Conditioning exercises in ski jumping: biomechanical relationship of squat jumps, imitation jumps, and hill jumps.

As hill jumps are very time-consuming, ski jumping athletes often perform various imitation jumps during training. The performed jumps should be similar to hill jumps, but a direct comparison of the kinetic and kinematic parameters has not been performed yet. Therefore, this study aimed to correlate 11 common parameters during hill jumps (Oberstdorf Germany), squat jumps (wearing indoor shoes), and various imitation jumps (rolling 4°, rolling flat, static; jumping equipment or indoor shoes) on a custom-built instrumented vehicle with a catch by the coach. During the performed jumps, force and video data of the take-off of 10 athletes were measured. The imitation and squat jumps were then ranked. The main difference between the hill jumps and the imitation and squat jumps is the higher maximal force loading rate during the hill jumps. Imitation jumps performed on a rolling platform, on flat ground were the most similar to hill jumps in terms of the force-time, and leg joint kinematic properties. Thus, non-hill jumps with a technical focus should be performed from a rolling platform with a flat inrun with normal indoor shoes or jumping equipment, and high normal force loading rates should be the main focus of imitation training.

Comparison of the kinematics and kinetics of shoulder exercises performed with constant and elastic resistance.

BACKGROUND: Internal and external rotation exercises of the shoulder are frequently performed to avoid injury and pain. Knowledge about the motion and loadings of the upper extremities during these exercises is crucial for the development of optimal training recommendations. However, a comparison of the angles and corresponding moments in the upper extremities that are achieved during internal and external rotation exercises for the shoulder by using different resistance types has not yet been performed. Therefore, the aim of the study was to examine upper extremity kinetics and kinematics in 3D of the internal and external rotation exercises. METHODS: The kinematics and kinetics of 12 participants while they performed 10 different exercises with a constant and with an elastic external load corresponding to 2% body mass was assessed. The motion of the upper extremities was recorded three-dimensionally with a motion capture system, using a newly developed marker set and joint coordinate systems with 28 markers. The applied external load was measured with a load cell placed in series with the external resistance, and moments were calculated using an inverse dynamics approach. RESULTS: The range of motion and the joint loading was highly dependent on the exercises. The range of motion in the glenohumeral joint did not differ significantly between the two resistance types, whereas internal/external rotation moments were significantly higher with constant resistance than those with elastic resistance. CONCLUSIONS: Larger or lower moments can, therefore, be achieved through selection of the appropriate resistance type, while the range of motion can be altered through the selection of exercise type. Therefore, the loading motion patterns identified in this study can help to choose suitable shoulder exercises dependent on the training objective.

Loading conditions in the spine, hip and knee during different executions of back extension exercises.

BACKGROUND: Back extension (BE) is a strength exercise for training the dorsal trunk and hip muscles. To optimise training recommendations that avoid overloading and possible injury, the aim of this study was to determine the loading conditions and the influence of different execution forms of BE on spine, hip and knee ranges of motion (RoMs), joint moments and muscle activity. METHODS: The kinematics, kinetics and muscle activity (EMG) of two execution types (BEh: dynamic hip, BEs: dynamic spine) and two versions (one-legged and two-legged) of BE were measured in 16 subjects. RoMs and external joint moments were calculated using an inverse dynamics approach and analysed with a linear mixed model. RESULTS: Although lumbar spine flexion was observed in both execution types, thoracic spine flexion predominantly occurred during BEs, whereas thoracic spine extension was observed during BEh. Larger maximal back and hip moments were observed for BEh than for BEs. The activity of the dorsal back and hip muscles, as observed using EMG, was increased for one-legged executions. CONCLUSION: To strengthen the hips and lower back, BEh seem to be more efficient due to the higher moments, with higher or similar RoMs in the hip and lower back. One-legged BEs seem to provide an effective training for the hamstrings and hip regions without subjecting the spine to excessive loading, possibly promoting this as an effective exercise during training and rehabilitation.