Single- and double-leg vertical jumps are often performed in volleyball games. But the contribution from individual leg in single- and double-leg running vertical jump skills in volleyball has not been revealed. The purpose of this study was to determine the differences between single- and double- leg running vertical jumps (1-LRVJ and 2-LRVJ) on the biomechanical characteristics. Ten male college volleyball players voluntarily participated in this study. Two volleyball running vertical jumps were executed randomly. Three trials of each running vertical jump were recorded for each subject. Data were collected using six infra-red Qualisys motion capture cameras at 180 Hz sampling rate and two AMTI force platforms at 1800 Hz sampling rate, respectively. The jump height of 2-LRVJ was significantly higher than 1-LRVJ (P< .05), In push-off phase, 1-LRVJ had less angle change, but greater moment and higher impact force (P< .05). These results suggested that 1-LRVJ product higher leg stiffness with 2-LRVJ, it also increase higher risk of injury. We suggested using two- leg jumping style to enhance jump high, and avoid lower limbs injury

Peng, Hsien-Te

Tai, Wei- Hsun

Wang, Li-I

English

ISBS (International Society of Biomechanics in Sports): Conference Proceedings Archive

  P02-17 ID186 A COMPARISON OF SINGLE- AND DOUBLE-LEG RUNNING VERTICAL JUMPS IN VOLLEYBALL Wei- Hsun Tai1, Li-I Wang2, Hsien-Te Peng3  1Graduate Institute of Sport Coaching Science, Chinese Culture University, Taipei, Taiwan 2Department of Physical Education and Kinesiology, National Dong Hwa University, Hualien, Taiwan 3Department of Physical Education, Chinese Culture University, Taipei, Taiwan Single- and double-leg vertical jumps are often performed in volleyball games. But the contribution from individual leg in single- and double-leg running vertical jump skills in volleyball has not been revealed. The purpose of this study was to determine the differences between single- and double- leg running vertical jumps (1-LRVJ and 2-LRVJ)  on the biomechanical characteristics. Ten male college volleyball players voluntarily participated in this study. Two volleyball running vertical jumps were executed randomly. Three trials of each running vertical jump were recorded for each subject. Data were collected using six infra-red Qualisys motion capture cameras at 180 Hz sampling rate and two AMTI force platforms at  1800 Hz sampling rate, respectively. The jump height of 2-LRVJ was significantly higher than 1-LRVJ (P< .05), In push-off phase, 1-LRVJ had less angle change, but greater moment and higher impact force (P< .05). These results suggested that 1-LRVJ product higher leg stiffness with 2-LRVJ, it also increase higher risk of injury. We suggested using two- leg jumping style to enhance jump high, and avoid lower limbs injury.    KEY WORDS: kinematic, kinetic, biomechanics, running jump  INTRODUCTION: Single- and double-leg running vertical jumps are often performed in volleyball games. The running vertical jumps are stop-jumping activities involving a series of fast eccentric contraction following a concentric contraction on the lower extremity musculature which is so called stretch-shortening-cycle or SSC (Bobbert, Gerritsen, Litjens, & Van Soest, 1996). Cavagna (1977) suggested that bipedal animals use musculoskeletal springs to altemately store and restitute elastic energy during jumping. In the running jump transition, muscles, tendons, and ligaments collectively behave like a linear spring, store kinetic energy during approach run, and restitute it during the jump. Previous studies have shown the existence of a bilateral deficit in jump tasks (Liebermann & Katz, 2003). van Soest, Roebroeck, Bobbert, Huijing, & van Ingen Schenau, (1985) reported that human achieve less than twice the jump height of single-leg vertical jump during double-leg vertical jump.In addition, the information regarding biomechanical characteristics in the stop-jumping test at different running vertical jump skills is still limited. It is important to determine whether differences occur in single- and double-leg running vertical jump. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to determine the differences between single- and double-leg running vertical jumps on the biomechanical characteristics. Based on previous studies, we hypothesized that there would be differences found between single- and double-leg running vertical jumps.  METHODS: Ten elite male college volleyball players (age: 21.1 ± 2.2 years, weight: 80.7 ± 7.6 kg, height: 1.85 ± 0.04 m) voluntarily participated in this study. They were right-handed players. Two volleyball running vertical jumps, single- and double- leg running vertical jumps (1-LRVJ and 2-LRVJ), were executed randomly. The 1-LRVJ consisted of a left leg landing on a force platform and left leg takeoff. The 2-LRVJ consisted of a double-legged landing symmetrically with each leg on a separate force platform and a double-legged takeoff. The subjects were required to perform the vertical jump following a three-step approach running with great effort and to jump with arm swing as high as possible. Kinematic and kinetic data were collected using six infra-red Qualisys motion capture cameras (Oqus 100, Qualisys, Inc.,   Gothenburg, Sweden) at 180 Hz sampling rate and two AMTI force platforms (BP600900, AMTI, Inc., Watertown, MA, USA) at  1800 Hz sampling rate, respectively. The kinematic and kinetic data were filtered by a low-pass Butterworth digital filter at a cutoff frequency of 12 Hz (Bisseling and Hof, 2006; Ford, Myer, Smith, Byrnes, Dopirak, and Hewett, 2005).In this study, the landing phase was defined from ground contact to the lowest downward position, and push off phase was defined from the lowest downward position to take off. The statistical analyses were performed using SPSS 14.0 for Windows (SPSS, Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Descriptive statistics (mean  standard deviation, SD) were used to determine characteristics of subjects. The normality of continuous data was analyzed by the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. A dependent student's t-test was performed for the biomechanical variables of the 1-LRVJ and 2-LRVJ The significance level was set at α = 0.05.  RESULTS: Table 1 shows the means and standard deviations of each dependent kinematic variable of the lower extremities. The 1-LRVJ had a significantly smaller jump height than the 2-LRVJ (p < 0.001). There was a significant difference in the approach velocity between 1-LRVJ  and 2-LRVJ (p < 0.05). The 2-LRVJ tended to produce a greater last step length than 1-LRVJ (p < 0.001).  Table 1 Means (standard deviations) of lower extremity kinematic variables of running vertical jump   2-LRVJ 1-LRVJ P-value Jump Height (cm)* 53.7 (7.4) 34.5 (5.9) ＜0.001 Approach velocity (m/s)* 2.50 (0.22) 2.93 (0.56) 0.027 Last step length (m)* 1.40 (0.14) 1.08 (0.07) ＜0.001 Table 2 shows the means and standard deviations of lower extremity biomechanics variables during the landing of the 1-LRVJ and 2-LRVJ tasks. In this phase, there was no difference between two tasks at eccentric time. The angle value at the knee and hip joint of the 1-LRVJ was significantly less than the angle value at the knee joint in 2-LRVJ (p < 0.05). Eccentric impulse and ground reaction force at lower extremity of 1-LRVJ were significantly greater than 2-LRVJ (p < 0.05). The 1-LRVJ had significantly greater hip work during landing than the 2-LRVJ (p < 0.05). Table 2 Means (standard deviations) of lower extremity biomechanics variables during the landing of the 1-LRVJ and 2-LRVJ  2-LRVJ 1-LRVJ P-value Eccentric Time (s)  0.16 (0.02) 0.17 (0.02) 0.365 Ankle Flex Angle at Contact (˚) -4.63 (13.45) -8.19 (7.86) 0.198 Knee Flex Angle at Contact (˚)* 37.83 (11.36) 27.64 (5.79) 0.023 Hip Flex Angle at Contact (˚)* 39.35 (6.91) 33.59 (7.49) 0.003 Eccentric Ankle Impulse (BWs /BH)* 1.21 (0.50) 1.55 (0.49) 0.020 Eccentric Knee Impulse (BW×s /BH)* -3.33 (0.66) -4.26 (0.60) 0.001 Eccentric Hip Impulse (BW×s /BH)* 1.44 (0.41) 2.49 (1.02) 0.002 Eccentric GRF Impulse (BW×s)* 37.69(4.42) 60.14 (4.37) ＜0.001 Eccentric Ankle Work (Watt/BW×BH) -3.72 (1.68) -3.28 (1.11) 0.206 Eccentric Knee Work (Watt/BW×BH) -13.68 (3.90) -13.00 (4.61) 0.710 Eccentric Hip Work (Watt/BW×BH)* 0.07 (0.92) 1.77 (2.38) 0.045 Table 3 shows the means and standard deviations of lower extremity biomechanics variables during the push off phase of the 1-LRVJ and 2-LRVJ. The concentric time at 1-LRVJ was shorter than 2-LRVJ, and the change of knee flexion angle was also less than 2-LRVJ. But peak ground reaction force was significantly greater than 2-LRVJ (p < 0.001). The 2-LRVJ produced a significantly greater peak ankle, knee, and hip flexion angle and moment during push off in comparison to the 1-LRVJ (p < 0.001). The 1-LRVJ produced a significantly greater concentric impulse at knee and ground reaction force during push off in comparison to   the 2-LRVJ (p < 0.05). The negative value means the brake impulse and the positive value means the propulsive impulse.  Table 3 Means (standard deviations) of lower extremity kinetic variables during push off phase of the single- and 2-LRVJ tasks  2-LRVJ 1-LRVJ P-value Concentric Time (s)*  0.16 (0.01) 0.14 (0.02) 0.043 Change of Knee Flex Angle (˚)*  47.94 (10.56) 35.53 (5.74) 0.010 Peak GRF (BW)*  1.63 (0.19) 3.02 (0.38) ＜0.001 Peak Ankle Flex Angle (˚)*  11.12 (4.93) -5.11 (4.44) ＜0.001 Peak Knee Flex Angle (˚)*  85.78 (6.97) 63.17 (4.80) ＜0.001 Peak Hip Flex Angle (˚)*  35.11 (5.83) 25.06 (5.58) ＜0.001 Peak Ankle Moment (BW×BH)*  0.13 (0.01) 0.17 (0.02) ＜0.001 Peak Knee Moment (BW×BH)*  0.19 (0.02) 0.29 (0.07) ＜0.001 Peak Hip Moment (BW×BH)*  0.08 (0.02) 0.14 (0.03) ＜0.001 Concentric Ankle Impulse (BW×s /BH) 2.52 (0.40) 2.77 (0.49) 0.083 Concentric Knee Impulse (BW×s /BH)* -2.78 (0.44) -3.41 (0.49) 0.002 Concentric Hip Impulse (BW×s /BH)* 0.55 (0.33) -0.03 (0.58) 0.006 Concentric GRF Impulse (BW×s)* 36.34 (4.30) 46.80(6.22) 0.001 Concentric Ankle Work (Watt/BW×BH) 11.21 (1.60) 10.51 (2.09) 0.325 Concentric Knee Work (Watt/BW×BH) 13.96 (3.34) 14.84 (3.66) 0.302 Concentric Hip Work (Watt/BW×BH)* 0.87 (0.76) -0.59 (1.81) 0.010 Table 4 shows the means and standard deviations of lower extremity stiffness of the 1-LRVJ and 2-LRVJ. Lower extremity stiffness of 1-LRVJ were significantly higher than 2-LRVJ.  Table 4 Means (standard deviations) of lower extremity stiffness of the 1-LRVJ and 2-LRVJ tasks  2-LRVJ 1-LRVJ P-value Ankle Stiffness (BW×BH/rad)* 0.12 (0.03) 0.18 (0.06) ＜0.001 Knee Stiffness (BW×BH/rad)* -0.20 (0.02) -0.43 (0.10) ＜0.001 Hip Stiffness (BW×BH/rad)* 0.11 (0.03) 0.20 (0.03) ＜0.001  DISCUSSION: The purpose of this study was to determine the differences between single and double-leg running vertical jumps on the biomechanical characteristics. The difference of these two tasks in lower extremity kinematics and kinetics noticed in this study were consistent with those in previous literatures. The decreased knee flexion angle of single-leg running vertical jump at the initial foot contact of the ground in this study was consistent with those reported by Chappell et al. (2002) and Decker et al. (2003). The combination of increased approach velocity of single-leg running vertical jump during landing and decreased knee flexion angle of single-leg running vertical jump at the initial foot contact of the ground was consistent with the characteristics of the landings with increased impact forces by Devita and Skelly (1992). At the initial foot contact of the ground, the higher approach run speed produced the higher impact force. As our results show, the single-leg running vertical jump produced a greater vertical ground reaction force than the double-leg running vertical jump, which was likely due to the smaller lower extremity flexion angles at initial foot contact of the ground, and the smaller maximum hip and knee flexion angles during landing. The results obtained in the current study were consistent with those of previous studies examining the ground reaction forces and knee kinematics during single-leg and double-leg drop jump (Ruan & Lee, 2008).  Moreover, Bridgett & Linthoren (2006) indicated that the higher approach velocity may shorten the ground contact time and decrease the vertical impulse at concertric stage in running vertical jump. The results of this study show that the maximum ground reaction force   and the peak moment at push off phase were significantly greater in single-leg running vertical jump compared to double-leg running vertical jump. The single-leg running vertical jump also produced great impulse during the landing phase which could be caused by the high velocity of approach run in the take-off phase and the great maximum ground reaction force. These aforementioned factors could also influence the jump hight difference between the single-leg and double-leg running vertical jumps.  Variations in the speed and stride length in the last step of the approach run are the main limitations of this study. Subjects were instructed to perform a three-step approach with great effort, however the approach speed was not restricted and the stride length was not adjusted. These parameters could affect the magnitudes of the evaluated joint reaction forces and moments. In addition, we only investigated the kinetic and kinematic of the landing of the running vertical jump task. It should be considered in future studies to understand the mechanism and risk factors of running-jump tasks.  CONCLUSION: In summary, there are significant differences of kinetics and kinematics between single- and double-leg running vertical jumps. Moreover, the jump performance in the single-leg running vertical jump may be affected by the following factors: 1) decreased hip and knee flexion angles at initial foot contact of the ground; 2) extention moment of the hip joint at initial foot contact of the ground; 3) decreased peak hip and knee flexion angles during the landing phase; 4) increased peak vertical ground reaction forces, impulse and stiffness.  REFERENCES: Bridgett, L. A. & Linthorne,  N. P. (2006). Changes in long jump take-off technique with increasing  run-up speed. Journal of Sports Sciences, 24(8), 889-897. Chappell, J. C., Yu, B., Kirkendall, D. T., & Garrett, W. E. (2002). A comparison of knee kinetics between male and female recreational athletes in stop-jump tasks. America Journal of Sports Medicine, 30, 261-267. Ruan, M., & Li, L. (2008). Influence of a horizontal approach on the mechanical output during drop jumps. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 77, 1-9. Van Soest, A. J., Roebroeck, M. E., Bobbert, M. F., Huijing, P. A., & Van Ingen Schenau, G. J. (1985). A comparison of one-legged and two-legged countermovement jumps. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 17, 635-639. Stefanyshyn, D. J.,Nigg, B. M. (1998). Contribution of the lower extremity joints to mechanical energy in running vertical jumps and running long jumps. Journal of Sports Sciences,16,177-186.  Acknowledgement This research was supported by National Science Committee grants (NSC 99-2410-H-259-080).    

A COMPARISON OF SINGLE- AND DOUBLE-LEG RUNNING VERTICAL JUMPS IN VOLLEYBALL

https://ojs.ub.uni-konstanz.de/cpa/article/download/5680/5171

A COMPARISON OF SINGLE- AND DOUBLE-LEG RUNNING VERTICAL JUMPS IN VOLLEYBALL

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

ISBS (International Society of Biomechanics in Sports): Conference Proceedings Archive