Countermovement Vertical Jump Height Research Articles

Relationship Between Countermovement Jump Performance and Multijoint Isometric and Dynamic Tests of Strength

The purpose of this investigation was to determine the relationship between countermovement vertical jump (CMJ) performance and various methods used to assess isometric and dynamic multijoint strength. Twelve NCAA Division I-AA male football and track and field athletes (age, 19.83 +/- 1.40 years; height, 179.10 +/- 4.56 cm; mass, 90.08 +/- 14.81 kg; percentage of body fat, 11.85 +/- 5.47%) participated in 2 testing sessions. The first session involved 1 repetition maximum (1RM) (kg) testing in the squat and power clean. During the second session, peak force (N), relative peak force (N x kg(-1)), peak power (W), relative peak power (W x kg(-1)), peak velocity (m x s(-1)), and jump height (meters) in a CMJ, and peak force and rate of force development (RFD) (N x s(-1)) in a maximal isometric squat (ISO squat) and maximal isometric mid-thigh pull (ISO mid-thigh) were assessed. Significant correlations (P < or = 0.05) were found when comparing relative 1RMs (1RM/body mass), in both the squat and power clean, to relative CMJ peak power, CMJ peak velocity, and CMJ height. No significant correlations existed between the 4 measures of absolute strength, which did not account for body mass (squat 1RM, power clean 1RM, ISO squat peak force, and ISO mid-thigh peak force) when compared to CMJ peak velocity and CMJ height. In conclusion, multijoint dynamic tests of strength (squat 1RM and power clean 1RM), expressed relative to body mass, are most closely correlated with CMJ performance. These results suggest that increasing maximal strength relative to body mass can improve performance in explosive lower body movements. The squat and power clean, used in a concurrent strength and power training program, are recommended for optimizing lower body power.

Time Course of Changes in Vertical-Jumping Ability After Static Stretching

To examine the acute effects of static stretching on countermovement vertical-jump (CMVJ) ability and monitor the time course of any stretch-induced changes. Once familiarized, 16 experienced jumpers completed 2 testing sessions in a randomized order. Each session consisted of a general warm-up, a pretreatment CMVJ assessment, a treatment, and multiple posttreatment CMVJ assessments. One treatment included lower-body static stretching, and the second treatment, involving no stretching, was the control. Posttreatment CMVJ measures occurred immediately, 3, 6, 12, and 24 minutes posttreatment. Stretching consisted of 3 static-stretching exercises, with each exercise repeated 3 times and each repetition held for 30 s. Prestretch CMVJ height equaled 47.1 (+/- 9.7) cm. CMVJ height immediately poststretch was 45.7 (+/- 9.2) cm, and it remained depressed during the 24-min follow-up period. Pre-no-stretch CMVJ height was 48.4 (+/- 9.8) cm, whereas immediately post-no-stretch CMVJ height equaled 46.8 (+/- 9.5) cm, and as in the stretch treatment, post-no-stretch CMVJ height remained lower than pre-no-stretch values.Although there was a significant main effect of time (P = .005), indicating that CMVJ was lower and remained impaired after both treatments, no significant interaction effect (P = .749) was observed. In comparison with the no-activity control, static stretching resulted in similar reductions in CMVJ ability when examined over the same time course, so athletes preparing for CMVJ should avoid periods of inactivity, as well as static stretching.