4.1. Achilles Tendon Strain
The present findings indicate that plyometric training performed on a mini-trampoline or ground surface decreases tendon strain in children. Furthermore, Post-Hoc analysis revealed that the strain decreased for both experimental groups at 0°, 15° positions for all levels of effort.
However, the ANOVAs showed non-statistically significant three-way interaction effects (P > 0.05) on tendon strain for all angular position tests.
The results for AT strain at neutral position (0o) are presented in
Figure 2. The ANOVA indicated a significant main effect of time (F1,33 = 20,434 P = 0.001) and significant “Group X Time” interaction effect on strain at the neutral position (0°) (F 2,33 = 3,531, P = 0.04). Post-Hoc analysis revealed a significant decline in AT strain for the two experimental groups, but not for the control group. Furthermore, there was a significant main effect for “Level of effort” and interaction effect for “Level of Effort X time” on strain (F 4,132 = 929,763, F 4,132 = 9,762, P = 0.001, respectively). Post-Hoc analysis showed that strain significantly decreased for the TPLG and GPLG but not for the control group. There were no statistically significant effects for “Effort Level X Group” (F 8,132 = 0,584, P = 0.539).
Mean Changes in Tendon Strain Using Ramp Isometric Contraction in the 0°angle of ankle, in 5 Different Force Levels (20-40-60-80-100%) After Plyometric Training for Trampoline (TPLG), Ground (GPLG), and Control (CG) Group, Before (PRE) and After (POST) the Training *P < 0.05.
For the test performed at 15° ankle plantar flexion, the ANOVA indicated a statistically significant “Time” and “Level of Effort” main effect (F 1,33 = 7,250, F 4,132 = 881,153, P = 0.011, P = 0.001, respectively). Post-Hoc analysis showed a decreased strain after training for both experimental groups but not for the control group. There were no statistically significant effects of “Group X Time” and “Effort Level X Group” (F 2,33 =1,815, F 8,132 = 0,296 P = 0.179, P = 0.611, respectively), as well as for the “Level of Effort X Time” (F 4,132 = 0,952, P = 0.386).
For the -15° ankle angle (dorsiflexion), the ANOVA also showed a statistically significant effect of “Time” (F 1,33 = 18,899, P = 0.001) and “Group X Time” (F 2,33 = 3,466, P = 0.043) on strain. Post-Hoc analysis showed that only the two experimental groups showed a decreased strain after training. There were also significant effects for “Level of Effort” (F 4,132 = 900,253, P = 0,001) and “Effort Level X Group” (F 8,132 = 5,141, P = 0,004), and for “Level of Effort X Time” (F 4,132 =11,579, P = 0,001). Post-Hoc analysis revealed that the strain decreased for both experimental groups for all levels of effort but there was no difference in AT strain between two experimental groups whereas strain was unchanged for control group
4.2. Ankle Joint Torque and RTD
The main findings of this study showed that both training groups had increased PAT and RTD, for all angular positions, post training. Furthermore, statistically significant increases in PAT (30%) and RTD (14%) (P < 0.05) were found for the TPLG while for the GPLG group the increase was 19 % and 8% for PAT and RTD, respectively (P < 0.05).
The results for recorded torque for all angular position tests before and after training are presented in
Table 2. For all angular position tests, the ANOVA designs showed a statistically significant main effect of Time (for neutral position, F 1,33 = 32,063, P = 0,001, , for 15° ankle plantarflexion, F 1,33 = 39,321 P = 0,001 and for -15° ankle dorsiflexion, F1,33 = 8,874, P = 0.004 ) and a ‘Group X Time” interaction effect (for neutral position, F 2,33 = 11,825, P = 0,001, for 15° ankle plantarflexion, F 2,33 = 12,517, P = 0,001 and for -15° ankle dorsiflexion, F 2,33 = 3,159, P = 0.056 ). Post-Hoc analysis showed that two experimental groups improved joint torque after training (P < 0.05) while no change for the control group was observed. For the neutral position test, the TPLG showed a greater torque increase than the GPLG after training but this increase had no statistical significance.
| PEAK TORQUE (Nm) | Rate of Torque Development, Nm.sec-1 |
|---|
| PRE | POST | PRE | POST |
|---|
| Ankle Joint Angle 0° | | | | |
| TPLG | 31,23 ± 10,18 | 42,58* ± 9,53 | 62,18 ± 9,082 | 70,31* ± 10,72 |
| GPLG | 31,5 ± 9,05 | 37,72* ± 6,79 | 61,29 ± 9,652 | 65,63* ± 12,18 |
| GPLG | 31,59 ± 10,85 | 31,04 ± 8,95 | 61,45 ± 4,797 | 62,54 ± 9,611 |
| Ankle Joint Angle 15° | | | | |
| TPLG | 23,11 ± 7,31 | 34,39* ± 7,6 | 57,52 ± 12,344 | 65,37* ± 9,656 |
| GPLG | 23,8 ± 6,19 | 30,80* ± 7,43 | 56,76 ± 10,849 | 61,75* ± 11,42 |
| GPLG | 23,12 ± 5,4 | 22,82 ± 4,51 | 57,29 ± 3,920 | 57,71 ± 12,85 |
| Ankle Joint Angle -15° | | | | |
| TPLG | 38,16 ± 13,99 | 49,95* ± 8,66 | 65,68 ± 8,947 | 75,13* ± 12,21 |
| GPLG | 37,53 ± 18,37 | 42,46*± 7,02 | 65,29 ± 8,747 | 70,37* ± 12,26 |
| GPLG | 37,19 ± 7,84 | 37,39 ± 8,4 | 65,18 ± 6,437 | 65,73 ± 10,42 |
For the RTD measurements, there was a non-statistically significant “Group X Time” effect (F 2,33 = 1,33, P = 0,278) for the neutral position test. In contrast, the ANOVA showed a statistically significant “Group X Time” interaction effect on RTD at 15° plantarflexion (F 2,33 = 6,195 P = 0.019) and 15° dorsiflexion angle (F 2,33 = 6,523, P = 0.03). Post-Hoc analysis showed that there was no difference in RTD between two groups, TPLG and GPLG after training in three different ankle angles. No other significant interactions were found (P > 0.05) (
Figures 3 and
4).
Mean changes in tendon strain using ramp isometric contraction in the 15° angle of ankle, in 5 different force levels (20-40-60-80-100%) after plyometric training for Trampoline (TPLG), Ground (GPLG), and Control (CG) groups, before (PRE) and after (POST) the training *P < 0.05.
Mean changes in tendon strain using ramp isometric contraction in the -15° angle of ankle, in 5 different force levels (20-40-60-80-100%) after plyometric training for Trampoline (TPLG), Ground (GPLG), and Control (CG) groups, before (PRE) and after (POST) the training *P < 0.05.