Home > Journals > Gazzetta Medica Italiana Archivio per le Scienze Mediche > Past Issues > Gazzetta Medica Italiana - Archivio per le Scienze Mediche 2022 July-August;181(7-8) > Gazzetta Medica Italiana - Archivio per le Scienze Mediche 2022 July-August;181(7-8):507-15

CURRENT ISSUE
 

JOURNAL TOOLS

Publishing options
eTOC
To subscribe
Submit an article
Recommend to your librarian
 

ARTICLE TOOLS

Publication history
Reprints
Permissions
Cite this article as
Share

 

ORIGINAL ARTICLE   

Gazzetta Medica Italiana - Archivio per le Scienze Mediche 2022 July-August;181(7-8):507-15

DOI: 10.23736/S0393-3660.21.04646-5

Copyright © 2021 EDIZIONI MINERVA MEDICA

language: English

The accommodated resistance training method significantly improves deadlift relative maximal strength more than the classic plate loaded method in male classic powerlifters

Pierre-Marc FERLAND 1 , Nicolas TREMBLAY 2, Maxime ALLISSE 2, Alain S. COMTOIS 1, Hung T. BUI 2, 3, Mario LEONE 2, 3

1 Department of Physical Activity Sciences, University of Quebec in Montreal (UQÀM), Montreal, QC, Canada; 2 Department of Health Sciences, University of Québec in Chicoutimi (UQÀC), Saguenay, QC, Canada; 3 Department of Medicine, Sherbrooke University, Sherbrooke, QC, Canada



BACKGROUND: This study compared the absolute (kg) and relative (Wilks pts) maximal strength (MS) gains between the accommodated resistance (AR) and the classic plate loaded (CPL) training methods.
METHODS: Seventeen (17) powerlifters were separated into two groups [experimental (EG; N.=9) and control (CG; N.=8)]. Both followed the same 9-week, 4 times a week, 2-hour, wave-like percentage-based training program with pre and post MS powerlifting testing measures except that the EG trained with a 25% added AR (elastic bands or chains) and 80% of the CPL bar weight. Elastic band resistance relative to bar height for all powerlifting movements was measured with a stadiometer. A two-way repeated measure ANOVA was performed. Effect sizes (ES) were calculated with Morris’ estimate effect size.
RESULTS: The EG significantly (P<0.05) improved more in the Deadlift Wilks pts and Total Wilks pts (+6.3±3.9% vs. 0.1.±5.9%; ES=0.55 and 6.3±5.1% vs. 2.1±2.3%; ES=0.24 respectively), that the EG trended (P>0.05) towards improving more in the Squat Kg (+6.5±9.7% vs. 2.8±3.0%; ES=-0.04), Squat Wilks pts (+9.5±11.6% vs. 2.9±3.2%; ES=0.21), Deadlift Kg (3.5±3.7% vs. 0.0±5.4%; ES=0.19) and Total Kg (3.4±3.5% vs. 2.0±2.4%; ES=0.03). In contrast, the CG trended (P>0.05) towards improving more in the Bench Kg (4.3±3.5% vs. -0.1±6.9%; ES=-0.16) and Bench Wilks pts (4.3±4.0% vs. 2.6±7.5%; ES=0.1).
CONCLUSIONS: The present AR technique produces significantly greater relative MS gains when prescribing deadlifts twice a week.


KEY WORDS: Endurance training; Weight lifting; Sports

top of page