Student Type
Undergraduate
Faculty Sponsor
Kyle Sunderland
Date
4-12-2022
College Affiliation
College of Science, Technology, and Health
Department
Exercise Science
Submission Type
Poster
Abstract
Measuring interlimb asymmetries is an important when evaluating injury risk and rehabilitation in athletes. PURPOSE: To compare the magnitude of interlimb asymmetries when performing a bilateral and unilateral CMJ. METHODS: Twenty-three female collegiate lacrosse athletes volunteered for this study. Athletes performed three bilateral CMJ and three unilateral CMJ using each leg. Data from the two jumps with highest height was averaged. Interlimb asymmetries were calculated as percent interlimb difference: (100/(maximum value)*(minimum value)*-1+100). RESULTS: Unilateral CMJ height revealed an average 12.2 ± 9.7% interlimb difference. Asymmetries were significantly different between CMJ styles when measuring peak breaking force, average breaking force, and breaking rate of force development. CONCLUSION: Interlimb asymmetries in the breaking (or eccentric) phase differs between a bilateral and unilateral CMJ. Therefore, if eccentric asymmetries are important, the practitioner should account for jump style.
Recommended Citation
Rea, Meghan, "Interlimb Asymmetries Differ Between Bilateral and Unilateral Countermovement Jump" (2022). 2022 Student Academic Showcase. 14.
https://digitalcommons.lindenwood.edu/src/Posters/Session1/14
Publication Date
2022
Date
March 21, 2022
Included in
Interlimb Asymmetries Differ Between Bilateral and Unilateral Countermovement Jump
Measuring interlimb asymmetries is an important when evaluating injury risk and rehabilitation in athletes. PURPOSE: To compare the magnitude of interlimb asymmetries when performing a bilateral and unilateral CMJ. METHODS: Twenty-three female collegiate lacrosse athletes volunteered for this study. Athletes performed three bilateral CMJ and three unilateral CMJ using each leg. Data from the two jumps with highest height was averaged. Interlimb asymmetries were calculated as percent interlimb difference: (100/(maximum value)*(minimum value)*-1+100). RESULTS: Unilateral CMJ height revealed an average 12.2 ± 9.7% interlimb difference. Asymmetries were significantly different between CMJ styles when measuring peak breaking force, average breaking force, and breaking rate of force development. CONCLUSION: Interlimb asymmetries in the breaking (or eccentric) phase differs between a bilateral and unilateral CMJ. Therefore, if eccentric asymmetries are important, the practitioner should account for jump style.