The Effect of Differing Potentiation Modalities on Acute Performance in Collegiate Athletes

Introduction: The purpose of this study was to assess the impact of Reflexive Performance Resets (RPR) compared to a dynamic warm-up and contrast training on acute athletic performance. Methods: Participants were athletes competing in the National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics (NAIA) collegiate athletes (male: 7, female: 2; average height: 180.64 ± 5.89 cm; average body mass: 76.29 ± 6.57 kg; age: 21.22 ± 1.71years; 1RM trap bar deadlift: 153.95 ± 28.35 kg; deadlift/body mass ratio: 2.02 ± 0.41). Participants in the study completed four different potentiation protocols: control (cycling), contrast training, dynamic warm-up, and RPR. The participants completed each protocol on separate days before performing a countermovement jump, which assessed mean peak displacement, acceleration, velocity, and power on a force plate, and a T-test assessed the change of direction performance. Results: A repeated measures ANOVA and independent t-tests were used to assess interactions and main effects between the protocols. A significant main effect was found when comparing the dynamic warm-up and RPR protocols in mean peak displacement (Dynamic: 0.42 ± 0.05 m; RPR: 0.36 ± 0.06 m; p = 0.001; d = 1.41; 95% Cl [-0.66,0.76), velocity (Dynamic: 2.85 ± .17 m/s; RPR: 2.7 ± .19 m/s; p =0.003; d = 1.41; 95% Cl [-0.03,0.33], and power (Dynamic: 4258 ± 541.4 w; RPR: 3964 ± 597.91 w; p = 0.005; d = 1.41; 95% Cl [-275.74,864.20]). There was also a significant main effect when comparing mean peak power between the dynamic warm-up and control protocols (Dynamic: 4258.24 ± 541.4 w; RPR: 4063.56 ± 474.41 w; p = 0.04; d = 0.38; 95% Cl [-314, 508.7]) There were no significant differences between the dynamic warm-up and RPR protocols in mean peak acceleration (Dynamic: 13.32 ± 2.4 m/s2; RPR: 13.12 ± 3.28 m/s2; p = .310 or mean peak T-test (Dynamic: 10.31 ± .78 s; RPR 10.1 ± .77 s; p = .464. Conclusions: A dynamic warm-up was shown to be most effective for improving acute countermovement jump performance when compared to RPR, contrast training, and a control protocol.