4.4 Article

ASSESSING MUSCULAR STRENGTH IN YOUTH: USEFULNESS OF STANDING LONG JUMP AS A GENERAL INDEX OF MUSCULAR FITNESS

Journal

JOURNAL OF STRENGTH AND CONDITIONING RESEARCH
Volume 24, Issue 7, Pages 1810-1817

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0b013e3181ddb03d

Keywords

fitness; field tests; children; adolescents

Categories

Funding

  1. Centro Andaluz de Medicina del Deporte, Junta de Andalucia [Orden 4/02/05]
  2. Swedish Council for Working Life and Social Research (FAS)
  3. Swedish Heart-Lung Foundation [20090635]
  4. Spanish Ministry of Education [EX-2008-0641, AP-2005-4358, EX-2007-1124]
  5. European Union

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Castro-Pinero, J, Ortega, FB, Artero, EG, Girela-Rejon, MJ, Mora, J, Sjostrom, M, and Ruiz, JR. Assessing muscular strength in youth: usefulness of standing long jump as a general index of muscular fitness. J Strength Cond Res 24(7): 1810-1817, 2010-The purpose of the present study was to examine the association among different measures of lower body muscular strength in children, and the association between measures of lower-and upper-body muscular strength. The study population comprises 94 (45 girls) healthy Caucasian children aged 6-17 years. Children performed several lower body explosive muscular strength tests (i.e., standing long jump [SLJ], vertical jump, squat jump, and countermovement jump) and upper body muscular strength tests (i.e., throw basketball, push-ups, and isometric strength exercises). The association among the study tests was analyzed by multiple regression. The SLJ was strongly associated with other lower body muscular strength tests (R-2 = 0.829-0.864), and with upper body muscular strength tests (R-2 = 0.694-0.851). The SLJ test might be therefore considered a general index of muscular fitness in youth. The SLJ test is practical, time efficient, and low in cost and equipment requirements.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available