THE PREDICTIVE ROLE OF TORQUE ON SINGLE LEG JUMP PERFORMANCE IN ECCENTRIC-BASED ACTIVATION INTERVENTION: COMPARISON OF ANGULAR VELOCITY AND LEG DOMINANCE (A PILOT STUDY)

Abstract

The aim of this study was to examine the predictive role of torque on single leg jump performance in terms of angular velocity and leg dominance in eccentric-based activation intervention. The study was conducted in three sessions with 8 male participants. In the first session, anthropometric measurements were taken, the dominant leg was identified, and then a vertical jump test and a familiarization process for eccentric contractions were applied. The other two sessions were performed 48 hours apart and in randomized order. In the second session, participants first performed a single set of 5 repetitions of maximal eccentric contractions at an angular velocity of 60°/s with the dominant leg, followed by a 7-min transition phase and then participated in the vertical jump test with the same leg. Afterwards, the same protocol was performed with the non-dominant leg at 150°/s. In the third session, eccentric contractions were performed with the dominant leg at 150°/s, followed by a 7-minute transition phase and a jump test. Finally, the same procedure was repeated with the non-dominant leg at 60°/s. Linear regression analyses were performed to determine the predictive role of dominant and non-dominant leg torque on jump height at 60°/s and 150°/s angular velocities. However, the models were not statistically significant at both speeds (p > .05). Although the highest predictive value was obtained for the non-dominant leg at 60°/s velocity (R² = .232), this model also did not reach significance. The results show that the power of eccentric torque to predict jump performance is limited. On the other hand, there seems to be a potential for angular velocity differences (especially the lower velocity used in the non-dominant leg) to produce a potentiation effect.

Keywords

• Eccentric contraction
• angular velocity
• torque
• dominant and non-dominant leg

EKSANTRİK TEMELLİ AKTİVASYON GİRİŞİMİNDE TORKUN TEK BACAK SIÇRAMA PERFORMANSI ÜZERİNDEKİ YORDAYICI ROLÜ: AÇISAL HIZ VE BACAK DOMİNANTLIĞININ KARŞILAŞTIRILMASI (PİLOT ÇALIŞMA)

Abstract

Bu çalışmanın amacı, eksantrik temelli aktivasyon girişiminde, torkun tek bacak sıçrama performansı üzerindeki yordayıcı rolünü açısal hız ve bacak dominantlığı bakımından incelemektir. Çalışma 8 erkek katılımcı ile üç seansta tamamlanmıştır. İlk seansta, antropometrik ölçümler alınmış, dominant bacak belirlenmiş, ardından dikey sıçrama testi ve eksantrik kasılmalara yönelik bir familirizasyon süreci uygulanmıştır. Diğer iki seans ise 48 saat arayla ve rastgele sırayla gerçekleştirilmiştir. İkinci seansta katılımcılar, önce dominant bacakla 60°/s açısal hızda tek set halinde 5 tekrar maksimal eksantrik kasılma yapmış, ardından 7 dakikalık geçiş aşaması sonrası aynı bacakla dikey sıçrama testine katılmıştır. Sonrasında, aynı protokol dominant olmayan bacakla 150°/s hızda uygulanmıştır. Üçüncü seansta ise bu kez dominant bacakla 150°/s’de eksantrik kasılmalar gerçekleştirilmiş, 7 dakikalık geçiş aşaması sonrası sıçrama testi uygulanmıştır. Son olarak, aynı uygulama dominant olmayan bacakla 60°/s hızda tekrarlanmıştır. Dominant ve dominant olmayan bacak torkunun, 60°/s ve 150°/s açısal hızlardaki sıçrama yüksekliğini ne ölçüde yordayabildiğini belirlemek amacıyla doğrusal regresyon analizleri uygulanmıştır. Ancak her iki hızda da kurulan modeller istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bulunmamıştır (p > .05). En yüksek yordayıcılık değeri 60°/s hızda, dominant olmayan bacak için elde edilmiş olsa da (R² = .232), bu model de anlamlılığa ulaşmamıştır. Bulgular, eksantrik torkun sıçrama performansını yordama gücünün sınırlı olduğunu ortaya koymaktadır. Öte yandan, açısal hız farklılıklarının (özellikle dominant olmayan bacakta kullanılan daha düşük hızın) güçlendirme etkisi oluşturma potansiyeline sahip olabileceği görülmektedir.

Keywords

• Eksantrik kasılma
• açısal hız
• tork
• dominant ve non-dominant bacak

References

1. 1. Perez-Gomez J, Calbet J. (2013). Training methods to improve vertical jump performance. J Sports Med Phys Fitness. 53(4),339-357.
2. 2. Tobin DP, Delahunt E. (2014). The acute effect of a plyometric stimulus on jump performance in professional rugby players. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research. 28(2), 367-372.
3. 3. Genç S, Mancı E, Güdücü Ç, Günay E. (2024). Post-Activation Performance Enhancement (PAPE) interventions at different loads may enhance sprint performance in well-trained athletes. Spor Hekimliği Dergisi. 59(3), 088-093.
4. 4. Chavda S, Sorensen A, Vernau J, Hills F, Bishop C, Turner AN. (2025). Effect of Post-Activation Potentiation on Weightlifting Performance and Endocrinological Responses. Applied Sciences. 15(2), 748.
5. 5. Germic A, Filipcic A, Paravlic A. (2025). Potential Benefits of Postactivation Potentiation Protocols on Tennis Performance: A Systematic Review. Strength & Conditioning Journal. 47(2), 169-183.
6. 6. Smith IC, MacIntosh BR. (2021). A comment on “A new taxonomy for postactivation potentiation in sport”. International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance. 16(2), 163-163.
7. 7. Stastny P, Kolinger D, Pisz A, Wilk M, Petruzela J, Krzysztofik M. (2024). Effects of eccentric speed during front squat conditioning activity on post-activation performance enhancement of hip and thigh muscles. Journal of Human Kinetics. 91(Spec Issue), 5.
8. 8. Akınoğlu B, Paköz B, Yilmaz AE, Shehu SU, Kocahan T. (2023). Effect of contraction type at varying angular velocities on isokinetic muscle strength training. Journal of Exercise Rehabilitation. 19(4), 228.

9. 9. Helbin J, Latocha A, Spieszny M, Ewertowska P, Wilk M, Krzysztofik M. (2025). Acute effects of unilateral conditioning activity on unilateral and bilateral jumping performance and bilateral strength asymmetry. Scientific Reports. 15(1), 10552.
10. 10. Genç S, Güdücü Ç, Çek ME, Mancı E, Günay E. (2025). The effect of resistance based post-activation performance enhancement interventions at different loads on maximal voluntary isometric contraction and muscle activation: Preliminary findings. Isokinetics and Exercise Science. 33(2), 161-170.
11. 11. Bishop C, Jarvis P, Turner A, Balsalobre-Fernandez C. (2022). Validity and reliability of strategy metrics to assess countermovement jump performance using the newly developed my jump lab smartphone application. Journal of Human Kinetics. 83, 185.
12. 12. Li M, Meng X, Guan L, Kim Y, Kim S. (2023). Comparing the effects of static stretching alone and in combination with post-activation performance enhancement on squat jump performance at different knee starting angles. Journal of Sports Science & Medicine. 22(4), 769.
13. 13. Yamada Y, Ishii N. (2018). Differences in eccentric force-velocity characteristics between isotonic and isokinetic contractions. International Journal of Sport and Health Science. 16, 128-136.
14. 14. Suchomel TJ, Wagle JP, Douglas J, et al. (2019). Implementing eccentric resistance training—Part 1: A brief review of existing methods. Journal of Functional Morphology and Kinesiology. 4(2), 38.
15. 15. Shepstone TN, Tang JE, Dallaire S, Schuenke MD, Staron RS, Phillips SM. (2005). Short-term high-vs. low-velocity isokinetic lengthening training results in greater hypertrophy of the elbow flexors in young men. Journal of Applied Physiology. 98(5), 1768-1776.
16. 16. Paddon-Jones D, Leveritt M, Lonergan A, Abernethy P. (2001). Adaptation to chronic eccentric exercise in humans: the influence of contraction velocity. European Journal of Applied Physiology. 85, 466-471.
17. 17. Douglas J, Pearson S, Ross A, McGuigan M. (2017). Chronic adaptations to eccentric training: a systematic review. Sports Medicine. 47(5), 917-941.
18. 18. Chen C, Ali Z, Rashid MAR, et al. (2023). Relationship between isokinetic strength of the knee joint and countermovement jump performance in elite boxers. PeerJ. 11, e16521.
19. 19. Banyard HG, Tufano JJ, Weakley JJ, Wu S, Jukic I, Nosaka K. (2020). Superior changes in jump, sprint, and change-of-direction performance but not maximal strength following 6 weeks of velocity-based training compared with 1-repetition-maximum percentage-based training. International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance. 16(2), 232-242.
20. 20. Pareja-Blanco F, Sánchez-Medina L, Suárez-Arrones L, González-Badillo JJ. (2017). Effects of velocity loss during resistance training on performance in professional soccer players. International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance. 12(4), 512-519.
21. 21. Ramírez JM, Núñez VM, Lancho C, Poblador MS, Lancho JL. (2015). Velocity-based training of lower limb to improve absolute and relative power outputs in concentric phase of half-squat in soccer players. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research. 29(11), 3084-3088.
22. 22. Pareja‐Blanco F, Rodríguez‐Rosell D, Sánchez‐Medina L, et al. (2017). Effects of velocity loss during resistance training on athletic performance, strength gains and muscle adaptations. Scandinavian journal of Medicine & Science in Sports. 27(7), 724-735.
23. 23. Rodríguez‐Rosell D, Yáñez‐García JM, Mora‐Custodio R, Sánchez‐Medina L, Ribas‐Serna J, González‐Badillo JJ. (2021). Effect of velocity loss during squat training on neuromuscular performance. Scandinavian journal of Medicine & Science in Sports. 31(8), 1621-1635.
24. 24. Orange ST, Metcalfe JW, Robinson A, Applegarth MJ, Liefeith A. (2019). Effects of in-season velocity-versus percentage-based training in academy rugby league players. International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance. 15(4), 554-561.
25. 25. Rapicavoli JL, Feigenbaum LA, Roach KE, Milian EK. (20259. Comparing the dominant and non-dominant leg strength of division i collegiate female cutting athletes to jumping athletes: A pilot study. International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy. 20(6), 793.
26. 26. Pekel HA, Cengizel ÇÖ. (2020). Examination of the relationship between dominant & non-dominant isokinetic knee strength and the body composition in basketball players. International Journal of Applied Exercise Physiology. 9(10), 14-23.