The Importance of Maximal Leg Strength for Female Athletes When Performing Drop Jumps
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A common suggestion is that a predetermined level of maximal leg strength is required before drop jump (DJ) training can begin. This study sought to examine the relationship between maximal squat strength (1 repetition maximum [RM]) and DJ performance in 15 female rugby players (n = 15). The subjects were tested for 1RM, countermovement jump, squat jump, and DJs from 0.24, 0.36, 0.48, 0.60, 0.72, and 0.84 m. Jump height (JH) was calculated for all jumps and relative peak eccentric force, relative peak concentric force, ground contact time (GCT), and reactive strength index were also calculated for DJs. Pearson correlations were used to examine the relationship between 1RM relative to body mass (BM) (1RM/BM) and JHs, reactive strength index, and GCT during DJs. The subjects were placed in a high strength (HS) or low strength (LS) group depending on whether or not their 1RM/BM was >1 or <1. The T-tests and 2-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) were used to compare the groups. A Fishers post hoc test was used for the ANOVA with significance set at p < 0.05. A large correlation between JH and 1RM/BM was shown at the 0.84-m dropping height (r = 0.56). A significant overall difference was found between the HS and LS groups for DJ JH with a post hoc analysis revealing a significant difference at the 0.84-m drop height (p = 0.029). It is likely beneficial for female athletes to achieve high levels of maximal leg strength if they are going to use high (>0.8-m) drop heights when performing DJs.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".