ISSN: 1899-1955
Human Movement
Current issue Articles in Press Archive Special Issues About the journal Editorial board Instructions for Reviewers Journal's Reviewers Ethical standards and procedures Abstracting and indexing Contact Instructions for authors
SCImago Journal & Country Rank
 
2/2020
vol. 21
 
Share:
Share:
more
 
 
abstract:
Original paper

Beach and indoor volleyball athletes present similar lower limb muscle activation during a countermovement jump

Fabio Dal Bello
1, 2
,
Esteban Aedo-Muñoz
1, 3
,
Danilo Gomes Moreira
4
,
Ciro José Brito
5
,
Bianca Miarka
6
,
Enrique Navarro Cabello
7

1.
Magíster en Ciencias de la Actividad Física y Deporte, Facultad de Salud, Universidad Santo Tomás, Santiago, Chile
2.
Polytechnic University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain
3.
Physical Activity, Sport and Health Sciences Laboratory, University of Santiago, Santiago, Chile
4.
Federal Institute of Minas Gerais, Brazil
5.
Physical Education Department, Federal University of Juiz de Fora, Juiz de Fora, Brazil
6.
School of Physical Education and Sports, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
7.
Sports Biomechanics Laboratory, Polytechnic University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain
Human Movement 2020 vol. 21 (2), 42-50
Online publish date: 2020/01/22
View full text
Get citation
ENW
EndNote
BIB
JabRef, Mendeley
RIS
Papers, Reference Manager, RefWorks, Zotero
AMA
APA
Chicago
Harvard
MLA
Vancouver
 
Purpose
The study aimed to compare and correlate the power, height, eccentric and concentric force development rate of 3 sequential attempts of countermovement jump (CMJ) and the respective muscle response in beach and indoor volleyball athletes.

Methods
The sample involved high-level hard court indoor volleyball (HCIV, n = 7) and high-level sand court beach volleyball (SCBV, n = 6) athletes. They performed 3 CMJs (1st CMJ vs. 2nd CMJ vs. 3rd CMJ) to determine the height, eccentric force development rate (EFDR), concentric force development rate (CFDR), power, and lower limbs muscle electrical activity.

Results
Difference was demonstrated between HCIV vs. SCBV players in 3rd CMJ EFDR (–270.2 ± 31.6 N/s vs. –214.3 ± 38.7 N/s). In HCIV, 1st CMJ was different from 2nd CMJ and 3rd CMJ in EFDR (–239.0 ± 27.3 N/s vs. –285.6 ± 40.2 N/s and –270.2 ± 31.6 N/s), CFDR (87.8 ± 24.4 N/s vs. 89.6 ± 25.7 N/s and 75.0 ± 23.6 N/s), and power (2341.8 ± 342.3 W vs. 2433.9 ± 327.2 W and 2411.0 ± 358.5 W). In SCBV, 2nd CMJ was different from 3rd CMJ in EFDR (–267.1 ± 45.2 N/s vs. –214.3 ± 38.7 N/s). In 2nd CMJ, the left gluteus presented lower electrical activity than the left medial gastrocnemius, and HCIV revealed a difference between the response of the right and left gluteus in 3rd CMJ.

Conclusions
Our analysis demonstrated ca. 70% of good or excellent intra-class correlation between the beach and indoor groups.

keywords:

countermovement jump, volleyball biomechanics, EMG, muscle activity

Quick links
© 2020 Termedia Sp. z o.o. All rights reserved.
Developed by Bentus.
PayU - płatności internetowe