Charles Son1, Adam Stewart1, John Ward2, Kimary Farrar3. 1. Texas Chiropractic College, Pasadena, Texas. 2. Department of Foundational Sciences, Texas Chiropractic College, Pasadena, Texas. 3. Department of Clinical Reasonings, Texas Chiropractic College, Pasadena, Texas.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to test the feasibility of completing a study comparing the impact of lower body strength training to proprioceptive exercises on vertical jump capacity. METHODS: Thirty-nine college students (age 27.9 ± 6.4 y, height 1.69 ± 0.10 m, body mass 73.4 ± 15.9 kg: mean ± standard deviation) underwent baseline and post-testing of their vertical jump capacity using a Vertical Challenger and VICON motion analysis system. Participants were randomly assigned to 3 interventional groups between testing sessions: (1) lower body strength training, (2) lower body proprioceptive training, and (3) a no training control. Group 1 underwent supervised exercises 3 days a week at 2 sets of 12 repetitions of squats, seated knee extensions, standing knee flexions, and standing calf raises at approximately 25% of their body weight. Group 2 participants engaged in 4 supervised proprioceptive exercise stations 3 days a week involving BOSU ball stance, Rocker board, Bodyblade, and 1-legged stance exercises at 4 minutes per station. A between-within repeated-measures analysis of variance using between-participants factor "group" and within-participants factor "time" (baseline and post-test) was used to analyze data. RESULTS: Analysis of group × time indicated a small positive improvement in overall group performance for jump height at post-test, F(2,36) = 5.527, P = .008, r = 0.36. However, post hoc testing identified no statistically significant difference between groups for dependent variables. CONCLUSIONS: This study determined that it was feasible to complete a study to compare 2 groups, but more than 1 week would be required to observe differences between lower body weight training and lower body proprioceptive training on vertical jump.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to test the feasibility of completing a study comparing the impact of lower body strength training to proprioceptive exercises on vertical jump capacity. METHODS: Thirty-nine college students (age 27.9 ± 6.4 y, height 1.69 ± 0.10 m, body mass 73.4 ± 15.9 kg: mean ± standard deviation) underwent baseline and post-testing of their vertical jump capacity using a Vertical Challenger and VICON motion analysis system. Participants were randomly assigned to 3 interventional groups between testing sessions: (1) lower body strength training, (2) lower body proprioceptive training, and (3) a no training control. Group 1 underwent supervised exercises 3 days a week at 2 sets of 12 repetitions of squats, seated knee extensions, standing knee flexions, and standing calf raises at approximately 25% of their body weight. Group 2 participants engaged in 4 supervised proprioceptive exercise stations 3 days a week involving BOSU ball stance, Rocker board, Bodyblade, and 1-legged stance exercises at 4 minutes per station. A between-within repeated-measures analysis of variance using between-participants factor "group" and within-participants factor "time" (baseline and post-test) was used to analyze data. RESULTS: Analysis of group × time indicated a small positive improvement in overall group performance for jump height at post-test, F(2,36) = 5.527, P = .008, r = 0.36. However, post hoc testing identified no statistically significant difference between groups for dependent variables. CONCLUSIONS: This study determined that it was feasible to complete a study to compare 2 groups, but more than 1 week would be required to observe differences between lower body weight training and lower body proprioceptive training on vertical jump.
Authors: Tomás Gallego-Izquierdo; Gerardo Vidal-Aragón; Pedro Calderón-Corrales; Álvaro Acuña; Alexander Achalandabaso-Ochoa; Agustín Aibar-Almazán; Antonio Martínez-Amat; Daniel Pecos-Martín Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-07-27 Impact factor: 3.390