Vertical jump performance is affected by the velocity and depth of the countermovement

Pérez-Castilla, Alejandro; Rojas, Francisco Javier; Gómez-Martínez, Federico; García-Ramos, Amador

doi:10.1080/14763141.2019.1641545

Cited by 63 publications

(71 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Furthermore, the high-HBI athletes also produced significantly higher CMJ heights in comparison to the low-HBI athletes (36.8 vs. 29.9 cm, respectively). These findings agree with previous studies that have reported a deeper and faster countermovement to be crucial to jump performance outcomes, such as jump height, concentric peak velocity and impulse [ 46 , 47 ]. It is also possible that the greater CMJ depth and COM velocities deployed by the high-HBI group compared to the low-HBI group is indicative of a different deceleration strategy that is required to control higher forward momentum, and subsequently the greater deceleration demands [ 48 ].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

“…For instance, the greatest differences between the high- and low-HBI groups were the CMJ concentric and eccentric peak velocities (2.72 vs. 2.52 m·s −1 , d s = 1.15; −1.30 vs. −1.10, d s = 1.00) and peak power (52.39 vs. 45.98 W·kg −1 , d s = 1.06, and 18.34 vs. 14.94 W·kg −1 , d s = 0.86, respectively). A switch from a more force- to velocity-orientated power output has previously been associated with a CMJ strategy that utilises a greater countermovement depth (i.e., a more compliant strategy) [ 45 , 46 ]. Indeed, in the current study, the high-HBI athletes used a greater CMJ depth than the low-HBI athletes (−33.4 vs. −30.1 cm, respectively).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Can Countermovement Jump Neuromuscular Performance Qualities Differentiate Maximal Horizontal Deceleration Ability in Team Sport Athletes?

Harper

Cohen

Carling

et al. 2020

Sports

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This investigation aimed to determine the countermovement jump (CMJ) neuromuscular performance (NMP) qualities that differentiate between athletes with high or low horizontal deceleration ability. Twenty-seven male university team sport athletes performed a CMJ on vertical axis force plates and a maximal horizontal deceleration following a 20 m maximal horizontal sprint acceleration. The instantaneous velocity throughout the maximal horizontal deceleration test was measured using a radar device. The deceleration ability was evaluated using the average deceleration (HDEC, m·s−2) and change in momentum—referred to as the horizontal braking impulse (HBI, N·s·kg−1). Participants were dichotomised into high and low HDEC and HBI according to a median-split analysis, and CMJ variables calculated for the overall eccentric, eccentric-deceleration and concentric phases. When horizontal deceleration ability was defined by HDEC, the CMJ concentric (effect size (ES) = 0.95) and eccentric (ES = 0.72) peak forces were the variables with the largest difference between groups. However, when defined using HBI, the largest difference was the concentric (ES = 1.15) and eccentric (ES = −1.00) peak velocities. Only the concentric mean power was significantly different between the high and low groups for both HDEC (ES = 0.85) and HBI (ES = 0.96). These findings show that specific eccentric and concentric NMP qualities may underpin the horizontal deceleration abilities characterised by HDEC and HBI. Specific NMP training interventions may be beneficial to target improvements in either of these measures of horizontal deceleration abilities.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Can Countermovement Jump Neuromuscular Performance Qualities Differentiate Maximal Horizontal Deceleration Ability in Team Sport Athletes?

Harper

Cohen

Carling

et al. 2020

Sports

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The comparison of findings between these four studies only partially supports the claim by Young et al [70] that the lack of relationship between ISqT PF and CMJ height was related to the difference in joint angle where force is initiated in both exercises. It is also important to note that the velocity and depth of the countermovement will affect CMJ performance [72]. Therefore, the difference in jump strategy among individuals could have resulted in differences in the relationship between ISqT and CMJ measures.…”

Section: Jumpingmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Relationship between Isometric Force-Time Characteristics and Dynamic Performance: A Systematic Review

Lum

Haff

Barbosa

2020

Sports

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this article was to review the data on the relationship between multi-joint isometric strength test (IsoTest) force-time characteristics (peak force, rate of force development and impulse) and dynamic performance that is available in the current literature. Four electronic databases were searched using search terms related to IsoTest. Studies were considered eligible if they were original research studies that investigated the relationships between multi-joint IsoTest and performance of dynamic movements; published in peer-reviewed journals; had participants who were athletes or active individuals who participate in recreational sports or resistance training, with no restriction on sex; and had full text available. A total of 47 studies were selected. These studies showed significant small to large correlations between isometric bench press (IBP) force-time variables and upper body dynamic performances (r2 = 0.221 to 0.608, p < 0.05) and significant small to very large correlation between isometric squat (ISqT) (r2 = 0.085 to 0.746, p < 0.05) and isometric mid-thigh pull (IMTP) (r2 = 0.120 to 0.941, p < 0.05) force-time variables with lower body dynamic performances. IsoTest force-time characteristics were shown to have small to very large correlations with dynamic performances of the upper and lower limbs as well as performance of sporting movements (r2 = 0.118 to 0.700, p < 0.05). These data suggest that IsoTest force-time characteristics provide insights into the force production capability of athletes which give insight into dynamic performance capabilities.

show abstract

“…4,10,[12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22] In one study the GRF ensemble average showed peak force occurring at low position. 4 Studies showing GRF graphs of selected subjects have shown different profiles, with peak force occurring at low position, 12,13,16,[18][19][20] after low position, 14,15,21,22 or even before low position. 10 Two studies reported three different values for peak eccentric force, force at low position, and peak concentric force.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Is there a biomechanically efficient vertical ground reaction force profile for countermovement jumps?

McHugh

Hickok

Cohen

et al. 2020

Transl. Sports. Med.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this study was to determine whether countermovement jump (CMJ) metrics differed based on whether or not peak vertical ground reaction force (GRF) occurred at the lowest point of the countermovement (low position). CMJs from 100 athletes were categorized based on whether or not the peak force occurred at low position and whether they had unimodal or bimodal GRF profiles. CMJ metrics were compared between jump categories and between athletes with above average, average, and below average jump heights. Peak force occurred at low position in 52% of jumps. The majority of jumps were bimodal (78%) and in 73% of bimodal jumps the first peak was higher than the second peak. Both performance metrics (5% higher jump, 25% greater reactive strength index) and most braking phase metrics were superior for jumps in which peak force coincided with low position (P < .01). Peak force occurred at low position in 76% of above average jumps, 50% of average jumps, and 37% of below average jumps (P = .019). The optimal profile for CMJ performance is one in which peak force occurs at low position, regardless of whether it is unimodal or bimodal. This provides a qualitative means of identifying biomechanically efficient jumps.

show abstract

Vertical jump performance is affected by the velocity and depth of the countermovement

Cited by 63 publications

References 35 publications

Can Countermovement Jump Neuromuscular Performance Qualities Differentiate Maximal Horizontal Deceleration Ability in Team Sport Athletes?

Can Countermovement Jump Neuromuscular Performance Qualities Differentiate Maximal Horizontal Deceleration Ability in Team Sport Athletes?

The Relationship between Isometric Force-Time Characteristics and Dynamic Performance: A Systematic Review

Is there a biomechanically efficient vertical ground reaction force profile for countermovement jumps?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About