NoPE biodynamics Effects of muscle strengthening on vertical jump height: a simulation study MAARTEN F. BOBBERT and ARTHUR J. VAN SOEST Department of Functional Anatomy, Faculteit Bewegingswetenschappen, Vrije Universitet, 1081 BT Amsterdam, THE NETHERLANDS ABSTRACT OBBERT, M. Fand A, 1, VAN SOEST. Effects of muscle strength= ning on verical jump height: a simulation study. Med. Sei. Sports Exerc, Vo. 26, No.8, pp. 1012-1020, 1994, In this study the effects (of sjsfematic manipultions of eontol and muscle strength on vertical jump height were investigated, Forward dynam simulations of ver tical squat jumps were performed with a mode ofthe human musci loskeletal system, Mode input was STIM(), stimulation of six lower extremity muscles as function of time; model output was body motion. The model incorporated all features ofthe musculoskeletal system of human test subjects considered salient for veal jumping, and the intial body configuration was set equal to that of the test subjects Fis, optimal STIM() was found for a standard version of the model (experiment A). A satisfactory correspondence was found between ‘Simulation results and kinematics, kinetics and electromyograms of the {est subjecs. Subsequently, optimal STIM() forthe standard model ‘was used lo drive a model with strengthened muscles (experiment B). up height was now Tower than that found in experiment A. Finally, ‘optimal STIM() was found forthe model with stengthened moscles (Gexperiment C). Jump height was now higher than that found in ex- periment A, These results suggest that in order to fake full benefit of fn increase in muscle strength, contol needs to be adapted. I speculated that in training programs aimed at improving jumping achievement, musle traning exercises should be accompanied by txereses that allow alles to practice with thei changed muscle, MUSCLE STRENGTH, MOVEMENT CONTROL, HUMAN, JUMPING thletes spend a lot of time and effort in various training activities with the purpose of improving formance. Training methods used for this pur- pose very often evolve by trial and error. As illustrated elsewhere (2), a key mechanism in this process seems to be the adoption by athletes of methods used by more successful adversaries. Although a body of knowledge based on experience is very valuable, it still remains the task of investigators to substantiate training methods sci- MEDIC io HENCE FORTS AND EXERCISE, entifically. The least scientists can do is offer pract nets « theoretical framework, from within which they can explain why some training programs or exercises have been more successful than others. In the development of a theoretical framework that can benefit the improvement of athletic performance, three questions need to be answered: 1) Which factors deter- mine (limit) athletic performance? 2) Which of these factors can be changed? 3) On which of the changeable factors should we focus in training? In reply to the first question, most people will say that for athletic achieve- ment in general, both the properties of the musculoskel- etal system and the control of this system are important. The control of the musculoskeletal system, popularly referred to as coordination, timing, or technique, essen- tially involves the specification of the amount of stimu- Iation for each muscle as a function of time. It is genet- ally accepted that control may be improved by painstaking practice, every now and then under supervi- n of a trainer who can give directions about the ‘proper” way of executing the movement. The properties of the musculoskeletal system include anatomical char- acteristics (e.g, mass distribution, moment arms of muscles), biochemical characteristics (e.g., enzyme ac- tivities and substrate concentrations in muscles), and physiological characteristics (e.g, muscle strength, muscle fiber type composition). Broadly speaking, the anatomical characteristics of an individual are given; they may predispose him or her for success in athletics, bur they cannot be changed. The physiological and bio- chemical characteristics of muscles, however, are respon- sive (0 training, just as control. ‘The relative importance of control and various prop- erties of the musculoskeletal system will vary with the particular type of activity in which the athlete is engaged. Trainers seem to feel that the achievement in vertical jumping, which is of considerable importance for sports, such as volleyball and basketball, depends primarily on 1012EFFECTS OF MUSOLE STRENGTHENING control and muscle strength. In reply to the question on which factors a training program should focus to improve jump height, most trainers will say that the answer de- pends on the athlete’s level of skill. They feel that in a novice athlete, supposed to have suboptimal control, one ‘can choose to try and improve either control or muscle strength. In an elite athlete, they will say, contro is likely to be already optimal, so thatthe focus in training should ‘on muscle strength. Consequently, to improve maxi- ‘mal jump height of expert volleyball players, exercises aimed at increasing strength are advocated (e.g., 6,7). ‘This recommendation is supported by the work of Pandy (14), who showed with forward dynamic simulations of vertical jumping that jump height is most sensitive to increases in the body strength-to-weight ratio. Unfortu- nately, although in training practice substantial gains in muscle strength may be achieved relatively easy (1), the corresponding effects on jump height, in which we are ultimately interested, are quite inconclusive. It is true that in several studies a strength training program was shown to help increase jump height, but the magnitude of the increase varied largely from study to study. Even more puzzling is the fact that in some training studies strength gains were not at all accompanied by increases in jump height (8), or even by a decrease (11). Itis the opinion ofthe authors that trainers and athletes involved in jump training programs will benefit from theoretical framework, which provides explanations for the inconclusiveness of the effects of muscle strength training exercises on jump height. As a first step toward the development of such a framework, a forward dy- namic simulation investigation of vertical jumps using a model of the human musculoskeletal ‘system, with muscle stimulation as input and movement dynamics as output, seems indicated. The reason is that such an ap- proach allows full control over all variables and param- eters of interest, a situation which will never be achieved in human subjects. In the present study this approach is used to study the effects of systematic manipulations of both control and muscle strength on vertical jump height. ‘To make the simulation study as realistic as possible, itis attempted to include in the model all the features of the musculoskeletal system of human test subjects that were considered salient for performing maximal vertical jumps, o set the initial body configuration equal to that of the test subjects at the start of a jump, and to evaluate the model by comparing simulation results with experi- mental findings. After showing that the simulation and experimental results are similar, it will be demonstrated that the adjustment of control to muscle strength is a critical factor in determining vertical jumping achieve- ment; preliminary results of this investigation were pre~ sented elsewhere (5). Finally, the implications of the results for training practice will be discussed Official Journal of tie American Collage of Sporis Medicine 1013 METHODS ‘Subjects and Experimental Protocol Six well-trained male volleyball players (Dutch jon of Honour) participated in this study and provided informed consent in accordance with the policy statement of the American College of Sports Medicine. Character- istics of the subjects (mean * standard deviation) were: age 25 = 4 yr, height 1.93 + 0.08 m, body mass 79.4 = 58 kg, ‘The subjects performed a number of vertical jumps from a squatting position. They were instructed to make no countermovement, to keep their hands on their back, and to jump as high as possible. During jumping, posi- tional data of anatomical landmarks on Sth metatarso- phalangeal joint, lateral malleolus, lateral epicondyle of femut, major trochanter, and trunk were collected at 100 Hzusing a VICON system (Oxford Metrics Lid., Oxford, England), ground reaction forces were measured using @ force platform (Kistler type 9281B, Kistler Instrument Cotp., Amherst, NY), and electromyograms were re- corded using pairs of surface electrodes from m. semi- tendinosus, m. biceps femoris, m. gluteus maximus, m. rectus femoris, m. vastus medialis, m. gastrocnemius, and m, soleus. EMG-signals were preamplified, ransmit- ted, and further amplified (BIOMES 80, Glonner Elee- tronics GmbH, Munich, Germany), high-pass filtered at 7 Hz to reduce the amplitude of possible movement arti facts, full-wave rectified, smoothed using an analog 20 Hz 31d order low-pass filter, and sampled at 200 Hz. To further reduce the variability of each sampled electro- ‘myographic signal in time, it was further smoothed off- line using a zero-lag 4th order digital 5 Hz low-pass Butterworth filter to yield SREMG (Smoothed Rectified EMG). Details and motivation of this processing tech- nique are presented elsewhere (3). Landmark positional data were used to calculate the orientations of feet, lower Jegs, upper legs, and head-arms-trunk (HAT), as well as position and velocity of the mass center of the body (for details, see ref. 4). Jump height was defined as the dif- ference between the height of the body’s mass center at the apex of the jump and the height of this center when the subject was standing ground. The highest jump of each subject was selected for further analysis. Kinematics at the start of this jump l conditions for the simuiation study. Mean kinematics and ground reaction forces for the group of subjects at particular instants in time were obtained by averaging the individual time histories of these variables after synchronization at the instant of takeoff, and were subsequently used for the evaluation of simulation results. Outline of the Simulation Study Figure 1 schematically shows the model used for for- ward dynamic simulation of human vertical squat jumps.1014 fil Journal ofthe American College of Sports Medicine Figure 1—Schematie drawing of the model of the musculoskeletal system used for forward dynamic simulation of vertical jumps. It ‘ons of four rigid segments (et, lower legs, upper legs, and head Arms-runk) and six muscle groups ofthe lower extremity (HAM. ‘seings, GLUteal musees, m. RECKus femoris, mm. VASH, m. GAS- frocnemius, and mt. SOLew), all represented by Hilhiype muscle models As will be explained later, it has as input STIM(), ic., the stimulation of six muscles of the lower extremity as a function of time, and as output the movement of body segments. To study the effects of manipulation of control and muscle strength on vertical jump height, the follow- ing simulation experiments were conducted: Experiment A: Determination of the optimal STIM(), and corresponding movement and jump height, for the standard version of the model. Experiment B: Modification of muscle strength, and simulation of a jump using STIM(t) determined in ex- periment A. Experiment C: Determination of the optimal STIM(), and corresponding movement and jump height, for the ‘modified model used in experiment B, Jump height in these simulation experiments was de- fined in the same way as for the subjects. Since it can be calculated from position and velocity of the mass center at the instant of takeoff, simulations were terminated at this instant. For the specific purpose of this study, the ‘model was modified in experiment B by increasing first MEDICINE AND SCIENCE IN SPORTS AND EXERCISE the isometric forces of only the knee extensor muscles (mm, vasti and m. rectus femoris) by 5%, 10%, and 20%, and subsequently those of all muscles. Details of the model and the optimization of STIM(!) are provided be- low. ‘Model of the Musculoskeletal System The model for simulation of human vertical jumping, was described extensively elsewhere (20). It consists of a submodel describing the skeletal structure and a sub- model describing the behavior of the muscles. ‘The skeletal submodel is two-dimensional and consists of four rigid segments representing feet, lower legs, up- per legs, and HAT. These segments are connected by frictionless hinge joints representing hip, knee, and ankle joints. AC the distal end of the foot segment, the skeletal ‘model is connected to the rigid ground by a fourth hinge joint, which can be considered as a representation of ‘the metatarsophalangeal joint. Acccleration-determining forces are the gravitational forces, the force at the heel in case of ground contact, and the moments at the joints representing the net action of the muscles. The dynamic equations of motion of the skeletal model were derived using SPACAR, a software subroutine package devel- oped at Delft University of Technology (19,21). These ‘equations allow for calculation of the acceleration of the skeletal model as a function of position, velocity, and the forces mentioned above. Parameter values for the skel- etal model were estimated from the mean anthropometric data of the subjects, and the orientations of the segments at the start of the squat jump were set equal t0 those measured in the subjects (20). ‘The muscular submodel consists of six major muscle groups contributing to extension of the lower extremity, ice, hamstrings, gluteal muscles, m. rectus femoris, mm. vasti, m. gastrocnemius, and m. soleus. A Hill-type muscle model was used to represent each of these six groups. It consists of a contractile element, a series elas- element, and a parallel elastic element and is de- scribed in detail elsewhere (18). Behavior of the elastic clements is governed by nonlinear force-length relation- ships. Behavior of the contractile element is more com- plex: contractile element contraction velocity depends on the active state, contractile clement length, and force. Force is directly related to the length of the series elastic clement. This length can be calculated at any instant from the configuration of the skeleton and contractile element length, which are used as state variables, since muscle- tendon complex length is directly related to the configu- ration of the skeleton, Active state is related to muscle stimulation STIM, the independent neural input of the model, by first order dynamics as described by Hatze (12,13), STIM ranges between 0 and 1 and is a one- dimensional representation of the effects of recruitment and firing frequency of alpha-motoncurons. ParameterEFFECTS OF MUSCLE STRENGTHENING values for the muscles were derived on the basis of ‘morphometrical data in the literature (20). In total, the model is mathematically deseribed by a set of 20 coupled nonlinear first-order ordinary differential ‘equations. Given the initial state and given the indepen- dent control signals as a function of time, the resulting movement can be calculated through numerical integra- tion, A variable-order variable-stepsize Adams-Bashford predictor Adams-Moulton corrector integration algo- rithm was used (16). Optimization of STIM() ‘The purpose of experiment A was to find the STIM() leading to a maximal vertical jump, ic., to a maximal height of the body’s center of mass, This dynamic opti- mization problem was studied in its full complexity by Pandy et al. (15). Partly based on their results, a more restricted form of dynamic optimization was used inthis study, which has been shown to render comparable re- sults in case of maximum height vertical jumping (20) ‘The following restrictions were imposed on STIM: first, the initial STIM level was set in such a way that the static squatted starting position was maintained. Second, STIM was allowed to take on either this initial value or the maximal value of 1.0. Third, STIM was allowed to switch to its maximal value just once, and thereafter had to remain maximal until takeoff. Under these restrictions, STIM(\ of each of the six muscle groups is described by a single parameter: the instant at which STIM switches from initial value to maximal value. The optimization problem is thus reduced to finding the combination of six switching times that results in maximal jump height. Although this is still a computationally intensive prob- lem, it can be solved using standard algorithms. For this purpose, NAG subroutine EO4UCE, a sequential qua- dratic programming algorithm, was used (NAG Fortran Library Manual Mark 13, Numeric Algorithms Group Lid., Oxford, U.K.). Since no optimization routine can ‘guarantee that the solution found is indeed the global optimum, optimizations were started from different points in the six-dimensional control-space, and the so- lutions were compared, RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ‘The purpose of this study was to investigate, for a ‘model of the human musculoskeletal system, the effects of systematic manipulations of both control and muscle strength on vertical jump height, with the ultimate goal of developing theoretical framework that will benefit trainers and athletes involved in jump training programs. In view of this ultimate goal, it was attempted to make the simulation study as realistic as possible, by trying to include in the model all features of the musculoskeletal system of human test subjects that were considered sa- lient for performing maximal vertical jumps, to set the Official Joural of tho American Golege of Sports Medicine 1015 initia! body configuration equal to that of the subjects at the start of a jump, and to evaluate the model by com- paring simulation results with experimental kinematics, dynamics, and electromyograms. In keeping with this, ‘we shall first present experimental results for maximum height jumps of the subjects, followed by results of simu- lation experiment A in which the optimal control was found for the standard model. After comparing simula- tion and experimental results, the effects of manipula- tions of control and muscle strength will be presented and discussed. Finally, a number of speculative implications for training practice will be presented, and experiments will be proposed to validate the results of this study in Maximum Height Jumps of Human Subjects Figure 2 (top) shows stick diagrams of mean body configurations for the group of subjects during the jump; the leftmost stick diagram depicts the initial configura- tion, the rightmost one the configuration at the last frame before takeoff, and the intermediate three are equally spaced in time. In each stick diagram, the ground reaction force vector is represented with its origin atthe center of pressure on the force platform, and the velocity vector of the mass center of the body is shown with its origin at this mass center. It can be seen that the horizontal com- ponent of the ground reaction force vector remains neg- ligible during the pushoff, wiich reflects the fact that the subjects accelerated the mass center of their bodies al- most vertically. Jump height amounted to 0.45 m on average. Figure 2 also shows the in of one of the hamstrings (be tendinosus and m. biceps femoris were virtually identi cal, only those of m. semitendinosus were plotted), m. gluteus maximus, m. rectus femoris, m. vastus me- dialis, m. gastrocnemius, and m. soleus. Each curve is expressed in terms of the percentage of the maximal value it attained during the pushoff phase. A word of caution with this method of expressing the results seems in order here: the maximum SREMG-value reached by @ muscle during the jump, now defined as 100%, obviously does not have to correspond to the maximum value which can be attained by the muscle, At least for the hamstrings wwe can say that the true maximum SREMG-level was not reached during the pushoff: note how 100% is reached at the instant of takeoff because the curves increase to reach ‘a maximum in the airborne phase. For most of the other muscles, however, this method of expressing the results yielded curves that are similar across the different sub- jects, and bring out systematic differences among the muscles as noted earlier (4). For instance, the SREMG of 1m, gastrocnemius clearly lags behind that of vastus me- dlialis in all subjects.1016 lal Journal ofthe American College of Sports Medicine WELL-TRAINED VOLLEYBALL PLAYERS votcal volo at ako-of: 2.75 [is] fume height: 0.45 fn} $600 0.980 ‘SREMG (% of max 105) (WELL-TRAINED VOLLEYBALL PLAYERS HAM ow RES 109; 109; sou ote ‘ime Takeo Figure 2—Top: Stick diagrams of mean body configurations for the group of subjects reached duving the pushoff n a vertca jompy the Tetimost stick diagram depicts the ill eontguration, the rightmost ‘one the configuration atthe lat frame betore take. All dlagrams are MEDICINE AND SCIENCE IN SPORTS AND EXERCISE Maximum Height Jumps of the Standard Simulation Model ‘The purpose of experiment A was to find the optimal STIM() input and corresponding movement output for the standard version of the model. Interestingly, optimi- zations started from different points in the six-dimen- sional control space converged to different solutions, with corresponding jump heights less than 0.2 mm apart. ‘Two different combinations of switching times, both yielding a jump height of 0.405 m, are shown in Figure 3, together with stick diagrams representing the corre- sponding movement. In one solution the hamstrings are switched on first, in the other the pushoff i initiated with the mm. vasti. In both solutions, however, m. gastrocne- ‘ius and m, soleus are the last muscles to be switched fon, and this was the case in all other solutions too. In spite of the differences in STIM(t) between the two so- lutions, the movement trajectories are virtually identical. ‘The fact that the different solutions represent truly local optima is supported by the finding that when the switch- ing times of the two solutions are averaged and subse- quently used to drive the standard model, jump height decreases by 0.03 m (Fig. 3). It should be realized that the maximum difference in switching times between the av- eraged solution and any of the two optimal solutions ‘occurs in m. gastrocnemius, and amounts to only 20 ms! Clearly, actual jumping achievement depends crucially on precise “timing” of muscle actions. Comparison of Simulated and Experimental Maximum Height Jumps After having forced the orientation of the body seg- ‘ments of the model at the start of the jump to be equal to that of the subjects, no further restrictions were put on the movement pattern of the simulated jump. Nevertheless, the movement patterns of the simulated and experimental ‘maximum height jumps are very similar (compare Fig. 3, ig. 2), as was already shown in an earlier study where the kinematics and kinetics of simulated and experimental jumps were compared in more detail (20). However, jump height of the model was 0.05 m less than that of the subjects, which may be attributed to the fact that the HAT segment in the model is rigid whereas the subjects are able to do work by extending their trunk (20). A second difference is thatthe ‘ime In each one the ground reaction force vector represented with Its origin at the center of pressure on the force platform, and the velolty vector of the mass center of the bods fs ‘Shown with ts origin inthe position ofthis mass center. Note that the enter of pressure on the fast frame before takeoff fs at the tip of phalanx dlstalis 1, whereas the most distal marker on the fot was focated at art. metatarsophalangea V. Bottom: Individual tine hist ries of Rectified and Smoothed EMG (SREMG) of one of the HAM- Strings a. somitendinosus), ma GLUteus maximus, m. RECIus emo s,m. VAStus medias, m. GAStrocnemius, and m. SOLeus, Values are expressed in ferms of percentages ofthe masimal value attained ring the pushofT phase ‘equally spacedEFFECTS OF MUSCLE STRENGTHENING oc ly i288) beprepnco37 it “ss ent 2% fo ene 0 9 “wo. sta OF TANDARO MODEL re Oe (Oficial Journal ofthe American College of Sports Medicine 1017 model builds up force more rapidly than the subjects (note the sudden surge of the ground reaction force vec- tor in Fig. 3 in the beginning ofthe pushoff phase), which causes the duration of the pushoff time to be shorter in the model than in the experiments. Apparently, cither the dynamics of the transformation of STIM({) 10 force are {00 fast in the model, or STIM(\ itself increases too fast, or both. The SREMG-results suggest that muscle activa- tion does in fact increase only gradually in the subjects (see, for instance, the SREMG-results of VAS in Fig. 2) With respect to the order in which the muscles are acti- vated, some features of the pattern of STIM(t) are similar to that of SREMG(\). For instance, in the optimal solu- tions for the model, m. gastrocnemius and m. soleus are switched on later than mm. vasti, and the same seems to bee true in the subjects. It is interesting to note that two subjects clearly activated their m. gastrocnemius earlier than the other four subjects. It is tempting to assume that in human subjects the control space also contains local ‘optima, just as that of the model, A further discussion of the similarities and differences between simulated and ‘experimental jumps is beyond the scope of this study. Suffice it to say here that the similarity between experi- ‘mental and simulation results leads us to the following conclusion: the model does incorporate those features of the human musculoskeletal system, which are salient for ‘maximum height vertical jumping, Effects of Changes in Muscle Strength and Control on Jumping Achievement ‘The present study was ultimately designed to investi- gate the effects of systematic manipulations of both con- ‘rol and muscle strength on vertical jump height. One of the optimal STIM(t) obtained in experiment A for the standard model was used in experiment B to drive the model with strengthened muscles. ‘The effects on jump height are given in Table 1. Clearly, if muscles are strengthened while control remains unchanged, jump height decreases rather than increases! Figure 4 shows the resulting movement for the experiment in which knee extensor strength was raised by 20%, and Figure 5 shows the movement for the experiment in which the strength of all muscles was raised by 20%. Clearly, the movement pattern has disintegrated to some extent. The essential problem turns out to be that when control is not optimal, takeoff occurs prematurely, ie. at a lower height of the Figure 3—Two optimal combinations of stimolaton-time histories STIM() of HAMstrings, m, GLUteus maximus, m- RECUus femorls, nm, VAS(uS medialis, m GAStroenemius, and m. SOLews that produce nimum height jump of the standard model. Also shown are stick ms represenling the corresponding movement All diagrams are spaced in time. In each dlageam the ground reaction fore stor represented wth is origin atthe center of pressure on the round andthe velocity vectorof the mass center ofthe body Is shown 'sargin in the position of this mass enter. The tp graph shows ‘Mick dlograms forthe results obtained i optima slaons 1nd 2 are ‘veraged and subsequently used to drive the standard model1018 _Offlal Journal of the Amerloan Golage of Sports Medicine "TABLE 1, ets of msc strrahing on vr ump apt Jump Height (m) A Jomp Hig Taet th (2) Neos Reopinzaion Mr io eters ‘007 hes eens +10 “nas awe enemas = 42) ~0000 A sees, ‘8 “apn At ruses +0 “ons ‘A muses 7 000 or eac ote manips of muse seg aid ot "alg shown fortwo eons, In ene candi lore vegan, ‘pial STI) of he andar atl was se as Input (egret). nthe anti, he opal ST re stengtened rel was catenin (epriman ‘ug gh expat eave tothe inal ompR! he snare med (eosin A eck on verti mass center of the body. This is due to the fact that at Teast one of the segments has rotated less than in the optimal solution (compare, for instance, the foot angles at takeoff in the optimal solutions in Fig. 3 with the non- optimized jumps in Figs. 4 and 5). Thus, at least one of the monoarticular muscle groups has not produced work over its full shortening range, so its work output is sub- maximal (See ref. 4). An additional problem is that when ‘control is not optimal, a larger fraction of the work pro- duced by the muscles is transformed into rotational en- ergy of segments at takeoff, so that the work is used less effectively (see ref. 4). In the optimal solutions, 87% of the total work done is used to project the mass center of the body vertically (j.e,, o raise the potential energy of the mass center of the body from the start of the pushoff to the apex of the jump); in the nonoptimized jump depicted in Figure 4, for instance, this was only 82%, Finally, in experiment C, the optimal STIM(!) was found for each of the strengthened models as well. This produced a change in the stimulation-time histories of all muscles (Figs. 4 and 5), which of course yielded the desited increases in jump height (Table 1). As expected, the magnitude of the gain in jump height increases with the gain in muscle strength. Clearly, tuning control to system properties is a crucial step in maximizing vertical jump height. Control theorists might at this point be interested to know the sensitivity of maximal achieve- ment of the model to changes in muscle strength. For them, we mention here that with all muscles 5, 10, and 20% stronger, the vertical displacement from the start of the pushoff to the apex of the jump, which reflects the true effective work output of the model, was respectively 2.6%, 5.6%, and 11% larger than in the standard model. Figure 4 shows the STIM() that is optimal for the model ‘with 20% stronger knee extensors, as well as the corre- sponding movement. Figure 5 presents the same infor- mation for the model with all muscles strengthened. In- terestingly, reoptimization causes the trajectories of the body segments during the pushoff to be virtually identi- cal to those achieved for the standard model in experi- ‘ment A (cf. optimal solutions in Figs. 3-5). It seems as if 1a kinematically optimal solution exists for the jumping motion, regardless of muscle properties; the potential MEDICINE AND SCIENCE IN SPORTS ANO EXERCISE NEE ExTENSORS on STONER, NOT OPTIMIZED wavy atta 245 ure hgh 034) sil Ievee Exrensons ox STRONGER, OPTIMIZED re ty taka2.7 eign 043 (ap $$$ ‘OFTMAL STI OF STANDARD AND Zo STRONGER KNEE XT, MODELS T_T TT +) 8 TT tine Figure 4—Top: Stick diagrams obtained if the optimal stimalatin for the standard model is used to drive the model with 20% stranger knee ‘extensors. For more information on stick diagrams, see legend to Figure 3. Middle: tick diagrams corresponding tothe optimal solu. tion of the move with 20% stronger knee extensors, Bottom: Optimal STIM( for the standard model and for the model with 20% stronger lene extensors disruption of this movement by changes in muscle prop- erties is prevented by adjustments of control. The simu- lation results in this respect support the observation thatEFFECTS OF MUSCLE STRENGTHENING [AULMUscLEs 20% STRONGER, NOT OPTIAZED rts vley samo 2.68 is ume bog 0:38 98 0282 ‘NL MUSCLES 20% STRONGER, OPTIMIZED rial vey att 299 ume igh 048 OPTIMAL STIMT) OF STANOAAO AND 20% STRONGER MODELS sow una nee uw | Oe — OTT CT — ite ee tie Figure 5—Top: Stick dlageams obtained if he optima stimlaton for ‘the standord model sed Co drive the model with all muscles 20% srengtiened For more information om sek diagrams, se legend to Figure 3. Middle: Stick diagrams corresponding fo the optial sli. tion of the model wih al muscles 20¢ stronger than standard. Bot- fom: Optinal STIM() forthe standard model and for the model with muscles 208 stranger Oficial Journal of the American Cotlge of Sports Medicine 1019 different subjects, unlikely to have identical muscle mass distributions, display similar kinematics when asked to perform maximum height jumps (4). Speculative Practical implications. ‘The ultimate interest of the work presented in 1 paper is to provide trainers and athletes with a conceptual framework, which can be used to explain the results of training studies. Inthe analogy of the simulation model with human athletes it is implied that optimization of STIM(), essentially a method of systematic trial and error, reflects the process by which an athlete optimizes control and acquires skill. Before speculating on practical implications of the simulation work, it is important to stress that the process of acquiring skill is very time- consuming, involving weeks, months, or even years of painstaking practice. It may be worthwhile in this context to speculate as to what this process involves. In vertical jumping, an explosive movement, neural feedback may only play a role of very minor importance in controlling the movement. The reason is that the delay time between the generation of action potentials in receptors and force adjustments, let alone adjustments of speed and position, consumes a relatively large part of the time used to complete the movement (17,18). Thus, the execution of explosive movements must rely heavily on prepro- ‘grammed muscle stimulation patterns. It is quite conceiv- able that these patterns are stored in the weights of syn- aptic connections in neural networks; when forced into the proper intial state, such networks may regenerate the stimulation pattern (9,10). Optimization of control in vivo ‘would then involve the process of adjusting the weights of the synaptic connections in numerous practice trials, Having stressed the fact that for athletes the process of optimizing control takes at least several weeks of prac- tice, we may now extend our analogy to the training of athletes. The speculative practical implications of this study should be self-evident. It was shown that although ‘muscle strength determines the maximal jump height that ccan be reached, actual performance relies crucially on the tuning of control to muscle properties. program aimed at improving jumping achievement, ‘muscle training exercises should be accompanied by ex- ercises in which the athletes may practice with the changed muscle properties. Otherwise, the athletes will not be able to adjust their control to take the full benefit from improvements of muscle properties in their per- formance. Repetition of the movement in which achieve- ment is to be improved or, more precisely, repeatedly solving the task in which achievement is to be improved, seems indicated. Failure to do so may render muscle training exercises ineffective, or even detrimental as sug- ested by the results of simulation experiment B. Too strong a focus on muscle training exercises may perhaps1020 Offial Journal of the American College of Spots Medicine bbe the reason for the disappointing effects on jump height, which were observed in several training studies G1). Validation of Simulation Results ‘The movement pattern of the optimal solution for a maximal jump of the standard model was shown to be similar to that of subjects performing maximum height jumps. Although this finding gives confidence that the model accurately represents those features of musculo- skeletal system that are salient for vertical jumping, the conclusions of this study are in fact hypotheses that need tobe tested in actual training studies. First, it needs to be shown that isolated strength training is less effective in improving jump height than strength training combined REFERENCES 1. Arua, J Stengthening muscle, Exere. Sports Sct, Rev, 9:1-73, 1981 2, Bontiear, M. F. Drop jumping asa tining method for jumping. ability. Sports Med. 9:7-22, 199, 3. Bonu, M. F. and J. HARLAAR. Evaluation of moment-angle ‘eurves in isokinetic knee extension, Med. Sc. Sports Exere, 25: 251-259, 1992. 4, Bowmen, M. Fund G. J. vaw INGEN ScueNAt Coordination in vertical jumping J. Biomech. 21:249-262, 1988, 5. BOMBURT, M, F and A. J. VAN INGEN SCHENAU, Selective muscle strengthening and verical jumping performance; a simulation sd. Proceedings ofthe eghth meeting ofthe European Society of Biomechanics, Rome, aly, 1992, p. 330, 6, Bosco, C. and C: Prrreta. Zur Trainingswirkung neventwickeler ‘Sprungibungen auf die Explosivkratt. Leisungssport 12:36-38, 1982, 17. Bosco, C, P. ¥. KoMt, M. Putt, C. Prrteta, and H. Moroney. Considerations of te training ofthe elastic potential ofthe human | skeletal muscle. Volleyball 222-30, 1982. 8. Cuuren, D,, M. WiLTON, C. McGown, and G. R. BRvce. The sffect of depth jumps and weight taining on leg strength and vertical jump. Res. Q. 545-10, 1983, 9, Coousn, A.C. C. and C, C.'A. M. GIELEN, Delays in neural networks. Europhys. Lett. 7:281-285, 1988, 10, DENIER VAN Den Gon, J.J. C. C, CooL, C.J, ERKELENS, and H. J. J, Joven, Selforganizing neural mechanisms possibly r= sponsible for muscle coordination In: Multiple Muscle Systems, Biomechanics and Movement Organization, J. M. Winters and 5. LY. Woo (Eds). New York: Springer Verlag, 1990, pp. 335-342, 11, HAKRIMEN, Ky J.T. Vurasato, and PV. Kowt, Dio Wirkung unterschidlich Kombinicrer Ronzentischer und exzentscher Maskelabet af Krafl-Zet Merkmale der Beistreckmuskulatr. Leistungssport10:374-381, 1980, MEDICINE AND SCIENCE IN SPORTS AND EXERCISE with practice. Second, it would be interesting to know hhow long it actually takes subjects to adapt their control {o changed muscle properties. Currently, a training study is being conducted that involves the measurement of jump height, kinematics, and EMG a number of times over a period of several weeks during which athletes execute only muscle strengthening exercises, followed by a period in which they perform exercises suitable for improvement of control. Tho authors gratetuly acknowledge the assistance of K. G. Mt Gorisen and M. 0. A. Lions in collecting the experimental data, ‘Address for correspondence: Maarten F. Bobbert, Vrie Univer- sitet, Vakgroep Functonole Anatom, Faculte der Beweging: swolenschappen, vd. Boechorststraat 8, 1081 BT Amsterdam, Tho Netherlands, 12, Harze, H. A myocyberatic control model of skeletal muscle. J Biomech, 5:103-119, 1977, 13, Hatze, H. Myceybemetic Control Models of Skeletal Muscle. University of South Aftica, Pretoria, 1981, pp. 3122 14, Panoy, M. G. An analytical framework for quanifying muscular action daring human movement. In: Multiple Muscle Systems, Biomechanics and Movement Organization, 1. M. Winters and. LY. Woo (Eas). New Yorke Springer Verl, 1990, pp. 653-662 15. Panby, M.G., FE. Za1ac E. Sits and W, S. Levine. An optimal control model for maximucr-height human jumping. J Biamech, 23:1185-1198, 1980. 16, Snasere, LF. and M. K. Goao0N. Computer Solution of Ord ‘nary Differential Equations. The Ital Value Problem. San Fran- cisco: Freeman and Co, 1975, pp. 136-231 17, Soest, A.J. VAN and M, F. BOatERT. The contribution of muscle propeties tothe stabilization of explosive movements; a simul- Vion study. Proceedings of the eighth meeting of the European Society of Biomechanics, Rome, laly, 1992, p. 208, 18. Soest, A.J. VAN and M. F, BoobeRr. The conteibution of muscle Dropertis to the stabilization of explosive movements. Biol, Dern, 69:195-204, 1993 19, Soest, A.J. VAN, AL. Scuwab, M. F. Boposr, and G. J. vaw Ino SCUENAU,' SPACAR: a softwate subroutine package for simulation of the behavior of biomechanical sysiems. J. Biomech. 25:1219-1226, 1992. 20, SORST, A. J. VAN, A. L: Scuwad, M. F. Boauese, and G. 1, VAN Incen’Scuenau. The influence of the b-artcularty ofthe gas- trocnemius muscle on vertical jumping achievement. . Biomech 26:1-8, 1993, 21, Want, K. VAN Dek, Kinematic and dynamic an nisms, finite element approach. Ph.D. thesis, versity Press, 1977.