Strzelczyk Clinical Biomechanics Laboratory, Department of Health Professions, University of Wisconsin-La Crosse, Health Science Center, La Crosse, Wisconsin, USA.
J Strength Cond Res. 2011 Jan;25(1):94-102. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0b013e3181b6041c.
Our purpose was to provide an in-depth investigation of 2 commonly used depth jump variants: depth jumping over a hurdle and depth jumping while touching as high as possible using an overhead goal. Fourteen male athletes performed a series of depth jumps from a 45-cm box. Three types of jumping conditions were used. One type of depth jump was a control jump (DJ45-C), performed for maximal height with no external apparatus used to influence the jump. Another type of depth jump was performed over a hurdle (DJ45-H), which was set at an individualized height for each athlete based on their leaping ability. The final type of depth jump was performed for maximal touch height on a Vertec measuring device (DJ45-T). Timing, kinematics, and kinetics of the 3 jumping conditions were compared. The hurdle depth jumping condition demonstrated lower ground contact times and significantly less (p < 0.05) flexion in the hips (41.22 ± 8.10 degrees) and knees (67.47 ± 8.36 degrees) when compared to control (49.26 ± 10.90 degrees of hip flexion and 73.85 ± 10.68 degrees of knee flexion) and target (50.51 ± 9.51 degrees of hip flexion and 75.01 ± 9.97 degrees of knee flexion) conditions. Jumping conditions that used goals (DJ45-H, DJ45-T) produced significantly higher (p < 0.05) vertical velocity of the sacrum at toe-off (3.57 ± .34 m/s and 3.46 ± .36 m/s, respectively) than the control condition (3.32 ± .34 m/s). The hurdle depth jump condition had higher ground reaction forces (875.36 ± 135.66 N) and higher dorsiflexion (566.02 ± 402.45 W) and plantar flexion power (768.84 ± 192.19 W) at the ankle than the Vertec (409.83 ± 387.23 W for dorsiflexion and 622.54 ± 188.95 W for plantar flexion) and control conditions (425.60 ± 380.01 W for dorsiflexion and 643.35 ± 166.70 W for plantar flexion). Few differences were found to exist between the Vertec and control conditions. Hurdle jumping in particular may be superior for the development of short ground contact time (<0.3 s) sport movements requiring brief but powerful lower-extremity power production.
跨越障碍的深度跳跃和使用头顶目标尽可能高地触摸的深度跳跃。14 名男性运动员从 45 厘米高的箱子上进行了一系列深度跳跃。使用了三种跳跃条件。一种是控制跳跃（DJ45-C），用于达到最大高度，不使用任何外部装置来影响跳跃。另一种是跨越障碍的深度跳跃（DJ45-H），根据运动员的跳跃能力，为每个运动员设定个性化的高度。最后一种是在 Vertec 测量装置上进行最大触摸高度的深度跳跃（DJ45-T）。比较了三种跳跃条件下的计时、运动学和动力学。与控制（49.26 ± 10.90 度髋关节弯曲和 73.85 ± 10.68 度膝关节弯曲）和目标（50.51 ± 9.51 度髋关节弯曲和 75.01 ± 9.97 度膝关节弯曲）条件相比，障碍深度跳跃条件的地面接触时间更短，髋关节（41.22 ± 8.10 度）和膝关节（67.47 ± 8.36 度）的弯曲明显减少（p < 0.05）。使用目标（DJ45-H、DJ45-T）的跳跃条件在足离地时产生的骶骨垂直速度明显更高（p < 0.05）（分别为 3.57 ±.34 m/s 和 3.46 ±.36 m/s）比控制条件（3.32 ±.34 m/s）。障碍深度跳跃条件的地面反作用力（875.36 ± 135.66 N）和踝关节背屈（566.02 ± 402.45 W）和跖屈力（768.84 ± 192.19 W）高于 Vertec（409.83 ± 387.23 W 用于背屈和 622.54 ± 188.95 W 用于跖屈）和控制条件（425.60 ± 380.01 W 用于背屈和 643.35 ± 166.70 W 用于跖屈）。在 Vertec 和控制条件之间发现几乎没有差异。特别是跨越障碍的跳跃可能更有利于发展短时间地面接触时间（<0.3 s）的运动动作，这些动作需要短暂但强大的下肢力量产生。
