The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of 3 different warm-ups on vertical jump performance. The warm-ups included a 600-m jog, a 600-m jog followed by a dynamic stretching routine, and a 600-m jog followed by a proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation (PNF) routine. A second purpose was to determine whether the effects of the warm-ups on vertical jump performance varied by gender. Sixty-eight men and women NCAA Division I athletes from North Dakota State University performed 3 vertical jumps on a Just Jump pad after each of the 3 warm-up routines. The subjects were split into 6 groups and rotated between 3 warm-up routines, completing 1 routine each day in a random order. The results of the 1-way repeated measures analysis of variance showed no significant differences in the combined (p = 0.927), men's (p = 0.798), or women's (p = 0.978) results. The results of this study showed that 3 different warm-ups did not have a significant affect on vertical jumping. The results also showed there were no gender differences between the 3 different warm-ups.
The majority of the research to date on weightlifting has focused on men competitors. This study attempted to bridge the sex-based gap evident in the scientific literature. The performances of 10 women weightlifters competing in the 1999 United States national championships were analyzed. The performance of the athletes competing in the 69-kg class was recorded and analyzed using a Peak5 2D Motion Analysis system. The purpose of this study was 3-fold: (a) analyze the horizontal bar displacement of women weightlifters, (b) analyze key kinematic variables related to performance, and (c) compare the power outputs of the first, second, and total pulls in the snatch. Less than half (<50%) of the snatch attempts demonstrated by the women weightlifters in this study displayed the optimal toward-away-toward horizontal bar trajectory reported elsewhere. The women in this study demonstrated greater drop displacement and drop under times than those previously reported for men weightlifters. They also demonstrated lesser maximal vertically velocities of the barbell than those reported for world class women weightlifters. These women weightlifters demonstrated statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) during each phase of the snatch, and total power output values were comparable to values previously reported. The results of this study suggest that women demonstrate performance characteristics that differ subtly from those reported in men weightlifters. Knowledge of performance measures during the snatch may help coaches and athletes more fully refine the training leading to competition.
Background: Handgrip strength (HGS) is a convent measure of strength capacity and associated with several age-related health conditions such as functional disability. Asymmetric strength between limbs has been linked to diminished function. Therefore, both HGS asymmetry and weakness could be associated with functional disability. We examined the associations of HGS asymmetry and weakness on functional limitations in a nationally representative sample of older Americans. Methods: Data were analyzed from 2689 adults ≥ 60 years who participated in the 2011–2012 and 2013–2014 waves of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Weakness was defined as HGS < 26 kg for men and < 16 kg for women. Asymmetry was determined from the ratio of the dominant and non-dominant HGS. Those with HGS ratio 0.9–1.1 were considered as having HGS symmetry, and those outside this range had asymmetry. Results: Compared to those with symmetric HGS and were not weak, those with weakness alone, and both weakness and HGS asymmetry had 2.47 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.14–5.35) and 3.93 (CI: 1.18–13.07) greater odds for functional limitations, respectively. However, HGS asymmetry alone was not associated with functional limitations (odds ratio: 0.80; CI: 0.62–1.03). Conclusion: The use of HGS asymmetry in protocols could improve the prognostic value of handgrip dynamometers.
Kotarsky, CJ, Christensen, BK, Miller, JS, and Hackney, KJ. Effect of progressive calisthenic push-up training on muscle strength and thickness. J Strength Cond Res 32(3): 651-659, 2018-Calisthenics, a form of resistance training, continue to increase in popularity; however, few studies have examined their effectiveness for muscle strength improvement. The purpose of this study was to determine whether progressive calisthenic push-up training (PUSH) is comparable with traditional bench press training (BENCH) as a technique for increasing muscle strength and thickness. Twenty-three healthy, moderately trained men (mean ± SD: age 23 ± 6.8 years) completed the study. Subjects were randomly assigned to PUSH (n = 14) and BENCH (n = 9) groups and were trained 3 days per week for 4 weeks. Muscle thickness (MT), seated medicine ball put (MBP), 1 repetition maximum (1RM) bench press, and push-up progression (PUP) were measured before and after training. Results revealed significant increases in 1RM (p < 0.001) and PUP (p < 0.001) for both groups after training. The increase in PUP was significantly greater for PUSH (p < 0.001). No significant differences were found within groups for MT and MBP (p > 0.05). This study is the first to demonstrate that calisthenics, using different progressive variations to maintain strength training programming variables, can improve upper-body muscle strength.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.