Isometric vs. Dynamic Squat Pre-Loading: Acute PAPE Responses (IPP vs DPP)
Acute Post-Activation Performance Responses to Isometric and Dynamic Squat Pre-Loading Protocols: A Randomized Crossover Trial
Study Overview
Status
Status
Conditions
Conditions
Intervention / Treatment
Intervention / Treatment
Detailed Description
Study Type
Study Type
Enrollment (Estimated)
Enrollment
Phase
Phase
- Not Applicable
Contacts and Locations
Study Contact
Study Contact
- Name: Neslihan Akçay, Doctorate
- Phone Number: +905468426671
- Email: neslihanozcan@karabuk.edu.tr
Study Contact Backup
- Name: Neslihan Akçay, Doctorate
Study Locations
-
-
Turkey
-
Karabük, Turkey, Turkey (Türkiye), 78200
- Karabuk University
-
Contact:
- Neslihan Akçay, Doctorate
- Phone Number: +905468426671
- Email: neslihanozcan@karabuk.edu.tr
-
Principal Investigator:
- Neslihan Akçay, Doctorate
-
Sub-Investigator:
- Cem Sofuoğlu
-
Sub-Investigator:
- Wolfgang Kemmler, Prof.Dr.
-
Sub-Investigator:
- Andre Filipovic, Prof.Dr.
-
Sub-Investigator:
- Metehan Yana, Doctorate
-
Sub-Investigator:
- Erşan Arslan, Prof.Dr.
-
-
Participation Criteria
Eligibility Criteria
Eligibility Criteria
Ages Eligible for Study
- Adult
Accepts Healthy Volunteers
Description
Inclusion Criteria:
- Being healthy
- Male volleyball athletes
- Willing to maintain the intervention for all sessions
Exclusion Criteria:
- Being under 18 years old
- Having a chronic disease
- Contraindications for exercise
Study Plan
How is the study designed?
Design Details
- Primary Purpose: Treatment
- Allocation: Randomized
- Interventional Model: Crossover Assignment
- Masking: Single
Number of Arms
Arms and Interventions
Participant Group / ArmParticipant Group / Arm |
Intervention / TreatmentIntervention / Treatment |
|---|---|
|
Experimental: Condition 1
Dynamic contraction
|
Participants performed a dynamic back squat conditioning protocol on a Smith machine consisting of five sets of one repetition at 90% of one-repetition maximum (1RM), with 1 min of passive recovery between sets.
Each repetition included a controlled descent to approximately 90° of knee flexion, an explosive concentric phase, a 2-s isometric hold at full knee extension, and a slow, controlled eccentric phase (Pincivero et al.).
All repetitions were supervised to ensure proper technique.
The protocol was selected based on previous evidence supporting high-intensity resistance exercise as an effective conditioning activity for inducing PAPE responses (Dobbs et al.).
|
|
Experimental: Condition 2
isometric contraction
|
The isometric contraction protocol was conducted as described by Koźlenia and Domaradzki (2023) and Lim and Kong (2013).
Participants assumed a squat position in a squat rack with the barbell fixed in place and the knee joint positioned at approximately 90° of flexion (Profitness 1030, Türkiye).
The barbell was secured to the rack using safety pins, and participants were instructed to exert maximal force against the immovable bar to produce a MVIC.
Each contraction lasted 3 seconds, and a total of 3 repetitions were performed with 2 min of rest between repetitions (Koźlenia & Domaradzki, 2023; Lim & Kong, 2013).
|
|
Experimental: Condition 3
Dynamic + EMS contraction
|
Participants performed a dynamic back squat conditioning protocol on a Smith machine consisting of five sets of one repetition at 90% of one-repetition maximum (1RM), with 1 min of passive recovery between sets.
In the DC-EMS condition, electromyostimulation (EMS) was applied simultaneously throughout the conditioning protocol.
Each repetition included a controlled descent to approximately 90° of knee flexion, an explosive concentric phase, a 2-s isometric hold at full knee extension, and a slow, controlled eccentric phase (Pincivero et al.).
All repetitions were supervised to ensure proper technique.
The protocol was selected based on previous evidence supporting high-intensity resistance exercise as an effective conditioning activity for inducing PAPE responses (Dobbs et al.).
|
|
Experimental: Condition 4
Isometric + EMS Contraction
|
The isometric contraction protocol was conducted as described by Koźlenia and Domaradzki (2023) and Lim and Kong (2013).
Participants assumed a squat position in a squat rack with the barbell fixed in place and the knee joint positioned at approximately 90° of flexion (Profitness 1030, Türkiye).
The barbell was secured to the rack using safety pins, and participants were instructed to exert maximal force against the immovable bar to produce an MVIC.
Each contraction lasted 3 seconds, and a total of three repetitions were performed with 2 min of rest between repetitions (Koźlenia & Domaradzki, 2023; Lim & Kong, 2013).
In the MVIC-EMS condition, electromyostimulation (EMS) was applied simultaneously during each maximal voluntary isometric contraction.
|
|
Experimental: Condition 5
EMS contraction
|
EMS was delivered bilaterally to the quadriceps using a portable stimulator (Compex Rehab 400, Compex Medical SA, Switzerland) with a biphasic symmetrical rectangular waveform (75 Hz, 450 μs).
Four self-adhesive electrodes were placed over the vastus medialis and vastus lateralis muscles of both legs.
Participants remained seated for 10 min with the knees flexed at approximately 90° and the hips flexed at approximately 110°, while receiving EMS without performing any voluntary contractions.
Stimulation intensity was gradually increased to the highest level tolerated by each participant and maintained throughout the intervention (Paillard et al., 2008; Sofuoğlu et al., 2025).
|
What is the study measuring?
Primary Outcome Measures
Primary Outcome Measures
Outcome Measure |
Measure Description |
Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
|
Countermovement Jump (CMJ) Height
Time Frame: aseline and 4 minutes after each experimental condition
|
Change in countermovement jump (CMJ) height (cm) from baseline to 4 minutes after each conditioning protocol, measured using a jump assessment system.
|
aseline and 4 minutes after each experimental condition
|
|
Countermovement Jump with Arm Swing (CMJWH) Height
Time Frame: Baseline and 4 minutes after each experimental condition
|
Change in countermovement jump with arm swing (CMJWH) height (cm) from baseline to 4 minutes after each conditioning protocol.
|
Baseline and 4 minutes after each experimental condition
|
|
Zig-Zag Agility Performance
Time Frame: Baseline and 4 minutes after each experimental condition
|
Change in zig-zag agility performance time (s) from baseline to 4 minutes after each conditioning protocol.
|
Baseline and 4 minutes after each experimental condition
|
|
Shooting Speed
Time Frame: Baseline and 4 minutes after each experimental condition
|
Change in maximal shooting speed (km/h) from baseline to 4 minutes after each conditioning protocol, measured using a radar gun.
|
Baseline and 4 minutes after each experimental condition
|
Secondary Outcome Measures
Secondary Outcome Measures
Outcome Measure |
Measure Description |
Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
|
Rating of Perceived Exertion (RPE)
Time Frame: Immediately after each experimental condition
|
Rating of perceived exertion assessed immediately after each conditioning protocol using the Borg CR-10 scale.
|
Immediately after each experimental condition
|
|
Rating of Perceived Discomfort (RPD)
Time Frame: Immediately after each experimental condition
|
Rating of perceived discomfort assessed immediately after each conditioning protocol using the Borg CR-10 scale.
|
Immediately after each experimental condition
|
|
Perceived Fatigue
Time Frame: Immediately after each experimental condition
|
Perceived fatigue assessed immediately after each conditioning protocol using a visual analog scale (VAS).
|
Immediately after each experimental condition
|
Collaborators and Investigators
Sponsor
Sponsor
Investigators
Investigators
- Study Chair: Neslihan Akçay, Doctorate, Karabuk University
Publications and helpful links
General Publications
- Keskin K, Akcay N, Ozmen T, Contarli N, Yildiz KC, Sofuoglu C, Kamis O, Rolnick N, de Queiros VS, Montoye A. Effects of different pre-exercise strategies on jumping performance in female volleyball players. J Sports Med Phys Fitness. 2025 Jan;65(1):59-68. doi: 10.23736/S0022-4707.24.16196-8. Epub 2024 Oct 3.
- Sofuoglu C, Fujita RA, Keskin K, Kamis O, Akcay N. Acute electrical muscle stimulation effects on strength and anaerobic power in soccer players. Int J Sports Med. 2025 Jun;46(7):501-509. doi: 10.1055/a-2563-9289. Epub 2025 Mar 20.
Study record dates
Study Major Dates
Study Start (Estimated)
Study Start
Primary Completion (Estimated)
Primary Completion
Study Completion (Estimated)
Study Completion
Study Registration Dates
First Submitted
First Submitted
First Submitted That Met QC Criteria
First Submitted That Met QC Criteria
First Posted (Actual)
First Posted
Study Record Updates
Last Update Posted (Actual)
Last Update Posted
Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria
Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria
Last Verified
Last Verified
More Information
Terms related to this study
Additional Relevant MeSH Terms
Other Study ID Numbers
Other Study ID Numbers
- UKarabuk-6
Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)
Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?
Drug and device information, study documents
Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product
Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product
This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.