Effects of Postactivation Potentiation on Maximal Vertical Jump Performance After a Conditioning Contraction in Upper-Body and Lower-Body Muscle Groups
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT: Downey, RJ, Deprez, DA, and Chilibeck, PD. Effects of postactivation potentiation on maximal vertical jump performance after a conditioning contraction in upper-body and lower-body muscle groups. J Strength Cond Res 36(1): 259-261, 2022-Postactivation potentiation (PAP) involves preperformance contractions that can condition a muscle to enhance subsequent force generation and power output. Our purpose was to examine the effects of conditioning contractions that are specific or nonspecific to the target performance on PAP. Resistance-trained subjects (14 males and 10 females) performed a 7-second isometric contraction involving back squat, bench press (as conditioning contractions), or a control condition (rest) on different days in random order, before maximal vertical jump performance. The back squat as a conditioning contraction increased maximal vertical jump by 1.1 ± 3.0 cm (p < 0.05); however, the bench press as a conditioning contraction unexpectedly reduced maximal vertical jump performance by 1.4 ± 2.7 cm (p < 0.05). Conditioning contractions used to elicit a PAP response should use muscles that are specific to the performance movement. Contractions that are not biomechanically similar to the performance movement may hinder subsequent performance.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".