lOMoARcPSD|38953772

Biomechanics Lab Report example

Exercise and Sports Science (Manchester Metropolitan University)

Scan to open on Studocu

Studocu is not sponsored or endorsed by any college or university

Downloaded by Ricky . (ricklizar@gmail.com)
 lOMoARcPSD|38953772

Department of Exercise and Sport Science

Biomechanics 2

Laboratory Report

The effect of arm swing on countermovement jump

Downloaded by Ricky . (ricklizar@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|38953772

1. Introduction

Vertical countermovement jumping to attain maximal height is an important action for

enhanced performance in sport such as basketball and volleyball (Umberger, 1998).

According to Cheng et al. (2008), people are accustomed to jumping with an arm swing

which suggests jumps without an arm swing may not be optimal in attaining maximum

height. Moreover, previous findings have shown that arm swing facilitated an increase of

above 10% in jump height (Shetty and Etnyre, 1989; Harman et al., 1990; Feltner et al.,

1999). Cheng et al. (2008) found that increased take-off (TO) velocity of the centre of mass

(CoM) contributed nearly two thirds to increased jump height which also reflected Lees et

al.’s findings of 72% contribution to increased jump height (2004). Further research has been

conducted as to what exactly causes the effect of arm swing to increase jump height through

increased TO velocity.

Hara et al. (2006) suggested that increased jump height was due to increased activity

of the lower extremity muscles from the additional load on the lower extremity from an arm

swing. It was noted that increased work by the hip suggested an increased activation of the

biceps femoris, which acts as a hip extensor (Umberger, 1998). However, this was not

validated as this study did not directly examine electromyography (EMG) which would have

been beneficial in determining individual muscle activity in different types of jump (Rota et

al., 2013). Although Hara et al.’s study did examine the effect of arm swing during maximal

jumping, squat jumps were performed thus not making this study a direct representation of

countermovement jumps which would have provided more concrete research for this specific

topic.

Although the direct study of EMG in countermovement jumping with an arm swing is

limited, Lees et al. (2004) found some interaction between muscle activity and arm swing,

especially for muscles acting at the hip which would support Hara et al.’s assumption.

Downloaded by Ricky . (ricklizar@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|38953772

However, Lees et al. found a significant decrease in biceps femoris activity. Furthermore,

Lees et al. concluded that increased height and TO velocity from arm swing was not

exclusively due to the different levels of activity in the lower extremity muscles but rather to

a complex series of mechanisms acting collectively. Nonetheless, this study could have

provided a more in depth EMG analysis.

Payne et al. (1968, cited in Lees et al. 2004) proposed the ‘transmission of force’

theory as the explanation for the increased TO velocity due to arm swing. This theory

suggests a greater impulse is produced as vertical ground reaction force (GRF) is increased

due to a downward force acting on the body as the arms are propelled upwards. However,

Dapena (1999, cited in Cheng et al., 2008) viewed this theory as too simplistic in a simulation

investigation. Additionally, Feltner et al. (2004) reported that greater impulse was not due to

increased vertical GRF but rather a complex series of mechanisms which supported Lees et

al.’s conclusion (2004).

However, according to more recent findings, Akl (2013) suggested the use of arm

swing contributed to augmented jump height through the acquisition of additional impulse.

This was due to increased maximal vertical GRF, which was also found to have a strong

correlation with arm swing during countermovement jumping. This study reflected the

previous research of Harman et al. (1990) who reported greater vertical GRF, resulting in an

increased net impulse, being the direct cause for increased jump height.

The purpose of this report is to support the findings that arm swing does enhance

performance during a countermovement jump and to investigate and examine further the

mechanisms behind this, based on previous published research.

Downloaded by Ricky . (ricklizar@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|38953772

2. Method

2.1. Participants

Thirteen injury-free undergraduate students (mean ± S.D.: age = 20.5 ± 2.1 years;

stature = 1.77 ± 0.1 m; mass = 74.4 ± 13.2 kg) were required to perform two variations of

maximal countermovement vertical jump. There were eleven male participants and two

female participants, all wearing shoes. All trials were to follow the same protocol and

procedure. The participants were made aware of the purpose and risks of the experiment and

gave their written informed consent.

2.2. Apparatus and procedures

A Kistler 9281B force plate, recording at 500 Hz, was used to record GRF with

Bioware software. An amplifier was used to strengthen the signal and A/D converter to

digitise the data to the computer. While on the force plate, the participant’s body mass would

be subtracted using the Bioware software so that GRF would be set at a constant zero before

each jump.

A Delsys Bagnoli 8 channel box, recording at 1000 Hz was used to record raw EMG

readings from lower extremity muscles with EMGWorks 4.1 software. An amplifier was used

to strengthen the signal and A/D converter to digitise the data to the computer. The weight of

the channel box was negligible therefore would not have a significant effect on the mass of

the participant.

Both the force plate and EMG equipment were synchronised to the computer to record

data simultaneously during a window of 5 seconds from the touch of a button (Figure. 1).

Downloaded by Ricky . (ricklizar@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|38953772

Figure 1. Experimental set-up of equipment and procedure.

The participants performed a maximal vertical jump on the force plate two different

ways (Figure. 2): countermovement jump with arm swing (CMJAS) and countermovement

jump without arm swing (CMJ). A countermovement jump is a type of bilateral vertical jump,

that incorporates a stretch-shortening cycle (Magee et al., 2007), with preceding flexion of

the ankle, knee and hip joints and subsequent extension of these briefly flexed joints

(Radcliffe and Farentinos, 1999). CMJ was performed with hands placed on the iliac crest to

minimise arm movement.

(Gardner et al., 2012)

Figure 2. Positions of the body during CMJAS and CMJ.

The rectus femoris (RF) and biceps femoris (BF) were marked because these bi-

articular muscles act to flex and extend both the hip and knee which are essential movements

for jumping (Umberger, 1998).

Downloaded by Ricky . (ricklizar@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|38953772

To reduce the effect of cross-talk, these muscles were identified through performing a

seated isometric knee extension and lying hip extension respectively against manual

resistance and then palpating the belly of the muscle. The surface of the skin was shaved and

cleansed with ethanol wipes before placing the mono-polar electrodes over it with the wires

facing upwards. A reference electrode was placed over the bony prominence of the patella.

These were connected to the Delsys Bagnoli 8 channel box, tucked in the participant’s shorts.

Following appropriate warm-up and familiarity with the movement, three successful

trials for CMJAS were first completed followed by three successful trials for CMJ. There was

a rest period of approximately two minutes between trials to maximise jump performance.

The data from each participant’s final trial of each jump condition was to be analysed.

Finally, an isometric maximal voluntary contraction (MVC) was recorded for the RF

and BF from performing a seated knee extension and lying hip extension respectively against

manual resistance.

2.3. Analysis

The dependent variables to be analysed were duration of TO phase, duration of flight

phase, minimal vertical GRF, maximal vertical GRF, net impulse, TO velocity of CoM, jump

height, peak average rectified EMG (PAVEMG) and normalised EMG for each muscle and

total PAVEMG.

In order to calculate temporal variables, vertical GRF was processed in a spreadsheet.

The start and end points of both TO and flight phase were noted by visually identifying

significant changes in vertical GRF patterns. Thus, the difference between the start and end

points of each phase represented the duration of each phase.

For vertical GRF data, the minimum and maximum values were identified using a

spreadsheet. Net impulse was calculated through the following equation: impulse (N∙s) =

F∙∆t. Thereafter, take-off velocity was subsequently calculated through the impulse-

Downloaded by Ricky . (ricklizar@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|38953772

momentum relationship (Hamill and Knutzen, 2008), also known as Newton’s Second Law of

Motion: F∙∆t = m∙∆v ∴ ∆v =.

Finally, jump height was calculated through an equation of Uniformly Accelerated

Motion (Linthorne, 2001), procured by Galileo: where g = -9.81 ms-2.

Raw EMG and MVC data was processed into AVEMG using a spreadsheet by

converting all of the data into absolute values and calculating the mean. In order to compare

the level of muscle activity from the jumps as a percentage of muscle activity from the

MVCs, EMG data was normalised through the following equation:

Normalised EMG (%MVC) = ∙100

Normalised EMG would also verify the accuracy of the raw EMG recordings by assuming

the MVCs would be greater than the PAVEMG recorded from the jumps.

Descriptive statistics were implemented on IBM SPSS to calculate the mean and

standard deviation of each variable and to determine the normality of the data through

Skewness, Kurtosis and Shapiro-Wilk. The difference of the variables between the two jump

conditions was also determined through paired samples T-tests since the same group of

people performed both conditions. If parametric assumptions were broken due to non-

normally distributed data, a Wilcoxon-Signed Ranks test (statistic Z) was used. A value of p ≤

0.05 was used to represent statistical difference.

3. Results

Downloaded by Ricky . (ricklizar@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|38953772

Table 1 displays the points in time and duration of the TO and flight phases in both

jump conditions. TO duration was greater in CMJ than CMJAS by 0.02 s, but with non-

significant difference (p > 0.05). This indicates there was greater duration spent performing

countermovement and TO during CMJ. However, flight duration was significantly greater in

CMJAS than CMJ by 0.04 s (Z = 2.981, p < 0.05). This indicates that there was greater

duration spent airborne during CMJAS.

Table 1. Mean (±S.D.) temporal data associated with two different jump conditions (N=13).
CMJ CMJ
AS
Mean SD Mean SD
TO phase Start (s) 0.84 0.34 0.82 0.22
End (s) 1.72 0.36 1.72 0.25
Duration (s) 0.88 0.20 0.90 0.14**
Flight phase End (s) 2.30 0.39 2.24 0.27
Duration (s) 0.58 0.11 0.52 0.06 *
* indicates a significant difference between the CMJAS and CMJ condition (p < 0.005).
**indicates a non-significant difference between the CMJAS and CMJ condition (p > 0.005).

Table 2 displays the kinetic variables and figure 3 displays the net impulse in both jump

conditions. CMJAS produced significantly greater jump height by the CoM than CMJ by

0.07 m (Z = 3.19, p ≤ 0.001). CMJAS also produced significantly greater TO velocity than

CMJ by 0.25 m·s-1 (p < 0.001). The maximal vertical GRF value was significantly greater (p ≤

0.05) in CMJAS than CMJ by 87 N (0.12 BW) and the minimal value was lower in CMJ than

CMJAS by 21 N (0.04 BW), but with non-significant difference (p > 0.05). Furthermore, net

impulse was significantly greater in CMJAS than CMJ by 18.9 N·s (p ≤ 0.001). Figure 4

depicts one participant’s vertical GRF pattern (Fz in Figure 4) application over time, which

displays greater maximal vertical GRF of 1099 N for CMJAS compared to that of 917 N for

CMJ and lower minimal vertical GRF of -589 N for CMJ compared to that of -412 N for

CMJAS. This was a true reflection of the greater mean maximal vertical GRF in CMJAS and

lower mean minimal vertical GRF in CMJ.

Table 2. Mean (±S.D.) kinetic data associated with two different jump conditions (N=13).

Downloaded by Ricky . (ricklizar@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|38953772

CMJAS CMJ
Mean SD Mean SD
Minimum (N) -442 202.4 -463 192.9 **
(BW) -0.39 0.53 -0.35 0.58
Maximum (N) 1021 193.8 934 182.5 *
(BW) 1.42 0.26 1.30 0.24
Net impulse (N∙s) 201.8 46.3 182.9 42.0 *
-1
T/O velocity (m∙s ) 2.70 0.3 2.45 0.3 *
Jump height (m) 0.38 0.1 0.31 0.1 *
* indicates a significant difference between the CMJAS and CMJ condition (p ≤ 0.005).
**indicates a non-significant difference between the CMJAS and CMJ condition (p > 0.005).

210
*

200

190
Impulse (N∙s)

180

170

160

150
CMJAS CMJ

Figure 3. Mean (±S.D.) net impulse associated with two different jump conditions (N=13).
* indicates a significant difference between the CMJAS and CMJ condition (p < 0.001).

Downloaded by Ricky . (ricklizar@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|38953772

1500
CMJ CMJAS

1000

500
Fz (N)

0
0. 2
0. 0
0. 8
0. 6
0. 4
0. 2
0. 0
0. 8
0. 6
0. 4
1. 2
1. 0
1. 8
1. 6
1. 4
1. 2
1. 0
1. 8
1. 6
1. 4
1. 2
1. 0
1. 8
1. 6
1. 4
1. 2
1. 0
1. 8
1. 6
1. 4
2
50
55
59
64
69
74
79
83
88
93
98
03
07
12
17
22
27
31
36
41
46
51
55
60
65
70
75
79
84
89
94
0.

-500

-1000
Time (s)

Figure 4. Vertical GRF plotted against time at TO during two different jump conditions.

PAVEMG for RF was greater for CMJ than CMJAS by 0.0348 mV (Table. 3) but with

non-significant difference (Z = -0.384, p > 0.05). Therefore, the normalised EMG for RF was

greater by 5% for CMJ, which was 112%, than CMJAS, which was 107%, with non-

significant difference (Z = 0.944, p > 0.05). This suggests RF muscle activity was greater

during both jump conditions than during MVC.

PAVEMG for BF was greater for CMJAS than CMJ by 0.1368 mV but with non-

significant difference (Z = 1.503, p > 0.05). Therefore, the normalised EMG for BF was

greater by 10% for CMJAS, which was 49%, than CMJ, which was 39%, but with significant

difference (p ≤ 0.05). This suggests BF muscle activity was lower during both jump

conditions than during MVC.

Total PAVEMG for both muscles was greater for CMJAS than CMJ by 0.1019 mV

with non-significant difference (Z = -0.384, p > 0.05). This suggests greater muscle activity

occurred in the lower extremity during CMJAS.

Downloaded by Ricky . (ricklizar@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|38953772

Table 3. Mean (±S.D.) EMG data associated with two different jump conditions (N=13).
CMJAS CMJ
Mean SD Mean SD
PAVEMG RF (mV) 0.3356 0.3 0.3704 0.3 **
Normalised RF (%) 107 30.3 112 37.6 **
PAVEMG BF (mV) 0.3118 0.4 0.1750 0.2 **
Normalised BF % 49 13.7 39 12.4 *
Total PAVEMG (mV) 0.6474 0.6 0.5455 0.5 **
* indicates a significant difference between the CMJAS and CMJ condition (p ≤ 0.05).
**indicates a non-significant difference between the CMJAS and CMJ condition (p > 0.05).

Discussion

Results confirmed that CMJAS produced a greater enhancement in performance than

CMJ and provided further insight and points for discussion on the mechanisms behind this

effect.

Current values for temporal and kinetic variables displaying significant difference

were directly compared with values of previous related investigations in order to compare

outcome and similarity of results. CMJAS produced significant increase in flight phase

duration with 0.58 s compared to CMJ with 0.52 s. Harrison and Moroney (2007) displayed

results also between 0.50 s and 0.60 s for both conditions with the same outcome, stating

jump performance was determined by flight time.

CMJAS produced significant increase in jump height with 0.38 m compared to CMJ

with 0.31 m while Lees et al. (2004) procured similar results of 0.39 m and 0.33 m for

CMJAS and CMJ respectively. This increase of approximately 23% relates to previous

findings which have shown that arm swing facilitated an increase above 10% (Shetty and

Etnyre, 1989; Harman et al., 1990; Feltner et al., 1999). According to Cheng et al. (2008),

increased TO velocity of the CoM contributed nearly two thirds to increased jump height

which also reflected 72% contribution in Lees et al (2004). CMJAS produced significant

increase in TO velocity with 2.70 m·s-1 compared to CMJ with 2.45 m·s-1 while Hara et al.

(2006) procured similar results of 2.73 m·s-1 and 2.46 m·s-1 for CMJAS and CMJ respectively.

Downloaded by Ricky . (ricklizar@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|38953772

To investigate the explanation for increased TO velocity due to arm swing, net

impulse was analysed. CMJAS produced significant increase in net impulse with 201.8 N·s

compared to CMJ with 182.9 N·s while Akl (2013) procured related net impulses of 233.6

N·s and 219.0 N·s for CMJAS and CMJ respectively.

Impulse is dependent on the quantity of force application as it is the product of force

multiplied by change in time (Hamill and Knutzen, 2008). Therefore, since net impulse was

greater in CMJAS than CMJ, maximal vertical GRF was also significantly greater with 1021

N for CMJAS compared to 934 N for CMJ. These were similar to those from Akl (2013) with

1236 N and 956 N for CMAS and CMJ respectively and were therefore analysed in the same

unit of measurement. These support the assumptions of Payne et al. (1968, cited in Lees et al.

2004) and Harman et al. (1990) which depict the ‘transmission of force’ theory which further

suggests greater vertical GRF resulting in increased net impulse as being the direct cause for

increased jump height. Additionally, this is reciprocated by Dowling and Vamos (1993) who

reported that a high maximum force was necessary for enhanced performance and that the

pattern of force application was the most crucial aspect in vertical jump performance.

However, it was also noted that high maximal force was also not sufficient for enhanced

performance. This suggests a complex series of mechanisms is responsible for increased TO

velocity due to arm swing which meets the assumption of Feltner et al. (2004).

Rota et al. (2013) reported that investigating EMG would be beneficial in determining

individual muscle activity in different jump conditions. However, normalised EMG appeared

inaccurate because mean RF values for both jump conditions were greater than MVC, which

may reflect data error. Due limited EMG-related studies on this particular topic, current

values could not be directly compared with values from previous studies even in Lees et al.

where EMG was only reported in figure format and change of percentage. Therefore,

Downloaded by Ricky . (ricklizar@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|38953772

outcome of results was compared for variables displaying both significant and non-significant

difference.

PAVEMG and normalised EMG for RF were greater for CMJ than CMJAS, but with

non-significant difference to further emphasise this statement while Lees et al. also reported a

slight increase with non-significant difference.

PAVEMG and normalised EMG for BF were greater for CMJAS than CMJ while

Lees et al. reported significant decrease in BF activity. It was noted that PAVEMG produced

non-significant difference while normalised EMG produced significant difference, which

might reflect data error.

However, Hara et al.’s investigation (2006) contradicts Lees et al.’s findings but

matches this study in terms of increased BF activation as it was suggested that increased

work by the hip increased involvement of this hip extensor due to increased activity of lower

extremity muscles from the additional load on the lower extremity due to arm swing. This

was also supported by the findings of Blache and Monteil (2012) who concluded that greater

muscle work was due to increased activity for the BF.

It was noted for this assumption that Hara et al. (2006) did not directly examine EMG

and squat jumps were performed thus not making this study a direct representation of

countermovement jumps. Nonetheless, it supports the ‘joint work augmentation’ theory

where greater muscle force is produced due to the force-velocity relationship in which

upward acceleration of the arms can trigger a downward reaction force to act on the rest of

the body. Lees et al.’s investigation (2004) further contradicts this theory because lower joint

power was produced during jumps with arm swing. However, increased total PAVEMG in

this study suggests greater muscle activity produced from the lower extremity as reported as

corresponding to joint activation in Bobbert and Cassius (2005, cited in Cheng et al. 2008).

Downloaded by Ricky . (ricklizar@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|38953772

Hara et al. (2006) also stated arm swing to act as an additional load due partly to

increased shoulder joint torque applied to the trunk. However, Cheng et al. (2008) later

argued that this force on the shoulders is not closely related to changes in vertical GRF, thus

supporting Lees et al. (2004) in questioning the ‘transmission of force’ theory. Cheng et al.

also questioned the ‘joint work augmentation’ theory as this only applied in the hips while

knee joint work decreased due to shorter duration of torque generation. It is interesting to

note that, contrary to the outcome in Lees et al. (2004), increased BF activity in this study

would decrease knee extension torque, thus supporting the ‘joint work augmentation’ theory,

as the BF is a knee flexor (Hara et al. 2006). However, this cannot be clarified since joint

work was not directly measured in this study.

According to more recent findings, Akl (2013) suggested that arm swing contributed

to augmented jump height through the acquisition of additional impulse which matches the

findings of this study. This was due to increased maximal vertical GRF reflecting the research

of Harman et al. (1990), which Akl also found to have a strong correlation with arm swing

during countermovement jumping.

As noted previously, there was potential for error in either or both the raw EMG and

MVC recordings due to mean RF normalised EMG in both jump conditions being greater

than MVC. Considering the error to be in MVC recording, Noreau and Vachon (1998)

concluded myometry to provide higher accurate measurement compared to the manual

muscle test implemented in this study. Arm swing technique may have differed between

participants as there was likelihood, at university, to have used individuals who played sports

that require maximal vertical jumps such as basketball, therefore more accustomed to this

skill (Umberger, 1998). The use of non-parametric tests in data analysis was not ideal as these

are less likely to find significant differences. However, they were deemed appropriate as even

Downloaded by Ricky . (ricklizar@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|38953772

with the initial removal of outliers, additional outliers appeared in the data and the sample of

participants was already low.

In conclusion, the findings of this report suggest impulse to be a contributing factor in

the difference in jump height between CMJAS and CMJ, which supports the ‘transmission of

force’ theory proposed by previous studies. Where EMG in relation to arm swing was directly

measured in limited research, the results of this study contradict the findings, albeit with the

limitations of this study. Where it was suggested a more active state in the muscles,

particularly those of the hip, the results were not clarified through the ‘joint work

augmentation’ theory. To further question collective doubt amongst researchers surrounding

the ‘transmission of force’ theory in relation to arm swing in jump performance, future

studies should aim to measure the many complex series of mechanisms that have been related

to the effect of arm swing, particularly EMG. This report has supported the findings that arm

swing does enhance performance during a countermovement jump and has provided further

points for discussion based on present theories examining the factors behind this effect.

Word count - 3295

References

Downloaded by Ricky . (ricklizar@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|38953772

Akl, A. (2013) ‘A Comparison of Biomechanical Parameters between Two Methods of

Countermovement Jump.’ International Journal of Sports Science and Engineering, 7 (2) pp.

123-128.

Blache, Y. and Monteil, K. (2012) ‘Effect of arm swing on effective energy during vertical

jumping: Experimental and simulation study.’ Scandinavian Journal of Medicine and Science

in Sports, 23 (2) pp. 121-129.

Cheng, K.B., Wang, C., Chen, H., Wu, C. and Chiu, H. (2008) ‘The mechanisms that enable

arm motion to enhance vertical jump performance – a simulation study.’ Journal of

Biomechanics, 41 (9) pp. 1847-1854.

Dowling, J.J. and Vamos, L. (1993) ‘Identification of Kinetic and Temporal Factors Related

to Vertical Jump Performance.’ Journal of Applied Biomechanics, 9, pp. 95-110. [issue

number missing]

Feltner, M.E., Fraschetti, D.J. and Crisp, R.J. (1999) ‘Upper extremity augmentation of lower

extremity kinetics during countermovement vertical jumps.’ Journal of Sports Sciences, 17

(6) pp. 449-466.

Feltner, M.E., Bishop, E.J. and Perez, C.M. (2004) ‘Segmental and kinetic contributions in

vertical jumps performed with and without an arm swing.’ Research Quarterly for Exercise

and Sport, 75 (3) pp. 216–230.

Gardner, J., Li-How-Cheong, J. and Higham, D. (2012) Positions of the body during CMJAS

and CMJ. Screencast-O-Matic.com. [Online image] [Accessed on 25th November 2014]

http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Fqe2q2Vna3k/maxresdefault.jpg

Hamill, J. and Knutzen, K.M. (2008) Biomechanical Basis of Human Movement. 3rd ed.,

Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.

Hara, M., Shibayama, A., Takeshita, D. and Fukashiro, S. (2006) ‘The effect of arm swing on

lower extremities in vertical jumping.’ Journal of Biomechanics, 39 (13) pp. 2503-2511.

Downloaded by Ricky . (ricklizar@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|38953772

Harman, E.A., Rosenstein, M.T., Frykman, P.N. and Rosenstein, R.M. (1990) ‘The effect of

arms and countermovement on vertical jumping.’ Medicine and Science in Sports and

Exercise, 22 (6) pp. 825-833.

Harrison, A.J. and Moroney, A. (2007) ‘Arm augmentation of vertical jump performance in

young girls and adult females.’ ISBS – Conference Proceedings Archive, 1 (1) pp. 160-163.

Lees, A., Vanrenterghem, J. and De Clercq, D. (2004) ‘Understanding how an arm swing

enhances performance in the vertical jump.’ Journal of Biomechanics, 37 (12) pp. 1929-1940.

Linthorne, N. P. (2001) ‘Analysis of standing vertical jump using a force platform.’ American

Journal of Physics, 69, pp. 1198–1204. [issue number missing]

Magee, D.J., Zachazewski, J.E. and Quillen, W.S. (2007) Scientific Foundations and

Principles of Practice in Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation. St.Louis, Missouri: Elsevier Health

Sciences

Noreau, L. and Vachon, J. (1998) ‘Comparison of three methods to assess muscular strength

in individuals with spinal cord injury.’ Spinal Cord, 36 (10) pp. 716-723.

Radcliffe, J.C. and Farentinos, R.C. (1999) High-powered Plyometrics. Champaign, Illinois:

Human Kinetics

Rota, S., Rogowski, I., Champely, S. and Hautier, C. (2013) ‘Reliability of EMG

normalisation methods for upper-limb muscles.’ Journal of Sport Sciences, 31 (15) pp. 1696-

1704.

Shetty, A.B. and Etnyre, B.R. (1989) ‘Contribution of arm movement to the force

components of a maximum vertical jump.’ Journal of Orthopaedic and Sports Therapy, 11

(5) pp. 198-201.

Umberger, B.R. (1998) ‘Mechanics of the Vertical Jump and Two-Joint Muscles: Implications

for Training.’ Strength and Conditioning, 20 (5) pp. 70-74.

Downloaded by Ricky . (ricklizar@gmail.com)