Search Results

You are looking at 151 - 160 of 212 items for :

  • "strength testing" x
Clear All
Restricted access

Lisa M. Barnett, David R. Lubans, Anna Timperio, Jo Salmon and Nicola D. Ridgers

using the standing long jump (lower body) and handgrip strength test (upper body). For the standing long jump, children stood with both feet parallel behind a marked line and were asked to jump with both feet simultaneously as far as possible ( Eather, Morgan, & Lubans, 2011 ). Whilst this test is

Restricted access

Robert MacKenzie, Linda Monaghan, Robert A. Masson, Alice K. Werner, Tansinee S. Caprez, Lynsey Johnston and Ole J. Kemi

. 25. Torpel A , Becker T , Thiers A , Hamacher D , Schega L . Intersession reliability of isokinetic strength testing in knee and elbow extension and flexion using the BTE PrimusRS . J Sport Rehabil . 2017 ; 26 ( 4 ): 1 – 14 .doi:10.1123/jsr.2016-0209 10.1123/jsr.2016-0209 26. Devlin

Restricted access

Kym J. Williams, Dale W. Chapman, Elissa J. Phillips and Nick Ball

. Sports Biomech . 2012 ; 11 ( 4 ): 492 – 506 . PubMed ID: 23259239 doi:10.1080/14763141.2012.725426 10.1080/14763141.2012.725426 23259239 20. Brzycki M . Strength testing—predicting a one-rep max from reps-to-fatigue J Phys Educ Recreat Dance . 1993 ; 64 ( 1 ): 88 – 90 . 10

Restricted access

Soubhagyalaxmi Mohanty, Balaram Pradhan and Alex Hankey

/(height in meter squared). Handgrip Strength Test Handgrip strength of both hands was assessed using a handgrip dynamometer (model 76618; Lafayette Instruments). The following standardized testing position for measuring grip strength was used, as suggested by the American Society of Hand Therapists: the

Full access

Michael Wälchli, Jan Ruffieux,, Audrey Mouthon, Martin Keller and Wolfgang Taube

. COP indicates center of pressure; INT, intervention; CON, control. * P  = .012. Figure 2 —RTD for explosive strength test in an isometric right-leg plantar flexion (interaction: P  = .040; η p 2 = .06 ; INT: r  = .33). Black dots and lines represent all INT groups and gray dots and lines represent

Restricted access

Élvio R. Gouveia, Andreas Ihle, Bruna R. Gouveia, Matthias Kliegel, Adilson Marques and Duarte L. Freitas

older adults, to slow down body MM losses, as well as to prevent and even reverse balance impairments. Furthermore, our results support that these upper and lower body strength tests ( Rikli & Jones, 2013 ) can be easily integrated in the clinical practice as good indicator of MM in older people

Restricted access

María Hernández, Fabrício Zambom-Ferraresi, Pilar Cebollero, Javier Hueto, José Antonio Cascante and María M. Antón

difference of equal to or greater than 2 points was considered as clinically relevant ( Jones et al., 2009 ). Measures of Muscle Function The production of force by the lower and upper extremities was examined. The participants were familiarized with the strength tests. Maximum dynamic force and muscle power

Restricted access

Mehrez Hammami, Nawel Gaamouri, Gaith Aloui, Roy J. Shephard and Mohamed Souhaiel Chelly

-of-direction ability, s  T-half test 7.21 (0.21) 6.84 (0.21) 7.20 (0.34) 7.16 (0.35) .042 0.09  Modified Illinois test 13.50 (0.41) 12.93 (0.41) 13.56 (0.35) 13.49 (0.34) .026 0.10 Abbreviations: ANOVA, analysis of variance; ES, effect size. Table 2 Comparisons of Vertical-Jump, Horizontal-Jump, and Strength-Test

Restricted access

Matthew D. Freke, Kay Crossley, Trevor Russell, Kevin J. Sims and Adam Semciw

time between strength tests was at least 5 seconds. Table 2 Hip Strength and Range of Movement for Control and Hip Pain Groups Control group (N = 33), mean (SD) Hip pain group (N = 33), mean (SD) (%difference) Between-group t test Hip strength direction, N·m/kg  Extension Dominant 1.1 (0.34) Surgery

Restricted access

Miguel Sánchez-Moreno, David Rodríguez-Rosell, Fernando Pareja-Blanco, Ricardo Mora-Custodio and Juan José González-Badillo

and medium external loads (from 0−20 kg), while researchers emphasized proper technique. During the second session, all 52 subjects performed a strength test with increasing loads up to 1RM for individual determination of the full load–velocity relationship. Finally, in the third session, the subjects