CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 19

COMPARISON OF OLYMPIC VS. TRADITIONAL POWER LIFTING TRAINING PROGRAMS IN FOOTBALL PLAYERS

HOFFMAN, JAY R., COOPER, JOSHUA, WENDELL, MICHAEL, KANG, JIE·2004·Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
DOI 10.1519/00124278-200402000-00019
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Twenty members of an National Collegiate Athletic Association Division III collegiate football team were assigned to either an Olympic lifting (OL) group or power lifting (PL) group. Each group was matched by position and trained 4-days.wk(-1) for 15 weeks. Testing consisted of field tests to evaluate strength (1RM squat and bench press), 40-yard sprint, agility, vertical jump height (VJ), and vertical jump power (VJP). No significant pre- to posttraining differences were observed in 1RM bench press, 40-yard sprint, agility, VJ or in VJP in either group. Significant improvements were seen in 1RM squat in both the OL and PL groups. After log10-transformation, OL were observed to have a significantly greater improvement in Delta VJ than PL. Despite an 18% greater improvement in 1RM squat (p > 0.05), and a twofold greater improvement (p > 0.05) in 40-yard sprint time by OL, no further significant group differences were seen. Results suggest that OL can provide a significant advantage over PL in vertical jump performance changes.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1519/00124278-200402000-00019

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
HOFFMAN, J. R., COOPER, J., WENDELL, M., & KANG, J.
Venue
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Publisher
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
Published
2004-02
Volume
18
Issue
1
Pages
129-135
ISSN
1064-8011
DOI
10.1519/00124278-200402000-00019
Cited by
14
References
0
Language
en

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review