↓ Skip to main content

Jump Training in Rugby Union Players

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, March 2021
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
36 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
86 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Jump Training in Rugby Union Players
Published in
Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, March 2021
DOI 10.1519/jsc.0000000000002742
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jonathon J S Weakley, Kevin Till, Dale B Read, Cedric Leduc, Gregory A B Roe, Padraic J Phibbs, Joshua Darrall-Jones, Ben Jones

Abstract

Weakley, JJS, Till, K, Read, DB, Leduc, C, Roe, GAB, Phibbs, PJ, Darrall-Jones, J, and Jones, B. Jump training in rugby union players: barbell or hexagonal bar?. J Strength Cond Res XX(X): 000-000, 2018-The countermovement jump (CMJ) is an exercise that can develop athletic performance. Using the conventional barbell (BAR) and hexagonal barbell (HEX) while jumping, the intensity can be increased. However, the bar that provides greater adaptations is unknown. Therefore, this study aimed to assess changes in loaded and unloaded CMJ with either a BAR or HEX across a 4-week mesocycle in rugby union players. Twenty-nine subjects were strength-matched and randomized into 2 groups. Subjects completed 3 sets of CMJ at 20% of 1 repetition maximum back squat, 3 times per week for 4 weeks, using either a BAR or HEX. Subjects completed an unloaded CMJ on a force plate before and after, whereas the highest peak concentric velocity during the jump squat was recorded in the first and last training sessions using a linear position transducer. Magnitude-based inferences assessed meaningful changes within- and between-groups. Possibly greater improvements in unloaded CMJ were found in the HEX group in jump height (effect size ± 90% confidence intervals: 0.27 ± 0.27), relative peak (0.21 ± 0.23), and mean power (0.32 ± 0.36). In addition, likely to very likely greater improvements were observed in the HEX group in peak velocity (0.33 ± 0.27), relative mean power (0.53 ± 0.30), mean force (0.47 ± 0.27), and 100-ms impulse (0.60 ± 0.48). Similar raw changes in jump squat peak velocity occurred (0.20-0.25 m·s), despite the likely greater ES occurring with the BAR (0.32 ± 0.26). These results indicate that training with the HEX leads to superior unloaded CMJ adaptations. In addition, practitioners should use either the HEX or BAR when aiming to enhance loaded jump ability.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 36 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 86 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 86 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 15 17%
Unspecified 10 12%
Student > Master 9 10%
Student > Postgraduate 4 5%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 5%
Other 10 12%
Unknown 34 40%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 29 34%
Unspecified 10 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 5%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 1%
Other 2 2%
Unknown 36 42%
Attention Score in Context

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 06 March 2023.
All research outputs
#1,575,650
of 25,420,980 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research
#1,246
of 6,669 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#43,216
of 451,458 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research
#31
of 195 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,420,980 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 6,669 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% 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 451,458 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 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 195 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.