方程式之战:使用力平台计算跳跃高度的系统回顾

IF 9.3 1区 医学 Q1 SPORT SCIENCES
Ingrid Eythorsdottir, Øyvind Gløersen, Hannah Rice, Amelie Werkhausen, Gertjan Ettema, Fredrik Mentzoni, Paul Solberg, Kolbjørn Lindberg, Gøran Paulsen
{"title":"方程式之战:使用力平台计算跳跃高度的系统回顾","authors":"Ingrid Eythorsdottir, Øyvind Gløersen, Hannah Rice, Amelie Werkhausen, Gertjan Ettema, Fredrik Mentzoni, Paul Solberg, Kolbjørn Lindberg, Gøran Paulsen","doi":"10.1007/s40279-024-02098-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Vertical jump height measures our ability to oppose gravity and lower body neuromuscular function in athletes and various clinical populations. Vertical jump tests are principally simple, time-efficient, and extensively used for assessing athletes and generally in sport science research. Using the force platform for jump height estimates is increasingly popular owing to technological advancements and its relative ease of use in diverse settings. However, ground reaction force data can be analyzed in multiple ways to estimate jump height, leading to distinct outcome values from the same jump. In the literature, four equations have been commonly described for estimating jump height using the force platform, where jump height can vary by up to <span>\\(\\sim\\)</span> 15 cm when these equations are used on the same jump. There are advantages and disadvantages to each of the equations according to the intended use. Considerations of (i) the jump type, (ii) the reason for testing, and (iii) the definition of jump height should ideally determine which equation to apply. The different jump height equations can lead to confusion and inappropriate comparisons of jump heights. Considering the popularity of reporting jump height results, both in the literature and in practice, there is a significant need to understand how the different mathematical approaches influence jump height. This review aims to investigate how different equations affect the assessment of jump height using force platforms across various jump types, such as countermovement jumps, squat jumps, drop jumps, and loaded jumps.</p>","PeriodicalId":21969,"journal":{"name":"Sports Medicine","volume":"109 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Battle of the Equations: A Systematic Review of Jump Height Calculations Using Force Platforms\",\"authors\":\"Ingrid Eythorsdottir, Øyvind Gløersen, Hannah Rice, Amelie Werkhausen, Gertjan Ettema, Fredrik Mentzoni, Paul Solberg, Kolbjørn Lindberg, Gøran Paulsen\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s40279-024-02098-x\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Vertical jump height measures our ability to oppose gravity and lower body neuromuscular function in athletes and various clinical populations. Vertical jump tests are principally simple, time-efficient, and extensively used for assessing athletes and generally in sport science research. Using the force platform for jump height estimates is increasingly popular owing to technological advancements and its relative ease of use in diverse settings. However, ground reaction force data can be analyzed in multiple ways to estimate jump height, leading to distinct outcome values from the same jump. In the literature, four equations have been commonly described for estimating jump height using the force platform, where jump height can vary by up to <span>\\\\(\\\\sim\\\\)</span> 15 cm when these equations are used on the same jump. There are advantages and disadvantages to each of the equations according to the intended use. Considerations of (i) the jump type, (ii) the reason for testing, and (iii) the definition of jump height should ideally determine which equation to apply. The different jump height equations can lead to confusion and inappropriate comparisons of jump heights. Considering the popularity of reporting jump height results, both in the literature and in practice, there is a significant need to understand how the different mathematical approaches influence jump height. This review aims to investigate how different equations affect the assessment of jump height using force platforms across various jump types, such as countermovement jumps, squat jumps, drop jumps, and loaded jumps.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":21969,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Sports Medicine\",\"volume\":\"109 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":9.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Sports Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-024-02098-x\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"SPORT SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sports Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-024-02098-x","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SPORT SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

立定跳远高度衡量运动员和各种临床人群对抗重力和下半身神经肌肉功能的能力。立定跳远测试主要是简单、省时,广泛用于评估运动员和体育科学研究。由于技术的进步及其在不同环境中的相对易用性,使用测力平台估算跳跃高度越来越受欢迎。然而,地面反作用力数据可以通过多种方法进行分析以估算跳跃高度,从而得出同一跳跃的不同结果值。在文献中,通常描述了四种使用测力平台估算跳跃高度的方程,当这些方程用于同一跳跃时,跳跃高度最多可相差 15 厘米。根据预期用途,每种等式都各有利弊。考虑到(i)跳跃类型、(ii)测试原因和(iii)跳跃高度的定义,最好决定采用哪种等式。不同的跳跃高度方程会导致混乱和不恰当的跳跃高度比较。考虑到在文献和实践中报告跳跃高度结果的流行,有必要了解不同的数学方法是如何影响跳跃高度的。本综述旨在研究不同的方程如何影响使用测力平台对各种跳跃类型(如反身跳、蹲跳、落地跳和负重跳)的跳跃高度进行评估。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

The Battle of the Equations: A Systematic Review of Jump Height Calculations Using Force Platforms

The Battle of the Equations: A Systematic Review of Jump Height Calculations Using Force Platforms

Vertical jump height measures our ability to oppose gravity and lower body neuromuscular function in athletes and various clinical populations. Vertical jump tests are principally simple, time-efficient, and extensively used for assessing athletes and generally in sport science research. Using the force platform for jump height estimates is increasingly popular owing to technological advancements and its relative ease of use in diverse settings. However, ground reaction force data can be analyzed in multiple ways to estimate jump height, leading to distinct outcome values from the same jump. In the literature, four equations have been commonly described for estimating jump height using the force platform, where jump height can vary by up to \(\sim\) 15 cm when these equations are used on the same jump. There are advantages and disadvantages to each of the equations according to the intended use. Considerations of (i) the jump type, (ii) the reason for testing, and (iii) the definition of jump height should ideally determine which equation to apply. The different jump height equations can lead to confusion and inappropriate comparisons of jump heights. Considering the popularity of reporting jump height results, both in the literature and in practice, there is a significant need to understand how the different mathematical approaches influence jump height. This review aims to investigate how different equations affect the assessment of jump height using force platforms across various jump types, such as countermovement jumps, squat jumps, drop jumps, and loaded jumps.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Sports Medicine
Sports Medicine 医学-运动科学
CiteScore
18.40
自引率
5.10%
发文量
165
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Sports Medicine focuses on providing definitive and comprehensive review articles that interpret and evaluate current literature, aiming to offer insights into research findings in the sports medicine and exercise field. The journal covers major topics such as sports medicine and sports science, medical syndromes associated with sport and exercise, clinical medicine's role in injury prevention and treatment, exercise for rehabilitation and health, and the application of physiological and biomechanical principles to specific sports. Types of Articles: Review Articles: Definitive and comprehensive reviews that interpret and evaluate current literature to provide rationale for and application of research findings. Leading/Current Opinion Articles: Overviews of contentious or emerging issues in the field. Original Research Articles: High-quality research articles. Enhanced Features: Additional features like slide sets, videos, and animations aimed at increasing the visibility, readership, and educational value of the journal's content. Plain Language Summaries: Summaries accompanying articles to assist readers in understanding important medical advances. Peer Review Process: All manuscripts undergo peer review by international experts to ensure quality and rigor. The journal also welcomes Letters to the Editor, which will be considered for publication.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信