5种不同计算纵跳高度方法的比较  

Comparison of Five Methods for Calculating Vertical Jump Height

作　　者：万祥林 李秋捷[1] 杨辰[1] 刘卉[1] 曲峰[1] 

机构地区：[1]北京体育大学,北京100084

出　　处：《北京体育大学学报》2017年第11期62-66,85,共6页Journal of Beijing Sport University

基　　金：国家高科技研究发展计划(863计划军口)课题(编号:2015AAXXX);中央高校基本科研业务费专项资金资助课题(编号:2016BS013)

摘　　要：目的:以重心法获得的纵跳高度作为参照标准,比较叉腰纵跳和摆臂纵跳情况下不同高度计算方法之间的差异。方法:采集20名男性受试者叉腰纵跳和摆臂纵跳时的运动学和地面反力数据,分别采用重心法、腰点法、腾空时间法、离地速度法、地面反力积分法计算纵跳高度。结果:5种方法所得纵跳高度之间均具有显著差异(P<0.001);与重心法相比,其他4种方法所得结果误差从小到大依次为腰点法、地面反力积分法、腾空时间法和离地速度法;4种方法计算高度与重心法计算的结果具有较好的一致性,且高度相关(0.914≤r≤0.974)。结论:腰点法、腾空时间法、离地速度法、地面反力积分法在计算纵跳高度时均存在不同程度的系统误差,但在一定程度上几种方法仍可替代重心法,且计算的结果可用于实际纵跳高度的预测。推荐使用腰点法和地面反力积分法计算纵跳高度。Objective： Taking center of mass（ COM） method to get the vertical jump height as reference standard,the differences of calculating vertical jump height methods of vertical jump with arms akimbo or arms swing were compared. Methods： The kinematics and ground reaction force data of 20 men＇s vertical jump with arms akimbo and arms swing was collected. And the vertical jump height was calculated by COM,waist point（ L45）,flight time（ FT）,velocity of the COM at take-off（ TOV）,and double integration of vertical reaction force（ DIF）. Results： The heights from these five methods were significantly different（ P 〈0. 001）. Comparing with COM,the error of L45 was the smallest one,followed by DIF,FT,and TOV. The calculated heights of the four methods were in good agreement with that calculated by COM,and highly correlated（ 0. 914 ≤r≤0. 974）. Conclusions：L45,DIF,FT,and TOV have some systematic errors in calculating vertical height,but to some extent,they can replace COM,and the calculated results can be used to predict the actual vertical height. We recommend to use L45 and DIF to calculate vertical jump height.

关 键 词：纵跳 高度 重心 腾空时间 地面反作用力 离地速度 

分 类 号：G804.63[文化科学—运动人体科学]