ABSTRACT
Pages 1313-5, table 1, column 1: The cell entries in the 'Reference' column, which previously read.
ABSTRACT
The 30 second Wingate Anaerobic Test (WAnT) is the gold standard measure of anaerobic performance. The present investigation aimed to determine if a previous WAnT using one body region significantly affected a subsequent WAnT using a different body region. Twelve male university students (n = 12, 23 ± 2 years, 84 ± 16.1 kg, 178.5 ± 7.4 cm) volunteered to complete two repeated WAnT protocols (either lower body WAnT followed by an upper body WAnT or vice versa) on two separate testing occasions. The upper body WAnT was conducted on a modified electromagnetically braked cycle ergometer using a flywheel braking force corresponding to 5% bodyweight. The lower body WAnT was conducted on an electronically braked cycle ergometer using a flywheel braking force corresponding to 7.5% bodyweight. Participants had a 1 minute rest period for transition between WAnTs. Data are reported as mean ± standard deviation. No significant differences were identified in power indices for the lower body between 30 s WAnTs. When the upper body WAnT was performed 2nd, absolute peak power (p < 0.01), mean power (p < 0.001) and relative mean power (p < 0.001) were significantly lower compared to when the upper body WAnT was performed 1st. The value of maximum revolutions per minute was significantly lower (p < 0.001) when the upper body WAnT was performed after the lower body WAnT, compared to when it was performed 1st (193.3 ± 11.4 1st vs 179.8 ± 14.4 2nd). Previous upper body sprint exercise does not significantly affect lower body sprint exercise; however, previous lower body sprint exercise severely compromises subsequent upper body sprint performance.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The vertical jump (VJ) is considered a key indicator of lower limb explosive strength. Previous research has established that rate of force development and time to peak force are linked closely to athletic ability and hence the ability to extract these accurately is of significance. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study were to (1) review the literature to ascertain what methods are currently used to extract jump phases from the force platform data and (2) compare identified methods on neutral data. METHODS: In Part 1, an electronic search was conducted using PubMed, Central, and EBSCO host (January 1965 to April 2014). Articles were included if they (1) detailed how VJ phases from the force platform data were identified and (2) used only force platform data in the analysis. Additionally, study design and quality was independently examined. In Part 2, the three common methodologies identified were used to analyze a neutral pool of data to determine if any variance existed. RESULTS: For Part 1, a total of 19 studies met the inclusion criteria. Meta-analysis determined three methods of phase identification used in the literature from which to extract force-time variables. In Part 2, a one-way analysis of variance and Scheffe's post-hoc tests showed significant differences (p < 0.01) for force-time variables (eccentric phase time, concentric phase time, time to peak force, rate of force development) between methods. CONCLUSION: The results demonstrate that three common methods exist for determination of the VJ phases from force platform data. Consequently, each produce different values for force-time variables when used on a neutral data pool. There is a clear need for a robust agreed method for VJ analysis.
