Developing Explosive Muscular Power: Implications for a Mixed Methods Training Strategy Robert U. Newton, MHMS, CSCS Centre for Exercise Science and Sport Management William J. Kraemer, PhD, CSCS Center for Sports Medicine ‘The Pennsylvania State University Southern Cross University, Australia POWER CAN BE DEFINED AS the force applied multiplied by the velocity of movement (37). As the work done is equal to the force times the distance moved (21), and velocity is the distance moved divided by the time taken, power can also be expressed as work done per unit time (i.e.. the rate of doing work) (21), work = force x distance distance velocity power = force x velocity therefore: distance _ work time ~ time Power output for the athlete can range from 50 to 60 watts pro- duced during light cycling or jog- ging, to around 7,000 watts pro- duced during the second phase of the pull for the Olympic clean (21). This review examines the higher levels of power output produced during a single, maximum effort muscle action, which we will term “explosive muscular power.” power = force x Explosive power output is the main determinant of performance in activities requiring one move- ment sequence to produce a high velocity at release or impact. Ex- plosive muscle actions are re- quired in throwing, jumping, and striking activities, In addition, sudden bursts of power are needed when rapidly changing di- rection or accelerating during var- ious sports or athletic events (e.g., football. basketball, soccer, base- ball, and gymnastics). For example, the height to which an athlete jumps when re- bounding in basketball is deter- mined purely by the velocity with which he or she leaves the floor. Atthe bottom of the movement the body stops momentarily (Figure 1), Then as theathlete extends the trunk, hips, knees, and ankles, the body ts accelerated upward to a maximum takeoff velocity as he orshe leaves the floor. This takeoff velocity is determined by the force ‘the muscles can generate against the floor, multiplied by the time during which the forces are applied. Once the athlete has left the floor he or she can no longer apply the force, and the faster the accel- eration, the shorter the time be- ‘tween the bottom ofthe movement and takeoff (shown in Figure 1 as (0.268 sec). It is here that we en- counter the crucial importance of explosive muscular power. As an athlete attempts to maximize his or her explosive performance, the time over which he or she can apply force and accelerate the body decreases. Therefore two mechanical properties of muscle are paramount: 1. The ability to develop much force ina short period of time, termed the rate of force devel- ‘opment; 2, The muscle's ability to con- tinue producing high force outputas its velocity of short- ening increases. A number of factors enhance these two properties. The discus- © 1994 National Strength & Conditioning Association 20 ‘Strength and Conditioning October 1994sion of each factor will help us understand the effects of different training strategies and how to maximize training efficiency. lm Factors Contributing to Explosive Muscular Power Muscular Strength and Heavy Resistance Training Strength is the ability of the mus- cle to exert maximal force, or torque, at a specified velocity (37); it varies for different muscle ac- tions such as eccentric, concen- tric, and isometric (41). Often coaches and athletes associate the term strength only with the force that can be exerted during slow speed or even during isomet- tic muscle actions. This is often determined using a one-repetition maximum (1-RM) test in which strength is assessed as the maxi- mum weight the athlete can lift once through the complete move- ment. The development and assess- ment of 1-RM strength has re- ceived a great deal of research at- tention (3, 6, 29, 52). Pure 1-RM strength, however, is required by only a few athletic endeavors, such as powerlifting. Most sports require strength at faster veloci- ties of movement, Froman athletic perspective we should think of strength as the force capability of the muscle for actions ranging from the fastest eccentricto the fastest concentric. ‘The force velocity relationship for muscle, shown in Figure 2, dic tates that the faster the velocity of concentric muscle action, the lower the force that can be pro- duced (33). Yet maximal power is, produced at intermediate veloci- {ies of movement, that is. at ap- proximately 30% of maximum shortening velocity (371, Pure 1-RM strength is required in the sport of powerlifting—we feel the name of the sport is inap 4,000 Force (N) and Power (W) g 4,000 Velocity (m/s) 06 (08 Time (secs) Force, velocity, and power output during a vertical jump with ‘counter movement. The concentric muscle action is only 268 ms long. The resulting takeoff velocity is determined by the ‘sum of the forces that can be produced during this short period. Power (P/Pm) & Velocity (V/Vm) elocity power relationship fo1 Force (F/Fm) jetal muscle. V: Pm, and Fm are maximum movement velocity, maximum power output, and maximum isometric force output, respeo- tively (adapted from Ref. 20). October 1994 Strength and Conditioning 2propriate—because there is no re- quirement for the weight to be moved quickly (Le., low power de- mands); the athlete is merely at- tempting to lift the maximum amount of weight. This requires movement velocities just higher than zero. Thus one exhibits max- imal concentric force but very low levels of power in the 1-RM lifts. Many strength and condition- ing specialists believe that if the athlete's slow velocity strength in- creases, then power output and dynamic performance will also improve. To a certain extent this 1s true, since maximum strength, even at slow velocities, is a con- tributing factor in explosive power. All explosive movements start from zero or from slow veloci- ties, and it is at these phases of the movement that slow velocity strength can contribute to power development. However, as the muscles begin to achieve high velocities of short- ening. slow velocity strength ca- pacity has less impact on the muscle's ability to produce high force at rapid shortening veloci- ties (16, 35, 36). This fact becomes increasingly important when the athlete begins to train specifically for optimal power development. In terms of training, several studies have shown improved per- formance in power activities (e, vertical jump} following a strengt training program (1, 4, 14, 59). Research by Hakkinen and Komi (27) showed a 7% improvement in vertical jump following 24 weeks of intense weight training, Ina related study (28), a group of subjects performed explosive jumps with a lighter resistance and averaged a 21% increase in vertical jump. The results indi- cated there may be specific train- ing adaptations to heavy resis- tance versus power-type training. Heavy resistance strength train- ingusing high resistance and slow velocities of concentric muscle ac- tion leads primarily to improve- ments in maximal strength (i. the high force /low velocity portion of the force-velocity curve in Fig- ure 2), and the improvements are reduced at higher velocities. Power training, which utilizes lighter resistances and higher ve- locities of muscle action, results {in increases in force output at the higher velocities and in the rate of force development (28). Although velocity specific train- ing adaptations do occur. perfor- mance changes with training are not always consistent with this principle. This is due to the com- plex nature of explosive muscle actions and the integration of slow and fast force production require- ments within the context ofa com- plete movement. Another reason it is difficult to observe clear, specific training ad- aptationsis that in untrained per- sons, a variety of training inter- ventions will produce increases in strength and power. Komi and Hakkinen (39) suggest that, de- pending on the person’s training status, the response may not al- ways follow the velocity specific training principle, Individuals with low strength may see im- provements throughout the force velocity spectrum regardless of the training resistance or style used (39). Itappears that training adapta- tions of single factors (high force, high power) occur only after a base level of strength and power training has been undertaken. In other words, if the athlete already has an adequate level of strength, then the increases in explosive power performance in response to traditional strength training will be poor and more specific training interventions will be needed to im- prove the power function (26). ‘Thus, improvement of power per- formance in trained athletes may require more complex training strategies than was previously thought (69). A Need for Training Integration The rationale for slow velocity, heavy resistance training to de- velop explosive power is often based on the fact that power is equal to force times the velocity of the muscle action. It has been reasoned that if the athlete in- creases his or her 1-RM strength, nothing more is required from a resistance training program. ‘This situation is analogous to the evolution of aerobic endur- ance training methods. There was a time when only continuous training techniques were used, which increased maximum oxy- gen uptake and resulted in im- proved endurance performance. Later, exercise scientists deter- mined that anaerobic threshold, exercise efficiency, and critical power abilities were also signifi- cant factors, and therefore inter- val training became an integral part of endurance athletes’ train- ing regimens. If we are to maximize improve- ments in power performance, then, we must train both the force and velocity components. This concept {s summarized in Figure 8. Because the movement dis- tance is limited by the athlete's Joint ranges of motion, velocity is determined by the time taken to complete the movement, There- fore, if we train using methods that will decrease the time needed for the movement, we increase the power output. Intimately linked to this concept is the rate of force de- velopment. Rate of Force Development Because time is limited during powerful muscle actions, the muscle must exert as much force as possible in a short time. One contributing factor is the rate of 22 Strength and Conditioning October 1994force development (RFD) (Figure 4}, which may help explain why heavy resistance training has been ineffective for increasing power performance (46). Squat training with heavy re- sistances (70 to 120% of 1-RM) has been shown to improve maxi- mum isometric strength. How- ever, it does not improve the maxi- mum rate of force development (80) and may even reduce the muscle's ability to develop force rapidly (26). On the contrary, ac- tivities during which the athlete attempts to develop force rapidly, such as explosive jump training with resistances of 30 to 60% 1-RM, increase his or her ability to rapidly develop force (5, 30). Specifically, explosive resistance training increases the slope of the early portion of the force time curve, termed the maximum rate of force development (maxRFD). Figure 4 compares the effects of heavy resistance training versus explosive training on the isometric RFD curve. Although heavy resistance training increases maximum strength, the highest point of the force-time curve, this type of training does not improve power performance appreciably. espe- cially in athletes who have already developed a strength training base (i.e., more than 6 months of training). This is because the movement time during explosive activities is typically less than 300 msand most of the force increases cannot be realized over such a short time. The athlete does not have the time to utilize his or her developed slow velocity strength. The Controversy of Velocity Specific Training Velocity specificity of resistance training is one of the most conten- tious issues in the theory of mus- cle strength and power. Studies on isokinetic testing and training methods have found that strength increases are specific to the veloc- ity at which one trains (44). Ifyou train at a slow movement velocity, POWER = FORCE by DISTANCE TIME POWER = FORCE by pistance TIME POWER. Force ») Relationship between force, velocity, and power. Velocity POWER = FORCE by DISTANCE DOGO SPOUEN POI, DISTANCE ‘been expressed as displacement over time. The size of the words indicates the athlete's relative capacity for each factor and the response of these factors to various forms of training. you tend to increase strength at that velocity, thus the improve- mentsin strength at higher veloci- ties, which are more common in sport, are usually not of the same magnitude. Based on this, it has been recommended that resis- tance training be performed at a high speed if the purpose of the training is to increase power. Behm and Sale (5) have pre- sented evidence that itis the tnten- tion to move quickly which deter- mines the velocity specific response, and that heavy resis tance weight training may be ef- fective if the athlete attempts to move the resistance as quickly as possible. This theory was tested by Young and Bilby (61), who compared the effects of slow and fast weight training on vertical jump and rate of force development. Their study failed to find a velocity specific ef- fect on rate of force development, and the slow weight training was more effective for increasing verti- cal jump performance. The sub- Jects had no prior weight training experience and this may have in- fluenced the results, Kaneko et al. (36) found velocity specific effects for a task that in- volved lifting a weight as quickly as possible. Subjects trained with a resistance of either 0, 30, 60. or 100% of maximum isometric strength. The results demon- strated a classic resistance-spe- cific training effect, The groups training with the heavier resist- ances produced the greatest in- creases in isometric strength while the group training with 0% resistance produced the greatest increase in unloaded movement velocity. Perhaps the most interesting finding was that the 30% resis- tance produced the greatest in- crease in force and power over the entire concentric velocity range and also resulted in the greatest October 1994 Strength and Conditioning 23\ mama #0 7-7 Teayressionce - strength reining explosive, bats we v strength traning ‘ironed monimumn strength 500 Time (ms) FERIIIE vo omsctric force-time curve indicating maximum strengt maximum rate of force development, and force 200 ms for untrained, heavy resistance strength trained, and explosive, ballistic strength trained subjects (adapted from Refs. 27 and 28). increase in maximum mechani- cal power. Certainly, further research is required, Based on studies of muscle fiber contractile charac- teristics (20, 25), there appears to be a great range of adaptations within the cell that alter its maxi- mum velocity of shortening and force output at specific velocities. In particular, there is a consider- able difference in the power ca- pacity of fast twitch (Type II) ver- sus slow twitch (Type I) muscle fibers (20). One study by Duchateau and Hainaut (16) removed the con- founding variable of neural in- nervation and only considered contractile changes within the muscle. Subjects completed 12 weeks of training using either dy- namic contractions with a resis- tance of 30% of maximum volun- tary contraction (MVC) or isometric training. The dynami- cally trained group produced in- creases in maximum contractile speed whereas the isometrically trained group did not. It is not known whether the actual short- ening velocity of the muscle fiber or the frequency of neural input is the stimulus to adaptations in force production at specific ve locities. The Optimal Resistance Several studies (36, 45, 59) have shown that to increase explosive power output, athletes should train at the velocity and use the resistance that maximizes me- chanical power output. As shown, in Figure 2, the force and velocity capabilities of muscle are inti- mately linked. Maximal mechani- cal power is produced at a resis- tance of 30% of maximum isometric strength, which corre- sponds to a velocity of muscle shortening of approximately 30% of maximum (20). Wilson et al. (59) compared the effects of 10 weeks of training on vertical Jump performance using traditional back squats, explosive Jump squats. or plyometries in the form of drop jumps. The explosive Jump squats involved a resistance that allowed the subjects to pro- duce the greatest mechanical power output, approximately 30% of 1-RM. All training groups pro- duced increases in vertical jump performance, but the maximal power group had significantly greater increases (18%) than the other two groups (heavy resis- tance training, 5%: drop jump training, 10%). These results were similar to those obtained by Berger (7), who also found that jump squats per- formed with a resistance of 30% of maximum led to greater increases invertical jump as compared totra- ditional weight training, plyometric training, or isometric training, The studies by Wilson et al. (59) and Berger (7) found superior im- provements in power performance due to jump squat training using a 30% resistance as compared to heavy squat lifting. This may not have been a reflection of the resis- tance used but rather the more specific training movement of jump squats and the disadvan- tages of traditional weight train- ing movements, which will be dis- cussed next. Heavy resistance training will increase power output at low ve- locities and heavy resistances, while light resistance training (eg 30% MVC) will increase power output for light resistances (16). Furthermore, heavy resis- tance training tends to shift the optimal resistance for power out- put toward the heavier resist- ances, that is, maximum power output is produced at a heavier re- sistance. Therefore, increases in power are specific to the training resis- 24 Strength and Conditioning October 1994SS tance and velocity used. This may be the rationale behind therecom- mendation of a 30% MVC resis- tance. Since this is the resistance at which power is maximized, trainingat this resistance will pro- duce the greatest increases in maximum power. The degree to which this increase in power out- put will transfer to athletic perfor- mance, however, may depend on whether the mass being moved represents a similar resistance to 30% MVC. Throwing a baseball or accelerating the leg to kick a foot ball represents a much lighter resistance than 30%. Similarly, performing an Olympic-style lift involves a much heavier resis- tance. Further research is needed, but itmay be prudent to continuously adjust the resistance used in training to ensure increased power output in the specific activ- ity and thus maximize perfor- mance gains. Traditional Weight Training ‘The results of some studies (7, 59, 61) highlight a further problem with traditional weight training and power development. It has been observed that when lifting a 1-RM weight, the bar is decelerat- ing for as much as 24% of the con- centric movement (18). The decel- eration phase increases to 52% when performing the lift with a lighter resistance, for example, 81% of I-RM (18). In an effort to train at a faster velocity more specific to sport ac- tivity, athletes may attempt to move the bar rapidly during the Iift. This also increases the dura- tion of the deceleration phase (49), as the athlete must slow the bar to a complete stop at the end of the range. Plyometric training and weighted jump squats avoid this problem by allowing the athlete to explode all the way through the movement to the point of projec- tion of the resistance (e.g.. takeoff in jumping, ball release in throw- ing, or impact in striking activi- ties), It could be argued that tra- ditional weight training may pro: mote the development of this un- desirable deceleration movement pattern. The deceleration results from a decreased activation of the agonists during the latter phase of the lift and may be accompanied by considerable activation of the antagonists, particularly when us- ing lighter resistances and trying to lift the weight quickly (47). This obviously isa very undesir- able movement to develop when attempting to maximize explosive performance. Thus, to offset this, the lifter must employ “ballistic” resistance training, Ballistic Resistance Training The problem of the deceleration phase can be overcome if the ath- ete actually throws or jumps with the weight. This has been termed “dynamie” or “explosive” resis- tance training butis probably best described as ballistic resistance training ‘The term dynamic is not really applicable because all training which involves movement (.e.. not static or isometric) would be classified as dynamic. The term explosive is too general. as one can be explosive from the bottom. of @ traditional squat but reduce the effort near the top of the range of motion and never leave the ground, as in the study by Young and Bilby (61). Similarly, the training study by Behm and Sale (5) could be said to involve explo- sive muscle action but the joint movement was actually isometric. Ballistic infers accelerative, of high velocity, and with actual pro- Jection into free space. This type of training is perhaps best described. as ballistic resistance training (32, 49). Heavy Versus Light Resistance Whether performing traditional or ballistic resistance training, there is considerable controversy over theresistance tobe used for devel- oping explosive power perfor- mance (59, 60). If you are limited to traditional resistance training techniques, heavy (>80%) resist- ances are preferable because you ‘simply cannot overload the mus- cle enough using light resistances while stopping the weight at the top of the range of motion (47). With ballistic resistance there is perhaps no optimal intensity or resistance. Both heavy (80%) and light {<60%) resistances can be used in the training of muscular power, with each affecting different com- ponents of explosive muscle ac- tion. If one has to choose a single resistance, the one that produces maximum power output, 30% MVC, has been found optimal for increasing maximal mechanical power (36, 59), There fs a wide se- lection of resistances, and the greatest training adaptations will result when athletes train with re- sistances that span the concen- tric force velocity capability. Although ballistic resistance training improves power perfor- mance, it does exert high eccen- trie forces on the athlete when landing from the jump or catching the falling weight (48). However, ‘weight training equipment can be adapted to reduce the eccentric resistance (48). In addition, ballis- tic weight training should prog- ress gradually from light resis- tance (15 to 45% 1-RM) to heavy resistance (60 to 90% 1-RM) con- ditions when the athlete has com- pleted a strength training pro- gram. Therefore, preparatory phases for developing basic strength levels are vital when pro- gressing to ballistic training tech- niques. October 1994 Strength and ConditioningStretch Shortening Cycle Most explosive activities involve a counter movement during which the muscles are first stretched and then shortened to accelerate the body or limb. This action of the muscle, called a stretch short- ening cycle (SSC) (38), involves neural and mechanical processes. Alot of research has been directed toward the study of the stretch shortening cycle (11, 12, 19, 24, 26, 40, 52,57) because it hasbeen observed that performance is po- tentiated by the amount of pre- stretch during the counter move- ment (11). In a cross-sectional study. Bosco et al. (12) observed height differences of 18 to 20% between the squat jump, a purely concen- tric jump initiated from a crouch position, and the counter move- ment jump, which is initiated from a standing position with the athlete making a preparatory dip and then jumping upward. The latter jump is higher be- cause as the jumper approaches the end of the preparatory de- scent, the muscle begins to act ec- centrically to slow the body and initiate the upward movement. As the muscle is activated. force is increased in the tendomuscular complex, increasing its stiffness orresistance to stretching. The re- sult is a storage of elastic energy in the muscle and tendon that is recovered during the subsequent concentric phase, making it more powerful 11}. Also contributing to the concentric muscle action is a reflex increase in neural stimula~ tion to the muscle, brought about by the sudden stretch stimulus (24, 55). Studies by Bosco and Komi (11) demonstrate that performance in- creases when increasing stretch forces are applied. For example, during drop jumping the height of, the subsequent jump increases with increases in drop height. But this occurs only up to a point. There is a threshold at which the stretch force is too great and the Gola! tendon organ reflex inhibits muscle action, reducing the jump height attained (24, 55). Athletes who are not used to in- tense SSC forces may produce their best performance during a counter movement jump, and drop jump heights will be even lower than those of the squat jump (53), This is due to the strong inhibition effect of the Golgi tendon organ reflex, which has not been modified through prior SSC training (53). Explosive power performance responds to training in which ath- Ietes perform SSC movements with a stretch force greater and more rapid than that to which they are accustomed. These activ- ities, called plyometrics, have been found effective for increasing Jumping ability (1, 14, 55, 59). Ply- ometric training increases the overall neural stimulation of the muscle, and thus force output, but qualitative changes are also apparent, In persons who are not used to intense SSC forces, there is a re- duction in EMG activity beginning 50 to 100 ms before ground con- tact and lasting for 100 to 200 ms (65). Gollhofer (23) has attributed this to a protective mechanism by the Golgi tendon organ reflex act- ing during sudden, intense stretch forces to reduce the ten- sion in the tendomuscular unit during the force peak of the SSC. After a period of plyometric train- ing, the inhibitory effects are re- duced {termed disinhibition) and SSC performance improves (54). Plyometric training places con- siderable forces on the musculo- skeletal system, thus the athlete should have a preliminary strength training base before be- ginninga plyometric training pro- gram (eg. squat 1.5 x body weight), Similar to other forms of training, the plyometric overload should involve a gradual progres- sion from ground level, double limb contacts, to exercises involw- ing single limb landings or pos- sibly drop jumps from increasing heights. However, the latter exer cises are also thought to have a higher risk for injury (53) 1 Coordination of Movement Pattern and Skill Power performance is affected by the interaction between agonists, antagonists, and synergists in- volved in the joint movement. A fast movement velocity requires low resistance, Although the ago- nist muscle may be able to apply great force in a short time, there must be a complementary relax- ation of the antagonists (43). Specific training movements will reduce the co-contraction of antagonists and increase the co- ordination of agonist and syner- gist activity (53, 60), but the move- ment must be specific to the activity in terms of pattern and speed. Furthermore, the improve- ments are not transferable to other movements. This method may be better described as coordi- nation training rather than strength or power training (53). Thus, specific skill and coordina- tion of foree application are im- portant contributors to powerful movements. @ The Bilateral Deficit Neural activation patterns and skill are intrinsic to the powerful performance ofa movement. Most activities are unilateral in that they involve one arm or leg pro- ducing the movement while the other undergoes recovery or stabi- 26 Strength and Conditioning ‘October 1994Sa EaESSEnnSSnSenene lizing movements. Sale (51) de scribed the phenomenon of bilat- eral deficit’ as the difference between the force output when the left and right sides act simul- taneously and the sum of the forces produced by the left and right limbs acting alone. ‘Training may increase or re- duce the deficit, as demonstrated by tests on rowers who were found tobe stronger in bilateral leg pre: than in the sum of single legpress, and on cyclists who normally al- ternate leg actions and displayed a large deficit (51). Therefore, when training for specific unilat- eral activities (e.g., kicking), it may be best to train using single- leg presses and knee extensions rather than exercising both legs simultaneously. @ Muscle Hypertrophy and Power As noted above, high muscle force is a component of power. This ability for high force production or strength can be increased by the muscle growing larger (hypertro- phy) and/or through improved neural innervation of the muscle (64). One long held belief is that ex- cessive hypertrophy may be a dis- advantage to power athletes who must work against their body weight, for example jumpers and sprinters. However, increases in muscle size are always accompa- nied by increases in muscle strength (53). Ifappropriate power ‘raining is included, the powei welght ratio, so crucial in jumping events especially, is increased rather than decreased. At the extreme of muscle hyper- trophy, as seen in elite body- Duilders, there may be decreased range of motion and alteration in pennation angle of the muscle fi- bers. This would be detrimental to muscle speed of contraction and thus reduce the power potential. We do not know at what level of hypertrophy this occurs, but its certain to be near the limit of one’s, genetic potential. ‘The type of high volume train- ing (e.g.. 6 to 14 sets of 10-RM using isolated joint movements) needed for dramatic muscle hy- pertrophy would require consid- erable time in terms of training and recovery. This would dramati- cally reduce the time available for other forms of sport training, It is, here that training specificity dra- matically separates itself between power sports and body building. Nevertheless, hypertrophy train- ing may be needed at some point. in the athlete's career to maintain optimal upper limits for muscle size. slow Velocity strength Window of Explosive Power Development @ The Window of Adaptation Several studies have compared the effectiveness of plyometries, resistance training, and a combi- nation of both. Although specific training protocols vary. in general plyometric training alone has been found effective for increasing power performance in both trained and untrained individuals (1, 14, 15, 17, 34, 55, 59). Tradi tional resistance trainingled toin- creases in power output in most of the research (1, 4, 50, 58, 59, 61), while a few studies found no change in subjects who were al- ready strength trained (27, 40) When resistance training Is combined with plyometries, power output is increased (4, 8, Siretch Intrmesculor Rate 88 Enng | Sorat Development| | Cycle | | & Sat | | LV L ‘Components contributing to explosive muscular power. Each ‘can contribute to the overall window for power adaptation. ‘The better developed a single component, the smaller that component's window of adaptation and thus potential to de- velop explosive power. October 1994 Strength and Conditioning a714), and this is perhaps a greater stimulus to explosive power per- formance than elther weight or plyometric training alone (1). These findings highlight the mul- tifaceted nature of power perfor- mance, with a mixed training methods approach being most ef- fective because it develops more ‘components of explosive power. Furthermore, the findings of Hakkinen and Komi (27, 28) dem- onstrate that as an athlete devel- ‘ops one component to a high level (eg. strength), the potential for that component to contribute to further increases in power output diminish. Thus each component can be thought of as a “window of adaptation” to the larger window of adaptation in explosive power. ‘This concept is summarized in Figure 5. Training must be tar- geted to optimize the variables within this five-factor paradigm. Optimal power can be achieved only if each factor is addressed in the training program. Exercises That May Not be ‘Optimal Many strength and conditioning coaches believe strength is a qual- ity of muscle that can be ex- pressed across all movements in- volving that muscle. Therefore training programs often focus on single joint exercises with low movement speeds, in the expec- tation that power output will be increased for the movement trained and that this will carry over to more functional multi- joint movements. It is well known that strength development is specific to the movement pattern, speed, and type of muscle action used in the training (16, 35, 36, 44). This is perhaps even more evident when training for increased power. The only chances for muscle power to be generalized across different movements are as follows: 1. Hypertrophy can result from a wide range of exercises in- volving the muscle, and as cross-sectional area is in- creased, the force capability of the muscle is greater re- gardless of the movement. However, hypertrophy isa re- sult of training involving high volume (about 10-RM resis- tance) and short rest periods between sets and exercises; it is not generally a result of power training involving low volume and long rests (42). 2. Contractile changes within the muscle toward faster and more powerful characteris- tics could conceivably con- tribute to other movements, even multijoint, involving the muscle (56). ‘As noted, much of the muscle's adaptation toward greater power development is neural in terms of better intramuscular and inter- muscular coordination. As such, even if the above alterations are achieved through resistance training using movements that are not specific, it is doubtful they can be effectively utilized in the specific movernent. In periodized training, athletes often perform resistance training that is not specific to their sport but rather aims at overall in- creases in muscle size and strength; then they progress to more specific power training as they approach their competitive peak. Further research may re- veal whether the gains from the previous, more general strength training contribute to the perfor- mance developed during move- ment-specific power training. ‘That is, does the improved neural recruitment that results from power training allow athletes to take advantage of the local changes induced in the muscle during the preparatory phases? ‘The major problem is that iso- lated joint exercises, while con- tributing to one factor in power development—increased_ muscle cross-sectional area—cannot in- fluence the neural coordination needed for their use in multijoint movements. Thus total body power is only promoted via a few local changes in joint muscula- ture and fs not integrated across Joints for multijoint sport move- ments suchas tackling in football, jumping in basketball and volley- ball, or takedowns in wrestling, A further problem when trying toperform rapid single joint resis- tance training movements is the risk of injury. When the athlete rapidly accelerates the mass through the range of movement, considerable kinetic energy is stored in the form of motion of the implement or limb. If the mass must stop at the end of the range, this energy must be absorbed by the muscles and joint structures very quickly, resulting in high forces being applied and more chance of injury. In ballistic resistance muttijoint training, such as explosive jump squats, the mass is released with high kinetic energy that is subse- quently absorbed by the external environment as the velocity is re- duced under the action of gravity. Therefore the momentum of the mass does not affect the involved joints and muscles to the same extent. The Olympic-Style Lifts The Olympic-style iifts (snatch, clean and jerk) and related lifts (hang pulls, hang cleans, power snatch, power clean, push press, power jerk) have been proposed as effective exercises for developing explosive power (2, 21, 22). Upper and lower body power develop- ment is specific to the exercise movements (e.g. push press- upper body; hang pulls-lower 28 Strength and Conditioning October 1994body). This training method is widely accepted, partly because of the many Olympic-style weight- lifters and coaches in general strength and conditioning post- tions in high schools and colleges. Inaddition, the fact that weight- lifters usually exhibit exceptional power during vertical jump and sprinting has promoted the use of this style of training. Neverthe- less, it has not been determined whether this is a result of genetic predisposition or Olympic-style training per se, yet there are sev- eral aspects to Olympic-style lift- Ing that make it sultable for power development. During weightlifting, power out- put fs extremely high and the speed of movement is fast. Fur- ther, such lifts have an explosive, accelerative velocity profile, mak- ing them much more specific than traditional resistance training exercises to explosive power per- formance in other sport activities. (21, 22). However, for power sports involving rotational and unilateral movements, which are not replicated in the Olympic- style lifts, other explosive power training exercises that are more similar in movement pattern should be prescribed. Although the effect of an Olym- pic lifting program on Olympic weightlifters has been investi- gated (29), there are no data on the effect of a controlled Olympic- style training program on power performance in athletes who are not Olympic weightlifters. Many have argued, inappropri- ately, that such lifts are inher- ently more dangerous and that single-joint exercises can accom- plish the same effect. From what we have shown, both the injury (31) and effectiveness arguments fall short. In addition, multifac- eted training demands all types of training to optimize all functions. Even Olympic-style weightlifting exercise alone may have limita- tions as to what can be produced (e.g. hypertrophy, rotational power) in a training program. ‘Motivation and Power Training ‘One problem with power training using plyometrics or light resis- tance weight training is that of producing maximal effort. Young (60) has pointed out that it is nec- essary to produce maximal effort to lift a 90 to 100% 1-RM resis- tance, butitis not required during lighter resistance training and thus the athlete may reduce in- tensity and subsequent training effect. This can be overcome through performance feedback in the form of target jump heights, or feedback of power output using force plate or contact mat sys- tems. Power Training and Fatigue State Power training aims at increasing the ability of the neural system to innervate the muscles and de- velop the skill to coordinate the movement for greatest effective ness. For maximum benefit, this, type of training should be per- formed in arrested state. In sched- uling training sessions, it is im- portant not to prefatigue the athlete with endurance or strength training prior to power training. Thus power training should be performed at the begin- ning of an exercise session or on. separate training days. = Summary ‘This paper has provided the theo- retical framework for a training strategy. In planning a training program to optimize explosive power, one should consider a number of points. Explosive power performance is a multifac- eted phenomenon that represents, many training factors. Of particu- lar importance is the individual's, muscular strength in both fast and slow muscle actions, rate of force development capability, stretch shorten cycle ability, and intermuscular coordination and skill. Explosive power performance will see its greatest improvementif a range of training methodologies are implemented that address each component. If a component is already highly developed, how- ever, then greater attention to other components will be more beneficial. This highlights the need to implement an assessment program that can isolate those components in which the athlete is relatively weak. For examples of appropriate testing protocols, see Bosco et al. (9, 10, 11). Shifting the emphasis of the training program to target these components should result in the greatest improvements in explosive power performance. @ References 1, Adams, K., J.P. O'Shea, KL. O'Shea, and M.Climstein. The ef fectofsixweeks of squat, plyome- tric and squat-plyometric train- ing on power production. J. Appl Sports Sct. Res, 6:36-41. 1992. 2. Armstrong, D.P. Power training: “The key toathletie success. NSCA Journal 15(6):7-10, 1998 3. Atha, J. Strengthening muscle. Exerc. Sort St Rev. 9:1-74, 1981 4, Bauer. T., RE. Thayer, and G. Baras. Comparison of training ‘modalities for power development in the lower extremity. J. Appl Sports Sci. Res. 4:118-121. 1990. 5. Behm, D.G., and D.G. Sale. In- tended rather than actual move- ‘ment velocity determines veloci- {y-specific training response. J Appl. Physiol. 74:359-368. 1993. 6. Berger, RA. Optimum repetitions for the development of strength. Res. 9. 38:334-398. 1962 7. Benger, RA. Effect of dynamic and statictainingon vertical jumping, Res, Q. 34:419-424. 1963. 8. Blakey, J.B. and D. Southard ‘The combined elects of weight October 1994 Strength and Conditioning 2910. uw 12. 13. 4, 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. training and plyometries on dy- namicleg strength and leg power. J. Appl. Sports Scl. Res. 1:14 16. 1987, |. Bosco, C. Evaluation and control of basic and specific muscle be- havior Part 1. Track Techn. 123: 3930-3933, 3941. 1992, Bosco, C. Evaluation and control of basic and specific muscle be- havior Part 2. Track Techn. 124: 9947-3951, 3972, 1992. Bosco, C., and P.V. Komi. Me- chanical characteristics and f- ber composition of human leg.ex- tensor muscles. Bur. J. Appl Physiol. 24:21-82, 1979. Bosco, C., P:V. Komi, M. Pulll, C. Pittera, and H. Montonev. Con- siderations of the training ofelas- tie potential of human skeletal muscle. Volleyball Tech. J. 113): 75-80. 1982. Bosco, C., P.V. Komi, J. Ththany, G. Fekete, and P. Apor. Mechani- cal power test and fibre compos- tion of human leg extensor mus- les. Bur. J. Appl. Physiol. 51: 129-195. 1983. Clutch, D., M. Wilton, C. McGown, andG.R Bryce. The effect of depth Jumps and weight training on leg strength and vertical jump. Res. Q. 54:5-10. 1983. Di Brezzo, RD., LL Fort, and R. Diana. The effects of a modified plyometric program on junior high female basketball players. J. Appl Res. Coach. Athl.3:172-181. 1988. Duchateau, J., and K. Hainaut. Isometric or dynamic training: Dif ferential effects on mechanical properties of a human muscle. J Appl Physiol. 56:296-301. 1984. Duke, S., and D. BenEliyahu. Plyometrics: Optimizing athletic performance through the devel- ‘opment of power as assessed by vertical leap ability: An observa- tional study. Chiropractic Sports ‘Med. 6(1):10-15, 1992. Elliott, B.C., GJ. Wilson, and G.K. Kerr. A biomechanical anal- ysis of the sticking region in the bench press. Med. Sct Sports Ex ‘ere, 21:450-462. 1969, Etiema, G..C., Aw. Van Soest, and P.A. Huijing. The role of series clastic structures in 20. a 22. 2a, 24, 25, 26. 27, 28, prestretch-induced work _en- hancement during isotonic and isokinetic contractions. J. Exp. Biol. 154:121-136. 1990. Faulkner, J.A.. D.R Claflin, and KK. McCully. Power output of fast and slow fibers from human skele- tal muscles. In: Human Muscle Power. N.L. Jones, N. McCartney, and A.J. McComas. eds. Cham- ppaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 1986. Garhammer, J. A review of power output studies of Olymple and powerlifting: Methodology, perfor- mance, prediction, and evalua- tion tests, J. Strength Cond. Res. 7:76-89. 1993. Garhammer, J., and R. Gregor. Propulsion forees as a function of intensity for weightlifting and vertical jumping. J. Appl. Sports Sci. Res. 6:129-134. 1992. Gollhofer, A. Innervation charac. teristics of m. gastrocnemius dur- ing landing on different surfaces. In: Biomechanics X-B. B. Jonsson, ed. Champaign, I: Human Kineties, 1987. pp. 701-706. Gollhofer, A., and H. Kyrdlainen, Neuromuscular control of the human leg extensor muscles in jump exercises under various stretch-load conditions. Int. J. ‘Sports Med. 12:34-40. 1991. Green, HJ. Muscle power: Fibre lype recruitment, metabolism and fatigue. In: Human Muscle Power, N.L.Jones, N. McCartney, and AJ. McComas, eds. Champaign, IL: Human Kineties, 1986. pp. 65-79. Hakkinen, K. "Neuromuscular and hormonal adaptations dur- Ing strength and power training. J. Sports Med. 29:9-26. 1989. Hakkinen, K., and P.V. Komi, Changes in electrical and me- ‘chanical behavior of leg extensor muscles during heavy resistance strength training. Scand. J. Sports Sei. 7:55-64. 1985, Hakkkinen, K., and P.V. Koml. The effect of explosive type strength training on _clectromyographic and force production characteris- ics ofleg extensor muscles during concentric and various stretch- shortening cycle exercises, Scand. J. Sports Sel. 7:65-76. 1985. 29, 30. 31 32. 34, 38. 37. 38. 39, Hakkinen, K., P:V. Komi, and M ‘Alen. EMG, ‘muscle fibre and force production characteristics duringa one year training period in elite weighthfters. Eur. J. Appl 19-427. 1987. ‘Tesch. Effect of combined concen- tric and eccentric strength train- ing and detraining on force-time, muscle fber andl metabolic char- acteristics oflegextensor muscles. Scand. J. Sports Sei. 3(2):50-58. 1981 Hamill, B.P. Relative safety of ‘weightlifting and weight training, J. Strength Cond. Res. 8:53-57. 1994. Hatfield, F. Power—A Scientific Approach. Chicago: Contempo- rary, 1989) Hill, A.V. The heat of shortening, and the dynamic constants of muscle. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B. 126:136-195. 1938. Holtz, J. J. Divine, and C. ‘McFarland, Vertical jump im: provement following ‘preseason plyometric training. J. Appl. Sports Sci. Res. 2(3):59. 1988. Kanehisa, H., and M. Miyashita. Specificity of velocity in strength raining. Bur. J. Appl. Physiol '52:104-106. 1983, Kaneko, M., T. Fuchimoto, Hi. To}, and K. Suet. Training effect of different loads on the force-ve- locity relationship and mechani. cal power output in human mus- dle. Seand. J. Sports Sci. 5(2):50- 55, 1983. Knuttgen, H.G., and W.J. Krae- mer. Terminology and measure: ment in exercise performance. J. Appl. Sports Sci. Res. 1:1-10. 1987. Komi P.V. The stretch-shortening cycle and human power output In: Human Muscle Power. N.L. ones, N. McCartney, and AJ. McComas, eds. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 1986. pp. 27-39. Komi, P-V., and K. Hakkinen, Strength and power. In: The Olympic Book of Sports Medicine. A Dirix, H.G. Kautigen, and K. ‘Tittel, eds. Boston: Blackwell Sci- entific, 1988. pp. 181-193. ‘Strength and Conditioning October 199440. Komi, P.V.,H.Suominen, E. Helk kkinen, J. Karlsson, and P. Tesch. Effects of heavy resistance and explosive-type strength training ‘methods on mechanical, function: al, and metabolic aspects of perfor- ‘manee, In: Exercise and Sport Biot ogy. PV. Komi, R.C. Nelson, and CA. Morehouse, eds. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 1982. pp, 90-102. 41. Kraemer, K.J. Involvement of ee- centric muscle action may opt: mize adaptations to resistance training. Sports Science Ex- change 4(41). Chicago: Gatorade Sports Science Institute. 1992. 42. Kraemer, Ki., BJ. Noble, Mal Clark, and B.W. Culver. Physio logic responses to heavy-resis- tance exercise with very short rest periods. Int. J. Sports Med. 8:247-252. 1987. 43, Kreighbaum, E., and KM. Bar- thels, Biomechanics: A Qualitative Approach for Studying Human Movement 2nd ed). New York: Macmillan, 1985. 44, Lesmes, GR, Dil, Costill, EF. Coyle, and W.J. Fink. Muscle strength and power changes dur- ing maximal isokinetic training. ‘Med. Sci. Sports 10:266-269. 1978, 45. Moritani, T., M. Muro, K. Ishida, and S. Taguchi. Electro-physto: logical analyses of the effects of muscle power training. Res. J. Phys. Ed. 1:23.92. 1987. 46. Murphy, AJ., GJ. Wilson, J. Pryor, and RU. Newton. The isoin ertial'force-load relationship in human muscle: Its use in predict- {ng dynamic performance. In: Ab- stracts of the ASMF Conference. Melbourne, Australia, 1993, p. 124, 47. Newton, RU., B. Humphries, A. Murphy, G.J. Wilson, and W.J. Kraemer, Biomechanics and neural activation during fast Dench press movements: Impli- cations for power training. Pre- sented at NSCA Conference, New Orleans. June 1994, 48, Newton, RU., and G.J. Wilson. Reducing the risk of injury dur- ing plyometric training: The ef: fect of dampeners. Sports Med. Train. Rehab. 4:1-7. 1993. 49. 52, 58, 54, 55. 56, 87. Newton, R.U., and GJ. Wilson. ‘The kinetics and kinematics of powerfull upper body movernents: ‘The effect ofload. In: Abstracts of the International Society of Bio- ‘mechanics XIVth Congress, Paris, 1993. p. 1510. O'Shea, KL, and J.P. O'Shea. Functional isometric weight training: Its effects on dynamic and static strength. J. Appl Sports Sci. Res. 3(2):30-33. 1989. Sale, D.G. Neural adaptation to strength training. In: Strength and Power in Sport. P.V. Komi, ed. Boston: Blackwell Scientific, 1992, pp. 249-265. ‘Schmidtbleicher, D. Muscular me ‘chanics and neuromuscular con- tuol. In: Swimming Seience V Inter- national Series Sport Science. B.E. Ungerechts, K. Wilke, and K. Reis- chle, eds. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 1988. pp. 131-148, ‘Schmidtbleicher, D. Training for power events, In: Strength and Po- wer in Sport. P.V Komi, ed. Boston: Blackwell Scientific, 1992. pp. 381-395. Schmidtblelcher, D., and M. Buehrle. Neuronal adaptation and Inerease of cross-sectional area studying different strength train- Iingmethods. In: Biomechanies X-B, B. Johnson, ed. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 1987. pp. 615- 620. Schmidtbleicher, D., A. Goll- hofer, and U. Frick. Effects of a stretch-shortening typed train: ingon the performance capability and Innervation characteristics of leg extensor muscles. In: Bio- mechanics XA, G. de Groot et al, eds. Amsterdam: Free Unt versity Press, 1988, pp. 185-189, Staron, RS., D.L. Karapondo, WJ. Kraemer, A.C. Fry, S.E. Gor don, JE. Falkel, F.C. Hagerman, and R.S. Hikida. Skeletal muscle adaptations during early phase of heavy-resistance training in ‘menand women. J. Appl. Physiol. 76:1247-1255, 1994. Van Leemputte, M., AJ. Spaepen, EJ. Willems, and V.V. Stunen. In- uence of prestretch on Alexion. In: Biomechanics VIIA. M. Matsul and K. Kobayashi, eds. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 1983, pp. 264-270. 58. Williams, D.R. The effect of weight training on performance In selected motor activities for Prepubescent males. J. Appl. Sports Sei. Res. 5{3):170. 1991 59, Wilson, G.J., RU. Newton, Ad. Murphy, and BJ. Humphries, ‘The optimal training load for the development of dynamic athletic performance. Med. Sct. Sports Ex- rc. 25:1279-1286. 1993. 60. Young, WB. Training for speed/ strength: Heavy versus light loads, NSCA Journal 15(5):34-42. 1993. 61. Young, W.B., and G.E. Bilby. The effect of voluntary effort to influ- ence speed of contraction on strength, muscular power and hypertrophy development. J. Strength Cond. Res. 7:172-178. 1993, Robert U. Newton completed a Bache- lor of Human Movement Studies with honors and a Master of Human Move- ment Studies at the University of Queensland. His doctoral dissertation focuses on the development of explo- sive power in the human. He is cur- rently a lecturer in biomechanics at the Southern Cross University in Aus- tralia. William J. Kraemer is Director of Re- search for the Center for Sports Medi cine at Penn State. A past president of the NSCA, he has received awards {for outstanding contributions to the fleld of strength and conditioning. He is Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research and has published widely In the field of physiology. October 1994 Strength and Conditioning 31