2017
DOI: 10.1097/jsm.0000000000000323
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The Effect of Strength Training on the Jump-Landing Biomechanics of Young Female Athletes

Abstract: Leg strengthening may not provide an advantage over arm strengthening for improving jump-landing movement patterns in young female athletes. This has implications for the design of conditioning programs if injury prevention is a goal.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

1
27
0
3

Year Published

2017
2017
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
5

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 11 publications
(31 citation statements)
references
References 26 publications
1
27
0
3
Order By: Relevance
“…The CMAS tool can therefore be useful for practitioners who want to screen and evaluate cutting movement quality to identify potentially "high-risk" athletes (33, 35,58,61), so these athletes can be targeted with biomechanical and neuromuscular informed training interventions to reduce potential injury-risk (33, 35,61). Qualitative screening tools such as the JTA (47), LESS (20,73), and QASLS (17) have been used to monitor the effectiveness of training interventions on jump-landing or single leg control mechanics; therefore, the CMAS could be used to monitor pre-to-post changes in cutting movement quality in response to training interventions, and is subsequently a recommended future direction of research. However, it is emphasised that lower CMASs do not necessarily equate to optimal or "safe" technique, and practitioners should not only focus on total score, but focus on the CMAS criteria where athletes scored deficits (27,44).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The CMAS tool can therefore be useful for practitioners who want to screen and evaluate cutting movement quality to identify potentially "high-risk" athletes (33, 35,58,61), so these athletes can be targeted with biomechanical and neuromuscular informed training interventions to reduce potential injury-risk (33, 35,61). Qualitative screening tools such as the JTA (47), LESS (20,73), and QASLS (17) have been used to monitor the effectiveness of training interventions on jump-landing or single leg control mechanics; therefore, the CMAS could be used to monitor pre-to-post changes in cutting movement quality in response to training interventions, and is subsequently a recommended future direction of research. However, it is emphasised that lower CMASs do not necessarily equate to optimal or "safe" technique, and practitioners should not only focus on total score, but focus on the CMAS criteria where athletes scored deficits (27,44).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…35 selected two of the FMS™ tasks (deep over-head squat, in-line lunge) for their assessment in young gymnasts. Two studies 36,37 used the Landing Error Scoring System (LESS) first published by Padua and colleagues 39 to assess participants landing competency performing a standardised drop landing (30 cm) followed by a maximal vertical jump. The LESS has been described previously as a clinical movement competency assessment to evaluate jump-landing technique characteristics associated with risk of lower extremity injuries, including ACL ruptures.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The training from Wright et al. 32 was implemented for a short duration (1 × 30-min session per week, for four weeks), while the remainder followed longer durations of 6–12 weeks with 2 or 3 sessions per week, 31,3338 a common feature in training studies with older athletes. The individual session durations varied from a 10-min warm-up of two football studies, 33,36 to 60-min gym-based sessions with youth netball athletes.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…• Studies that did not clearly describe the IPP 9 or used an IPP that consisted of one type of exercise 10 • Studies that used a study design other than a randomized clinical trial (RCT) 11,12 • Studies that only included participants who had improved LESS scores from a previous IPP intervention …”
Section: Exclusion Criteriamentioning
confidence: 99%