Literature DB >> 20581706

The acute effect of whole-body low-frequency vibration on countermovement vertical jump performance in college-aged men.

Hugh S Lamont1, Joel T Cramer, Debra A Bemben, Randa L Shehab, Mark A Anderson, Michael G Bemben.   

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to examine the acute effects of whole-body vibration on jump performance. A total of 21 college-aged men, 18-30 years, recreationally resistance trained, were exposed to a total of 4 different acute whole-body low-frequency vibration (WBLFV) protocols (conditions 1-4), performing 2 protocols per testing session in random order. Exposures were all performed using high-amplitude (peak-peak 4-6 mm) and either 30 or 50 Hz for 30 continuous seconds, or 3 exposures of 10 seconds with 1 minute between exposures. Three countermovement vertical jumps (CMVJs) were performed before vibration (testing phase 1 or Tp1 and J1 the highest of 3 attempts) and at 3 separate time points postvibration (Tp2-4). Jump height (cm), peak power (Pmax), peak power per kilogram of body mass (Pmax kg), mean power (Pav), and mean velocity (Vav) were recorded. Repeated measures analysis of variance and analysis of covariance revealed no significant condition (C) or jump (J) differences for CMVJ height (cm) (p > 0.05). Analysis of percent change (Δ%) for CMVJ height (cm) revealed a significant Condition × Jump interaction, C4, J3 > C1, J3 (p = 0.009, mean diff 4.12%). Analysis of Pmax and Pmax kg revealed no significant Condition, Jump, or Condition × Jump interaction for the raw data or percent change (p > 0.05). Analysis of Pav (W) revealed significant differences for Condition (p = 0.031) but not for Jump (p = 0.226). There was a strong trend toward significance for Condition × Jump interaction (p = 0.059). C4 > C3 (p = 0.043, mean diff 23.78 W) and C1 (p = 0.038, mean diff 32.03 W). Analysis of Vav (m·s) revealed no significant main effects for Condition or Jump (p > 0.05) but found a significant Condition × Jump interaction (p = 0.007). C4, J6 > C2, J6 (p = 0.014, mean diff 0.05 m·s), and C3, J6 (p = 0.020, 0.05 m·s). WBLFV applied intermittently using 50 Hz appears to be more effective than other protocols using 30 and 50 Hz in facilitating select measures of CMVJ performance over a 17-minute time period post-WBLFV exposure. Practical manipulation of such a WBLFV "dose" may be beneficial to strength and conditioning practitioners wanting to acutely facilitate CMVJ and slow stretch shortening cycle performance while minimizing exposure time.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20581706     DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0b013e3181c1ff7e

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Strength Cond Res        ISSN: 1064-8011            Impact factor:   3.775


  12 in total

Review 1.  Understanding Vertical Jump Potentiation: A Deterministic Model.

Authors:  Timothy J Suchomel; Hugh S Lamont; Gavin L Moir
Journal:  Sports Med       Date:  2016-06       Impact factor: 11.136

2.  Comparison of the Acute Effects of Foam Rolling with High and Low Vibration Frequencies on Eccentrically Damaged Muscle.

Authors:  Kazuki Kasahara; Riku Yoshida; Kaoru Yahata; Shigeru Sato; Yuta Murakami; Kodai Aizawa; Andreas Konrad; Masatoshi Nakamura
Journal:  J Sports Sci Med       Date:  2022-02-15       Impact factor: 2.988

3.  Comparison of The Effect of High- and Low-Frequency Vibration Foam Rolling on The Quadriceps Muscle.

Authors:  Masatoshi Nakamura; Kazuki Kasahara; Riku Yoshida; Yuta Murakami; Ryoma Koizumi; Shigeru Sato; Kosuke Takeuchi; Satoru Nishishita; Xin Ye; Andreas Konrad
Journal:  J Sports Sci Med       Date:  2022-09-01       Impact factor: 4.017

4.  Whole-body vibration to prevent intensive care unit-acquired weakness: safety, feasibility, and metabolic response.

Authors:  Tobias Wollersheim; Kurt Haas; Stefan Wolf; Knut Mai; Claudia Spies; Elisabeth Steinhagen-Thiessen; Klaus-D Wernecke; Joachim Spranger; Steffen Weber-Carstens
Journal:  Crit Care       Date:  2017-01-09       Impact factor: 9.097

5.  Can Different Complex Training Improve the Individual Phenomenon of Post-Activation Potentiation?

Authors:  Zong-Rong Chen; Shin-Liang Lo; Min-Hsien Wang; Ching-Fang Yu; Hsien-Te Peng
Journal:  J Hum Kinet       Date:  2017-03-12       Impact factor: 2.193

6.  The Acute Effect of Foam Rolling and Vibration Foam Rolling on Drop Jump Performance.

Authors:  Wei-Chi Tsai; Zong-Rong Chen
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2021-03-27       Impact factor: 3.390

7.  Does Vibration Foam Roller Influence Performance and Recovery? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Authors:  Alejandra Alonso-Calvete; Miguel Lorenzo-Martínez; Alexis Padrón-Cabo; Alexandra Pérez-Ferreirós; Anton Kalén; Cristian Abelairas-Gómez; Ezequiel Rey
Journal:  Sports Med Open       Date:  2022-03-04

8.  The Effect of Static Compression via Vibration Foam Rolling on Eccentrically Damaged Muscle.

Authors:  Masatoshi Nakamura; Kazuki Kasahara; Riku Yoshida; Kaoru Yahata; Shigeru Sato; Yuta Murakami; Kodai Aizawa; Andreas Konrad
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2022-02-05       Impact factor: 3.390

9.  An Acute Bout of Self-Myofascial Release in the Form of Foam Rolling Improves Performance Testing.

Authors:  Corey A Peacock; Darren D Krein; Tobin A Silver; Gabriel J Sanders; Kyle-Patrick A VON Carlowitz
Journal:  Int J Exerc Sci       Date:  2014-07-01

10.  Comparing the Acute Effects of Intermittent and Continuous Whole-Body Vibration Exposure on Neuromuscular and Functional Measures in Sarcopenia and Nonsarcopenic Elderly Women.

Authors:  Ryan M Miller; Aaron D Heishman; Eduardo D S Freitas; Michael G Bemben
Journal:  Dose Response       Date:  2018-09-05       Impact factor: 2.658

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.