Biomechanical study reveals distinct leg-spring hysteresis responses between elite and club-level athletes during drop jumps, indicating superior stretch-shortening cycle energy retention.
Leg-spring hysteresis, the mechanical energy dissipated within the force–length loop during ground contact, is a whole-limb, indirect indicator of stretch-shortening cycle (SSC) function. Whether international-level track-and-field and club-level multi-sport athletes differ in hysteresis responses to drop height, and whether hysteresis is associated with jump height, remains unclear. Here, 40 athletes (15 international-level, 25 club-level) performed bilateral (BLJ), dominant-leg (DOM), and non-dominant-leg (NDOM) drop jumps from 0.26 to 0.42 m. Hysteresis and jump height were computed from three-dimensional kinematics (500 Hz) and ground reaction forces. Group × drop-height interactions were significant for hysteresis in all conditions (partial eta-squared, η2p = 0.647, 0.507, 0.466; p < 0.001): international-level athletes became increasingly negative (net active energy contribution) at 0.42 m, whereas club-level athletes became positive (net dissipation). Between-group differences at 0.42 m were large (Cohen’s d = −1.73, DOM; −1.95, NDOM); jump height was also higher in international-level athletes (d = 1.14–1.77). Pooled, hysteresis was associated with jump height (coefficient of determination, R2 = 0.44–0.60), although caliber differences inflate this estimate, and within-group associations were weaker. Hysteresis discriminated reactive-jumping capacity beyond jump height alone; because competitive level was confounded with sport discipline and sex, these differences should not be attributed to caliber per se.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Köklü et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: