Understanding how an arm swing enhances performance in the vertical jump

Lees, Adrian; Vanrenterghem, Jos; Clercq, Dirk De

doi:10.1016/j.jbiomech.2004.02.021

Cited by 247 publications

(267 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

238

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The inclusion of an arm swing increased jump height by approximately 10 cm, supporting previous arm swinginduced performance improvements (Feltner, Fraschetti, & Crisp, 1999;Shetty & Etnyre, 1989). Likely contributors to this effect include the increase in work done at the hip joint (Hara, Shibayama, Takeshita, & Fukashiro, 2006;Lees, Vanrenterghem, & De Clercq, 2004) and maximised pre-takeoff mass centre displacement (Cheng, Wang, Chen, Wu, & Chiu, 2008;Harman, Rosenstein, Frykman, & Rosenstein, 1990;Payne, Slater, & Telford, 1968) in jumps with an arm swing. Simulation studies of squat jumping show the augmented hip work to be due to a slowing of hip extension enabling the musculature to work on a more favourable region of the force-velocity curve (Blache & Monteil, 2013;Cheng et al, 2008;Domire & Challis, 2010).…”

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 60%

Determinants of countermovement jump performance: a kinetic and kinematic analysis

McErlain-Naylor

King

Pain

2014

Journal of Sports Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study aimed to investigate the contributions of kinetic and kinematic parameters to inter-individual variation in countermovement jump (CMJ) performance. Two-dimensional kinematic data and ground reaction forces during a CMJ were recorded for 18 males of varying jumping experience.Ten kinetic and eight kinematic parameters were determined for each performance, describing peak lower-limb joint torques and powers, concentric knee extension rate of torque development, and CMJ technique. Participants also completed a series of isometric knee extensions to measure rate of torque development and peak torque. CMJ height ranged from 0.38 -0.73 m (mean 0.55 ± 0.09 m). CMJ peak knee power, peak ankle power, and take-off shoulder angle explained 74% of this observed variation. CMJ kinematic (58%) and CMJ kinetic (57%) parameters explained a much larger proportion of the jump height variation than the isometric parameters (18%), suggesting that coachable technique factors and the joint kinetics during the jump are important determinants of CMJ performance. Technique, specifically greater ankle plantar-flexion and shoulder flexion at take-off (together explaining 58% of the CMJ height variation), likely influences the extent to which maximal muscle capabilities can be utilised during the jump.

show abstract

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 60%

Determinants of countermovement jump performance: a kinetic and kinematic analysis

McErlain-Naylor

King

Pain

2014

Journal of Sports Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…They argüe that the use of the elastic energy built-in during the period of muscular stretching or lengthening leads to local or segmental effectiveness in the following phase of muscular shortening, even though its effect on the jump's overall effectiveness or total performance has not been confirmed. This is possibly caused by the influence of segment participation on the tensión exerted by the muscles in the vertical jump (16). when comparing jumps performed with one and two feet.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The two-foot support vertical jump has been studied from a biomechanical viewpoint on many occasions and with different purposes: to evalúate different ways of muscle participation (3,15), to assess segmental participation (9,12,16), or to identify its determining efficieney factors (2,13,23). However, generally the jump is quantified based on the vertical component of the forcé from a stationary position, with or without a countermovement, or based on different heights, ignoring the effect on the takeoff phase produced by the run-up.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Comparison of Two Landing Styles in a Two-Foot Vertical Jump

Gutiérrez-Dávila

Campos²,

Navarro³

2009

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In team sports, such as basketball and volleyball, the players use different takeoff styles to make the vertical jump. The two-foot vertical jump styles have been classified according to the landing style and identified as Hop style, when both feet touch the ground at the same time and Step-close style, when there is a slight delay between the first and second foot making contact with the ground. The aim of this research is to identify the differences between the two styles. Twenty-three subjects participated in the study, of whom 14 were volleyball players and 9 basketball players. The jumps were video recorded and synchronized with two forcé platforms at 250 Hz. Two temporal periods of the takeoff were defined according to the reduction or increase in the radial distance between the CG and the foot support (T.-RD C G y T.+RD C G, respectively). The findings produced no specific advantages when both styles were compared with respect to takeoff velocity and consequently to jump height, but takeoff time was significantly shorter (p<0.001) in the Hop style takeoff. However, this reduction was compensated for by the greater time employed in the last step of the approach run (p<0.001). When the Step-close style was used, the vertical velocity of CG at the beginning of the takeoff is significantly lower. Moreover, the mean vertical forcé developed during T.-RD C G was reduced by -627.7 ± 251.1 N, so lessening impact on landing.Horizontal velocity at the end of the takeoff is less when the Step-close style is used (p<0.005), suggesting that this style is better for jumps where it is necessary to move horizontally during the flight against an opponent

show abstract

“…Entre os diversos estudos nos quais o desempenho foi avaliado a partir do SCM, frequentemente as durações da pausa entre tentativas não são informadas 10,12,15 ou, quando mencionadas, a duração utilizada não é justificada 2,8,9,15 . Além disso, não existe um consenso sobre as durações da pausa adotadas, e por isso, uma grande variabilidade de valores tem sido encontrada 2,5,13,16,17 .…”

Section: Introductionunclassified

Effect of Different Rest Interval Lengths on the Countermovement Jump

Oliveira¹,

Couto²,

Melo³

et al. 2018

J Phys Educ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

RESUMOA avaliação do desempenho físico de atletas é um dos complexos processos que envolvem o treinamento esportivo. O objetivo deste estudo foi verificar o efeito de três diferentes pausas (15, 30 e 60 segundos) entre as tentativas do teste de salto com contramovimento (SCM) de atletas nacionais do Centro de Treinamento esportivo da UFMG. A amostra foi composta por 12 atletas que participaram de cinco sessões: 2 familiarizações e 3 de protocolo experimental. O protocolo experimental consistiu de três sessões de teste de 15 SCM aleatorizado entre as diferentes pausas entre tentativas (15, 30 e 60 segundos). Não houve diferença significativa para a altura do salto entre os três protocolos de pausa adotados e entre as 15 tentativas de salto no mesmo protocolo. Estes resultados sugerem que, durações de pausas menores, como a de 15 segundos, são suficientes para a manutenção do desempenho em testes de SCM com uma série única de até 15 tentativas. Palavras-chave: Recuperação.Avaliação física. Desempenho esportivo.Familiarização. ABSTRACTThe evaluation of athlete's physical performance is one of the complex processes that involve sports training. The purpose of this study was to measure the effects of varied rest interval lengths on countermovement jump (CMJ) performance test. The subjects were 12 national athletes from UFMG Sport Training Center, who performed five sessions, two familiarization sessions and three CMJ experimental sessions. The experimental sessions consisted of three sessions with 15 CMJ attempts, each session with a different rest interval duration. The three rest intervals between CMJ attempts were 15, 30, and 60 seconds and were counterbalanced for each subject. No significant difference was founded in the jump height between the 3 pause protocols adopted and between the 15 attempts in the same protocol. Therefore, this study demonstrated a 15 seconds rest interval was sufficient for recovery during the performance of 15 CMJ attempts. Keywords: Recovery.Physical Evaluation.Sport perform.Familiarization. IntroduçãoA avaliação do desempenho físico de atletas é um dos complexos processos que envolvem o treinamento esportivo. Para um adequado monitoramento e controle das cargas de treinamento é indispensável estabelecer critérios de escolha das melhores estratégias de avaliação do desempenho físico. Nessa seleção de protocolos de testes para um esporte em particular, é necessário, sobretudo, identificar as principais capacidades e técnicas que determinam o sucesso competitivo, bem como as que representem as principais demandas energéticas requisitadas pelo esporte.Segundo Komi 1 o sucesso esportivo na maioria dos esportes, depende, especialmente, da capacidade de os atletas desenvolverem força explosiva por meio de movimentos que expressem o ciclo de alongamento-encurtamento. Nos esportes que usam predominantemente os membros inferiores, como o -tênis, futebol, taekwondo, atletismo -pesquisadores da ciência do esporte e treinadores vem utilizando técnicas de salto vertical para avaliar a força e potên...

show abstract

Understanding how an arm swing enhances performance in the vertical jump

Cited by 247 publications

References 9 publications

Determinants of countermovement jump performance: a kinetic and kinematic analysis

Determinants of countermovement jump performance: a kinetic and kinematic analysis

A Comparison of Two Landing Styles in a Two-Foot Vertical Jump

Effect of Different Rest Interval Lengths on the Countermovement Jump

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About