4.4 Article

Effects of Different Hand Widths on Plyometric Push-up Performance

期刊

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000003155

关键词

peak power; peak force; upper-body power

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study investigated the effects of hand width placement during plyometric push-ups, finding that upper body force development may be significantly impacted by hand width. Although upper body power output appears to be similar across varying hand widths, hand-width placement may impact plyometric performance measures. This study is the first to explore the effects of varying hand widths on plyometric push-up performance.
The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of hand width placement during the performance of plyometric push-ups. Ten male subjects (age: 24.14 +/- 2.79 years, height: 178.14 +/- 5.21 cm, and body mass: 91.55 +/- 6.04 kg) performed 2 plyometric push-ups at 120, 150, and 170% of the subject's biacromial width (6 total push-ups) in a randomized order. Height (H), peak force (pF), peak power (pP), and rate of power development data were collected using a force plate. One-way repeated-measures analysis of variance showed no significant differences in performance measures across all hand widths. A secondary analysis using a mixed-effects linear regression model was performed due to the small sample size. Regression analysis showed a significant difference in pF (p < 0.05) between 120 and 170% hand widths. Study results suggest that although upper-body (UB) power output seems to be similar across varying hand widths, UB force development (pF) may be significantly affected by hand width during the plyometric push-up. Study results suggest that hand-width placement may impact plyometric performance measures and should be considered if the plyometric push-up is used to assess an individual's UB power. To the best of authors' knowledge, this is the first study to investigate the effects of varying hand widths on plyometric push-up performance.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据