Returners Exhibit Greater Jumping Performance Improvements During a Peaking Phase Compared With New Players on a Volleyball Team

Monitoring tests are commonly used to assess weightlifter’s preparedness for competition. Although various monitoring tests have been used, it is not clear which test is the strongest indicator of weightlifting performance. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to (1) determine the relationships between vertical jump, isometric mid-thigh pull (IMTP) and weightlifting performance; and (2) compare vertical jumps to IMTP as monitoring tests of weightlifting performance in a large cohort of male and female weightlifters. Methods: Fifty-two competitive weightlifters (31 males, 21 females) participated in squat and countermovement jump testing (SJ, CMJ), and IMTP testing performed on force plates. All laboratory testing data was correlated to a recent competition where the athletes had attempted to peak. Results: Squat jump height (SJH) was the strongest correlate for men and women with the Sinclair Total (r = 0.686, p ≤ 0.01; r = 0.487, p ≤ 0.05, respectively) compared to countermovement jump height (r = 0.642, p ≤ 0.01; r = 0.413, p = 0.063), IMTP peak force allometrically scaled to body mass (r = 0.542, p ≤ 0.01; r = −0.044, p = 0.851) and rate of force development at 200 ms (r = 0.066, p = 0.723; r = 0.086, p = 0.711), respectively. Further, SJH was a stronger correlate of relative weightlifting performance compared to IMTP peak force in females (p = 0.042), but not male weightlifters (p = 0.191). Conclusions: Although CMJ and IMTP are still considered strong indicators of weightlifting performance, SJH appears to be the most indicative measure of weightlifting performance across a wide-range of performance levels. Thus, SJH can be used as a reliable measure to monitor weightlifting performance in male and female weightlifters.

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 97%

Identifying a Test to Monitor Weightlifting Performance in Competitive Male and Female Weightlifters

Travis

Goodin

Beckham

et al. 2018

“…Countermovement vertical jump (CMJ) testing using a force platform is now routinely conducted across a variety of sporting domains, as well as in many sports science research studies [1]. This is because changes in CMJ strategy (i.e., the underpinning force and time characteristics before take-off) that either maintain or change jump height (JH) between testing occasions are thought to provide insight into neuromuscular function and fatigue [2,3]. However, the cost and the availability of other potentially more practical methods of assessing CMJ performance provide strength and conditioning practitioners with options to assess CMJ related parameters [4].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Validity of the Push Band 2.0 during Vertical Jump Performance

Lake

Augustus

Austin

et al. 2018

Self Cite

The Push Band has the potential to provide a cheap and practical method of measuring velocity and power during countermovement vertical jumping (CMJ). However, very little is known about whether it conforms to laboratory-based gold standards. The aim of this study was to assess the agreement between peak and mean velocity and power obtained from the belt-worn Push Band, and derived from three-dimensional motion capture, and vertical force from an in-ground force platform. Twenty-two volunteers performed 3 CMJ on a force platform, while a belt-worn Push Band and a motion capture system (a marker affixed to the Push Band) simultaneously recorded data that enabled peak and mean velocity and power to be calculated and then compared using ordinary least products regression. While the Push Band is reliable, it tends to overestimate peak (9–17%) and mean (24–27%) velocity, and when compared to force plate-derived peak and mean power, it tends to underestimate (40–45%) and demonstrates fixed and proportional bias. This suggests that while the Push Band may provide a useful method for measuring peak and mean velocity during the CMJ, researchers and practitioners should be mindful of its tendency to systematically overestimate and that its measures of peak and mean power should not be used.

“…Countermovement jump (CMJ) testing via force platform analysis is now commonplace across a variety of sports settings in addition to many sports science research studies [ 1 ]. The rationale for this type of assessment is that changes in jump strategy (i.e., the underpinning force and time characteristics) that lead to either changes in or maintenance of jump height (JH) are thought to provide insight into alterations in neuromuscular function, namely due to supercompensation or fatigue [ 2 , 3 ]. One simple method of describing the CMJ strategy is to report the time between the onset of the movement (i.e., the start of the unweighting phase [ 1 ]) and take-off (sometimes referred to as time to take-off [TTT] [ 4 ] or contraction time [CT] [ 5 ]) and JH, or alternative measures of JH like flight time (FT, time spent in the CMJ flight phase).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reliability of and Relationship between Flight Time to Contraction Time Ratio and Reactive Strength Index Modified

McMahon

Lake

Comfort

2018

Self Cite

Countermovement jump (CMJ) force-time testing is commonly used to monitor seasonal alterations in athletes’ CMJ strategy (to infer alterations in neuromuscular function). The flight time to contraction time (FT:CT) ratio and reactive strength index modified (RSImod) are considered to be two primary CMJ variables of interest. Due to similar calculations, it is likely that the FT:CT ratio and RSImod share similar reliability and an almost perfect relationship. Consequently, there may be no requirement to include both variables in CMJ monitoring reports. This study aimed to investigate this by recruiting twenty-five males to perform three CMJs on a force platform across two sessions that were separated by one week. The FT:CT ratio and two calculations of RSImod (based on the jump height from either flight time or take-off velocity) were then calculated using robust methods. The between-day reliability was good-excellent for all of the variables (95% confidence interval range of the coefficient of variation = 2.02–9.22%) with no significant between-day differences noted (p ≥ 0.231). There was an almost perfect positive relationship between the FT:CT ratio and RSImod regardless of the calculation method (r = 0.944–0.947, p < 0.001). As the FT:CT ratio and RSImod yield similar absolute reliability and share 90% of common variance, there is little reason to include both variables in CMJ monitoring reports.