2013
DOI: 10.1519/jsc.0b013e318280d28e
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Comparison of Ground Reaction Force Asymmetry in One- and Two-legged Countermovement Jumps

Abstract: This study examined whether ground reaction force (GRF) asymmetry of 2-legged countermovement jumps (CMJ) is related to 1-legged CMJ asymmetry. The GRF asymmetry of a 2-legged CMJ has been suggested as a preferred test to the 1-legged CMJ for functional strength and power deficit assessment. Twenty-eight men and 30 women performed 5 trials each of a 1-legged CMJ with the right limband the left limb, and a 2-legged CMJ. Vertical GRFs were collected from each lower limb using 2 force platforms. Although several … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2

Citation Types

4
54
1
6

Year Published

2014
2014
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 53 publications
(65 citation statements)
references
References 19 publications
4
54
1
6
Order By: Relevance
“…For example, an individual may demonstrate greater K vert in the right limb during the bilateral drop jump but greater K vert in the left limb during the unilateral drop jump. Benjanuvatra et al (2013) reported similar findings for vGRF impulse asymmetries during bilateral and unilateral countermovement jumping, hypothesising that asymmetries during the bilateral jump were governed by a neural control mechanism in agreement with previous conclusions drawn by Simon and Ferris (2008). Ultimately, unilateral jumping performance is reliant solely on the forces transferred and generated through a single limb as opposed to an inter-limb "tradeoff" that is apparent during bilateral jumping.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 82%
“…For example, an individual may demonstrate greater K vert in the right limb during the bilateral drop jump but greater K vert in the left limb during the unilateral drop jump. Benjanuvatra et al (2013) reported similar findings for vGRF impulse asymmetries during bilateral and unilateral countermovement jumping, hypothesising that asymmetries during the bilateral jump were governed by a neural control mechanism in agreement with previous conclusions drawn by Simon and Ferris (2008). Ultimately, unilateral jumping performance is reliant solely on the forces transferred and generated through a single limb as opposed to an inter-limb "tradeoff" that is apparent during bilateral jumping.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 82%
“…However, bilateral tasks are becoming increasingly common in an attempt to evaluate injury risk (12) and the relative contribution of each limb is best evaluated using instrumented testing devices such as force platforms. In fact, previous research has concluded that the best predictor of vertical jump height is power normalized to body weight (19) or vertical impulse (2). Recent research has also observed poor association between asymmetries between double- and single-leg CMJs which suggests that both tasks are important for identification of asymmetry (2).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For example, Impellizzeri et al (14) measured ground reaction forces bilaterally during a countermovement jump (CMJ) in 313 male soccer players and observed an average asymmetry of 6%. While higher levels of asymmetry (10%) were observed in a physically active, but not highly trained, population (2). Further, the asymmetry in force during jumping was correlated with strength asymmetry, as measured by isometric leg press (r = .83) and isokinetic concentric knee extension torque (r = .48) (14).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 86%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…1,2 Specifically, the relationships between force production symmetry, injury, and performance seem to be a common interest. [3][4][5] The lack of ability to produce symmetrical movement patterns and the inability to produce force symmetrically have been indicated as risk factors for injury, but currently there remains some doubt due to a lack of direct evidence to support this claim.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%