Variable Resistance Training Promotes Greater Strength and Power Adaptations Than Traditional Resistance Training

VARIABLE RESISTANCE TRAINING PROMOTES GREATER
STRENGTH AND POWER ADAPTATIONS THAN

TRADITIONAL RESISTANCE TRAINING IN ELITE YOUTH
RUGBY LEAGUE PLAYERS
MAXENCE RIVIÈRE,1,2 LOIC LOUIT,2 ALASDAIR STROKOSCH,3 AND LAURENT B. SEITZ4
1
Catalans Dragons, Perpignan, France; 2University Paul Sabatier, Toulouse, France; 3University of Gloucestershire, Cheltenham,
United Kingdom; and 4Center for Exercise and Sport Science Research, Edith Cowan University, Joondalup, Australia
ABSTRACT resistance training to improve upper-body strength, velocity,

Rivière, M, Louit, L, Strokosch, A, and Seitz, LB. Variable resis- and power in elite youth rugby league players.
tance training promotes greater strength and power adapta- KEY WORDS elastic bands, bench press, velocity, force,
tions than traditional resistance training in elite youth rugby accomodating resistance training
league players. J Strength Cond Res 31(4): 947–955, 2017
—The purpose of this study was to examine the strength, veloc- INTRODUCTION
R
ity, and power adaptations in youth rugby league players in ugby league is a team collision sport that is inter-
response to a variable resistance training (VRT) or traditional mittent in nature with frequent bouts of high-
free-weight resistance training (TRAD) intervention. Sixteen intensity activities (e.g., wrestling, tackling, and
elite youth players were assigned to a VRT or TRAD group sprinting) separated by bouts of low intensity
and completed 2 weekly upper- and lower-body strength and (e.g., jogging and walking) (8). Because of the nature of these
power sessions for 6 weeks. Training programs were identical activities, rugby league players require well-developed aero-
except that the VRT group trained the bench press exercise bic fitness, repeated sprint ability, speed, agility, muscular
with 20% of the prescribed load coming from elastic bands. strength, and power to compete at the highest level (13).
With respect to muscular strength and power, there is evi-
Bench press 1 repetition maximum (1RM) and bench press
dence to suggest that stronger and more powerful players
mean velocity and power at 35, 45, 65, 75, and 85% of
are more likely to access higher divisions of play than their
1RM were measured before and after the training intervention,
weaker counterparts (2). Furthermore, significant correla-
and the magnitude of the changes was determined using tions between tackling ability and bench press strength
effect sizes (ESs). The VRT group experienced larger in- (r = 0.72) and peak power during the plyometric push-up
creases in both absolute (ES = 0.46 vs. 0.20) and relative exercise (r = 0.70) have been reported in first-grade semi-
(ES = 0.41 vs. 0.19) bench press 1RM. Similar results were professional rugby league players (23). Upper-body strength
observed for mean velocity as well as both absolute and rela- may also partially contribute to future career attainment as
tive mean power at 35, 45, 65, 75, and 85% of 1RM. Further- suggested by the large differences in absolute bench press
more, both groups experienced large gains in both velocity and strength observed between professional and academy rugby
power in the heavier loads but small improvements in the ligh- league players (24). Moreover, upper-body strength has also
ter loads. The improvements in both velocity and power against been shown to discriminate between selected and nonse-
lected players, with players selected to compete in the first
the heavier loads were larger for the VRT group, whereas
game of the season exhibiting higher relative bench press
smaller differences existed between the 2 groups in the lighter
strength than the nonselected players (9). Finally, smaller
loads. Variable resistance training using elastic bands may
increases in blood creatine kinase have been reported
offer a greater training stimulus than traditional free-weight 24 hours postgame in subelite youth rugby league players
displaying greater bench press strength, suggesting that
a higher upper-body strength level is associated with
reduced postgame fatigue (14). Collectively, these findings
Address correspondence to Laurent B. Seitz, [email protected]. highlight the importance of developing high levels of upper-
31(4)/947–955 body strength and power in rugby league players.
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research A variety of resistance training methods are used in the
Ó 2016 National Strength and Conditioning Association strength and conditioning setting to improve muscular
VOLUME 31 | NUMBER 4 | APRIL 2017 | 947
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
VRT and Strength and Power Adaptations
strength and power. One such method that is increasingly training implications for strength and conditioning coaches
being used is variable resistance training (VRT), where seeking to maximize the development of these 2 important
elastic bands or chains are attached to both ends of a barbell physical qualities required for rugby players. Therefore, the
to alter the kinematics of the lift (18). In any exercise with an purpose of this study was to examine the upper-body
ascending strength curve, a deceleration phase occurs strength, velocity, and power adaptations in youth elite
toward the end of the concentric portion of the lift during rugby league players in response to a 6-week in-season
which the muscles are not contracting optimally to accom- VRT or TRAD intervention. It was hypothesized that VRT
modate the need for the weight to stop (7). Elastic bands can would provide a superior training stimulus than TRAD and
be used to provide a variable resistance that may enable the would therefore yield greater strength, velocity, and power
athlete overcome this deceleration phase and operate at adaptations.
near-maximal levels throughout a greater range of motion
during the exercise, thus providing a greater loading and METHODS
training stimulus. Examination of the scientific literature re- Experimental Approach to the Problem
veals that VRT may therefore offer a greater training stimu- Sixteen elite youth rugby league players volunteered for this
lus than traditional free-weight resistance training (TRAD) study and were randomly allocated to either the variable
to increase both strength and power. Anderson et al. (1) resistance training group (VRT; n = 8; 1RM to body mass
reported greater strength gains in 1 repetition maximum ratio = 1.2 6 0.2 kg$kg21) or the traditional free-weight
(1RM) bench press after 7 weeks of using VRT (8.0%; +6.7 resistance training group (TRAD; n = 8; 1RM to body mass
6 3.4 kg) when compared with using TRAD (4.0%; +3.3 6 ratio = 1.3 6 0.3 kg$kg21). Both groups completed 2 weekly
2.7 kg) in Division I-A athletes. Similarly, Joy et al. (16) upper- and lower-body sessions focusing on strength and
demonstrated that VRT (+7.7%) led to significantly greater power for 6 weeks during the competitive phase of the sea-
improvements in 1RM bench press than TRAD (+3.3%) son. The training programs were identical except that the
after a 5-week intervention in Division II male basketball VRT group performed the bench press exercise with 20% of
players. Additional support for the superiority of VRT has the prescribed load coming from elastic bands. To determine
been provided by a recent meta-analysis including 7 studies the effects of each training program, all players were tested
and 235 individuals and reporting larger strength gains in the for bench press 1RM as well as bench press mean velocity
bench press exercise in VRT when compared with TRAD and mean power at different percentages (i.e., 35, 45, 65, 75,
(weighted mean difference: 5.0 kg) (22). Although these and 85% of 1RM) before and after their training intervention.
studies suggest that VRT may improve upper-body strength They were familiarized with the testing procedures as they
to a greater extent than TRAD, no data are presently avail- were part of their usual testing and lifting sessions. In addi-
able comparing the respective effects of VRT and TRAD on tion to this investigation, all players took part in technical,
upper-body power. Moreover, to the authors’ knowledge, no tactical, and physical sessions including 4 hours of skill and
attempt has been made to compare the upper-body strength tactical training, 1 hour of conditioning, and 30 minutes of
and power adaptations between a VRT and TRAD in-season injury prevention. A schematic representation of the study
intervention in rugby players. This may have important design is presented in Figure 1.
Figure 1. Schematic representation of the study design. 1RM = 1 repetition maximum; VRT = variable resistance training; TRAD = traditional.
948
the TM
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the TM
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com
Subjects consent form, and all procedures in this investigation were

The participants were 16 elite youth rugby league players conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki
from the academy team of the Dragons Catalans rugby and approved by the Edith Cowan University Human
league club (age: 17.8 6 0.9 years; height: 181.1 6 8.3 cm; Research Ethics Committee. All players under 18 years of
weight: 82.6 6 10.9 kg; bench press 1RM: 100.6 6 18.0 kg; age had written informed consent from a parent or guardian
bench press 1RM to body mass ratio: 1.2 6 0.2 kg$kg21). to participate in the study.
Before participating in the training intervention, they were
screened using medical history questionnaires and were Testing Battery
excluded if they reported any recent musculoskeletal injuries. Anthropometric Measurements. Body mass was measured using
They were informed of the aims, benefits, risks, and pro- a calibrated Tanita scale (model BC-418MA, Tokyo, Japan).
cedures of the study. All players signed an informed Before being weighed, the players were allowed to empty
TABLE 1. The 6-week training intervention.*†
Tuesday (strength) Friday (power)
Sets 3 Reps @ %RM Sets 3 Reps @ %RM
Week 1
Bench press 3 3 4 @ 90 Snatch 6 3 2 @ 70
Clean Bench press
Supine chin-up Pull up
Front squat Squat/CMJz
Week 2
Bench press 3 3 3 @ 85 Bench press 4 3 2 @ 75
Clean Squat
Military press Supine chin-up
Front squat Step up
Bicep curls
Week 3
Squat Clean
Supine chin-up Jerk
Snatch force CMJ
Human plank
OFF
Week 4
Deadlift Bench row
Military press Squat
Incline bench press One arm rowing
Hip thrust Split squat
High pull clean
Week 5
Deadlift Bench row
Military press Squat
Incline bench press One arm rowing
Hip thrust Split squat
High pull clean
Week 6
Front squat Snatch
Clean Push press
Supine chin-up CMJ
*RM = repetition maximum; CMJ = countermovement jump.

†Both groups completed the same training program except that the players in the variable resistance training group performed the
bench press exercise with 20% of the prescribed load coming from elastic bands.
zThe 2 exercises were paired together with 10 s of rest in between.
their bladder and bowel if necessary. The height was players received verbal encouragement during each repetition
measured using a calibrated Tanita stadiometer (model to promote maximal effort.
Leicester, Seca Ltd., Birmingham, United Kingdom). The
intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for the body mass and Band Resistance Measurement. Two elastic bands (brand www.
height was 0.98 and 0.97, respectively. sci-sport.com) were looped over an unloaded standard
Olympic bar (Eleiko, Halmstad, Sweden) and over a bench
One Repetition Maximum Bench Press Assessment. The bench rack that was positioned on a force plate (model BP-
press 1RM protocol was adapted from previous research 4051040; AMTI, Newton, MA, USA). The players posi-
(12). The players started with a standardized warm-up tioned themselves on the bench and the weight of the bench
including wrist, elbow, and shoulder mobility drills for a total rack, barbell, and player was offset to ensure that only the
of 10 exercises and body weight push exercises including 8 resistance produced by the bands was measured. The players
push-ups, 6 clap push-ups, and 3 power push-ups. The play- then unracked the bar and the resistance produced by the
ers then performed a specific bench press warm-up consist- bands at both the top and bottom positions of the lift was
ing of 10 repetitions with a 20-kg unloaded bar and 6 measured. The bands were looped over the bar as many
repetitions at 40%, 4 repetitions at 60%, 2 repetitions at times as necessary to ensure that the average resistance
80%, and 1 repetition at 90% of their estimated 1RM. across the entire range of motion was as close as possible
One minute of recovery was given after the unloaded as 20% of 1RM. The average resistance across the entire
warm-up set, 2 minutes after the 40 and 60% sets, and 3 mi- range of motion was 21.07 6 1.44% of 1RM with the resis-
nutes after the 80% set. Three minutes after the final warm- tance representing 5.23 6 0.21 and 36.91 6 2.34% of 1RM at
up set, the players completed 1RM attempts, with 4 minutes the bottom and top positions of the bench press,
of recovery between attempts, at increasing loads until they respectively.
failed to complete a lift through. The last successful attempt
was recorded as the player’s 1RM. The loads were increased Training Intervention
based on the player’s perception of the previous attempt. The 6-week training intervention took place during the
Because all the participants were familiar with the bench competitive phase of the season with the first session on
press exercise, 3 attempts or fewer were required to deter- Tuesday, focusing on the development of strength, whereas
mine their 1RM. power was the main focus of the second session on Friday.
This configuration corresponds to a typical microcycle setup
Bench Press Mean Velocity and Power Assessments. Bench press in professional rugby (10). The training program targeted
mean velocity and power were measured 3 days after the both the upper- and lower-limb muscles with a primary
1RM bench press assessment with an optical linear position focus on free-weight compound exercises that were supple-
transducer (GymAware; Kinetic Performance Technology, mented with assistance exercises (Table 1). Within each ses-
Canberra, Australia) that was attached to one extremity of sion, the exercises typically progressed from compound
the barbell. The players started with a warm-up including exercises to assistance exercises. The VRT and TRAD
mobility drills and upper-body push movements as described groups performed the same training program (i.e., similar
in the 1RM bench press assessment. Mean velocity and exercises, intensity, and volume as well as rest between sets
power were then measured during 2 bench presses at 35 and exercises); however, the bench press was executed with
(ICC = 0.91), 45 (ICC = 0.93), 65 (ICC = 0.97), 75 (ICC = elastic bands in the VRT group. The bench press technique
0.96), and 85% (ICC = 0.94) 1RM. A 2-minute recovery
period was given between each load. The highest mean
velocity and power recorded at each load were considered
for further analysis.
To ensure the correct technique during the bench press
1RM and maximal power assessments, the players were
required to grasp the bar at a position slightly greater than
shoulder width and maintain their feet flat on the floor and
their head and trunk against the bench throughout the
movement. The movement started with the arms fully
extended over the chest; the barbell was then lowered until
the bar touched the chest at the nipple level. One full repetition
was completed when the participant returned the barbell to the
fully extended arm position. The eccentric phase of the lift was
Figure 2. Percentage change in bench press absolute and relative
performed at a controlled velocity (i.e., 2 seconds), whereas the strength after the training intervention. VRT = variable resistance training;
concentric phase was executed at maximal intended velocity. TRAD = traditional.
No pauses were allowed at the bottom and top positions. The
950
the TM
TABLE 2. Bench press absolute and relative mean power, mean velocity before and after the training intervention, and corresponding changes for both the VRT
and TRAD groups.*
VRT TRAD
Before After % changes ES Before After % changes ES
Mean Abs. Power at 35% 1RM (W) 439 6 74 462 6 81 4.95 6 4.96 0.27 466 6 94 484 6 141 2.70 6 8.87 0.14
Mean Rel. Power at 35% 1RM (W$kg21) 5.30 6 0.64 5.60 6 0.85 5.66 6 6.00 0.42 5.61 6 0.91 5.78 6 1.42 2.01 6 9.20 0.13

the
Mean Velocity at 35% 1RM (m$s21) 1.38 6 0.17 1.40 6 0.17 1.77 6 1.65 0.13 1.32 6 0.12 1.35 6 0.16 2.47 6 8.32 0.21
VOLUME 31 | NUMBER 4 | APRIL 2017 |
*VRT = variable resistance training; TRAD = traditional; ES = effect size; Abs. = absolute; 1RM = 1 repetition maximum; Rel. = relative.
TM
| www.nsca.com
951
Figure 3. Mean absolute and relative power and mean velocity before and after the training intervention for both the VRT and TRAD groups. VRT = variable
resistance training; TRAD = traditional; 1RM = 1 repetition maximum.
952
the TM
the TM
and repetition tempo were the same as the ones described in Bench Press Mean Power
the bench press testing sessions above. All sessions were The magnitude of the changes in absolute mean power
preceded by a 10-minute general warm-up including the output for the VRT group was small at 35, 45, and 65% 1RM
same mobility routine described in the 1RM bench press and medium at 75 and 85% 1RM. The TRAD group
assessment section and a lower-body mobility routine experienced trivial changes at all loads. With respect to
including knee-hug stretches, internal and external hip rota- relative mean power output, the magnitude of the changes of
tions, lateral shuffles, high knees, heel kicks, lunges and twist, the VRT group was small at 35 and 45% 1RM, medium at
and straight-leg marches. Furthermore, each resistance exer- 65 and 85% 1RM, and large at 75% 1RM. The TRAD group
cise was preceded by 3 warm-up sets of increasing intensity experienced trivial changes at 35, 45, 65, and 75% 1RM and
with the last warm-up set being performed at an intensity small changes at 85% 1RM (Table 2 and Figure 3).
just below the target set. The players were required to com-
plete at least 8 of the 12 sessions and take part in pretraining
DISCUSSION
and posttraining testing sessions to be included in the anal- The purpose this study was to examine changes in upper-
yses. Twenty-three players initially volunteered for this body strength; velocity and power after a 6-week in-season
investigation. However, 1 player quit because of injury not intervention using VRT or traditional resistance training
connected with the training intervention and 6 others could (TRAD) in youth elite rugby league players. In agreement
not complete the posttraining testing session, leaving 16 with our hypothesis, the analysis of the ESs reveals that
players to be included in the data analyses. Furthermore, greater training adaptations occurred after VRT, and the
an academic study week was scheduled after week 3 of the implications of this result are discussed below.
training intervention causing the players to miss 1 week In this study, both the VRT and TRAD groups improved
of training. their bench press strength as well as their bench press
velocity and power at 35, 45, 65, 75, and 85% 1RM; however,
Statistical Analyses larger increases were observed in the VRT group. Although
Intraclass correlation coefficients were computed to deter- the difference was not statistically significant, it is important
mine the reliability of the anthropometric assessments and to note that the TRAD group was stronger and more
the bench press mean velocity and power. Effect sizes were powerful than the VRT group at baseline and was thus likely
calculated to determine the changes in bench press 1RM, to gain less strength and power throughout the training
mean velocity, and power before and after the 2 training intervention. Nonetheless, the results regarding strength are
interventions. These changes were considered trivial (,0.20; consistent with the findings of previous studies that com-
small, 0.20–0.50; medium, 0.5–0.8; large, 0.8–1.30; or very pared changes in upper-body strength after VRT and TRAD
large, .1.30) (5). All statistical analyses were conducted interventions (1,16,22). With respect to velocity and power,
using Stata 12 (Stata Corp, College Station, TX, USA) for the current results suggest that the gains seem to be larger
Macintosh. after VRT when compared with TRAD. Although this study
is the first to compare the effect of VRT and TRAD on
RESULTS upper-body velocity and power, making comparison with
Bench Press 1 Repetition Maximum the literature rather challenging, a similar result was reported
Bench press 1RM increased by 5.21 6 3.97% in VRT by Shoepe et al. (21), who observed that power during iso-
(before = 95.6 6 9.6 kg; after = 100.6 6 10.9 kg) and by kinetic knee extension was increased after a 24-week VRT
4.66 6 4.20 in TRAD (pre = 105.6 6 23.3 kg; before = intervention, whereas it remained unchanged after TRAD.
110.6 6 24.7 kg) (Figure 2). The magnitude of the changes There are a number of different factors that may explain the
was small for both groups but larger in VRT (effect size greater strength, velocity, and power gains observed after
[ES] = 0.46) when compared with TRAD (ES = 0.20). Rel- VRT. First, the additional resistance provided by the elastic
ative bench press strength increased by 5.86 6 3.30% in VRT bands was likely to increase the storage of elastic energy
(before = 1.2 6 0.2 kg$kg21; after = 1.2 6 0.2 kg$kg21) and during the eccentric portion of the lift (6), which may have
by 3.90 6 2.88% in TRAD (before = 1.3 6 0.3 kg$kg21; potentiated the concentric portion by releasing more kinetic
after = 1.3 6 0.3 kg$kg21). The magnitude of the changes energy (4,11). This better exploitation of the stretch-
was small in the VRT group (ES = 0.41) and trivial in the shortening cycle may have allowed a greater training stim-
TRAD group (ES = 0.19). ulus to occur over time (27), resulting in greater strength,
velocity, and power gains. Another explanation is that dur-
Bench Press Mean Velocity ing the bench press exercise, force production is limited by
The magnitude of the changes in mean velocity for the VRT the sticking point, which is the position where the moment
group was small at 35 and 45% 1RM, medium at 65% 1RM, arms are at a mechanical disadvantage (7). The use of vari-
very large at 75% 1RM, and large at 85% 1RM. The TRAD able resistances has been shown to reduce this mechanical
group experienced small changes at all loads (Table 2 and disadvantage, therefore increasing muscle tension during
Figure 3). the final part of the concentric portion of the lift (1).
Additionally, the addition of variable resistance minimizes improve upper-body strength, velocity, and power at differ-
the deceleration phase that typically occurs at the end of ent loads of 1RM after a 6-week in-season training inter-
the concentric portion of the lift during free-weight resis- vention in elite youth rugby league players. Furthermore, it
tance exercises (8). The result is a greater constant acceler- seems that both the VRT and TRAD groups experience
ation throughout the movement, which has been reported as large gains in both velocity and power in the heavier loads
a key factor to influence strength and power adaptations (3). but small improvements in the lighter loads. Finally, the
A final explanation is that greater neuromuscular adapta- improvements in both velocity and power against the
tions, including greater muscle electromyography activity heavier loads are larger for the VRT group when compared
(6) and recruitment of larger motor units (20) during the with the TRAD group, whereas smaller differences exist
eccentric portion of a lift, may also occur during VRT, pos- between the 2 groups in the lighter loads.
sibly leading to larger strength, velocity, and power gains
than during free-weight resistance training. Taken collectiv- PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS
ity, these differences may account for the greater long-term The results of this study indicates that strength and
strength, velocity, and power seen with VRT. The current conditioning professionals should consider using VRT to
results also indicate that both the VRT and TRAD groups magnify the adaptations of the high-force portion of the
experienced large velocity and power gains in the heavier force-velocity curve (i.e., maximum strength and strength-
loads, whereas small improvements were observed in the speed), whereas both VRT and TRAD may be used to
lighter loads. This result might be explained by the fact that impact the high velocity area of the curve (i.e., speed-
the greatest increase in power output occurs at the loads strength). Furthermore, because VRT improves strength,
used during training (15,17,19). Therefore, the 70–92% velocity, and power to a greater extent than TRAD, it may
1RM loads that were used in this study improved the ability also be of interest to use this training method when an
of the players to express high velocity and power outputs athlete reaches the plateau that commonly occurs in
against the loads at 65, 75, and 85% 1RM but had little strength and power performance. To optimize the benefits
influence on their ability to express high velocity and power of a VRT program, it is essential to individualize the training
outputs against the lighter loads at 35 and 45% 1RM. program and correctly assess the resistance provided by the
Another important finding of this study is that the improve- bands for each individual. In the context of rugby league
ments in both velocity and power against the heavier loads training, VRT can then be implemented into a within-week
were larger for the VRT group when compared with the loading pattern, including 2 whole-body sessions, with the
TRAD group, whereas smaller differences were observed first session targeting maximum strength and the second
between the 2 groups in the lighter loads. This finding session focusing on power production. Additionally, by
regarding power may be explained by the fact that the providing a different training stimulus, VRT may be a useful
VRT group experienced larger increases in bar velocity supplement to bring variety into the training program and
against the 65% (ES = 0.54 vs. 0.36), 75% (ES = 1.44 vs. hence increase athlete motivation and interest in workouts.
0.38) and 85% (ES = 0.86 vs. 0.38) 1RM loads, which ulti-
mately led to larger gains in power output. Conversely, the REFERENCES
difference in velocity gains between the 2 groups was smaller 1. Anderson, CE, Sforzo, GA, and Sigg, JA. The effects of combining
elastic and free weight resistance on strength and power in athletes.
at the 35% (ES = 0.13 vs. 0.21 for the VRT and TRAD group, J Strength Cond Res 22: 567–574, 2008.
respectively) and 45% (ES = 0.48 vs. 0.40 for the VRT and 2. Baker, DG and Newton, RU. Comparison of lower body strength,
TRAD group, respectively) 1RM loads, resulting in similar power, acceleration, speed, agility, and sprint momentum to
power adaptations against these loads. A greater rate of force describe and compare playing rank among professional rugby
league players. J Strength Cond Res 22: 153–158, 2008.
development, which has been proposed to occur as a result
3. Behm, DG and Sale, DG. Intended rather than actual movement
of VRT (25,26), may have contributed to the increased bar velocity determines velocity-specific training response. J Appl
velocity observed in the higher loads, allowing a higher Physiol 74: 359–368, 1993.
power output to be reached. 4. Bosco, C, Komi, PV, and Ito, A. Prestretch potentiation of human
Although ESs were calculated to determine the changes skeletal muscle during ballistic movement. Acta Physiol Scand 111:
135–140, 1981.
in bench press 1RM, mean velocity and power before and
5. Cohen, J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciencies.
after the 2 training interventions, the small sample size could Hillsdale, NJ: Routledge, 1988.
be considered a limitation of the study. However, the rugby
6. Cronin, J, Mcnair, P, and Marshall, R. The effects of bungy weight
team tested had only 23 players available at the beginning of training on muscle function and functional performance. J Sports Sci
the study, and 7 players could not take part in the posttesting 21: 59–71, 2003.
sessions. Moreover, the training program was limited to 7. Elliott, BC, Wilson, GJ, and Kerr, GK. A biomechanical analysis of
6 weeks only, so different results may have occurred with the sticking region in the bench press. Med Sci Sports Exerc 21: 450–
462, 1989.
a longer training intervention.
8. Gabbett, TJ, Jenkins, DG, and Abernethy, B. Physical demands of
In conclusion, this study indicates that VRT using elastic professional rugby league training and competition using
bands offers a greater training stimulus than TRAD to microtechnology. J Sci Med Sport 15: 80–86, 2012.
954
the TM
the TM
9. Gabbett, TJ and Seibold, AJ. Relationship between tests of physical 19. Moss, B, Refsnes, P, Abildgaard, A, Nicolaysen, K, and Jensen, J.
qualities, team selection, and physical match performance in semi- Effects of maximal effort strength training with different loads
professional rugby league players. J Strength Cond Res 27: 3259– on dynamic strength, cross-sectional area, load-power and
3265, 2013. load-velocity relationships. Eur J Appl Physiol 75: 193–199, 1997.
10. Gamble, P. Strength and Conditioning for Team Sports: Sport-Specific 20. Nardone, A, Romano, C, and Schieppati, M. Selective
Physical Preparation for High Performance. London, UK: Routledge, recruitment of high-threshold human motor units during
Taylor, and Francis Group, 2013. voluntary isotonic lengthening of active muscles. J Physiol 409:
11. Hostler, D, Schwirian, CI, Campos, G, Toma, K, Crill, MT, 451–471, 1989.
Hagerman, GR, Hagerman, FC, and Staron, RS. Skeletal muscle 21. Shoepe, TC, Ramirez, DA, Rovetti, RJ, Kohler, DR, and
adaptations in elastic resistance-trained young men and women. Eur Almstedt, HC. The effects of 24 weeks of resistance training with
J Appl Physiol 86: 112–118, 2001. simultaneous elastic and free weight loading on muscular
12. Jo, E, Judelson, DA, Brown, LE, Coburn, JW, and Dabbs, NC. performance of novice lifters. J Hum Kinet 29: 93–106, 2011.
Influence of recovery duration after a potentiating stimulus on 22. Soria-Gila, MA, Chirosa, IJ, Bautista, IJ, Baena, S, and Chirosa, LJ.
muscular power in recreationally trained individuals. J Strength Cond Effects of variable resistance training on maximal strength: A meta-
Res 24: 343–347, 2010. analysis. J Strength Cond Res 29: 3260–3270, 2015.
13. Johnston, RD, Gabbett, TJ, and Jenkins, DG. Applied sport science 23. Speranza, MJA, Gabbett, TJ, Johnston, RD, and Sheppard, JM.
of rugby league. Sports Med 44: 1087–1100, 2014. Muscular strength and power correlates of tackling ability in
14. Johnston, RD, Gabbett, TJ, Jenkins, DG, and Hulin, BT. Influence of semiprofessional rugby league players. J Strength Cond Res 29:
physical qualities on post-match fatigue in rugby league players. 2071–2078, 2015.
J Sci Med Sport 18: 209–213, 2015. 24. Till, K, Jones, B, and Geeson-Brown, T. Do physical qualities
15. Jones, K, Bishop, P, Hunter, G, and Fleisig, G. The effects of varying influence the attainment of professional status within elite
resistance-training loads on intermediate- and high-velocity-specific 16–19 year old rugby league players? J Sci Med Sport. 19: 585–
adaptations. J Strength Cond Res 15: 349–356, 2001. 589, 2016.
16. Joy, JM, Lowery, RP, Oliveira de Souza, R, and Wilson, JM. Elastic 25. Wallace, BJ, Winchester, JB, and McGuigan, MR. Effects of elastic
bands as a component of periodized resistance training. J Strength bands on force and power characteristics during the back squat
Cond Res. 30: 2100–2106, 2016. exercise. J Strength Cond Res 20: 268–272, 2006.
17. Kaneko, M, Fuchimoto, T, Toji, H, and Suei, K. Training effect of 26. Young, WB and Bilby, GE. The effect of voluntary effort to influence
different loads on the force-velocity relationship and mechanical speed of contraction on strength, muscular power, and hypertrophy
power output in human muscle. Scand J Sports Sci 5: 50–55, 1983. development. J Strength Cond Res 7: 172–178, 1993.
18. Mina, MA, Blazevich, AJ, Giakas, G, and Kay, AD. Influence of 27. Young, WB, Jenner, A, and Griffiths, K. Acute enhancement of
variable resistance loading on subsequent free weight maximal back power performance from heavy load squats. J Strength Cond Res 12:
squat performance. J Strength Cond Res 28: 2988–2995, 2014. 82–84, 1998.

Variable Resistance Training Promotes Greater Strength and Power Adaptations Than Traditional Resistance Training

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Variable Resistance Training Promotes Greater Strength and Power Adaptations Than Traditional Resistance Training

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Variable Resistance Training Promotes Greater Strength and Power Adaptations Than Traditional Resistance Training

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

VARIABLE RESISTANCE TRAINING PROMOTES GREATER

STRENGTH AND POWER ADAPTATIONS THAN

ABSTRACT resistance training to improve upper-body strength, velocity,

VOLUME 31 | NUMBER 4 | APRIL 2017 | 947

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com

Subjects consent form, and all procedures in this investigation were

TABLE 1. The 6-week training intervention.*†

Tuesday (strength) Friday (power)

Sets 3 Reps @ %RM Sets 3 Reps @ %RM

*RM = repetition maximum; CMJ = countermovement jump.

VOLUME 31 | NUMBER 4 | APRIL 2017 | 949

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Before After % changes ES Before After % changes ES

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com

VOLUME 31 | NUMBER 4 | APRIL 2017 | 953

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com

VOLUME 31 | NUMBER 4 | APRIL 2017 | 955

You might also like