3.8 Article

Comparisons of countermovement jump force profiles in youth athletes

期刊

TRANSLATIONAL SPORTS MEDICINE
卷 4, 期 5, 页码 646-656

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/tsm2.257

关键词

exercise; joint; musculoskeletal system

资金

  1. Abbott Nutrition
  2. National Institute of Food and Agriculture [1000080]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study compared the performance of different force profiles in countermovement jumps and the relationships between isokinetic metrics. The results showed that the LP group had more efficient jumps, while the NLP group excelled in isokinetic performance. This suggests that the LP group may be more effective in storing and utilizing elastic energy.
The purposes of this study were to determine whether countermovement jump (CMJ) force profiles differ for jumps in which peak force occurred at the low position of the countermovement (LP) compared to jumps in which peak force did not occur at the low position of the countermovement (NLP), and compare relationships among CMJ and isokinetic metrics between groups. Thirty-nine male and female youth athletes between 9- and 17-year-old participated. Participants completed CMJs and isokinetic knee extensions from 60 to 300 degrees center dot s(-1). Ground reaction forces were collected during CMJs to quantify unweighting, braking, propulsive, and performance metrics. Torque and power were quantified during all isokinetic knee extensions. Forty-one percent of participants had LP force profiles, while 59% of participants had NLP force profiles. The LP group had more efficient unweighting and braking phase metrics than the NLP group, while the NLP group had greater isokinetic torque and power, and greater relationships between CMJ and isokinetic metrics, than the LP group. CMJs from the LP group represent more biomechanically efficient jumps than CMJs from the NLP group. Additionally, the NLP group may be more reliant on concentric force production during the CMJ, while the LP group may have more efficient storage and utilization of elastic energy.

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

3.8
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