一种新的验证方法的实验1的数据集显示了新的、可靠的理由,为什么垂直跳跃高度不应该用来预测腿部力量

IF 0.3 Q4 SPORT SCIENCES
L. Aragón-Vargas, M. I. González-Lutz
{"title":"一种新的验证方法的实验1的数据集显示了新的、可靠的理由,为什么垂直跳跃高度不应该用来预测腿部力量","authors":"L. Aragón-Vargas, M. I. González-Lutz","doi":"10.15517/pensarmov.v21i2.56206","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Jump height continues to be widely used to predict power in humans. Individual progress is often monitored on the basis of estimated power, but prediction equations are based on group data. The objective of the study was to show that vertical jump performance (VJP) and mechanical power are poorly associated, particularly within individuals. Two experiments are presented. First, 52 physically active male college students performed five maximal vertical jumps each. Second, three young male participants performed 50 maximal jumps each. Participants rested for 1 minute between jumps. VJP was calculated from kinematic data as peak body center of mass (BCOM) minus standing BCOM; peak power (PEAKPWR) was calculated from the vertical ground reaction force registered by a force plate, and average power (MEANPWR) during propulsion from the change in potential energy of BCOM. Regression analyses were performed using standardized VJP scores as the predictor variable and standardized power scores as the resulting variables, expecting an identity function of y = x (intercept = 0, slope = 1) and R2 = 1. In experiment 1, the model for zPEAKPWR R2 = 0.9707 (p < 0.0001) but slope (0.3452) ≠ 1  (p < 0.0001). The model for zMEANPWR R2 = 0.9239 (p < 0.0001); nevertheless, slope (0.4257) ≠ 1 (p < 0.0001). In experiment 2, all individual models for zPEAKPWR and zMEANPWR resulted in poor associations (R2 ≤ 0.21) and slopes ≠ 1 (p≤0.001). In conclusion, regression analysis for individuals, and even for groups, confirms that VJP is a poor predictor of mechanical power.","PeriodicalId":40746,"journal":{"name":"Pensar en Movimiento-Revista de Ciencias del Ejercicio y la Salud","volume":"13 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Dataset for experiment 1 of A novel validation approach shows new, solid reasons why vertical jump height should not be used to predict leg power\",\"authors\":\"L. Aragón-Vargas, M. I. González-Lutz\",\"doi\":\"10.15517/pensarmov.v21i2.56206\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Jump height continues to be widely used to predict power in humans. Individual progress is often monitored on the basis of estimated power, but prediction equations are based on group data. The objective of the study was to show that vertical jump performance (VJP) and mechanical power are poorly associated, particularly within individuals. Two experiments are presented. First, 52 physically active male college students performed five maximal vertical jumps each. Second, three young male participants performed 50 maximal jumps each. Participants rested for 1 minute between jumps. VJP was calculated from kinematic data as peak body center of mass (BCOM) minus standing BCOM; peak power (PEAKPWR) was calculated from the vertical ground reaction force registered by a force plate, and average power (MEANPWR) during propulsion from the change in potential energy of BCOM. Regression analyses were performed using standardized VJP scores as the predictor variable and standardized power scores as the resulting variables, expecting an identity function of y = x (intercept = 0, slope = 1) and R2 = 1. In experiment 1, the model for zPEAKPWR R2 = 0.9707 (p < 0.0001) but slope (0.3452) ≠ 1  (p < 0.0001). The model for zMEANPWR R2 = 0.9239 (p < 0.0001); nevertheless, slope (0.4257) ≠ 1 (p < 0.0001). In experiment 2, all individual models for zPEAKPWR and zMEANPWR resulted in poor associations (R2 ≤ 0.21) and slopes ≠ 1 (p≤0.001). In conclusion, regression analysis for individuals, and even for groups, confirms that VJP is a poor predictor of mechanical power.\",\"PeriodicalId\":40746,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Pensar en Movimiento-Revista de Ciencias del Ejercicio y la Salud\",\"volume\":\"13 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-08-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Pensar en Movimiento-Revista de Ciencias del Ejercicio y la Salud\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.15517/pensarmov.v21i2.56206\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"SPORT SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pensar en Movimiento-Revista de Ciencias del Ejercicio y la Salud","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15517/pensarmov.v21i2.56206","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"SPORT SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

跳跃高度继续被广泛用于预测人类的力量。个体的进度通常是根据估计的能力来监测的,但预测方程是基于群体数据的。该研究的目的是表明垂直跳跃性能(VJP)和机械动力之间的关系很差,特别是在个人中。给出了两个实验。首先,52名积极运动的男大学生每人做5个最大垂直跳。其次,三名年轻男性参与者每人做50个最大跳跃。参与者在跳跃之间休息1分钟。VJP由运动数据计算为峰值体质心减去静止体质心;峰值功率(peak pwr)由测力板记录的垂直地面反作用力计算,推进过程平均功率(MEANPWR)由BCOM势能变化计算。采用标准化VJP评分作为预测变量,标准化power评分作为结果变量进行回归分析,期望y = x(截距= 0,斜率= 1),R2 = 1的恒等函数。实验1中,zPEAKPWR模型R2 = 0.9707 (p < 0.0001),但斜率(0.3452)≠1 (p < 0.0001)。zMEANPWR模型R2 = 0.9239 (p < 0.0001);但斜率(0.4257)≠1 (p < 0.0001)。在实验2中,zPEAKPWR和zMEANPWR的所有单独模型都导致相关性差(R2≤0.21)且斜率≠1 (p≤0.001)。总之,对个体甚至群体的回归分析证实,VJP是机械功率的一个很差的预测因子。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Dataset for experiment 1 of A novel validation approach shows new, solid reasons why vertical jump height should not be used to predict leg power
Jump height continues to be widely used to predict power in humans. Individual progress is often monitored on the basis of estimated power, but prediction equations are based on group data. The objective of the study was to show that vertical jump performance (VJP) and mechanical power are poorly associated, particularly within individuals. Two experiments are presented. First, 52 physically active male college students performed five maximal vertical jumps each. Second, three young male participants performed 50 maximal jumps each. Participants rested for 1 minute between jumps. VJP was calculated from kinematic data as peak body center of mass (BCOM) minus standing BCOM; peak power (PEAKPWR) was calculated from the vertical ground reaction force registered by a force plate, and average power (MEANPWR) during propulsion from the change in potential energy of BCOM. Regression analyses were performed using standardized VJP scores as the predictor variable and standardized power scores as the resulting variables, expecting an identity function of y = x (intercept = 0, slope = 1) and R2 = 1. In experiment 1, the model for zPEAKPWR R2 = 0.9707 (p < 0.0001) but slope (0.3452) ≠ 1  (p < 0.0001). The model for zMEANPWR R2 = 0.9239 (p < 0.0001); nevertheless, slope (0.4257) ≠ 1 (p < 0.0001). In experiment 2, all individual models for zPEAKPWR and zMEANPWR resulted in poor associations (R2 ≤ 0.21) and slopes ≠ 1 (p≤0.001). In conclusion, regression analysis for individuals, and even for groups, confirms that VJP is a poor predictor of mechanical power.
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
24
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信