| Title |
The Optimal Load for Maximal Power Production During Lower-Body Resistance Exercises: A Meta-Analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Sports Medicine, June 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s40279-015-0341-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Marco A. Soriano, Pedro Jiménez-Reyes, Matthew R. Rhea, Pedro J. Marín |
| Abstract |
The development of muscular power is often a key focus of sports performance enhancement programs. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to examine the effect of load on peak power during the squat, jump squat, power clean, and hang power clean, thus integrating the findings of various studies to provide the strength and conditioning professional with more reliable evidence upon which to base their program design. A search of electronic databases [MEDLINE (SPORTDiscus), PubMed, Google Scholar, and Web of Science] was conducted to identify all publications up to 30 June 2014. Hedges' g (95 % confidence interval) was estimated using a weighted random-effect model. A total of 27 studies with 468 subjects and 5766 effect sizes met the inclusion criterion and were included in the statistical analyses. Load in each study was labeled as one of three intensity zones: Zone 1 represented an average intensity ranging from 0 to 30 % of one repetition maximum (1RM); Zone 2 between 30 and 70 % of 1RM; and Zone 3 ≥70 % of 1RM. These results showed different optimal loads for each exercise examined. Moderate loads (from >30 to <70 % of 1RM) appear to provide the optimal load for power production in the squat exercise. Lighter loads (≤30 % of 1RM) showed the highest peak power production in the jump squat. Heavier loads (≥70 % of 1RM) resulted in greater peak power production in the power clean and hang power clean. Our meta-analysis of results from the published literature provides evidence for exercise-specific optimal loads for power production. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 121 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 25 | 21% |
| Spain | 12 | 10% |
| United States | 10 | 8% |
| Australia | 6 | 5% |
| Ireland | 4 | 3% |
| Canada | 3 | 2% |
| Brazil | 3 | 2% |
| Chile | 2 | 2% |
| Germany | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 13 | 11% |
| Unknown | 41 | 34% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 68 | 56% |
| Scientists | 49 | 40% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 2% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 2% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 366 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Poland | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 363 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 71 | 19% |
| Student > Master | 70 | 19% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 42 | 11% |
| Researcher | 20 | 5% |
| Other | 20 | 5% |
| Other | 64 | 17% |
| Unknown | 79 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Sports and Recreations | 206 | 56% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 20 | 5% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 13 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 11 | 3% |
| Social Sciences | 9 | 2% |
| Other | 17 | 5% |
| Unknown | 90 | 25% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 76. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 April 2024.
All research outputs
#569,835
of 25,653,515 outputs
Outputs from Sports Medicine
#534
of 2,892 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,279
of 281,338 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Sports Medicine
#13
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,653,515 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,892 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 57.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 281,338 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its contemporaries.