Comparing acute effects of heavy resistance, plyometric, and complex training on post-activation performance enhancement in elite swimmers: a randomized controlled trial

TL;DR

This study compared how different training methods affect swim performance in elite swimmers, finding that complex training provides the best short-term performance boost.

Contribution

The study introduces standardized load equalization using sRPE-TL to compare PAPE effects across training modalities in elite swimmers.

Findings

Complex training (COM) produced the largest improvements in swim start and power metrics compared to control.

Each training modality had distinct optimal time windows for performance enhancement.

sRPE-TL standardization successfully minimized load variability between groups.

Abstract

Post-activation performance enhancement (PAPE) is an emerging strategy for optimizing pre-competition warm-up in elite swimming. However, substantial heterogeneity exists across studies due to inconsistent load standardization methodologies.

This randomized controlled trial aimed to examine the acute effects of three PAPE training modalities, heavy resistance training (HRT), plyometric training (PLY), and complex training (COM), on swim start performance and lower body power in elite swimmers, utilizing session rating of perceived exertion (sRPE) for load equalization.

Forty-seven first-class swimmers (mean age 21.21 ± 0.69 years; training experience 8.08 ± 0.91 years) were randomly allocated to control (n = 11), heavy resistance training (n = 11), plyometric training (n = 12), or complex training (n = 13) groups. All interventions were standardized to achieve equivalent session rating of perceived exertion-time load (sRPE-TL) of 70–80 arbitrary units. The primary outcome was 15-m swim start time (T15m). Secondary outcomes included force platform variables (peak horizontal force, average propulsive force, propulsive impulse, take-off velocity) and land-based power measures (countermovement jump height and peak power). Performance assessments were conducted at 3, 6, 9, and 12 min post-intervention across four separate testing sessions. Effect sizes were calculated using Cohen’s d for within-group pre-post comparisons.

Mixed-model ANOVA revealed significant group × time interactions for T15m (F (3,43) = 2.339, P = 0.024, η2p = 0.14), peak horizontal force (F (3,43) = 19.407, P < 0.001, η2p = 0.58), average propulsive force (F (3,43) = 7.005, P < 0.001, η2p = 0.33), propulsive impulse (F (3,43) = 21.777, P < 0.001, η2p = 0.60), take-off velocity (F (3,43) = 23.148, P < 0.001, η2p = 0.62), CMJ height (F (3,43) = 2.884, P = 0.032, η2p = 0.17), and peak power (F (3,43) = 10.188, P < 0.001, η2p = 0.42). COM induced the largest improvements compared to CON, with T15m decresing by 3.00% (ES = 1.79, P < 0.001), peak horizontal force increasing by 5.14% (ES = 4.95, P < 0.001), average propulsive force by 8.48% (ES = 1.71, P < 0.001), propulsive impulse by 8.57% (ES = 3.46, P < 0.001), and take-off velocity by 6.41% (ES = 3.06, P < 0.001). Distinct temporal profiles emerged: PLY peaked at 6 min, HRT sustained effects through 12 min, while COM demonstrated optimal windows at 9–12 min sRPE-TL standardization successfully eliminated between-group load variability (CV < 8%, F (2,33) = 1.23, P = 0.297).

Under sRPE-TL-standardized conditions, complex training elicited greater PAPE responses, with distinct optimal time windows among modalities (PLY: 6 min; HRT: 12 min; COM: 9–12 min), supporting individualized pre-race warm-up programming.

Figures