study. All participants regularly performed resistance training as part of their training and had a strength training background (

.

1 year). The study was conducted in the participant’s off- season where the majority of participants were at the start of a traini ng cycle aimed at improv ing their strength perform ance. Participants were excluded if any medical problems were re- ported that compromised their participation or performance in this study, and athletes were taking or had previously taken any performance-enhancement drugs of any kind. All participants provided written informed consent after having being briefed on the potential risks associated with this research. Prior ethical approval was granted by the AUT University Ethics Commit- tee, Auckland, New Zealand. In total, 36 participants were re- cruited for this study, but because of injury, transport issues, and work and family commitments, only 30 participants completed all parts of the testing and intervention program. The results of this study are based on the data obtained from these 30 partic- ipants. Two injuries were reported as part of the training inter- vention. One was a minor back muscle sprain associated with the deadlift, which resulted in the participant missing 1 training session and the other was a shoulder injury associated with strongman training in which the participant had to stop training and subsequently pull out of the study. Adherence to training wa s 98. 6% for bo th gro up s. Al l tra in in g for th is stu dy wa s undertaken at a similar time of the day with participants in- structed to maintain their normal dietary intake before and after each workout. We did not control for nutrition or hydration levels, but participants were told not to make any changes in the above during the intervention and postintervention testing.

Strength Testing

No supportive aids beyond the use of a weightlifting belt and lif tin g cha lk wer e per mit ted dur ing the tes tin g. Th e warm-up, loading increments, and rest periods used were according to previously established protocols (40). Move- ment competency screening of the 1RM strength exercises took place before strength testing, and instruction was given when required to improve technique. Strength testing was assessed by 1RM-3RM tests performed with a free-weight Olympic-style barbell. The 1RM test was performed for the cle an and jerk and 1RM-3R M tes ts wer e per for med for deadlift, military press, squat, and bent over row (respec- tively). Squat RM was assessed using the methods outlined by Baker and Nance (3). Completed lifts in the clean and jerk, deadlift, and military press were recognized when the participants were standing still and fully upright with the app lie d loa d. F or the bent ove r row , par tic ipa nts had to achieve full range of motion of the upper limbs while re- maining in a partial squat position with no movement at the hip and knee. The Poliquin formula (29) was used to determine the participants’ predicted 1RM from their 2RM or 3RM valu es. Percenta ge of load ing for the training inter- vention was based on the athletes predicted 1RM.

Functional Performance Testing

Before the commencement of functional performance testing, participants had their body composition (body mass, body fat percentage, and muscle mass [MM]) measured and recorded usi ng a bio elec tric al imp edan ce mac hin e (InB ody23 0, Bio- space, Seoul, Korea). Participants then performed a 10-minute standardized warm-up before testing that consisted of dynamic stre tchi ng and lig ht jogg ing inte rspe rsed wit h bod ywei ght exercises. Testing commenced 5 minutes after the warm-up. The testing session involved the determination of the partic- ipants’ 5, 15, and 30-m sprint times (seconds) from a 30-m sprint, horizontal jump (m), seated 5-kg MB chest press throw (m), vertical jump height (cm), left and right handgrip strength (kg), 70-kg 15-m sled pushes (seconds), and 5-0-5 COD test (seconds). A rest period with a minimum of 10 minutes was provided between each test. Participants performed two 30-m sprints (coefﬁcient of variation [CV] = 0.6%), 5-0-5 COD tests (CV = 2.2%), grip strength tests (CV = 4.2 and 4.5% for left and righ t grip streng th, respect ivel y), and 15-m sled push es (CV = 2.9%), and 3 horizontal jumps (CV = 1.6%), counter- movement vertical jumps (CVJs) (CV = 3.2%), and seated 5-kg MB chest press throws (CV = 1.3%). The best result for each test was used for data analy sis. All pre- and post fun ctio nal performance testing were performed indoors on artiﬁcial turf (15 mm underlay/10 mm overlay) at the same time of the day. Th e perf orma nce test s chos en for this stud y have been consi dere d appr opri ate func tion al perf orma nce test s and conditioning exercises for a variety of athletes and have shown good test-retest reliability (11,13,25,27,39).

Strength and Power Assessment.

Grip strength was determined with a grip strength dynamometer (TTM Original Dyna- mometer 100 kg, Tokyo, Japan). Participants were instructed to hold the dynamometer at their side and pull the handles

Figure 1.

A 70-kg 15-m heavy prowler push.

Jou rnal of St reng th and Con diti onin g Rese arch

the

TM

|

www.nsca.com

VOLU ME 29 | NUMB ER 2 | FEBR UAR Y 2015 |

431