Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 591

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Meta-Analysis of Postactivation Potentiation and Power: Effects of Conditioning Activity, Volume, Gender, Rest Periods, and Training Status

Wilson, Jacob M., Duncan, Nevine M., Marin, Pedro J., Brown, Lee E., Loenneke, Jeremy P., Wilson, Stephanie M.C., Jo, Edward, Lowery, Ryan P., Ugrinowitsch, Carlos·2013·Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Abstract

There is no clear agreement regarding the ideal combination of factors needed to optimize postactivation potentiation (PAP) after a conditioning activity. Therefore, a meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the effects of training status, volume, rest period length, conditioning activity, and gender on power augmentation due to PAP. A total of 141 effect sizes (ESs) for muscular power were obtained from a total of 32 primary studies, which met our criteria of investigating the effects of a heavy preconditioning activity on power in randomized human trials. The mean overall ES for muscle power was 0.38 after a conditioning activity (p < 0.05). Significant differences were found between moderate intensity (60-84%) 1.06 and heavy intensity (>85%) 0.31 (p < 0.05). There were overall significant differences found between single sets 0.24 and multiple sets 0.66 (p < 0.05). Rest periods of 7-10 minutes (0.7) after a conditioning activity resulted in greater ES than 3-7 minutes (0.54), which was greater than rest periods of >10 minutes (0.02) (p < 0.05). Significant differences were found between untrained 0.14 and athletes 0.81 and between trained 0.29 and athletes. The primary findings of this study were that a conditioning activity augmented power output, and these effects increased with training experience, but did not differ significantly between genders. Moreover, potentiation was optimal after multiple (vs. single) sets, performed at moderate intensities, and using moderate rest periods lengths (7-10 minutes).

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1519/jsc.0b013e31825c2bdb

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 2 references

Cited by

See all 591

Metadata

Authors
Wilson, J. M., Duncan, N. M., Marin, P. J., Brown, L. E., Loenneke, J. P., Wilson, S. M. C., Jo, E., Lowery, R. P., & Ugrinowitsch, C.
Venue
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Published
2013-03
Volume
27
Issue
3
Pages
854-859
ISSN
1064-8011 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2075344149
Cited by
591
References
2
FWCI
3.86
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Meta-Analysis of Postactivation Potentiation and Power: Effects of Conditioning Activity, Volume, Gender, Rest Periods, and Training Status. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1519/jsc.0b013e31825c2bdb
The paper
Wilson, J. M., Duncan, N. M., Marin, P. J., Brown, L. E., Loenneke, J. P., Wilson, S. M. C., Jo, E., Lowery, R. P., & Ugrinowitsch, C. (2013). Meta-Analysis of Postactivation Potentiation and Power: Effects of Conditioning Activity, Volume, Gender, Rest Periods, and Training Status. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. https://doi.org/10.1519/jsc.0b013e31825c2bdb

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.