@article{NegraChaabeneHammamietal.2016, author = {Negra, Yassine and Chaabene, Helmi and Hammami, Mehrez and Hachana, Younes and Granacher, Urs}, title = {EFFECTS OF HIGH-VELOCITY RESISTANCE TRAINING ON ATHLETIC PERFORMANCE IN PREPUBERAL MALE SOCCER ATHLETES}, series = {Journal of strength and conditioning research : the research journal of the NSCA}, volume = {30}, journal = {Journal of strength and conditioning research : the research journal of the NSCA}, publisher = {Wiley-Blackwell}, address = {Philadelphia}, issn = {1064-8011}, doi = {10.1519/JSC.0000000000001433}, pages = {3290 -- 3297}, year = {2016}, abstract = {The aim of this study was to assess the effectiveness of a 12-week in-season low-to-moderate load high-velocity resistance training (HVRT) in addition to soccer training as compared with soccer training only on proxies of athletic performance in prepubertal soccer players. Twenty-four male soccer players performed 2 different protocols: (a) regular soccer training with 5 sessions per week (n = 11; age = 12.7 +/- 0.3 years) and (b) regular soccer training with 3 sessions per week and HVRT with 2 sessions per week (n = 13; age = 12.8 +/- 0.2 years). The outcome measures included tests for the assessment of muscle strength (e.g., 1 repetition maximum [1RM] half-squat tests), jump ability (e.g., countermovement jump, squat jump [SJ], standing long jump [SLJ], and multiple 5-bound tests [MB5s]), linear speed (e.g., 5-, 10-, 20-, and 30-m sprint tests), and change of direction (e.g., T-test and Illinois change of direction test). Results revealed significant group 3 test interactions for the SJ test (p <= 0.05, d = 0.59) and the SLJ test (p < 0.01, d = 0.83). Post hoc tests illustrated significant pre-post changes in the HVRT group (SJ: Delta 22\%, p < 0.001, d = 1.26; SLJ: Delta 15\%, p < 0.001, d = 1.30) but not in the control group. In addition, tendencies toward significant interaction effects were found for the 1RM half-squat (p = 0.08, d = 0.54) and the 10-m sprint test (p = 0.06, d = 0.57). Significant pre-post changes were found for both parameters in the HVRT group only (1RM: Delta 25\%, p < 0.001, d = 1.23; 10-m sprint: Delta 7\%, p < 0.0001, d = 1.47). In summary, in-season low-to-moderate load HVRT conducted in combination with regular soccer training is a safe and feasible intervention that has positive effects on maximal strength, vertical and horizontal jump and sprint performance as compared with soccer training only.}, language = {en} } @article{HammamiGranacherMakhloufetal.2016, author = {Hammami, Raouf and Granacher, Urs and Makhlouf, Issam and Behm, David George and Chaouachi, Anis}, title = {SEQUENCING EFFECTS OF BALANCE AND PLYOMETRIC TRAINING ON PHYSICAL PERFORMANCE IN YOUTH SOCCER ATHLETES}, series = {Journal of strength and conditioning research : the research journal of the NSCA}, volume = {30}, journal = {Journal of strength and conditioning research : the research journal of the NSCA}, publisher = {Elsevier}, address = {Philadelphia}, issn = {1064-8011}, doi = {10.1519/JSC.0000000000001425}, pages = {3278 -- 3289}, year = {2016}, abstract = {Balance training may have a preconditioning effect on subsequent power training with youth. There are no studies examining whether the sequencing of balance and plyometric training has additional training benefits. The objective was to examine the effect of sequencing balance and plyometric training on the performance of 12- to 13-year-old athletes. Twenty-four young elite soccer players trained twice per week for 8 weeks either with an initial 4 weeks of balance training followed by 4 weeks of plyometric training (BPT) or 4 weeks of plyometric training proceeded by 4 weeks of balance training (PBT). Testing was conducted pre- and posttraining and included medicine ball throw; horizontal and vertical jumps; reactive strength; leg stiffness; agility; 10-, 20-, and 30-m sprints; Standing Stork balance test; and Y-Balance test. Results indicated that BPT provided significantly greater improvements with reactive strength index, absolute and relative leg stiffness, triple hop test, and a trend for the Y-Balance test (p = 0.054) compared with PBT. Although all other measures had similar changes for both groups, the average relative improvement for the BPT was 22.4\% (d = 1.5) vs. 15.0\% (d = 1.1) for the PBT. BPT effect sizes were greater with 8 of 13 measures. In conclusion, although either sequence of BPT or PBT improved jumping, hopping, sprint acceleration, and Standing Stork and Y-Balance, BPT initiated greater training improvements in reactive strength index, absolute and relative leg stiffness, triple hop test, and the Y-Balance test. BPT may provide either similar or superior performance enhancements compared with PBT.}, language = {en} } @phdthesis{Antoniewicz2016, author = {Antoniewicz, Franziska}, title = {Automatic evaluations of exercising}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-92280}, school = {Universit{\"a}t Potsdam}, year = {2016}, abstract = {Changing the perspective sometimes offers completely new insights to an already well-known phenomenon. Exercising behavior, defined as planned, structured and repeated bodily movements with the intention to maintain or increase the physical fitness (Caspersen, Powell, \& Christenson, 1985), can be thought of as such a well-known phenomenon that has been in the scientific focus for many decades (Dishman \& O'Connor, 2005). Within these decades a perspective that assumes rational and controlled evaluations as the basis for decision making, was predominantly used to understand why some people engage in physical activity and others do not (Ekkekakis \& Zenko, 2015). Dual-process theories (Ekkekakis \& Zenko, 2015; Payne \& Gawronski, 2010) provide another perspective, that is not exclusively influenced by rational reasoning. These theories differentiate two different processes that guide behavior "depending on whether they operate automatically or in a controlled fashion" (Gawronski \& Creighton, 2012, p. 282). Following this line of thought, exercise behavior is not solely influenced by thoughtful deliberations (e.g. concluding that exercising is healthy) but also by spontaneous affective reactions (e.g. disliking being sweaty while exercising). The theoretical frameworks of dual-process models are not new in psychology (Chaiken \& Trope, 1999) and have already been used for the explanation of numerous behaviors (e.g. Hofmann, Friese, \& Wiers, 2008; Huijding, de Jong, Wiers, \& Verkooijen, 2005). However, they have only rarely been used for the explanation of exercise behavior (e.g. Bluemke, Brand, Schweizer, \& Kahlert, 2010; Conroy, Hyde, Doerksen, \& Ribeiro, 2010; Hyde, Doerksen, Ribeiro, \& Conroy, 2010). The assumption of two dissimilar behavior influencing processes, differs fundamentally from previous theories and thus from the research that has been conducted in the last decades in exercise psychology. Research mainly concentrated on predictors of the controlled processes and addressed the identified predictors in exercise interventions (Ekkekakis \& Zenko, 2015; Hagger, Chatzisarantis, \& Biddle, 2002). Predictors arising from the described automatic processes, for example automatic evaluations for exercising (AEE), have been neglected in exercise psychology for many years. Until now, only a few researchers investigated the influence of these AEE for exercising behavior (Bluemke et al., 2010; Brand \& Schweizer, 2015; Markland, Hall, Duncan, \& Simatovic, 2015). Marginally more researchers focused on the impact of AEE for physical activity behavior (Calitri, Lowe, Eves, \& Bennett, 2009; Conroy et al., 2010; Hyde et al., 2010; Hyde, Elavsky, Doerksen, \& Conroy, 2012). The extant studies mainly focused on the quality of AEE and the associated quantity of exercise (exercise much or little; Bluemke et al., 2010; Calitri et al., 2009; Conroy et al., 2010; Hyde et al., 2012). In sum, there is still a dramatic lack of empirical knowledge, when applying dual-process theories to exercising behavior, even though these theories have proven to be successful in explaining behavior in many other health-relevant domains like eating, drinking or smoking behavior (e.g. Hofmann et al., 2008). The main goal of the present dissertation was to collect empirical evidence for the influence of AEE on exercise behavior and to expand the so far exclusively correlational studies by experimentally controlled studies. By doing so, the ongoing debate on a paradigm shift from controlled and deliberative influences of exercise behavior towards approaches that consider automatic and affective influences (Ekkekakis \& Zenko, 2015) should be encouraged. All three conducted publications are embedded in dual-process theorizing (Gawronski \& Bodenhausen, 2006, 2014; Strack \& Deutsch, 2004). These theories offer a theoretical framework that could integrate the established controlled variables of exercise behavior explanation and additionally consider automatic factors for exercise behavior like AEE. Taken together, the empirical findings collected suggest that AEE play an important and diverse role for exercise behavior. They represent exercise setting preferences, are a cause for short-term exercise decisions and are decisive for long-term exercise adherence. Adding to the few already present studies in this field, the influence of (positive) AEE for exercise behavior was confirmed in all three presented publications. Even though the available set of studies needs to be extended in prospectively studies, first steps towards a more complete picture have been taken. Closing with the beginning of the synopsis: I think that time is right for a change of perspectives! This means a careful extension of the present theories with controlled evaluations explaining exercise behavior. Dual-process theories including controlled and automatic evaluations could provide such a basis for future research endeavors in exercise psychology.}, language = {en} }