relatively light loads that are associatedwith sport-specific dynamic explosiveness (i.e., SN, SP,WGT); and (c) these relationships tend to increasewith training time.

Practical ApplicationsThese results indicate that maximum strength mark-edly contributes to power and explosiveness at lightand heavy loads. Therefore, improvement of maximumstrength as a result of strength training could improvepower and explosiveness and therefore performance ina variety of movements associated with both light andheavy resistances. The results of this study suggestseveral possibilities associated with strength training.

1. Increased maximum strength as a result of trainingcan enhance force generation and power produc-tion.

2. Training for maximum strength can result inchanges in other factors such as power and peakrate of force production that can also contribute toimproved sports performance.

3. However, no longitudinal study has shown thatmaximum strength, power, or specific performancevariables change at exactly the same rate. Further-more, the increases in strength may continue afterthe changes in power or sport performance becomeasymptotic. It is possible that the lack of direct cor-respondence between maximum strength gains andother performance variables is associated with a lagtime (7). Lag time deals with a period of time inwhich the athlete learns how to use the increasedstrength; the lag time may extend many months insome cases. It is possible that lag time may be re-duced by careful coaching strategies in which the


potential link between strength and technique ispointed out to the athlete. This may partly be ac-complished by pointing out similarities betweentraining exercises (i.e., mechanical specificity) andperformance exercises.

4. Caution should be exercised in completely depend-ing on maximum strength gains to enhance poweroutput or sport performance, especially among ad-vanced or elite athletes. To maximize power andexplosiveness, specialized programs that also spe-cifically train power and speed are necessary (26,27). This would include the use of sequenced per-iodized programs in which the initial phase em-phasizes strength gains, with later phases empha-sizing power and speed (11, 24, 25).

References

1. ABERNETHY, P.J., AND J. JURIMAE. Cross-sectional and longitu-dinal uses of isoinertial, isometric and isokinetic dynamometry.Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 28:1180–1187. 1996.

2. BAKER, D., S. NANCE, AND M. MOORE. The load that maximizesthe average mechanical power output during explosive benchpress throws in highly trained athletes. J. Strength Cond. Res.15:92–97. 2001.

3. BAKER, D., S. NANCE, AND M. MOORE. The load that maximizesthe average mechanical power output during jump squats inpower trained athletes. J. Strength Cond. Res. 15:20–24. 2001.

4. BARTONIETZ, K.E. Biomechanics of the snatch: Toward a highertraining efficiency. Strength Cond. J. 18:24–31. 1996.

5. BARTONIETZ, K. Strength training for throwers. In: The Throws.J. Jarver, ed. Mountain View, CA: Tafnews Press, 2000. pp. 22–26.

6. CRONIN, J.B., P.J. MCNAIR, AND R.N. MARSHALL. The role ofmaximal strength and load on initial power production. Med.Sci. Sport Exerc. 3:1763–1769. 2000.

7. DELECLUSE, C. Influence of strength training on sprint runningperformance. Sports Med. 24:147–156. 1997.

8. FRY, A.C., W.J. KRAEMER, M.H. STONE, L.P. KOZIRIS, J.T.THRUSH, AND S.J. FLECK. Relationships between serum testos-terone, cortisol and weightlifting performance. J. Strength Cond.Res. 14:338–343. 2000.

9. HAFF, G.G., M.H. STONE, H.S. O’BRYANT, E. HARMAN, C. DIN-AN, R. JOHNSON, AND K.-H. HAN. Force-time dependent char-acteristics of dynamic and isometric muscle actions. J. StrengthCond. Res. 11:269–272. 1997.

10. HAKKINEN, K. Neuromuscular adaptation during strengthtraining, aging, detraining and immobilization. Crit. Rev. Phys.Rehabil. Med. 6:161–198. 1994.

11. HARRIS, G.R., M.H. STONE, H.S. O’BRYANT, C.M. PROULX, AND

R.L. JOHNSON. Short-term performance effects of high speed,high force or combined weight training. J. Strength Cond. Res.14:14–20. 1999.

12. JACKSON, A.S., AND M.L. POLLOCK. Practical assessment ofbody composition Phys. Sportmed. 13:76–90. 1985.

13. KOMI, P.V., AND J.H. VITASALO. Signal characteristics of EMGat different levels of muscle tension. Acta Physiol. Scand. 96:267–276. 1976.

14. LANKA, J. Shot Putting. In: Biomechanics in Sport. V. Zatsiorsky,ed. London: Blackwell Science Ltd., pp. 435–457. 2000.

15. LANKA, J., AND A. SHALMANOV. Biomechanics of Shot Put. Mos-cow: FIS, 1982.

16. MCBRIDE, J.M., T.T. TRIPLETT-MCBRIDE, A. DAVIS, AND R.U.

NEWTON. A comparison of strength and power characteristicsbetween power lifters, Olympic lifters and sprinters. J. StrengthCond. Res. 13:58–66. 1999.

17. MEDVEDEV, A.S., V.F. RODIONOV, V.N. ROGOZKIN, AND A.E. GU-LYANTS. Training content of weightlifters during the prepara-tion period. Yessis, M. (Translation) Teoriya I Praktika FizicheskoiKultury. 12:5–7. 1981.

18. MOSS, B.M. P.E. REFNES, A. ABILGAARD, K. NICOLAYSEN, AND

J. JENSEN. Effects of maximal effort strength training with dif-ferent loads on dynamic strength, cross-sectional area, load-power and load-velocity relationships. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. 75:193–199. 1997.

19. MURPHY, A.J., G.J. WILSON, J.F. PRYOR, AND R.U. NEWTON. Iso-metric assessment of muscular functions: The effect of jointangle. J. Appl. Biomech. 11:205–215. 1995.

20. ROBINSON, J.M., C.M. PENLAND, M.H. STONE, R.L. JOHNSON,B.J. WARREN, AND D.L. LEWIS. Effects of different weight train-ing exercise-rest intervals on strength, power and high inten-sity endurance. J. Strength Cond. Res. 9:216–221. 1995.

21. SCHIMIDTBLEICHER, D. Training for power events. In: Strengthand Power in Sports. P.V. Komi, ed. London: Blackwell ScientificPublications, 1992. pp. 381–395.

22. SIFF, M. Biomechanical foundations of strength and powertraining. In: Biomechanics in Sport. V. Zatsiorsky, ed. London:Blackwell Scientific Ltd., 2000. pp. 103–139.

23. STONE, M.H., AND A.C. FRY. Increased training volume instrength/power athletes. In: Overtraining in Sport. R.B. Kreider,A.C. Fry, and M.L. O’Toole, eds. Champaign, IL: Human Ki-netics, 1997. pp. 87–106.

24. STONE, M.H. G. MOIR, M. GLAISTER, AND R. SANDERS. Howmuch strength is necessary? Phys. Ther. Sport 3:88–96, 2002.

25. STONE, M.H., H.S. O’BRYANT, L. MCCOY, R. COGLIANESE, M.LEHMKUHL, AND B. SCHILLING. Power and maximum strengthrelationships during performance of dynamic and staticweighted jumps. J. Strength Cond. Res. 17:140–147, 2003.

26. STONE, M.H., H.S. O’BRYANT, K.C. PIERCE, G.G. HAFF, A.J.KOCK, B.K. SCHILLING, AND R.L. JOHNSON. Periodization: Ef-fects of manipulating volume and intensity—Part 1. J. StrengthCond. 21:56–62. 1999.

27. STONE, M.H., H.S. O’BRYANT, K.C. PIERCE, G.G. HAFF, A.J.KOCK, B.K. SCHILLING, AND R.L. JOHNSON. Periodization: Ef-fects of manipulating volume and intensity—Part 2. J. StrengthCond. 21:54–60. 1999.

28. STONE, M.H., H.S. O’BRYANT, F.E. WILLIAMS, K.C. PIERCE, AND

R.L. JOHNSON. Analysis of bar paths during the snatch in elitemale weightlifters. J. Strength Cond. 20:56–64. 1998.

29. STONE, M.H., S. PLISK, AND D. COLLINS. Training principle:Evaluation of modes and methods of resistance training—Acoaching perspective. Sport Biomech. 1:79–104. 2002.

30. VERKHOSHANSKY, Y. Principles of planning speed/strengthtraining program in track athletes. Legaya Athleticka 8:8–10.1979.

31. VERKHOSHANSKY, Y. How to set up a training program inspeed-strength events. Sov. Sports Rev. (M. Yessis, translation).16:123–126. 1981.

32. VITASALO J.T., AND P.V. KOMI. Interrelationships between elec-tromyographic, mechanical, muscle structure and reflex timemeasurements in man. Acta Physiol. Scand. 111:97–103. 1981.

33. WILSON G.J., AND A.J. MURPHY. The use of isometric tests ofmuscular function in athletic assessment. Sports Med. 22:19–37.1996.

34. WILSON, G., R.U. NEWTON, A.J. MURPHY, AND B.J. HUMPHRIES.The optimal training load for the development of dynamic ath-letic performance. Med. Sci. Sport Exerc. 25:1279–1286. 1993.

Address correspondence to Dr. Michael H. Stone,[email protected].

maximum strength-power-performance relationships in...

Documents