Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 10 of 290 items for :

  • "vertical jump" x
  • Sport and Exercise Science/Kinesiology x
Clear All
Restricted access

Zachary M. Gillen, Lacey E. Jahn, Marni E. Shoemaker, Brianna D. McKay, Alegra I. Mendez, Nicholas A. Bohannon and Joel T. Cramer

Vertical jump tests are among the most popular assessments of lower-body power for athletes. 1 – 6 Arguably, the most popular and common vertical jump test is the countermovement jump (CMJ). The CMJ involves a downward, eccentric movement followed by a rapid, maximal, upward, concentric vertical

Restricted access

Jason Lake, Peter Mundy, Paul Comfort, John J. McMahon, Timothy J. Suchomel and Patrick Carden

Force plates are often used to measure countermovement vertical jump (CMJ) ability. This provides practitioners with information about the athletes’ capacity to accelerate their body mass using variables such as impulse, mean force, phase duration, 1 – 4 and the reactive strength index modified (i

Restricted access

Antonio Dello Iacono, Marco Beato and Israel Halperin

Wingate. Design A randomized cross-over design was used to compare the effects of 2 PAP protocols employing the same conditioning activity (jump squats with OPL) but with different sets configurations (traditional and cluster) on subsequent vertical jump performance assessed by the CMJ test. Subjects

Restricted access

Jeffrey C. Cowley, Steven T. McCaw, Kelly R. Laurson and Michael R. Torry

to explain the motor patterns and characteristics underlying movement difficulties faced by children who are overweight ( 8 , 38 ). The vertical jump is a common measure of gross motor skill ( 22 ) with a documented performance deficiency among children who are overweight ( 26 ). Beyond the obvious

Restricted access

Anthony Birat, David Sebillaud, Pierre Bourdier, Eric Doré, Pascale Duché, Anthony J. Blazevich, Dimitrios Patikas and Sébastien Ratel

a maximal vertical jump was performed without countermovement. Jumps were repeated if the researcher could clearly, visually detect a countermovement prior to the upward (jump) phase. Countermovement Jump (CMJ) From a standing position, the subjects were instructed to dip and immediately jump with

Restricted access

Luis F. Áragón-Vargas and M. Melissa Gross

The purpose of this study was to examine the changes in both the coordination patterns of segmental actions and the dynamics of vertical jumping that accompany changes in vertical jump performance (VJP) occurring from trial to trial in single subjects. Ground reaction forces and video data were analyzed for 50 maximal vertical jumps for 8 subjects. It was possible to predict VJP from whole-body or even segmental kinematics and kinetics in spite of the small jump performance variability. Best whole-body models included peak and average mechanical power, propulsion time, and peak negative impulse. Best segmental models included coordination variables and a few joint torques and powers. Contrary to expectations, VJP was lower for trials with a proximal-to-distal sequence of joint reversals.

Restricted access

Kevin R. Ford, Anh-Dung Nguyen, Eric J. Hegedus and Jeffrey B. Taylor

Virtual environments with real-time feedback can simulate extrinsic goals that mimic real life conditions. The purpose was to compare jump performance and biomechanics with a physical overhead goal (POG) and with a virtual overhead goal (VOG). Fourteen female subjects participated (age: 18.8 ± 1.1 years, height: 163.2 ± 8.1 cm, weight 63.0 ± 7.9 kg). Sagittal plane trunk, hip, and knee biomechanics were calculated during the landing and take-off phases of drop vertical jump with different goal conditions. Repeated-measures ANOVAs determined differences between goal conditions. Vertical jump height displacement was not different during VOG compared with POG. Greater hip extensor moment (P < .001*) and hip angular impulse (P < .004*) were found during VOG compared with POG. Subjects landed more erect with less magnitude of trunk flexion (P = .002*) during POG compared with VOG. A virtual target can optimize jump height and promote increased hip moments and trunk flexion. This may be a useful alternative to physical targets to improve performance during certain biomechanical testing, screening, and training conditions.

Restricted access

Loren Z.F. Chiu and George J. Salem

Sacral marker and pelvis reconstruction methods have been proposed to approximate total body center of mass during relatively low intensity gait and hopping tasks, but not during a maximum effort vertical jumping task. In this study, center of mass displacement was calculated using the pelvic kinematic method and compared with center of mass displacement using the ground-reaction force-impulse method, in experienced athletes (n = 13) performing restricted countermovement vertical jumps. Maximal vertical jumps were performed in a biomechanics laboratory, with data collected using an 8-camera motion analysis system and two force platforms. The pelvis center of mass was reconstructed from retro-reflective markers placed on the pelvis. Jump height was determined from the peak height of the pelvis center of mass minus the standing height. Strong linear relationships were observed between the pelvic kinematic and impulse methods (R 2 = .86; p < .01). The pelvic kinematic method underestimated jump height versus the impulse method, however, the difference was small (CV = 4.34%). This investigation demonstrates concurrent validity for the pelvic kinematic method to determine vertical jump height.

Restricted access

Luis F. Aragón-Vargas and M. Melissa Gross

The purpose of this study was to investigate the kinesiological factors that distinguish good jumpers from poor ones, in an attempt to understand the critical factors in vertical jump performance (VJP). Fifty-two normal, physically active male college students each performed five maximal vertical jumps with arms akimbo. Ground reaction forces and video data were collected during the jumps. Subjects' strength was tested isometrically. Thirty-five potential predictor variables were calculated for statistical modeling by multiple-regression analysis. At the whole-body level of analysis, the best models (which included peak and average mechanical power) accounted for 88% of VJP variation (p < .0005). At the segmental level, the best models accounted for 60% of variation in VJP (p < .0005). Unexpectedly, coordination variables were not related to VJP. These data suggested that VJP was most strongly associated with the mechanical power developed during jump execution.

Restricted access

Kuangyou B. Cheng

The effect of joint strengthening on standing vertical jump height is investigated by computer simulation. The human model consists of five rigid segments representing the feet, shanks, thighs, HT (head and trunk), and arms. Segments are connected by frictionless revolute joints and model movement is driven by joint torque actuators. Each joint torque is the product of maximum isometric torque and three variable functions of instantaneous joint angle, angular velocity, and activation level, respectively. Jumping movements starting from a balanced initial posture and ending at takeoff are simulated. A matching simulation reproducing the actual jumping movement is generated by optimizing joint activation level. Simulations with the goal of maximizing jump height are repeated for varying maximum isometric torque of one joint by up to ±20% while keeping other joint strength values unchanged. Similar to previous studies, reoptimization of activation after joint strengthening is necessary for increasing jump height. The knee and ankle are the most effective joints in changing jump height (by as much as 2.4%, or 3 cm). For the same amount of percentage increase/decrease in strength, the shoulder is the least effective joint (which changes height by as much as 0.6%), but its influence should not be overlooked.