The investigation sought to describe the current practices for monitoring and maximising power in the discipline of strength and conditioning. Thirty professional strength and conditioning coaches working within a national institute network agreed to complete a short online survey. Questions were posed in the areas of exercise and equipment selection, methods of calculation, load prescription, and measures of jump performance. The majority of respondents (67%) reported that a countermovement jump (CMJ) was their preferred exercise to monitor lower body neuromuscular performance. However, there was no consistency in the equipment, calculation methods, or loads prescribed to monitoring or maximise power during a CMJ. Additionally, more than half of respondents preferred measures of force, velocity, and jump height over external estimates of power to quantify CMJ performance. The investigation highlights a discrepancy in assessment techniques, calculation methods, and loads prescribed to monitor or maximise power. These findings are in contrast to anecdotal support for the use of and programming for power in published literature. Consequently, practitioners are recommended to continue in their use of direct kinetic and kinematic measures to assess neuromuscular performance, as they are practically obtainable, empirically supported, and easy to communicate. Furthermore, practitioners and researchers must also attempt to understand where the disconnect between theory and applied practice lies in order to improve the transference of research findings into applied practice.
|Number of pages||7|
|Journal||Journal of Australian Strength and Conditioning|
|Publication status||Published - 2018|
- countermovement jump
- performance analysis