Spanish 
Chinese 
Russian 
German 
French 
Japanese 
Portuguese 
Hindi Short Communication
Coherence Between Power Production during Counter Movement Jump in a Smith Machine and Free Standing with External Loading
| Marie Hilmersson1,2, Ida Edvardsson1 and Åsa B Tornberg2,3* | |
| 1 Surgical and Preoperative Science, Sports Medicine, Umeå University, Sweden | |
| 2 Department of Health Sciences, Division of Physiotherapy, Lund University, Baravägen 3, 221 85 Lund, Sweden | |
| 3 Genetic & Molecular Epidemiology (GAME) Unit, Lund University Diabetes Center (LUDC) Clinical Research Center, Skåne University Hospital, Lund University, Malmö, Sweden | |
| Corresponding Author : | Åsa B Tornberg Department of Health Sciences Division of Physiotherapy Lund University, Lund, Sweden Tel: +4646-2229766 Fax: +4646-2224202 E-mail: asa.tornberg@med.lu.se |
| Received January 09, 2014; Accepted February 20, 2014; Published February 22, 2014 | |
| Citation: Hilmersson M, Edvardsson I, Tornberg AB (2014) Coherence Between Power Production during Counter Movement Jump in a Smith Machine and FreeStanding with External Loading. J Nov Physiother 4:195. doi: 10.4172/2165-7025.1000195 | |
| Copyright: © 2014 Hilmersson M, et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. | |
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the coherence of power production during a Counter Movement Jump (CMJ) performed in a Smith Machine (SM) and Frees Standing (FS). Two female athletes performed 10 test sessions with three days in between. Each test session included two-legged CMJ performed in a SM and FS with external loads. Variables analyzed were Average Power (AP), Average Force (AF) and Average Velocity (AV). The correlation between the results from CMJ performed in a SM and FS was high (rp=0.87-1.0, p<0.001). The results showed a good test-retest reliability for all indices, for both CMJ performed in a SM and FS with Coefficient of Variance (CV) for AP (CVSM=3.1- 3.5 %; CVFS=2.9-4.8 %), AF (CVSM=1.6-1.9 %; CVFS=1.6-2.1 %), and AV (CVSM =1.7-2.7 %; CVFS =1.8-2.9 %). Though significantly higher values were seen during FS CMJ analyzed by Bland-Altman plots with AP (Bias: 13.7 W; LOA -19.1 to 46.5 W), AF (Bias: 2.7 N; LOA -7.0 to 12.4 N) and AV (Bias: 0.03 m/s; LOA -0.05 to 0.11 m/s). In conclusion, athletes and coaches are able to use both SM and FS CMJ to evaluate training progress, but they should be aware about the differences between SM and FS CMJ.
