Logo do repositório

Percorrer por autor "Buurke, Tom J. W."

A mostrar 1 - 2 de 2
  • Kinetic comparison between drop jumps and horizontal drop jumps in elite jumpers and sprinters
    Publication . Montoro-Bombú, Raynier; Miranda-Oliveira, Paulo; Valamatos, Maria João; João, Filipa; Buurke, Tom J. W.; Santos, Amândio Cupido; Rama, Luís
    Previous research addressed the spatiotemporal variables of the drop jump (DJ) versus the horizontal drop jump (HDJ). This study compared the kinetic variables of the DJ versus the HDJ in elite jumpers and sprinters. In a single session, sixteen elite jumpers and sprinters performed two DJ attempts with three different fall heights (0.30 m, 0.40 m, and 0.50 m), and after 2 h, performed two HDJ attempts from the same fall heights (0.30 m, 0.40 m, and 0.50 m). Kinetic variables: eccentric ground reaction forces (GRFE) and concentric ground reaction forces; eccentric impulse (PE) and concentric impulse (PC); peak power in the concentric phase; and rate of force decrease (RFDe) were measured using a research-grade force plate. The Wilcoxon test was used to compare the vertical and anteroposterior axes. GRFE was significantly higher (p ≤ 0.05) in the DJ vs the HDJ with large effect sizes. The PE (p ≤ 0.006) and PC (p = 0.002) were significantly lower in the DJ than in the HDJ. The RFDe was also significantly lower in the DJ at 0.30 m vs. the HDJ at 0.30 m (p = 0.002). In summary, elite jumpers and sprinters may benefit from incorporating both the DJ and the HDJ into their training regimens, with the DJ being particularly advantageous for enhancing power metrics and RFDe.
    2024-05Contributo em revista Acesso aberto Ver mais
  • Spatiotemporal variables comparison between drop jump and horizontal drop jump in elite jumpers and sprinters
    Publication . Montoro-Bombú, Raynier; Miranda-Oliveira, Paulo; Valamatos, Maria João; João, Filipa; Buurke, Tom J. W.; Santos, Amândio Cupido; Rama, Luis
    Background: General expectations speculated that there are differences between drop jump (DJ) and horizontal drop jump (HDJ) exercises. While these criteria may be valid, we have yet to find a report that explores these differences in competitive level athletes. Objective: The study aimed to compare spatiotemporal variables in the drop jump (DJ) vs. the horizontal drop jump (HDJ) in elite jumpers and sprinters. Methods: Sixteen international-level male athletes performed two DJ attempts at different fall heights 0.3, 0.4, and 0.5 m (DJ30, DJ40, and DJ50), and after 2 h, they performed two HDJ attempts (HDJ30, HDJ40, HDJ50). All jumps were performed on a Kistler force plate. The variables analyzed were ground contact time (GCT), flight time (FT), eccentric phase time, concentric phase time, and time to peak concentric force. Results: The GCT was found to be significantly shorter in DJ vs. HDJ (Z = 4.980; p = 0.0001; ES = 3.11). FT was significantly lower in DJ30 versus HDJ30 (Z = 4.845; p = 0.0001, d = 3.79), but significantly higher in DJ40 vs. HDJ40 (Z = 4.437; p ≤ 0.0001, d = 3.70) and in DJ50 vs. HDJ50 (Z = 4.549; p ≤ 0.0001, d = 4.72). Conclusions: It is concluded that the HDJ requires more time for force production, that the eccentric component requires more time than the concentric and that it is not recommended to use the HDJ over the DJ for reactive purposes. This is the first study that comprehensively compare the differences between DJ and HDJ, which will assist coaches and researchers in the design of future training strategies.
    2024-02Contributo em revista Acesso aberto Ver mais