Show simple item record

dc.contributor.supervisor Singer, Jonathan (Kinesiology and Recreation Management) Leiter, Jeffrey (Kinesiology and Recreation Management) en_US
dc.contributor.author Bellemare, Alixandra
dc.date.accessioned 2019-09-17T17:53:56Z
dc.date.available 2019-09-17T17:53:56Z
dc.date.issued 2019 en_US
dc.date.submitted 2019-09-13T21:20:29Z en
dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/1993/34288
dc.description.abstract PROBLEM: Lower limb injury rates are on the rise in conjunction with increased leisure activity participation. These injuries can occur due to contact, or due to an individual’s movement. Injury risk screening has become more prevalent due to this rise in injury rates, but there is no general consensus in the current literature about how an individual’s movement will change when performing multiple jumps or landing tasks, as well as when in a fatigued state. This is important as these tests may better correlate with real-life task execution in practice and competition. PURPOSE: To assess the biomechanics of individuals performing bilateral and unilateral consecutive jump tasks pre- and post-fatigue, and to determine if there are any changes to these movements. METHODS: A protocol consisting of consecutive bilateral counter movement jumps (CMJ) and consecutive forward moving single foot jumps (FMSFJ) was assessed pre- and post-fatigue in a healthy athletic population. RESULTS: Main effects of jump type and fatigue were found in 13 and 8 of the 16 variables, respectively. Participants landed in a less flexed position at the trunk, hip, knee, and ankle in the FMSFJ compared to the CMJ, as well as less flexed in both jump protocols post-fatigue, at initial contact and peak flexion. Participants also showed more hip and knee abduction at peak landing in the CMJ protocol, and in pre-fatigue conditions. CONCLUSIONS: Comparing the CMJ and FMSFJ protocols, data suggest the landings produced in the CMJ are less risky, as these jumps are performed with larger peak joint angles in the sagittal plane. However, due to potential greater risk with the FMSFJ, this jump protocol may be better for assessing future injury risk in an athletic population, while the CMJ protocol may be better for assessing participant sensitivity to fatigue. en_US
dc.subject Injury en_US
dc.subject Injury prevention en_US
dc.subject Lower limb en_US
dc.subject Movement assessment en_US
dc.title The effects of fatigue on consecutive unilateral and bilateral jump task execution en_US
dc.degree.discipline Kinesiology and Recreation Management en_US
dc.contributor.examiningcommittee Glazebrook, Cheryl (Kinesiology and Recreation Management) Peeler, Jason (Human Anatomy and Cell Science) en_US
dc.degree.level Master of Science (M.Sc.) en_US
dc.description.note February 2020 en_US


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

View Statistics