Optimal Loading Height: A Practical Research of Drop Jump from Biomechanics

Tong, Zehao; Chen, Wenjia; Xu, Hang; Zhai, Feng

doi:https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/4173639

Journal of Healthcare Engineering

On this page

Abstract Introduction Conclusions Data Availability Conflicts of Interest References Copyright Related Articles

Special Issue

Wearable Devices for Smart Healthcare

View this Special Issue

Research Article | Open Access

Volume 2022 | Article ID 4173639 | https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/4173639

Optimal Loading Height: A Practical Research of Drop Jump from Biomechanics

Zehao Tong,¹Wenjia Chen,¹Hang Xu,²and Feng Zhai¹

Academic Editor: Bhagyaveni M.A

Received10 Feb 2022

Revised22 Feb 2022

Accepted24 Feb 2022

Published15 Mar 2022

Abstract

Plyometrics training is paid great attention by coaches and researchers because of its significant effect on the level of lower limb explosive athletes. Many coaches and reseachers use the biomechanical methods to determine optimal loading height for drop jump. The researchers’ findings in determining optimal loading height were highly biased and were not applied effectively to training practices. This paper reviews the development process of optimal loading height in deep-jump training, combs the relevant concepts and biomechanical mechanisms of optimal loading height in deep-jump training, and looks forward to the future research.

1. Introduction

Plyometrics training has always been an important topic among coaches and researches. The drop jump is a core part of this training program. In the plyometrics training, biomechanical methods are applied to determine the optimal loading height for drop jump. It is an important approach to maximize the training effects, prevent sports injury, and realize evaluation and individualized training for the high-level athletes. In the movement of drop jump, the drop height when the average power output and reactive strength reach a peak is called as the optimal loading height [1, 2]. Besides, the optimal loading height in broad sense covers the drop jump drop height under the maximum values of indicators such as vertical counteracting force, utilization rate of lower limb resilience, and rebound height. Researches examine the relevancy between related indicators of optimal loading height (such as average power and reactive strength) and the sports performance on the basis of determining the optimal loading height of drop jump and select the loading height of drop jump according to the aforesaid relevancy, which can make the research findings applied in sports training more effective.

Drop jump (DJ) in plyometrics training is defined as an exercise of applying a force on the ground with the body weight of athletes, while optimal loading height of drop jump is confirmed to show a significant correlation with the biomechanical indicators collected from the drop jump. The optimal loading height of related drop jump training covers two aspects, namely, average power output and jump height when the reactive strength reaches a peak. Among the academic community, the ability of muscles to quickly absorb centrifugal pull and later generate centripetal force in the stretch-shorten cycle (SSC) is referred to as reactive strength [1]. The average power output is defined as the output of power within a unit of time [3]. Since the landing buffer in the process of drop jump and the later stage of stretch and jump, the muscles have finished a quick coupling from eccentric contraction to centripetal contraction, so drop jump is a typical movement in the SSC. Numerous literature studies have proven that reactive strength and average power output can be used to effectively evaluate the ground pressing duration and jump height during the stage of stretch in drop jump [1, 4]. Therefore, reactive strength and average power output are closely related with the generation of optimal loading height of drop jump. Though researchers have reached a consensus on the significant impact of optimal loading height for DJ on low limb explosive power, the researchers’ findings in determining the optimal loading height are highly biased. It has gradually become a focus of the researchers to improve the sports performance through an effective application of optimal loading height.

2. Method

In this study, all the evidence was collected from Web of Science. By the “topic search” in Web of Science, The keywords searched include “Plyometrics Training,” “Drop Jump,” “Stretch Shorten Cycle,” “Reactive Strength Index,” “Average Power Output,” etc.

3. Origin and Development of Optimal Loading Height for DJ

In 1968, Werschoshanskij initially defined the scope of drop jump loading height (0.9–2.2 m) and confirmed the optimal loading height for DJ at 0.75 m. According to the research, when the height of drop jump is 0.75 m⁶, it has the best training effect on lower limb explosive power. Later, other researchers carried out further researches and experiments based on the preliminary scope defined by Werschoshanskij and determined the optimal loading height for DJ based on the average power output. Scholars Robber et al [7] discovered that the average power output is maximum when the height for DJ is 0.2–0.4 m. When the height reaches 0.6 m, the vertical counteracting force during the stretch of lower limbs will reach a peak. They argued that the drop height for DJ shows a positive correlation with the vertical counteracting force and average power output, and there is an optimal loading height of vertical counteracting force and average power output when the drop height is 0.2–0.6 m⁷. Later, Lee et al. [6] reached a different conclusion. The experimental results indicated that when the drop height for DJ is 0.36 m, the vertical counteracting force reaches the peak, and the loading height for DJ under the maximum average power output is 0.12 m⁸. This discovery challenged the viewpoint of Bobbert et al. that vertical counteracting force and average power output will increase with the rise of loading height for DJ, which indicates that only under a reasonable loading height can muscles achieve the maximum vertical counteracting force and average power output. With the enriching of related research theories and popularization of plyometrics training, the US National Strength and Conditioning Association (2008), based on the conclusions of earlier researchers, suggested that exercisers should control the height scope for DJ training in 41–107 cm to avoid sports injury [7]. Later, Matic et al. verified the speculation of scholars such as Bobbert and found in studies that the loading height with the maximum average power output when the drop height of drop jump is 0.2–0.6 m. Based on the distinctive differences between the excellent group (0.62 m) and the ordinary group (0.32 m) with maximum strength in the heights of maximum average power output, they discovered that the maximum strength had a significant impact on the optimal loading height of average power output [2]. Giminiani and Petricola, based on an experiment of varying DJ heights at 0.2–0.6 m among male athletes, discovered that the maximum average power output [6] could be achieved when the DJ loading height was at 0.4 m.

3.1. Maximum Average Power Output

According to the relevant past studies on determining the DJ drop height of maximum average power output, the earlier studies (1968) focused on determining the optimal loading height of common DJ. Due to factors such as immature measurement means and shortage of theoretical reference, the drop height of maximum average power output was relatively high as recorded in earlier literatures (0.75 m). The primary reason is that according to the law of free falling body in mechanics, the movement for DJ is seen as an ideal model of free falling body converting the gravitational potential energy of human body into kinetic energy, which deems that the drop height and the average power output are always in a directly proportional relationship, but neglects the physiological property of muscles, and cannot control the DJ loading height within a small scope (0.9–2.2 m) [7]. Later, sports injury is caused to athletes due to the improper loading height in DJ training. In order to ensure the safety during training, researchers (1969–1994) kept decreasing the height scope for DJ training (0.2–0.6 m) and the loading height of maximum average power output had declined significantly (0.12–0.3 m) [7]. With the maturing of biomechanics measurement means and deepening of theoretical research, many studies had reduced the control of the DJ height scope. After the original dynamic signals were collected with the 3D dynamometric platform, the optimal loading height for DJ of the individuals (0.4–0.47 m) was accurately determined through quadratic polynomial regression analysis [9].

Since scholars such as Werschoshanskij proposed the theory of reactive strength [7, 10–12] and researchers such as Woo conducted in-depth research on the trainability of reactive strength through animal experiments [13–13], many researchers have made relevant explorations to determine the optimal loading height for DJ based on the indicators of reactive strength [13, 12, 14]. Byrne et al. formally defined optimal loading height and confirmed for the first time the optimal loading height of lower limb reactive strength at 0.3 m¹⁶. The optimal loading height (0.24 m) for the DJ reactive strength index determined by Barr and Nolte was consistent with the earlier research result, who discovered that reactive strength at the DJ height of 0.24 m showed a high reliability in the evaluation of 60-meter running performance (p < 0.001) [15]. Later, Byrne et al. determined the new optimal loading height of reactive strength (0.5 m) once again. The author discovered that the reactive strength at the DJ height of 0.5 m showed a relatively high reliability in evaluating the distance of throwing sport (ICC = 0.87), which can be taken as a basis for throwers to select materials [16]. Campillo et al. determined the optimal loading height for DJ of individual athletes with maximum reactive strength (0.2–0.4 m) and applied the optimal loading height of individuals in the seven-week training intervention that followed, which had significantly increased the speed of the athletes in the 20-meter acceleration running (P < 0.001,d = 0.25), which once again proved that the loading height for DJ at the maximum reactive strength showed a high reliability in evaluating the performance of short sprints [17]. However, Healy et al. questioned the reliability of the reactive strength for DJ in evaluating the performance of short sprints. The author believed that the indicators of reactive strength for DJ showed no significant correlation with the short sprint [4]. Boullosa adopted a warmup with the optimal loading height for DJ for athletes with reactive strength in the experiment. After triggering the Post-Activation Potentiation (PAP), it had shortened the time of 1,000-meter running (pre = 165.3 s, post = 162.4 s) and the time of the first 400 meters (pre = 40.3 s, post = 38.8 s) for male athletes. The performance of male athletes in the 1,000-meter running had not improved significantly, and the performance of female athletes in the 1,000-meter running had declined. For factors such as these, it had failed to prove in depth the reliability of the optimal loading height of reactive strength in evaluating the performance of 1,000-meter running [18].

3.2. Reactive Strength

Compared with average power output, researchers are less biased in the determination of optimal loading height of reactive strength. The theory on reactive strength indicators and relevant indicator formula has given rise to this trend. Academically, the reactive strength index is defined as the ratio between jump height and the length of supporting duration [1]. Reactive strength ratio is defined as one between the lengths of duration of flight and supporting duration [19]. Obtaining a higher rebound height or a shorter supporting duration in the DJ test is a precondition to maximize the reactive strength index and ratio. A series of earlier studies indicated that it will significantly lengthen the supporting duration after falling onto the ground if the drop height for DJ is too high [9, 20]. Therefore, researchers (2010–2018) usually adopted a relatively small scope for DJ drop height to test the optimal loading height of reactive strength (0.24–0.3 m), but the optimal loading height determined in some literature studies (2016) was higher (0.5 m), mainly because of differences of experimental subjects in such aspects as gender [21], sport events [22], and age [23]. A lot of literature studies has proven the high reliability of reactive strength during DJ in the evaluation of short sprints and throwing. Therefore, the reactive strength has gradually become an important indicator for the effective evaluation of the muscle performance during the stretch-shorten cycle.

4. Application of Optimal Loading Height for Drop Jump

Among the various means of plyometrics training, DJ is an important component of special physical training for athletes as well as a detection means for the lower limb explosive power of athletes. The determining of optimal loading height for DJ has prominent values to athletes in such aspects as physical training, personality assessment, and sports injury prevention. Therefore, relevant studies on optimal loading height for DJ are not only focused on typical stretch-shorten cycle sports such as sprint and jump but also in special physical training such as rugby, volleyball, and soccer. Though a lot of literature has reported the optimal loading height for DJ in different sports, only a very few of the researchers have applied the optimal loading height in training practice and achieved distinctive effects, which mainly cover intervention to DJ training with optimal loading height with reactive strength and improved the performance of 20 m and 1,000 m running. Earlier related conclusions still need to be further verified with intervention experiments later.

Various sport events selected and applied the optimal loading height for DJ. Byrne et al. [17] discovered based on reactive strength indicators that the optimal loading height of throwers was 0.5 m. Barr and Nolte [15] discovered that the height for maximum power output of high-level women’s rugby sport was 0.24 m. Zehao Tong et al. clarified that male high jumper also has the optimal height of reactive strength index (0.45 m) at four heights (0.3–0.75 m)⁴⁴.The literature report by researchers such as Campillo [17] showed that the height for maximum reactive strength of soccer players in DJ training was 0.2–0.4 m. In addition, on the loading heights for DJ among volleyball players, the researchers had put forward different viewpoints. Peng et al. based on the indicators of maximum vertical counteracting force on knee and ankle joints determined that the optimal loading height for DJ of male volleyball players was 50–100% of the CMJ height [24]. This indicates that relevant researches on ball players were mainly about skill-dominant competitions in the same court and net competitions focused on special physical training of the accelerating capacity over a short distance, which is related with the high reliability of optimal loading height reactive strength in DJ for evaluating the accelerating performance over a short distance.

Currently, the relevant studies on the determining of optimal loading height for DJ are mainly focused on biomechanics theoretical research, biomechanical characteristics analysis of athletes, detection of lower limb explosive power of athletes, and the impact factors of reactive strength on sports performance. There are three stages in the exploration of optimal loading height for DJ, namely, determining the common optimal loading height, determining the optimal loading height of sport items (groups), and determining the indicators of optimal loading height for individuals. In determining relevant indicators of DJ height, the researchers showed a trend of diversification. That is, there are great differences among related indicators of optimal loading height determined for various sport items. The relevant indicators of short stretch-shorten cycles (with a coupling duration <0.17 s) represented by high jump and long jump are, respectively, the utilization rate of lower limb resilience and the maximum duration of flight. In the case of long stretch-shorten cycles represented by 100-meter sprint (with a coupling duration >0.17 s), the optimal loading height for DJ is determined through the indicators of average power output and reactive strength. In the case of volleyball with a short stretch-shorten cycle, the optimal drop height for DJ is explored based on the indicators of stretch duration and vertical counteracting force [24]. The forming of this trend may be related with the differences of athletes of various sport items in their take-off techniques and nerve accommodation strategies during DJ and the selection of indicators with the highest association with sports performance in the DJ.

5. Biomechanical Mechanism of Optimal Loading Height for Drop Jump

The exact biomechanical mechanism for typical stretch-shorten cycle sports such as DJ has been quite clear; that is, in the mechanical model, the SSC is defined as a fast coupling where the series elastic matter in the muscle-tendon complex is passively pulled centrifugally to store a lot of elastic potential energy, which is unleashed through centripetal shortening [25–27].

However, researchers have not reached a consensus on how the optimal loading height for DJ is formed. That is, the forming of optimal loading height may be subject to various factors. On the one hand, neural feedforward and muscle preactivation play an important role in the SSC [28], which has been supported by the EMG experiment results of many studies [29–31]. Within an appropriate scope of loading height, in Figure 1, the H-reflex of soleus and M-wave will increase significantly until the optimal loading height reaches the peak. In the case of DJ finished at a height too high, the reduction of La afferent neural feedback of α motor neuron leads to the significant decline of H-reflex and M-wave of soleus (13.9 ± 7.6%; 8.3 ± 6.5%; p < 0.01) [21, 30, 31]. In addition, in the SSC, the H-reflex level of soleus is also subject to objective factors such as temperature [32], duration [33], and the stiffness of landing surface [34]. Within an appropriate scope of drop height, the muscle stretch load will increase with the increase of drop height. The regulation of reflex muscles such as muscle spindle will enhance the preactivation of muscle-tendon complex at the excited lower limbs, which is manifested as the higher stiffness of muscle-tendon complex and accumulation of more elastic potential energy [35]. When it exceeds the optimal loading height, due to the protection from upper spinal nerves, the muscle-tendon complex is protected from a high-load impact and the nerves are adapted to the strategy, the inhibition flow of muscle spindle will lower the preactivation of muscles [9], which is mainly manifested as lower stiffness of the muscle-tendon complex⁴³, the significant extension of supporting duration and the loss of the stored elastic potential energy.

On the other hand, the regulation of muscle stiffness by neural feedback and myotatic reflex in the SSC cannot be ignored. If the drop height of DJ is too high, the muscle-tendon complex will be prone to a bigger impact load and a faster traction. The inhibition effect of the Golgi complex will weaken the myotatic reflex of muscle-tendon complex, lower the activation level around the ankle joint muscle, and lower the stiffness of ankle joint [27], which can protect the muscle-tendon complex from injury under a high stress⁴³.

6. Conclusions

Though earlier studies have proven the superiority of optimal loading height for DJ in sports injury prevention and improvement of the explosive power training effect, due to the complexity of optimal loading height measurement for individuals and differences in biomechanical parameters among individuals and timeliness, the coaches have failed to apply the regularity of optimal loading height for DJ in the specific physical training of athletes.

Researchers need to study more optimal loading parameters and develop mature and comprehensive training plans for individuals according to the biomechanical indicators and characteristics of the research subjects. The differences among individuals in the training should be monitored with biomechanical technology, and the development of biomechanical technologies should be accelerated to realize individualistic testing and evaluation for the specific physical training of high-level athletes. [6–38].

Data Availability

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

E. P. Flanagan, W. P. Ebben, and R. L. Jensen, “Reliability of the reactive strength index and time to stabilization during depth jumps,” The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, vol. 22, no. 5, pp. 1677–1682, 2008.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. S. Matic, N. R. Pazin, and V. D. Mrdakovic, “Optimum drop height for maximizing power output in drop jump: the effect of maximal muscle strength,” The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, vol. 29, no. 12, pp. 3300–3310, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. B. Morin, P. Jimenez-Reyes, and M. Brughelli, “When jump height is not a good indicator of lower limb maximal power output: theoretical demonstration, experimental evidence and practical solutions,” Sports Medicine, vol. 49, no. 7, pp. 999–1006, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. Healy, I. C. Kenny, and A. J. Harrison, “Reactive strength index: a poor indicator of reactive strength?” International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, vol. 13, no. 6, pp. 802–809, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. F. Bobbert, P. A. Huijing, and G. J. van Ingen Schenau, “Drop jumping. II. The influence of dropping height on the biomechanics of drop jumping,” Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, vol. 19, pp. 339–346, 1987.
View at: Google Scholar
A. Lee and E. Fahmi, Optimal drop heights for plyometric training Ergonomics, vol. 37, pp. 101–110, 1994.
View at: Publisher Site
T. R. Baechie and R. W. Earle, Eds., Plyometric Training Essentials of Strength Training and ConditioningChampion,IL:Human Kinetics, Champaign, IL, USA, pp. 413–456, 2008, 2008, 2nd edition, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/298559742_Essentials_of_Strength_Training_and_Conditioning_2E.
R. Di Giminiani and S. Petricola, “The power output-drop height relationship to determine the optimal dropping intensity and to monitor the training intervention,” The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 117–125, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. V. Komi and A. Gollhofer, “Stretch reflexes can have an important role in force enhancement during SSC exercise,” vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 451–460, 1997.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Lesinski, O. Prieske, R. Beurskens, and D. G. Behm, “Effects of drop height and surface instability on neuromuscular activation during drop jumps,” Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, vol. 27, no. 10, pp. 1090–1098, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. Schmidsbleicher and A. Gollhofer, Einflussgrossen des reak-tiven Bewegungsverhaltens und deren Bedeutung Fur'die Sport-praxis Essentials of Strength Training and ConditioningChampion,IL:Human Kinetics in Buhrle M.(Hrsg:Grundlagen des MaximaJ-und Schnelkraft trainings, Verlag Karl Hofmann Scbordorf, Stuttgart, Germany, pp. 271–281, 1985.
L. Y. Woo, M. A. Gomez, D. Amiel, M. A. Ritter, and R. H. Gelberman, “The effects of exercise on the biomechanical and biochemical properties of swine digital,” Flexor Tendons, vol. 103, no. 1, p. 51, 1981.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. J. Byrne, K. Moran, and P. Rankin, “A comparison of methods used to identify 'optimal' drop height for early phase Adaptations in depth jump training,” vol. 24, no. 8, pp. 2050–2055, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. A. Cavagna and R. Margaria, Mechanic work in running Journal of Applied Physiology, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 249–256, 1964.
View at: Publisher Site
M. J. Barr and V. W. Nolte, “Which measure of drop jump performance best predicts sprinting speed?” The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, vol. 25, no. 7, pp. 1976–1982, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. J. Byrne, D. T. Browne, and P. J. Byrne, “Interday reliability of the reactive strength index and optimal drop height,” The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 721–726, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. Ramirez-Campillo, C. Alvarez, F. Garcia-Pinillos et al., “Optimal reactive strength index: is it an accurate variable to optimize plyometric training effects on measures of physical fitness in young soccer players?” The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 885–893, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. Boullosa, S. Del Rosso, D. G. Behm, and C. Foster, “Post-activation potentiation (PAP) in endurance sports: a review,” European Journal of Sport Science, vol. 18, no. 5, pp. 595–610, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. S. Thompson, S. Schabrun, and P. W. Marshall, “H-reflex excitability is inhibited in soleus, but, not gastrocnemius, at the short-latency response of a horizontal jump-landing task,” Human Movement Science, vol. 47, pp. 1–8, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. Laffaye, M. A. Choukou, N. Benguigui, and J. Padulo, “Age- and gender-related development of stretch shortening cycle during a sub-maximal hopping task,” Biology of Sport, vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 29–35, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Avela, J. Finni, and P. V. Komi, “Excitability of the soleus reflex arc during intensive stretch-shortening cycle exercise in two power-trained athlete groups,” European Journal of Applied Physiology, vol. 97, no. 4, pp. 486–493, 2006.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. M. Piirainen, V. Linnamo, and N. Sippola, “Neuromuscular function during drop jumps in young and elderly males,” Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology, vol. 22, no. 6, pp. 852–858, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. Hennessy and J. Kilty, “Relationship of the stretch-shortening cycle to sprint performance in trained female athletes,” The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 326–331, 2001.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. T. Peng, C. Y. Song, B. J. Wallace, T. W. Kernozek, M. H. Wang, and Y. H. Wang, “Effects of relative drop heights of drop jump biomechanics in male volleyball players,” International Journal of Sports Medicine, vol. 40, no. 13, pp. 863–870, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. Leukel, W. Taube, M. Gruber, M. Hodapp, and A. Gollhofer, “Influence of falling height on the excitability of the soleus H-reflex during drop-jumps,” Acta Physiologica, vol. 192, no. 4, pp. 569–576, 2008.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. Leukel, A. Gollhofer, and M. Keller, “Phase- and task-specific modulation of soleus H-reflexes during drop-jumps and landings,” Experimental Brain Research, vol. 190, no. 1, pp. 71–79, 2008.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Voigt, E. B. Simonsen, and P. Dyhre-Poulsen, “Mechanical and muscular factors influencing the performance in maximal vertical jumping after different prestretch loads,” vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 293–307, 1995.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Galindo, J. Barthelemy, M. Ishikawa et al., “Neuromuscular control in landing from supra-maximal dropping height,” Journal of Applied Physiology, vol. 106, no. 2, pp. 539–547, 2009.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
W. Taube, C. Leukel, and B. Lauber, “The drop height determines neuromuscular adaptations and changes in jump performance in stretch-shortening cycle training,” Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, vol. 22, no. 5, pp. 671–683, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Oksa, H. Rintamaki, S. Rissanen, S. Rytky, and U. Tolonen, “Stretch- and H-reflexes of the lower leg during whole body cooling and local warming,” Aviation Space & Environmental Medicine, vol. 71, no. 2, pp. 156–161, 2000.
View at: Google Scholar
V. Castaingts, A. Martin, and J. Van Hoecke, “Neuromuscular efficiency of the triceps surae in induced and voluntary contractions: morning and evening evaluations,” Chronobiology International, vol. 21, no. 4-5, pp. 631–643, 2004.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. Marquez, L. Morenilla, and W. Taube, “Effect of surface stiffness on the neural control of stretch-shortening cycle movements,” Acta Physiologica, vol. 212, no. 3, pp. 214–225, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
W. Taube, C. Leukel, and A. Gollhofer, “How neurons make us jump: the neural control of stretch-shortening cycle movements,” Exercise and Sport Sciences Reviews, vol. 40, no. 2, pp. 106–115, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. Dyhre‐Poulsen, E. B. Simonsen, and M. J. J. P. Voigt, “Dynamic control of muscle stiffness and H reflex modulation during hopping and jumping in man,” The Journal of Physiology, vol. 437, no. 1, pp. 287–304, 1991.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
F. Z. Zehao Tong, H. Xu, W. Chen, and J. Cui, “Variable heights influence lower extremity biomechanics and reactive strength index during drop jump: an experimental study of male high jumpers,” Journal of Healthcare Engineering, vol. 2021, Article ID 5185758, 7 pages, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. Healy, I. C. Kenny, and A. J. Harrison, “Assessing reactive strength measures in jumping and hopping using the optojump (TM) system,” Journal of Human Kinetics, vol. 54, no. 1, pp. 23–32, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Smirniotou, C. Katsikas, G. Paradisis, A. G. Polyxeni, E. Zacharogiannis, and S. Tziortzis, “Strength-power parameters as predictors of sprinting performance,” The Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness, vol. 48, no. 4, pp. 447–454, 2008.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Bauersfeld and G. Vob, Neue Wegeim Schnelligkeitstraining, Philippka, Münster, Germany, pp. 12–17, 1992.

Copyright

Copyright © 2022 Zehao Tong et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

PDF Download Citation

Download other formats

Order printed copies