ABSTRACT
Jump actions are common in several sports, and their performance is related to a myriad of biomechanical and physiological factors, with links to athletic performance and imbalances. Currently, a valid, field-based, easy-to-use tool to assess the quality of an explosive jump movement, similar to the required sports movements, is unavailable. Thus, the present study aimed to design and validate a field-based, easy-to-use tool that can be used to assess the quality of movement during an explosive single-leg countermovement jump (SL-CMJ). Ten experts participated in the content validation process for the checklist, including checking item relevance, definition accuracy, and scoring adequacy. Content validity was measured using the Aikens V format. The checklist included the items "Foot orientation," "Knee valgus/varus," "Internal/external hip flexed orientation," "Pelvis tilt," "Thorax tilt," "Thorax rotation," "Foot pronation/supination," "Asymmetrical hip," and "Lumbo-pelvic association". The items achieved a 0.60-0.99 in relevance, 0.70-1.00 in definition accuracy, and 0.80-0.83 in scoring adequacies in the Aikens V proof. The results from the context validation process suggest that the tool may be appropriate to assess athletes' quality of explosive movement. Furthermore, the results derived from such assessments may help to design better and safer training interventions.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Plyometric jump training (PJT) encompasses a range of different exercises that may offer advantages over other training methods to improve human physical capabilities (HPC). However, no systematic scoping review has analyzed either the role of the type of PJT exercise as an independent prescription variable or the gaps in the literature regarding PJT exercises to maximize HPC. OBJECTIVE: This systematic scoping review aims to summarize the published scientific literature and its gaps related to HPC adaptations (e.g., jumping) to PJT, focusing on the role of the type of PJT exercise as an independent prescription variable. METHODS: Computerized literature searches were conducted in the PubMed, Web of Science, and SCOPUS electronic databases. Design (PICOS) framework: (P) Healthy participants of any age, sex, fitness level, or sports background; (I) Chronic interventions exclusively using any form of PJT exercise type (e.g., vertical, unilateral). Multimodal interventions (e.g., PJT + heavy load resistance training) will be considered only if studies included two experimental groups under the same multimodal intervention, with the only difference between groups being the type of PJT exercise. (C) Comparators include PJT exercises with different modes (e.g., vertical vs. horizontal; vertical vs. horizontal combined with vertical); (O) Considered outcomes (but not limited to): physiological, biomechanical, biochemical, psychological, performance-related outcomes/adaptations, or data on injury risk (from prevention-focused studies); (S) Single- or multi-arm, randomized (parallel, crossover, cluster, other) or non-randomized. RESULTS: Through database searching, 10,546 records were initially identified, and 69 studies (154 study groups) were included in the qualitative synthesis. The DJ (counter, bounce, weighted, and modified) was the most studied type of jump, included in 43 study groups, followed by the CMJ (standard CMJ or modified) in 19 study groups, and the SJ (standard SJ or modified) in 17 study groups. Strength and vertical jump were the most analyzed HPC outcomes in 38 and 54 studies, respectively. The effects of vertical PJT versus horizontal PJT on different HPC were compared in 21 studies. The effects of bounce DJ versus counter DJ (or DJ from different box heights) on different HPC were compared in 26 studies. CONCLUSIONS: Although 69 studies analyzed the effects of PJT exercise type on different HPC, several gaps were identified in the literature. Indeed, the potential effect of the PJT exercise type on a considerable number of HPC outcomes (e.g., aerobic capacity, flexibility, asymmetries) are virtually unexplored. Future studies are needed, including greater number of participants, particularly in groups of females, senior athletes, and youths according to maturity. Moreover, long-term (e.g., >12 weeks) PJT interventions are needed.
ABSTRACT
Core stability has a strong relationship with dynamic balance stability (DBS). The purpose of this review with meta-analysis was to analyse the effects of core training programmes from different studies on DBS. A literature search was performed using different databases. Subgroups analyses on duration, training frequency, total sessions, chronological age, training status, equipment and movements were performed. A random-effects model for meta-analyses was used. Thirteen studies were selected for the systematic review and 10 for the meta-analysis, comprising 226 participants. A moderate effect was noted for core training on DBS (p < 0.001; ES = 0.634). Greater DBS improvements were found in core training interventions with ≤6 weeks (ES = 0.714), after high volume (ES = 0.787) and more frequent interventions (ES = 0.787), as well as in younger participants (ES = 0.832). In addition, body weight exercises may be better than med ball, swiss ball or band resisted exercises. Core training improves DBS among athletes and a non-trained population, creating a more solid stable base that allows better lower extremity movements. This could be more effective considering different modulators ≤6 weeks intervention, >2 sessions per week, >17 total sessions, body weight core programmes and applied to ≤18.0 years old.