Countermovement Jump Inter-Limb Asymmetries in Collegiate Basketball Players

Heishman, Aaron D.; Daub, Bryce; Miller, Ryan M.; Brown, Brady; Freitas, Eduardo; Bemben, Michael G.

doi:10.3390/sports7050103

Cited by 46 publications

(63 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…10 Two studies reported three different values for peak eccentric force, force at low position, and peak concentric force. 3,9 In both studies peak concentric force was highest, but confusingly peak eccentric force was higher than force at low position. Similarly, Aboodarba et al 8 reported peak concentric force to be higher than peak eccentric force but also reported force at the end of the eccentric phase to be lower than peak eccentric force.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 87%

“…There is much disparity in the literature on the occurrence of peak GRF relative to low position in CMJs with arms akimbo. Several studies have reported values for force at low position (zero velocity) and peak concentric (propulsive) force 3,8,9,12 . In these studies force at low position as a percentage of peak concentric force was 65%, 3 89%, 8 90%, 9 and 110% 12 .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…[4][5][6][7] Studies examining the biomechanics of akimbo CMJs often report peak braking (eccentric) and propulsive (concentric) forces among a list of metrics from the different phases of a CMJ. [8][9][10][11] In such studies the low position of center of mass (COM) during the countermovement represents the end of the braking phase and the start of the propulsive phase. One problem with reporting a distinct peak braking force and a distinct peak propulsive force is that peak vertical GRF may occur at the low point of the countermovement, and thus, peak braking and peak propulsive forces would be the same point.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These tests are typically performed with the hands on the hips (often referred to as akimbo) to eliminate the added momentum generated from arm swing 4‐7 . Studies examining the biomechanics of akimbo CMJs often report peak braking (eccentric) and propulsive (concentric) forces among a list of metrics from the different phases of a CMJ 8‐11 . In such studies the low position of center of mass (COM) during the countermovement represents the end of the braking phase and the start of the propulsive phase.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Several studies have reported values for force at low position (zero velocity) and peak concentric (propulsive) force 3,8,9,12 . In these studies force at low position as a percentage of peak concentric force was 65%, 3 89%, 8 90%, 9 and 110% 12 . Other studies have graphically displayed the GRF profile with indication of COM low position 4,10,12‐22 .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Is there a biomechanically efficient vertical ground reaction force profile for countermovement jumps?

McHugh

Hickok

Cohen

et al. 2020

Transl. Sports. Med.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this study was to determine whether countermovement jump (CMJ) metrics differed based on whether or not peak vertical ground reaction force (GRF) occurred at the lowest point of the countermovement (low position). CMJs from 100 athletes were categorized based on whether or not the peak force occurred at low position and whether they had unimodal or bimodal GRF profiles. CMJ metrics were compared between jump categories and between athletes with above average, average, and below average jump heights. Peak force occurred at low position in 52% of jumps. The majority of jumps were bimodal (78%) and in 73% of bimodal jumps the first peak was higher than the second peak. Both performance metrics (5% higher jump, 25% greater reactive strength index) and most braking phase metrics were superior for jumps in which peak force coincided with low position (P < .01). Peak force occurred at low position in 76% of above average jumps, 50% of average jumps, and 37% of below average jumps (P = .019). The optimal profile for CMJ performance is one in which peak force occurs at low position, regardless of whether it is unimodal or bimodal. This provides a qualitative means of identifying biomechanically efficient jumps.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 87%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Is there a biomechanically efficient vertical ground reaction force profile for countermovement jumps?

McHugh

Hickok

Cohen

et al. 2020

Transl. Sports. Med.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Comparisons of countermovement jump force profiles in youth athletes

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purposes of this study were to determine whether countermovement jump (CMJ) force profiles differ for jumps in which peak force occurred at the low position of the countermovement (LP) compared to jumps in which peak force did not occur at the low position of the countermovement (NLP), and compare relationships among CMJ and isokinetic metrics between groups. Thirty‐nine male and female youth athletes between 9‐ and 17‐year‐old participated. Participants completed CMJs and isokinetic knee extensions from 60 to 300°·s−1. Ground reaction forces were collected during CMJs to quantify unweighting, braking, propulsive, and performance metrics. Torque and power were quantified during all isokinetic knee extensions. Forty‐one percent of participants had LP force profiles, while 59% of participants had NLP force profiles. The LP group had more efficient unweighting and braking phase metrics than the NLP group, while the NLP group had greater isokinetic torque and power, and greater relationships between CMJ and isokinetic metrics, than the LP group. CMJs from the LP group represent more biomechanically efficient jumps than CMJs from the NLP group. Additionally, the NLP group may be more reliant on concentric force production during the CMJ, while the LP group may have more efficient storage and utilization of elastic energy.

show abstract