| Title |
Detrimental effects of West to East transmeridian flight on jump performance
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
European Journal of Applied Physiology, August 2011
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00421-011-2134-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Dale W. Chapman, Nicola Bullock, Angus Ross, Doug Rosemond, David T. Martin |
| Abstract |
It is perceived that long haul travel, comprising of rapid movement across several time zones is detrimental to performance in elite athletes. However, available data is equivocal on the impact of long haul travel on maximal explosive movements. The aim of this study was to quantify the impact of long haul travel on lower body muscle performance. Five elite Australian skeleton athletes (1 M, 4 F) undertook long haul flight from Australia to Canada (LH(travel)), while seven national team Canadian skeleton athletes (1 M, 6 F) acted as controls (NO(travel)). Lower body power assessments were performed once per day between 09:30 and 11:00 h local time for 11 days. Lower body power tests comprised of box drop jumps, squat jump (SJ) and countermovement jumps (CMJ). The LH(travel) significantly decreased peak and mean SJ velocity but not CMJ velocity in the days following long haul flight. CMJ height but not SJ height decreased significantly in the LH(travel) group. The peak velocity, mean velocity and jump power eccentric utilisation ratio for the LH(travel) group all significantly increased 48 h after long haul flight. Anecdotally athletes perceived themselves as 'jet-lagged' and this corresponded with disturbances observed in 'one-off' daily jumping ability between 09:30 and 11:00 h after eastward long haul travel from Australia to North America when compared to non-travel and baseline controls. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 44 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 26 | 59% |
| Australia | 1 | 2% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 16 | 36% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 38 | 86% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 4 | 9% |
| Scientists | 1 | 2% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 2% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 67 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 66 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 11 | 16% |
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 13% |
| Researcher | 8 | 12% |
| Other | 5 | 7% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 7% |
| Other | 15 | 22% |
| Unknown | 14 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Sports and Recreations | 31 | 46% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 10% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 3% |
| Psychology | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 4 | 6% |
| Unknown | 17 | 25% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 24. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 August 2016.
All research outputs
#1,572,027
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Applied Physiology
#507
of 4,345 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#7,060
of 134,691 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Applied Physiology
#12
of 66 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,345 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 134,691 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 66 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.