Jumping with barbell load: Assessment of lower limb joint kinematics and kinetics during landing

Fritz, Julian; Stallegger, Julian; Fessl, Isabella; Schwameder, Hermann; Kröll, Josef

doi:10.1016/j.jbiomech.2021.110354

Cited by 6 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Despite this, ballistic exercise, such as the jump squat, must contain a landing phase. Previous researchers have observed significant increases in ankle range of motion (disproportionate to knee and hip), ankle eccentric work contribution (% of total eccentric work), and slight increases in ankle landing joint moments because of longer landing durations caused by increasing loads (14,26). This change in the landing strategy, therefore, must be a consideration for S&C coaches, particularly those working with athletes undertaking return-to-play protocols or during in-season prescription for athletes who participate in sports where a high number of jumps are common (e.g., 60–100 jumps in a competitive game of basketball) (13,34).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Kinetics and Kinematics of the Free-Weight Back Squat and Loaded Jump Squat

Thompson

Lake

Rogerson

et al. 2022

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Kinetics and Kinematics of the Free-Weight Back Squat and Loaded Jump Squat

Thompson

Lake

Rogerson

et al. 2022

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Additionally, studying muscle activation could further explain hip joint work contribution differences between males and females. Although we assumed leg symmetry on the basis of previous findings [38], this aspect could be addressed in future research by evaluating inter-limb differences in joint kinetics. We speculate that the standardization of additional loads relative to body mass might have influenced our findings.…”

Section: Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of Additional Loads on Joint Kinetics and Joint Work Contribution in Males and Females Performing Vertical Countermovement Jumps

et al. 2022

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study aimed to investigate the effect of additional loads and sex on countermovement jump (CMJ) joint kinetics during the entire take-off impulse in males and females. Twelve female and 13 male sport students performed vertical countermovement jumps without and with additional loads up to +80% of body mass using a straight barbell. Ground reaction forces and body kinematics were collected simultaneously. A significant increase was found for peak ankle power, whereas knee and hip peak power decreased significantly as additional load increased in both males and females. Joint work increased in each joint as additional load increased, although significance was observed only in the hip joint. Peak power of each joint (22–47%) and total hip work (61%) were significantly higher for males than females. Relative joint contributions to total joint work (“joint work contribution”) remained stable as additional loads increased, whereas meaningful differences were found in the magnitudes of joint work contribution between males and females. CMJ joint kinetics and joint work contributions were distinctly influenced by additional load and sex. Hence, these differences should be considered when prescribing loaded jumps for training or testing.

show abstract

“…Despite this, ballistic exercise such as the jump squat must contain a landing phase. Previous researchers have observed significant increases in ankle range of motion (disproportionate to knee and hip), ankle eccentric work contribution (% of total eccentric work), and slight increases in ankle landing joint moments because of longer landing durations caused by increasing loads (Fritz et al, 2021;Lake et al, 2021). This change in landing strategy, therefore, must be a consideration for S&C coaches, particularly those working with athletes undertaking return to play protocols or during in-season prescription for athletes that participate in sports where a high number of jumps are common (e.g., 60-100 jumps in a competitive game of basketball) (Fox et al, 2020;Ransdell et al, 2020).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 96%

The efficacy of the load-velocity profile to predict one repetition maximum

Thompson

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Autoregulation is the process of acutely manipulating training variables in response to an individual’s fluctuations in strength and fatigue and is vital for optimising programming. Load-velocity profiles (LVPs) have been proposed as effective flexible programming strategies to optimise resistance training load (kg), often through the daily estimation of one repetition maximum (1RM). This PhD, therefore, adopted a pragmatic, mixed methods research design and followed an applied research model (ARMSS) to devise a series of studies to ascertain a novel, efficient, and valid approach to LVP-based 1RM prediction. Prior to choosing an autoregulatory method, strength and conditioning (S&C) practitioners must first determine an appropriate non-flexible programming strategy. A systematic review of literature revealed percentages of 1RM (% 1RM) as the superior method for increasing maximal strength (study one). After thematic analyses (study two) revealed barriers such as inaccurate 1RM predictions, time-costly protocols, and “iPad coaching” to the implementation of LVPs within practice; common velocity-based technology used by coaches; and the combination of ballistic and non-ballistic exercise when profiling, a new LVP method addressing these factors was devised in a key training, but under-researched exercise, the free-weight back squat. The new approach to LVP-based 1RM prediction developed from this thesis utilised the Gymaware linear-position transducer given its superior reliability and validity (study three); individualised profiling due to stronger load-velocity relationships and large between-participant variability observed (study four); ballistic (jump squat) exercise after larger mechanical output was revealed in 0-60% 1RM when compared to non-ballistic (back squat) (study five); a submaximal point of extrapolation (80% 1RM mean velocity) due to poor within-participant reliability of loads > 85% 1RM (study four); quadratic modelling (study four); and as few as four incremental loads. Results revealed this combination to be an effective method for estimating 1RM and autoregulating daily load for S&C coaches.

show abstract

Jumping with barbell load: Assessment of lower limb joint kinematics and kinetics during landing

Cited by 6 publications

References 17 publications

Kinetics and Kinematics of the Free-Weight Back Squat and Loaded Jump Squat

Kinetics and Kinematics of the Free-Weight Back Squat and Loaded Jump Squat

Effect of Additional Loads on Joint Kinetics and Joint Work Contribution in Males and Females Performing Vertical Countermovement Jumps

The efficacy of the load-velocity profile to predict one repetition maximum

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About