SHORT-TERM LANDING TRAINING ATTENUATES
LANDING IMPACT AND IMPROVES JUMP HEIGHT
IN LANDING-TO-JUMP MOVEMENT
YOSHIAKI IIDA,1,2 HIROAKI KANEHISA,3 YUKI INABA,1,2
1
Department of Life Sciences (Sports Sciences), University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan; 2Japan Society for the Promotion of Science,
Tokyo, Japan; and 3National Institute of Fitness and Sports in Kanoya, Kanoya, Japan
ABSTRACT
Iida, Y, Kanehisa, H, Inaba, Y, and Nakazawa, K. Short-term
landing training attenuates landing impact and improves jump
height in landing-to-jump movement. J Strength Cond Res 27
(6): 1560–1567, 2013—Landing technique is an important
factor influencing jump performance in landing-to-jump (L-J)
movement. This study examined the effects of short-term
landing training on jump performance in L-J. We hypothesized
that landing training without jumping decreases landing
impact and increases jump height in L-J. Twenty healthy adult
men were randomly assigned to the control (CG: n = 10) or
the training (TG: n = 10) group. The TG performed a 2-week
landing training (3 times per week, 6 sessions) that aims to
decrease impact force. Before and after the training period,
both groups performed landing and L-J from a 35-cm height
and also squat jumps (SJs). Ground reaction forces and kine-
matic data were obtained during the landing, L-J, and SJ. The
CG showed no significant changes in all measured variables.
In the TG, the peak vertical ground reaction force up to 100
mseconds after ground contact in L-J, expressed relative to
body mass, significantly decreased (pre: 3.04 [0.77] vs. post:
2.35 [0.37], p , 0.01), and the L-J height significantly increased
(pre: 47.2 [5.6] cm vs. post: 48.2 [5.5] cm, p , 0.05) without
gain in SJ height. Furthermore, the TG showed significant gains
(p , 0.01) in hip joint power during the propulsive phase. The
current results support our hypothesis and indicate that short-
term landing training improves the technique for absorbing land-
ing impact and increasing L-J height. The increased L-J height
may be a result of an increase in power generation around the
hip joint.
KEY WORDS plyometric training, part practice, impact
absorption, injury prevention, drop jump
Address correspondence to: Yoshiaki Iida, youshi73@yahoo.co.jp.
27(6)/1560–1567
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Ó 2013 National Strength and Conditioning Association
the TM
1560 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
AND KIMITAKA NAKAZAWA1
INTRODUCTION
L
anding followed by jumping (landing to jump: L-J)
is frequently used in sports activities such as bas-
ketball and volleyball. Landing to jump is also used
as an exercise in plyometric training intended to
improve jump performance. In L-J, the technique in not only
jumping but also landing would be an important factor influ-
encing jump performance. Ankle joint stiffness in the landing
phase during drop jumping is associated with takeoff speed
(10), and knee joint torque when the center of mass is lowest
influences drop jump height (11). These findings indicate
that the landing movement technique can be a determinant
factor of L-J height.
A large ground reaction force (GRF) occurs immediately
after ground contact during landing movements (1,6), and
the peak of the GRF is often called “impact” (5,21). The
impact can be 4.6 times the body weight (17), and large
impacts often cause serious injury. Thus, many studies have
focused on landing impact from a medical viewpoint
(4,15,31). In contrast, Hewett et al. (9) demonstrated that a
plyometric training program that intended to decrease land-
ing impact (peak of vertical GRF [Fz]) decreased landing
impact and increased jump height. Although the training
program used in Hewett et al. (9) contained the L-J move-
ment itself, the findings suggest that decreasing landing
impact improves L-J performance. This assumption is
strengthened by our prior report (12) showing that the jump
height of L-J was negatively related to the magnitude of
landing impact.
Several studies have investigated the effects of training
programs consisting only of landing movement on the ability
of impact absorption from the viewpoint of injury prevention
(18–20). For example, McNair et al. (18) reported that land-
ing training with instructions about joint kinematics of lower
limbs had a greater effect on decreasing landing impact com-
pared with training without instruction. Prapavessis et al.
(20) applied the same program used by McNair et al. (18)
to children aged 8–10 years and showed that subjects who
received feedback showed a greater reduction in landing
impact than those who trained without the feedback. More-
over, Oñate et al. (19) observed decreased landing impact
 the TM

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com

from landing training with video feedback. These findings 25.0 years [2.9]; body mass, 68.2 kg [10.7]; height, 173.4 cm
suggest that landing trainings with feedback about landing [7.3]). Age, height, and body mass were not significantly
movement more effectively improve the technique for impact different between the 2 groups. All participants provided
absorption. Furthermore, Prapavessis et al. (20) reported that informed consent to participate in the study after receiving
1-week (4 sessions) landing training significantly decreased a detailed explanation of the purpose and risks involved. This
landing impact. This indicates that landing training improves study was in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki
the ability of impact absorption in the short term. However, and was approved by the Ethical Standards Committee on
it is unknown how landing training without jumping action Human Experimentation at the Graduate School of Arts and
influences L-J height. Sciences, University of Tokyo.
Although the plyometric training that involves the L-J
Testing Procedure
movement is widely known as an effective method to increase
The TG performed a 2-week landing training 3 times per
jump height, L-J has a high risk inducing musculoskeletal
week, whereas the CG received no training. Before (pretest)
injury because it induces rapid stretch-shortening cycle on the
and after (posttest) the training period, both the TG and the
extensors of the lower limbs (23). Therefore, examining the
effects of landing training on L-J performance will help to
elucidate the usefulness as a safe and effective modality for
athletes who aim to improve jumping performance in sports
activities. Therefore, the present study was designed to exam-
ine the effects of short-term landing training without jumping
movement on impact absorption and jump height during L-J.
We hypothesized that short-term landing training decreases
landing impact and increases jump height in L-J.

METHODS
Experimental Approach to the Problem
This study consisted of a randomized, controlled, and longi-
tudinal (i.e., pretest-posttest) design. The subjects were ran-
domly assigned to the training group (TG) or the control
group (CG). The TG performed a 2-week landing training
(3 times per week) that aims to decrease the landing impact,
whereas the CG received no training. Before (pretest) and after
(posttest) the training period, both the groups performed
2-footed landing (LAND) and L-J from a 35-cm height and
also squat jump (SJ). In the pre- and posttests, GRFs and
kinematic data were recorded using a force plate and a 3D
motion capture system, respectively. To assess the effects of the
landing training, we calculated the impact forces (LAND and
L-J), jump heights (L-J and SJ), and kinematic/kinetic
parameters (L-J). A 2-way analysis of variance (ANOVA)
with repeated measures on groups (TG and CG) and tests
(pre and post) was performed to evaluate the effectiveness of
the training on the measured variables.

Subjects
Twenty healthy adult men voluntarily participated in this
study. The participants were either sedentary or mildly
active but were not currently involved in any type of exercise
program ($30 min$d21, $2 d$wk21). In addition, the par-
ticipants had never undergone organized resistance training
involving jumping movements similar to the task used in the
present study. All participants had no known history of
peripheral nerve dysfunction or other type of neurological Figure 1. Definitions of joint angles in the sagittal plane. 1 = right
acromion; 2 = right greater trochanter; 3 = joint center of right knee;
disorders. The participants were randomly assigned to the 4 = joint center of right ankle; 5 = distal tips of right third metatarsal;
TG (n = 10; age, 25.3 years [SD 2.5]; body mass, 67.9 kg uH = hip joint angle; uK = knee joint angle; uA = ankle joint angle.
[9.9]; height, 174.6 cm [5.7]) or the CG (n = 10; age,

VOLUME 27 | NUMBER 6 | JUNE 2013 | 1561

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Effects of Landing Training on L-J Performance

TABLE 1. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) of variables.*

Averaged Averaged
Performance Movement joint joint Joint work
variable ICC profile of L-J ICC torque of L-J ICC power of L-J ICC of L-J ICC

Jump height Duration Absorption Absorption Absorption

SJ 0.981 Absorption — Hip 0.905 Hip 0.875 Hip 0.875
L-J 0.971 Braking 0.853 Knee 0.819 Knee 0.831 Knee 0.831
Impact index Propulsion 0.814 Ankle 0.843 Ankle 0.800 Ankle 0.800
LAND 0.830 Contact angle Braking Braking Braking
L-J 0.452 Hip 0.775 Hip 0.868 Hip 0.846 Hip 0.750
Knee 0.628 Knee 0.780 Knee 0.756 Knee 0.751
Ankle 0.767 Ankle 0.839 Ankle 0.669 Ankle 0.585
Minimum Propulsion Propulsion Propulsion
angle
Hip 0.891 Hip 0.763 Hip 0.654 Hip 0.620
Knee 0.843 Knee 0.687 Knee 0.678 Knee 0.660
Ankle 0.882 Ankle 0.799 Ankle 0.695 Ankle 0.641

*L-J = landing to jump; SJ = squat jump; LAND = landing.

CG performed LAND and L-J from a 35-cm-high wooden
box placed 20 cm from the edge of the force plate and also
SJ. The posttest for the TG was performed 1–3 days after the
final training session. The TG and CG were instructed to
keep their usual daily life during the training period. In the
LAND and L-J tasks, the participants were instructed to
stand on their left leg on top of the box, drop off the box,
and land onto the force plate. In the SJ task, the participants
were instructed to jump from an optimal squatting position.
The participants were asked to minimize the landing impact
in LAND as much as possible and to jump as high as
possible in L-J and SJ. They were also instructed to keep
their hands on their hips and look at the forward marker
during the tasks. Each movement task was performed 6
times in a randomized order.
The movement task used as the training was the same as
the LAND task, which is a 2-footed landing from a height of
35 cm. The TG participants performed 3 sets of 10 landing
trials (a total of 30 times) in a training session with a
30-second rest between the trials and a 2-minute rest between
the sets. The participants were asked to minimize the landing
impact as much as possible during the execution of the
training task. The participants received feedback about the
peak value of Fz for every trial and were instructed to mini-
mize the value as much as possible. However, they received
no instruction regarding joint movements or how to absorb
landing impact.
In the pre- and posttests, GRF and kinematic data were
recorded using a force plate (Type 9281B; Kistler Instruments,
Winterthur, Switzerland) and a 3D motion capture system
(Hawk Digital System; Motion Analysis Corporation, Santa
Rosa, CA, USA), respectively. The GRF data were collected at
1,000 Hz and downsampled to 200 Hz for the analysis
described in the following. Kinematic data were collected at
200 Hz. To obtain kinematic data, 20 reflective markers were
attached to the following anatomical landmarks: the parietal,
frontal, and occipital regions of the head; right lower scapula;
right and left acromions; elbow points; processus styloideus
ulnaris; greater trochanters; joint center of the knees and ankles;
posterior calcaneus; and distal tip of the third metatarsals. Joint
angles were analyzed in the sagittal plane (Figure 1).

Figure 2. Day-to-day changes of the impact index of 2-footed landing in Data Analysis
the training group. *Significant difference between days (p , 0.05). In accordance with a previous study (13), the LAND and L-J
motions were divided into the following 3 phases: the
the TM

1562 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

Figure 3. Changes of impact index. A) Change of the impact index in
LAND. There were a main effect (test) and an interaction (test 3 group). B)
Change of the impact index in L-J. There were a main effect (test) and an
interaction (test 3 group). LAND = 2-footed landing; TG = training group;
CG = control group; L-J = landing to jump. *Pre vs. post, p , 0.05.
absorption phase, 100 mseconds from the time of ground
contact; the braking phase, the time from the end of the
absorption phase to the minimal vertical position of the cen-
ter of mass of the body (CoM); and the propulsion phase
(only in the L-J), the time from the end of the braking phase
to takeoff.
No filters were applied to the GRF data in the analyses.
Vertical GRF was calculated from the force plate data.
Ground contact was defined as the time when Fz exceeded
10 N and takeoff was defined as the time when Fz was below
10 N after ground contact. The obtained time-course
coordinate data were smoothed with a low-pass filter
(fourth-order zero-lag Butterworth filter, cutoff frequency 8
Hz) (8,28). The CoM, lower-limb joint angles, and angle
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
the TM
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com
Figure 4. Changes of jump height. A) Change of jump height in L-J.
There was an interaction (test 3 group). B) Change of jump height in SJ.
There was no main effect (test) or interaction (test 3 group).
L-J = landing to jump; TG = training group; CG = control group;
SJ = squat jump. *Pre vs. post, p , 0.05.
velocities were calculated following data smoothing (28).
Jump height was calculated by subtracting the CoM height
in the upright standing posture from the maximal height
after takeoff (3). The Fz impulse that exceeded the body
mass in each phase was determined and normalized to the
body mass of each participant. The ratio of the peak Fz in
the absorption phase (N) to body mass (N) was determined
as the impact index (30). Furthermore, inverse dynamics
were applied to GRF and kinematic data to calculate joint
torques and powers. The joint torques and powers were
averaged in each phase, and the joint works were calculated
by integration of joint powers. The representative value of
each measured variable for every participant was calculated
by averaging the data obtained from the 6 trials. In the
VOLUME 27 | NUMBER 6 | JUNE 2013 | 1563
 Effects of Landing Training on L-J Performance

Statistical Analyses
Descriptive values are presented
TABLE 2. Phase durations and joint angles in landing to jump, mean (SD).
as means (SDs) with 95% confi-
Training group Control group dence intervals (CIs). One-way
repeated measures ANOVA was
Pre Post Pre Post conducted for the impact index
Duration (ms) during the 6 days of landing
Absorption phase 100 (–) 100 (–) 100 (–) 100 (–) training. Tukey’s post hoc mul-
Braking phase 260.1 (85.0) 248.7 (56.4) 241.2 (68.8) 236.2 (53.2) tiple comparison test was used
Propulsion 315.8 (55.6) 313.9 (39.7) 294.2 (42.0) 289.9 (19.3) to test the differences between
phase training days. The unpaired
Ground 676.3 (136.9) 662.6 (86.7) 635.3 (106.1) 626.1 (71.6)
contact time t-test was used to test the differ-
Contact angle ence between groups in the
(degrees) pretest. A 2-way ANOVA with
Hip* 148.2 (5.9) 139.7 (8.8)† 145.7 (6.4) 145.4 (6.5) repeated measures on groups
Knee* 152.1 (4.8) 147.2 (4.8)† 151.5 (6.0) 151.9 (5.8) (TG and CG) and tests (pre
Ankle 116.1 (5.6) 118.4 (4.2) 118.4 (7.4) 117.6 (7.0)
Minimum angle and post) was performed to
(degrees) evaluate the effectiveness of the
Hip* 64.2 (14.0) 56.1 (11.3)† 68.0 (9.3) 67.1 (12.0) training. If the interaction of the
Knee* 77.6 (8.6) 67.9 (9.9)† 74.1 (9.9) 74.0 (9.8) group and test was significant,
Ankle 65.2 (4.7) 67.0 (3.1) 65.9 (7.4) 66.1 (8.5) a paired t-test was performed
*Interaction (test 3 group), p , 0.05. between the pre- and posttests
†Pre vs. post, p , 0.05. in each group. The level of
statistical significance was set at
p , 0.05.
A post hoc analysis examin-
present study (pretest and posttest), we tested the repeatabil- ing statistical power for the pre-post difference based on a 2%
ity of the measured variables among the 6 trials. The intra- increase in jump height of L-J was performed. The effect size
class correlation coefficients of the measured variables was 1.47 and the power 0.98 for 10 subjects in the TG. These
ranged from 0.452 to 0.981 (Table 1), which indicate mod- results suggest that the number of the subjects was adequate to
erate to almost perfect agreement (14). detect significant difference.

RESULTS
TABLE 3. Averaged joint torque during each phase in landing to jump, mean (SD). Day-to-day changes in the impact
The positive and negative values indicate net extensor/plantar-flexor torque and index of LAND for the TG are
net flexor/dorsiflexor torque, respectively. shown in Figure 2. The changes
Training group Control group in the impact index during the
Averaged joint training period were significant
torque (Nm/BW) Pre Post Pre Post (p , 0.05) between day 1
Absorption phase
and either day 5 or day 6.
Hip* 20.18 (0.06) 20.12 (0.05)† 20.01 (0.17)z 20.04 (0.13) The impact index during
Knee 0.29 (0.06) 0.26 (0.06) 0.17 (0.08)z 0.18 (0.08)z LAND in the pretest was
Ankle 0.15 (0.03) 0.15 (0.02) 0.16 (0.04) 0.16 (0.03) similar between the TG
Braking phase (2.87 [0.44]; 95% CI = 2.51–
Hip 0.23 (0.08) 0.29 (0.09)† 0.31 (0.10) 0.31 (0.08)
Knee 0.27 (0.07) 0.28 (0.06) 0.23 (0.05) 0.24 (0.05) 3.22) and the CG (2.93
Ankle 0.19 (0.03) 0.15 (0.04)† 0.22 (0.07)z 0.22 (0.05) [0.62]; 95% CI = 2.58–3.29)
Propulsion phase (Figure 3A). The 2-way
Hip* 0.21 (0.05) 0.27 (0.04)† 0.28 (0.03)z 0.29 (0.03) ANOVA revealed a significant
Knee 0.23 (0.07) 0.21 (0.05) 0.19 (0.05) 0.19 (0.03) interaction (test 3
Ankle 0.24 (0.03) 0.24 (0.02) 0.24 (0.04) 0.26 (0.04)
group) (F = 13.292, p =
*Interaction (test 3 group), p , 0.05. 0.002, partial h2 = 0.425) in
†Pre vs. post, p , 0.05. the impact index during
zTraining group vs. control group, p , 0.05. The values are normalized by body mass:
BW(N) of each participant. LAND. The impact index for
the TG significantly decreased
(p , 0.01) but did not
the TM

1564 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 the TM

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com

TABLE 4. Averaged joint power during each phase in landing to jump, mean (SD).

Training group Control group

Averaged joint power (W/BW) Pre Post Pre Post

Absorption phase
Hip* 1.06 (0.50) 0.64 (0.51)† 0.01 (0.92)z 0.17 (0.75)
Knee 22.20 (0.51) 21.96 (0.47) 21.37 (0.64)z 21.43 (0.59)z
Ankle 21.06 (0.26) 20.99 (0.19) 21.11 (0.33) 21.09 (0.28)
Braking phase
Hip 20.56 (0.33) 20.77 (0.30)† 20.86 (0.40)z 20.85 (0.40)
Knee 20.63 (0.17) 20.75 (0.22)† 20.58 (0.20) 20.63 (0.19)
Ankle 20.14 (0.05) 20.17 (0.06) 20.17 (0.10) 20.08 (0.09)
Propulsion phase
Hip* 0.60 (0.25) 0.92 (0.20)† 1.03 (0.17)z 1.06 (0.22)
Knee 0.86 (0.27) 0.83 (0.21) 0.68 (0.25) 0.69 (0.22)
Ankle 0.54 (0.11) 0.49 (0.07) 0.58 (0.15) 0.57 (0.14)

*Interaction (test 3 group), p , 0.05.

†Pre vs. post, p , 0.05.
zTraining group vs. control group, p , 0.05. The values are normalized by body mass: BW(N) of each participant.

change for the CG. The relative change ([post 2 pre]/ 0.214). The TG showed a significant decrease in the impact
pre 3 100) in impact index during LAND was significantly index (p , 0.05) but the CG did not. The relative change in
greater (p , 0.01) in the TG (218.2% [14.9]) than in the impact index during L-J was significantly greater (p , 0.05) in
CG (3.0% [9.4]). the TG (219.2% [14.5]) than in the CG (21.4% [14.5]).
The impact index during L-J in the pretest was similar The jump height of L-J in the pretest was similar between
between the TG (3.04 [0.77]; 95% CI = 2.58–3.50) and the CG the TG (47.2 cm [5.6]; 95% CI = 43.0–51.5 cm) and the CG
(3.16 [0.60]; 95% CI = 2.70–3.61) (Figure 3B). The 2-way (45.5 cm [7.3]; 95% CI = 41.3–49.8 cm) (Figure 4A). The
ANOVA on the impact index during L-J revealed a significant jump height of L-J had a significant interaction (test 3
interaction (test 3 group) (F = 4.902, p = 0.04, partial h2 = group) (F = 7.180, p = 0.015, partial h2 = 0.285). The TG
showed a significant gain in
jump height (p , 0.01),
whereas the CG did not. The
TABLE 5. Joint work during each phase in landing to jump, mean (SD). relative changes in the jump
Training group Control group height of L-J for the TG
(2.0% [1.4]) were significantly
Joint work (J/BW) Pre Post Pre Post higher than for the CG
Absorption phase (20.7% [3.1]) (p , 0.05).
Hip* 0.66 (0.32) 0.40 (0.32)† 0.01 (0.58)z 0.11 (0.47) The SJ height in the pretest
Knee 21.39 (0.32) 21.23 (0.29) 20.86 (0.40)z 20.90 (0.37)z was not significantly different
Ankle 20.67 (0.16) 20.62 (0.13) 20.70 (0.21) 20.68 (0.18) between the TG (45.1 cm [5.8];
Braking phase 95% CI = 40.9–49.2 cm) and
Hip 20.77 (0.27) 21.08 (0.33)† 21.12 (0.38)z 21.13 (0.42)
Knee 20.93 (0.26) 21.10 (0.38) 20.84 (0.34) 20.89 (0.26) the CG (42.9 cm [6.7]; 95%
Ankle 20.20 (0.05) 20.23 (0.06)† 20.23 (0.11) 20.25 (0.11) CI = 38.7–47.0 cm) (Figure 4B).
Propulsion phase The 2-way ANOVA revealed
Hip* 1.16 (0.52) 1.75 (0.41)† 1.82 (0.28)z 1.87 (0.35) that there was no significant
Knee 1.61 (0.39) 1.58 (0.40) 1.20 (0.44) 1.22 (0.38) main effect (test) or interac-
Ankle 1.02 (0.12) 0.93 (0.13) 1.04 (0.28) 1.02 (0.24)
tion (test 3 group) in the jump
*Interaction (test 3 group), p , 0.05. height of SJ.
†Pre vs. post, p , 0.05. Descriptive data on the phase
zTraining group vs. control group, p , 0.05. The values are normalized by body mass:
BW(N) of each participant. durations and joint kinematics
during L-J are shown in Table 2.
In the pretest, there were no

VOLUME 27 | NUMBER 6 | JUNE 2013 | 1565

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Effects of Landing Training on L-J Performance
significant differences in any of the phase durations between
the groups. The 2-way ANOVA revealed that there was no
significant main effect (test) or interaction (test 3 group)
on the duration parameters of L-J.
There was no significant difference between the groups
in the all kinematic data of L-J in the pretest (Table 2).
The kinematic data of L-J had significant interactions
(test 3 group) in the contact hip (F = 8.325, p = 0.01, partial
h2 = 0.316) and knee (F = 6.182, p = 0.023, partial h2 = 0.256)
joint angles and minimum hip (F = 5.351, p = 0.033, partial
h2 = 0.229) and knee (F = 9.503, p = 0.006, partial h2 = 0.346)
joint angles at ground contact. The hip and knee joint angles
at ground contact for the TG significantly decreased (p , 0.01),
but these did not change for the CG. The minimum hip and
knee joint angles for the TG also significantly decreased
(p , 0.01), whereas those for the CG were unchanged.
Descriptive data on joint torque, power, and work during
L-J in the pre- and posttests are shown in Tables 3–5. The
2-way ANOVA revealed significant interactions (test 3 group,
p , 0.01) in hip joint torque, power, and work during the
absorption phase and during the propulsion phase. The hip
joint torque during the absorption and propulsion phases sig-
nificantly increased for the TG (p , 0.01) but did not change
for the CG (Table 3). The hip joint power for the TG sig-
nificantly decreased (p , 0.01) during the absorption phase
and increased during the propulsion phase but did not change
for the CG (Table 4). The hip joint work for the TG signifi-
cantly decreased (p , 0.01) during the absorption phase and
increased during the propulsion phase but did not change for
the CG (Table 5).
The body mass in the posttest was 68.0 kg (9.8; 95%
CI = 61.1–74.8 kg) in the TG and 68.5 kg (10.6; 95%
CI = 61.7–75.3 kg) in the CG. There were no significant
main effect (test) and interaction (test 3 group) in body
mass.
DISCUSSION
The present results show that short-term landing training
decreased the impact indexes in the LAND and L-J and
increased the jump height in L-J without a significant change
in the SJ height. These results support the hypothesis set at
the start of the study.
The TG showed a significant decrease in the impact index
of the LAND after landing training for 2 weeks (Figure 3A),
which is consistent with previous findings that landing train-
ing decreases the impact forces in landing movement (18–20).
In addition, landing training decreased landing impact in L-J
(Figure 3B), indicating that the effects of landing training can
be transferred to the L-J task.
The joint angles at ground contact and the minimum
angles of the hip and knee joints during L-J significantly
decreased in the TG (Table 2). This implies that the TG
participants became to take a landing position with greater
flexion angles of hip and knee joints. Previous studies
showed that increasing the flexion angle at ground contact
the TM
1566 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
in the hip joint (2) and the knee joint (5) decreases peak Fz
during landing movements. Moreover, Devita and Skelly (6)
reported that soft landing with greater flexion angles of the
hip and knee produce lower impact force than stiff landing,
which has smaller flexion angles. These findings suggest that
the increased flexion angles in the hip and knee joints in the
TG resulted from the TG participants changing their pos-
tures at landing for suitable impact absorption.
In the present study, landing training significantly increased
the L-J height (Figure 4A). The drop jump, which is one of
the L-J patterns, has been frequently used in previous training
studies. A number of studies showed that drop jump training
increases jump height during the same movement used in the
training (7,9,16,22,24,25,27,29). However, no study has exam-
ined how landing training without jumping movement influ-
ences jump height. Our results indicate that landing training
improves the performance of L-J movement even though it
does not contain any jumping movement. Furthermore, the
height of SJ, in which landing movement is not involved, was
unchanged (Figure 4B). This result suggests that improved
L-J height is not a result of increased jumping ability.
The increased L-J height may be explained by increased
force generation around the hip joint during the propulsion
phase. The TG exhibited a decreased minimum angle of
the hip joint during L-J (Table 2). In addition, the averaged
joint extensor torque, joint power, and joint work of the hip
during the propulsion phase increased significantly in the TG
(Tables 3–5). These results indicate that the L-J movement of
the TG turned to a movement that involved larger hip joint
flexing before the propulsion phase and enabled exertion of
greater power by the hip joint during the propulsion phase.
A previous study reported that an increased inclination angle
of the trunk at the starting position caused a larger extension
power on the hip joint during SJ (26). Vanrenterghem et al.
(26) also showed a positive correlation between the peak joint
power of the hip and the jump height of SJs. These findings,
together with the present results, suggest that landing training
increases the L-J height by increasing the power generation of
the hip joint during the propulsion phase, caused by the
greater hip joint flexion before the propulsion phase.
PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS
Landing to jump is one of the representative exercises
involved in plyometric training. However, the L-J movement
has a high risk for musculoskeletal injury because it induces
rapid stretch-shortening cycle on the lower-limb extensors
(23). Horita et al. (11) reported that a poor L-J jumper
showed inadequate prelanding motion (smaller knee flexion),
which is unfavorable for impact absorption. The current
results indicate that landing training with no jumping move-
ment decreases landing impact and increases the jump
height of L-J in short period. Thus, it is recommended that,
if L-J is involved as a training exercise, a landing movement
should be adapted as a training task in the preparatory phase
of the training program. This approach will be effective for

developing the training program by enabling the participants
to decrease impact absorption and to improve the L-J
height.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This study was partly supported by a Grant-in-Aid for Japan
Society for the Promotion of Science Fellows (23-4646)
awarded to Y. Iida. We are grateful to Dr. Senshi Fukashiro,
Dr. Shun Sasagawa, Ms. Naoko Oba, Mr. Katsutoshi Yaeshima,
and Mr. Akito Miura for their contribution to this study.
REFERENCES
1. Ambegaonkar, JP, Shultz, SJ, and Perrin, DH. A subsequent
movement alters lower extremity muscle activity and kinetics in drop
jumps vs. drop landings. J Strength Cond Res 25: 2781–2788, 2011.
2. Blackburn, JT and Padua, DA. Sagittal-plane trunk position, landing
forces, and quadriceps electromyographic activity. J Athl Train 44:
174–179, 2009.
3. Bobbert, MF, Gerritsen, KG, Litjens, MC, and Van Soest, AJ. Why is
countermovement jump height greater than squat jump height?
Med Sci Sports Exerc 28: 1402–1412, 1996.
4. Coventry, E, O’Connor, KM, Hart, BA, Earl, JE, and Ebersole, KT.
The effect of lower extremity fatigue on shock attenuation during
single-leg landing. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 21: 1090–1097, 2006.
5. Derrick, TR. The effects of knee contact angle on impact forces and
accelerations. Med Sci Sports Exerc 36: 832–837, 2004.
6. Devita, P and Skelly, WA. Effect of landing stiffness on joint kinetics
and energetics in the lower extremity. Med Sci Sports Exerc 24:
108–115, 1992.
7. Gehri, DJ, Ricard, MD, Kleiner, DM, and Kirkendall, DT. A comparison
of plyometric training techniques for improving vertical jump ability
and energy production. J Strength Cond Res 12: 85–89, 1998.
8. Hara, M, Shibayama, A, Takeshita, D, Hay, DC, and Fukashiro, S. A
comparison of the mechanical effect of arm swing and
countermovement on the lower extremities in vertical jumping.
Hum Mov Sci 27: 636–648, 2008.
9. Hewett, TE, Stroupe, AL, Nance, TA, and Noyes, FR. Plyometric
training in female athletes. Decreased impact forces and increased
hamstring torques. Am J Sports Med 24: 765–773, 1996.
10. Hoffren, M, Ishikawa, M, and Komi, PV. Age-related neuromuscular
function during drop jumps. J Appl Physiol 103: 1276–1283, 2007.
11. Horita, T, Komi, PV, Nicol, C, and Kyrolainen, H. Interaction
between pre-landing activities and stiffness regulation of the knee
joint musculoskeletal system in the drop jump: implications to
performance. Eur J Appl Physiol 88: 76–84, 2002.
12. Iida, Y, Kanehisa, H, Inaba, Y, and Nakazawa, K. Role of the
coordinated activities of trunk and lower limb muscles during the
landing-to-jump movement. Eur J Appl Physiol 112: 2223–2232, 2012.
13. Kellis, E and Kouvelioti, V. Agonist versus antagonist muscle fatigue
effects on thigh muscle activity and vertical ground reaction during
drop landing. J Electromyogr Kinesiol 19: 55–64, 2007.
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
the TM
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com
14. Landis, JR and Koch, GG. The measurement of observer agreement
for categorical data. Biometrics 33: 159–174, 1977.
15. Madigan, ML and Pidcoe, PE. Changes in landing biomechanics
during a fatiguing landing activity. J Electromyogr Kinesiol 13:
491–498, 2003.
16. Markovic, G. Does plyometric training improve vertical jump
height? A meta-analytical review. Br J Sports Med 41: 349–355;
discussion 355, 2007.
17. McNair, PJ and Marshall, RN. Landing characteristics in subjects
with normal and anterior cruciate ligament deficient knee joints.
Arch Phys Med Rehabil 75: 584–589, 1994.
18. McNair, PJ, Prapavessis, H, and Callender, K. Decreasing landing
forces: Effect of instruction. Br J Sports Med 34: 293–296, 2000.
19. Oñate, JA, Guskiewicz, KM, Marshall, SW, Giuliani, C, Yu, B, and
Garrett, WE. Instruction of jump-landing technique using videotape
feedback: Altering lower extremity motion patterns. Am J Sports
Med 33: 831–842, 2005.
20. Prapavessis, H, McNair, PJ, Anderson, K, and Hohepa, M.
Decreasing landing forces in children: The effect of instructions.
J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 33: 204–207, 2003.
21. Santello, M. Review of motor control mechanisms underlying
impact absorption from falls. Gait Posture 21: 85–94, 2005.
22. Schmidtbleicher, D, Gollhofer, A, and Frick, U. Effects of a stretch-
shortening typed training on the performance capability and
innervation characteristics of leg extensor muscles. In: Biomechanics
XI-A. G. de Groot, A. Hollander, P. Huijing, and G. Van Ingen
Schenau, eds. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Free University Press,
1988. pp. 185–189.
23. Stemm, JD and Jacobson, BH. Comparison of land- and aquatic-
based plyometric training on vertical jump performance. J Strength
Cond Res 21: 568–571, 2007.
24. Thomas, K, French, D, and Hayes, PR. The effect of two plyometric
training techniques on muscular power and agility in youth soccer
players. J Strength Cond Res 23: 332–335, 2009.
25. Tricoli, V, Lamas, L, Carnevale, R, and Ugrinowitsch, C. Short-term
effects on lower-body functional power development: weightlifting vs.
vertical jump training programs. J Strength Cond Res 19: 433–437, 2005.
26. Vanrenterghem, J, Lees, A, and Clercq, DD. Effect of forward trunk
inclination on joint power output in vertical jumping. J Strength
Cond Res 22: 708–714, 2008.
27. Wilson, GJ, Newton, RU, Murphy, AJ, and Humphries, BJ. The
optimal training load for the development of dynamic athletic
performance. Med Sci Sports Exerc 25: 1279–1286, 1993.
28. Winter, D. Biomechanics and Motor Control of Human Movement. New
York, NY: Wiley, 2009.
29. Young, WB and Behm, DG. Effects of running, static stretching
and practice jumps on explosive force production and jumping
performance. J Sports Med Phys Fitness 43: 21–27, 2003.
30. Zhang, SN, Bates, BT, and Dufek, JS. Contributions of lower
extremity joints to energy dissipation during landings. Med Sci
Sports Exerc 32: 812–819, 2000.
31. Zhang, SN, Derrick, TR, Evans, W, and Yu, YJ. Shock and impact
reduction in moderate and strenuous landing activities. Sports
Biomech 7: 296–309, 2008.
VOLUME 27 | NUMBER 6 | JUNE 2013 | 1567