Marcos A Soriano, Jason Lake, Paul Comfort, Timothy J Suchomel, John J McMahon, Ester Jiménez-Ormeño, Pilar Sainz de Baranda
{"title":"举重顶压运动的动力学没有差异。","authors":"Marcos A Soriano, Jason Lake, Paul Comfort, Timothy J Suchomel, John J McMahon, Ester Jiménez-Ormeño, Pilar Sainz de Baranda","doi":"10.1080/14763141.2021.1993983","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This study aimed to compare the kinetics between the push press (PP), push jerk (PJ), and split jerk (SJ). Sixteen resistance-trained participants (12 men and 4 women; age: 23.8 ± 4.4 years; height: 1.7 ± 0.1 m; body mass: 75.7 ± 13.0 kg; weightlifting experience: 2.2 ± 1.3 years; one repetition maximum [1RM] PP: 76.5 ± 19.5 kg) performed 3 repetitions each of the PP, PJ, and SJ at a relative load of 80% 1RM PP on a force platform. The kinetics (peak and mean force, peak and mean power, and impulse) of the PP, PJ, and SJ were determined during the dip and thrust phases. Dip and thrust displacement and duration were also calculated for the three lifts. In addition, the inter-repetition reliability of each variable across the three exercises was analysed. Moderate to excellent reliability was evident for the PP (Intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] = 0.91-1.00), PJ (ICC = 0.86-1.00), and SJ (ICC = 0.55-0.99) kinetics. A one-way analysis of variance revealed no significant or meaningful differences (<i>p</i> > 0.05, η<sup>2</sup><b> </b>≤ 0.010) for any kinetic measure between the PP, PJ, and SJ. In conclusion, there were no differences in kinetics between the PP, PJ, and SJ when performed at the same standardised load of 80% 1RM PP.</p>","PeriodicalId":49482,"journal":{"name":"Sports Biomechanics","volume":" ","pages":"2080-2092"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"No differences in weightlifting overhead pressing exercises kinetics.\",\"authors\":\"Marcos A Soriano, Jason Lake, Paul Comfort, Timothy J Suchomel, John J McMahon, Ester Jiménez-Ormeño, Pilar Sainz de Baranda\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/14763141.2021.1993983\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>This study aimed to compare the kinetics between the push press (PP), push jerk (PJ), and split jerk (SJ). Sixteen resistance-trained participants (12 men and 4 women; age: 23.8 ± 4.4 years; height: 1.7 ± 0.1 m; body mass: 75.7 ± 13.0 kg; weightlifting experience: 2.2 ± 1.3 years; one repetition maximum [1RM] PP: 76.5 ± 19.5 kg) performed 3 repetitions each of the PP, PJ, and SJ at a relative load of 80% 1RM PP on a force platform. The kinetics (peak and mean force, peak and mean power, and impulse) of the PP, PJ, and SJ were determined during the dip and thrust phases. Dip and thrust displacement and duration were also calculated for the three lifts. In addition, the inter-repetition reliability of each variable across the three exercises was analysed. Moderate to excellent reliability was evident for the PP (Intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] = 0.91-1.00), PJ (ICC = 0.86-1.00), and SJ (ICC = 0.55-0.99) kinetics. A one-way analysis of variance revealed no significant or meaningful differences (<i>p</i> > 0.05, η<sup>2</sup><b> </b>≤ 0.010) for any kinetic measure between the PP, PJ, and SJ. In conclusion, there were no differences in kinetics between the PP, PJ, and SJ when performed at the same standardised load of 80% 1RM PP.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49482,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Sports Biomechanics\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"2080-2092\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Sports Biomechanics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"5\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/14763141.2021.1993983\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2021/10/27 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ENGINEERING, BIOMEDICAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sports Biomechanics","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14763141.2021.1993983","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/10/27 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, BIOMEDICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
No differences in weightlifting overhead pressing exercises kinetics.
This study aimed to compare the kinetics between the push press (PP), push jerk (PJ), and split jerk (SJ). Sixteen resistance-trained participants (12 men and 4 women; age: 23.8 ± 4.4 years; height: 1.7 ± 0.1 m; body mass: 75.7 ± 13.0 kg; weightlifting experience: 2.2 ± 1.3 years; one repetition maximum [1RM] PP: 76.5 ± 19.5 kg) performed 3 repetitions each of the PP, PJ, and SJ at a relative load of 80% 1RM PP on a force platform. The kinetics (peak and mean force, peak and mean power, and impulse) of the PP, PJ, and SJ were determined during the dip and thrust phases. Dip and thrust displacement and duration were also calculated for the three lifts. In addition, the inter-repetition reliability of each variable across the three exercises was analysed. Moderate to excellent reliability was evident for the PP (Intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] = 0.91-1.00), PJ (ICC = 0.86-1.00), and SJ (ICC = 0.55-0.99) kinetics. A one-way analysis of variance revealed no significant or meaningful differences (p > 0.05, η2≤ 0.010) for any kinetic measure between the PP, PJ, and SJ. In conclusion, there were no differences in kinetics between the PP, PJ, and SJ when performed at the same standardised load of 80% 1RM PP.
期刊介绍:
Sports Biomechanics is the Thomson Reuters listed scientific journal of the International Society of Biomechanics in Sports (ISBS). The journal sets out to generate knowledge to improve human performance and reduce the incidence of injury, and to communicate this knowledge to scientists, coaches, clinicians, teachers, and participants. The target performance realms include not only the conventional areas of sports and exercise, but also fundamental motor skills and other highly specialized human movements such as dance (both sport and artistic).
Sports Biomechanics is unique in its emphasis on a broad biomechanical spectrum of human performance including, but not limited to, technique, skill acquisition, training, strength and conditioning, exercise, coaching, teaching, equipment, modeling and simulation, measurement, and injury prevention and rehabilitation. As well as maintaining scientific rigour, there is a strong editorial emphasis on ''reader friendliness''. By emphasising the practical implications and applications of research, the journal seeks to benefit practitioners directly.
Sports Biomechanics publishes papers in four sections: Original Research, Reviews, Teaching, and Methods and Theoretical Perspectives.