↓ Skip to main content

Factors Modulating Post-Activation Potentiation of Jump, Sprint, Throw, and Upper-Body Ballistic Performances: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Sports Medicine, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
117 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
video
1 YouTube creator

Citations

dimensions_citation
317 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
688 Mendeley
Title
Factors Modulating Post-Activation Potentiation of Jump, Sprint, Throw, and Upper-Body Ballistic Performances: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis
Published in
Sports Medicine, October 2015
DOI 10.1007/s40279-015-0415-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Laurent B. Seitz, G. Gregory Haff

Abstract

Although post-activation potentiation (PAP) has been extensively examined following the completion of a conditioning activity (CA), the precise effects on subsequent jump, sprint, throw, and upper-body ballistic performances and the factors modulating these effects have yet to be determined. Moreover, weaker and stronger individuals seem to exhibit different PAP responses; however, how they respond to the different components of a strength-power-potentiation complex remains to be elucidated. This meta-analysis determined (1) the effect of performing a CA on subsequent jump, sprint, throw, and upper-body ballistic performances; (2) the influence of different types of CA, squat depths during the CA, rest intervals, volumes of CA, and loads during the CA on PAP; and (3) how individuals of different strength levels respond to these various strength-power-potentiation complex components. A computerized search was conducted in ADONIS, ERIC, SPORTDiscus, EBSCOhost, Google Scholar, MEDLINE, and PubMed databases up to March 2015. The analysis comprised 47 studies and 135 groups of participants for a total of 1954 participants. The PAP effect is small for jump (effect size [ES] = 0.29), throw (ES = 0.26), and upper-body ballistic (ES = 0.23) performance activities, and moderate for sprint (ES = 0.51) performance activity. A larger PAP effect is observed among stronger individuals and those with more experience in resistance training. Plyometric (ES = 0.47) CAs induce a slightly larger PAP effect than traditional high-intensity (ES = 0.41), traditional moderate-intensity (ES = 0.19), and maximal isometric (ES = -0.09) CAs, and a greater effect after shallower (ES = 0.58) versus deeper (ES = 0.25) squat CAs, longer (ES = 0.44 and 0.49) versus shorter (ES = 0.17) recovery intervals, multiple- (ES = 0.69) versus single- (ES = 0.24) set CAs, and repetition maximum (RM) (ES = 0.51) versus sub-maximal (ES = 0.34) loads during the CA. It is noteworthy that a greater PAP effect can be realized earlier after a plyometric CA than with traditional high- and moderate-intensity CAs. Additionally, shorter recovery intervals, single-set CAs, and RM CAs are more effective at inducing PAP in stronger individuals, while weaker individuals respond better to longer recovery intervals, multiple-set CAs, and sub-maximal CAs. Finally, both weaker and stronger individuals express greater PAP after shallower squat CAs. Performing a CA elicits small PAP effects for jump, throw, and upper-body ballistic performance activities, and a moderate effect for sprint performance activity. The level of potentiation is dependent on the individual's level of strength and resistance training experience, the type of CA, the depth of the squat when this exercise is employed to elicit PAP, the rest period between the CA and subsequent performance, the number of set(s) of the CA, and the type of load used during the CA. Finally, some components of the strength-power-potentiation complex modulate the PAP response of weaker and stronger individuals in a different way.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 117 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 688 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 2 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Unknown 684 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 125 18%
Student > Master 116 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 52 8%
Researcher 34 5%
Other 30 4%
Other 136 20%
Unknown 195 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 356 52%
Nursing and Health Professions 30 4%
Medicine and Dentistry 17 2%
Social Sciences 14 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 1%
Other 49 7%
Unknown 214 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 72. 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 29 July 2022.
All research outputs
#603,573
of 25,646,963 outputs
Outputs from Sports Medicine
#565
of 2,892 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,033
of 295,846 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Sports Medicine
#13
of 54 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,646,963 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 80% 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 295,846 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 54 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.