Department of Physical Education and Sport, Faculty of Sport Sciences, University of Granada, Granada, Spain.
Department of Sports Sciences and Physical Conditioning, Faculty of Education, CIEDE, Catholic University of the Most Holy Conception, Concepción, Chile.
J Strength Cond Res. 2018 Jul;32(7):2025-2030. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000002583.
Pérez-Castilla, A and García-Ramos, A. Evaluation of the most reliable procedure of determining jump height during the loaded countermovement jump exercise: Take-off velocity vs. flight time. J Strength Cond Res 32(7): 2025-2030, 2018-This study aimed to compare the reliability of jump height between the 2 standard procedures of analyzing force-time data (take-off velocity [TOV] and flight time [FT]) during the loaded countermovement (CMJ) exercise performed with a free-weight barbell and in a Smith machine. The jump height of 17 men (age: 22.2 ± 2.2 years, body mass: 75.2 ± 7.1 kg, and height: 177.0 ± 6.0 cm) was tested in 4 sessions (twice for each CMJ type) against external loads of 17, 30, 45, 60, and 75 kg. Jump height reliability was comparable between the TOV (coefficient of variation [CV]: 6.42 ± 2.41%) and FT (CV: 6.53 ± 2.17%) during the free-weight CMJ, but it was higher for the FT when the CMJ was performed in a Smith machine (CV: 11.34 ± 3.73% for TOV and 5.95 ± 1.12% for FT). Bland-Altman plots revealed trivial differences (≤0.27 cm) and no heteroscedasticity of the errors (R ≤ 0.09) for the jump height obtained by the TOV and FT procedures, whereas the random error between both procedures was higher for the CMJ performed in the Smith machine (2.02 cm) compared with the free-weight barbell (1.26 cm). Based on these results, we recommend the FT procedure to determine jump height during the loaded CMJ performed in a Smith machine, whereas the TOV and FT procedures provide similar reliability during the free-weight CMJ.
佩雷斯-卡斯蒂利亚，A 和加西亚-拉莫斯，A. 评价在负重深蹲跳运动中确定跳跃高度的最可靠程序：起跳速度与飞行时间。J 力量与调节研究 32(7)：2025-2030，2018-本研究旨在比较使用自由重量杠铃和史密斯机进行负重深蹲跳（CMJ）运动时，通过两种标准的力-时数据分析程序（起跳速度 [TOV] 和飞行时间 [FT]）确定跳跃高度的可靠性。17 名男性（年龄：22.2 ± 2.2 岁，体重：75.2 ± 7.1 千克，身高：177.0 ± 6.0 厘米）在 4 次测试中（每种 CMJ 类型各 2 次）分别对抗 17、30、45、60 和 75 千克的外部负荷。在自由重量 CMJ 中，TOV（变异系数 [CV]：6.42 ± 2.41%）和 FT（CV：6.53 ± 2.17%）的跳跃高度可靠性相当，但在史密斯机上进行 CMJ 时，FT 的可靠性更高（TOV 的 CV：11.34 ± 3.73%，FT 的 CV：5.95 ± 1.12%）。Bland-Altman 图显示，通过 TOV 和 FT 程序获得的跳跃高度的差异很小（≤0.27 cm），误差没有异方差（R ≤ 0.09），而在史密斯机上进行 CMJ 时，两种程序之间的随机误差更高（2.02 cm），而在自由重量杠铃上进行 CMJ 时则更低（1.26 cm）。基于这些结果，我们建议在史密斯机上进行负重 CMJ 时使用 FT 程序来确定跳跃高度，而在自由重量 CMJ 中，TOV 和 FT 程序提供相似的可靠性。
