See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/26719454

Concentric and Impact Forces of Single-Leg

Jumps in an Aquatic Environment versus on
Land
ARTICLE in MEDICINE AND SCIENCE IN SPORTS AND EXERCISE AUGUST 2009
Impact Factor: 3.98 DOI: 10.1249/MSS.0b013e3181a252b7 Source: PubMed

CITATIONS

READS

26

303

7 AUTHORS, INCLUDING:
Juan Carlos Colado

Juan Benavent

University of Valencia

University of Valencia

95 PUBLICATIONS 530 CITATIONS

21 PUBLICATIONS 92 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

SEE PROFILE

Yasser Alakhdar

Joaquin Madera Gil

University of Valencia

University of Valencia

19 PUBLICATIONS 57 CITATIONS

15 PUBLICATIONS 29 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

SEE PROFILE

Available from: Juan Carlos Colado

Retrieved on: 13 March 2016

Concentric and Impact Forces of Single-Leg

Jumps in an Aquatic Environment versus
on Land
N. TRAVIS TRIPLETT1,2, JUAN C. COLADO3, JUAN BENAVENT3, YASSER ALAKHDAR4, JOAQUIN MADERA3,
LUIS M. GONZALEZ3, and VICTOR TELLA3
1

Department of Health, Leisure, and Exercise Science, Appalachian State University, Boone, NC; 2University of Valencia,
Valencia, SPAIN; 3Department of Physical Education and Sports, University of Valencia, Valencia, SPAIN; and 4Department
of Physiotherapy, University of Valencia, Valencia, SPAIN
ABSTRACT

APPLIED SCIENCES

TRIPLETT, N. T., J. C. COLADO, J. BENAVENT, Y. ALAKHDAR, J. MADERA, L. M. GONZALEZ, and V. TELLA. Concentric
and Impact Forces of Single-Leg Jumps in an Aquatic Environment versus on Land. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc., Vol. 41, No. 9, pp. 1790
1796, 2009. Purpose: This study investigated the kinetic and the kinematic differences in female athletes in single-leg static jumps in an
aquatic environment compared with those performed on dry land. Methods: Twelve healthy, junior national team handball players
participated. Subjects completed a familiarization and a testing session. The subjects performed a series of single-leg jumps, dry land
and aquatic with and without devices, which were randomized to avoid fatigue effects. Peak concentric force, rate of force development,
impact force, and time of the jumps were determined using a force plate. Results: Peak concentric force and rate of force development
were significantly (P G 0.05) higher in the aquatic jumps, whereas impact force was significantly (P G 0.05) lower. There was a shorter
total jump time (P G 0.05) for the aquatic jump without devices, whereas the time required to reach peak force was not significantly
different between the two environments, despite the greater resistance to movement in the aquatic medium. Discussion: Aquatic jump
exercises result in greater force production and rate of force development in the same amount of time with less impact and can thus offer
a viable alternative to traditional dry-land jump exercises, which may also be beneficial for rehabilitating or aging populations. The
benefits of this type of exercise include an exercise mode that can be performed without compromising speed while reducing the
potential for joint injury. Key Words: VERTICAL JUMP, RATE OF FORCE DEVELOPMENT, PHYSICAL PERFORMANCE,
STRENGTH TRAINING

sport movements ( jumps and landings) in the competitive

environment are performed on a single leg (33).
Despite the many benefits of training with jumps, there
may be a correlation with musculoskeletal injuries and
delayed-onset muscle soreness due to the high intensity of
the movement and corresponding compression forces on the
joints and muscles (26,34). This occurs primarily in the
lower extremity, when the jumps are performed frequently
(32). It is known that the simple action of running induces
ground reaction forces equivalent to two to four times the
body weight (3), whereas jumping even at low heights
results in ground reaction forces up to five times the body
weight (22,23).
In the last 10 yr, there has been a notable increase in both
the number of activities of physical conditioning in the
aquatic environment and the number of participants in these
activities (7). This is primarily due to the numerous
physiological benefits, especially for the joints, that the
physical properties of the water can provide (35). Although
in the water the subject experiences buoyancy forces that
decrease the subjects apparent weight (35), aquatic jump
training is becoming a popular activity that has been shown
to provide improvements in physical performance (30), with
the rehabilitation of injuries (14,35), and in bone mineral
density (1). Moreover, aquatic jump training has a great

he use of jumping drills on dry land is a training

tool that has been traditionally applied in the area of
sport to improve muscular strength and power,
overall movement ability, and joint stability and for the
prevention of injuries (16,20,28). In the therapeutic area,
they have also been associated with different outcomes,
such as an increase in bone mineral density (1), an
improvement in motor and occupational tasks (19), and a
facilitation in the later stages of recovery from injury (14).
Among the different types of jumps that can be used, the
most common is the standing jump, which can be
performed with one leg or with both legs. The double-leg
jump is usually used; however, the use of single-leg jumps
can provide more functional improvements in both activities of daily living and sport performance because many

Address for correspondence: N. Travis Triplett, Ph.D., Department of

Health, Leisure, and Exercise Science, Appalachian State University, ASU
Box 32071, Boone, NC 28608; E-mail: triplttnt@appstate.edu.
Submitted for publication September 2008.
Accepted for publication February 2009.
0195-9131/09/4109-1790/0
MEDICINE & SCIENCE IN SPORTS & EXERCISE
Copyright 2009 by the American College of Sports Medicine
DOI: 10.1249/MSS.0b013e3181a252b7

1790

Copyright @ 2009 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

METHODS
Subjects. Twelve junior female handball players who
had been competing at the national level the previous 2 yr
volunteered to participate in this investigation. Subject characteristics were as follows: age = 16.0 T 0.7 yr;
height = 170 T 10 cm; weight = 64.4 T 8.9 kg; and percent
body fat = 25.7% T 5.7%. The subjects did not have any
cardiovascular, neuromuscular, orthopedic, or psychological disorders and usually performed single-leg jumps
during their regular sport practice. The participants were

FORCES DURING DRY-LAND AND AQUATIC JUMPS

notified about the potential risks involved and gave their

voluntary informed consent, approved by a Research
Commission of the Department of Physical Education
and Sports from the University of Valencia, Spain.
Study design. A randomized, repeated-measures
experimental design was used to examine the hypothesis
that differences existed among single-leg jumps on dry
land compared with single-leg jumps in water. Subjects
completed a familiarization session and a testing session
2448 h later. Performance in the single-leg static jump
was examined across three different conditions: on dry
land, an aquatic jump, and an aquatic jump with a flat
paddle-type device in each hand (each device has 782 cm2
of projected frontal area). The dependent variables included
peak concentric force, concentric rate of force development,
total time, time to peak concentric force, impact force, time
to peak impact force, and rate of force development for
impact force.
Testing procedures. The subjects first performed a
familiarization session where they were instructed on and
able to practice the correct technique of single-leg static
jumps on dry land and in water. After a 24- to 48-h break,
the subjects completed the testing session in which the
dependent variables were evaluated. Subjects had performed no strength training in the 48 h before data
collection. The measurement protocols were always strictly
controlled by the same evaluators with the additional help
of video recording and goniometry. Subjects were always
encouraged to give a maximum effort during all measured
jumps. Three attempts were made at each type of jump,
with the best attempt of every type of jump (i.e., peak
concentric force value) chosen for analysis, also considering
the landing profile of the same attempt (e.g., whether the
subjects landed solidly on the plate or landed partially off
the plate due to flotation). Subjects performed a general
warm-up before both the familiarization and the testing
sessions, which consisted of 5 min of range of motion
movements for the main joints with light jogging between
exercises. After the warm-up, subjects were allowed a
practice jump before each different type of measured jump.
All jump conditions were randomized within a jump
environment to avoid the fatigue effects, and 1 min of rest
was given between trials. Due to the logistics of submerging
the force plate, all dry-land jumps were completed first,
then the different types of aquatic jumps. The plate submersion and calibration required approximately 20 min, so
the warm-up was repeated just before measured jumps. The
aquatic jumps consisted of jumping with or without devices
(one in each hand), which increased the drag force. The
subjects were asked to keep their hands on their hips during
the whole test (push off, flight, and landing; Fig. 1) or, in
the case of the aquatic jumps with the devices, to keep the
arms straight by the sides with the devices parallel to the
surface of the water. Subjects were instructed to jump as
normally as possible and to land as they would in their
training, with a flexion of the knees and avoiding a violent

Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercised

1791

Copyright @ 2009 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

APPLIED SCIENCES

potential for decreasing the likelihood of injuries compared

with jumping activities on land because there are lower
forces and less joint compression during landing (20,25).
However, these results are usually based on theoretical
speculation or on works that studied the action of walking
in the water and did not examine jumping (2,31). There are
several works that have shown an increase in power,
concentric peak torque, vertical jump, and velocity with
the performance of an aquatic jumping program (20,30,34),
and these improvements in motor performance could be due
to the high drag forces (i.e., increased load) that are
generated during the jumps (6,7,34). However, there are
no known investigations that have measured the level of
muscle force that can be produced during jumps in the
aquatic medium and if this muscular force is equivalent to
that produced on dry land for the same type of jump.
The measurement of some of these variables is possible
with a force plate (8) and in a variety of settings of application (38). Thus, the study of aquatic jump kinetics and
kinematics can provide valuable information regarding
possible mechanisms underlying training-induced adaptations (20,30).
It is also necessary to investigate the use of various types
of equipment for aquatic conditioning because this will
enable the aquatic fitness professional to understand the
general exercise techniques that are most likely to lead to
training adaptations (30). Some professionals have already
sought practical variations with the use of devices that
increase the intensity of jumps in the aquatic environment
by increasing the drag force, which can help compensate for
the decrease in body weight (due to the buoyancy forces).
However, there are no known studies that have specifically
examined the use of devices that increase the difficulty of
the jump and whether this will give a more beneficial
adaptation than jumps without them. Additionally, it is
necessary to evaluate if the proper use of these devices that
could increase the intensity of the jump can reduce the
articular stress during the landing phase because they could
also slow the velocity of downward movement. Therefore,
the purposes of this study were (i) to describe and compare
the kinetics and kinematics of single-leg jumps on dry land
versus in the aquatic medium and (ii) to determine how the
use of a device that can increase the aquatic drag force
changes jump kinetics and kinematics.

APPLIED SCIENCES

FIGURE 1Flight phase during the dry-land jump.

impact with the ground. The degree of knee flexion for the
starting position of the jump was set with a manual
goniometer at 90- and monitored by live video imaging
sent to a computer.
The standing height in the water (before knee flexion)
was at the xiphoid process (T3 cm; Fig. 2). However, the
level of immersion at the beginning of the jump was deeper
because the subjects had to squat down to 90- of knee
flexion for the purpose of consistency of squat depth.
Previous works, such as those of Miller et al. (25) and
Stemm and Jacobson (34), used an immersion depth equal
to the waist or less. It is known that the compressive load on
the spine that is generated when running in an immersion
depth equal to the waist is no different than when running
on dry land (11). Because a clear mechanical difference
exists between running and jumping, it is important to
understand differences in impact force with different
immersion depths during jumping. Although that concept
was not the focus of the present investigation, a standing
immersion depth of the xiphoid process (T3 cm) was chosen
because in previous works, using walking activities at the
same immersion depth found a lower impact force
compared with dry-land activities (2,31). Moreover, previous works that have used general aquatic exercise programs
have found positive results in the improvement in physical
performance with a similar immersion depth (20,26,30).
Data collection and analysis procedures. Height,
body mass, and body fat percentage (Tanita model BF-350)
were obtained according to the protocols used in previous
works (5,7). A portable aquatic force plate (Kistler 9253A11, Switzerland) with dimensions of 400 mm (width) 

1792

Official Journal of the American College of Sports Medicine

600 mm (length)  45 mm (depth) was used to assess jump

performance variables for both dry-land and aquatic jumps.
The underwater force plate contained four piezoelectric
sensors, and each one recorded the force produced in the
three spatial directions. The amplifier of the force plate
(Kistler 9865 B) received the signals emitted for the
sensors via eight channels and sent filtered signals to an
analog-to-digital converter of 16 bits (CIODAS 1600),
which was controlled using the software of the manufacturer (BioWare Type 2812A1-3, version 3.24). This
software made the proper adjustments to the signals sent
by the analog-to-digital converter to obtain the three
absolute components of the force. The force plate had a
sensitivity of 2609 N and 50 Hz native frequency. The
vertical component of the ground reaction force was
acquired, with a sampling frequency of 200 Hz (to reduce
noise in the signal caused by the movement of the water),
and the force curves were analyzed with the application of
the calibration coefficient and filters (fourth-order digital
filter Butterworth with a low-pass cutoff frequency of 20
Hz). Calibration trials were acquired, during which participants were asked to stand upright on the force plate for
30 s. Ground reaction force data were normalized by the
participants own body weight in each condition, also
measured during the calibration trials. In this manner, it
was possible to compare the different jumps. For the water
condition, the measured vertical ground reaction force
during quiet standing in water was a result of the body
weight minus buoyancy, which will be termed apparent
body weight. For example, the measured vertical ground
reaction force during quiet standing (apparent body weight)
with the water at the xiphoid process was approximately a
28% (17.8 T 6.1 kg) of the same position on dry land (64.4
T 8.9 kg). The apparent body weight was further reduced
when the subject reached the starting position (90- knee
angle) because the body was submerged further (24).

FIGURE 2Aquatic jump setup with devices. Standing height in the

water before knee flexion.

http://www.acsm-msse.org

Copyright @ 2009 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

Statistical analyses. The ShapiroWilk test was used

to test for normality, and all variables of interest were found
to be normally distributed. A general linear model with
repeated-measures and Fishers LSD post hoc tests were
used to determine the influence of the environment (land or
aquatic) on a variety of performance variables during the
single-leg static jump (Statistical Package for the Social
Sciences, version 11.5; SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL). Statistical
significance for all analyses was chosen as P e 0.05.

FIGURE 3Forces during the push off and landing of the single-leg
static jumps in various conditions. Ground reaction force data were
normalized by the participants body weight in each condition.
*Significant difference from dry-land jump. LSignificant difference
from aquatic jump (without devices).

The variables of peak concentric force, impact force, and

concentric rate of force development are presented in
Figure 3. With respect to the variables of jump propulsion,
it can be observed that the values were always significantly
higher in the aquatic environment (P G 0.05), although there
are some differences between the two types of aquatic
jumps with some of the variables. For example, the aquatic
jump with devices generated a higher value of peak
concentric force (P G 0.05). Conversely, the impact force
was significantly lower in the aquatic environment (P G 0.05),
with the lowest impact force value in the aquatic jump with
devices (P G 0.05). On the other hand, the rate of force
development for impact force on dry land was higher than
in water (P G 0.05), and there were no differences between
the two water conditions (P 9 0.05). Figure 4 shows that the
aquatic jump without devices required the least amount of
time needed to complete the jump (P e 0.05), whereas the
same amount of time is needed to complete the jump on dry
land and in water with devices (P 9 0.05). Mediolateral (x)
and anteroposterior ( y) forces are shown in Table 1.
Regarding the impact force, it can be observed that these
forces (x, y) have a similar trend to the vertical (z) impact
force as they are lower in water (P G 0.05), and if the
mediolateral and anteroposterior peak concentric forces are
compared with the vertical peak concentric force, there is a

FIGURE 4Time during different phases of single-leg static jumps in various conditions. *Significant difference from dry-land jump. LSignificant
difference from aquatic jump (without devices).

FORCES DURING DRY-LAND AND AQUATIC JUMPS

Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercised

1793

Copyright @ 2009 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

APPLIED SCIENCES

Performance variables were defined as follows: (i) impact

force as the highest ground reaction force during the
landing of the jump; (ii) peak concentric force as highest
ground reaction force before finishing the propulsive phase
of the movement; (iii) concentric rate of force development
as the first peak of ground reaction force divided by the
time from the initiation of the concentric phase to the first
peak of ground reaction force; (iv) total time as the time
necessary to finish the propulsive phase of the movement,
that is, from beginning of the propulsive phase to takeoff;
(v) time-to-peak concentric force as the time necessary to
arrive at the peak concentric force from the beginning of the
propulsive phase of the movement; (vi) time to peak impact
force as the time necessary to arrive at the peak impact force
from the beginning of the landing phase of the movement;
and (vii) rate of force development for impact force as the
first peak of impact force divided by the time from the
initiation of the landing phase to the first peak of impact
force. Testretest reliabilities for the variables measured in
the single-leg jumps (both dry land and aquatic) were
previously established with an intraclass correlation coefficient. They consistently ranged between 0.89 and 0.95.

RESULTS

TABLE 1. Mediolateral (x) and anteroposterior (y) forces during single-leg squat jumps in various conditions.
Peak Concentric Force (N)
Dry-land jump
Aquatic jump
Aquatic jump with devices

Concentric Rate of Force

Development (NIs)

Impact Force (N)

5.38 (0.76)
4.04 (0.69)
3.99 (1.11)

12.48 (1.97)
23.24 (3.07)*
20.20 (3.14)*

22.46 (2.97)
10.72 (2.07)*
6.66 (1.03)*

64.64 (11.27)
25.54 (3.22)*
12.12 (2.59)*

85.81 (66.96)
11.99 (2.36)
18.38 (4.71)

52.55 (5.89)
61.23 (7.82)
52.60 (7.73)

The data are expressed as mean (SE).

* Significant difference from dry-land jump.

similar trend to be higher in water (P G 0.05) for only the

anteroposterior force.

APPLIED SCIENCES

DISCUSSION
A single-leg jump is a more functional movement than a
double-leg jump, and its use could reduce the risk of injury
during landing (36); however, it is known that controlling
the manner of application and the environment in which
jumping activities are performed is necessary because of a
higher risk of potential tissue damage (10,13,24). For
example, Grantham (13) suggested that the use of the
aquatic environment serves as a preventive measure for
injury. The findings obtained in the present study indicate
that there is a reduction of landing impact force of 44.8%
when jumping in water and of 62.9% when jumping in
water with a device that can slow the landing. The mean
impact force of the subjects was 2.38 body weight on dry
land, whereas it was 1.31 body weight in the aquatic
medium and 0.88 body weight in the aquatic medium with
devices. This reduction in impact force can be attributed to
both the buoyancy force experienced by the body and, in
the case of the aquatic devices, the increased drag force that
the devices cause, even on the descent from the jump. It
must be also pointed out that a lower rate of force
development for the impact force could suggest a reduction
in the stress to the musculoskeletal system (15), so with the
findings obtained in the current study, it is possible to
affirm that aquatic jumps could generate less joint stress
because the rate of force development for impact force is
80% slower than on dry land.
However, the most important finding of the present study
was that the ability to generate maximal muscle force is not
adversely affected by exerting the force in an aquatic
environment. This is likely due to the increased resistance
to the movement created by the drag force (4), which
usually happens in any movement in the aquatic medium
and especially with quick movements such as jumps
performed at maximal effort (6,7). Because jump intensity
can be indirectly expressed through peak concentric force
and concentric rate of force development (17), the findings
of the present investigation support that the intensity
encountered during a single-leg aquatic jump is greater
than that on dry land when jumping with only body weight.
The results in the present study may also help explain why
the different aquatic jump programs performed by athletes

1794

Official Journal of the American College of Sports Medicine

have also resulted in gains in vertical jump when compared

with equivalent programs on dry land (20,25).
Improving the performance variables that are linked with
force and power is something that is desirable not only for
daily activities but also for sport training and performance.
Because jumping exercises emphasize force and power,
recent investigations have tried to determine where along a
spectrum of loading that peak power occurs and the optimal
training load to improve the power in these activities (9,21).
Another aspect of this question involves the concept of
deloading or whether peak power can be obtained when
performing jumping activities at loads less than body
weight. It is unknown how the aquatic environment, where
there is essentially deloading due to the buoyancy forces,
will influence power output in the jumps. On dry land, there
are previous works which have shown that deloading the
body weight results in a lower power output (27). Although
power output was not measured in the current investigation
because the exact resistance provided by the water was not
calculable because a true measure of displacement was
unavailable, the present investigation demonstrated that the
concentric force and the rate of force development was
44.9% and 30.4% greater, respectively, in the aquatic jump
compared with the dry-land jump and was 63.9% and
36.8% greater, respectively, when the aquatic jump was
performed with devices that increase the drag force.
Because an increase in the rate of force development can
contribute to enhanced performance in jumping activities
(18), aquatic jump training could serve as an alternate
training method for improving performance. This finding is
very important because a high concentric rate of force
development combined with a short overall movement time
is something desirable in a team sport, for example, because
this can result in more efficient movements.
The force required to maintain balance and to achieve
proper stabilization of the body during the takeoff phase of
the jump is another factor that should be considered when
examining the results of this investigation. As has been
previously discussed, the principles of buoyancy result in a
lower weight of the subjects in the aquatic environment
with respect to the weight on dry land, and consequently,
the forces that are generated in the three axes are lower in
the aquatic medium (24). However, concerning the values
obtained on dry land, with the data shown in this study, it
can be noted that the resistance provided by water during
the takeoff phase increases the values of the forces in the
z- and y-axes, whereas the values found in the x-axis show

http://www.acsm-msse.org

Copyright @ 2009 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

no significant differences due to the limited resistance of

water in that direction of motion. This has implications for
the importance of the action of the muscles of the lumbar
region during exercise in the aquatic environment to
compensate for imbalances that occur in the y-axis (6).
Interestingly, in the current investigation in the aquatic
environment, the forces in the y-axis are higher, and the
peak concentric force in the z-axis is also higher when
compared with dry land. This may be due to the constant
motion of the water and the necessary corrections by the
body that are required to maintain balance.
Previous works have demonstrated that jumping exercises can be equally effective for the improvement of
performance compared with traditional resistance exercises (12). In the aquatic environment, for the improvement
of lower extremity strength, open kinetic chain resistance
exercises are typically used because these can be performed
quickly and with large devices can easily increase the drag
force, which can promote improvements in strength and
muscle mass (29,37). The findings obtained in the present
investigation show that the application of a closed kinetic
chain exercise, such as jumping, in the aquatic medium can
be a tool that is at least as efficient as jumps performed on
dry land. Thus, the variety of exercises that can be
programmed can be expanded such that there will be no
need to prescribe only open kinetic chain exercises. Also, in
the sport area, aquatic jumps could be a valuable tool in the

general physical preparation of a sports season in which

workload is emphasized over specificity because the impact
force is reduced. Moreover, the application of these types of
low-impact activities for improving explosive strength characteristics of neuromuscular performance could be very
useful both with obese persons and with athletes with a large
body mass (American football, rugby, boxing, judo, etc.),
which typically do not perform jumping exercises in their
sport training due to increased injury potential to the joints.
Future studies are needed to analyze the kinetics and the
kinematics of consecutive aquatic jumps as well as
jumps with an eccentric phase, which are more like jumps
performed for sport training. This information can complement the results shown here and, with this, can increase our
knowledge about aquatic jumps and their influence over the
physiologic factors of health and also over the possible
applications in the sport environment (20). In conclusion, it
is possible to affirm that aquatic jumping can be an easy
and efficient tool to improve muscle force production and to
reduce the impact force with respect to dry-land jumping.
These findings may also be applied to physical exercise
programs in prevention and functional rehabilitation as well
as sports training.
This study was conducted without funding from any source.
The results of the present study do not constitute endorsement
by the American College of Sports Medicine.

REFERENCES

FORCES DURING DRY-LAND AND AQUATIC JUMPS

12. Fatouros IG, Jamurtas AZ, Leontsini D, et al. Evaluation of

plyometric exercise training, weight training, and their combination on vertical jumping performance and leg strength. J Strength
Cond Res. 2000;14(4):4706.
13. Grantham N. Plyometrics in the pool: new research suggests that
athletes can boost muscle strength and power with less risk of
injury by exercising in water. Sports Inj Bull. 2002;20:810.
14. Herring KM. A plyometric training model used to augment
rehabilitation from tibial fasciitis. Curr Sports Med Rep. 2006;
5(3):14754.
15. Irmischer BS, Harris C, Pfeiffer RP, DeBeliso MA, Adams KJ,
Shea KG. Effects of a knee ligament injury prevention exercise
program on impact forces in women. J Strength Cond Res.
2004;18(4):7037.
16. Izquierdo M, Aguado X, Gozalez R, Lopez JL, Hakkinen K.
Maximal and explosive force production capacity and balance
performance in men of different ages. Eur J Appl Physiol. 1999;
79(3):2607.
17. Jensen RL, Ebben W. Quantifying plyometric intensity via rate
of force development, knee joint, and ground reaction forces. J
Strength Cond Res. 2007;21(3):7637.
18. Kyrolainen H, Avela J, McBride JM, et al. Effects of power
training on muscle structure and neuromuscular performance.
Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2005;15(1):5864.
19. Markovic G. Does plyometric training improve vertical jump
height? A meta-analytical review. Brit J Sport Med. 2007;41(6):
34955.
20. Martel GF, Harmer ML, Logan JM, Parker CB. Aquatic
plyometric training increases vertical jump in female volleyball
players. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2005;37(10):18149.
21. McBride JM, Triplett-McBride T, Davie A, Newton RU. The
effect of heavy- vs. light-load jump squats on the development

Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercised

1795

Copyright @ 2009 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

APPLIED SCIENCES

1. Ay A, Yurtkuran M. Influence of aquatic and weight-bearing

exercises on quantitative ultrasound variables in postmenopausal
women. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2005;84(1):5261.
2. Barela AMF, Stolf SF, Duarte M. Biomechanical characteristics of
adults walking in shallow water and on land. J Electromyogr
Kinesiol. 2006;16(3):2506.
3. Cavanagh PR, Lafortune MA. Ground reaction forces in distance
running. J Biomech. 1980;13(5):397406.
4. Colado JC, Tella V, Llop F. Response to resistance exercise
performed in water versus on land. Rev Port Cien Desp. 2006;
6(2 suppl):3615.
5. Colado JC, Triplett NT. Effects of a short-term resistance program
using elastic bands versus weight machines for sedentary middleaged women. J Strength Cond Res. 2008;22(5):14418.
6. Colado JC, Tella V, Triplett NT. A method for monitoring
intensity during aquatic resistance exercises. J Strength Cond Res.
2008;22(6):20459.
7. Colado JC, Tella V, Triplett NT, Gonzalez LM. Effects of a shortterm aquatic resistance program on strength and body composition
in fit young men. J Strength Cond Res. 2009;23(2):54959.
8. Cordova ML, Armstrong CW. Reliability of ground reaction
forces during a vertical jump: implications for functional strength
assessment. J Athl Train. 1996;31(4):3425.
9. Cormie P, McBride JM, McCaulley GO. Power-time, force-time,
and velocity-time curve analysis during the jump squat: impact of
load. J Appl Biomech. 2008;24(2):11220.
10. Coventry E, OConnor 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):10907.
11. Dowzer CN, Reilly T, Cable NT. Effects of deep and shallow
water running on spinal shrinkage. Brit J Sport Med. 1998;
32(1):448.

22.

23.
24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.
36.

37.

38.

of land vs. aquatic plyometrics on power, torque, velocity, and

muscle soreness in women. J Strength Cond Res. 2004;18(1):
8491.
Roesler H, Haupenthal A, Schutz GR, Souza PV. Dynamometric
analysis of the maximum force applied in aquatic human gait at
1.3 m of immersion. Gait Posture. 2006;24(4):4127.
Seegmiller JG, McCaw ST. Ground reaction forces among
gymnasts and recreational athletes in drop landings. J Athl Train.
2003;38(4):3114.
Stalbom M, Holm DJ, Cronin JB, Keogh JWL. Reliability of
kinematics and kinetics associated with horizontal single leg drop
jump assessment. A brief report. J Sports Sci Med. 2007;6(2):
2614.
Stemm JD, Jacobson BH. Comparison of land-and aquatic based
plyometric training on vertical jump performance. J Strength
Cond Res. 2007;21(2):56871.
Thein JM, Brody LT. Aquatic-based rehabilitation and training for
the elite athlete. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 1998;27(1):3241.
Tillman MD, Criss RM, Brunt D, Hass CJ. Landing constraints
influence ground reaction forces and lower extremity EMG in
female volleyball players. J Appl Biomech. 2004;20(1):3850.
Tsourlou T, Benik A, Dipla K, Zafeiridis A, Kellis S. The effects
of a 24-week aquatic training program on muscular strength performance in healthy elderly women. J Strength Cond Res. 2006;
20(4):8118.
Walsh MS, Ford KR, Bangen KJ, Myer GD, Hewett TE. The
validation of a portable force plate for measuring force-time data
during jumping and landing tasks. J Strength Cond Res. 2006;
20(4):7304.

APPLIED SCIENCES

30.

of strength, power, and speed. J Strength Cond Res. 2002;16(1):

7582.
McKay H, Tsang G, Heinonen A, MacKelvie K, Sanderson D,
Khan KM. Ground reaction forces associated with an effective
elementary school based jumping intervention. Brit J Sport Med.
2005;39(1):104.
McNair PJ, Prapavessis H, Callender K. Decreasing landing
forces: effect of instruction. Brit J Sport Med. 2000;34(4):2936.
Miller MG, Berry DC, Gilders R, Bullard S. Recommendations for
implementing an aquatic plyometric program. Strength Cond J.
2001;23(6):2835.
Miller MG, Berry DC, Bullard S, Gilders R. Comparisons of landbased and aquatic-based plyometric programs during an 8-week
training period. J Sport Rehabil. 2002;11:26883.
Miller MG, Cheatham CC, Porter AR, Ricard MD, Hennigar D,
Berry DC. Chest- and waist-deep aquatic plyometric training and
average force, power, and vertical-jump performance. IJARE.
2007;1(2):14555.
Nuzzo JL, McBride JM, Dayne AM, Israetel MA, Dumke CL,
Triplett NT. Effect of loading and deloading on power output
during the jump squat. J Strength Cond Res. 2008;22(6):e14.
Parkkari J, Kujala UM, Kannus P. Is it possible to prevent sports
injuries? Review of controlled clinical trials and recommendations
for future work. Sports Med. 2001;31(14):98595.
Poyhonen T, Sipila S, Keskinen KL, Hautala A, Savolainen J,
Malkia E. Effects of aquatic resistance training on neuromuscular
performance in healthy women. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2002;
34(12):21039.
Robinson LE, Devor ST, Merrick MA, Buckworth J. The effects

1796

Official Journal of the American College of Sports Medicine

http://www.acsm-msse.org

Copyright @ 2009 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.