1. Introduction
Post-activation potentiation enhancement (PAPE) is a physiological phenomenon that leads to an acute improvement in muscular performance following a resistance training protocol [1,2,3,4,5,6]. This temporary increase in performance is believed to arise from a combination of neuromuscular, mechanical, and biochemical changes [3]. The most widely supported explanation suggests that the phosphorylation of myosin regulatory light chains during muscle contraction increases the rate of cross-bridge attachment, thereby improving muscle performance [7]. Additionally, PAPE is thought to result from an enhanced sensitivity of contractile proteins to calcium released from the sarcoplasmic reticulum, triggering a cascade of events that lead to a stronger muscular response [7,8]. PAPE can be induced by using resistance training exercises prior to sport-specific activities [3,5,6]. Specifically, in conditioning activities that involve traditional weightlifting exercises (i.e., free weights) with high relative loads (>80% of one-repetition maximum (1RM)), a PAPE response is observed, as evidenced by improvements in subsequent jumping and sprinting performance [9]. PAPE-induced performance improvements tend to peak from 3 min after the last conditioning activity and start to decline progressively after 10 min [10,11].
In addition to the positive effects of free-weight training on PAPE, recent studies have also observed positive effects in athletes using flywheel training devices [1,5,6,12]. Research comparing the effects of resistance training with these two systems on physical performance is becoming increasingly popular [1,6,12,13,14,15,16]. However, attempting to match the training stimulus between both training methods is not an easy task and several factors must be considered [17]. Unlike traditional resistance training systems, flywheel devices do not rely on gravity, using the moment of inertia from a rotating flywheel to generate resistance throughout the entire movement [18,19]. In contrast to gravity-dependent methods, where variations in biomechanical levers and muscle length contribute to the concentric “sticking point”, flywheel devices provide resistance consistently throughout the concentric phase [18], achieving near-maximal muscle activation with each repetition [14]. Additionally, flywheel training has been shown to induce greater eccentric muscle activation and force production than free weights due to the need to decelerate the flywheel [14,19]. In fact, a recent study showed that, despite training with similar intensity and volumes controlled through mean propulsive velocity (MPV), force and velocity responses in both the eccentric and concentric phases were significantly different between devices [17]. In this regard, two studies showed vertical jump potentiation with flywheel devices compared to free weights four minutes post-exercise [12,20], while other studies showed positive effects with both methods without differences between them [1,6,15]. Finally, another study found no PAPE effect on vertical jump performance [16]. Regarding the enhancement in sprinting ability, Qi et al. [20] demonstrated a PAPE effect on the time to run 30 m after a half-squat training protocol using flywheel devices. However, when comparing this effect with training using free weights, some studies show no effect on sprint performance on 30 and 5 m [1,16], while others indicate that both protocols have a positive effect but without differences between them [6].
Discrepancies in findings between studies may be partially due to the parameter used to match training intensities across devices. One of the main difficulties when programming flywheel resistance exercises is the absence of a maximal load (1RM) due to the dependency of external resistance upon the user-generated flywheel angular acceleration [21]. The results of previous comparisons where free-weight loads were matched via %RM [14,16] should therefore be taken with caution. Given the difficulty in defining maximal resistance, other parameters such as MPV [17,19] and concentric peak power with a given load [1,6,12] have been proposed. However, similar peak power values can be attained at various flywheel moments of inertia (force typically increases at greater resistances, velocity typically decreases at greater resistances, and power is force multiplied by velocity) [21]. Furthermore, peak power measures refer to only a single point of the load–velocity relationship. On the contrary, MPV considers the entire concentric phase and is the most used parameter for monitoring free-weight intensity in real time [21]. Any of the aforementioned factors may also differ between repetitions. Aspects such as fatigue or the specific device’s inter-repetition variability could affect any comparisons. It is necessary to understand how whole-body kinetic and kinematic variables compare between devices throughout the entire movement and across multiple repetitions when matched for MPV [17].
When attempting to match the exercise intensity of the squat through MPV, the kinetic and kinematic responses tend to differ between systems depending on the phase of the movement being analyzed [17]. While in the eccentric phase of the movement, the flywheel shows higher velocities than free weights; free weights exhibit higher velocity values in the concentric phase of the movement, as well as higher force application in both the concentric and eccentric phases of the exercise. Despite this, it remains uncertain whether resistance training with a similar load using free weights or flywheel devices produce similar PAPE effects on physical performance, or whether they vary, as seen in their kinetic and kinematic responses. Therefore, the aim of this study was to analyze the PAPE effect of a resistance training bout using free-weight and flywheel devices, where the intensity was matched through MPV, on vertical jump performance and linear sprinting. We hypothesize that, since the exercise intensity is similar for both devices, the PAPE effect on vertical jump and linear sprint performance will be similar for both groups.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Participants
An a priori power analysis using G*power (Düsseldorf, Germany) indicated that a sample of 16 participants was required to detect a moderate effect (f = 0.55) with 80% power and an alpha of 0.05. Thirty healthy males voluntarily participated in this study. Due to the importance of the experience in resistance training with flywheel devices to maximize performance [22], participants had at least one year of experience in strength training, including with flywheel devices. Table 1 presents the anthropometric characteristics and physical performance values of the study participants. All participants were informed of the potential risks and benefits of the procedures and gave written informed consent. The study was approved by the Virgen Macarena y Virgen del Rocio University Hospitals ethics committee (0398-N-17) and was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki.
2.2. Design and Intensity Matching
This study followed a randomized crossover design, where participants attended the laboratory once per week for 3 weeks at approximately the same time of day and under the same environmental conditions. Participants were instructed to avoid strenuous physical activity for at least 24 h and avoid caffeine for 3 h before the experimental sessions. The purpose of session one was to match the half-squat concentric intensity between free-weight and flywheel devices using MPV. MPV is defined as a fraction of the concentric phase during which barbell acceleration was greater than the acceleration because of gravity. Vertical velocity was measured via a linear encoder (SmartCoach Power Encoder, SmartCoach Europe AB, Stockholm, Sweden) attached to the harness worn by the participants during both free-weight and flywheel exercises.
The schematic representation and timeline of the study design are shown in Figure 1. First, each participant warmed up with 5 min jogging at a self-selected sub-maximal pace, one set of ten bodyweight half-squats, and eight submaximal flywheel half-squat repetitions with a moment of inertia of 0.055 kg·m2 (Twister Pulley: Element Sport, Cádiz, Spain). The flywheel was anchored to a harness fastened on both shoulders and at the waist. Subsequently, participants performed ten repetitions with the same moment of inertia. Because the flywheel moment of inertia has little effect on acute performance enhancement magnitude on average at the group level [2], 0.055 kg·m2 was selected as the greatest intensity that the whole group could comfortably perform. The first two repetitions were performed submaximally to establish rhythm, while the remaining eight repetitions were maximal. The eccentric action was executed by gently resisting in the first third of the action and then aiming to stop the device when the thighs were parallel to the ground. The fastest MPV of the set was recorded for future analysis. After four minutes of rest, participants performed an incremental half-squat test in a Smith machine (free-weight condition) (Multipower Fitness Line; Peroga, Murcia, Spain). Participants performed the free-weight exercise from an upright position, descending at a self-controlled velocity until the thighs were parallel to the ground, then immediately reversing the motion and ascending back to the upright position with maximal intended velocity. An initial load of 30 kg was progressively increased in 10 kg increments until the attained repetition MPV was < 0.68 m·s−1 [23]. One set of three repetitions was performed for light loads (≥1.14 m·s−1), and only two repetitions were performed for moderate loads (<1.14 m·s−1), with between-load recovery times of 3 and 4 min [23], respectively. The fastest MPV of each set was recorded, and individual linear regressions between load and MPV were used to establish the absolute free-weight load for each participant to attain the same MPV as with the flywheel device. The average R2 value for the individual regressions was 0.99.
2.3. Countermovement Jump Testing
Subjects performed a standardized warm-up that consisted of 5 min of jogging, ten full squats without an external load, five counter-movement jumps (CMJs) progressive in intensity, and 3 maximal CMJs, with a 1 min rest between each set. CMJs were executed with hands akimbo, involving a downward movement until the knees were flexed to approximately 90 degrees, followed by a maximal vertical jump. Participants were instructed to land upright, ensuring their body position during takeoff and landing remained consistent. Three minutes later, they performed three maximal effort CMJs on a force platform (Quattro Jump, Kistler 100 Instrument AG, Winterthur, Switzerland), with 10 s rest in between. Jump height was calculated from CMJ vertical ground reaction data via the impulse method [24]. The process to obtain the jump height using the impulse method involves several steps, which the reader can find in the cited article. First, the takeoff velocity is calculated using formula number 4 in the manuscript. After this, the flight time is calculated using formula number 3 and finally, the jump height is obtained using formula number 2. Peak vertical ground reaction force (peak force; N·kg−1) was also calculated. Parameter values were averaged for the three CMJs. Then, 4 min after completing the resistance training session, the three jumps were repeated on the force platform.
2.4. Sprint Testing
A total of 2 min after the CMJ tests, participants performed two maximal 10 m sprints separated by 2 min of rest. Sprint times were measured using two pairs of photocells placed at 0 and 10 m (Witty; Microgate, Bolzano, Italy). Sprints were initiated from a static standing position in a split-stance posture, with the starting line positioned 1 m before the initial photocell. Subjects were instructed to sprint through a set of cones that were placed 2 m past the target distance to ensure deceleration was avoided. The fastest 10 m sprint (T10) time was recorded.
2.5. Intervention
In sessions two and three, participants performed the free-weight or flywheel intervention, with the session order randomly allocated. Each session involved 3 sets of 6 maximal repetitions of the half-squat exercise with 3 min recovery between sets. This volume of flywheel half-squat exercise has previously been shown to maximize PAPE [10]. Flywheel half-squats were performed with a moment of inertia of 0.055 kg·m2. For the flywheel, before the 6 maximal repetitions, subjects performed two additional initial submaximal repetitions to attain rhythm. Free-weight half-squats were performed with the resistance established in session one (from load–MPV regression). Following the free-weight or flywheel exercise, participants rested for 4 min before repeating the CMJ and T10 assessment protocol. Rest periods of 3–9 min have been recommended for the PAPE effect following multiple sets of flywheel half-squats [10].
2.6. Statistical Analysis
Data were presented as mean ± standard deviation. A Shapiro–Wilk test confirmed the normality assumption for the data and separate two-way repeated measures ANOVAs determined the effect of the device (free weight vs. flywheel) and time (pre vs. post) on the previously defined CMJs, T10, and peak force, as well as the interaction between device and time. Partial eta-squared (η2p) was calculated as a measure of effect size, interpreted as trivial < 0.01, 0.01 ≤ small < 0.06, 0.06 ≤ moderate ≤ 0.15, and large ≥ 0.15. For all statistical analyses, a significance level of p < 0.05 was established. Bonferroni post hoc corrections for multiple comparisons were employed where significant effects were reported within the ANOVA. Cohen’s d (2013) [25] effect size and its 95% confidence interval evaluated the magnitude of differences, interpreted as trivial < 0.2, 0.2 ≤ small < 0.6, 0.6 ≤ moderate < 1.2, and large ≥ 1.2. The above statistical analyses were performed using JASP software (JASP Team 2019, Version 0.11.1, University of Amsterdam).
3. Results
Descriptive data and acute changes in CMJs, T10, and peak force are shown in Table 2 and Figure 2. The average of the best MPV for concentric action was 0.76 ± 0.08 m·s−1. During training, free weights had an average vertical range of motion of 0.45 ± 0.08 m per repetition, while flywheels had an average vertical range of motion of 0.44 ± 0.10 m. There was no time x group interaction for T10 (p = 0.911; η2p = 0.001) or statistical differences in time or group (p > 0.083; η2p < 0.051). CMJ height showed no significant time x group interaction and differences in group (p > 0.730; η2p < 0.002) but there was a significant difference in time (p < 0.001; η2p = 0.389) where pre showed larger values than post (ES = 0.39). Peak force showed a significant time x group interaction and differences in time (p < 0.033; η2p > 0.074), where pre showed larger values than post (p < 0.001; ES = 0.34), influenced by significant differences in the free-weight group (p < 0.001; ES = 0.52).
4. Discussion
The aim of this study was to analyze the PAPE effect of a resistance training bout using free-weight and flywheel devices, where the intensity was matched through MPV on vertical jump performance and linear sprinting. Our initial hypothesis is partially supported, as both experimental groups responded similarly in the vertical jump and linear sprint tests. However, despite following the guidelines recommended in the literature, no PAPE effect was observed, as both groups experienced a reduction in performance in the physical tests.
PAPE is a physiological phenomenon that leads to an acute improvement in muscular performance following a resistance training protocol [1,2,3,5,6]. PAPE is thought to result from an enhanced sensitivity of contractile proteins to calcium released from the sarcoplasmic reticulum, triggering a cascade of events that lead to a stronger muscular response [7,8]. Recent studies suggest a positive PAPE effect after resistance training exercise with free-weight and flywheel devices [1,6,12,15,16]. Regarding flywheel training systems, the literature shows positive PAPE effects after a squat training session on vertical jump performance, with increases of up to 9% [15,26]. On the other hand, the effects of strength training with traditional methods have already been widely studied in the literature [9]. Because studies showing the effects of strength training with flywheel systems are scarcer due to the recent emergence of these training systems, there is still uncertainty regarding which of these two methods produces more effective PAPE when similar training stimuli are used. Our results show that when performing three sets of six repetitions of the half-squat exercise at a similar intensity, regardless of whether the training is performed with flywheel or free-weight devices, CMJ performance will be impaired 4 min after exercise. To the best of our knowledge, this is the only study that does not show positive PAPE outcomes after a resistance training bout when comparing free-weight and flywheel devices. One possible explanation for the absence of a PAPE effect could be the choice of a 4 min post-exercise measurement, as previous research indicates that PAPE effects may peak between 3 and 10 min. Measuring only at 4 min may have missed the peak effects that occur closer to the 9–10 min range. A study by Xie et al. [16] showed no changes 3 min after performing a resistance training session with low, moderate, and high loads using either free-weight or flywheel devices. Two studies showed PAPE 3 min after training with both types of devices, without a difference between them when training intensity was matched through peak power [1,6]. Similarly, two other studies showed increases in CMJ performance only in the flywheel group when training intensity was matched through peak power 3 min post-exercise [12,20]. The differences between these results may be due to the way exercise intensity was matched, which could have led to different acute responses. Since flywheel training systems do not have a maximum load (1RM), unlike free weights, attempting to match training intensities between both systems can be highly inaccurate. A possible solution to this issue is the use of peak power with a given load [1,6,12]. However, similar peak power minimum values can be attained at various flywheel moments of inertia [21]. Trying to match intensities through the MPV seems to be a more accurate solution, as MPV considers the entire concentric phase and is the most used parameter for monitoring free-weight intensity in real time [17,19,21,23]. Nevertheless, similar intensities in both systems, measured through MPV, result in different kinetic and kinematic responses during exercise. Future studies should consider using MPV to match intensities between systems and at other post-exercise times, as it has been shown that the PAPE effect can remain effective until 10 min [10,11].
Despite similar outcomes observed in CMJs, the peak force reached during the vertical jump was only reduced in the group that trained with free weights (Figure 2). A possible explanation for these differences is that, due to muscle fatigue, the jumping technique might have been altered in the free-weight group. It has been shown that an increase in the center of mass displacement during the vertical jump can lead to lower peak forces [27]. However, CMJ performance and the peak force achieved during the jump are not necessarily related [27], which is why they show different behavior despite a similar decrease in vertical jump performance in both groups. Future studies should investigate the behavior of the center of mass during CMJs to assess the effects of fatigue or PAPE on vertical jump technique.
Due to the differences in the force application vectors between linear sprint tests and vertically oriented exercises, the literature recommends selecting exercises with biomechanical similarity to the physical skill being targeted [28,29]. This biomechanical mismatch may explain the absence of sprint PAPE in the current study, as the force vectors involved in sprinting (10 m) are horizontal, while exercises like squats primarily target vertical force application. Therefore, the literature shows that the PAPE effects of squats are more effective on vertical jumps than on exercises focused on horizontal movements, such as sprints or changes in direction [28,29]. Despite this, positive PAPE effects (ES > 0.5) on 10 m sprint performance have been observed following a strength training protocol with flywheel systems [6]. Our results show that performance in T10 is not influenced by either of the two exercise protocols studied. Similarly to CMJs, the literature shows inconsistency regarding the differences in PAPE on linear sprint performance when comparing flywheel and free-weight bouts. In this regard, two studies show that performance in 5 and 30 m sprints were not influenced 3 min after performing a resistance training session with either free weights or flywheel devices [1,16]. On the other hand, Sañudo et al. [6] showed performance improvements (ES > 0.46) in both training groups on the 30 m sprint 4 min post-exercise. It seems difficult to reach a conclusion due to the lack of available comparisons in the literature. As previously explained, the differences may be attributed to the way training intensities have been matched (peak power vs. %1RM). Future studies should aim to compare the differences in PAPE using exercises that closely mimic the force application vector during the initial phases of the sprint [2,30].
This study is not without limitations. Although a very similar adjustment was made to match exercise intensities, the comparison between free weights and flywheel devices was only conducted individually with a single load or intensity. Future studies should compare a broader range of loads to assess PAPE responses across heavy, moderate, and light intensity. Another limitation of the study is that only a post-exercise measurement was conducted to observe the PAPE effects of the intervention. Since the literature establishes a range of 3–9 min post-exercise to observe positive PAPE effects, another intervention should have been conducted with tests performed about 8–9 min after the training. Additionally, we believe it is necessary to use more tests that can explain changes in physical performance from a more general perspective, not limited to exercises with horizontal and vertical characteristics. Finally, since the study was conducted with male athletes, we must highlight as a limitation of the study the limited external validity of these results for a female population.
5. Conclusions
Both training methods resulted in a decrease in performance, with no observed PAPE effect. The difficulty in accurately matching intensities between the two systems, especially due to the absence of a defined maximal load for flywheel, may explain these results. While CMJ performance decreased similarly in both groups, peak force was reduced more in the free-weight group, possibly due to an altered technique due to muscle fatigue. No PAPE effects were seen in T10, suggesting that vertical exercises may target vertically oriented skills than horizontal ones. When training intensity in free-weight and flywheel systems is matched through MPV, the acute response tends to be similar, at least 4 min post-exercise for men experienced in resistance training. One potential reason for the lack of an observed PAPE effect could be the selection of a 4 min post-exercise measurement, as previous studies have shown that PAPE effects may peak between 3 and 10 min. It is possible that measuring only at 4 min may have missed the peak effects closer to 9–10 min. Future research should explore a broader range of intensities and use exercises more closely aligned with the force vectors of specific skills. These results should also be tested with female athletes.
Conceptualization, F.J.N. and P.F.; Methodology, F.J.N.; Software, C.G.; Validation, C.G. and F.J.N.; Investigation, C.G.; Resources, C.G. and J.S.-C.; Data curation, P.F.; Writing—original draft, C.G.; Writing—review and editing, C.G. and J.S.-C.; Visualization, F.J.N.; Supervision, F.J.N., P.F. and J.S.-C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Virgen Macarena and Virgen del Rocio University Hospitals ethics committee (0398-N-17).
Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.
The original contributions presented in this study are included in the article. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding authors.
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Footnotes
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Figure 1 Schematic representation and timeline of study design.
Figure 2 Acute changes in physical test post-intervention. T10: 10 m sprint time; CMJ: counter-movement jump; peak force: maximal force in BW value during CMJ. *: significant effect in post- vs. pre-test; † significant time × group interaction.
Anthropometric descriptive characteristics and strength values of the participating subjects.
| n = 30 | |
|---|---|
| Age (years) | 25.4 ± 2.9 |
| Height (cm) | 176.2 ± 7.6 |
| Weight (kg) | 76.9 ± 9.9 |
| 1RM (kg) | 100.0 ± 15.7 |
Data is presented as mean ± SD.
Descriptive results of the physical tests conducted in the study.
| Variable | Flywheel | Free Weight | Time Effect | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pre | Post | ES | Pre | Post | ES | ||
| CMJ (cm) | 36.0 ± 5.6 | 33.9 ± 5.6 | −0.36 | 36.5 ± 6.5 | 34.2 ± 5.2 | −0.41 | <0.001 |
| T10 (s) | 1.80 ± 0.08 | 1.82 ± 0.08 | 0.14 | 1.81 ± 0.09 | 1.83 ± 0.09 | 0.16 | 0.083 |
| Peak force (BW, N·kg−1) | 2.54 ± 0.25 | 2.51 ± 0.20 | −0.15 | 2.59 ± 0.24 | 2.47 ± 0.23 | −0.52 | <0.001 |
Data is presented as mean ± SD. ES: effect size.
1. Beato, M.; Bigby, A.E.J.; De Keijzer, K.L.; Nakamura, F.Y.; Coratella, G.; McErlain-Naylor, S.A. Post-activation potentiation effect of eccentric overload and traditional weightlifting exercise on jumping and sprinting performance in male athletes. PLoS ONE; 2019; 14, e0222466. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0222466] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31513671]
2. Beato, M.; De Keijzer, K.L.; Leskauskas, Z.; Allen, W.J.; Dello Iacono, A.; McErlain-Naylor, S.A. Effect of Postactivation Potentiation After Medium vs. High Inertia Eccentric Overload Exercise on Standing Long Jump, Countermovement Jump, and Change of Direction Performance. J. Strength. Cond. Res.; 2021; 35, pp. 2616-2621. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000003214]
3. de Hoyo, M.; de la Torre, A.; Pradas, F.; Sañudo, B.; Carrasco, L.; Mateo-Cortes, J.; Domínguez-Cobo, S.; Fernandes, O.; Gonzalo-Skok, O. Effects of Eccentric Overload Bout on Change of Direction and Performance in Soccer Players. Int. J. Sports Med.; 2014; 36, pp. 308-314. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1055/s-0034-1395521] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25525954]
4. Kasicki, K.; Rydzik, Ł.; Ambroży, T.; Spieszny, M.; Koteja, P. The Impact of Post-Activation Performance Enhancement Protocols on Vertical Jumps: Systematic Review. Appl. Sci.; 2024; 14, 9664. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/app14219664]
5. Maroto-Izquierdo, S.; Bautista, I.; Rivera, F. Post-activation performance enhancement (PAPE) after a single-bout of high-intensity flywheel resistance training. Biol. Sport.; 2020; 37, pp. 343-350. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5114/biolsport.2020.96318] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33343067]
6. Sañudo, B.; de Hoyo, M.; Haff, G.G.; Muñoz-López, A. Influence of Strength Level on the Acute Post-Activation Performance Enhancement Following Flywheel and Free Weight Resistance Training. Sensors; 2020; 20, 7156. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/s20247156]
7. Tillin, N.A.; Bishop, D. Factors Modulating Post-Activation Potentiation and its Effect on Performance of Subsequent Explosive Activities. Sports Med.; 2009; 39, pp. 147-166. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2165/00007256-200939020-00004]
8. Baudry, S.; Duchateau, J. Postactivation potentiation in a human muscle: Effect on the rate of torque development of tetanic and voluntary isometric contractions. J. Appl. Physiol.; 2007; 102, pp. 1394-1401. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1152/japplphysiol.01254.2006]
9. Seitz, L.B.; Haff, G.G. Factors Modulating Post-Activation Potentiation of Jump, Sprint, Throw, and Upper-Body Ballistic Performances: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis. Sports Med.; 2016; 46, pp. 231-240. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40279-015-0415-7]
10. Beato, M.; McErlain-Naylor, S.A.; Halperin, I.; Dello Iacono, A. Current Evidence and Practical Applications of Flywheel Eccentric Overload Exercises as Postactivation Potentiation Protocols: A Brief Review. Int. J. Sports Physiol. Perform.; 2020; 15, pp. 154-161. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1123/ijspp.2019-0476]
11. 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. Meta-Analysis of Postactivation Potentiation and Power. J. Strength. Cond. Res.; 2013; 27, pp. 854-859. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0b013e31825c2bdb]
12. Timon, R.; Allemano, S.; Camacho-Cardeñosa, M.; Camacho-Cardeñosa, A.; Martinez-Guardado, I.; Olcina, G. Post-Activation Potentiation on Squat Jump Following Two Different Protocols: Traditional vs. Inert. Flywheel. J. Hum. Kinet.; 2019; 69, pp. 271-281. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2478/hukin-2019-0017]
13. Loturco, I.; Pereira, L.A.; Zabaloy, S.; Mercer, V.P.; Moura, T.B.M.A.; Freitas, T.T.; Boullosa, D. No Post-Activation Performance Enhancement Following a Single Set of Plyometric or Flywheel Exercises in National Team Rugby Players. Appl. Sci.; 2024; 14, 9786. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/app14219786]
14. Norrbrand, L.; Pozzo, M.; Tesch, P.A. Flywheel resistance training calls for greater eccentric muscle activation than weight training. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol.; 2010; 110, pp. 997-1005. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00421-010-1575-7]
15. Sun, S.; Yu, Y.; Niu, Y.; Ren, M.; Wang, J.; Zhang, M. Post-activation performance enhancement of flywheel and traditional squats on vertical jump under individualized recovery time. Front. Physiol.; 2024; 15, 1443899. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2024.1443899]
16. Xie, H.; Zhang, W.; Chen, X.; He, J.; Lu, J.; Gao, Y.; Li, D.; Li, G.; Ji, H.; Sun, J. Flywheel eccentric overload exercises versus barbell half squats for basketball players: Which is better for induction of post-activation performance enhancement?. PLoS ONE; 2022; 17, e0277432. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0277432]
17. Galiano, C.; Nuñez, F.J.; McErlain-Naylor, S.; Floria, P. Biomechanical Insights into Rotary Inertial Devices vs. Traditional Resistance Training in Half-Squats: A Comparative Analysis of Force, Velocity, and Displacement. J. Strength. Cond. Res.; 2025; 35, pp. 531-539.
18. Norrbrand, L.; Fluckey, J.D.; Pozzo, M.; Tesch, P.A. Resistance training using eccentric overload induces early adaptations in skeletal muscle size. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol.; 2007; 102, pp. 271-281. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00421-007-0583-8] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17926060]
19. Núñez, F.J.; Suarez-Arrones, L.J.; Cater, P.; Mendez-Villanueva, A. The High-Pull Exercise: A Comparison Between a VersaPulley Flywheel Device and the Free Weight. Int. J. Sports Physiol. Perform.; 2017; 12, pp. 527-532. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1123/ijspp.2016-0059]
20. Qi, H.; Hao, M.; Qu, B.; Zhao, L.; Han, W. Acute effects of optimal power load flywheel half-squat training on lower limb explosive power under different load volumes. PeerJ; 2025; 13, e19321. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.19321] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/40260196]
21. Muñoz-López, A.; Floría, P.; Sañudo, B.; Pecci, J.; Carmona Pérez, J.; Pozzo, M. The Maximum Flywheel Load: A Novel Index to Monitor Loading Intensity of Flywheel Devices. Sensors; 2021; 21, 8124. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/s21238124]
22. Galiano, C.; Floria, P.; Muñoz-López, A.; Nuñez, F.J. Lack of experience in the use the rotational inertia device is a limitation to mechanical squat performance (La falta de experiencia es una limitación para el rendimiento mecánico en sentadillas cuando se usan dispositivos de inercia rotacional). Retos; 2021; 42, pp. 12-17. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47197/retos.v42i0.85714]
23. Galiano, C.; Pareja-Blanco, F.; Hidalgo de Mora, J.; Sáez de Villarreal, E. Low-Velocity Loss Induces Similar Strength Gains to Moderate-Velocity Loss During Resistance Training. J. Strength. Cond. Res.; 2022; 36, pp. 340-345. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000003487]
24. Linthorne, N.P. Analysis of standing vertical jumps using a force platform. Am. J. Phys.; 2001; 69, pp. 1198-1204. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1119/1.1397460]
25. Cohen, J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences; Routledge: Abingdon, UK, 2013.
26. Wang, X.; Zhai, H.; Wei, H. Acute Effects of Different Intensities of Flywheel Half Squat Based on Velocity on Vertical Jump Performance in High-Level Athletes. Appl. Sci.; 2025; 15, 4388. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/app15084388]
27. Kirby, T.J.; McBride, J.M.; Haines, T.L.; Dayne, A.M. Relative Net Vertical Impulse Determines Jumping Performance. J. Appl. Biomech.; 2011; 27, pp. 207-214. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1123/jab.27.3.207] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21844609]
28. Dello Iacono, A.; Padulo, J.; Eliakim, A.; Gottlieb, R.; Bareli, R.; Meckel, Y. Post-activation potentiation effects on vertical and horizontal explosive performances of young handball and basketball athletes. J. Sports Med. Phys. Fit.; 2016; 56, pp. 1455-1464.
29. Della Iaono, A.; Seitz, L. Hip thrust-based PAP effects on sprint performance of soccer players: Heavy-loaded versus optimum-power development protocols. J. Sports Sci.; 2018; 30, pp. 2375-2382.
30. Beato, M.; Stiff, A.; Coratella, G. Effects of Postactivation Potentiation After an Eccentric Overload Bout on Countermovement Jump and Lower-Limb Muscle Strength. J. Strength. Cond. Res.; 2021; 35, pp. 1825-1832. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000003005]
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.
Details
; Núñez, Francisco J 2
; Floría Pablo 2
; Siquier-Coll Jesús 1
1 Department of Communication and Education, Loyola Andalusia University, 41014 Sevilla, Spain
2 Department of Sports and Informatics, University of Pablo de Olavide of Sevilla, 41013 Seville, [email protected] (P.F.)