PNF and Movement 2024; 22(3): 357-367
https://doi.org/10.21598/JKPNFA.2024.22.3.357
Center of Pressure Displacement and Ground Reaction Forces According to Lunge Exercise Type and Arm Posture
Jong-Im Won, P.T., Ph.D.†
Dept. of Physical Therapy, College of Medical Science, Jeonju University
Correspondence to: †Jong-Im Won (ptwon@jj.ac.kr)
Received: September 29, 2024; Revised: October 22, 2024; Accepted: October 25, 2024; Published online: December 31, 2024.
© Korea Proprioceptive Neuromuscular Facilitation Association. All rights reserved.

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Abstract
Purpose: The aim of this study was to compare the center of pressure (COP) displacement and vertical ground reaction force (VGRF) of forward versus side lunges with different arm positions.
Methods: Twenty-one healthy adults participated in the study. The area and velocity of COP and mean and peak VGRF were measured using a force plate during static forward lunges with arms raised (SFL-AR), static forward lunges with hands on hips (SFL-HH), static side lunges with arms raised (SSL-AR), and static side lunges with hands on hips (SSL-HH). All participants performed seven repetitions of each type of lunge, and measurements for the middle five repetitions were included in the data analysis.
Results: The area, path length, velocity, and deviation X of the COP were significantly higher for the SSL-AR than for the SFL-AR and SFL-HH groups (p < .01). Additionally, the area, path length, velocity, and deviation X of the COP were significantly higher for the SSL-HH group than for the SFL-AR and SFL-HH groups (p < .01). The normalized mean GRF and normalized peak GRF were significantly higher during SSL-AR than during SFL-HH (p < .01). Moreover, the normalized mean and normalized peak GRF were significantly higher during SSL-HH than during SFL-AR and SFL-HH (p < .01).
Conclusion: Static side lunges are more dynamic and faster than static forward lunges. Furthermore, static side lunges require greater weight bearing than static forward lunges. These findings suggest that static forward lunges should be implemented before static side lunges when performing dynamic balance training and closed-chain rehabilitation of the lower extremities.
Keywords: Arms postures, Biomechanical phenomena, Forward lunge, Side lunge

This Article


Services
Social Network Service

e-submission

Search for

Archives