Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33083124›Full record

ArticlePeerJ2020

Utilising one minute and four minute recovery when employing the resistance training contrast method does not negatively affect subsequent jump performance in the presence of concurrent training.

Dean Ritchie, Justin W L Keogh, Peter Reaburn, Jonathan D Bartlett

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PeerJ, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Dean RitchieFaculty of Health Science and Medicine, Bond University, Gold Coast, QLD, Australia.
Justin W L KeoghFaculty of Health Science and Medicine, Bond University, Gold Coast, QLD, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-9851-1068
Peter ReaburnFaculty of Health Science and Medicine, Bond University, Gold Coast, QLD, Australia.
Jonathan D BartlettFaculty of Health Science and Medicine, Bond University, Gold Coast, QLD, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-9133-1953

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLittle is known about contrast training and post-activation performance enhancement (PAPE) in a same day concurrent training model. The aim of the current study was to examine the use of two short duration (1-min and 4-min) recovery periods on drop jump performance in same day concurrently trained athletes.

methodsTen professional Australian Rules footballers (age, 20.6 ± 1.9 yr; height, 184.8 ± 6.9 cm; body mass, 85.8 ± 8.4 kg) completed two resistance training sessions with different PAPE recovery durations; 1-min and 4-min, 1 h following a field-based endurance session. Baseline (pre) drop jumps were compared to post-test maximal drop jumps, performed after each set of three squats (where each participant was encouraged to lift as heavy as they could), to determine changes between 1-min and 4-min recovery periods. Data were analysed by fitting a mixed model (significance was set at

resultsThere were no significant differences between baseline and experimental sets 1, 2 and 3 for reactive strength index (RSI), flight time, and total and relative impulse for either recovery duration. However, for contact time, 1-min baseline was significantly different from set 2 (mean difference; 95% CI [0.029; 0.000-0.057 s], DISCUSSION: Short recovery periods of 1-min may be a time-efficient form of prescribing strength-power exercise in contrast loading schemes. Longer recovery periods do not appear to benefit immediate, subsequent performance.

Indexed as

PeriodisationPost-activation performance enhancementTeam sportTraining organisation

Identifiers

PMID33083124
PMCPMC7566756

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.