Effect of Barbell Load on Vertical Jump Landing Force-Time Characteristics.

ABSTRACT: Lake, JP, Mundy, PD, Comfort, P, McMahon, JJ, Suchomel, TJ, and Carden, P. Effect of barbell load on vertical jump landing force-time characteristics. J Strength Cond Res 35(1): 25-32, 2021-The aim of this study was to quantify the effect that barbell load has on the jump height and force-time characteristics of the countermovement jump (CMJ). Fifteen strength-trained men (mean ± SD: age 23 ± 2 years, mass 84.9 ± 8.1 kg, and height 1.80 ± 0.05 m) performed 3 CMJs with no additional load, and with barbell loads of 25, 50, 75, and 100% of body mass on 2 force plates recording at 1,000 Hz. Propulsion and landing force-time characteristics were obtained from force-time data and compared using analysis of variance and effect sizes. Jump height decreased significantly as load increased (26-71%, d = 1.80-6.87). During propulsion, impulse increased with load up to 75% of body mass (6-9%, d = 0.71-1.08), mean net force decreased (10-43%, d = 0.50-2.45), and time increased (13-50%, d = 0.70-2.57). During landing, impulse increased as load increased up to 75% of body mass (5 to 12%, d = 0.54-1.01), mean net force decreased (13-38%, d = 0.41-1.24), and time increased (20-47%, d = 0.65-1.47). Adding barbell load to CMJ significantly decreases CMJ height. Furthermore, CMJ with additional barbell load increases landing phase impulse. However, while mean net force decreases as barbell load increases, landing time increases so that jumpers are exposed to mechanical load for longer. Practitioners should exercise caution when implementing loaded CMJ to assess their athletes.

A systematic review of the discriminating biomechanical parameters during the single leg squat.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether there are common biomechanical parameters when analysing the single leg squat movement to compare pathological and non-pathological groups and whether these parameters are able to effectively distinguish between groups. METHODS: Five electronic databases were searched using MESH terms, keywords and phrases across four constructs: squat, biomechanical measures, region of interest, study design. Studies were selected based on inclusion of a quantitative biomechanical measure, compared between a pathological and a non-pathological group, and participants performed a single leg squat movement. RESULTS: Fifteen studies were included and reviewed, where the majority of studies investigated patellofemoral pain. There was considerable variation in the biomechanical outcome measure used to compare between groups. The frontal plane projection angle was the most commonly reported measure. There was considerable variation in the manner in which the single leg squat was performed. CONCLUSION: Due to variation in how the single leg squat was performed, it was not possible to determine specific biomechanical parameters that distinguish between pathological and non-pathological groups. Frontal plane projection angle appeared to be a parameter that could be effectively utilised. Standardisation of the single leg squat movement is needed to allow comparison between studies of pathological and non-pathological groups.

Concurrent Validity of a Portable Force Plate Using Vertical Jump Force-Time Characteristics.

This study examined concurrent validity of countermovement vertical jump reactive strength index modified and force-time characteristics recorded using a 1-dimensional portable and laboratory force plate system. Twenty-eight men performed bilateral countermovement vertical jumps on 2 portable force plates placed on top of 2 in-ground force plates, both recording vertical ground reaction force at 1000 Hz. Time to takeoff; jump height; reactive strength index modified; and braking and propulsion impulse, mean net force, and duration were calculated from the vertical force from both force plate systems. Results from both systems were highly correlated (r ≥ .99). There were small (d < 0.12) but significant differences between their respective braking impulse, braking mean net force, propulsion impulse, and propulsion mean net force (P < .001). However, limits of agreement yielded a mean value of 1.7% relative to the laboratory force plate system (95% confidence limits, 0.9%-2.5%), indicating very good agreement across all of the dependent variables. The largest limits of agreement were for jump height (2.1%), time to takeoff (3.4%), and reactive strength index modified (3.8%). The portable force plate system provides a valid method of obtaining reactive strength measures, and several underpinning force-time variables, from unloaded countermovement vertical jump. Thus, practitioners can use both force plates interchangeably.

Agreement between the force platform method and the combined method measurements of power output during the loaded countermovement jump.

There are two perceived criterion methods for measuring power output during the loaded countermovement jump (CMJ): the force platform method and the combined method (force platform + optoelectronic motion capture system). Therefore, the primary aim of the present study was to assess agreement between the force platform method and the combined method measurements of peak power and mean power output during the CMJ across a spectrum of loads. Forty resistance-trained team sport athletes performed maximal effort CMJ with additional loads of 0 (body mass only), 25, 50, 75 and 100% of body mass (BM). Bias was present for peak velocity, mean velocity, peak power and mean power at all loads investigated, and present for mean force up to 75% of BM. Peak velocity, mean velocity, peak power and mean power 95% ratio limits of agreement were clinically unacceptable at all loads investigated. The 95% ratio limits of agreement were widest at 0% of BM and decreased linearly as load increased. Therefore, the force platform method and the combined method cannot be used interchangeably for measuring power output during the loaded CMJ. As such, if power output is to be meaningfully investigated, a standardised method must be adopted.

Force and acceleration characteristics of military foot drill: implications for injury risk in recruits.

BACKGROUND: Foot drill involving marching and drill manoeuvres is conducted regularly during basic military recruit training. Characterising the biomechanical loading of foot drill will improve our understanding of the contributory factors to lower limb overuse injuries in recruits. AIM: Quantify and compare forces, loading rates and accelerations of British Army foot drill, within and between trained and untrained personnel. METHODS: 24 trained soldiers (12 men and 12 women; TRAINED) and 12 civilian men (UNTRAINED) performed marching and five drill manoeuvres on force platforms; motion capture recorded tibial position. Peak vertical impact force (PF), peak vertical loading rate (PLR), expressed as multiples of body weight (BW) and peak tibial impact acceleration (PTA) were recorded. RESULTS: Drill manoeuvre PF, PLR and PTA were similar, but higher in TRAINED men (PF, PLR: p<0.01; PTA: p<0.05). Peak values in TRAINED men were shown for the halt (mean (SD); PF: 6.5 (1.5) BW; PLR: 983 (333) BW/s PTA; PTA: 207 (57) m/s2) and left turn (PF: 6.6 (1.7) BW; PLR: 928 (300) BW/s; 184 (62) m/s2). Marching PF, PLR, PTA were similar between groups and lower than all drill manoeuvres (PF: 1.1-1.3 BW; PLR: 42-70 BW/s; p<0.01; PTA: 23-38 m/s2; p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Army foot drill generates higher forces, loading rates and accelerations than activities such as running and load carriage, while marching is comparable to moderate running (10.8 km/h). The large biomechanical loading of foot drill may contribute to the high rate of overuse injuries during initial military training, and strategies to regulate/reduce this loading should be explored.

Wearing knee wraps affects mechanical output and performance characteristics of back squat exercise.

The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of wearing knee wraps on mechanical output and performance characteristics of back squat exercise. Ten resistance trained men (back squat 1 repetition maximum [1RM]: 160.5 ± 18.4 kg) performed 6 single back squats with 80% 1RM, 3 wearing knee wraps, 3 without. Mechanical output was obtained from ground reaction force, performance characteristics from digitized motion footage obtained from a single high-speed digital camera. Wearing knee wraps led to a 39% reduction (0.09 compared with 0.11 m, p = 0.037) in horizontal barbell displacement that continued during the lifting phase. Lowering phase vertical impulse remained within 1% across conditions; however, the lowering phase was performed 45% faster (1.13 compared with 1.57 seconds). This demonstrated that vertical force applied to the center of mass during the lowering phase was considerably larger and was likely a consequence of the generation and storage of elastic energy within the knee wrap. Subsequent vertical impulse applied to the center of mass was 10% greater (192 compared with 169 N·s, p = 0.018). Mechanical work involved in vertically displacing the center of mass was performed 20% faster and was reflected by a 10% increase in peak power (2,121 compared with 1,841 W, p = 0.019). The elastic properties of knee wraps increased mechanical output but altered back squat technique in a way that is likely to alter the musculature targeted by the exercise and possibly compromise the integrity of the knee joint. Knee wraps should not be worn during the strength and condition process, and perceived weakness in the knee joint should be assessed and treated.