Increase In Jump Height Research Articles

Can PAPE-Induced Increases in Jump Height Be Explained by Jumping Kinematics?

Can PAPE-Induced Increases in Jump Height Be Explained by Jumping Kinematics?

Relationship Between Relative Net Vertical Impulse and Jump Height in Jump Squats Performed to Various Squat Depths and With Various Loads

The purpose of the current investigation was to determine the relationship between relative net vertical impulse (net vertical impulse (VI)) and jump height in the jump squat (JS) going to different squat depths and utilizing various loads. Ten males with two years of jumping experience participated in this investigation (Age: 21.8 ± 1.9 y; Height: 176.9 ± 5.2 cm; Body Mass: 79.0 ± 7.1 kg, 1RM: 131.8 ± 29.5 kg, 1RM/BM: 1.66 ± 0.27). Subjects performed a series of static jumps (SJS) and countermovement jumps (CMJJS) with various loads (Body Mass, 20% of 1RM, 40% of 1RM) in a randomized fashion to a depth of 0.15, 0.30, 0.45, 0.60, and 0.75 m and a self-selected depth. During the concentric phase of each JS, peak force (PF), peak power (PP), jump height (JH) and relative VI were recorded and analyzed. Increasing squat depth corresponded to a decrease in PF and an increase in JH, relative VI for both SJS and CMJJS during all loads. Across all squat depths and loading conditions relative VI was statistically significantly correlated to JH in the SJS (r = .8956, P < .0001, power = 1.000) and CMJJS (r = .6007, P < .0001, power = 1.000). Across all squat depths and loading conditions PF was statistically nonsignificantly correlated to JH in the SJS (r = -0.1010, P = .2095, power = 0.2401) and CMJJS (r = -0.0594, P = .4527, power = 0.1131). Across all squat depths and loading conditions peak power (PP) was significantly correlated with JH during both the SJS (r = .6605, P < .0001, power = 1.000) and the CMJJS (r = .6631, P < .0001, power = 1.000). PP was statistically significantly higher at BM in comparison with 20% of 1RM and 40% of 1RM in the SJS and CMJJS across all squat depths. Results indicate that relative VI and PP can be used to predict JS performance, regardless of squat depth and loading condition. However, relative VI may be the best predictor of JS performance with PF being the worst predictor of JS performance.