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

William Haug, Wayne SPRATFORD, Dale Chapman, Eric Drinkwater

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

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.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)2488-2496
Number of pages9
JournalJournal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Volume29
Issue number9
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2015

Fingerprint

Toes
Articular Range of Motion
Biomechanical Phenomena
Athletes
Joints
Deceleration
Ankle
Hip

Cite this

@article{e292e9ede1bc49e197a87944fc46f99f,
title = "Differences in end range of motion vertical jump kinetic and kinematic strategies between trained weightlifters and elite short track speed skaters",
abstract = "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.",
keywords = "impulse, jump kinetics, jump optimization, jump strategy",
author = "William Haug and Wayne SPRATFORD and Dale Chapman and Eric Drinkwater",
year = "2015",
doi = "10.1519/JSC.0000000000000889",
language = "English",
volume = "29",
pages = "2488--2496",
journal = "Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research",
issn = "1064-8011",
publisher = "NSCA National Strength and Conditioning Association",
number = "9",

}

Differences in end range of motion vertical jump kinetic and kinematic strategies between trained weightlifters and elite short track speed skaters. / Haug, William; SPRATFORD, Wayne; Chapman, Dale; Drinkwater, Eric.

In: Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, Vol. 29, No. 9, 2015, p. 2488-2496.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Differences in end range of motion vertical jump kinetic and kinematic strategies between trained weightlifters and elite short track speed skaters

AU - Haug, William

AU - SPRATFORD, Wayne

AU - Chapman, Dale

AU - Drinkwater, Eric

PY - 2015

Y1 - 2015

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

KW - impulse

KW - jump kinetics

KW - jump optimization

KW - jump strategy

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84941077167&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.mendeley.com/research/differences-end-range-motion-vertical-jump-kinetic-kinematic-strategies-between-trained-weightlifter

U2 - 10.1519/JSC.0000000000000889

DO - 10.1519/JSC.0000000000000889

M3 - Article

VL - 29

SP - 2488

EP - 2496

JO - Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

JF - Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

SN - 1064-8011

IS - 9

ER -