Role of arm motion in the standing long jump

Ashby, Blake M.; Heegaard, Jean H.

doi:10.1016/s0021-9290(02)00239-7

Cited by 107 publications

(113 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Table 2 lists the average values of the take-off and landing variables for the jumps at the participant's preferred take-off angle. The values of jump distance, take-off speed, and take-off angle are similar to the values for physically active young men reported in other studies of the standing long jump (Aguado et al, 1997;Ashby & Heegaard, 2002;Horita et al, 1991;Izquierdo, Aguado, Ribas, Linares, Vila, Voces, Alvarez & Prieto, 1998). Figs.…”

Section: Video Analysissupporting

confidence: 87%

“…The magnitude and sequencing of the movements must ultimately project the jumper's centre of mass at high speed and at an appropriate angle to the horizontal. Studies of standing long jumps by adult males have yielded projection angles of 29-38º, but the biomechanical reasons for this choice of projection angle are not well understood (Aguado, Izquierdo, & Montesinos, 1997;Ashby & Heegaard, 2002;Horita, Kitamura, & Kohno, 1991). The purpose of the present study was to identify the optimum projection angle in the standing long jump and to explain the biomechanical rationale for this optimum angle.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 94%

“…All five participants elected to use a pronounced countermovement and a double-arm swing. Arm swing improves performance in a standing long jump by 10-20% above that produced without arm swing (Ashby & Heegaard, 2002;Davies & Jones, 1993). Each participant performed five maximum-effort standing long jumps at his preferred takeoff angle, and then twenty-five maximum-effort jumps at five other take-off angles that were "vertical (90°)" and "much higher", "higher", "lower", and "much lower" than his preferred take-off angle.…”

Section: Participants and Jumping Protocolmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The jumper also uses a coordinated forward and upward swing of the arms to increase his speed during the leg extension phase of the jump (Ashby & Heegaard, 2002). A simple model of the take-off was devised in an attempt to explain the observed decrease in take-off speed with increasing take-off angle (Fig.…”

Section: Take-off Speedmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Optimum take-off angle in the standing long jump

Wakai

Linthorne

2005

Human Movement Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this study was to identify and explain the optimum projection angle that maximises the distance achieved in a standing long jump. Five physically active males performed maximum-effort jumps over a wide range of take-off angles, and the jumps were recorded and analysed using a 2-D video analysis procedure. The total jump distance achieved was considered as the sum of three component distances (take-off, flight, and landing), and the dependence of each component distance on the take-off angle was systematically investigated. The flight distance was strongly affected by a decrease in the jumper's take-off speed with increasing take-off angle, and the take-off distance and landing distance steadily decreased with increasing take-off angle due to changes in the jumper's body configuration. The optimum take-off angle for the jumper was the angle at which the three component distances combined to produce the greatest jump distance. Although the calculated optimum take-off angles (19-27º) were lower than the jumpers' preferred take-off angles (31-39º), the loss in jump distance through using a sub-optimum take-off angle was relatively small. PsycINFO classification: 4010

show abstract

Section: Video Analysissupporting

confidence: 87%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 94%

Section: Participants and Jumping Protocolmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Take-off Speedmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Optimum take-off angle in the standing long jump

Wakai

Linthorne

2005

Human Movement Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It has been shown that jumping performance is improved with an arm swing in vertical jumps (Harman et al, 1990;Lees et al, 2004), and in horizontal jumps (Ashby and Heergard, 2002;Hara et al, 2008). Two main mechanisms were proposed by Harman et al (1990) for this performance improvement: that the energy generated by the shoulder musculature directly contributes to the energy of the jump; and that the accelerations of the arms cause the leg musculature to be forced into slower concentric conditions, allowing the production of greater torque.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Is a single or double arm technique more advantageous in triple jumping?

Allen

King

Yeadon

2010

Journal of Biomechanics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Triple jumpers employ either an asymmetrical 'single-arm' action or symmetrical 'double-arm' action in the takeoff of each phase of the jump. This study investigated which technique is more beneficial in each phase using computer simulation. Kinematic data were obtained from an entire triple jump using a Vicon automatic motion capture system. A planar 13-segment torque-driven subject-specific computer simulation model was evaluated by varying torque generator activation timings using a genetic algorithm in order to match performance data. The matching produced a close agreement between simulation and performance, with differences of 3.8%, 2.7%, and 3.1% for the hop, step, and jump phases respectively. Each phase was optimised for jump distance and an increase in jump distance beyond the matched simulations of 3.3%, 11.1%, and 8.2% was obtained for the hop, step, and jump respectively. The optimised technique used symmetrical shoulder flexion whereas the triple jumper had used an asymmetrical arm technique. This arm action put the leg extensors into slower concentric conditions allowing greater extensor torques to be produced. The main increases in work came at the joints of the stance leg but the largest increases in angular impulse came at the shoulder joints, indicating the importance of both measures when assessing the impact of individual joint actions on changes in technique. Possible benefits of the double-arm technique include: cushioning the stance leg during impact; raising the centre of mass of the body at takeoff; facilitating an increase in kinetic energy at takeoff; allowing a re-orientation of the body during flight.

show abstract

Limb preference impacts single‐leg forward hop limb symmetry index values following ACL reconstruction

Farmer

Anderson²,

Katsavelis

et al. 2021

Journal Orthopaedic Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Following anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction limb dominance for performing tasks is not considered when making rehabilitation progression decisions. The purpose of this study was to determine if strength and functional outcomes differ between individuals who injured their preferred or nonpreferred jumping limb and to determine if these same outcomes differ between individuals who injured their preferred or nonpreferred limb used to kick a ball. A secondary purpose was to determine the association of quadriceps strength and single-leg forward hop performance with patient self-reported function. Forty individuals with ACL reconstruction (age = 20.0 ± 4.6 years, height = 174.2 ± 12.7 cm, mass = 71.2 ± 12.7 kg, time since surgery = 5.3 ± 0.8 months) were included in the study. Primary outcome measures included, International Knee Documentation Committee Subjective Knee Form (IKDC) scores, quadriceps limb symmetry index (LSI) values, and single-leg forward hop LSI values. Limb preference was defined two ways, kicking a ball and performing a unilateral jump. There were no significant differences between groups based on injury to the preferred limb to kick a ball for any of the outcome variables. Individuals who injured their nonpreferred jumping limb demonstrated significantly (p = 0.05, d = 0.77) lower single-leg forward hop LSI values (81.1% ± 19.5%) compared to individuals who injured their preferred jumping limb (94.1% ± 12.6%), but demonstrated no differences in IKDC scores or quadriceps LSI values. Quadriceps LSI and single-leg forward hop LSI explained 73% of the variance in IKDC scores, but quadriceps LSI had the strongest association (r = 0.790). These findings suggests that limb preference influences single forward hop LSI values and should be considered following ACL reconstruction.

show abstract

Role of arm motion in the standing long jump

Cited by 107 publications

References 11 publications

Optimum take-off angle in the standing long jump

Optimum take-off angle in the standing long jump

Is a single or double arm technique more advantageous in triple jumping?

Limb preference impacts single‐leg forward hop limb symmetry index values following ACL reconstruction

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About