Effects of a Low-Load Gluteal Warm-Up on Explosive Jump Performance

Acute Effect of Dynamic and Gluteal Resistance Exercise Warm-up Protocols on Jump Landing Mechanics in College-Aged Females

ABSTRACT

Rauseo, ML, Feairheller, DL, LaRoche, DP, and Cook, SB. Acute effect of dynamic and gluteal resistance exercise warm-up protocols on lower-extremity jump landing mechanics in college-aged females. J Strength Cond Res 38(2): 259-265, 2024-Inadequate neuromuscular control of the femur by the gluteal musculature is associated with noncontact and overuse injuries to the knee. Acute bouts of resistance exercises targeting the gluteal musculature can be prescribed as part of a warm-up protocol with the goal of improving subsequent neuromuscular control and performance. The purpose of this study was to determine the effect that a warm-up protocol including moderate-intensity gluteal resistance exercises (GRE) has on single leg jump landing biomechanics. Seventeen healthy, college-aged, recreationally active females (mean ± SD ; age = 21.4 ± 1.9 years; height = 166.9 ± 5.7 cm; body mass = 62.5 ± 7.4 kg) performed 3 single leg hop trials per leg after completing no warm-up (CON), a dynamic warm-up (DWU), and a dynamic warm-up with gluteal resistance exercises (DWU + GRE) across 3 laboratory visits. Lower extremity kinetic and kinematic variables were assessed during single leg hops from the point of initial foot contact to deepest knee flexion. Biomechanical differences between dominant and nondominant limb landings were also assessed. Dominant limb hip internal rotation angle after DWU + GRE (2.03 ± 9.92°) was significantly greater ( p ≤ 0.05) compared with CON (-3.36 ± 7.74°). Peak knee adduction moment (56.8%), peak knee flexion angle (5.7%), and peak knee external rotation angle (17.0%) were significantly greater ( p ≤ 0.017) in the dominant limb, compared with the nondominant limb, across warm-up protocols. The combined DWU + GRE warm-up protocol did not have a substantial impact on landing biomechanics. Clinicians prescribing GRE before activity should not expect significant changes in movement patterns after a single bout.

Kinetic measurement system use in individuals following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a scoping review of methodological approaches

Purpose

Our primary objectives were to (1) describe current approaches for kinetic measurements in individuals following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) and (2) suggest considerations for methodological reporting. Secondarily, we explored the relationship between kinetic measurement system findings and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs).

Methods

We followed the PRISMA extension for scoping reviews and Arksey and O’Malley’s 6-stage framework. Seven electronic databases were systematically searched from inception to June 2020. Original research papers reporting parameters measured by kinetic measurement systems in individuals at least 6-months post primary ACLR were included.

Results

In 158 included studies, 7 kinetic measurement systems (force plates, balance platforms, pressure mats, force-measuring treadmills, Wii balance boards, contact mats connected to jump systems, and single-sensor insoles) were identified 4 main movement categories (landing/jumping, standing balance, gait, and other functional tasks). Substantial heterogeneity was noted in the methods used and outcomes assessed; this review highlighted common methodological reporting gaps for essential items related to movement tasks, kinetic system features, justification and operationalization of selected outcome parameters, participant preparation, and testing protocol details. Accordingly, we suggest considerations for methodological reporting in future research. Only 6 studies included PROMs with inconsistency in the reported parameters and/or PROMs.

Conclusion

Clear and accurate reporting is vital to facilitate cross-study comparisons and improve the clinical application of kinetic measurement systems after ACLR. Based on the current evidence, we suggest methodological considerations to guide reporting in future research. Future studies are needed to examine potential correlations between kinetic parameters and PROMs.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40634-021-00397-0.

Effects of a Gluteal Muscles Specific Exercise Program on the Vertical Jump

The vertical jump is a complex movement where many factors are involved in the final result. Currently, how a specific exercise program for gluteal muscles can affect the vertical jump is unknown. So, the aim of this study was to examine the effect of a specific exercise program for the gluteal muscles on a vertical jump. Forty-nine amateur athletes completed an 8-week program. The experimental group received a specific gluteal muscle training program in addition to their regular training routine, whereas the control group received their regular training routine. Jump height, flight time, speed and power were assessed (baseline, postintervention, and 4-week follow-up). Repeated-measures analyses of variance were conducted with ∝ ≤ 0.05. We calculated Eta squared effect sizes with 95% confidence intervals. Measurements at 8 weeks revealed significant increases in the experimental group compared to the control group for the values: jump height (p < 0.05) (experimental group = 17.15%; control group = 3.09%), flight time (p < 0.001) (experimental group = 7.98%; control group = 3.52%), speed (p < 0.01) (experimental group = 1.96%; control group = 1.83%) and power (p < 0.05) (experimental group = 4.43%; control group = 0.32%). However, at follow-up, these changes were not maintained. These data suggest that this specific training protocol for the gluteal muscles is effective in order to improve vertical jump performance in amateur athletes who use the vertical jump in their routine training habits.

The acute effect of lower-limb warm-up on muscle performance

It has been purported that the mechanism for muscular improvement after a gluteal warm-up protocol is likely to occur from neural activation. However, little is known about whether changes in muscular performance are due to changes in muscle activity. Therefore, the aim of this study was to determine whether a lower-limb warm-up that targets the gluteal muscle group would improve countermovement jump and short-distance sprinting through increased muscle activity. Ten semi-professional rugby union players (age 25.4 ± 2.9 yr; height 1.83 ± 6.7 m; body mass 96.8 ± 10.6 kg) with at least three years of resistance training experience volunteered for the study. In a cross-over design, participants performed countermovement jumps and 5 m sprints before and after a gluteal warm-up and a 10 min rest (control). Electromyography was used to measure muscle activity of the gluteus maximus and biceps femoris. Countermovement jump height significantly improved (7.9%, p < 0.05) after the lower-limb warm-up protocol compared with the control (3.2%). There was a significant (p < 0.05) improvement in sprint times over 2.5 m and 5 m regardless of the condition. There was no significant change in the muscle activity in any of the conditions. The results indicate that a lower-limb warm-up can acutely enhance countermovement jump performance compared to a control.

Hip external rotation strength predicts hop performance after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction

PURPOSE

Quadriceps strength and single-leg hop performance are commonly evaluated prior to return to sport after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR). However, few studies have documented potential hip strength deficits after ACLR, or ascertained the relative contribution of quadriceps and hip strength to hop performance.

METHODS

Patients cleared for return to sports drills after ACLR were compared to a control group. Participants' peak isometric knee extension, hip abduction, hip extension, and hip external rotation (HER) strength were measured. Participants also performed single-leg hops, timed hops, triple hops, and crossover hops. Between-limb comparisons for the ACLR to control limb and the non-operative limb were made using independent two-sample and paired sample t tests. Pearson's correlations and stepwise multiple linear regression were used to determine the relationships and predictive ability of limb strength, graft type, sex, and limb dominance to hop performance.

RESULTS

Sixty-five subjects, 20 ACLR [11F, age 22.8 (15-45) years, 8.3 ± 2 months post-op, mass 70.47 ± 12.95 kg, height 1.71 ± 0.08 m, Tegner 5.5 (3-9)] and 45 controls [22F, age 25.8 (15-45) years, mass 74.0 ± 15.2 kg, height 1.74 ± 0.1 m, Tegner 6 (3-7)], were tested. Knee extension (4.4 ± 1.5 vs 5.4 ± 1.8 N/kg, p = 0.02), HER (1.4 ± 0.4 vs 1.7 ± 0.5 N/kg, p = 0.04), single-leg hop (146 ± 37 vs 182 ± 38% limb length, p < 0.01), triple hop (417 ± 106 vs 519 ± 102% limb length, p < 0.01), timed hop (3.3 ± 2.0 vs 2.3 ± 0.6 s, p < 0.01), and crossover hop (364 ± 107 vs 446 ± 123% limb length, p = 0.01) were significantly impaired in the operative versus control subject limbs. Similar deficits existed between the operative and non-operative limbs. Knee extension and HER strength were significantly correlated with each of the hop tests, but only HER significantly predicted hop performance.

CONCLUSIONS

After ACLR, patients have persistent HER strength, knee extension strength, and hop test deficits in the operative limb compared to the control and non-operative limbs, even after starting sport-specific drills. Importantly, HER strength independently predicted hop performance. Based on these findings, to resolve between-limb deficits in strength and hop performance clinicians should include HER strengthening exercises in post-operative rehabilitation.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Prognostic Study, Level II.

Effect of a gluteal activation warm-up on explosive exercise performance

Objectives

To evaluate the effect of a gluteal activation warm-up on the performance of an explosive exercise (the high hang pull (HHP)).

Methods

Seventeen professional rugby union players performed one set of three HHPs (with 80% of their one repetition maximum load) following both a control and activation warm-up. Peak electrical activity of the gluteus maximus and medius was quantified using electromyography (EMG). In addition, the kinematics and kinetics of nine players was also recorded using force plate and motion capture technology. These data were analysed using a previously described musculoskeletal model of the right lower limb in order to provide estimates of the muscular force expressed during the movement.

Results

The mean peak EMG activity of the gluteus maximus was significantly lower following the activation warm-up as compared with the control (p<0.05, effect size d=0.30). There were no significant differences in the mean peak estimated forces in gluteus maximus and medius, the quadriceps or hamstrings (p=0.053), although there was a trend towards increased force in gluteus maximus and hamstrings following the activation warm-up. There were no differences between the ground reaction forces following the two warm-ups.

Conclusion

This study suggests that a gluteal activation warm-up may facilitate recruitment of the gluteal musculature by potentiating the glutes in such a way that a smaller neural drive evokes the same or greater force production during movement. This could in turn potentially improve movement quality.

Performance Effects of Repetition Specific Gluteal Activation Protocols on Acceleration in Male Rugby Union Players

Warm-up protocols have the potential to cause an acute enhancement of dynamic sprinting performance. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of three repetition specific gluteal activation warm-up protocols on acceleration performance in male rugby union players. Forty male academy rugby union players were randomly assigned to one of 4 groups (control, 5, 10 or 15 repetition gluteal activation group) and performed 10 m sprints at baseline and 30 s, 2, 4, 6 and 8 min after their specific intervention protocol. Five and ten meter sprint times were the dependent variable and dual-beam timing gates were used to record all sprint times. Repeated measures analysis of variance found no significant improvement in 5 and 10 m sprint times between baseline and post warm-up scores (p ≥ 0.05) for all groups. There were no reported significant differences between groups at any of the rest interval time points (p ≥ 0.05). However, when individual responses to the warm-up protocols were analyzed, the 15 repetition gluteal activation group had faster 10 m times post-intervention and this improvement was significant (p = 0.021). These results would indicate that there is no specific rest interval for any of the gluteal interventions that results in a potentiation effect on acceleration performance. However, the individual response analysis would seem to indicate that a 15 repetition gluteal activation warm-up protocol has a potentiating effect on acceleration performance provided that the rest interval is adequately and individually determined.