Full-text resources of PSJD and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl
Preferences help
Polish version English version Language
enabled [disable] Abstract
Number of results

Results found: 2

Number of results on page
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
1
Content available remote

Appropriate Loads for Peak-Power During Resisted Sprinting on a Non-Motorized Treadmill

100%
Andre M. J., Fry A. C., Lane M. T.
Journal of Human Kinetics
|
2013
|
vol. 38
161-167
EN
The purpose of this study was to determine the load which allows the highest peak power for resisted sprinting on a non-motorized treadmill and to determine if other variables are related to individual differences. Thirty college students were tested for vertical jump, vertical jump peak and mean power, 10 m sprint, 20 m sprint, leg press 1 RM, leg press 1 RM relative to body weight, leg press 1 RM relative to lean body mass, leg press 1 RM power, and leg press power at 80% of 1 RM. Participants performed eight resisted sprints on a non-motorized treadmill, with increasing relative loads expressed as percent of body weight. Sprint peak power was measured for each load. Pearson correlations were used to determine if relationships between the sprint peak power load and the other variables were significant. The sprint peak power load had a mode of 35% with 73% of all participants having a relative sprint peak power load between 25-35%. Significant correlations occurred between sprint peak power load and body weight, lean body mass, vertical jump peak and mean power, leg press 1 RM, leg press 1 RM relative to lean body mass, leg press 1 RM power, and leg press power at 80% of 1 RM (r = 0.44, 0.43, 0.39, 0.37, 0.47, 0.39, 0.46, and 0.47, respectively). Larger, stronger, more powerful athletes produced peak power at a higher relative load during resisted sprinting on a nonmotorized treadmill.
2
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Key Kinematic Components for Optimal Basketball Free Throw Shooting Performance

88%
Cabarkapa D., Fry A. C., Carlson K. M., Poggio J. P., Deane M. A.
Central European Journal of Sport Sciences and Medicine
|
2021
|
vol. 36
5-15
EN
The purpose of this study was to determine the difference in five kinematic variables (internal knee and elbow angles, elbow height, forearm angle from vertical, and shoulder flexion angle at ball release) between proficient and non-proficient free throw shooters and which variables had the greatest contributions to a successful free throw shooting outcome. Seventeen male basketball players shoot three sets of 10 free throws with a two-minute break between each set. A three-dimensional motion tracking system composed of 17 sensors sampling at 60 Hz was used for data collection. Proficient free throw shooters had greater knee and elbow flexion, lower elbow height, and a smaller forearm angle compared to non-proficient shooters. These results explained 89.5% of the total variance. While maintaining the optimal range of these kinematic variables allows each subject to reach an appropriate level of free throw shooting performance, the key variable capable of distinguishing between made and missed shots within the proficient group of shooters was the forearm angle. Positioning the forearm parallel, or close to parallel, with an imaginary vertical line during the preparatory phase of the shooting motion accounted for 23.9% of the total variance and was associated with a greater number of made shots.
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.