•  
  •  
 

EXAMINING STRENGTH DIFFERENCE BETWEEN POWER-FIRST AND PARALLEL PROGRESSION LIFTING MODEL IN DIVISION I VOLLEYBALL

Abstract

Julia Phillips, Thomas L. Andre, Christina Lodato. University of Mississippi, Oxford, MS.

BACKGROUND: Power-first (PF) model begins with a power development phase preparing for advanced absolute strength later. In a parallel progression (PP) model, all forms of strength development are addressed at the same time and in parallel fashion. The purpose of this study was to examine differences in countermovement jump (CMJ), single leg jumps and 4-jump test on force plates after 8 weeks of training between the two models. METHODS: Division l Volleyball athletes underwent 2 weeks of basic strength training familiarization prior to being randomly assigned to power-first group (n=6) and parallel progression group (n=5). Pre and post testing was performed on VALD ForceDeck (VALD; VALD Performance, Charlotte, NC) for countermovement jumps (3), single leg jumps (3) and 4-jump tests (3). RESULTS: All data was compared as a change score and a Mann-Whitney U was run for the analysis and significance was set at p=0.05. There were significant differences in jump height (PF: 0.81 cm vs PP: 9.09 cm; eta squared = 0.48, p=0.03), relative peak power (PF: 1.01 N/kg vs PP: 9.08 N/kg; eta squared = 0.56, p=0.017), vertical takeoff velocity (PF: 0.03 m/s vs PP: 0.36 m/s; eta squared = 0.53, p=0.022) and relative eccentric rate of force development (PF: -1.83 N/S/kg vs PP: 10.2 N/S/kg; eta squared = 0.76, p=0.008). There were no significant differences found between groups for any of the variables for single leg jump and 4-jump. CONCLUSION: Based on the current data, it may be recommended to train volleyball athletes with the parallel progression model over the power-first model. Although additional research should seek to expand utilizing multiple volleyball teams to examine this paradigm.

This document is currently not available here.

Share

COinS