Di Domenico Felice, D'Isanto Tiziana, Esposito Giovanni, Aliberti Sara, Raiola Gaetano
Department of Human, Philosophical and Education Sciences, University of Salerno, 84084 Fisciano, Italy.
Faculty of Human, Educational and Sports Sciences, Pegaso University of Naples, 80143 Naples, Italy.
J Funct Morphol Kinesiol. 2023 Sep 12;8(3):133. doi: 10.3390/jfmk8030133.
Countermovement jumping (CMJ) and free-arm countermovement jumping (CMJFA) express the explosive-elastic force of the lower limbs. Strategies to enhance performance in both types of jumping can be categorized into cognitive and ecological-dynamic approaches. However, the effectiveness of these approaches in improving CMJ and CMJFA remains incompletely understood. This study aims to investigate the impact of training protocols based on the two approaches to improving CMJ. Thirty-six subjects with an average age of 26 years were selected and divided into two groups: the ecological-dynamic group (EDG) and the cognitive group (CG). For 12 weeks, both groups followed separate protocols of three weekly one-hour sessions. EDG group followed a protocol focused on circle time. The CG group followed an instructor-led training protocol. Incoming and outgoing flight heights were measured. Pre and post-intervention differences within and between groups were assessed using t-tests for dependent and independent samples, respectively ( ≤ 0.05). CG demonstrated a 12.2% increase in CMJ and a 7.8% improvement in CMJFA, while EDG showed a 10.2% increase in CMJ and 19.5% progress in CMJFA. No statistically significant differences ( > 0.05) were observed between the groups in the improvement of CMJ; statistically significant differences ( < 0.05) were found in the improvement of CMJFA in favor of EDG.
下蹲跳(CMJ)和自由摆臂下蹲跳(CMJFA)可体现下肢的爆发性弹力。提高这两种跳跃表现的策略可分为认知方法和生态动力学方法。然而,这些方法在改善CMJ和CMJFA方面的有效性仍未完全明确。本研究旨在探究基于这两种方法的训练方案对改善CMJ的影响。选取了36名平均年龄为26岁的受试者,将其分为两组:生态动力学组(EDG)和认知组(CG)。在12周的时间里,两组均按照各自的方案,每周进行三次,每次一小时的训练。EDG组遵循以循环训练为主的方案。CG组遵循由教练指导的训练方案。测量了起跳和落地时的高度。分别使用配对样本t检验和独立样本t检验评估组内和组间干预前后的差异(≤0.05)。CG组的CMJ提高了12.2%,CMJFA提高了7.8%,而EDG组的CMJ提高了10.2%,CMJFA提高了19.5%。两组在CMJ改善方面未观察到统计学上的显著差异(>0.05);在CMJFA改善方面发现了有利于EDG组的统计学显著差异(<0.05)。