Accuracy of a vertical jump contact mat for determining jump height and flight time.

Several devices are available to measure vertical jump (VJ) height based on flight time, VJ reach height, or ground reaction forces. The purpose of this study was to determine the accuracy of a VJ mat for measuring flight time and VJ height compared with a VJ tester or a force plate. Seventeen men and 18 women (X ± SD; age = 20.9 ± 0.7 years, height = 176.1 ± 0.9 cm, weight = 72.6 ± 13.5 kg) served as subjects. Subjects performed counter-movement vertical jumps while standing on both a force plate (1,000 Hz) and a VJ mat. A Vertec VJ tester was used to measure jump reach. Compared with the force plate, the VJ mat reported greater VJ height (VJ mat = 0.50 ± 0.12 m, force plate = 0.34 ± 0.10 m) and flight time (VJ mat = 0.629 ± 0.078 seconds, force plate = 0.524 ± 0.077 seconds). Comparison of VJ heights from the VJ mat and the Vertec revealed no significant differences (Vertec = 0.48 ± 0.11 m). Regression analyses indicated strong relationships between testing methods and suggested that high VJ performances may be underestimated with the VJ mat. This particular VJ mat compared favorably with the Vertec but not the force plate. It seems that the different flight times derived from the VJ mat may permit the VJ mat to be in closer agreement with VJ heights from the Vertec. Also, the VJ mat may not be an appropriate tool for assessing high VJ performances (i.e., ≥0.70 m; ≈28 inches). Practitioners and researchers using similar VJ mats may not obtain accurate flight times and may underestimate high performers.

A reliable method for assessing rotational power.

Rotational core training is said to be beneficial for rotational power athletes. Currently, there has been no method proposed for the reliable assessment of rotational power. Therefore, our purpose was to determine the test-retest reliability of kinetic and kinematic rotational characteristics of a pulley system when performing a rotational exercise of the axial skeleton in the transverse plane to find out if this would be a reliable tool for evaluating rotational power. Healthy, college-aged men (n = 8) and women (n = 15) reported for 3 testing sessions. The participants were seated on a box, and they held the handle with both arms extended in front of their body, starting their motion with their torso rotated toward the machine. All the participants rotated their torso forcefully until they reached 180° of rotation, and they then slowly returned to the starting position, 3 times per trial, with 3 loads: 9% body weight (BW), 12% BW, and 15% BW. The repetition with the greatest power for each trial for each load was analyzed. The mean peak power repetition (watts) for all the subjects was 20.09 ± 7.16 (9% BW), 26.17 ± 8.6 (12% BW), and 30.74 ± 11.022 (15% BW) in the first training session and 22.3 ± 8.087 (9% BW), 28.7 ± 11.295 (12% BW), and 33.52 ± 12.965 (15% BW) in the second training session with intraclass correlation coefficients of 0.97 (9%BW), 0.94 (12%BW), and 0.95 (15%BW). When the participants were separated by sex, there were no significant differences between groups. Based on these results, it was found that a pulley system and an external dynamometer can be used together as a reliable research tool to assess rotational power.