Abstract
ABSTRACT Extended overreaching without recovery carries risks of nonfunctional overreaching and overtraining. Coaches mitigate these risks by screening for overreaching, often using jump testing; however, many are uncertain about which jump variables to measure. A systematic review was conducted to identify jumping kinetic and kinematic variables associated with heightened training stress. Manuscripts were included if they monitored overreaching in healthy, adult athletes at National Level or above using an unloaded vertical jump test; and excluded if they did not report measured kinetic/kinematic variables, did not include sufficient data to calculate effect sizes (ES) and confidence intervals (95% CI) or were not available in English. Fourteen manuscripts met inclusion/exclusion criteria. Most studies had a low (71.4%) or moderate (21.4%) risk of bias. Twenty-nine unique outcome measures were reported with 11 reported in multiple studies. The most reported measures were the ratio of flight time to contraction time (15 ES reported), jump height (JH, 12 ES), mean power (7 ES), peak power (PP, 7 ES), mean velocity (5 ES), and peak force (PF, 5 ES). PP, PF, and JH demonstrated the most consistent negative alterations. Coaches should consider metrics that include changes in jump strategy alongside JH in jump screening. See Video 1—Video Abstract—http://links.lww.com/SCJ/A408.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.