Journal of Sport Rehabilitation, 2012, 21, 306-312

© 2012 Human Kinetics, Inc. www.JSR-Journal.com

ORIGINAL RESEARCH REPORT

Alterations in Peak Ground-Reaction Force During 60-cm

Drop Landings Caused by a Single Session
of Repeated Wingate Anaerobic Tests
David J Dominguese, Jeff Seegmiller, and B. Andrew Krause

Context: Lower extremity injury is prevalent among individuals participating in sports. Numerous variables
have been reported as predisposing risk factors to injury; however, the effects of muscle fatigue on landing
kinetics are unclear. Objectives: To investigate the effects of a single session of repeated muscle fatigue on peak
vertical ground-reaction force (GRF) during drop landings. Design: Mixed factorial with repeated measures.
Setting: Controlled laboratory. Participants: 10 female and 10 male healthy recreational athletes. Intervention:
Subjects performed 3 fatigued drop landings (60 cm) after four 20-s Wingate anaerobic tests (WATs) with 5
min of active recovery between fatigued conditions. Main Outcome Measures: Kinetic data of peak forefoot
(F1) force, peak rear-foot (F2) force, and anteroposterior (AP) and mediolateral (ML) forces at both F1 and F2.
Results: A significant main effect was observed in the nonfatigued and fatigued drop landings in respect to peak
F2 force. The greatest significant difference was shown between the first fatigued drop-landing condition and
the last fatigued drop-landing condition. No significant difference was observed between genders for all GRF
variables across fatigue conditions. Conclusion: A single session of repeated conditions of anaerobic muscle
fatigue induced by WATs caused an initial reduction in peak F2 force followed by an increase in peak F2 force
across conditions. Muscle fatigue consequently alters landing kinetics, potentially increasing the risk of injury.

Keywords: muscle fatigue, landing performance, lower extremity

Lower extremity injuries are common in sports and
are caused by the interaction of modifiable and unmodi-
fiable risk factors. Conceptualizing modifiable and
unmodifiable risk factors enables clinicians and injury
researchers to understand and propose evidence-based
injury-prevention interventions.1,2
Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) knee injuries are
among the most common lower extremity injuries.1,3–5
Sports medicine professionals manage concerns related
to noncontact ACL and lower extremity musculoskeletal
injury risk and injury prevention through a multifaceted
approach. Biomechanical analysis provides quantifiable
data on the force acting on the body to help explain injury
mechanisms and mechanics.
During ambulation and athletic performance, the
body attenuates variable magnitudes of ground-reaction
force (GRF), specifically from landing. 6–9 Landing
performance has been observed to vary by gender, as
Dominguese is with the Dept of Applied Medicine and Reha-
bilitation, Indiana State University, Terre Haute, IN. Seegmiller
is with the WWAMI Medical Education and Movement Science
Program, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID. Krause is with the
Ohio Musculoskeletal and Neurological Institute (OMNI),
Ohio University Heritage College of Osteopathic Medicine,
Athens, OH.
demonstrated by different landing strategies and different
neuromuscular responses.10–13 The female neuromuscular
response has been shown to be a predisposing factor to
lower extremity injuries, including stress fractures and
ACL tears.11,14
Additional variables such as muscle fatigue add to
the complexity of attenuating GRF loads. GRF has been
shown to decrease with lower extremity muscle fatigue
due to increases in angular velocity at the hip and knee,15
which alter usual landing strategies. Lower extremity
muscle fatigue could result in undesirable movement
patterns such as a significant increase in knee flexion and
dorsiflexion, causing additional stress to the ACL and
surrounding tissue.4,15–17 Examination of biomechani-
cal variables while landing under fatigued conditions is
needed to increase our understanding of lower extremity
injury and assist in the development of injury-prevention
programs and interventions.
Muscle fatigue results in an inability to sustain or
maintain muscle contractions at a given force produc-
tion.18–21 Fatigue can be both central and peripheral in
nature, although both types of fatigue affect landing
mechanics by altering muscle stiffness and execution
of landing due to inadequate force production. There-
fore, adaptations in landing mechanics while fatigued
predispose athletes to lower extremity musculoskeletal
injuries. Recent research19,20,22 has focused on the effect of

306

muscle fatigue on task-specific skills and the interactions
of exercise-induced fatigue, which has provided insight
into injury prevention and management.4,15–17,23,24 Further
research examining the interaction of muscle fatigue and
biomechanical variables during landing tasks is needed
to gain a greater understanding of lower extremity injury
mechanisms.
Various protocols have been used to investigate exer-
cise-induced fatigue responses on muscle force production
and neuromuscular activation.19,21 A 30-second Wingate
anaerobic test (WAT) has been the standard modality to
measure anaerobic responses such as the fatigue index that
measures a decline in peak power.24 The standard duration
of a WAT is 30 seconds; however, 20 seconds has also been
used and shown to be a valid alternative to the 30-second
test to encourage participant compliance.24–26 The WAT
has been used as a protocol to induce muscle fatigue and
examine its effect on landing mechanics.26 Additional
studies with repeated bouts of the WAT to mimic athletic
activity patterns will provide greater understanding of
injury mechanisms of the knee. The purpose of this study
was to investigate the effects of repeated muscle fatigue
on GRF during drop landings and determine if there are
gender differences. We hypothesized that muscle fatigue
would alter landing kinetics and potentially increase the
risk for lower extremity injury.
Methods
Design
Participants performed drop landings under 5 experi-
mental conditions. The first condition required them to
perform 5 nonfatigued drop landings (control) from a
60-cm platform, followed by 4 fatigued conditions that
consisted of a 20-second WAT followed by 2 drop land-
ings between bouts. Participants performed the WAT by
pedaling an ergometer bicycle with both legs in a seated
position using pedal toe straps. Before the experimental
condition was administered, a 5-minute warm-up was
performed on the cycle between 60 and 70 rpm with 1
kg of resistance. After the warm-up, each participant
performed the 5 nonfatigued drop landings and then the
first fatigued bout. Each fatigued condition was followed
by 2 drop landings (60-cm) onto a force platform with 5
minutes of active rest between that included 4 minutes
of cycling at the warm-up intensity.
Independent variables were fatigue condition and
gender. Dependent variables included peak vertical
forefoot (F1) GRF, peak vertical rear-foot (F2) GRF,
anteroposterior (AP) force at F1, AP force at F2, medio-
lateral (ML) force at F1, and ML force at F2. The F1 and
F2 variables were scaled to the number of body weights
(BW) for each participant for practical relevance.
Participants
Ten female (22.5 ± 0.85 years) and 10 male (24.1 ± 2.6
years) recreational athletes from a university-student
Wingate Tests and Ground-Reaction Force   307
population volunteered for this study. Recreational ath-
letes were defined as individuals who had participated
in a jumping sport such as basketball or volleyball at
least 3 times per week within the last 3 months but
were not members of any intercollegiate athletic team.
The number of participants and drop-landing trials used
in this study were similar to those found in previous
research.27
Participants attended an information session 1 week
before the onset of data collection to orient them to the
experimental protocol, answer all questions, and review
the informed consent. The experimental session included
collection of the signed consent form, administration of
a medical-history injury form, and completion of a lower
extremity orthopedic physical examination to assess joint
integrity. Participants were required to have been free of
lower extremity injury for at least 6 months before data
collection and have no history of ACL injury, ankle insta-
bility, or cardiovascular or pulmonary illness, as screened
by the health questionnaire and an orthopedic physical
examination performed by an athletic trainer. Demo-
graphic data of age, weight, and height were recorded.
Participants were instructed to refrain from any form of
exercise and alcohol and caffeine consumption for 24
hours before data collection and were excluded if they did
not adhere to the criteria. The study was approved by the
institutional review board, and all participants provided
consent before data collection.
Procedures
Participants performed drop landings from a 60-cm
platform onto a force plate installed flush with the floor
surface. The force plate was located 20 cm from the
front of the 60-cm platform. Participants landed with
their bare feet on the force plate and floor to eliminate
shoe interaction and changes in GRF due to shoe cush-
ioning effects and were allowed to practice the drop
landings to become comfortable with the protocol. They
landed with their right foot on the force plate and the
other foot beside it. Leg dominance was determined by
asking them to identify the leg with which they would
prefer to kick a ball.28 All participants reported right-
leg dominance.
To avoid any coaching effect, participants were
instructed to land how they would normally land if
they had to drop from any given height to ensure their
normal landing mechanics. They dropped when given the
instructions “ready and drop.” The ready command was
given once participants had crossed their arms in front
of their body and their dominant foot was hanging off
the platform. Each participant performed 2 drop landings
after each fatigue condition with 30 seconds of rest after
each drop landing to reduce muscle-fatigue recovery. The
30-second recovery allowed each subject to perform the
drop landings safely and adequately. A stopwatch was
used to control for time.
Drop landings were deemed acceptable if the entire
foot was in contact with the force plate, balance was
308  Dominguese, Seegmiller, and Krause
maintained, and the participant remained on the force
plate for a minimum of 2 seconds. Unacceptable trials
were repeated as soon as possible during the fatigued
drop landings.
Fatigue was induced by a 20-second WAT. Before
the test was administered, participants practiced the
protocol for several seconds to ensure that they could
perform it correctly. The fatigue protocol required par-
ticipants to pedal as hard as possible with no resistance
until a cadence was reached. Once they reached a high
cadence (after several seconds), they pushed a button on
the handlebars that instantly added a resistance of 7.5% of
their body weight for 20 seconds as verbal encouragement
was given to promote maximal effort. Immediately after
the fatigue bout, participants were instructed to promptly
remove their shoes and perform the drop landings. Peak
power, average power, and fatigue index were collected
to monitor fatigue and effort.
Immediately after the WAT, participants were asked
to rate their rating of perceived exertion using the Borg
scale and to report any symptoms of headache, dizziness,
or other adverse symptoms due to the fatigue condition.
Instrumentation
GRF was collected by 9281C Kistler force plate (Kistler
Instruments Corp, USA) and amplified with an external
8-channel 9865B change amplifier (Kistler Instruments
Corp). The GRF data were analyzed with Peak Motus
Software 8.0 (Peak Performance Technologies Inc, USA).
Analog data were sampled at 8500 Hz and filtered using
an eighth-order low-pass Butterworth filter with a cutoff
frequency of 293 Hz to remove oscillation from the land-
ing that had ~833 Hz resonant frequency.
The WAT was collected by a Monark Ergomedic
894E Peak bike (Monark, Sweden) with Windows-based
Monark Anaerobic software (Monark, Sweden) to deter-
mine fatigue characteristics.
Statistical Analysis
The means and standard deviations were calculated
for the drop landings for each experimental condition.
Independent and dependent variables were used in a
mixed-factor analysis of variance (ANOVA) with fatigue
as the repeated measures for the dependent variables
to analyze the equality of means. Dependent variables
were treated separately to test within-condition effects,
between-conditions effects, and interactions with an a
Table 1  Peak Power, Mean Power, and Power Drop, Mean ± SD
Group N Peak power (W)
Men 10 633.34 ± 120.30
Women 10 373.23 ± 80.58
Overall 20 503.29 ± 100.29
priori alpha of .05. Effect sizes and power were calculated
for all analyses.
Pairwise comparisons were used to identify differ-
ences within all the fatigue conditions using a Bonferroni
adjustment (P = .01). Data were analyzed using SPSS
statistical software, version 17.0 for Windows (SPSS
Inc, Chicago, IL).
Results
Descriptive data were collected for all participants during
the WAT to monitor fatigue. Peak power was significantly
greater in men (633.34 ± 120.30 W) than in women
(373.23 ± 80.58 W), and both male (45.36% ± 8.29%)
and female (42% ± 10.21%) participants demonstrated
similar overall percentage power drop after fatigued bouts
(Table 1). Significant differences were observed within
and between all fatigue conditions (P < .05), except the
first bout, compared with baseline.
The mean rating of perceived exertion was used to
monitor fatigue and effort during the fatigue conditions.
The rating of perceived exertion was similar among
participants who reported the fatigue bouts as hard and
very hard across all fatigue conditions with a high level
of exertion (16.23 ± 2.06).
Gender and GRF
Data revealed significant differences in GRF for F2
between fatigue conditions (Figure 1), but not by gender.
Gender did not influence peak-force magnitudes during
drop landings for any of the fatigue conditions. Peak GRF
values for men (7.84 ± 1.5 BW) were nearly identical
to those recorded for women (7.82 ± 2.2 BW) in the
nonfatigued condition.
AP and ML Force
Results of this study revealed no significant differences
between gender for AP and ML force at F1 and F2 for
either nonfatigued or fatigued conditions. AP and ML
forces were measured to determine the relationship of
changes in peak force. ML forces at F1 and F2 were not
statistically significant (P > .05); however, a high degree
of variability was observed among participants, resulting
in large standard deviations. Variable ML peak forces
were observed among participants performing fatigued
landings (Table 2).
Mean power (W) Power drop (%)
504.68 ± 106.09 45.36 ± 8.29
303.35 ± 67.24 43.00 ± 10.21
404.02 ± 86.67 44.18 ± 9.23
 Wingate Tests and Ground-Reaction Force   309

Figure 1 — Peak rear-foot vertical ground-reaction force by fatigue condition. *Significant difference between fatigued and non-
fatigued conditions, P < .05.

Table 2  Analysis for Ground-Reaction Force muscle function after fatigue was equally altered for both
(BW) Across All Conditions and Between genders, and although differences in landing strategies
Genders have been reported between genders elsewhere, our data
did not reveal any differences.8,9,29 However, we casu-
Mean SD P η2 ally observed an interesting trend that warrants further
Forefoot force 3.51 0.90 .314 .257 examination. Across both genders, muscle fatigue led
Rear-foot force 8.35 2.35 .003* .634
to an initial reduction in GRF, followed by an increase
in GRF as fatigue steadily progressed. Given the dearth
AP force at forefoot 6.21 2.03 .172 .330 of literature on this phenomenon, we will examine this
AP force at rear foot 1.51 2.38 .427 .214 further in future studies.
ML force at forefoot 0.1 1.04 .942 .047 GRF variables determine magnitude of force but
do not quantify the joint positioning that created those
ML force at rear foot 4.62 9.95 .305 .261
forces. Kinematic analyses are required to quantify and
Abbreviations: AP, anteroposterior; ML, mediolateral; BW, body explain changes in GRF. Gender differences may have
weight. been revealed with kinematic analyses3,5,12,13,28 and may
have further explained observed changes in GRF after
Discussion each subsequent fatigued bout, but measuring this was
not feasible due to instrumentation and equipment con-
We used the WAT to produce exercise-induced fatigue straints. The observed reduction in GRF followed by an
to identify alterations in GRF during drop landings by increase in GRF as fatigue increased can be explained by
fatigue level and gender. Surprisingly, there were no the role of the musculature in attenuating GRF. During
significant gender differences in peak-force magnitudes early trials, an increase in sagittal- and frontal-plane
during the fatigued drop landings. This result contrasts movement was observed on video.
with those reported in the literature that indicated landing More than three-fourths (76%) of participants dem-
differences between males and females.8,9,29 Peak GRF onstrated higher peak force for the second drop landing
was high for both genders and can be attributed to landing than for the first, indicating a probable increase in fatigue
barefoot on the force plate. even within the fatigued condition. Our research design
Landing differences between genders have been was such that the mean and standard deviation were cal-
attributed to neuromuscular responses.5,30 These neuro- culated for all trials in a condition. However, we found it
muscular responses are usually altered immediately after interesting that recorded values for the second trial were
muscle fatigue. Neuromuscular exercise-induced fatigue consistently much higher than for the first trial. Therefore,
is the integration of central and peripheral processing reporting the second trial value instead of averaging the
of the nervous system and skeletal muscle, resulting trials within each condition might be a better way to report
in a reduction of muscle work. However, in our study, fatigue data in future studies.
310  Dominguese, Seegmiller, and Krause
Data indicated that with the onset of muscle fatigue,
participants increased the time over which the force was
applied from initial contact to heel contact. This interpre-
tation was based on the measured time between F1 and F2
contact and was an additional analysis used to quantify
the initial reduction identified in peak GRF because 3D
kinematic analyses were not used.
The initial reduction of peak forces that we observed
is advantageous in reducing lower extremity impact
injuries such as stress fractures, but it may increase soft-
tissue injury as landing force is attenuated by muscle
and other tissues. Kinematic analysis has shown that
untrained females land with an increased valgus angle at
the knees, resulting in altered time between initial contact
and heel contact with inadequate joint positioning.5,29–31
Even though this landing strategy accomplishes GRF
reduction, it may predispose to or even cause more lower
extremity injuries than would high-impact forces alone.
This increased valgus-angle landing strategy usually
resulted in decreased peak force after the first fatigued
bout, followed by a general progression of increased force
with each subsequent landing trial. The increase of peak
force (F2) occurring after each fatigue protocol can be
attributed to increased landing stiffness.
Stiff landings result from altered joint position-
ing of the trunk and lower extremity and are generally
caused by reduced flexion of the trunk and knees.15 This
neuromuscular adaptation allows for the performance
of fatigued landings even when muscles are incapable
of producing a maximal contraction or sufficient power
output to perform a task.20 Fatigued muscle responds by
recruiting smaller motor neurons and recruiting different
muscles, which thereby influence neuronal synaptic trans-
mission, firing rate and frequency, conduction velocity,
and sequence of muscle contractions.18–22 This neuromus-
cular alteration accommodates the demand of repeated
muscle contractions. Without this adaptation, fatigued
participants would collapse during landing. Therefore,
a certain magnitude of joint stiffness is expected during
fatigued landings and is a neuromuscular requirement.
Increases in ML force at F1 may indicate move-
ment in the frontal plane at contact that affected overall
joint positioning and increased lower extremity muscle
activity.17,30,32 These alterations influenced landing per-
formance and increased stress to the lower extremity,
specifically to the ACL.30 Changes in these variables
could indicate that significant AP and ML forces at the
knee and hip may have occurred to provide the necessary
stiffness to execute a landing while fatigued.15,30,33
Although there are various fatigue protocols, with
some deemed more functional than others and more
readily generalizable to an active athlete population,34,35
we used the WAT for exercise-induced fatigue. Jumping
and running protocols encompass the elastic component
of tissue, and although the WAT does not, both involve
concentric and eccentric work. The major limitation of
using a jumping and running fatigue protocol is that it
introduces variability due to individual skill on the task,
whereas the WAT is more tightly controlled while still
incorporating large muscle groups associated with jump-
ing and running.
Establishing fatigue criteria is difficult regardless
of protocol. The criterion is a measure expressed as a
percentage of work capacity, such as 50% or 80% of
maximal force output, which is then compared with a
certain measureable skill, such as GRF during landings,
to determine if there were differences based on fatigue or
failure of a specific task. Observed changes are accounted
as fatigue effects. Therefore, in any fatigue protocol, the
question of whether the protocol effectively induced
fatigue remains open to interpretation since other factors
may influence performance.
The WAT is a well-established exercise test that
measures anaerobic capacity and produces a significant
degree of fatigue during test performance, as evidenced
by the percentage decrease in peak power at the end of
the test. Although no standard for percentage of power
drop has been established to indicate fatigue, participants
recorded a 44% decrease in power. These results are con-
sistent with subsequent WATs performed with 3 minutes
and 20 seconds of recovery.36 Wilson et al36 reported a
power decline of 48% to 56% across participants who
performed repeated conditions of the WAT on different
days and cycling positions. Our results are also compa-
rable to normative data of power declines reported for
men (47% ± 7.6%) and women (42% ± 7.9%) in NCAA
Division I sports.37
Fatigue can also be assessed by determining subjects’
levels of exertion. Participants rated their average exertion
level at 16, which indicated very hard exertion. When the
WAT was performed with maximal effort, a significant
degree of fatigue resulted. To ensure fatigue, 4 condi-
tions of the WAT were administered with 5 minutes of
active rest. Theoretically, participants could have recov-
ered within the 5-minute rest period; however fatigue
effects have been shown to last more than 40 minutes.38
Therefore, it was assumed that participants were fatigued
during the drop-landing protocol and that changes in peak
GRF were the result of fatigue.
Clinical Relevance
Noncontact ACL and lower extremity injuries occur at
high rates in sports, with the highest percentage occur-
ring among females.5,30 In the literature, it is generally
accepted that females’ landing strategies predispose them
to noncontact ACL injuries. The challenge is to create a
research protocol that exposes athletes to the same stress
and level of performance as their particular sport without
causing injury.
Researchers 1,2 have identified modifiable and
unmodifiable risk factors associated with injury. Recently,
attention has been focused on modifiable risk factors
such as neuromuscular control, biomechanical factors,
and fatigue during landing and cutting.1,5,39
Understanding how the body responds to landing
in a fatigued state is vital since athletes participate in
sports while fatigued and fatigue has been shown to be a

precursor to many overuse injuries.22 Performance altera-
tions demonstrated during specific functional tasks are of
great importance to understanding injury mechanisms.
Alterations observed during fatigued landings provide
valuable insight as to the physiological and neuromus-
cular adjustments employed during skill performance
before task failure or injury occurs. However, these
adjustments can be counterproductive and predispose the
body to injury. Identifying what neuromuscular factors
influence specific task failure, rather than quantifying
force output to establish fatigue, is the desired direc-
tion for understanding functional task performance and
fatigue.20
Overall functional strength and neuromuscular
control delay muscle fatigue. Therefore, maximal func-
tional strength along with proper education on how to
land is critical to reduce overuse injuries. Education
and landing coaching have been effective in reducing
injury.11,30,40,41 Prevention programs have implemented
landing and jump training to encourage a landing strategy
that decreases force and maintains adequate joint stiff-
ness by increased knee and hip flexion at initial contact
and throughout the absorption phase. A goal of any
prevention program is to alter dynamic loading through
neuromuscular training.1,30,39–41 Prevention programs
enhance neuromuscular alterations by improving balance,
strength, and neuromuscular coordination to facilitate
joint stabilization.5,11,30,39
The effectiveness of neuromuscular prevention pro-
grams is difficult to measure. Even in athletes performing
these prevention programs, fatigue occurs and detrimental
neuromuscular alterations may develop.39 Significant
undesirable neuromuscular alterations occur with fatigue
and are most applicable to what occurs during real-time
athletic participation. Neuromuscular training during
different magnitudes of fatigue should be considered to
train the correct responses for functional movement in
sports-specific athletic tasks.
Conclusion
A single session of repeated WATs induced fatigue,
causing an initial reduction in peak F2 followed by an
increase in peak F2. This research design offered a novel
way to induce fatigue to investigate the effects of fatigue
on landing kinetics. This study demonstrated a signifi-
cant difference in peak GRF between nonfatigued and
fatigued conditions. Increases in peak force predispose
participants to lower extremity injury. Injuries associated
with increased peak force and landing alterations include
stress fractures and knee injuries, specifically to the ACL.
References
1. Cameron KL. Time for a paradigm shift in conceptual-
izing risk factors in sport injury research. J Athl Train.
2010;45(1):58–60. PubMed doi:10.4085/1062-6050-
45.1.58
Wingate Tests and Ground-Reaction Force   311
2. Finch C. A new framework for research leading to sports
injury prevention. J Sci Med Sport. 2006;9(1-2):3–9.
PubMed doi:10.1016/j.jsams.2006.02.009
3. Brophy R, Silvers HJ, Gonzales T, Mandelbaum BR.
Gender influences: the role of leg dominance in ACL injury
among soccer players. Br J Sports Med. 2010;44:694–697.
PubMed doi:10.1136/bjsm.2008.051243
4. Kellis E, Kouvelioti V. Agonist versus antagonist muscle
fatigue effects on thigh muscle activity and vertical ground
reaction during drop landing. J Electromyogr Kinesiol.
2009;19(1):55–64. PubMed
5. Renstrom P, Ljungvist A, Arendt E, et al. Non-contact
ACL injuries in female athletes: an International Olympic
Committee current concepts statement. Br J Sports Med.
2008;42:394–412. PubMed doi:10.1136/bjsm.2008.048934
6. McNitt-Grey J. Kinematics and impulse characteristics
of drop landings from three heights. Int J Sport Biomech.
1991;7:201–224.
7. Dufek JS, Bates BT. Biomechanical factors associated
with injury during landing in jump sports. Sports Med.
1991;12:326–337. PubMed doi:10.2165/00007256-
199112050-00005
8. Devita P, Skelly WA. Effects of landing stiffness on joint
kinetics and energetics in the lower extremity. Med Sci
Sports Exerc. 1992;24(1):108–115. PubMed
9. Gross TS, Nelson RC. The shock attenuation role of the
ankle during landing from a vertical jump. Med Sci Sports
Exerc. 1988;20:506–514. PubMed
10. Hewett TE, Ford KR, Meyer GD. Anterior cruciate liga-
ments injuries in female athletes: part 2, a meta-analysis
of neuromuscular interventions aimed at prevention. Am
J Sports Med. 2006;34(3):1.
11. Hewett TE, Meyer GD, Ford KR. Anterior cruciate liga-
ment injuries in female athletes: part 1, mechanisms and
risk factors. Am J Sports Med. 2006;34(2):299–311.
PubMed doi:10.1177/0363546505284183
12. Kernozek TW, Torry MR, Iwasaki M. Gender differences
in lower extremity landing mechanics caused by neuro-
muscular fatigue. Am J Sports Med. 2008;36(3):554–565.
PubMed doi:10.1177/0363546507308934
13. McLean SG, Fellin RE, Suedekum N, Calabrese G, Passer-
allo A, Joy S. Impact of fatigue on gender based high risk
landing strategies. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2007;39(3):502–
514. PubMed doi:10.1249/mss.0b013e3180d47f0
14. Moran KA, Marshall B. Effects of fatigue on tibial impact
accelerations and knee kinematics in drop jumps. Med
Sci Sports Exerc. 2006;38(10):1836–1842. PubMed
doi:10.1249/01.mss.0000229567.09661.20
15. Coventry E, O’Connor KM, Hart BA, Earl JE, Ebersole
KT. The effect of lower extremity fatigue on shock
attenuation during single-leg landing. Clin Biomech.
2006;21(10):1090–1097.
16. Madigan ML, Pidcoe PE. Changes in landing biomechan-
ics during a fatiguing landing activity. J Electromyogr
Kinesiol. 2003;13(5):491–498. PubMed doi:10.1016/
S1050-6411(03)00037-3
17. Orishimo KF, Kremenic IJ. Effect of fatigue on
single leg hop landing biomechanics. J Appl Biomech.
2006;22(4):245–254. PubMed
312  Dominguese, Seegmiller, and Krause
18. Gandevia SC, Allen GM, Butler JE, Taylor JL. Supraspinal
factors in human muscle fatigue: evidence for suboptimal
output from the motor cortex. J Physiol. 1996;490(2):529–
536. PubMed
19. Barry BK, Enoka RM. The neurobiology of muscle fatigue:
15 years later. Integr Comp Biol. 2007;47(4):465–473.
PubMed
20. Enoka RM, Duchateau J. Muscle fatigue: what, why and how
it influences muscle function. J Physiol. 2008;586(1):11–
23. PubMed doi:10.1113/jphysiol.2007.139477
21. Vøllestad NK. Measurement of human muscle fatigue.
J Neurosci Methods. 1997;74:219–227. PubMed
doi:10.1016/S0165-0270(97)02251-6
22. Hunter SK. Sex differences and mechanisms of task-spe-
cific muscle fatigue. Exerc Sport Sci Rev. 2009;37(3):113–
122. PubMed doi:10.1097/JES.0b013e3181aa63e2
23. McLean SG, Samorezov JE. Fatigue-induced ACL injury
risk stems from a degradation in central control. Med Sci
Sports Exerc. 2009;41(8):1661–1672. PubMed
24. Laurent CM, Meyers MC, Robinson CA, Green JM.
Cross-validation of the 20- versus 30-s Wingate anaerobic
test. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2007;100:645–651. PubMed
doi:10.1007/s00421-007-0454-3
25. Stickley CD, Hetzler RK, Kimura IF. Prediction of anaero-
bic power values from an abbreviated WAnT protocol.
J Strength Cond Res. 2008;22(3):958–965. PubMed
doi:10.1519/JSC.0b013e31816a906e
26. Ortiz A, Olson SL, Etnyre B, Trudelle-Jackson EE,
Bartlett W, Venegas-Rios HL. Fatigue effects on knee
joint stability during two jump task in women. J Strength
Cond Res. 2010;24:1019–1027. PubMed doi:10.1519/
JSC.0b013e3181c7c5d4
27. Bates BT, Dufek JS, Davis HP. The effect of trial size on
statistical power. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1992;24(9):1059–
1065. PubMed
28. Schmitz RJ, Kulas AS, Perrin DH, Riemann BL, Shultz
SJ. Sex differences in lower extremity biomechanics
during single leg landings. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon).
2007;22:681–688. PubMed doi:10.1016/j.clinbio-
mech.2007.03.001
29. Huston LJ. Clinical biomechanical studies on ACL injuries
risk factors. In Hewett TE, Shultz SJ, Giffin LY (Ed.),
Understanding and Preventing Noncontact ACL Injuries.
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics;2007:141–153.
30. Hewett TE, Schultz SJ, Griffin LY. Understanding and
Preventing Noncontact ACL Injuries. Champaign, IL:
Human Kinetics; 2007.
31. Powers CM. The influence of altered lower extremity kine-
matics on patellofemoral joint dysfunction: a theoretical
perspective. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2003;33(11):639–
646. PubMed
32. Shimokochi Y, Lee SY, Shultz SJ, Schmitz RJ. The rela-
tionship among sagittal-plane lower extremity moments:
implication for landing strategy in anterior cruciate liga-
ment injury prevention. J Athl Train. 2009;44(1):33–38.
PubMed doi:10.4085/1062-6050-44.1.33
33. Benjaminse A, Habu A, Sell TC, et al. Fatigue alters lower
extremity kinematics during a single leg stop jump task.
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2008;16:400–407.
PubMed doi:10.1007/s00167-007-0432-7
34. Chappell JD, Herman DC, Knight BS, Kirkendall DT, Gar-
rett WE,Yu B. Effect of fatigue on knee kinetics and kinemat-
ics in stop-jump tasks. Am J Sports Med. 2005;33(7):1022–
1029. PubMed doi:10.1177/0363546504273047
35. Pappas E, Sheikhzadeh A, Hagins M, Nordin M. The effect
of gender and fatigue on the biomechanics of bilateral
landings from a jump: peak values. J Sports Sci Med.
2007;6:77–84.
36. Wilson RW, Snyder AC, Dorman JC. Analysis of
seated and standing triple Wingate tests. J Strength
Cond Res. 2009;23(3):868–873. PubMed doi:10.1519/
JSC.0b013e31819d0932
37. Zupan MF, Arata AW, Dawson LH, Wile AL, Payn TL,
Hannon ME. Wingate anaerobic test peak power and
anaerobic capacity classification for men and women inter-
collegiate athletes. J Strength Cond Res. 2009;23(9):2598–
2604. doi:10.1519/JSC.0b013e3181b1b21b
38. Tsai LC, Sigward SM, Pollard CD, Fletcher MJ, Powers
CM. The effects of fatigue and recovery on knee kinetics
and kinematics during side-step cutting. Med Sci Sports
Exerc. 2008;41(10):1952–1957.
39. Griffin LY, Albohm MJ, Arendt EA, et al. Understand-
ing and preventing noncontact anterior cruciate ligament
injuries: a review of the Hunt Valley II meeting, January
2005. Am J Sports Med. 2006;34(9):1512–1532. PubMed
40. Noyes FR, Barber-Westin SD, Fleckenstein C, Walsh
C, West J. Difference in lower limb control by gender
and effect of neuromuscular training in female ath-
letes. Am J Sports Med. 2005;33(2):197–207. PubMed
doi:10.1177/0363546504266484
41. Oñate JA, Guskiewicz KM, Marshall SW, Giuliani C, Yu
B, Garrett WE. Instruction of jump landing technique using
videotape feedback. Am J Sports Med. 2005;33:831–842.
PubMed doi:10.1177/0363546504271499