Back to all available

Can tempo-based strength periodization training improve performance in coastal rowers? A 14-week longitudinal study

kinesiology
sports-medicine

Abstract

Objective : This study aimed to investigate the effects of a 14-week tempo-based strength periodization training program on muscle strength, power, and sport-specific performance in coastal rowers.
Design:A single-group pre-post study design was implemented.
Method: Twelve well-trained coastal rowers (age 20±2.34 years; height 182.42±4.83 cm; mass 79.25±10.17 kg; training experience 6.33±2.81 years) completed a 14-week periodized training program (hypertrophy, transition, maximal strength, tapering). Testing at baseline (T1), post-hypertrophy (T2), and post-intervention (T3) included maximal strength (1RM squat, bench press, bench pull, deadlift), power (CMJ height and peak power), and sport-specific tests (50-m sprint, 500-m ergometer, composite test: 50-m run + 750-m ergometer + 50-m run).
Results: Significant improvements were observed from T1 to T3 in maximal strength ( s quat:P< 0.001, ES = 1.01; b ench press:P< 0.001, ES = 0.86;bench p ull :P< 0.001, ES = 1.06; deadlift:P< 0.001, ES = 0.93), CMJ height (P< 0.001, ES = 0.37), 50-m sprint (P< 0.001, ES = –0.42), 500-m ergometer performance (P< 0.001, ES = –0.49), and the composite test (P< 0.001, ES = –1.1). No significant change was found in CMJ peak power (P> 0.05, ES = 0.16).
Conclusions: A 14-week tempo-based strength periodization program effectively enhance d muscle strength,power,and sport-specific performance in coastal rowers ,suggesting utility in integrating structured tempo training into periodized strength plans for power-dependent water sports athletes.
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.
  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].