Institutional members access full text with Ovid®

Share this article on:

Meta-Analysis of Postactivation Potentiation and Power: Effects of Conditioning Activity, Volume, Gender, Rest Periods, and Training Status

Wilson, Jacob M.1; Duncan, Nevine M.1; Marin, Pedro J.2,3; Brown, Lee E.4; Loenneke, Jeremy P.5; Wilson, Stephanie M.C.6; Jo, Edward7; Lowery, Ryan P.1; Ugrinowitsch, Carlos8

Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research: March 2013 - Volume 27 - Issue 3 - p 854–859
doi: 10.1519/JSC.0b013e31825c2bdb
Original Research

Abstract: Wilson, JM, Duncan, NM, Marin, PJ, Brown, LE, Loenneke, JP, Wilson, SMC, Jo, E, Lowery, RP, and Ugrinowitsch, C. Meta-analysis of postactivation potentiation and power: Effects of conditioning activity, volume, gender, rest periods, and training status. J Strength Cond Res 27(3): 854–859, 2013—There is no clear agreement regarding the ideal combination of factors needed to optimize postactivation potentiation (PAP) after a conditioning activity. Therefore, a meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the effects of training status, volume, rest period length, conditioning activity, and gender on power augmentation due to PAP. A total of 141 effect sizes (ESs) for muscular power were obtained from a total of 32 primary studies, which met our criteria of investigating the effects of a heavy preconditioning activity on power in randomized human trials. The mean overall ES for muscle power was 0.38 after a conditioning activity (p < 0.05). Significant differences were found between moderate intensity (60–84%) 1.06 and heavy intensity (>85%) 0.31 (p < 0.05). There were overall significant differences found between single sets 0.24 and multiple sets 0.66 (p < 0.05). Rest periods of 7–10 minutes (0.7) after a conditioning activity resulted in greater ES than 3–7 minutes (0.54), which was greater than rest periods of >10 minutes (0.02) (p < 0.05). Significant differences were found between untrained 0.14 and athletes 0.81 and between trained 0.29 and athletes. The primary findings of this study were that a conditioning activity augmented power output, and these effects increased with training experience, but did not differ significantly between genders. Moreover, potentiation was optimal after multiple (vs. single) sets, performed at moderate intensities, and using moderate rest periods lengths (7–10 minutes).

1Department of Health Sciences and Human Performance, The University of Tampa, Tampa, Florida

2Laboratory of Physiology, European University Miguel de Cervantes, Valladolid, Spain

3Research Center on Physical Disability, ASPAYM Castilla y León, Valladolid, Spain

4Human Performance Laboratory, Department of Kinesiology, California State University, Fullerton, California

5Department of Health and Exercise Science, The University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma

6Department of Nutrition, IMG Performance Institute, IMG Academy, Bradenton, Florida

7Department of Nutrition, Food and Exercise Sciences, The Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida

8School of Physical Education and Sport, University of São Paulo, Brazil

Address correspondence to Dr. Jacob M. Wilson, jmwilson@ut.edu.

© 2013 National Strength and Conditioning Association