Peak vertical jump power estimations in youths and young adults

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Deutscher übersetzter Titel:Schätzwerte der maximalen Vertikalsprungkraft bei Jugendlichen und jungen Erwachsenen
Autor:Amonette, William E.; Brown, Lee E.; Witt, John K. de; Dupler, Terry L.; Tran, Tai T.; Tufano, James J.; Spiering, Barry A.
Erschienen in:Journal of strength and conditioning research
Veröffentlicht:26 (2012), 7, S. 1749-1755, Lit.
Format: Literatur (SPOLIT)
Publikationstyp: Zeitschriftenartikel
Medienart: Gedruckte Ressource
Sprache:Englisch
ISSN:1064-8011, 1533-4287
DOI:10.1519/JSC.0b013e3182576f1e
Schlagworte:
Online Zugang:
Erfassungsnummer:PU201301000115
Quelle:BISp

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to develop and validate a regression equation to estimate peak power (PP) using a large sample of athletic youths and young adults. Anthropometric and vertical jump ground reaction forces were collected from 460 male volunteers (age: 12-24 years). Of these 460 volunteers, a stratified random sample of 45 subjects representing 3 different age groups (12-15 years [n = 15], 16-18 years [n = 15], and 19-24 years [n = 15]) was selected as a validation sample. Data from the remaining 415 subjects were used to develop a new equation (“Novel”) to estimate PP using age, body mass (BM), and vertical jump height (VJH) via backward stepwise regression. Independently, age (r = 0.57), BM (r = 0.83), and VJ (r = 0.65) were significantly (p < 0.05) correlated with PP. However, age did not significantly (p = 0.53) contribute to the final prediction equation (Novel): PP (watts) = 63.6 × VJH (centimeters) + 42.7 x BM (kilograms) − 1,846.5 (r = 0.96; standard error of the estimate= 250.7 W). For each age group, there were no differences between actual PP (overall group mean ± SD: 3,244 ± 991 W) and PP estimated using Novel (3,253 ± 1,037 W). Conversely, other previously published equations produced PP estimates that were significantly different than actual PP. The large sample size used in this study (n = 415) likely explains the greater accuracy of the reported Novel equation compared with previously developed equations (n = 17-161). Although this Novel equation can accurately estimate PP values for a group of subjects, between-subject comparisons estimating PP using Novel or any other previously published equations should be interpreted with caution because of large intersubject error (± >600 W) associated with predictions. Verf.-Referat