Robin Healy

The effects of a unilateral gluteal activation protocol on single leg drop jump performance

Warm-up protocols are commonly used to acutely enhance the performance of dynamic activities. This study examined the acute effect of low-load gluteal exercises on the biomechanics of single-leg drop jumps. Eight men and seven women (18–22 years old) performed 10 single-leg drop jumps on three separate days. The gluteal exercises were performed within the warm-up on day 2. Contact time, flight time, peak vertical ground reaction force (GRF), rate of force development, vertical leg-spring stiffness, and reactive strength index were determined. A repeated measures analysis of variance was used to examine differences on all variables across days. Significant differences were found for contact time, peak GRF, and flight time between days 1 and 2 and for flight time between days 1 and 3 (p ≤ 0.05) with no significant difference in any variables between days 2 and 3. This suggested that the improvements in day 2 were due to practice effects rather than the gluteal activation exercises. In addition, a typical error analysis was used to determine individual responses to the gluteal exercises. The results using this analysis showed no discernible response pattern of enhancement or fatigue for any participant.

Assessing Reactive Strength Measures in Jumping and Hopping Using the Optojump™ System

Abstract The aim of this study was to assess the concurrent validity of the Optojump™ system (Microgate, Bolzano, Italy) versus a force platform in the estimation of temporal and reactive strength measures. In two separate investigations, twenty physically active males performed double-leg and single-leg drop jumps from a box height of 0.3 m and a 10 s vertical bilateral hopping test. Contact time, flight time and total time (the sum of contact and flight time) were concurrently assessed during single and double-leg drop jumps and during hopping. Jump height, the reactive strength index and the reactive strength ratio were also calculated from contact time and flight time. Despite intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) for all variables being close to 1 (ICC > 0.975), a significant overestimation was found in contact time (0.005 ± 0.002 s) and underestimations in flight time (0.005 ± 0.003 s), the reactive strength index (0.04 ± 0.02 m·s-1) and the reactive strength ratio (0.07 ± 0.04). Overestimations in contact time and underestimations in flight time were attributed to the physical design of the Optojump™ system as the transmitter and receiver units were positioned 0.003 m above the floor level. The Optojump™ demonstrated excellent overall temporal validity with no differences found between systems for total time. Coaches are advised to be consistent with the instrumentation used to assess athletes, however, in the case of comparison between reactive strength values collected with the Optojump™ and values collected with a force platform, regression equations are provided.

Reactive Strength Index: A Poor Indicator of Reactive Strength?

PURPOSE To assess the relationships between reactive strength measures and associated kinematic and kinetic performance variables achieved during drop jumps. A secondary aim was to highlight issues with the use of reactive strength measures as performance indicators. METHODS Twenty-eight national- and international-level sprinters, 14 men and 14 women, participated in this cross-sectional analysis. Athletes performed drop jumps from a 0.3-m box onto a force platform with dependent variables contact time (CT), landing time, push-off time, flight time, jump height (JH), reactive strength index (RSI, calculated as JH/CT), reactive strength ratio (RSR, calculated as flight time/CT), and vertical leg-spring stiffness recorded. RESULTS A Pearson correlation test found very high to near-perfect relationships between RSI and RSR (r = .91-.97), with mixed relationships between RSI, RSR, and the key performance variables (men: r = -.86 to -.71 between RSI/RSR and CT, r = .80-.92 between RSI/RSR and JH; women: r = -.85 to -.56 between RSR and CT, r = .71 between RSI and JH). CONCLUSIONS The method of assessing reactive strength (RSI vs RSR) may be influenced by the performance strategies adopted, that is, whether athletes achieve their best reactive strength scores via low CTs, high JHs, or a combination. Coaches are advised to limit the variability in performance strategies by implementing upper and/or lower CT thresholds to accurately compare performances between individuals.