Author(s): RYAN, S., RAMIREZ-CAMPILLO, R., BROWNE, D., MOODY, J., BYRNE, P.J. , Institution: SOUTH EAST TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY CARLOW, Country: IRELAND, Abstract-ID: 2496

INTRODUCTION:
The correlation between effective resistance training programmes and success in team sports is widely agreed upon due to the physical demands placed upon athletes. As performance demands increase, the implementation of innovative resistance training strategies ensue. Cluster training has gained popularity, through its use of “intra-set” rest periods, proven to benefit training volume, power outputs and fatigue accumulation. Although, to date there is a scarcity of research integrating the cluster model during flywheel (FW) training. Thus, the purpose of this study was to compare the effect of flywheel cluster set training (FWC) and traditional cluster set resistance training (TDC) on athletic performance in team sport athletes.
METHODS:
Seventy-six amateur male field sport athletes participated in this study during the pre-season phase of their training calendar. Participants were randomly allocated into one of three groups; FWC, TDC or a control (CON) group. All participants underwent pre and post intervention testing for 20m linear sprints, countermovement jumps (CMJ), 5-10-5 change of direction (COD) and 3RM lower body strength. During the 8- week intervention, both FWC and TDC groups performed two sessions per week, consisting of 4 sets of 9 repetitions using quarter-squats and Romanian deadlifts. Intra-set rest durations of 45 seconds were allocated between cluster blocks [1]. The FWC group used the 0.050kg.m2 inertial load, while the TDC group used 70% of their predetermined 1RM for the initial 4-weeks, followed by increasing the load to 75% for the final 4-weeks. The CON group were instructed to performed pitch sessions only.
RESULTS:
Both cluster training groups reported similar group x time interactions with significant improvements between pre and post testing results in all performance exercises. The Hex-bar deadlift reported improvements (p < 0.05) in lower body 3RM strength in the FWC group (ES = 0.40, PC = 6.91%) and for the TDC group (ES = 0.38, PC = 7.06%). Moreover, improvements in sprint performance (p < 0.001) were reported in both 5m (FWC- 3.14%, TDC- 2.62%) and 20m linear sprint speed (FWC- 1.89%, TDC- 1.04%). While ES indicated that COD saw the largest increase in performance (FWC- 0.93- 1.12, TDC- 0.96- 0.98). Furthermore, COD reported significant improvements (p < 0.05) on both right and left lateral turns (FWC- 5.64- 6.55%, TDC- 5.39- 6.05%). Lastly, the CON group reported trivial changes throughout all tests post intervention.
CONCLUSION:
This is the first study to compare a flywheel cluster training block to a traditional barbell cluster training block. The similarity of results and increases to performance parameters indicate the usability of both training methods. These findings should encourage coaches and sport science practitioners to utilize both training methods within resistance training programmes to increase field sport athlete performance.