Use of Visual Feedback During Jump-Squat Training Aids Improvement in Sport-Specific Tests in Athletes

The influence of real-time quantitative feedback and verbal encouragement on adults' performance in maximal and explosive strength and power in bench press exercise

Background

In sports practice, a wide array of verbal and non-verbal stimuli can elicit diverse motivations and performance changes. Therefore, the primary objective of this study was to compare the impact of various stimuli on maximal strength and power in bench press exercises.

Methods

This study involved 48 university students (average age 20.5 ± 2.8 years; body mass 80.1 ± 20 kg; height 174.6 ± 6.7 cm; BMI 26.2 ± 6 kg/m2) who engaged in an 8-week resistance training program. The students were randomly divided into three experimental groups and one control group. The first group received real-time quantitative feedback (RF) on their power output during the bench press exercise, the second group received verbal encouragement (VE) from an instructor, and the third group exercised without any external stimulus (WS). The control group (CG) underwent only pre- and post-measurements. To compare differences in strength parameters among groups a Two-Way Repeated Measures ANOVA was applied.

Results

The results revealed significant improvements in the mean weight for one repetition maximum in the real-time quantitative feedback group (5 kg, 9.76%, p = 0.001, d = 0.529) and the verbal encouragement group (5.42 kg, 11.51%, p = 0.001, d = 1.201). Positive changes were also observed in the mean power at 20 and 30 kg for the RF, VE, and WS groups, but at 40 kg, significant improvement was only seen in the real-time quantitative feedback group (247 W, 31.30%, p = 0.001, d = 1.199).

Conclusion

These findings underscore the effectiveness of selected stimuli in enhancing maximum strength and power during bench press exercises, with real-time quantitative feedback proving to be the most effective stimulus for improving both maximal strength and power.

The Effect of Feedback on Resistance Training Performance and Adaptations: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Augmented feedback is often used during resistance training to enhance acute physical performance and has shown promise as a method of improving chronic physical adaptation. However, there are inconsistencies in the scientific literature regarding the magnitude of the acute and chronic responses to feedback and the optimal method with which it is provided.

OBJECTIVE

This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to (1) establish the evidence for the effects of feedback on acute resistance training performance and chronic training adaptations; (2) quantify the effects of feedback on acute kinematic outcomes and changes in physical adaptations; and (3) assess the effects of moderating factors on the influence of feedback during resistance training.

METHODS

Twenty studies were included in this systematic review and meta-analysis. This review was performed using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Four databases were searched, and studies were included if they were peer-reviewed investigations, written in English, and involved the provision of feedback during or following dynamic resistance exercise. Furthermore, studies must have evaluated either acute training performance or chronic physical adaptations. Risk of bias was assessed using a modified Downs and Black assessment tool. Multilevel meta-analyses were performed to quantify the effects of feedback on acute and chronic training outcomes.

RESULTS

Feedback enhanced acute kinetic and kinematic outputs, muscular endurance, motivation, competitiveness, and perceived effort, while greater improvements in speed, strength, jump performance, and technical competency were reported when feedback was provided chronically. Furthermore, greater frequencies of feedback (e.g., following every repetition) were found to be most beneficial for enhancing acute performance. Results demonstrated that feedback improves acute barbell velocities by approximately 8.4% (g = 0.63, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.36-0.90). Moderator analysis revealed that both verbal (g = 0.47, 95% CI 0.22-0.71) and visual feedback (g = 1.11, 95% CI 0.61-1.61) were superior to no feedback, but visual feedback was superior to verbal feedback. For chronic outcomes, jump performance might have been positively influenced (g = 0.39, 95% CI - 0.20 to 0.99) and short sprint performance was likely enhanced (g = 0.47, 95% CI 0.10-0.84) to a greater extent when feedback is provided throughout a training cycle.

CONCLUSIONS

Feedback during resistance training can lead to enhanced acute performance within a training session and greater chronic adaptations. Studies included in our analysis demonstrated a positive influence of feedback, with all outcomes showing superior results than when no feedback is provided. For practitioners, it is recommended that high-frequency, visual feedback is consistently provided to individuals when they complete resistance training, and this may be particularly useful during periods of low motivation or when greater competitiveness is beneficial. Alternatively, researchers must be aware of the ergogenic effects of feedback on acute and chronic responses and ensure that feedback is standardised when investigating resistance training.

Knowledge of results during vertical jump testing: an effective method to increase the performance but not the consistency of vertical jumps

This study aimed to determine whether the provision of jump height feedback (knowledge of result; KR) can increase the performance and the consistency of output variables. In a randomised order, sixteen participants performed six squat or countermovement jumps (three from a 90º knee angle and three from a self-preferred knee angle) with or without KR over four sessions. The provision of KR significantly increased peak force (p = 0.046, 1.83%), mean force (p = 0.037, 1.45%), peak velocity (p < 0.001, 3.71%), mean velocity (p = 0.004, 3.44%), peak power (p < 0.001, 4.22%) and mean power (p = 0.001, 4.69%). A high within-session reliability was observed for all variables (coefficient of variation [CV] ≤ 5.62%, intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] ≥ 0.95). No systematic differences in reliability were detected between the jumps performed without KR (CV = 3.00 ± 1.38%, ICC = 0.97 ± 0.03) and with KR (CV = 3.04 ± 1.49%, ICC = 0.97 ± 0.04). These results suggest that the provision of jump height feedback during vertical jump testing is effective to enhance vertical jump performance but it does not reduce the variability between jumps.