Allen, CR, Fu, Y-C, Cazas-Moreno, V, Valliant, MW, Gdovin, JR, Williams, CC, and Garner, JC. Effects of jaw clenching and jaw alignment mouthpiece use on force production during vertical jump and isometric clean pull. J Strength Cond Res 32(1): 237-243, 2018-This study examined the effects of jaw clenching, a self-adapted, jaw-repositioning mouthpiece on force production during maximum countermovement vertical jump and maximum isometric midthigh clean pull assessments in an attempt to determine any ergogenic effect attributable to clenching, jaw-repositioning mouthpiece use, or the combination of both. Thirty-six male subjects performed vertical jump and isometric clean pull assessments from a force platform under various mouthpiece and clench conditions. A 3 × 2 (mouthpiece × clench) repeated-measures analysis of variance was conducted to analyze each of the following force production variables for both assessments: peak force, normalized peak force, and rate of force development. In addition, jump height was analyzed for the vertical jump. Results revealed improvements in peak force (F1,35 = 15.84, p ≤ 0.001, (Equation is included in full-text article.)= 0.31), normalized peak force (F1,35 = 16.28, p ≤ 0.001, (Equation is included in full-text article.)= 0.32), and rate of force development (F1,35 = 12.89, p = 0.001, (Equation is included in full-text article.)= 0.27) during the isometric clean pull assessment when participants maximally clenched their jaw, regardless of mouthpiece condition. There were no statistically significant differences in jump height, peak force, normalized peak force, or rate of force development during the vertical jump for any treatment condition. This study supports previous research demonstrating that the implementation of remote voluntary contractions such as jaw clenching can lead to concurrent activation potentiation and a resulting ergogenic effect during activities involving and requiring high-force production.

Because of the relative newness of mouthpieces, there are few investigations into using performance mouthpieces during sport and physical activity to substantiate claims of performance enhancement. The purpose of this study was to investigate the acute effect of a commercially available, noninjury preventive, performance mouthpiece on practical acute performance measures of power and strength. A within-subjects design was used to evaluate 21 (N = 21) recreationally trained college aged males on the performance of a maximum countermovement vertical jump (CMVJ) from a force platform and 1 repetition maximum (1RM) bench press exercise for the following conditions: with mouthpiece (MP) and without mouthpiece (noMP). Rate of force development (RFD) and peak vertical force (PF) were derived from force platform data. Statistical analysis revealed no significant differences between conditions for CMVJ height (p = 0.13), RFD at 200 ms (p = 0.09), PF (p = 0.08), and 1RM bench press (p = 0.45). These data indicate that the use of this particular jaw aligning mouthpiece specifically in an attempt to produce an ergogenic effect on performance is unwarranted.

No abstract

The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of different warm-up (WU) devices on bat swing parameters including maximal resultant velocity (MRV), resultant velocity at ball contact (RVBC), time difference between MRV and RVBC, bat angle at MRV, bat angle at RVBC, and perceptual differences (PD) of each WU implement utilized by National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) Division-I baseball players. Fifteen varsity baseball players completed one experimental session during fall training. Retro-reflective markers were placed on the bat and tee to measure basic bat kinematics during the swing. Participants completed a general calisthenics WU before being counter-balanced into one of four WU conditions: standard bat (SB) (33in/30oz), fungo (FG) (10.6oz), weighted gloves with SB (WG) (55.6oz) and donut with SB (DN) (55.6oz). Each participant was asked to perform their normal on deck routine over a two-minute period, finishing with 5 practice swings with the designated condition. After completion of the WU, a one-minute rest period (simulating normal game conditions) was given to allow each participant to get set to perform five maximal swings with a SB. Five, 1x4 (group x condition) repeated measures analysis of variance examined the aforementioned variables. There were no significant differences in MRV, RVBC, time difference between MRV and RVBC, and bat angle at MRV and RVBC between all WU conditions. If presented with the current options, athletes should choose the WU implement with which they are most comfortable using prior to an at bat situatiossn.