Home > Journals > The Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness > Past Issues > The Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness 2002 September;42(3) > The Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness 2002 September;42(3):300-3

CURRENT ISSUE
 

JOURNAL TOOLS

eTOC
To subscribe PROMO
Submit an article
Recommend to your librarian
 

ARTICLE TOOLS

Reprints
Permissions

 

Original articles  EXERCISE PHYSIOLOGY AND BIOMECHANICS 

The Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness 2002 September;42(3):300-3

Copyright © 2009 EDIZIONI MINERVA MEDICA

language: English

Jump evaluation of elite volleyball players using two methods: jump power equations and force platform

Hertogh C., Hue O.

From the Laboratoire ACTE, UFR-STAPS Université des Antilles et de la Guyane Campus de Fouillole, Pointe à Pitre, France (Guadeloupe)


PDF


Background. The aim of the ­present ­study was to deter­mine the ­best ­jump pow­er equa­tion in the eval­u­a­tion of ­elite vol­ley­ball ­players ­using ­both the ­force plat­form and ­peak pow­er equa­tions.
Methods. Nine ­elite vol­ley­ball ­players and ­nine sed­en­tary sub­jects per­formed coun­ter-move­ment ­jump ­tests on a ­force plat­form.
Results. Peak pow­er and ­height ­were great­er in the vol­ley­ball ­players ­than in the sed­en­tary sub­jects, what­ev­er the meth­od ­used.
The ­results dem­on­strat­ed ­that the ­peak pow­er val­ues ­obtained on the ­force plat­form and ­those ­scored ­from the equa­tions of Lewis, Harman and Sayers et al. ­were cor­re­lat­ed ­when the ­whole sam­ple was tak­en ­into ­account. However, a sig­nif­i­cant equa­tion × lev­el inter­ac­tion (p<10-4) indi­cat­ed dif­fer­ent beha­vi­our as a func­tion of per­for­mance lev­el. In sed­en­tary sub­jects, ­peak pow­er was sig­nif­i­cant­ly under­es­ti­mat­ed ­using the Lewis equa­tion (943±162 W; p<10-4) and did not dif­fer ­using ­both the Harman (3004±563 W) and Sayers (3400±604 W) equa­tions ­when com­pared to the ­peak pow­er not­ed ­with the ­force plat­form (3372±532 W). In con­trast, in vol­ley­ball ­players, ­peak pow­er was under­es­ti­mat­ed ­using the ­three equa­tions (1246±78 W, p<10-4; 4314±216 W, p<0.001; 4607±251, p<0.005; for the Lewis, Harman and Sayers equa­tions, respec­tive­ly, ver­sus 5355±522 W for the ­force plat­form).
Conclusions. The ­results of the ­present ­study dem­on­strate the dif­fi­cul­ty in choos­ing the ­most rel­e­vant equa­tion in the ­jump pow­er cal­cu­la­tion.

top of page