Literature DB >> 29401201

Relationship Between Reactive Strength Index Variants in Rugby League Players.

John J McMahon1, Timothy J Suchomel2, Jason P Lake3, Paul Comfort1.   

Abstract

ABSTRACT: McMahon, JJ, Suchomel, TJ, Lake, JP, and Comfort, P. Relationship between reactive strength index variants in rugby league players. J Strength Cond Res 35(1): 280-285, 2021-Two reactive strength index (RSI) variants exist, the RSI and RSI modified (RSImod), which are typically calculated during the drop jump (DJ) and countermovement jump (CMJ), respectively. Both RSI variants have been used to monitor athletes' ability to complete stretch-shortening cycle actions quickly, but they have never been compared. The purpose of this study was to determine whether they yield relatable information about reactive strength characteristics. Male professional rugby league players (n = 21, age = 20.8 ± 2.3 years, height = 1.82 ± 0.06 m and body mass = 94.3 ± 8.4 kg) performed 3 DJs (30 cm) and CMJs on a force plate. Reactive strength index and RSImod were subsequently calculated by dividing jump height (JH) by ground contact time (GCT) and time to take-off (TTT), respectively. All variables were highly reliable (intraclass correlation coefficient ≥0.78) with acceptable levels of variability (coefficient of variation ≤8.2%), albeit larger variability was noted for DJ variables. Moreover, there was a large relationship between RSI and RSImod (r = 0.524, p = 0.007), whereas very large relationships were noted between JHs (r = 0.762, p < 0.001) and between GCT and TTT (ρ = 0.705, p < 0.001). In addition, RSI (0.90 ± 0.22) was largely and significantly (d = 2.57, p < 0.001) greater than RSImod (0.47 ± 0.08). The DJ-derived RSI yields much larger values than the CMJ-derived RSImod and although a large relationship was noted between them, it equated to just 22% shared variance. These results suggest that the 2 RSI variants do not explain each other well, indicating that they do not assess entirely the same reactive strength qualities and should not be used interchangeably.
Copyright © 2018 National Strength and Conditioning Association.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 29401201     DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000002462

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


  6 in total

1.  Influence of Sex and Maximum Strength on Reactive Strength Index-Modified.

Authors:  George K Beckham; Timothy J Suchomel; Christopher J Sole; Christopher A Bailey; Jacob L Grazer; Steven B Kim; Kasie B Talbot; Michael H Stone
Journal:  J Sports Sci Med       Date:  2019-02-11       Impact factor: 2.988

2.  Influence of Different Loads on Force-Time Characteristics during Back Squats.

Authors:  Takafumi Kubo; Kuniaki Hirayama; Nobuhiro Nakamura; Mitsuru Higuchi
Journal:  J Sports Sci Med       Date:  2018-11-20       Impact factor: 2.988

3.  Reactive Strength Index and its Associations with Measures of Physical and Sports Performance: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Paul Jarvis; Anthony Turner; Paul Read; Chris Bishop
Journal:  Sports Med       Date:  2021-10-04       Impact factor: 11.136

4.  Reliability of and Relationship between Flight Time to Contraction Time Ratio and Reactive Strength Index Modified.

Authors:  John J McMahon; Jason P Lake; Paul Comfort
Journal:  Sports (Basel)       Date:  2018-08-15

5.  Characteristics of three lower limb joint kinetics affecting rebound jump performance.

Authors:  Amane Zushi; Takuya Yoshida; Kodayu Zushi; Yasushi Kariyama; Mitsugi Ogata
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-08-15       Impact factor: 3.752

6.  Match Day-1 Reactive Strength Index and In-Game Peak Speed in Collegiate Division I Basketball.

Authors:  Adam J Petway; Tomás T Freitas; Julio Calleja-González; Pedro E Alcaraz
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2021-03-22       Impact factor: 3.390

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.