ABSTRACT
Plyometric training is a popular method utilized by strength and conditioning professionals to improve aspects of functional strength. The purpose of this study was to explore the influence of extrinsic verbal cueing on the specificity of jumping movements. Thirteen participants (age: 23.4 ± 1.9 yr, body height: 170.3 ± 15.1 cm, body mass: 70.3 ± 23.8 kg,) performed four types of jumps: a depth jump "as quickly as possible" (DJT), a depth jump "as high as possible" (DJH), a countermovement jump (CMJ), and a squat jump (SJ). Dependent measures, which included measurement of strength and power, were acquired using a force platform. From the results, differences in body-weight normalized peak force (BW) (DJH: 4.3, DJT: 5.6, CMJ: 2.5, SJ: 2.2), time in upward propulsion (s) (DJH: 0.34, DJT: 0.20, CMJ: 0.40, SJ: 0.51), and mean acceleration (m·s-2) (DJH: 26.7, DJT: 36.2, CMJ: 19.8, SJ: 17.3) were observed across all comparisons (p = 0.001 - 0.033). Differences in the body-weight normalized propulsive impulse (BW·s) (DJH: 0.55, DJT: 0.52, CMJ: 0.39, SJ: 0.39) and propulsive power (kW) (DJH: 13.7, DJT: 16.5, CMJ: 11.5, SJ: 12.1) were observed across all comparisons (p = 0.001 - 0.050) except between the CMJ and SJ (p = 0.128 - 0.929). The results highlight key kinetic differences influencing the specificity of plyometric movements and suggest that verbal cues may be used to emphasize the development of reactive strength (e.g. DJT) or high-velocity concentric power (e.g. DJH).
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To determine if pelvic posture, hip, and knee positions influence range of motion about the ankle joint. STUDY DESIGN: Quasi-experimental repeated measures. SETTING: Biomechanics laboratory in a university setting. PARTICIPANTS: Eleven men and six women free of ankle joint trauma. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Range of motion about the ankle joint. RESULTS: ANOVA revealed a significant difference for position main effect on ankle joint range of motion (p=0.01). Post-hoc tests revealed that ankle joint range of motion significantly decreased as participants moved from flexion (i.e., 90 degrees hip and 90 degrees knee), to supine, and to long sitting (47.3 degrees , 38.8 degrees , and 16.4 degrees ; p<0.05). No significant differences were revealed for pelvic posture (p=0.64). CONCLUSIONS: These findings indicate that pelvic posture may not influence ankle joint range of motion regardless of hip and knee joint positions. However, the combination of hip flexion and knee extension (i.e., long sitting) produces the greatest deficits in ankle joint range of motion.
