Kinetics and Kinematics of the Squat and Step-up in Well-Trained Rugby Players

ABSTRACTAppleby, BB, Newton, RU, and Cormack, SJ. Kinetics and kinematics of the squat and step-up in well-trained rugby players. J Strength Cond Res 33(7S)S36–S44, 2019—The purpose of this study was to compare and contrast the kinetics and kinematics of squat and step-up performance in well-trained...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of strength and conditioning research 2019-07, Vol.33 Suppl 1 (1), p.S36-S44
Hauptverfasser: Appleby, Brendyn B, Newton, Robert U, Cormack, Stuart J
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:ABSTRACTAppleby, BB, Newton, RU, and Cormack, SJ. Kinetics and kinematics of the squat and step-up in well-trained rugby players. J Strength Cond Res 33(7S)S36–S44, 2019—The purpose of this study was to compare and contrast the kinetics and kinematics of squat and step-up performance in well-trained athletes. Triaxial ground reaction force (GRF) and 3D kinematic data were collected in 4 maximal effort repetitions each at 70, 80, and 90% of 1 repetition maximum (1RM) of squat and step-up. The difference in concentric phase kinetics and kinematics between the squat and step-up was compared using effect sizes (ES ± 90% confidence limits [CLs]) classified asless than 0.2 as trivial; 0.2–0.6 as small; 0.6–1.2 as moderate; and 1.2–2.0 as large. Where the 90% CL crossed negative and positive 0.2 values, the effect was considered “unclear.n Ground reaction force was higher for the step-up than squat at all relative intensities per leg (peak GRF ES2.56 ± 0.19 to 2.70 ± 0.37; average GRF ES1.45 ± 0.27 to 1.48 ± 0.29). Per leg, the difference in concentric impulse favored the step-up compared with squat at 70% 1RM (ES = 0.71 ± 0.40) and 80% 1RM (ES = 0.30 ± 0.41) but was unclear at 90% 1RM (ES = −0.25 ± 0.47). The squat peak velocity was greater compared with step-up at all intensities (ES = −1.74 ± 0.48 to −1.33 ± 0.48). Despite a lower external load and a single base of support, per leg, the step-up produced comparable GRF because the squat suggesting overload provided by the step-up is sufficient for maximal strength development. Future research may investigate the efficacy of the step-up in a training intervention for the development of lower-body strength.
ISSN:1064-8011
1533-4287
DOI:10.1519/JSC.0000000000003055