Differences in end range of motion vertical jump kinetic and kinematic strategies between trained weightlifters and elite short track speed skaters

Haug, William B., Spratford, Wayne, Williams, Kym J., Chapman, Dale W. and Drinkwater, Eric J. 2015, Differences in end range of motion vertical jump kinetic and kinematic strategies between trained weightlifters and elite short track speed skaters, Journal of strength and conditioning research, vol. 29, no. 9, pp. 2488-2496, doi: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000000889.

Attached Files
Name Description MIMEType Size Downloads

Title Differences in end range of motion vertical jump kinetic and kinematic strategies between trained weightlifters and elite short track speed skaters
Author(s) Haug, William B.
Spratford, Wayne
Williams, Kym J.
Chapman, Dale W.
Drinkwater, Eric J.ORCID iD for Drinkwater, Eric J. orcid.org/0000-0002-9594-9360
Journal name Journal of strength and conditioning research
Volume number 29
Issue number 9
Start page 2488
End page 2496
Total pages 9
Publisher Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins
Place of publication Philadelphia, Pa.
Publication date 2015-09
ISSN 1064-8011
1533-4295
Keyword(s) impulse
jump optimization
jump kinetics
jump strategy
Summary The purpose of this investigation was to identify differences in end range of motion (ROM) kinetic and kinematic strategies between highly resistance and vertical jump-trained athletes and controls. Weightlifters (WL: n 4), short track speed skaters (STSS: n 5), and nonresistance-trained controls (C: n 6) performed 6 standing vertical squat jumps (SJ) and countermovement jumps (CMJ) without external resistance. Jump testing was performed using 3-dimensional marker trajectories captured with a 15-camera motion analysis system synchronized with 2 in-ground force plates. During SJ, there were large effects for the difference in time before toe off of peak vertical velocity between WL to STSS and C (ES: -1.43; ES: -1.73, respectively) and for the decrease between peak and toe off vertical velocity (ES: -1.28; ES: -1.71, respectively). During CMJ, there were large effects for the difference in time before toe off of peak vertical velocity between WL to STSS and C (ES: -1.28; ES: -1.53, respectively) and for decrease between peak and toe off vertical velocity (ES: -1.03; ES: -1.59, respectively). Accompanying these differences for both jump types were large effects for time of joint deceleration before toe off for all lower body joints between WL compared with C with large effects between WL and STSS at the hip and between STSS and C at the ankle. These findings suggest that the end ROM kinetic and kinematic strategy used during jumping is group-specific in power-trained athletes, with WL exhibiting superior strategies as compared with resistance- and jump-trained STSS.
Language eng
DOI 10.1519/JSC.0000000000000889
Field of Research 1106 Human Movement And Sports Science
Socio Economic Objective 929999 Health not elsewhere classified
HERDC Research category C1.1 Refereed article in a scholarly journal
ERA Research output type C Journal article
Copyright notice ©2015, Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins
Persistent URL http://hdl.handle.net/10536/DRO/DU:30082920

Document type: Journal Article
Collection: School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences
Connect to link resolver
 
Unless expressly stated otherwise, the copyright for items in DRO is owned by the author, with all rights reserved.

Versions
Version Filter Type
Citation counts: TR Web of Science Citation Count  Cited 1 times in TR Web of Science
Scopus Citation Count Cited 1 times in Scopus
Google Scholar Search Google Scholar
Access Statistics: 153 Abstract Views, 2 File Downloads  -  Detailed Statistics
Created: Tue, 19 Apr 2016, 12:37:11 EST

Every reasonable effort has been made to ensure that permission has been obtained for items included in DRO. If you believe that your rights have been infringed by this repository, please contact drosupport@deakin.edu.au.