Cargando…

Value of Wellness Ratings and Countermovement Jumping Velocity to Monitor Performance

This study examined the relationship between subjective ratings of overall wellness and neuromuscular performance throughout a 6-week intensive offseason strength and conditioning program. Thirty experienced NCAA Division II baseball players completed all phases of the program. A comprehensive welln...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: BRASCH, MICHAEL T., NEELD, KEVIN L., KONKOL, KRISTEN F., PETTITT, ROBERT W.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Berkeley Electronic Press 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6355136/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30761203
_version_ 1783391303388626944
author BRASCH, MICHAEL T.
NEELD, KEVIN L.
KONKOL, KRISTEN F.
PETTITT, ROBERT W.
author_facet BRASCH, MICHAEL T.
NEELD, KEVIN L.
KONKOL, KRISTEN F.
PETTITT, ROBERT W.
author_sort BRASCH, MICHAEL T.
collection PubMed
description This study examined the relationship between subjective ratings of overall wellness and neuromuscular performance throughout a 6-week intensive offseason strength and conditioning program. Thirty experienced NCAA Division II baseball players completed all phases of the program. A comprehensive wellness rating and 5 countermovement jumps (CMJ5) were measured and averaged for 4 phases of training. Pre- and post-testing measures of strength and speed also were evaluated. Internal consistency of the wellness rating for each phase ranged α = 0.77–0.92, and CMJ5 velocities had decent consistency (ICC(α) = 0.88, TE = 0.19 m·s(−1), CV = 5.90%). The training program evoked significant (p < 0.01) improvements in front squats (d = 0.55), trap bar deadlifts (d = 0.62), chin ups (d = 0.39), 30-yd dash (d = 0.39), with no change in the 300-yd dash (p > 0.05), where d is the treatment effect size. Average CMJ5 velocities (m·s(−1)) were similar for the preparation phase (1.90 ± 0.25), eccentric phase (1.91 ± 0.28), strength & power phase (1.91 ± 0.24), and recovery phase (1.91 ± 0.30; F = 0.04, p = 0.99, η(p)(2) = 0.001). No significant correlations were observed for pre-or post-testing measures of wellness ratings in comparison to any performance measures, including a composite standardized score from each performance test at pre-testing (r = 0.22, p = 0.26). The CMJ5 exhibited too high of a typical error to determine a change in neuromuscular status. Additionally, the wellness rating did not reflect changes in relation to performance.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6355136
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher Berkeley Electronic Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-63551362019-02-11 Value of Wellness Ratings and Countermovement Jumping Velocity to Monitor Performance BRASCH, MICHAEL T. NEELD, KEVIN L. KONKOL, KRISTEN F. PETTITT, ROBERT W. Int J Exerc Sci Original Research This study examined the relationship between subjective ratings of overall wellness and neuromuscular performance throughout a 6-week intensive offseason strength and conditioning program. Thirty experienced NCAA Division II baseball players completed all phases of the program. A comprehensive wellness rating and 5 countermovement jumps (CMJ5) were measured and averaged for 4 phases of training. Pre- and post-testing measures of strength and speed also were evaluated. Internal consistency of the wellness rating for each phase ranged α = 0.77–0.92, and CMJ5 velocities had decent consistency (ICC(α) = 0.88, TE = 0.19 m·s(−1), CV = 5.90%). The training program evoked significant (p < 0.01) improvements in front squats (d = 0.55), trap bar deadlifts (d = 0.62), chin ups (d = 0.39), 30-yd dash (d = 0.39), with no change in the 300-yd dash (p > 0.05), where d is the treatment effect size. Average CMJ5 velocities (m·s(−1)) were similar for the preparation phase (1.90 ± 0.25), eccentric phase (1.91 ± 0.28), strength & power phase (1.91 ± 0.24), and recovery phase (1.91 ± 0.30; F = 0.04, p = 0.99, η(p)(2) = 0.001). No significant correlations were observed for pre-or post-testing measures of wellness ratings in comparison to any performance measures, including a composite standardized score from each performance test at pre-testing (r = 0.22, p = 0.26). The CMJ5 exhibited too high of a typical error to determine a change in neuromuscular status. Additionally, the wellness rating did not reflect changes in relation to performance. Berkeley Electronic Press 2019-01-01 /pmc/articles/PMC6355136/ /pubmed/30761203 Text en
spellingShingle Original Research
BRASCH, MICHAEL T.
NEELD, KEVIN L.
KONKOL, KRISTEN F.
PETTITT, ROBERT W.
Value of Wellness Ratings and Countermovement Jumping Velocity to Monitor Performance
title Value of Wellness Ratings and Countermovement Jumping Velocity to Monitor Performance
title_full Value of Wellness Ratings and Countermovement Jumping Velocity to Monitor Performance
title_fullStr Value of Wellness Ratings and Countermovement Jumping Velocity to Monitor Performance
title_full_unstemmed Value of Wellness Ratings and Countermovement Jumping Velocity to Monitor Performance
title_short Value of Wellness Ratings and Countermovement Jumping Velocity to Monitor Performance
title_sort value of wellness ratings and countermovement jumping velocity to monitor performance
topic Original Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6355136/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30761203
work_keys_str_mv AT braschmichaelt valueofwellnessratingsandcountermovementjumpingvelocitytomonitorperformance
AT neeldkevinl valueofwellnessratingsandcountermovementjumpingvelocitytomonitorperformance
AT konkolkristenf valueofwellnessratingsandcountermovementjumpingvelocitytomonitorperformance
AT pettittrobertw valueofwellnessratingsandcountermovementjumpingvelocitytomonitorperformance