Positive effects of augmented verbal feedback on power production in NCAA Division I collegiate athletes

Joseph N Staub, William J Kraemer, Ashley L Pandit, William B Haug, Brett A Comstock, Courtenay Dunn-Lewis, David R Hooper, Carl M Maresh, Jeff S Volek, Keijo Häkkinen
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 2013, 27 (8): 2067-72
The purpose of this study was to determine how augmented verbal feedback, specifically knowledge of performance during a countermovement vertical jump (CMVJ) protocol, would affect acute power output. Each subject (N = 14 [9 men and 5 women], 21.4 ± 0.8 years, 179.6 ± 6.1 cm, 87.5 ± 14.8 kg) completed the CMVJ protocol twice in a balanced randomized order, one trial with feedback and one without feedback. At least 48 hours were allowed between sessions for resting. Student-athletes were used because of their trained state and their familiarity with plyometrics and receiving and processing feedback during training. Each testing session began with a 10-minute warm-up consisting of a combination of dynamic stretching and submaximal jumps (no proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation or static stretching). After completion of the warm-up, the subjects then began the CMVJ protocol. The CMVJ protocol consisted of 3 sets of 5 jumps on a calibrated force plate set to read at 200 Hz (Accupower). Subjects were instructed at the start of the protocol to give maximal effort on each jump. The standard set and repetition scheme for this protocol was 3 sets of 5 maximal repetitions with 3 minutes rest between sets. This was used to mimic the practice of training for maximal power. Before each jump, the subject was told the jump number and given a verbal start cue before the jump's initiation. The verbal performance feedback given consisted of the full kinetic numerical value of the peak power output in watts of the last completed jump. Significance in this study was set at p ≤ 0.05. There was a significant difference between mean power outputs (4,335 ± 366 W to 4,108 ± 345 W, p = 0.003) and the peak power outputs (4,567 ± 381 W to 4,319 ± 371 W, p = 0.018) when comparing feedback to no feedback, respectively. There was a significant difference in peak power output between the feedback and no feedback trials during set 2 (mean difference 361 ± 161 W, p = 0.043) and set 3 (mean difference 283 ± 109 W, p = 0.022). Also, there was a significant difference in mean power output between feedback and no feedback trials during set 2 (mean difference 240 ± 66 W, p = 0.003) and set 3 (mean difference 299 ± 93 W, p = 0.007). When training for maximal power in a plyometric training protocol, verbal feedback can be used as both a simple and effective aid in producing optimal power outputs.

Full Text Links

Find Full Text Links for this Article


You are not logged in. Sign Up or Log In to join the discussion.

Related Papers

Remove bar
Read by QxMD icon Read

Save your favorite articles in one place with a free QxMD account.


Search Tips

Use Boolean operators: AND/OR

diabetic AND foot
diabetes OR diabetic

Exclude a word using the 'minus' sign

Virchow -triad

Use Parentheses

water AND (cup OR glass)

Add an asterisk (*) at end of a word to include word stems

Neuro* will search for Neurology, Neuroscientist, Neurological, and so on

Use quotes to search for an exact phrase

"primary prevention of cancer"
(heart or cardiac or cardio*) AND arrest -"American Heart Association"