1990Medicine & Science in Sports & ExerciseRequires access

The effects of arms and countermovement on vertical jumping

Everett A. Harman, Michael T. Rosenstein, Peter Frykman, Richard Rosenstein

Open publisher page 414 citations

Abstract

Countermovement and arm-swing characterize most jumping. For determination of their effects and interaction, 18 males jumped for maximal height from a force platform in all four combinations of arm-swing/no-arm-swing and countermovement/no-countermovement. For all jumps, vertical velocity peaked 0.03 s before and dropped 6-7% by takeoff. Peak positive power averaged over 3,000 W, and occurred about 0.07 s before takeoff, shortly after peak vertical ground reaction force (VGRF) and just before peak vertical velocity. Both countermovement and arm-swing significantly (P less than 0.05) improved jump height, but arm-swing's effect was greater, enhancing peak total body center of mass (TBCM) rise both pre and posttakeoff. Countermovement only affected the post-takeoff rise. The arm-swing resulted in higher peak VGRF and peak positive power. During countermovement, the use of arms resulted in less unweighting, slower and less extensive TBCM drop, and less negative power. Countermovement increased pretakeoff jump duration by 71-76%, increased average positive power, and yielded large positive and negative impulses. High test-retest reliability was shown for jump descriptive variables. Body weight together with peak posttakeoff TBCM rise effectively predicted peak power (multiple R2 = 0.89, standard error of estimate = 243 W). The results lend insight into which jumping techniques are most appropriate for given sports situations and indicate that a jump test can effectively be used to estimate peak power output.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

Countermovement and arm-swing characterize most jumping. For determination of their effects and interaction, 18 males jumped for maximal height from a force platform in all four combinations of arm-swing/no-arm-swing and countermovement/no-countermovement. For all jumps, vertical velocity peaked 0.03 s before and dropped 6-7% by takeoff. Peak positive power averaged over 3,000 W, and occurred about 0.07 s before takeoff, shortly after peak vertical ground reaction force (VGRF) and just before peak vertical velocity. Both countermovement and arm-swing significantly (P less than 0.05) improved jump height, but arm-swing's effect was greater, enhancing peak total body center of mass (TBCM) rise both pre and posttakeoff. Countermovement only affected the post-takeoff rise. The arm-swing resulted in higher peak VGRF and peak positive power. During countermovement, the use of arms resulted in less unweighting, slower and less extensive TBCM drop, and less negative power. Countermovement increased pretakeoff jump duration by 71-76%, increased average positive power, and yielded large positive and negative impulses. High test-retest reliability was shown for jump descriptive variables. Body weight together with peak posttakeoff TBCM rise effectively predicted peak power (multiple R2 = 0.89, standard error of estimate = 243 W). The results lend insight into which jumping techniques are most appropriate for given sports situations and indicate that a jump test can effectively be used to estimate peak power output.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 414 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

Countermovement and arm-swing characterize most jumping. For determination of their effects and interaction, 18 males jumped for maximal height from a force platform in all four combinations of arm-swing/no-arm-swing and countermovement/no-countermovement. For all jumps, vertical velocity peaked 0.03 s before and dropped 6-7% by takeoff. Peak positive power averaged over 3,000 W, and occurred about 0.07 s before takeoff, shortly after peak vertical ground reaction force (VGRF) and just before peak vertical velocity. Both countermovement and arm-swing significantly (P less than 0.05) improved jump height, but arm-swing's effect was greater, enhancing peak total body center of mass (TBCM) rise both pre and posttakeoff. Countermovement only affected the post-takeoff rise. The arm-swing resulted in higher peak VGRF and peak positive power. During countermovement, the use of arms resulted in less unweighting, slower and less extensive TBCM drop, and less negative power. Countermovement increased pretakeoff jump duration by 71-76%, increased average positive power, and yielded large positive and negative impulses. High test-retest reliability was shown for jump descriptive variables. Body weight together with peak posttakeoff TBCM rise effectively predicted peak power (multiple R2 = 0.89, standard error of estimate = 243 W). The results lend insight into which jumping techniques are most appropriate for given sports situations and indicate that a jump test can effectively be used to estimate peak power output.

Key concepts: Countermovement, Takeoff, Jumping, Swing, Mathematics, Jump, Ground reaction force, Force platform

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
The effects of arms and countermovement on vertical jumping — Research Paper | ScholarLens