Relationship Between Vertical Jump Parameters And Changes In Agility Performance Following Post-Activation Potentiation In Elite Fencers

Abstract

This study aimed to examine the relationship between vertical jump-derived neuromuscular parameters and agility performance changes following post-activation potentiation (PAP) protocols in elite fencers. Seventeen elite male fencers (age: 17.29 ± 1.93 years) performed vertical jump assessments—countermovement jump (CMJ), squat jump (SJ), and drop jump (DJ)—using the Optojump Next system. Reactive strength index (RSI), relative power, and other jump metrics were recorded. PAP was elicited via Smith machine split squat protocols (dominant, non-dominant, bilateral legs), while agility was measured using a 4-2-2-4 test at 1, 3, 5, and 7 minutes post-PAP, timed via photocell gates. A repeated-measures ANOVA, Pearson correlations, and multiple linear regressions were conducted to identify predictive relationships. A significant main effect of time was observed on agility performance (F(4,64) = 11.103, p < 0.001, ω² = 0.110), while no significant main effect of condition emerged. A small but significant interaction effect (F(12,192) = 1.866, p = 0.041, ω² = 0.017) suggested time-dependent differences among conditions. However, post hoc tests and simple effects analyses did not yield significant contrasts. Regression models revealed that DJ flight time and DJ height were the most consistent predictors of agility changes, particularly in the bilateral and control groups. CMJ and SJ variables demonstrated moderate predictive relevance. Although PAP protocols led to temporal improvements in agility, no substantial differences were found between conditions. Vertical jump-derived parameters, especially DJ characteristics, may help identify individuals more responsive to PAP. These findings suggest the need for individualized PAP programming in elite fencers.

Keywords

• Post-activation potentiation (PAP)
• Vertical jump
• Agility performance
• Fencing

Elit Eskrimcilerde Dikey Sıçrama Parametreleri ile Post Aktivasyon Potansiyasyonu Sonrası Çeviklik Performansındaki Değişim Arasındaki İlişki

Abstract

Bu çalışma, elit eskrimcilerde dikey sıçrama kaynaklı nöromüsküler parametrelerle post-aktivasyon potansiyasyonu (PAP) sonrası çeviklik performansındaki değişimler arasındaki ilişkiyi incelemeyi amaçladı. On yedi elit erkek eskrimci (yaş: 17,29 ± 1,93 yıl), Optojump Next sistemi kullanılarak karşı hareket sıçraması (CMJ), squat sıçraması (SJ) ve drop jump (DJ) testlerini gerçekleştirdi. Reaktif kuvvet indeksi (RSI), relatif güç ve diğer sıçrama ölçümleri kaydedildi. PAP, Smith machine split squat protokolleriyle (dominant, nondominant, bilateral bacaklar) uygulandı; çeviklik performansı ise 1., 3., 5. ve 7. dakikalarda 4-2-2-4 çeviklik testiyle ve fotosel sistemiyle ölçüldü. İlişkileri belirlemek için tekrarlı ölçümler ANOVA, Pearson korelasyonları ve çoklu doğrusal regresyon analizleri kullanıldı. Zaman ana etkisi anlamlıydı (F(4,64) = 11,103, p < 0,001, ω² = 0,110), ancak kondisyon ana etkisi anlamlı çıkmadı. Küçük ama anlamlı bir etkileşim etkisi (F(12,192) = 1,866, p = 0,041, ω² = 0,017), zamanla gruplar arasında farklılıkların oluştuğunu gösterdi. Ancak post hoc ve basit etkiler analizlerinde anlamlı farklar gözlemlenmedi. Regresyon analizleri, özellikle bilateral ve kontrol gruplarında DJ uçuş süresi ve DJ yüksekliğinin çeviklik değişimlerinin en tutarlı yordayıcıları olduğunu gösterdi. CMJ ve SJ değişkenleri ise orta düzeyde yordayıcı olarak belirlendi. PAP protokolleri çeviklikte zaman içinde iyileşmeler sağlasa da gruplar arasında anlamlı farklılıklar gözlemlenmedi. Bu bulgular, elit eskrimcilerde PAP uygulamalarının bireysel olarak yapılandırılması gerektiğine işaret etmektedir.

Keywords

• Post-aktivasyon potansiyasyonu (PAP)
• Dikey sıçrama
• Çeviklik performansı
• Eskrim

References

1. 1. Aquili, A., Tancredi, V., Triossi, T., De Sanctis, D., Padua, E., D'Arcangelo, G., & Melchiorri, G. (2013). Performance analysis in saber. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 27(3), 624-630.
2. 2. Bobbert, M. F., & van Ingen Schenau, G. J. (1988). Coordination in vertical jumping. Journal of biomechanics, 21(3), 249-262.
3. 3. Boullosa, D. (2021). Post-activation performance enhancement strategies in sport: a brief review for practitioners. Human Movement, 22(3), 101-109.
4. 4. Cormie, P., McBride, J. M., & McCaulley, G. O. (2009). Power-time, force-time, and velocity-time curve analysis of the countermovement jump: impact of training. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 23(1), 177-186.
5. 5. Cuenca-Fern￡ndez, F., Smith, I. C., Jordan, M. J., MacIntosh, B. R., L￳pez-Contreras, G., Arellano, R., & Herzog, W. (2017). Nonlocalized postactivation performance enhancement (PAPE) effects in trained athletes: a pilot study. Applied physiology, nutrition, and metabolism, 42(10), 1122-1125.
6. 6. Ebben, W. P., & Petushek, E. J. (2010). Using the reactive strength index modified to evaluate plyometric performance. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 24(8), 1983-1987.
7. 7. Flanagan, E. P., & Comyns, T. M. (2008). The use of contact time and the reactive strength index to optimize fast stretch-shortening cycle training. Strength & Conditioning Journal, 30(5), 32-38.
8. 8. Garbisu-Hualde, A., & Santos-Concejero, J. (2021). Post-activation potentiation in strength training: A systematic review of the scientific literature. Journal of Human Kinetics, 78(1), 141-150.

9. 9. Lakens, D. (2013). Calculating and reporting effect sizes to facilitate cumulative science: a practical primer for t-tests and ANOVAs. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 863.
10. 10. Markovic, G., Dizdar, D., Jukic, I., & Cardinale, M. (2004). Reliability and factorial validity of squat and countermovement jump tests. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 18(3), 551-555.
11. 11. Meylan, C., McMaster, T., Cronin, J., Mohammad, N. I., Rogers, C., & DeKlerk, M. (2009). Single-leg lateral, horizontal, and vertical jump assessment: Reliability, interrelationships, and ability to predict sprint and change-of-direction performance. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 23(4), 1140-1147.
12. 12. Sale, D. G. (2002). Postactivation potentiation: role in human performance. Exercise and sport sciences reviews, 30(3), 138-143.
13. 13. Seitz, L. B., & Haff, G. G. (2016). Factors modulating post-activation potentiation of jump, sprint, throw, and upper-body ballistic performances: A systematic review with meta-analysis. Sports medicine, 46, 231-240.
14. 14. Seitz, L. B., Trajano, G. S., & Haff, G. G. (2014). The back squat and the power clean: Elicitation of different degrees of potentiation. International journal of sports physiology and performance, 9(4), 643-649.
15. 15. Tillin, N. A., & Bishop, D. (2009). Factors modulating post-activation potentiation and its effect on performance of subsequent explosive activities. Sports medicine, 39, 147-166.
16. 16. Turner, A., James, N., Dimitriou, L., Greenhalgh, A., Moody, J., Fulcher, D., . . . Kilduff, L. (2014). Determinants of olympic fencing performance and implications for strength and conditioning training. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 28(10), 3001-3011.
17. 17. Wilson, J. M., Duncan, N. M., Marin, P. J., Brown, L. E., Loenneke, J. P., Wilson, S. M., . . . Ugrinowitsch, C. (2013). Meta-analysis of postactivation potentiation and power: effects of conditioning activity, volume, gender, rest periods, and training status. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 27(3), 854-859.