Original Research: PDF OnlyEffects of Flywheel vs. Traditional Resistance Training on Neuromuscular Performance of Elite Ice Hockey PlayersPuustinen, Jari1; Venojärvi, Mika1; Haverinen, Marko2,3; Lundberg, Tommy R.4 Author Information 1Institute of Biomedicine, Sports and Exercise Medicine, University of Eastern Finland, Kuopio, Finland; 2Biology of Physical Activity, Faculty of Sport and Health Sciences, University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland; 3Varala Sports Institute, Tampere, Finland; and 4Division of Clinical Physiology, Department of Laboratory Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, and Unit of Clinical Physiology, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden Address correspondence to Jari Puustinen, [email protected] The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose. Supplemental digital content is available for this article. Direct URL citations appear in the printed text and are provided in the HTML and PDF versions of this article on the journal's Web site (http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr). Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research: October 28, 2021 - Volume - Issue - doi: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000004159 Buy SDC PAP Metrics Abstract Puustinen, J, Venojärvi, M, Haverinen, M, and Lundberg, TR. Effects of flywheel versus traditional resistance training on neuromuscular performance of elite ice hockey players. J Strength Cond Res XX(X): 000–000, 2021—This study aimed to examine the effects of 8 weeks of flywheel (FW) vs. traditional resistance training on neuromuscular performance of elite ice hockey players during the off-season. Eighteen male players (U-18 to U-21) were assigned to a flywheel group (FG) or traditional training group (TG). The FG (n = 9) performed FW training with 4 different exercises (3–4 sets × 6–7 repetitions). The TG (n = 9) used barbells and free weights (4 sets × 4–12 repetitions). Outcome measures included loaded and unloaded countermovement jumps (CMJs) and a 200 m sprint test that included split times and direction changes. There were no group effects (analysis of covariance with adjustments for pretest values, all p > 0.05, all effect sizes <0.8), suggesting comparable performance improvements between groups. Within-group changes for the unloaded CMJ were 5.7% in FG vs. 4.8% in TG. Similar or slightly greater improvements were seen for the loaded CMJs. For sprint times, there were improvements in both groups for the split time of the first 20 m (FG: −3.2 vs. TG: −2.6%) and also for the 200 m total sprint time (FG −1.8% and TG −1.5%). In conclusion, although FW resistance training improves neuromuscular performance in elite ice hockey players, it does not elicit superior improvements compared with traditional resistance training in players with no prior experience with this training method. Copyright © 2022 by the National Strength & Conditioning Association.