Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Background: The countermovement jump (CMJ) is an integral part of force and velocity profiling; a movement that is regularly implemented in training protocols and testing of athletic performance. Adding external loads to CMJs may have an added benefit for assessing gains in power and, in turn, monitoring progressive development. However, these added loads can displace the centre of mass of individuals, which may alter jump kinetics. Objectives: The study aimed to evaluate kinetics across various incremental modes of loading (barbell, trapezius barbell, and dumbbell) CMJs. Methods: Thirty-two male athletes (age: 19±2 years; height: 1.86±0.06 m, mass: 90.4±5.3 kg) completed three weighted CMJs (20, 40, 60 kg) across three bar-type modes of loading (barbell, trapezius barbell, and dumbbell). Jump metrics were measured using a wearable accelerometer. A repeated measures ANOVA was used to compare jump metrics (p<0.05). Results: The results indicated changes in jump kinetics as added loads increased across all bar-type jump modes (p<0.001). Additionally, jump modes yielded different jump kinetics (p<0.001). Specifically, dumbbell CMJs produced the greatest force (2559 ± 462 N) and power (4861±1632 W) outputs. In contrast, the trapezius barbell consistently produced significantly (p<0.001) higher velocity (2.52±0.44 m.s-1) and acceleration (12.59±4.49 m.s-2), with the barbell never producing the highest kinetic metrics. The athletes’ ranges of movement and comfort loading levels during the CMJs may be influential factors affecting vertical jump output metrics. Conclusion: Overall, jump kinetics were altered by loads and jump types. Practically, different loading methods may target distinct jump variables allowing for individualised training programs specific for the athletes’ needs.
Radulovic et al. (Thu,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: