Centre of Human & Applied Physiological Sciences (CHAPS), King's College London, Faculty of Life Sciences & Medicine, Guy's Campus, London SE1 1UL, UK; Clinical, Metabolic and Molecular Physiology, MRC-Versus Arthritis Centre for Musculoskeletal Ageing Research, National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Nottingham Biomedical Research Centre, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom.
Physical Mind London, 135 High Street, Teddington, London TW11 8HH, UK.
J Biomech. 2021 Feb 12;116:110206. doi: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2020.110206. Epub 2020 Dec 28.
Horizontal (cylinder-based) sledge jumping has been shown to ameliorate multi-system deconditioning induced by long-term bed-rest. However, biomechanics differ from 1 g vertical jumping, in particular prolongation of ground contact times (GCT), reduction of peak force, rate of force development (RFD) (and presumably stretch shortening cycle [SSC] efficacy) and stiffness, whilst also requiring relatively complex equipment. Thus, we sought to determine if horizontal spring-loaded countermovement jumps were more analogous to vertical jumping. 9 healthy (5 female) subjects (27 ± 7yrs; 169.0 ± 5.3 cm; 63.6 ± 2.6 kg) performed 10 reactive countermovement jumps vertically, and horizontally (randomized) when lay on a spring-loaded carriage performed against loading (at lift-off) equivalent (±6%) to their body weight. Jump kinetics, kinematics and lower limb/trunk electromyographic activity were compared between conditions (paired t-tests). Mean flight and GCTs did not differ, however, peak jump height (p = 0.003; d = -0.961) was greater when jumping horizontally. In contrast, ground reaction forces (zGRF) during take-off (p < 0.001; d = 1.645) and landing (p = 0.002; d = 1.309), peak acceleration (p = 0.001; d = 1.988), leg stiffness (p = 0.001; d = 2.371) and RFD (p = 0.023; d = 1.255) were lower horizontally. Mean rectus femoris activity was lower during landing (p = 0.033; d = 0.691) when horizontal, but did not differ during either take-off or land-lift. Mean medial gastrocnemius activity was significantly (p = 0.018; d = 0.317) lower during horizontal take-off. Spring-loading (1 g at take-off) maintained short GCTs and flight times presumably maintaining muscle SSC efficacy in a manner that appears intuitive (in young active subjects), simple, robust and potentially compatible with spaceflight. Whether appropriate jump characteristics can be achieved in older subjects and in μg/hypogravity needs to be determined. However, greater jump height, lower peak zGRF, RFD and leg stiffness along with reduced lower limb and trunk muscle activity suggests that 1 g at take-off is insufficient to replicate vertical jump biomechanics. Thus, further investigation is warranted to optimize, and evaluate spring-loaded jumping as a gravity-independent multi-systems countermeasure on Earth, and in Space.
水平(基于圆柱体)滑橇跳跃已被证明可以改善长期卧床休息引起的多系统适应不良。然而,与 1g 垂直跳跃相比,生物力学存在差异,特别是地面接触时间(GCT)延长、峰值力降低、力发展速度(RFD)(推测还有拉伸缩短周期 [SSC] 效率)和刚度降低,同时还需要相对复杂的设备。因此,我们试图确定水平弹簧式反跳是否更类似于垂直跳跃。9 名健康(5 名女性)受试者(27±7 岁;169.0±5.3 厘米;63.6±2.6 千克)在垂直方向上进行了 10 次反应性反跳,当躺在水平方向上的弹簧式滑车上时,根据加载(在离地时)与他们体重相等(±6%)进行水平跳跃。比较了两种条件下的跳跃动力学、运动学和下肢/躯干肌电图活动(配对 t 检验)。平均飞行和 GCT 没有差异,但水平跳跃时的最大跳跃高度更高(p=0.003;d=-0.961)。相比之下,起飞时的地面反作用力(zGRF)(p<0.001;d=1.645)和着陆(p=0.002;d=1.309)、峰值加速度(p=0.001;d=1.988)、腿部刚度(p=0.001;d=2.371)和 RFD(p=0.023;d=1.255)在水平方向上较低。水平跳跃时,着陆时的股直肌平均活动较低(p=0.033;d=0.691),但起飞或着陆时没有差异。水平起飞时,内侧腓肠肌的平均活动显著(p=0.018;d=0.317)降低。弹簧加载(起飞时 1g)保持较短的 GCT 和飞行时间,大概以一种直观的方式(在年轻活跃的受试者中)保持肌肉 SSC 效率,这种方式简单、稳健,并且可能与太空飞行兼容。在老年人和μg 微重力中是否可以实现适当的跳跃特征还需要确定。然而,更大的跳跃高度、较低的峰值 zGRF、RFD 和腿部刚度以及下肢和躯干肌肉活动减少表明,起飞时的 1g 不足以复制垂直跳跃的生物力学。因此,有必要进一步研究优化,以及评估弹簧式跳跃作为地球上和太空中独立于重力的多系统对策。