The relationship between vertical stiffness during bilateral and unilateral hopping tests performed with different strategies and vertical jump performances.

Vertical stiffness has been highlighted as a potential determinant of performance and may be estimated across a range of different performance tasks. The aim of the current study was to investigate the relationship between vertical stiffness determined during 9 different hopping tests and performance of vertical jumps. Twenty healthy, active males performed vertical hopping tests with three different strategies (self-selected, maximal, and controlled) and three different limb configurations (bilateral, unilateral preferred, and unilateral non-preferred), resulting in nine different variations, during which vertical stiffness was determined. In addition, participants performed squat jump (SQJ) and countermovement jump (CMJ) during which jump height, CMJ stiffness, and eccentric utilization ratio (EUR) were determined. Vertical stiffness in bilateral and unilateral preferred tasks performed with a self-selected and maximal, but not controlled, strategy was associated with stiffness in the CMJ (r = 0.61-0.64; p < 0.05). However, stiffness obtained during unilateral preferred and non-preferred hopping with self-selected strategy was negatively associated with performance in SQJ and CMJ tasks (r = -0.50 to -0.57; p < 0.05). These findings suggest that high levels of vertical stiffness may be disadvantageous to static vertical jumping performance. In addition, unilateral hopping with a self-selected strategy may be the most appropriate task variation if seeking to determine relationships with vertical jumping performance.Highlights Stiffness obtained during unilateral hopping with a preferred strategy was negatively associated with vertical jumping performancesStiffness obtained during hopping with preferred and maximal strategies was associated with stiffness obtained during a countermovement jumpIn this population, hopping stiffness may therefore be reflective of an individual's countermovement jump strategyHigh levels of stiffness may be disadvantageous to static-start vertical jumping.

Effects of a band loop on muscle activity and dynamic Knee valgus during pedaling.

BACKGROUND: Change in the lower extremity alignments in the frontal plane and muscle activation patterns have been associated with lower extremity injuries. Therefore, to prevent injuries, many therapeutic protocols focus on find ways to correct dynamic knee valgus (DKV). METHODS: Thirty-one recreational male cyclists with DKV (26.4 ±â€¯4.5 years, 176.63 ±â€¯7.51 cm, 75.81 ±â€¯9.29 kg, 23.20 ±â€¯4.15 kg/m2) volunteered to participate in this study. Simultaneous recordings of kinematic and electromyography data were performed on ten consecutive pedal cycles which began during the last 30 seconds of each four test condition: with band at 0.5 kg workload, with band at 2 kg workload, without band at 0.5 kg workload, and without band at 2 kg workload. The paired t-test was used for statistical analysis (p < 0.05). RESULTS: The results indicated significant differences in VM (band = 0.029, no band = 0.031) and VL (band = 0.015, no band = 0.035) activation between workloads in each condition. Also there were significant differences in Gmed activation (0.5kg = 0.001, 2kg = 0.037), onset of Gmed (0.5kg = 0.048, 2kg = 0.012), offset of Gmed (0.5kg = 0.048, 2kg = 0.015), TFL activation (0.5kg = 0.001, 2kg = 0.041) and offset of TFL (0.5kg = 0.078, 2kg = 0.005) between the band and no band conditions. There was no different significant in VM/VL ratio between in each of four testing conditions (p > 0.05). The Gmed/TFL ratio was significantly greater in band condition than no band at both 0.5 (p = 0.045) and 2 kg (p = 0.001) workload. Knee abduction angle was affected by the band loop during the pedaling at two different workloads (0.5 kg: p = 0.047, 2 kg: p = 0.021) but mean (p = 0.027) and peak (p = 0.033) knee abduction angle significantly increased with increasing workload during the pedaling with band loop. CONCLUSIONS: pedaling with the band loop can be considered as an effective method to increase the Gmed, Gmed/TFL ratio and control of DKV but increasing the workload during pedaling must be done with caution to prevent DKV.