DIFFERENCES IN POST-ACTIVATION POTENTIATION AND POST-ACTIVATION PERFORMANCE ENHANCEMENT BETWEEN FLYWHEEL AND BARBELL SQUAT PROTOCOLS

Abstract

This study aimed to compare the post-activation potentiation (PAP) and post-activation potentiation performance enhancement (PAPE) response following the flywheel (FW) and barbell resistance protocols on subsequent evoked knee extensor muscle characteristics and countermovement jump (CMJ) height. The study used a randomized crossover design including nineteen physical education students (24.9 [2.6] years, 171.1 [6.9] cm, 66.9 [8.6] kg). The participants were divided into experienced (EX) and unexperienced (unEX) groups. They visited the laboratory eight times and in randomized order performed the following tests: I) optimal FW load determination, II) optimal barbell load determination, III) control visit to determine twitch characteristics, IV) control visit to determine CMJ characteristics, V and VI) evoked contractions of the quadriceps femoris muscle after FW squat and barbell protocols, VII and VIII) CMJ testing after FW squat and barbell squat protocols. A mixed model ANOVA (factors load condition [control, FW, barbell], time [1-10 min] and experience) revealed changes in jump height, twitch amplitude, contraction time and half-relaxation time as a factor of time. Only minor differences in variables analyzed were found between EX and unEX participants and between load conditions. The prevalent observation is that the two loading conditions (FW vs. barbell) induced no different PAP/E responses. Presumably, because the intensity and tempo of the two resistance exercise protocols were matched by the peak power load selection, coupled eccentric-concentric contractions, and while only a single set of squats was performed.