Comparative Effects of Contrast Training and Progressive Resistance Training on Strength and Power-Related Measures in Subelite Australian Rules Football Players.

ABSTRACT: Schneiker, KT, Fyfe, JJ, Teo, SYM, and Bishop, DJ. Comparative effects of contrast training and progressive resistance training on strength and power-related measures in subelite Australian Rules Football players. J Strength Cond Res 37(7): 1440-1448, 2023-The aim of this study was to determine whether contrast training (CST) elicits superior strength-related and power-related outcomes compared with progressive resistance training (PRT). Sixteen male amateur Australian Rules Football players (age, 19 ± 2 years; height, 183 ± 8 cm; body mass, 78.5 ± 8.8 kg; mean ± SD ) completed 2 weeks of standardized resistance training followed by 6 weeks of either CST or PRT. Both CST and PRT improved absolute (20 and 19%) and relative (19 and 16%) 1 repetition maximum (1RM) half squat strength, absolute (8.7 and 8.7%, respectively) and relative (8.2 and 6.1%, respectively) squat jump peak power, and 20-m sprint performance (5.4 and 4.7%, respectively), including both 0 to 5 m (15 and 14%, respectively) and 0 to 10 m (8.6 and 7.5%, respectively) splits. Vertical jump height only improved with CST (6.5%), whereas body mass only increased after PRT (1.9%). There were negative associations between the baseline power-to-strength ratio (PSR) and improvements in both absolute ( r2 = 0.51 and 0.72 for CST and PRT, respectively) and relative ( r2 = 0.65 and 0.60 for CST and PRT, respectively) squat jump peak power. There were no statistically significant (i.e., p ≥ 0.05) between-group differences for all training outcomes. Both interventions improved various strength-related and power-related measures, although a lower baseline PSR was associated with greater improvements in power-related outcomes after both interventions. Contrast training is therefore an effective alternative to progressive resistance training during relatively short-term (6-8 weeks) training periods in young, male, team-sport athletes, particularly in those with a lower power-to-strength ratio.

Effects of static stretching on repeated sprint and change of direction performance.

PURPOSE: To examine the effects of static stretching during the recovery periods of field-based team sports on subsequent repeated sprint ability (RSA) and change of direction speed (CODS) performance. METHODS: On four separate occasions, 12 male team-sport players performed a standardized warm-up, followed by a test of either RSA or CODS (on two occasions each) in a counterbalanced design. Both tests involved three sets of six maximal sprint repetitions, with a 4-min recovery between sets. During the break between sets, the participants either rested (control [CON]) or completed a static stretching protocol (static stretch [SS]). The RSA test involved straight-line sprints, whereas the CODS test required a change of direction (100 degrees) every 4 m (total of four). Mean, total (sum of six sprints), first, and best sprint times (MST, TST, FST, and BST, respectively) were recorded for each set. RESULTS: There was a consistent tendency for RSA times to be slower after the static stretching intervention, which was supported by statistical significance for three performance variables (MST 0-5 m set 2, MST 0-20 m set 2, and TST set 2; P < 0.05). This tendency was also supported by moderate effect sizes and qualitative indications of "likely" harmful or detrimental effects associated with RSA-SS. Further, sprint times again tended to be slower in the CODS-SS trial compared with the CODS-CON across all sprint variables, with a significantly slower (P < 0.05) BST recorded for set 3 after static stretching. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that an acute bout (4 min) of static stretching of the lower limbs during recovery periods between efforts may compromise RSA performance but has less effect on CODS performance.