TY  - JOUR
T1  - Acute effects of loaded whole body vibration schemes on countermovement jump, speed and agility
AU  - Pagaduan, Jeffrey
AU  - Pojskıä†, Haris
AU  - Babajıä†, Fuad
AU  - Uå½ıäœanın, Edin
AU  - Muratovıä†, Melika
AU  - Tomljanovıä†, Mario
PY  - 2014
DA  - February
DO  - 10.15314/tjse.91525
JF  - Turkish Journal of Sport and Exercise
JO  - Turk J Sport Exe
PB  - Selcuk University
WT  - DergiPark
SN  - 2147-5652
SP  - 56
EP  - 59
VL  - 15
IS  - 3
LA  - en
AB  - The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of loaded whole body static squat exercise during whole body vibration and non-vibration schemes on countermovement jump (CMJ), speed and agility. Twenty-one healthy male college football players (age: 20.14 ± 1.65 years; body height: 179.9 ± 8.34 cm; body mass: 74.4 ± 13.0 kg; % body fat: 9.45 ± 4.8) participated in the study. They underwent a standardized general warm-up and dynamic stretching followed by randomized loaded protocols executed for 5 minutes with a rest interval of 30 seconds. These included static squat with 30% bodyweight external load (ST + 30%), ST + 30% on a vibration platform at 25 Hz and 2 mm (WBV25), and ST + 30% on a vibration platform at 50 Hz and 4mm. Measurement of CMJ, 15 m sprint and modified agility tests followed the warm-up protocol. One way repeated measures ANOVA revealed a significant difference on CMJ performance, F(2,40) = 24.5, partialη2 = .551, p < 0.01. Bonferonni post hoc showed that ST+30% posted significantly lower CMJ than WBV25 and WBV50. CMJ at WBV50 was higher than WBV25. There was a significant difference on speed, F(2, 40) = 23.6, partial η2 = .542, p < 0.01. Post hoc determined that ST+30% was significantly slower than WBV25 and WBV50. WBV50 was faster than WBV25. There was a significant difference in the agility among interventions, F(2, 40) = 18.2, partial η2 = .477, p < 0.01. ST+30% agility time was significantly higher compared to WBV25 and WBV50. In conclusion, WBV50 posted the greatest benefits in CMJ, speed and agility.
KW  - Football; warm-up; vibration training.
CR  - Bishop B. Neurophysiology of motor responses evoked by vibratory stimulation. Phys Ther, 1974; 54: 1273–1282.
CR  - Cardinale M, Wakeling J. Whole body vibration exercise: are vibrations good for you? Br J Sports Med, 2005; 39: 585-589.
CR  - Cochrane DJ, Stannard SR, Firth EC, Rittweger J. Acute whole-body vibration elicits post-activation potentiation. Eur J Appl Physiol, 2010; 108: 311-319.
CR  - Di Iorio F, Cesarelli M, Bifulco P, Fratini A, Roveda E, Ruffo M. The effects of whole body vibration on oxygen uptake and electromyographic signal of the rectus femoris muscle during static and dynamic squat. JEP online, 2012; 15: 18-31.
CR  - Eklund G, Hagbarth KE. Normal variability of tonic vibration reflexes in man. Exp Neurol 1966; 16: 80-92.
CR  - Hazell TJ, Jakobi JM, Kenno KA. The effects of whole body vibration on upper- and lower- body EMG during static and dynamic contractions. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab, 2007; 33: 585-595.
CR  - Hodgson M, Docherty D, Robbins D. Post-activation potentiation: underlying physiology and implications for motor performance. Sports Med 2005, 35: 1156-1563.
CR  - Krol P, Piecha M, Sobota G, Polak A, Juras G. The effect of whole-body vibration frequency and amplitude on the myolectric activity of vastus medialis and vastus lateralis. J Sports Sci Med, 2011; 10: 169-174.
CR  - Pollock RD, Woledge RC, Martin FC, Newham DJ. Effect of whole body vibration on motor unit recruitment and threshold. J Appl Physiol 2012; 112: 388-395.
CR  - Rİnnestad BR. Acute effects of various whole-body vibration frequences in lower-body power in trained and untrained subjects. J Strenght Cond Res 2009; 23: 1309-1315.
CR  - Rİnnestad BR, Ellefsen S. The effects of adding different whole-body vibration frequencies to preconditinoing exercise on subsequent sprint performance. J Strength Cond Res 2011; 25; 3306-3310.
CR  - Rubin C, Pope M, Fritton JC, Magnusson M, Hansson T, McLeod K. Transmissibility of 15-hertz to 35-hertz vibrations to the human hip and lumbar spine: determining the physiologic feasibility of delivering low-level anabolic mechanical stimuli to skeletal regions at greatest risk of fracture because of osteoporosis. Spine 2003; 28: 2621-2627.
UR  - https://doi.org/10.15314/tjse.91525
L1  - https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/200672
ER  -