Suchergebnisse

Countermovement jump (CMJ) force data are often time-normalized so researchers and practitioners can study the effect that sex, training status, and training intervention have on CMJ strategy: the so-called force–time curve shape. Data are often collected on an individual basis and then averaged across interest-groups. However, little is known about the agreement of the CMJ force–time curve shape within-subject, and this formed the aim of this study. Fifteen men performed 10 CMJs on in-ground force plates. The resulting force–time curves were plotted, with their shape categorized as exhibiting either a single peak (unimodal) or a double peak (bimodal). Percentage-agreement and the kappa-coefficient were used to assess within-subject agreement. Over two and three trials, 13% demonstrated a unimodal shape, 67% exhibited a bimodal shape, and 20% were inconsistent. When five trials were considered, the unimodal shape was not demonstrated consistently; 67% demonstrated a bimodal shape, and 33% were inconsistent. Over 10 trials, none demonstrated a unimodal shape, 60% demonstrated a bimodal shape, and 40% were inconsistent. The results of this study suggest that researchers and practitioners should ensure within-subject consistency before group averaging CMJ force–time data, to avoid errors.

Countermovement jump (CMJ) force-time testing is commonly used to monitor seasonal alterations in athletes' CMJ strategy (to infer alterations in neuromuscular function). The flight time to contraction time (FT:CT) ratio and reactive strength index modified (RSImod) are considered to be two primary CMJ variables of interest. Due to similar calculations, it is likely that the FT:CT ratio and RSImod share similar reliability and an almost perfect relationship. Consequently, there may be no requirement to include both variables in CMJ monitoring reports. This study aimed to investigate this by recruiting twenty-five males to perform three CMJs on a force platform across two sessions that were separated by one week. The FT:CT ratio and two calculations of RSImod (based on the jump height from either flight time or take-off velocity) were then calculated using robust methods. The between-day reliability was good-excellent for all of the variables (95% confidence interval range of the coefficient of variation = 2.02–9.22%) with no significant between-day differences noted (p ≥ 0.231). There was an almost perfect positive relationship between the FT:CT ratio and RSImod regardless of the calculation method (r = 0.944–0.947, p < 0.001). As the FT:CT ratio and RSImod yield similar absolute reliability and share 90% of common variance, there is little reason to include both variables in CMJ monitoring reports.

The aim of this study was to compare the actual deadlift one repetition maximum (1RM) and the deadlift 1RM predicted from individualised load-velocity profiles. Twelve moderately resistance-trained men participated in three deadlift sessions. During the first, 1RM was assessed; during the second, load-velocity profiles were recorded with six loads (65% to 90% 1RM) using a linear position transducer recording at 1000 Hz; and during the third, minimal velocity thresholds (MVT) were recorded from the velocity of the last repetition during sets to volitional fatigue with 70% and 80% 1RM with a linear position transducer recording at 1000 Hz. Regression was then used to generate individualised load-velocity profiles and the MVT was used as a cut-off value from which to predict deadlift 1RM. In general, velocity reliability was poor to moderate. More importantly, predicted deadlift 1RMs were significantly and meaningfully less than actual deadlift 1RMs (p < 0.05, d = 1.03–1.75). The main practical application that should be taken from the results of this study is that individualized load-velocity profiles should not be used to predict deadlift 1RM. Practitioners should not use this method in combination with the application of MVT obtained from the last repetition of sets to volitional fatigue.

Studies that examine the effects of inter-limb asymmetry on measures of physical performance are scarce, especially in adult female populations. The aim of the present study was to establish the relationship between inter-limb asymmetry and speed and change-of-direction speed (CODS) in adult female soccer players. Sixteen adult players performed a preseason test battery consisting of unilateral countermovement jump (CMJ), unilateral drop jump (DJ), 10 m, 30 m, and 505 CODS tests. Inter-limb asymmetry was calculated using a standard percentage difference equation for jump and CODS tests, and Pearson's r correlations were used to establish a relationship between asymmetry and physical performance as well as asymmetry scores themselves across tests. Jump-height asymmetry from the CMJ (8.65%) and DJ (9.16%) tests were significantly greater (p < 0.05) than asymmetry during the 505 test (2.39%). CMJ-height asymmetry showed no association with speed or CODS. However, DJ asymmetries were significantly associated with slower 10 m (r = 0.52; p < 0.05), 30 m (r = 0.58; p < 0.05), and 505 (r = 0.52–0.66; p < 0.05) performance. No significant relationships were present between asymmetry scores across tests. These findings suggest that the DJ is a useful test for detecting existent between-limb asymmetry that might in turn be detrimental to speed and CODS performance. Furthermore, the lack of relationships present between different asymmetry scores indicates the individual nature of asymmetry and precludes the use of a single test for the assessment of inter-limb differences.

The Push Band has the potential to provide a cheap and practical method of measuring velocity and power during countermovement vertical jumping (CMJ). However, very little is known about whether it conforms to laboratory-based gold standards. The aim of this study was to assess the agreement between peak and mean velocity and power obtained from the belt-worn Push Band, and derived from three-dimensional motion capture, and vertical force from an in-ground force platform. Twenty-two volunteers performed 3 CMJ on a force platform, while a belt-worn Push Band and a motion capture system (a marker affixed to the Push Band) simultaneously recorded data that enabled peak and mean velocity and power to be calculated and then compared using ordinary least products regression. While the Push Band is reliable, it tends to overestimate peak (9–17%) and mean (24–27%) velocity, and when compared to force plate-derived peak and mean power, it tends to underestimate (40–45%) and demonstrates fixed and proportional bias. This suggests that while the Push Band may provide a useful method for measuring peak and mean velocity during the CMJ, researchers and practitioners should be mindful of its tendency to systematically overestimate and that its measures of peak and mean power should not be used.

Background: Foot drill involving marching and drill manoeuvres is conducted regularly during basic military recruit training. Characterising the biomechanical loading of foot drill will improve our understanding of the contributory factors to lower limb overuse injuries in recruits. Aim: Quantify and compare forces, loading rates and accelerations of British Army foot drill, within and between trained and untrained personnel. Methods: 24 trained soldiers (12 men and 12 women; TRAINED) and 12 civilian men (UNTRAINED) performed marching and five drill manoeuvres on force platforms; motion capture recorded tibial position. Peak vertical impact force (PF), peak vertical loading rate (PLR), expressed as multiples of body weight (BW) and peak tibial impact acceleration (PTA) were recorded. Results: Drill manoeuvre PF, PLR and PTA were similar, but higher in TRAINED men (PF, PLR: p<0.01; PTA: p<0.05). Peak values in TRAINED men were shown for the halt (mean (SD); PF: 6.5 (1.5) BW; PLR: 983 (333) BW/s PTA; PTA: 207 (57) m/s2) and left turn (PF: 6.6 (1.7) BW; PLR: 928 (300) BW/s; 184 (62) m/s2). Marching PF, PLR, PTA were similar between groups and lower than all drill manoeuvres (PF: 1.1–1.3 BW; PLR: 42–70 BW/s; p<0.01; PTA: 23–38 m/s2; p<0.05). Conclusions: Army foot drill generates higher forces, loading rates and accelerations than activities such as running and load carriage, while marching is comparable to moderate running (10.8 km/h). The large biomechanical loading of foot drill may contribute to the high rate of overuse injuries during initial military training, and strategies to regulate/reduce this loading should be explored.