Explosive muscular power, or a high rate of muscular motor unit utilization, is the underlying foundation for most sporting actions. By definition, more power production is when the same amount of work is done in a shorter period of time or in the same amount of time (Ratamess et al., 2009). It is also the product of force and speed- essential elements in sports performance ((Ratamess et al., 2009). Improvements in power through resistance training are likely to be attributed to increased neuromuscular activation and coordination and may lead to improved sports performance (Harries et al., 2012). Conversely, losses of force and power contribute the most to decreased functional performance and mobility with older age (Maden et al. 2015).
…show more content…
On the other hand, acute decreases in power or impairment of performance, as occurs through the procession of an exercise session, are not indicative of tissue failure but muscular fatigue. These decreases are a response to an applied stress and should be a warning to the exerciser to stop before muscle exhaustion occurs. Furthermore, the point of fatigue onset is likely the same point at which an individual is more prone to deviating from proper posture and, therefore, injury. All in all, it is important to recognize the significance that power plays on and off the field as well as the point at which fatigue (acute decreases in power) occurs.
The purpose of this lab is to determine at what point fatigue- a drop in power- sets in for individuals engaging in bench presses until exhaustion and how fast power continues to drop with subsequent repetitions. …show more content…
Figures 1 through 5 provide a visual representation of the data in order to view the general curve of the data. It was assumed that the point at which the slope of the line (power) begins to decrease, is the point that muscular fatigue starts to set in. The point at which fatigue sets in is identified by its repetition number and its percentage of the entire repetition range. It is highlighted in each figure. Fatigue set in for Participant A at 9% of rep range. Participant B experienced fatigue at 14% of rep range. Participant C and D had fatigue set in at 17% and 22% of rep range, respectively. All the figures have a logarithmic decrease in power as confirmed by the R² values for each trend line. Participant A, D, and E (Figure 1, 4, 5) had an R² value of 0.96. Participant B and C (figure 2 & 3) had an R² value of 0.87 and 0.93,
On the other hand, acute decreases in power or impairment of performance, as occurs through the procession of an exercise session, are not indicative of tissue failure but muscular fatigue. These decreases are a response to an applied stress and should be a warning to the exerciser to stop before muscle exhaustion occurs. Furthermore, the point of fatigue onset is likely the same point at which an individual is more prone to deviating from proper posture and, therefore, injury. All in all, it is important to recognize the significance that power plays on and off the field as well as the point at which fatigue (acute decreases in power) occurs.
The purpose of this lab is to determine at what point fatigue- a drop in power- sets in for individuals engaging in bench presses until exhaustion and how fast power continues to drop with subsequent repetitions. …show more content…
Figures 1 through 5 provide a visual representation of the data in order to view the general curve of the data. It was assumed that the point at which the slope of the line (power) begins to decrease, is the point that muscular fatigue starts to set in. The point at which fatigue sets in is identified by its repetition number and its percentage of the entire repetition range. It is highlighted in each figure. Fatigue set in for Participant A at 9% of rep range. Participant B experienced fatigue at 14% of rep range. Participant C and D had fatigue set in at 17% and 22% of rep range, respectively. All the figures have a logarithmic decrease in power as confirmed by the R² values for each trend line. Participant A, D, and E (Figure 1, 4, 5) had an R² value of 0.96. Participant B and C (figure 2 & 3) had an R² value of 0.87 and 0.93,