SCIENCE ASSIGNMENT(NO PLAGIARISM, A++ WORK, QUALITY, ON TIME)
LAGNIAPPE
Week4offseason.pdf
The International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy | Volume 9, Number 4 | August 2014 | Page 447
ABSTRACT Purpose/Background: Division III (D III) collegiate coaches are challenged to assess athletic readiness and condition their athletes during the preseason. However, there are few reports on off-season training habits and normative data of functional assessment tests among D III athletes. The purpose of this study was to examine off-season training habits of D III athletes and their relationships to the standing long jump (SLJ) and single-leg hop (SLH) tests.
Methods: One-hundred and ninety-three athletes (110 females, age 19.1 ± 1.1 y; 83 males, age 19.5 ± 1.3 y) were tested prior to the start of their sports seasons. Athletes reported their off-season training habits (weightlifting, cardio- vascular exercise, plyometric exercise, and scrimmage) during the six weeks prior to the preseason. Athletes also per- formed three maximal effort SLJs and three SLHs.
Results: Male athletes reported training more hours per exercise category than their female counterparts. Mean SLJ distances (normalized to height) were 0.79 ± 0.10 for females and 0.94 ± 0.12 for males. Mean SLH distances for female athletes’ right and left limbs were 0.66 (± 0.10) and 0.65 (± 0.10), respectively. Mean SLH distances for male athletes’ right and left limbs were 0.75 (± 0.13) and 0.75 (± 0.12), respectively. Several significant differences between off-season training habits and functional test measures were found for both sexes: males [SLJ and weightlifting (p=0.04); SLH and weightlifting (p=0.04), plyometrics (p=0.05)]; females [SLJ and plyometrics (p=0.04); SLH and scrimmage (p=0.02)].
Conclusion: This study provides normative data for off-season training habits and preseason functional test mea- sures in a D III athlete population. Greater SLJ and SLH measures were associated with increased time during off- season training.
Clinical Relevance: The findings between functional tests and off-season training activities may be useful for sports medicine professionals and strength coaches when designing their preseason training programs.
Level of Evidence: 4
Keywords: college, field test, functional test, single-leg hop, standing long jump
I J S P
T ORIGINAL RESEARCH
OFFSEASON TRAINING HABITS AND PRESEASON
FUNCTIONAL TEST MEASURES OF DIVISION III
COLLEGIATE ATHLETES: A DESCRIPTIVE REPORT
Jason Brumitt, PT, PhD, ATC, CSCS1,2
Bryan C. Heiderscheit, PT, PhD3
Robert C. Manske, DPT, MEd, SCS, ATC4
Paul E. Niemuth, PT, DSc, OCS, ATC5
Mitchell J. Rauh, PT, PhD, MPH, FACSM6
1 George Fox University, Newberg, OR, USA 2 University of Medical Sciences Arizona, Avondale, AZ, USA 3 University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, USA 4 Wichita State University, Wichita, KS, USA 5 St. Catherine University, Minneapolis, MN, USA 6 San Diego State University, San Diego, CA, USA
Grant Support: None
The Institutional Review Boards of Pacifi c University and Rocky Mountain University of Health Professions approved this study.
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR Jason Brumitt, PT, PhD, ATC, CSCS George Fox University Doctor of Physical Therapy Program Newberg, OR, USA University of Medical Sciences Arizona Avondale, AZ, USA E-mail: [email protected] 503-558-1323
The International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy | Volume 9, Number 4 | August 2014 | Page 448
INTRODUCTION Many collegiate athletes train year round to maintain fitness and skills. However, NCAA rules define the quantity of allowed supervised practices (e.g. scrim- mage, conditioning sessions) during the off-season, preseason, and regular season.1 Coaches at the Divi- sion III (D III) level are especially challenged to assess and prepare their teams prior to the start of competi- tion, due to 1) frequent inability to afford “high tech”, expensive testing equipment available at Division I (D I) universities, 2) possible inability to employ a dedicated strength and conditioning coach/staff, and 3) the limitations of approximately two and one-half weeks of sanctioned practice prior to the first com- petition (e.g. sports other than football).1 Therefore, some collegiate coaches conduct functional tests during the preseason to assess aspects of an athlete’s baseline fitness level.2-6 The results from these tests are used to assess athletic readiness and evaluate the effectiveness of a team’s training programs.3,7-10
There is limited literature related to off-season train- ing habits and functional measures in the D III population. Schmidt presented preseason physical characteristics, upper- and lower-body power and strength measures, flexibility, muscular endurance, and speed endurance measures for 78 D III football players with data presented by position.11 Schmidt identified significant differences in hip sled, seated medicine ball put, and bench press performances in starters versus non-starters.11 Hoffman et al5 assessed preseason anthropometric measures, aerobic fitness, anaerobic power, strength, speed, and agility in 22 D III female lacrosse players.5 They found that defend- ers were significantly stronger with the 1RM squat than midfielders and that attackers had significantly greater Wingate anaerobic power test measures than other positions.5 Barnes et al2 compared mean pre- season performances of a countermovement verti- cal jump (CMVJ) and a drop jump test in Division I, II, and III collegiate female volleyball athletes. D I female athletes jumped significantly (p < 0.05) higher during the CMVJ than their D III counter- parts.2 In sum, studies of baseline fitness levels and athletic readiness in D III athletes have only been described for a few athletic populations.
Several limitations of the aforementioned studies are that they have been confined to a few select sports
and have used measures that may be time and cost intensive. Thus, there is a need to collect additional measures of athletic fitness and readiness of D III ath- letes from multiple sports with inexpensive, quick- to-perform, and easy-to-administer functional tests at the start of the preseason. Additionally, the rela- tionship between an athlete’s preseason performance and his/her off-season training habits has not been reported. Knowledge of athletes’ off-season training habits may help D III coaches design and implement conditioning programs at the start of the preseason.
The purpose of this study was to describe off-season training habits of D III athletes via questionnaire, measure preseason performance of the standing long jump (SLJ) and the single-leg hop (SLH) for distance functional tests, and examine relationships between training habits and preseason athletic characteristics in D III athletes. The authors hypothesized that ath- letes who reported greater levels off-season training would jump and hop significantly farther than those who reported less time training.
METHODS Subjects were recruited to participate in the pre- season of their respective sport. One-hundred and ninety-three D III collegiate athletes (110 females, mean age 19.1 ± 1.1 y; 83 males, mean age 19.5 ± 1.3 y) from 15 university teams (volleyball, wres- tling, women’s lacrosse, baseball, softball; women’s and men’s tennis, track and field, cross-country, soccer, and basketball) participated in this study. An athlete was excluded from testing if she/he was under the age of 18 or was currently restricted from full sport participation by the team physician. The Institutional Review Boards of Rocky Mountain Uni- versity of Health Professions and Pacific University approved this study. Signed informed consent was received from each subject prior to testing.
Procedures Study Questionnaire. Prior to the start of the season, each athlete completed a questionnaire collecting demographic information including age, years at university, age starting their sport, and average time spent training per week during the six weeks prior to the start of the preseason (e.g. sanctioned prac- tice) for each of the following activities: weightlift-
The International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy | Volume 9, Number 4 | August 2014 | Page 449
ing, cardiovascular exercises, plyometric exercises, and scrimmages.
Height and weight. Subject’s height (cloth tape) and weight without shoes (standard medical scale) were recorded for each participant. Height was measured to the nearest half inch and weight recorded to the nearest half pound.
Dynamic Warm-Up. After completing the study ques- tionnaire and collecting anthropometric measures, each subject completed a dynamic warm-up prior to performing the functional tests. The dynamic warm-up consisted of 5 to 10 minutes of active lower extremity movements from sideline to sideline on a basketball court or across the width of the tennis court for the tennis players. This warm-up included forward walking, backward walking, heel walking, tip toe walking, forward lunging, backward lunging, and high knee marching.
Standing Long Jump Testing Protocol. Athletes were instructed to stand with feet approximately shoulder width apart behind a line (piece of tape) on the court. A cloth measuring tape was oriented perpendicular to the start line and taped to the floor. The athlete was instructed to perform 3 submaximal counter- movement SLJs with hands behind her/his back, followed by 3 jumps performed with hands clasped behind the back at maximal effort. An athlete had to land on both legs under control (maintaining center of mass within her/his base of support) holding this position for 5 seconds for a jump to be recorded.12 If an athlete was unable to land successfully (e.g. loss of balance), the trial was repeated. The distance jumped was measured from starting line to the rear- most heel with mean of the three jumps (± SD) scores utilized for data analyses.
Single-Leg Hop for Distance Testing Protocol. The six SLH (3 for each lower extremity) for distance tests were performed after the athlete completed three maximal effort SLJ tests. The SLH for distance test was also performed with hands clasped behind the athlete’s back. For a test to be recorded an athlete would have to stick the landing (take-off and land with the same lower extremity) holding the posi- tion for 5 seconds.12 If an athlete was unable to land successfully the SLH was repeated. The distance hopped was measured from the starting line to the
heel with mean of the three hops on each leg (± SD) scores utilized for data analyses.
Statistical Methods Means (± SD) were calculated for the subjects’ base- line demographic characteristics, anthropometric measures, and SLJ and SLH scores. Mean SLJ and SLH scores were normalized as a percentage of body height. Comparison of means between genders for demographic characteristics and SLJ and SLH scores were calculated by performing independent t-tests. Height, weight, and body mass index (BMI) were categorized as (-1 SD [shortest, lightest, or lowest]/ Mean [average]/+1 SD [tallest, heaviest, or high- est]). Each of off-season training habits were catego- rized by the following groups: 0-1 / >1-3 / >3-5 />5 hours per week. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed to assess mean differences within gender for preseason training habits, height, weight, and BMI. A post-hoc Bonferroni test was performed after ANOVA to identify significant differences between subcategories within a group. Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was performed when necessary to control for weight or BMI. An a priori test-retest reliability for the SLJ and SLH was performed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). Data analysis was performed using SPSS Statistics 17 (Chicago, IL) with alpha level set at 0.05.
RESULTS Baseline characteristics of the study sample are pre- sented in Table 1. Men spent a higher average num- ber of hours per week weightlifting (p ≤ 0.0001) and scrimmaging (p = 0.01) than women during the six weeks prior to the start of their sports season.
Table 2 presents normalized SLJ mean (± SD) dis- tances by age and anthropometric measures (catego- rized by ± 1 SD) for each sex. The test-retest reliability (ICC
3,3 ) for the SLJ was 0.96 (95% CI: 0.83, 0.97). On
average, men jumped significantly farther (0.94 ± 0.12) than female athletes (0.79 ± 0.10) (p ≤ 0.0001). After controlling for BMI (ANCOVA), SLJ distance jumped was still significantly greater among male athletes than female athletes (p ≤ 0.0001). There was no difference in distanced jumped with age as a fac- tor for female or male athletes. A significant differ- ence was observed between SLJ distance based on
The International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy | Volume 9, Number 4 | August 2014 | Page 450
women’s weight (p = 0.05); however, no significant within group differences were found after Bonfer- roni correction. Male athletes in the shortest height (1.69 m or less) group jumped significantly farther
on average than those in the tallest height (1.91 m or more) group when jump distance was normalized for height (p = 0.04). Finally, male SLJ distances differed between the BMI categories (p = 0.03);
Table 1. Baseline Characteristics (Mean ± SD) of Division III Collegiate Athletes
Characteristic Total (n = 193) Women (n = 110) Men (n = 83) p-value* Age (y) 19.3 ± 1.2 19.1 ± 1.1 19.5 ± 1.3 0.05 Years in School 2.2 ± 1.1 2.1 ± 1.0 2.2 ± 1.1 0.40 Age Starting Sport (y) 10.8 ± 3.6 11.0 ± 3.7 10.4 ± 3.6 0.23
Preseason Training (hr/wk)
Weightlifting 3.8 ± 3.3 3.0 ± 2.1 4.9 ± 4.0 ≤0.0001 Cardiovascular Exercise
5.5 ± 3.8 5.2 ± 3.5 6.2 ± 4.1 0.07
Plyometric Exercise
2.1 ± 2.2 2.0 ± 1.9 2.5 ± 2.6 0.12
Scrimmage 3.9 ± 4.1 3.3 ± 3.5 4.8 ± 4.4 0.01
Height (m) 1.72 ± 0.1 1.66 ± 0.1 1.80 ± 0.1 ≤0.0001 Weight (kg) 70.5 ± 13.9 64.2 ± 9.1 79.8 ± 14.4 ≤0.0001 BMI (kg/m2) 23.8 ± 3.3 23.3 ± 3.1 24.6 ± 3.3 0.005 *Independent t-tests; women vs. men. SD= standard deviation; BMI= Body mass index.
Table 2. Normalized Standing Long Jump Mean (± SD) Distances By Age and Anthropometric Measures for Division III Athletes
Variable
Women (n = 110) N Mean ± SD p-value*
Men (n = 83) N Mean ± SD p-value*
)y(egA 18 19 20 21 and older Totals
39 0.78 ± 0.11 34 0.79 ± 0.10 24 0.79 ± 0.09 13 0.79 ± 0.09 110 0.79 ± 0.10
0.97 24 0.97 ± 0.12 21 0.94 ± 0.11 20 0.89 ± 0.10 18 0.98 ± 0.12 83 0.94 ± 0.12
0.07
)m(thgieH Shortest (-1 SD) 18 0.79 ± 0.09 0.07 15 0.99 ± 0.12† 0.04 Average 80 0.80 ± 0.10 54 0.95 ± 0.11 Tallest (+1 SD) 12 0.73 ± 0.10 14 0.88 ± 0.12†
)gk(thgieW Lightest (-1 SD) 17 0.76 ± 0.08 0.05 12 0.95 ± 0.11 0.23 Average 80 0.80 ± 0.10 63 0.95 ± 0.12 Heaviest (+1 SD) 13 0.74 ± 0.10 8 0.88 ± 0.12
IMB Lowest (-1 SD) 17 0.76 ± 0.10 0.31 8 0.92 ± 0.10 0.03 Average 77 0.80 ± 0.10 67 0.96 ± 0.12 Highest (+1 SD) 16 0.78 ± 0.09 8 0.86 ± 0.09
*ANOVA= Analysis of Variance; SD= standard deviation; BMI= Body mass index. Difference between -1 SD below mean range and +1 SD above mean range; p-value= 0.03 post-hoc.
†
The International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy | Volume 9, Number 4 | August 2014 | Page 451
however, after Bonferroni correction there were no within group differences.
Mean distance jumped by reported off-season training habits are presented in Table 3. Women who reported performing greater than one and up to three hours per week of plyometric exercises jumped significantly fur- ther (p = 0.02) on average than those who performed one hour or less per week. While a significant mean difference (p = 0.01) in distance jumped by females in the scrimmage exercise category was also observed; no significant within group differences in SLJ distances by scrimmage hour categories were found. Men who reported weightlifting greater than five hours per week jumped significantly farther on average than those who reported weightlifting between greater than 1 and up to 3 hours per week (p = 0.04).
Normalized SLH distances per age group and anthro- pometric measures are shown in Table 4. The test- retest reliability (ICC
3,3 ) for SLH distances were 0.95
(95% CI: 0.89, 0.98) on the right and 0.96 (95% CI: 0.89, 0.98) on the left. Mean normalized SLH dis- tances for female athletes were 0.66 (± 0.10) for the right leg and 0.65 (± 0.10) on the left leg. Mean SLH distances for male athletes were 0.75 (± 0.13) for the right leg and 0.75 (± 0.12) on the left leg. Male SLH distances were significantly greater for each leg than their female counterparts (p ≤ 0.0001). There was no within group differences between SLH dis- tances and age category per gender. Female athletes in the mean height range hopped significantly fur- ther with the left leg than the tallest female ath- letes (p = 0.02). Female athletes in the mean BMI range also hopped significantly further with each leg
Table 3. Normalized Standing Long Jump Mean (± SD) Distances by Off-Season Training Habits of Division III Athletes Women
(n = 110) Men
(n = 83) Variable N Mean ± SD p-value* N Mean ± SD p-value* Off-Season Training (hr/wk)
Weightlifting 0-1 >1 – 3 >3 – 5 >5
31 0.77 ± 0.10 38 0.79 ± 0.10 28 0.80 ± 0.12 13 0.80 ± 0.09
0.50 10 0.92 ± 0.12 23 0.90 ± 0.12‡ 23 0.94 ± 0.12 27 0.99 ± 0.10‡
0.04
Cardiovascular Exercise
0-1 >1 – 3 >3 – 5 >5
6 0.83 ± 0.06 30 0.77 ± 0.11 35 0.79 ± 0.10 39 0.79 ± 0.09
0.53 10 1.00 ± 0.12 15 0.91 ± 0.09 13 1.00 ± 0.12 45 0.93 ± 0.12
0.10
Plyometric Exercise 0-1 >1 – 3 >3 – 5 >5
48 0.76 ± 0.09† 47 0.82 ± 0.11† 9 0.79 ± 0.10 6 0.82 ± 0.08
0.02 38 0.95 ± 0.12 23 0.93 ± 0.11 11 0.93 ± 0.13 11 0.97 ± 0.11
0.86
Scrimmage 0-1 >1 – 3 >3 – 5 >5
40 0.77 ± 0.08 26 0.83 ± 0.11 22 0.76 ± 0.10 22 0.82 ± 0.09
0.01 24 0.95 ± 0.09 14 0.91 ± 0.12 13 0.93 ± 0.12 32 0.96 ± 0.13
0.58
*ANOVA=Analysis of Variance Difference between 0-1 hrs/wk and >1-3 hrs/wk; p-value= 0.01 post-hoc Difference between >1-3 hrs/wk and >5 hrs/wk; p-value= 0.04 post-hoc
† ‡
The International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy | Volume 9, Number 4 | August 2014 | Page 452
(right: p = 0.03; left: p = 0.02) than female athletes in the highest BMI range. A significant group differ- ence in mean distance hopped by males in the BMI categories (right leg: p = 0.05) occurred; however, after post-hoc correction there were no intragroup differences between BMI categories.
Mean distance hopped by reported preseason train- ing habits is presented in Table 5. Women who reported scrimmaging more than 1 hour and up to 3 hours a week jumped significantly further with the left leg (p = 0.02) than those who scrimmaged less than 1 hour a week. Male athletes who reported per- forming more than 5 hours of plyometric exercise a week hopped significantly farther on average with their left leg (p = 0.05) than males who reported more than 1 hour and up to 3 hours of plyometrics each week. Male athletes who also performed more than 5 hours of weightlifting each week hopped sig- nificantly farther (p = 0.04) with their right leg com- pared to male athletes who reported more than 1 and up to 3 hours of weightlifting per week.
DISCUSSION This is the first study to report off-season training habits 6 weeks prior to formal preseason training and preseason measures of the SLJ and SLH func- tional tests for D III collegiate athletes. Male athletes reported exercising more during the off-season than their female counterparts. While total time spent exercising did not describe the quantity (e.g. total sets and repetitions, intensity) or the quality of the exercise performed these data provided insight as to off-season training habits in this population.
A novel feature of this study was the analysis of the differences between off-season training habits and preseason functional measures. Several significant associations between jump (SLJ) and hop (SLH) dis- tance and reported off-season training habits were found. In each instance where a significant differ- ence in jump or hop distance as a factor of off-sea- son training habits occurred, greater reported time devoted to training was observed. While the study’s methodology did not allow for the examination of
Table 4. Normalized Single-Leg Hop Mean (± SD) Distances Per Age and Anthropometric Measures for Division III Athletes
Variable Females
Mean ± SD p-value* Males
Mean ±SD p-value* N (R) (L) N (R) (L) Age
18 39 0.66 ± 0.10 0.65 ± 0.11 (R) 0.84 24 0.74 ± 0.15 0.76 ± 0.14 (R) 0.11 19 34 0.65 ± 0.09 0.64 ± 0.09 (L) 0.68 21 0.77 ± 0.15 0.75 ± 0.13 (L) 0.16 20 24 0.67 ± 0.11 0.67 ± 0.11 20 0.71 ± 0.07 0.71 ± 0.09 21 and older 13 0.64 ± 0.14 0.63 ± 0.13 18 0.81 ± 0.10 0.80 ± 0.09 Totals 110 0.66 ± 0.10 0.65 ± 0.10 83 0.75 ± 0.13 0.75 ± 0.12
Height (m) Shortest (-1 SD) 18 0.64 ± 0.10 0.65 ± 0.10 (R) 0.05 15 0.79 ± 0.14 0.79 ± 0.11 (R) 0.28 Average 80 0.67 ± 0.10 0.66 ± 0.10†† (L) 0.02 54 0.76 ± 0.13 0.75 ± 0.12 (L) 0.48 Tallest (+1 SD) 12 0.60 ± 0.10 0.57 ± 0.10†† 14 0.71 ± 0.10 0.74 ± 0.11
Weight (kg) Lightest (-1 SD) 17 0.66 ± 0.10 0.65 ± 0.10 (R) 0.07 12 0.78 ± 0.14 0.77 ± 0.11 (R) 0.26 Average 80 0.67 ± 0.10 0.66 ± 0.10 (L) 0.06 63 0.76 ± 0.13 0.76 ± 0.12 (L) 0.50 Heaviest (+1 SD) 13 0.60 ± 0.11 0.58 ± 0.12 8 0.69 ± 0.10 0.72 ± 0.09
BMI Lowest (-1 SD) 17 0.64 ± 0.11 0.61 ± 0.10 (R) 0.03 8 0.70 ± 0.16 0.72 ± 0.12 (R) 0.05 Average 77 0.67 ± 0.09† 0.67 ± 0.10‡ (L) 0.02 67 0.77 ± 0.12 0.77 ± 0.12 (L) 0.08 Highest (+1 SD) 16 0.60 ± 0.12† 0.60 ± 0.11‡ 8 0.67 ± 0.06 0.68 ± 0.05
*ANOVA= Analysis of Variance; SD= Standard Deviation Difference between Mean and +1 SD; p= 0.03 post-hoc Difference between Mean and +1 SD; p= 0.05 post-hoc Difference between Mean and +1 SD; p= 0.02 post-hoc
†
‡
††
The International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy | Volume 9, Number 4 | August 2014 | Page 453
a causal relationship between the off-season train- ing methods and increased distance reached, these exploratory findings might help guide coaches and sports medicine professionals when designing train- ing programs for D III athletes.
Few studies have reported normative values for the SLJ and SLH in collegiate or other sport populations. Thus, the current data may be beneficial to coaches and sports medicine professionals when evaluating their athletes/patients or making comparisons to other populations. Previously reported non-normal- ized SLJ mean distances in male populations range from 2.01 m (adolescent male athletes) to 3.05 m (± 0.15) (NFL drafted skill players), whereas we observed male D III athletes jumped a mean distance of 1.69 m (± 0.20) (not normalized to height).13-16 The observed mean SLJ distance of 1.31 m (± 0.17) (not normalized
to height) in our collegiate D III female population was also less than those reported in prior studies: 1.59 m (adolescent female athletes) to 2.28 m (± 0.16) (Divi- sion I track and field athletes)13,14 The mean (not nor- malized) hop distance for females in this study [right LE = 1.09 m (± 0.17); left LE = 1.07 m (± 0.17)] was lower than previously reported values from 1.14 m (± 19.3) to 1.23 m (± 19.5).17,18 The mean (not normal- ized) hop distances for males in this study [right LE = 1.35 (± 0.22); left LE = 1.35 (± 0.22)] were also lower than previously reported values from 1.43 m (± 27) to 2.04 m (± 14.9).18,19 A potential explanation for the difference in means between the D III athlete popula- tion in the current study and prior studies may be the difference in testing procedures. In this study, athletes were restricted from performing a countermovement arm swing prior to jumping (hands clasped behind back consistent with clinical testing recommenda-
Table 5. Normalized Single-Leg Hop Mean (± SD) Distances Per Age and Anthropometric Measures for Division III Athletes
Variable Females
Mean ± SD p-value* Males
Mean ± SD p-value* Off-Season Training (hr/wk)
)L()R(N)L()R(N
gnitfilthgieW 0-1 31 0.65 ± 0.10 0.63 ± 0.10 (R) 0.90 10 0.75 ± 0.14 0.77 ± 0.11 (R) 0.04 >1-3 38 0.66 ± 0.08 0.66 ± 0.09 (L) 0.72 23 0.71 ± 0.15†† 0.71 ± 0.11 (L) 0.16
21.0±67.001.0±57.03221.0±66.021.0±66.0825-3> 7221.0±56.001.0±76.0315> 0.81 ± 0.10†† 0.78 ± 0.12
Cardiovascular Exercise
0-1 6 0.65 ± 0.12 0.65 ± 0.09 (R) 0.71 10 0.82 ± 0.12 0.81 ± 0.12 (R) 0.10 >1-3 30 0.64 ± 0.10 0.64 ± 0.12 (L) 0.96 15 0.72 ± 0.13 0.72 ± 0.11 (L) 0.07
90.0±08.080.0±08.03111.0±56.011.0±76.0535-3> 21.0±47.031.0±47.05401.0±56.090.0±66.0935>
Plyometric Exercise
0-1 48 0.65 ± 0.09 0.63 ± 0.09 (R) 0.60 38 0.76 ± 0.11 0.76 ± 0.10 (R) 0.08 >1-3 47 0.67 ± 0.10 0.67 ± 0.11 (L) 0.37 23 0.71 ± 0.15 0.71 ± 0.13‡ (L) 0.05
01.0±57.011.0±57.01111.0±36.031.0±56.095-3> 11.0±38.01101.0±76.031.0±86.065> 0.83 ± 0.11‡
egammircS 0-1 40 0.64 ± 0.09 0.62 ± 0.09† (R) 0.21 24 0.76 ± 0.10 0.74 ± 0.09 (R) 0.63 >1-3 26 0.69 ± 0.09 0.70 ± 0.10† (L) 0.02 14 0.72 ± 0.13 0.70 ± 0.12 (L) 0.06
31.0±37.011.0±47.03111.0±26.021.0±46.0225-3> 21.0±08.051.0±77.02301.0±66.001.0±76.0225>
*ANOVA= Analysis of Variance Difference between 0-1 hrs/wk and >1-3 hrs/wk; p-value= 0.03 post hoc. Difference between >1-3 hrs/wk and 5+ hrs/wk; p-value= 0.03 post hoc. Difference between >1-3 hrs/wk and 5+ hrs/wk; p-value= 0.04 post hoc.‡
††
†
The International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy | Volume 9, Number 4 | August 2014 | Page 454
tions).12 Ashby et al20 reported subjects who are able to swing their arms when performing the SLJ were able to jump 21% farther than when arm motion was restricted [SLJ with arm swing = 2.09 m (± 0.03); SLJ without arm swing = 1.72 m (± 0.03)].
The descriptive data presented in the current study may also be useful for sports medicine profession- als when assessing their injured athlete’s readiness to return to sport after injury.12 The SLJ and SLH tests are frequently used to assess lower extremity strength and power after injury.12,21 Male athletes have been recommended to be able to jump (SLJ) at least 90% of their height and hop (SLH) at least 80% of their height (each test with hands clasped behind back) in order to be cleared to return.12,21 In the current study, males, on average, jumped 94% of their height; however, they only hopped 75% of their height. Likewise, female athletes are recom- mended to be able to jump (SLJ) at least 80% of their height and hop (SLH) at least 70% of their height in order to be cleared to return.12,21 In the current study, females, on average, jumped only 79% of their height and hopped only 65-66% of their height.12,21 Inter- estingly, in the current study sample, many of the healthy, D III athletes failed to achieve jump or hop minimal distances recommended for injured athletes prior to returning to sport. Thus, future research is warranted to determine if the aforementioned func- tional testing discharge criteria are appropriate for this population prior to resuming sport.
This study included some important strengths. First, this study has presented data on one of the largest samples of D III collegiate student-athletes. One hun- dred and ninety-three athletes (females = 110) from 15 teams were tested. Second, the off-season train- ing habit data was collected by an author who was not a member of any coaching staff. This indepen- dence may have increased the likelihood of athletes accurately reporting their training habits during the six weeks prior to the start of the preseason. Third, the functional tests assessed in this study, the SLJ and the SLH, were selected for their ease of use and their ability to assess lower extremity strength and power.21 The SLJ and the SLH are also utilized fre- quently by rehabilitation professionals to guide deci- sion making as to whether an athlete is able to return to sport.12,18,21,22 These tests have also been used to
assess athletic readiness and thus warrant assess- ment for associations with training habits.21
A few limitations of this study are recognized. First, the data presented here provides preseason func- tional performance measures for 193 D III athletes from several teams; however, specific analysis by sport is not possible at this time because some sports were represented by small sample sizes. This did not allow for specific subanalyses by specific sports. Future research should collect preseason training habits and functional measures for individual sport teams with larger sample sizes. Second, similarly, although statistically significant findings between off-season training practices were described by gen- der, the authors advise caution when interpreting the clinical significance of these findings, as some group sizes were small with wide standard deviations. Third, not all athletes at the university were tested. Some athletes had sustained an injury prior to test- ing (either during the off-season or during preseason prior to data collection) that impaired their ability to perform the tests. It is possible that injured athletes, who were unable to participate in testing, would have started the season with decreased strength or side-to- side differences in SLH measures.23 Characteristics of injured athletes who were not assessed may have changed overall mean scores. A fourth limitation of this study is that the associations between preseason training habits and functional measures do not sug- gest a cause-and-effect relationship. To establish a cause-and-effect relationship, researchers would need to test the athletes prior to a training program intervention (e.g. plyometric training program or weight training program) followed by repeating the SLJ and SLH tests post-intervention. A final limi- tation is that the athletes were asked to self-report their time spent training during the prior six weeks. It is possible that this method of ascertaining their activities may have led to some recall bias. Future studies may want to have the athletes record their off-season training activities prospectively.
CONCLUSION This study investigated the relationship between off- season training habits and preseason SLJ and SLH functional test measures in a general D III collegiate athlete population. The study indicates that greater SLJ and SLH measures may be associated with
The International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy | Volume 9, Number 4 | August 2014 | Page 455
increased time during off-season training. These findings present data that may be useful for coaches to assess and prepare their athletes at the start of the preseason. D III coaches are limited in the amount of sanctioned training time and may be limited in available resources (e.g. staff, equipment). Appre- ciating off-season training habits and utilizing nor- mative data that has been described for the SLJ and SLH functional tests may help D III coaches assess athletic readiness and develop training programs for their athletes. In addition, the descriptive functional test data may help guide clinical decision making for sports medicine professionals when assessing return to play status of an injured D III athlete.
REFERENCES 1. National Collegiate Athletic Association. 2012-13
NCAA Division III manual. Overland Park, Kansas: NSCA, 2012-2013, pp. 128.
2. Barnes JL, Schilling BK, Falvo MJ, et al. Relationship of jumping and agility performance in female volleyball athletes. J Strength Cond Res. 2007; 21(4): 1192-1196.
3. Delextrat A, Cohen, D. Physiological testing of basketball players: toward a standard evaluation of anaerobic fi tness. J Strength Cond Res. 2008; 2(4): 1066-1072.
4. Green MR, Pivarnik JM, Carrier DP, et al. Relationship between physiological profi les and on- ice performance of a National Collegiate Athletic Association Division I hockey team. J Strength Cond Res. 2006; 20(1): 43-46.
5. Hoffman JR, Ratamess NA, Neese KL, et al. Physical performance characteristics in National Collegiate Athletic Association Division III champion female lacrosse athletes. J Strength Cond Res. 2009; 23(5): 1524-1529.
6. Nesser TW, Huxel KC, Tincher JL, et al. The relationship between core stability and performance in division I football players. J Strength Cond Res. 2008; 22(6): 1750-1754.
7. Hickey KC, Quatman CE, Myer GD, et al. Methodological report: dynamic fi eld tests used in an NFL combine setting to identify lower-extremity functional asymmetries. J Strength Cond Res. 2009; 23(9): 2500-2506.
8. Kuzmits FE, Adams AJ. The NFL combine: does it predict performance in the National Football League? J Strength Cond Res. 2008; 22(6): 1721-1727.
9. Sporis G, Jukic I, Milanovic L, et al. Reliability and factorial validity of agility tests for soccer players. J Strength Cond Res. 2010; 24(3): 679-686.
10. Vescovi JD, McGuigan MR. Relationships between sprinting, agility, and jump ability in female athletes. J Sports Sci. 2008; 26(1): 97-107.
11. Schmidt WD. Strength and physiological characteristics of NCAA Division III American football players. J Strength Cond Res. 1999; 13(3): 210-213.
12. Davies GJ, Zillmer DA. Functional progression of a patient through a rehabilitation program. Orthop Phys Ther Clin N Am. 2000; 9(2): 103-117.
13. Koch AJ, O’Bryant HS, Stone ME, et al. Effect of warm-up on the standing broad jump in trained and untrained men and women. J Strength Cond Res. 2003; 17(4): 710-714.
14. Myer GD, Schmitt LC, Brent JL, et al. Utilization of modifi ed NFL combine testing to identify functional defi cits in athletes following ACL reconstruction. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2011; 41(6): 377-387.
15. Robertson DG, Fleming D. Kinetics of standing broad and vertical jumping. Can J Sport Sci. 1987; 12(1): 19-23.
16. Sierer SP, Battaglini CL, Mihalik JP, et al. The National Football League Combine: performance differences between drafted and nondrafted players entering the 2004 and 2005 drafts. J Strength Cond Res. 2008; 22(1): 6-12.
17. Ageberg E, Zatterstrom R, Friden T, et al. Individual factors affecting stabilometry and one-leg hop test in 75 healthy subjects, aged 15-44 years. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2001; 11: 47-53.
18. Barber SD, Noyes FR, Mangine RE, et al. Quantitative assessment of functional limitations in normal and anterior cruciate ligament-defi cient knees. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1990; 255: 204-214.
19. Greenberger HB, Paterno MV. Relationship of knee extensor strength and hopping test performance in the assessment of lower extremity function. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 1995; 22(5): 202-206.
20. Ashby BM, Heegaard JH. Role of arm motion in the standing long jump. J Biomech. 2002; 35(12): 1631-1637.
21. Manske R, Reiman M. Functional performance testing for power and return to sports. Sports Health. 2013; 5(3): 244-250.
22. Barber-Westin SD, Noyes FR. Factors used to determine return to unrestricted sports activities after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Arthroscopy. 2011; 27(12): 1697-1705.
23. Brumitt J, Heiderscheit BC, Manske RC, et al. Lower extremity functional tests and risk of injury in division iii collegiate athletes. Int J Sports Phys Ther. 2013; 8(3): 216-227.
Copyright of International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy is the property of North American Journal of Sports Physical Therapy and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
