Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
SPORTS HEALTH
From the Institute of Sport, Physical Education and Health Sciences, University of Edinburgh, United Kingdom, and Institute of Health and Sports Sciences,
University of Tsukuba, Japan
*Address correspondence to Orna A. Donoghue, Moray House School of Education, University of Edinburgh, St Leonards Land, Holyrood Road, EH8 8AQ Edinburgh,
United Kingdom (e-mail: orna.donoghue@ed.ac.uk).
No potential conflict of interest declared.
DOI: 10.1177/1941738111403872
2011 The Author(s)
303
Donoghue et al
vol. 3 no. 3
SPORTS HEALTH
Figure 1. Force plate embedded in a platform on the floor of the swimming pool.
Intensity
Level
Description
Ankle hops
Low
Countermovement
jumps
Low
Tuck jumps
Medium
Single-leg vertical
jump
High
Drop jump
High
Stand with feet shoulder-width apart on a box 30 cm high. Step off without
any upward movement. Upon landing, immediately jump up as high as
possible.
Donoghue et al
Figure 2. Force-time trace when performing a countermovement jump on land and in water.
Table 2. Peak ground reaction force during landing, normalized to body weight: Mean SD.
Land
Water
Difference, %
(Range)
Statistical Result
Ankle hops
5.50 0.94
3.68 0.58*
33 (19-51)
Tuck jumps
5.00 1.06
2.47 0.59*
51 (24-66)
Countermovement jump
6.77 1.40
4.04 1.52*
40 (7-77)
4.32 0.55
1.99 0.54*
54 (25-83)
Drop jump
6.57 1.40
4.05 1.02*
38 (-12-57)
Results
Peak impact forces on land varied from 4.32 to 6.77 BW, whereas
aquatic values varied from 1.99 to 4.05 BW (Table 2). These
represented significant reductions in water (33%-54%) with large
or very large effect sizes (P < 0.05, d 1.87). Estimated GRF on
each leg was 2.50 to 4.32 BW on land and 1.24 to 2.02 BW in
water (Figure 3). On land, there were clear differences in GRF
among exercises, with the highest value observed for single-leg
vertical jump. However, during aquatic jumps, GRF was almost
identical for all exercises except tuck jumps (the lowest).
Impulse was significantly reduced (19%-54%) in water for all
exercises (P < 0.05) (Table 3). Effect sizes were large or very
large for all exercises except countermovement jump and drop
jump, which had moderate effect sizes. Variation in responses
was evident in 3 exercises (ankle hops, countermovement
jump, drop jump) with one participant displaying increased
landing impulse.
RFD was significantly reduced (33%-62%) in water for ankle
hops, tuck jumps, and the countermovement jump (Table 4).
Effect sizes were large for the countermovement jump and
moderate for ankle hops and tuck jumps.
vol. 3 no. 3
SPORTS HEALTH
Water
Difference, %
(Range)
Statistical Result
Ankle hop
273 33
224 47*
19 (21, 49)
Tuck jump
339 32
245 32*
29 (11, 45)
Countermovement jump
215 32
143 37*
34 (20, 69)
161 20
75 29*
54 (25, 95)
Drop jump
195 24
134 24*
30 (10, 49)
Discussion
When landing from plyometric jumps, the body is exposed to
high-impact loading, which leads to compression of the spine12
and lower extremities. This study confirmed that peak GRF and
impulse were significantly reduced (33%-54% and 19%-54%,
respectively) when performing these jumping exercises in water.
This is consistent with previous research that found reductions
of 45% and 59% in peak GRF during single- and double-leg
squat jumps in water at the level of the xiphoid process.4,39
During impact activities, the body is exposed to forces that
may have passive and active components. Passive impact
forces occur quickly, within the first 10 milliseconds during
jump landings.17 The muscles of the lower extremity need
Donoghue et al
Table 4. Rate of force development, body weight per second: Mean SD.
Land
Water
Difference, %
(Range)
Statistical Result
Ankle hops
81 32
54 24*
33 (19-51)
Tuck jumps
69 22
26 34*
62 (24-66)
Countermovement jump
134 48
68 30*
50 (7-77)
88 24
123 88
26 (25-83)
P = 0.31, d = 0.36
120 43
101 43
20 (-12-57)
P = 0.06, d = 0.57
Drop jump
Table 5. Time to reach peak ground reaction forces, seconds: Mean SD.
Exercise
Land
Water
Statistical Result
Ankle hop
0.074 0.017
0.079 0.028
P = 0.30, d = 0.22
Tuck jump
0.077 0.026
0.201 0.114*;
Countermovement jump
0.054 0.011
0.064 0.013*
P = 0.04, d = 0.86
0.051 0.009
0.029 0.021*
Drop jump
0.058 0.012
0.050 0.021
P = 0.12, d = 0.47
vol. 3 no. 3
Conclusions
Aquatic plyometric exercises are associated with reductions of
up to 62% in peak impact forces, impulse, and RFD compared
with their land-based equivalents. The level of reduction may
be influenced by jumping and landing technique, water depth,
and participant height and body composition.
References
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
SPORTS HEALTH
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
Jensen RL, Ebben WP. Quantifying plyometric intensity via rate of force
development, knee joint, and ground reaction forces. J Strength Cond Res.
2007;21(3):763-767.
Jensen R, Flanagan E, Jensen N, et al. Kinetic responses during landings of
plyometric exercises. Proceedings of the XXVI International Conference of
International Society of Biomechanics in Sport (Eds. Y-H Kwon, J Shim,
JK Shim, I-S Shin), July 14-18, 2008; Seoul, Korea. ISSN 1999-4168.
Koury JM. Aquatic Therapy Programming: Guidelines for Orthopedic
Rehabilitation. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics; 1996.
Markovic G. Does plyometric training improve vertical jump height? A metaanalytical review. Br J Sports Med. 2007;41(6):349-355.
Martel GF, Harmer ML, Logan JM, et al. Aquatic plyometric training
increases vertical jump in female volleyball players. Med Sci Sports Exerc.
2005;37(10):1814-1819.
Melvill Jones G, Watt D. Observations on the control of stepping and
hopping movements in man. J Physiol. 1971;219(3):709-727.
Miller M, Berry D, Buliard S, et al. Comparisons of land-based and aquaticbased plyometric programs during an 8-week training period. Sport Rehabil.
2002;11:268-283.
Miller MG, Berry DC, Gilders R, et al. Recommendations for implementing
an aquatic plyometric program. Strength Cond J. 2001;23(6):28-35.
Miller MG, Cheatham CC, Porte AR, et al. Chest- and waist-deep aquatic
plyometric training and average force, power and vertical-jump performance.
Int J Aquatic Res Educ. 2007;1(1):145-155.
Miller MG, Herniman JJ, Ricard MD, et al. The effects of a 6-week plyometric
training program on agility. J Sports Sci Med. 2006;5:459-465.
Myer G, Ford K, Brent J, et al. The effects of plyometric versus dynamic
balance training on power, balance and landing force in female athletes.
J Strength Cond Res. 2006;20(2):345-353.
Myer G, Ford K, McLean SG, et al. The effects of plyometric versus dynamic
stabilization and balance training on lower extremity biomechanics. Am J
Sports Med. 2006;34(3):445-455.
Nigg BM. External force meaurements with sports shoes and playing
surfaces. In: Nigg BM, Kerr B, eds. Biomechanical Aspects of Sports
Shoes and Playing Surfaces. Calgary, Canada: University of Calgary;
1983:11-23.
Potach D, Chu D. Plyometric training. In: Earle RW, Baechle TR, eds.
Essentials of Strength Training and Conditioning. Champaign, IL: Human
Kinetics; 2004:427-470.
Robinson LE, Devor ST, Merrick MA, et al. The effects of land vs aquatic
plyometrics on power, torque, velocity, and muscle soreness in women.
J Strength Cond Res. 2004;18(1):84-91.
Roesler H, Haupenthal A, Schtz GR, et al. Dynamometric analysis of the
maximum force applied in aquatic human gait at 1.3 m of immersion. Gait
Posture. 2006;24(4):412-417.
Rosenthal R. Meta-analytic Procedures for Social Research. Rev ed. Newbury
Park, CA: Sage; 1991.
Skinner AT, Thompson AM, eds. Duffields Exercise in Water. London, UK:
Bailliere Tindall; 1983.
Stemm JD, Jacobson BH. Comparison of land- and aquatic-based
plyometric training on vertical jump performance. J Strength Cond Res.
2007;21(2):568-571.
Thein JM, Thein Brody L. Aquatic-based rehabilitation and training for the
elite athlete. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 1998;27(1):32-41.
Triplett NT, Colado JC, Benavent J, et al. Concentric and impact forces of
single-leg jumps in an aquatic environment versus on land. Med Sci Sports
Exerc. 2009;41(9):1790-1796.
Wallace BJ, Kernozek TW, White JM, et al. Quantification of vertical ground
reaction forces of popular bilateral plyometric exercises. J Strength Cond Res.
2010;24(1):207-212.
Winter DA. Biomechanics and Motor Control of Human Movement. 2nd ed.
New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons Inc; 1990.
For reprints and permission queries, please visit SAGEs Web site at http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav.
309