sports

Article
Kinematic and Kinetic Characteristics of Repetitive
Countermovement Jumps with Accentuated Eccentric Loading
Micah Gross *, Jan Seiler , Bastien Grédy and Fabian Lüthy

Department for Elite Sport, Swiss Federal Institute of Sport Magglingen (SFISM), Hauptstrasse 247,
2532 Magglingen, Switzerland; [email protected] (J.S.); [email protected] (B.G.);
[email protected] (F.L.)
* Correspondence: [email protected]

Abstract: Two methods for challenging the musculoskeletal and nervous systems to better exploit the
stretch-shortening cycle (SSC) mechanism during plyometric training are reactive strength exercises
and accentuated eccentric loading (AEL). Combining repetitive, reactive jumping with AEL poses a
novel approach, in which the effects of both methods may be combined to elicit a unique stimulus.
This study compared kinematic, kinetic, and electromyographic variables between a control (CON1)
and two AEL conditions (AEL2 and AEL3). Additionally, non-reactive and reactive jumps performed
within these sets were compared. Participants performed two sets of six countermovement jumps
(CMJ) under each loading condition. AEL3 had moderate to large positive effects (es) on peak and
mean eccentric force (es = 1.1, 0.8, respectively; both p < 0.01), and eccentric loading rate (es = 0.8,
p < 0.01), but no effect on concentric variables or muscle activation intensity. The effects of AEL2 were
similar but smaller. With or without AEL, there were moderate to large positive effects associated
with reactive CMJ (second jump in a set, compared to the first) on peak and mean eccentric velocity
(es = 1.7, 0.8, respectively; both p < 0.01), peak and mean eccentric force (es = 1.3, 1.2, p < 0.01),
eccentric loading rate (es = 1.3, p < 0.01) and muscle activity (es = 1.8–1.9, p < 0.01). Concentric
Citation: Gross, M.; Seiler, J.; Grédy,
variables did not differ. Thus, the flight phase and act of landing during reactive jumps elicited
B.; Lüthy, F. Kinematic and Kinetic
greater increases in eccentric forces, loading rates, and muscle activity than AEL. Nonetheless, kinetic
Characteristics of Repetitive
Countermovement Jumps with
variables were greatest when AEL was combined with reactive jumping. Considering the limitations
Accentuated Eccentric Loading. or complexity associated with most AEL protocols, sets of repetitive (reactive) CMJ may be more
Sports 2022, 10, 74. https://doi.org/ pragmatic for augmenting eccentric kinetic variables and neuromuscular stimuli during training.
10.3390/sports10050074
Keywords: reactive jump; repeated jumps; landing; stretch-shortening cycle (SSC); ground reaction
Academic Editors: Marco Beato and
force; electromyography (EMG)
Stuart McErlain-Naylor

Received: 10 March 2022

Accepted: 3 May 2022
Published: 6 May 2022 1. Introduction
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral Quick and explosive movements play an important role in the performance of many
with regard to jurisdictional claims in sports. These movements include jumping, sprinting, and sharp changes of direction, and
published maps and institutional affil- often involve stretch-shortening cycles (SSC) of the participating muscle-tendon systems.
iations. An SSC is a mechanism by which to enhance muscle power output by taking advantage of
the elastic properties of tendons and muscle fibers. When agonist muscles for a particular
movement are stretched (e.g., with a backswing or other countermovement) just prior to
their contraction, muscle-tendon systems can act like springs, storing and re-releasing elastic
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
energy—thus increasing movement economy, force production, and power output [1].
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
Effective utilization of recoil energy during SSC depends on several neural and anatom-
This article is an open access article
ical factors. In any SSC, the nervous system attempts to integrate feedback (sensing of the
distributed under the terms and
stretch) and feedforward (intention of the movement) information to optimally balance
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
muscle stiffness for maximal recovery of recoil energy, and muscle yielding to avoid tissue
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
damage [2]. Nonetheless, this neural modulation must work within limits set by the over-
4.0/).
all strength (stretch-force tolerance) and contractile function (shortening force capacity)

Sports 2022, 10, 74. https://doi.org/10.3390/sports10050074 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sports

Sports 2022, 10, 74 2 of 14

of a muscle-tendon system. Thus, training to improve SSC power output should aim
to enhance eccentric strength and concentric contractile function, and therefore involve
exposure to high eccentric loads or explosive concentric contractions. Accordingly, such
training often includes plyometric exercises, which utilize rapid SSC movements to elicit
both of these stimuli. A typical plyometric movement for the lower extremity is the vertical
countermovement jump (CMJ).
Two methods for further challenging the musculoskeletal and nervous systems to
better exploit the SSC mechanism during plyometric movements are reactive exercises
and exercises with accentuated eccentric loading (AEL). Both of these methods increase
eccentric loading beyond that of a mere countermovement, which may improve stretch-
force tolerance. Moreover, these methods potentiate concentric force and power in some
cases, which is believed to enhance the neuromuscular training stimulus [3]. It should
be mentioned, however, that accentuating the eccentric load does not enhance concentric
muscle output per se [4,5]. As mentioned above, stretch forces must be deemed manageable
for tissues by the nervous system for this to occur; otherwise, muscle yielding is increased
and the muscle-tendon system begins to act more like a shock absorber than a spring [1,2].
Reactive strength exercises such as depth jumps, drop jumps, or repetitive CMJ have
been common practice for decades. These exercises comprise plyometric movements in
which a flight phase precedes the SSC action. In this situation, the downward acceleration
during flight and the act of landing increase the peak eccentric velocity, rate of loading,
and muscle activation—and concentric output in some cases [3]—compared to plyometric
contractions without a preceding flight phase. AEL has emerged more recently as a method
for augmenting the mechanical and neuromuscular loads encountered during explosive
and maximal strength exercises by using greater external resistance in the eccentric phase
than in the concentric phase. Similar to reactive strength exercises, AEL has repeatedly been
shown to enhance eccentric mean forces, eccentric peak velocity, mean and peak power,
impulse, rate of force development, and muscle activation [6–9]—seemingly for a wide
range of loads and movement velocities. Moreover, the detailed data presented in the study
of Aboodarda et al. [10] suggest that with ballistic jumps, eccentric variables are augmented
in relationship to the externally applied eccentric load. Concentric variables, such as peak
power, force, velocity and jump height, benefit consistently from AEL in ballistic exercises
with light or moderate (up to ~65% of maximum) concentric loads [10–13], but this does
not appear to be the case for non-ballistic exercises [14], or where concentric resistance is
high (beyond ~80% of maximum) and velocity relatively low [8,9,15,16].
Combining reactive strength exercises with AEL has not been investigated as thor-
oughly as each of these methods in isolation. The two available studies that reported
kinetic or kinematic outcomes of reactive jumps (drop jumps) combined with AEL revealed
clear increases in eccentric loading indicators, but no benefit to concentric muscle power
or other variables. One of these studies used elastic bands and loads of ~20–30% of body
weight, which enhanced the eccentric impulse and rate of force development (RFD) and
increased quadricep activity across the eccentric phase, but had no effects on concentric
kinetics, jump height, or muscle activation [6]. The other study employed drop jumps with
AEL as a means to elicit post-activation potentiation. Although the authors provided no
kinetic data, they mentioned that reactive jump height did not increase compared to the
control condition [15]. Especially intriguing is the study of Aboodarda et al. [6], which
combined two AEL loading conditions with three drop jump starting heights in a crossover
design. Firstly, the results of that study suggests that somewhat similar enhancements to
eccentric variables can be achieved by manipulating either the external eccentric load or
starting height. Furthermore, the results indicate that the effects of AEL and starting height
are additive.
These and most other available AEL studies have accentuated eccentric loads by means
of either weights or elastic bands, which are released at the eccentric-to-concentric transition
point. While these methods probably reflect most training settings the best, they also entail
an inevitable delay of several seconds between repetitions in which weights or bands
Sports 2022, 10, 74 3 of 14

must be re-affixed manually. As these methods preclude uninterrupted, multi-repetition

sets with AEL, most studies have employed either single repetitions with AEL [6,8–14,16],
multi-repetition sets with AEL applied to the first repetition only, or cluster sets with
multiple AEL repetitions separated by 30 s [15,17,18].
Nonetheless, performing continuous sets of any exercise, as opposed to isolated
repetitions or cluster sets, elicits a unique stimulus—both biomechanically [19] and in terms
of fatigue, e.g., [17,18]. Particularly for vertical jumps, Lam et al. [19] has shown some
advantages of continuous sets in terms of joint power and extension velocity. Furthermore,
although peak (non-SSC) landing forces were lower for consecutive jumps than for a single
jump, eccentric forces within the actual SSC were most certainly higher following a flight
phase than for an isolated jump [19].
Since eccentric loading within SSC is clearly enhanced by either AEL or by performing
jumps consecutively, the question arises as to whether the effects of these two methods
are additive, or whether combining them might otherwise elicit a unique stimulus. We
are aware of only study that combined AEL with repetitive jumping. The results of that
training intervention study suggested greater improvement in drop jump performance
by adding AEL to jump squat training sets [20]. Furthermore, the authors noted that this
training was especially effective for developing power in SSC movements commencing
with higher eccentric forces (i.e., drop jumps more so than CMJ).
The study of Horwath et al. [20], being the only thus far to combine AEL with con-
tinuous jumping, revealed a unique work-around for the limitations of weight releasers
or elastic bands. They employed an electronically controlled cable pull device that allows
eccentric and concentric resistance to be programmed independently. While providing
evidence for likely training effects of repetitive jumping with AEL, their study did not offer
insight into the acute biomechanical differences between the training methods they inves-
tigated. Thus, the first aim of the current study was to compare eccentric and concentric
velocity, eccentric force and loading rates, concentric force and power, and electromyo-
graphic variables between a control (non-AEL) condition and two AEL conditions during
sets of repetitive CMJ. We hypothesized that these variables would be enhanced for all
jumps in a given set, in direct relation to the eccentric load. This design also lent itself for
a further comparison; therefore, the second aim was to compare the initial, non-reactive
jump with the subsequent, reactive jump within a given set. Here, we hypothesized that
the differences between non-reactive and reactive jumps would be at least as large as those
between non-AEL and AEL jumps.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Participants
Ten basketball players, eight of which played professionally in the 1st Swiss Division,
volunteered to participate in the study. They declared themselves to be uninjured at the time
of the measurements. After having been informed about the aims and risks of the study, as
well as the detailed procedures—which were approved by an institutional review board
and conformed to the Declaration of Helsinki—players provided their written informed
consent to participate. The mean (±standard deviation) age, body mass, and height of the
participants were 25 ± 4 y, 88 ± 9 kg, and 1.93 ± 0.08 m, respectively.

2.2. Design
A repeated-measures (within-subject), randomized design was adopted to compare a
control loading condition (CON1) with two AEL conditions (AEL2 and AEL3). Within one
testing session, each participant performed two separate sets of CMJ under each of the three
loading conditions. Participants performed these six sets in an individually randomized
order. Differences between non-reactive CMJ and reactive CMJ (RCMJ) were also addressed
in a repeated-measures manner by comparing the first and second jumps within the same
set. Finally, the evolution of jump variables across the five RCMJ within each set were
analyzed using regression analyses and compared in a repeated-measures manner.
Sports 2022, 10, 74 4 of 14

2.3. Procedures
After arriving on site, participants completed a standardized warm up, consisting
of 5–10 min of stationary cycling and mobility exercises. At the end of warm-up, they
were instructed to perform a proper CMJ with hands placed on the hips (to inhibit arm
contribution to the jump). They then performed two sets of 3–4 consecutive CMJ with no
additional resistance. Subjects were encouraged to jump as high as possible and as fast as
possible. After this warm-up, surface electrodes (F3010, FIAB, Vicchio, Italy) were placed
on the thighs and lower legs (see details below).
Between the warm-up and main measurements, subjects performed a total of six
familiarization sets with AEL in the test setting. First, three sets of three consecutive CMJ
with an additional concentric load of 7.5% body mass; whereas during the first set, no AEL
was provided (eccentric load remained 7.5%), the second and third sets were performed
with accentuated eccentric loads of 15 and 22.5% body mass, respectively. Familiarization
ended with three further sets of three consecutive CMJ with an additional concentric load
of 15% BM, and eccentric loads of 15%, 30% and 45% of body mass, respectively. These
corresponded to the three experimental conditions. One minute of rest was afforded
between familiarization sets.
The main sets consisted of six jumps each. This set length was chosen for the study
based on experience from the field, where the intention was to avoid substantial decreases
in neuromuscular intensity. Participants were encouraged to perform each jump with
maximal intensity. During the main measurements, three minutes of passive recovery
were afforded between sets. A video clip of an example jump set is available in the
Supplementary Materials (Video S1).

2.4. Loading and Measurement Instrumentation

Downward-directed loads were achieved with an electronically controlled, dual-sided
cable pull training device (1080 Quantum Syncro, 1080 Motion, Stockholm, Sweden). This
device uses two electric motors to apply tension to nylon ropes on the left and right sides
in a synchronized manner. The device can track the linear motion (speed and direction)
of the ropes continuously and modulate motor torque accordingly to maintain tensile
force on the ropes at a programmed value. With the accompanying mobile application
(1080 Motion for Windows, 1080 Motion, Stockholm, Sweden), the tensile force can be
programmed for eccentric (rope reeling-in) and concentric (rope reeling-out) movement
phases separately, although not entirely independently (eccentric force may not exceed
three times the concentric force).
Resistances were determined as fixed percentages of body mass. In order to achieve
sufficient eccentric loads while working within the constrictions of the software applica-
tion (maximal eccentric-concentric load ratio of 3:1), a constant concentric load of 15%
(13.2 ± 1.3 kg) was combined with eccentric loads of 15% (CON1), 30% (AEL2), and 45%
(AEL3) for the three loading conditions, respectively.
During familiarization and testing, participants wore a vest designed to attach to the
Quantum’s ropes using carabiners. Ropes from the left and right sides were redirected at
floor level by pulleys situated 0.8 m from the mid-line of the stance area and attached to the
back of the vest at approximately mid-thorax height (depending on participant body height,
between 1.04 and 1.25 m above the pulleys). As such, the ropes provided resistance in a
diagonal direction, equally from sides. In addition to providing resistance, the Quantum
recorded the one-dimensional rope speed and position (rope extension, in m) continuously
at 333 Hz.
Ground reaction forces were recorded at 1000 Hz using a three-dimensional force
plate (type 9260AA6, Kistler Instruments AG, Winterthur, Switzerland). Furthermore,
the muscle activity of six leg muscles were recorded at 1000 Hz using a surface elec-
tromyography (EMG) device (M320, Myon AG, Switzerland). For EMG measurements,
electrodes were placed on three muscles of each leg according to SENIAM recommen-
dations (www.seniam.org, accessed on 1 November 2021). The muscles were the vastus
Sports 2022, 10, 74 5 of 14

lateralis (VL), vastus medialis (VM), and gastrocnemius medialis (GM). Data from the force
plates and EMG were fed synchronously into the same software (Vicon Nexus, Version 2.9,
Vicon Motion Systems Ltd., Oxford, UK).

2.5. Data Processing

Because the Quantum’s ropes were attached at an angle, the vertical movement
component had to be calculated using the diagonal speed, the constant widths between
the pulleys and vest attachment points, and basic trigonometry (see Figure 1). The vertical
speed signal was then resampled to 1000 Hz and synchronized with the force plate and EMG
data, which made it possible to divide the force signal into eccentric and concentric phases.
Synchronization for the eccentric phase was achieved by aligning the time point of the
peak eccentric speed with the earliest time point at which net VGRF was positive. Likewise,
synchronization for the concentric phase was achieved by aligning the time point of the
peak concentric speed with the latest time point at which net VGRF was positive. Net VGRF
was taken as the measured VGRF minus the phase-specific virtual weight. The phase-
specific virtual weight for phases with a 15% load (concentric phase of all three conditions
and eccentric phase of CON1) was equal to body weight plus combined downward rope
force, which was determined from force plate data during the stance phase of a CON1
trial. For the eccentric phases of AEL2 and AEL3, this value was multiplied by 130/115 or
145/115, respectively. Mechanical power was calculated as the product of resultant force
and vertical velocity.
The kinematic variables selected for addressing the research questions included the du-
ration of eccentric and concentric phases (tecc, tcon, respectively). The upward acceleration
phase was delimited by the time points of the peak eccentric and peak concentric speed;
this essentially corresponded to the ground contact phase for jumps 2–6. Furthermore, the
mean and peak speed of the eccentric (veccmean , veccpeak ) and concentric phases (vconmean ,
vconpeak ) were determined. The kinetic variables were the mean and peak eccentric phase
force (Feccmean , Feccpeak ), as well as the mean concentric phase force Fconmean and the
mean and peak concentric phase power (Pconmean , Pconpeak ). Finally, the time (tFeccpeak )
and average rate of force development (RFDecc) between the onset of upward acceleration
and the first peak in eccentric force were calculated. For the first non-reactive CMJ, the
peak force was near the end of the eccentric phase. However, the eccentric phases of RCMJ
typically displayed two peaks; therefore, for the determination of the Feccpeak , tFeccpeak ,
and RFDecc of RCMJ, the first peak in force—which corresponded to the peak eccentric
power—was used. Each of these parameters was generated for each jump of each set.
After having subtracted the raw signal mean from all data points, EMG signals were
band-pass filtered (4th order Butterworth) with a cut-off frequency range of 20–450 Hz.
Thereafter, the signals were rectified and filtered again with a low-pass Butterworth filter
(4th order) and a cut-off frequency of 10 Hz. Finally, the signals were normalized to
the peak value of the entire measurement session for the given participant. From the
normalized signals, the mean of the entire upward acceleration phase (see above) of each
jump was calculated.
Sports 2022, 10, 74 6 of 14
Sports 2022, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 15

Figure 1. Representation of the test setup. Resistance while jumping was provided by the ropes
of the 1080 Quantum Syncro device, which also measured rope extension and retraction speed.
Participants wore a vest, to which ropes from the left and right sides were attached to the mid-back
with carabiners. To obtain vertical movement velocity, a right triangle with sides A, B, and C was
assumed to have a constant width (B) delimited by the floor-level pulley and the vest attachment
point. Using the constant width (B) and the variable rope extension length (C) at any given time
point, the angle between the floor and the rope (cos−1 CB ) was calculated. Thereafter, the vertical
velocity was calculated as sin α·sd where sd was the diagonal rope speed (i.e., ∆C
∆t ) obtained from the
1080 Quantum. Dashed lines indicate the ropes’ positions (and thus varying extension length) at the
bottom and top of a jump.
Sports 2022, 10, 74 7 of 14

2.6. Statistics
Statistical operations were performed using custom Python scripts based on the scipy,
statsmodels, and scikit_posthocs libraries. For all significance testing, alpha was set to 0.05.
The main effects of the loading conditions were assessed using one-way repeated-
measures tests (ANOVA if normal distribution was deemed probable by the Shapiro–
Wilk test; otherwise, Friedman tests). These analyses were made using the five RCMJ
(jumps 2–6) for each set; thus, n was 100 jumps (10 participants with two sets each and five
analyzed jumps per set) for each loading condition. Significant differences between loading
conditions were identified with Bonferroni (with ANOVA) or Nemenyi (with Friedman
test) post-hoc analyses. Standardized differences (effect sizes, es), which we report only in
the case of a significant effect, were calculated as the differences of means normalized to the
pooled standard deviation, and classified according to Hopkins et al. [21] as trivial (0–0.19),
small (0.2–0.59), moderate (0.6–1.19), large (1.2–1.9) very large (2–3.9), or extremely large
(≥4). Post-hoc power analyses for these comparisons, performed with G*Power software
(Version 3.1) [22], indicated that 80% statistical power was achieved for effect sizes of 0.8
and above. The statistical power for effect sizes of 0.6 was 55%.
Differences between the CMJ and the first RCMJ were assessed with repeated-measures
comparisons (t-test if normal distribution was deemed probable by the Shapiro–Wilk test;
otherwise, a Wilcoxon test). By pooling all six sets (i.e., all three loading conditions) from
all 10 participants, the n was 60 for each of these comparisons. The effect sizes for each pair
of loading conditions were calculated and interpreted as described above. Post-hoc power
analyses for these comparisons indicated that 80% statistical power was achieved for effect
sizes of 0.7 and above. The statistical power for effect sizes of 0.6 was 65%.

3. Results
Descriptive data from the three loading conditions (pooled data for RCMJ, i.e., jumps
2–6) are displayed in Table 1 as mean ± sd. Descriptive data for jumps 1, 2, and 6 of a set
(pooled from all three loading conditions) are displayed in Table 2.

Table 1. Descriptive data for the three loading conditions.

Phase Variable CON1 AEL2 AEL3

eccentric Feccmean (BW) t 2.3 ± 0.2 2.4 ± 0.2 * 2.5 ± 0.2 **
Feccpeak (BW) W 3.0 ± 0.4 3.4 ± 0.5 ** 4.1 ± 0.7 **
tFeccpeak (s) t 0.04 ± 0.01 0.04 ± 0.01 0.03 ± 0.01
RFDecc (BW/s) W 56 ± 30 74 ± 47 * 101 ± 57 **
veccmean (m/s) t 0.8 ± 0.1 0.8 ± 0.1 0.8 ± 0.1
veccpeak (m/s) t 1.6 ± 0.1 1.7 ± 0.1 * 1.7 ± 0.1 *
tecc (s) W 0.23 ± 0.05 0.25 ± 0.04 * 0.26 ± 0.05 *
concentric Fconmean (BW) t 2.3 ± 0.1 2.3 ± 0.1 2.3 ± 0.2
Pconmean (W/kg) t 2.0 ± 0.2 2.0 ± 0.2 2.0 ± 0.2
Pconpeak (W/kg) t 3.4 ± 0.3 3.4 ± 0.2 3.3 ± 0.3
vconmean (m/s) W 0.9 ± 0.1 0.9 ± 0.1 0.9 ± 0.1
vconpeak (m/s) W 1.7 ± 0.1 1.7 ± 0.1 1.7 ± 0.1
tcon (s) t 0.21 ± 0.03 0.22 ± 0.03 0.22 ± 0.03
G (%) t 80 ± 6 78 ± 4 78 ± 7
entire ground contact
VL (%) t 80 ± 5 81 ± 5 82 ± 5
VM (%) W 78 ± 6 79 ± 8 81 ± 10
Data are mean ± standard deviation, pooled for all reactive countermovement jumps (jumps 2–6 of a set)
performed under a given loading condition. CON1, AEL2, AEL3 designate three loading conditions (details in
text). For each condition, n = 100 jumps (10 participants, 2 sets each, 5 jumps per set). Fecc, vecc, tecc: force,
velocity, and duration during the eccentric phase of jumps, respectively. tFeccpeak, RFDecc: time to peak eccentric
force and the rate of force development from the onset of the eccentric phase up to peak eccentric force, respectively.
Fcon, vcon, tcon: force, velocity, and duration during the concentric phase of jumps, respectively. BW: force
variables are expressed as factors of body weight. G, VL, VM: mean muscle activation during the ground contact
phase of the muscles gastrocnemius, vastus lateralis, and vastus medialis, respectively, expressed as a percentage
of the individual session maximum for that muscle. ** indicates a significant difference and moderate effect size
compared to CON1. * indicates a significant difference and small effect size compared to CON1. Superscripts to
the right of variable names indicate whether comparisons were performed with repeated-measures t-tests (t ) or
the Wilcoxon test (W ).
Sports 2022, 10, 74 8 of 14

Table 2. Descriptive data for selected repetitions of the six-jump sets.

Phase Variable Jump 1 (CMJ) Jump 2 (RCMJ) Jump 6 (RCMJ)

eccentric Feccmean (BW) t 2.0 ± 0.2 2.4 ± 0.3 ** 2.3 ± 0.2
Feccpeak (BW) W 2.5 ± 0.3 3.9 ± 1.1 *** 3.3 ± 0.9
tFeccpeak (s) W 0.20 ± 0.06 0.03 ± 0.01 0.04 ± 0.02
RFDecc (BW/s) W 6.7 ± 2.8 95 ± 72 *** 73 ± 55
veccmean (m/s) t 0.7 ± 0.1 0.8 ± 0.1 ** 0.8 ± 0.1
veccpeak (m/s) W 1.1 ± 0.2 1.6 ± 0.1 *** 1.7 ± 0.1 *
tecc (s) W 0.22 ± 0.07 0.26 ± 0.06 ** 0.22 ± 0.07
concentric Fconmean (BW) t 2.4 ± 0.2 2.4 ± 0.2 2.2 ± 0.1
Pconmean (W/kg) t 2.1 ± 0.3 2.0 ± 0.3 1.9 ± 0.3
Pconpeak (W/kg) W 3.5 ± 0.3 3.4 ± 0.3 3.2 ± 0.3
vconmean (m/s) W 0.9 ± 0.1 0.9 ± 0.1 0.9 ± 0.1
vconpeak (m/s) W 1.7 ± 0.1 1.7 ± 0.1 1.7 ± 0.2
tcon (s) t 0.21 ± 0.03 0.21 ± 0.04 0.24 ± 0.03 **
G (%) W 23 ± 4 76 ± 11 *** 80 ± 11
entire ground contact
VL (%) W 24 ± 5 80 ± 8 *** 82 ± 8
VM (%) W 25 ± 7 76 ± 11 *** 81 ± 12 *
Data are mean ± standard deviation, pooled for all loading conditions. CMJ: countermovement jump performed
from a standstill. RCMJ: reactive countermovement jump, preceded by a flight phase. For each variable n = 60
jumps (10 participants, 3 loading conditions, 2 sets per loading condition). Fecc, vecc, tecc: force, velocity, and
duration during the eccentric phase of jumps, respectively. tFeccpeak , RFDecc: time to peak eccentric force and
the rate of force development from the onset of the eccentric phase up to peak eccentric force, respectively. Fcon,
vcon, tcon: force, velocity, and duration during the concentric phase of jumps, respectively. BW: force variables
are expressed as factors of body weight. G, VL, VM: mean muscle activation during the ground contact phase
of the muscles gastrocnemius, vastus lateralis, and vastus medialis, respectively, expressed as a percentage of
the individual session maximum for that muscle. With respect to column immediately to the left, *** indicates
a significant difference and large effect size, ** indicates a significant difference and moderate effect size, and *
indicates a significant difference and small effect size. Superscripts to the right of variable names indicate whether
comparisons were performed with repeated-measures t-tests (t ) or the Wilcoxon test (W ).

3.1. AEL and Loading Magnitude (Pooled RCMJ)

Significant effects of the loading condition were identified for eccentric force and
loading rate variables (CON1 < AEL2 < AEL3). Post-hoc analyses and effect sizes indicated
only small differences in Feccmean (es = 0.39, 0.46) and RFDecc (es = 0.40, 0.42), but moderate
differences in Feccpeak (es = 0.61, 0.73) between CON1 and AEL2 and between AEL2 and
AEL3. Differences in Feccmean , Feccpeak , and RFDecc between AEL3 and CON1 were
moderate (es: 0.77–1.14). Increases in RFDecc with the loading condition were due not only
to greater Feccpeak —there were also small effects on tFeccpeak .
Additional significant effects of the loading condition were observed for veccmean (post-
hoc analyses revealed: AEL3 < CON1 and AEL2] and veccpeak (AEL2 and AEL3 > CON1),
although differences between conditions, if significant, were small. No significant effects of
loading conditions existed for concentric kinematic or kinetic variables.
Representative force-time curves for each loading condition, highlighting differences
in Feccpeak and RFDecc, are displayed in Figure 2.
There was a significant effect on muscle activity by VM, whereby post-hoc tests
revealed greater activity for AEL3 than for CON1. However, differences between AEL3
and CON1 were small (es = 0.29). No effects of loading condition were observed on the
activity of VL or G.
 Sports
Sports 2022, 2022, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW
10, 74 9 of 14 10 of 15

Figure 2.Figure 2. Representative

Representative force-time
force-time curves
curves for for a reactive
a reactive countermovement
countermovement jumpunder
jump (RCMJ) (RCMJ) eachunder each
of the three loading conditions. CON1, AEL2, and AEL3 designate jumps with concentric loads loads of
of the three loading conditions. CON1, AEL2, and AEL3 designate jumps with concentric
of 15% of15% of body
body mass,mass, but eccentric
but eccentric loadsloads of 15%,
of 15%, 30%,30%,
and and
45%45% of body
of body mass,
mass, respectively.
respectively. TheThe bold
portion of each line (beginning at time = 0) represents the positive acceleration phase, i.e.,
bold portion of each line (beginning at time = 0) represents the positive acceleration phase, i.e., that that where
the ground reaction force exceeded body weight. The turn point (○) represents the transition from
where the ground reaction force exceeded body weight. The turn point (#) represents the transition
the braking (eccentric) phase to the propulsive (concentric) phase. Particularly noteworthy are the
from the braking (eccentric) phase to the propulsive (concentric) phase. Particularly noteworthy are
increases in eccentric peak force and decrease in time to the attainment thereof with increasing ec-
the increases in load.
centric eccentric peakthere
Further, forceare
andnodecrease in time
(significant) to the attainment
differences thereof
in concentric with increasing
force.
eccentric load. Further, there are no (significant) differences in concentric force.
There (Pooled
3.2. CMJ vs. RCMJ was a significant
Data from All effect on muscle
Loading activity by VM, whereby post-hoc tests re-
Conditions)
vealed greater activity for AEL3 than for CON1. However, differences between AEL3 and
The kinematic comparison of the first (CMJ) and second (RCMJ) jumps within sets
CON1 were small (es = 0.29). No effects of loading condition were observed on the activity
revealed a large difference in veccpeak (es = 1.74, p < 0.001) and a moderate difference in
of VL or G.
veccmean (es = 0.76, p < 0.001). In terms of kinetics, large differences (es: 1.2–1.3) were
apparent for eccentric forces and loading rates. Indeed, RCMJ displayed greater Feccmean
3.2. CMJ vs. RCMJ (Pooled Data from All Loading Conditions)
(es = 1.2, p < 0.001) and RFDecc (es = 1.3, p < 0.001). The increase in RFDecc was due to the
attainment ofThe kinematic
greater Feccpeakcomparison
(es = 1.3, pof the first
< 0.001) in (CMJ) and
less time second
(effect size(RCMJ)
on tFeccjumps within sets
peak = 1.8,
revealed
p < 0.001). a large difference in vecc peak (es = 1.74, p < 0.001) and a moderate difference in

Onvecc
the mean (eshand,
other = 0.76,tcon,
p < 0.001).
vconmean In ,terms of kinetics,
Fconmean , and Pconlarge differences (es: 1.2–1.3) were ap-
mean did not differ between
parent for eccentric forces and loading rates. Indeed,
CMJ and RCMJ. Moreover, vconpeak and Pconpeak were significantly lower (p ≤ RCMJ displayed greater
0.001)Fecc
for mean (es
= 1.2, p < 0.001) and RFDecc (es = 1.3, p < 0.001). The increase
the RCMJ, although differences were small (es = 0.35, 0.42, respectively). Representative in RFDecc was due to the
attainment
force-time curves for ofthe
greater
first, Fecc (es =last
peak and
second 1.3,jumps
p < 0.001)
fromina less time (effect size
set, highlighting on tFeccinpeak = 1.8,
differences
< 0.001).
Feccpeakpand RFDecc, are displayed in Figure 3.
On the
Differences other
in the EMG hand, tcon,ofvcon
activity mean, Fcon
all three musclesmean,were
and Pcon (fordid
largemean notesdiffer
each, = 1.9),between
with CMJ
and RCMJ. Moreover, vcon and Pcon were
muscle activation being significantly greater (p < 0.001) for the RCMJ.
peak peak significantly lower (p ≤ 0.001) for the
RCMJ, although differences were small (es = 0.35, 0.42, respectively). Representative force-
time curves for the first, second and last jumps from a set, highlighting differences in Fec-
cpeak and RFDecc, are displayed in Figure 3.
Differences in the EMG activity of all three muscles were large (for each, es = 1.9),
with muscle activation being significantly greater (p < 0.001) for the RCMJ.
Sports 2022,
Sports 10, x74FOR PEER REVIEW
2022, 10, 1110ofof 15
14

Figure 3.
Figure Representative force-time
3. Representative force-time curves
curvesforfor the
the first
first (countermovement
(countermovementjump jumpfrom
fromaa standstill,
standstill,
CMJ),
CMJ), as wellwell as
asthe
thesecond
secondand
andlast
last (reactive
(reactive countermovement
countermovement jumps,
jumps, RCMJ)
RCMJ) jumps
jumps fromfrom a six-
a six-jump
jump
set. Theset.bold
The portion
bold portion ofline
of each each(beginning
line (beginning
at timeat=time = 0) represents
0) represents the positive
the positive acceleration
acceleration phase,
phase, i.e.,
i.e., that that where
where the ground
the ground reaction
reaction force force exceeded
exceeded bodybody weight.
weight. The turn
The turn point
point (○) represents
(#) represents the
the transition from the braking (eccentric) phase to the propulsive (concentric) phase. Of note are
transition from the braking (eccentric) phase to the propulsive (concentric) phase. Of note are the
the generally greater eccentric forces and particularly the earlier and greater force peak for jumps 2
generally greater eccentric forces and particularly the earlier and greater force peak for jumps 2 and 6
and 6 (RCMJ) compared to jump 1 (CMJ). There is also a slight but clear decline in eccentric peak
(RCMJ)
force from compared to jump
jump 2 to jump 6.
1 (CMJ). Thereforces
Concentric is alsodoa slight but clear
not differ decline
between in eccentric
jumps peakare
1 and 2, but force from
slightly
jump 2 to jump
lower for jump 6. 6. Concentric forces do not differ between jumps 1 and 2, but are slightly lower for
jump 6.
4. Discussion
4. Discussion
4.1.
4.1. AEL
AEL and
and Loading
Loading Magnitude
Magnitude
In accordance with
In accordance with our ourhypothesis,
hypothesis,increasing
increasingthe the external
external downward
downward force
force during
during the
the downward phase of repeated jumping led to a greater velocity
downward phase of repeated jumping led to a greater velocity at the onset of the brakingat the onset of the brak-
ing phase.
phase. AsAsthethe braking
braking distance
distance remainedessentially
remained essentiallythe
thesame
sameregardless
regardless of of the
the loading
loading
condition,
condition, greater
greater peak
peak andand mean
mean forces—as
forces—as well well as
as rates
rates ofof force
force development—were
development—were
attained
attained inin the
theeccentric
eccentricphasephase byby accentuating
accentuating eccentric
eccentric loading.
loading. TheseThese variables
variables increasedin-
creased proportionally
proportionally to the increase
to the increase in externalin external
eccentriceccentric load in
load in AEL2 andAEL2
AEL3. andThisAEL3.is inThis
line
is in line
with the with the majority
majority of previous of previous studies investigating
studies investigating AEL and AEL lowerand
bodylower body exercises
exercises [6,7,9,17].
[6,7,9,17].
Additional eccentric load in the two AEL conditions was double or triple that of the
Additional
control condition eccentric
(where it load
wasin15% the body
two AEL conditions
weight). was doubleanorincrease
This represented triple thatof 13of and
the
control
26% in condition
total load (where
for AEL2 it was
and 15%AEL3, body weight). This
respectively. represented
These were closeantoincrease
the 12%ofand 13 and
31%
26% in total in
differences load for
Fecc AEL2
peak and AEL3,
observed respectively.
for these These were
two conditions, close to the
respectively, which12%suggests
and 31%a
differences
close relationship peak observed
in Feccbetween for these
total load two landing
and peak conditions, respectively,
force. Differenceswhich suggests
in eccentric mean a
close
force relationship
were, however, between
smaller total load9%,
(4 and andrespectively).
peak landingAlthough
force. Differences in eccentric
RFDecc increased by a
larger force
mean degree on average
were, however, (by smaller
34 and 81%),
(4 and the9%,
variation among participants
respectively). Although RFD was eccsubstantial.
increased
Thus,
by the overall
a larger degreeeffects on RFD
on average (byecc34must be interpreted
and 81%), as small
the variation among forparticipants
AEL2 and moderate
was sub-
for AEL3.
stantial. The changes
Thus, the overallin EMG
effects activity
on RFD that
ecc occurred
must be with increasing
interpreted eccentric
as small for loads
AEL2 wereand
also small.for AEL3. The changes in EMG activity that occurred with increasing eccentric
moderate
loadsHighweremechanical
also small. loads are in general recognized to stimulate muscle hypertrophy [23]
as well as positive
High mechanical adaptations
loads are to in
passive
generaltissue [24,25]. The
recognized performance-related
to stimulate benefits of
muscle hypertrophy
[23] as well as positive adaptations to passive tissue [24,25]. The performance-relatedjumps,
high eccentric loads specifically, such as during the braking phase of repetitive squat ben-
efits of high eccentric loads specifically, such as during the braking phase of repetitive
Sports 2022, 10, 74 11 of 14

were demonstrated in a novel study by Hori et al. These authors suggested that eccentric
loading during jump training plays an important role for improving concentric force at high
movement velocities, whereas this is not the case for improvements at slower velocities [26].
Thus, based on the observation that the investigated AEL protocols predominantly increase
eccentric variables, this method may be best suited for stimulating structural adaptations
or high-velocity concentric force.
In the current study, there was no evidence that increasing the eccentric load helped
enhance concentric muscle output. This was in contrast to some previous studies [9–11,27].
One factor that may have played a role in the present study, in contrast to previous
research, is that our jumps were performed with an additional concentric load, which
was unavoidable with the setup we employed. Another issue to consider is that, despite
performing three familiarization sets prior to data acquisition, participants had not been
otherwise exposed to AEL in previous sessions. Nonetheless, there was also no apparent
detriment to concentric neuromuscular performance (force, velocity, or power) associated
with greater eccentric loading in the studied athletes.
During eccentric muscle work, including SSC, muscle-tendon systems function some-
where along the continuum between springs and shock absorbers [1] depending on the
desired outcome and also on the external environmental factors. As mentioned in the
introduction, augmented eccentric loading—whether by AEL or, for example, by increas-
ing the drop height of drop jumps—does not increase concentric force or power per se.
The potentiation of concentric SSC output is dependent on strength boundaries and the
neuromuscular system’s ability to modulate stiffness within these boundaries so as to
better store and release recoil energy (spring function), while protecting tissues (shock
absorber function) from overload damage [2]. Apparently, the strength and/or the experi-
ence level of the current cohort did not facilitate the potentiation of concentric output. To
which degree this might change over time or differ for other athlete populations requires
further investigation.

4.2. CMJ vs. RCMJ

Based on the comparison between the first, non-reactive CMJ and the second RCMJ
within the same set, it is clear that performing reactive countermovement jumps provides
a greater mechanical and neuromuscular stimulus during the eccentric phase than single
countermovement jumps from a standing start. For example, reactive jump execution
augmented Feccpeak by 40% in CON1 and by 79% in AEL3. In comparison, AEL3 increased
Feccpeak by only 9% in CMJ and 40% in RCMJ (Figure 4). This confirms our hypothesis that
reactive jumps are at least as effective as AEL for enhancing eccentric mechanical stimuli.
This finding is supported by the study of Aboodarda et al. [6], the results of which suggest
that manipulating drop height during drop jumps achieves similar or greater enhancements
to eccentric kinetic variables (force, loading rate) as AEL.
On the other hand, the higher forces and loading rates in the stretch phase did not
enhance, but rather inhibited muscular output in the shortening phase, as seen in reduced
concentric peak velocity and power. Although AEL did not enhance concentric output in
the current study either, our hypothesis of equal effectivity for reactive jumps and AEL
did not hold true. Thus, reactive countermovement jumps may enhance eccentric loading
and improve braking ability more effectively than countermovement jumps starting on the
ground, with or without AEL. However, reactive jumps were less effective for maintaining
or enhancing concentric variables or otherwise facilitating greater SSC performance in the
studied athlete cohort.
 Sports 2022, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 15
Sports 2022, 10, 74 12 of 14

Figure
Figure Differential
4. 4. Differentialeffects ofof
effects accentuated
accentuatedeccentric
eccentric loading
loading (AEL)
(AEL)and
andofof
countermovement
countermovement jumps
jumps
(CMJ)
(CMJ) executed
executed inin a reactive
a reactive manner
manner (RCMJ)
(RCMJ) ononpeak
peakeccentric
eccentricforce.
force.The
Thelabels
labels‘no
‘noAEL’
AEL’and
and‘AEL’
‘AEL’
represent the CON1 and AEL3 conditions described in the text. The effects of
represent the CON1 and AEL3 conditions described in the text. The effects of AEL are shown from AEL are shown from
left to right for both CMJ and RCMJ. The effects of reactive execution are shown
left to right for both CMJ and RCMJ. The effects of reactive execution are shown from front to back.from front to back.
The
The data
data suggest
suggest that
that reactive
reactive executionaffects
execution affects peak
peak eccentricforce
eccentric forcemore
more than
than AEL,
AEL, butbut that
that the
the
effects are additive when the two methods are combined. This was the case for other eccentric ki-
effects are additive when the two methods are combined. This was the case for other eccentric kinetic
netic variables as well.
variables as well.
On the other hand, the higher forces and loading rates in the stretch phase did not
4.3. Limitations
enhance, but rather inhibited muscular output in the shortening phase, as seen in reduced
The main limitations of the current study were that jumps were performed with an
concentric peak velocity and power. Although AEL did not enhance concentric output in
additional concentric load, and that participants (despite familiarization in the measure-
the current
ment session)study
were either, our hypothesis
not otherwise of equal
accustomed effectivity
to AEL. Basedforon reactive
previousjumps andand
research AEL
did not hold true. Thus, reactive countermovement jumps may enhance eccentric
observations from the field, both of these may have precluded positive effects of one or bothloading
andprotocols
AEL improve on braking ability
concentric more output.
muscle effectively than countermovement
A further limitation is that jumps starting on
the investigated
the ground, with or without AEL. However, reactive jumps were less effective
protocol was only possible on electronically controlled devices that allowed concentric for main-
taining or enhancing concentric variables or otherwise facilitating greater
and eccentric loads to be programmed separately. However, technology like the device SSC perfor-
we
mance inisthe
employed studied more
becoming athletecommon
cohort. in strength and conditioning settings—particularly
for competitive athletes.
4.3. Limitations
5. Conclusions
The main limitations of the current study were that jumps were performed with an
additional concentric
In conclusion, load, and that
the investigated AELparticipants (despite familiarization
protocols successfully in the measure-
augmented braking forces
inment session)
relatively were not otherwise
unaccustomed accustomed
athletes. For to AEL.
the two AEL Based on
conditions, theprevious
eccentricresearch
forces andand
observations
rates from the field,
of force development both of these
increased may have
in relation precluded
to additional positiveload.
eccentric effects
Noof acute
one or
affects, either
both AEL positive on
protocols or negative,
concentricwere apparent
muscle forAconcentric
output. variables.isThis
further limitation thatstudy also
the investi-
shows
gatedthat the reactive
protocol was only execution
possibleofonjumps increasedcontrolled
electronically eccentric forces,
devicesloading rates and
that allowed con-
muscle
centricactivity more than
and eccentric AEL.
loads to Nonetheless,
be programmed the effects on theHowever,
separately. eccentric kinetics
technologyof reactive
like the
execution
device we and AEL wereisadditive
employed becoming (Figures 2–4). Thus,
more common in in light ofand
strength the conditioning
complexity associated
settings—
with some AEL
particularly forprotocols,
competitivesetsathletes.
of repetitive (reactive) CMJ may be more pragmatic than
AEL for augmenting eccentric kinetic variables and neuromuscular stimuli during training.
Sports 2022, 10, 74 13 of 14

Supplementary Materials: The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https:
//www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/sports10050074/s1, Video S1: Exemplary jump set.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, J.S. and F.L.; methodology, M.G., J.S. and F.L.; formal
analysis, M.G.; investigation, M.G., B.G, and F.L.; data curation, M.G.; writing—original draft
preparation, M.G., J.S. and F.L.; writing—review and editing, M.G.; visualization, M.G.; supervision,
M.G. and F.L.; project administration, M.G. and B.G; subject recruitment, B.G. All authors have read
and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration
of Helsinki and approved by the Institutional Review Board of the Swiss Federal Institute of Sport,
Magglingen, Switzerland.
Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Acknowledgments: The authors thank the participants of this study for their interest and cooperation.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Lindstedt, S.L.; LaStayo, P.C.; Reich, T.E. When active muscles lengthen: Properties and consequences of eccentric contractions.
News Physiol. Sci. 2001, 16, 256–261. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
2. Taube, W.; Leukel, C.; Gollhofer, A. How neurons make us jump: The neural control of stretch-shortening cycle movements. Exerc.
Sport Sci. Rev. 2012, 40, 106–115. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
3. Suchomel, T.J.; Wagle, J.P.; Douglas, J.; Taber, C.B.; Harden, M.; Haff, G.G.; Stone, M.H. Implementing Eccentric Resistance
Training-Part 1: A Brief Review of Existing Methods. J. Funct. Morphol. Kinesiol. 2019, 4, 38. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
4. Peng, H.T. Changes in biomechanical properties during drop jumps of incremental height. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2011, 25,
2510–2518. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
5. Peng, H.T.; Song, C.Y.; Wallace, B.J.; Kernozek, T.W.; Wang, M.H.; Wang, Y.H. Effects of Relative Drop Heights of Drop Jump
Biomechanics in Male Volleyball Players. Int. J. Sports Med. 2019, 40, 863–870. [CrossRef]
6. Aboodarda, S.J.; Byrne, J.M.; Samson, M.; Wilson, B.D.; Mokhtar, A.H.; Behm, D.G. Does performing drop jumps with additional
eccentric loading improve jump performance? J. Strength Cond. Res. 2014, 28, 2314–2323. [CrossRef]
7. Aboodarda, S.J.; Page, P.A.; Behm, D.G. Eccentric and Concentric Jumping Performance during Augmented Jumps with Elastic
Resistance: A Meta-Analysis. Int. J. Sports Phys. Ther. 2015, 10, 839–849.
8. Castro, A.H.; Zangakis, D.; Moir, G.L. The Effects of Accentuated Eccentric Loading on Mechanical Variables and Agonist
Electromyography during the Bench Press. Sports 2020, 8, 79. [CrossRef]
9. Merrigan, J.J.; Tufano, J.J.; Falzone, M.; Jones, M.T. Effectiveness of Accentuated Eccentric Loading: Contingent on Concentric
Load. Int. J. Sports Physiol. Perform. 2021, 16, 66–72. [CrossRef]
10. Aboodarda, S.J.; Yusof, A.; Abu Osman, N.A.; Thompson, M.W.; Mokhtar, A.H. Enhanced performance with elastic resistance
during the eccentric phase of a countermovement jump. Int. J. Sports Physiol. Perform. 2013, 8, 181–187. [CrossRef]
11. Sheppard, J.; Newton, R.; McGuigan, M. The effect of accentuated eccentric load on jump kinetics in high-performance volleyball
players. Int. J. Sports Sci. Coach. 2007, 2, 267–273. [CrossRef]
12. Taber, C.B.; Morris, J.R.; Wagle, J.P.; Merrigan, J.J. Accentuated Eccentric Loading in the Bench Press: Considerations for Eccentric
and Concentric Loading. Sports 2021, 9, 54. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
13. Sheppard, J.M.; Young, K. Using additional eccentric loads to increase concentric performance in the bench throw. J. Strength
Cond. Res. 2010, 24, 2853–2856. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
14. Moore, C.A.; Weiss, L.W.; Schilling, B.K.; Fry, A.C.; Li, Y. Acute effects of augmented eccentric loading on jump squat performance.
J. Strength Cond. Res. 2007, 21, 372–377. [CrossRef]
15. Bridgeman, L.A.; McGuigan, M.R.; Gill, N.D.; Dulson, D.K. The Effects of Accentuated Eccentric Loading on the Drop Jump
Exercise and the Subsequent Postactivation Potentiation Response. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2017, 31, 1620–1626. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
16. Ojasto, T.; Hakkinen, K. Effects of different accentuated eccentric load levels in eccentric-concentric actions on acute neuromuscular,
maximal force, and power responses. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2009, 23, 996–1004. [CrossRef]
17. Wagle, J.P.; Taber, C.B.; Carroll, K.M.; Cunanan, A.J.; Sams, M.L.; Wetmore, A.; Bingham, G.E.; DeWeese, B.H.; Sato, K.; Stuart,
C.A.; et al. Repetition-to-Repetition Differences Using Cluster and Accentuated Eccentric Loading in the Back Squat. Sports 2018,
6, 59. [CrossRef]
18. Lates, A.D.; Greer, B.K.; Wagle, J.P.; Taber, C.B. Accentuated Eccentric Loading and Cluster Set Configurations in the Bench Press.
J. Strength Cond. Res. 2020. [CrossRef]
Sports 2022, 10, 74 14 of 14

19. Lam, W.K.; Jia, S.W.; Baker, J.S.; Ugbolue, U.C.; Gu, Y.; Sun, W. Effect of consecutive jumping trials on metatarsophalangeal, ankle,
and knee biomechanics during take-off and landing. Eur. J. Sport Sci. 2021, 21, 53–60. [CrossRef]
20. Horwath, O.; Paulsen, G.; Esping, T.; Seynnes, O.; Olsson, M.C. Isokinetic resistance training combined with eccentric overload
improves athletic performance and induces muscle hypertrophy in young ice hockey players. J. Sci. Med. Sport 2019, 22, 821–826.
[CrossRef]
21. Hopkins, W.G.; Marshall, S.W.; Batterham, A.M.; Hanin, J. Progressive statistics for studies in sports medicine and exercise
science. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 2009, 41, 3–13. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
22. Faul, F.; Erdfelder, E.; Buchner, A.; Lang, A.G. Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression
analyses. Behav. Res. Methods 2009, 41, 1149–1160. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
23. Wackerhage, H.; Schoenfeld, B.J.; Hamilton, D.L.; Lehti, M.; Hulmi, J.J. Stimuli and sensors that initiate skeletal muscle
hypertrophy following resistance exercise. J. Appl. Physiol. (1985) 2019, 126, 30–43. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
24. Harris-Love, M.O.; Gollie, J.M.; Keogh, J.W.L. Eccentric Exercise: Adaptations and Applications for Health and Performance. J.
Funct. Morphol. Kinesiol. 2021, 6, 96. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
25. Hong, A.R.; Kim, S.W. Effects of Resistance Exercise on Bone Health. Endocrinol. Metab. 2018, 33, 435–444. [CrossRef]
26. Hori, N.; Newton, R.U.; Kawamori, N.; McGuigan, M.R.; Andrews, W.A.; Chapman, D.W.; Nosaka, K. Comparison of weighted
jump squat training with and without eccentric braking. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2008, 22, 54–65. [CrossRef]
27. Wagle, J.P.; Cunanan, A.J.; Carroll, K.M.; Sams, M.L.; Wetmore, A.; Bingham, G.E.; Taber, C.B.; DeWeese, B.H.; Sato, K.; Stuart,
C.A.; et al. Accentuated Eccentric Loading and Cluster Set Configurations in the Back Squat: A Kinetic and Kinematic Analysis. J.
Strength Cond. Res. 2021, 35, 420–427. [CrossRef]