vertical jump and power

Vertical Jump and PowerAnthony Darmiento, CSCS, Andrew J. Galpin, PhD, CSCS, NCSA-CPT, and Lee E. Brown, EdD, CSCS*D, FNSCACenter for Sport Performance, Department of Kinesiology, California State University, Fullerton, California

Supplemental digital content is available for this article. Direct URL citations appear in the printed text and are providedin the HTML and PDF versions of this article on the journal’s Web site (http://journals.lww.com/nsca-scj).

S U M M A R Y

POWER AND JUMPING ABILITY

CORRELATE WITH SPORT PER-

FORMANCE. IMPROVING MAXIMAL

FORCE AND/OR VELOCITY IN-

CREASES POWER PRODUCTION,

AND THEREFORE THEORETICALLY

ENHANCES GAME PLAY.

COACHES AND RESEARCHERS

ALIKE ACKNOWLEDGE THAT BOTH

JUMPING SPECIFIC (E.G., PLYO-

METRICS) AND NONJUMPING

ACTIVITIES (E.G., RESISTANCE

TRAINING) FUNCTION AS VALU-

ABLE METHODS OF INCREASING

POWER. HOWEVER, THEIR EFFI-

CACY AND MECHANISMS OF

ADAPTATION ARE OFTEN ARGUED.

THIS ARTICLE PRESENTS A BRIEF

OVERVIEW OF VERTICAL JUMPING,

POWER, TRAINING MODALITIES

AND PROVIDES A SAMPLE

12-WEEK TRAINING CYCLE.

INTRODUCTION

The ability to generate skeletalmuscle power is a well-knownpredictor of sport performance

(2,3,6,17). However, direct measurementis difficult and often unfeasible; espe-cially for coaches. Most simply use thevertical jump (VJ) test as an indirectmeasure of leg power. Power and jump-ing are not identical (15,26), yet corre-lations link them to success in a varietyof sports (rugby, volleyball, running,etc.) (6,20,37,39). Although the relation-ship between jumping and powerappears clear, the optimal strategy forimproving VJ/power remains unclear.

The variety of training methods seemunlimited, and their effectiveness

depends on the exact assessment tech-nique and subject population (1). Com-parison of these methods reveals thatalthough each independently altersspecific jumping kinematics (force,velocity, peak power, rate of forcedevelopment, etc.) (1), programs thatdemonstrate benefits share the follow-ing 3 concepts; VJ movements are per-formed (a) in small intraset volumes(1–5 repetitions) (b) combined withlong rest intervals (2–5 minutes) (47)and (c) in an explosive manner thatemphasizes velocity (8). The first 2elements are critical because acutefatigue limits subsequent power outputand overall performance in untrained(4) and highly trained athletes (5).However, as alluded to earlier, eachmethod of VJ training provides uniquebenefits. The purpose of this article wasto (a) briefly examine 5 training meth-ods frequently used to improve jumpheight and power (bodyweight jump-ing, resisted jumping (RJ), assisted jump-ing (AJ), maximal strength training, andweightlifting movements [WLM]) and(b) outline a sample program designedto improve jump height and power ina moderately trained athlete.

PART A: IMPROVING JUMP HEIGHTAND POWER

JUMPING ACTIVITIES

This section addresses the influence ofbodyweight, resisted, and assisted jumptraining on VJ and power. Body weightjumping (BWJ) refers exclusively to non-weighted lower-body plyometric exer-cises such as squat, countermovement,and drop jumps (see Videos, Supple-mental Digital Content 1–3, whichdemonstrate a squat, http://links.lww.com/SCJ/A81; countermovement,

http://links.lww.com/SCJ/A82; anddrop jump, http://links.lww.com/SCJ/A83, respectively). According to a recentanalysis, BWJ improvedmaximal VJ abil-ity 4–9% and power 2–31% (28) in bothathletes and nonathletes (27). BWJ is alsohighly practical because it requires littleor no equipment, can be performed inalmost any location, and requires limitedtechnical ability.

The addition of an external load(weight vest, barbell, elastic band,etc.) during BWJ activities is referred toas RJ (see Videos, Supplemental DigitalContent 4, which demonstrates a resistedjump, http://links.lww.com/SCJ/A84).Evidence indicates RJ elicits greaterimprovements in VJ height (36) andpeak power (35,36) compared withBWJ. However, increasing externalloading decreases movement velocity,a factor in adaptation (30). For this rea-son, some question the ability of RJprograms to improve performance inactivities that require high velocity(23). RJ may also result in greaterimpact forces during landing, therebyincreasing the potential for musculardiscomfort, soreness (22), and/orinjury (23).

Another method of training is AJ(see Videos, Supplemental Digital Con-tent 5, which demonstrates an assistedjump, http://links.lww.com/SCJ/A85).AJ uses an apparatus (e.g., elastic cordsor counter mass) to reduce body weight(32). A definitive conclusion regardingits efficacy is not possible as researchis currently limited. Available data

KEY WORDS :

weightlifting; strength; assisted jumping;resisted jumping; plyometrics

VOLUME 34 | NUMBER 6 | DECEMBER 2012 Copyright � National Strength and Conditioning Association34

indicate that AJ with a 10–30% reductionof body weight acutely improves ascentvariables (44) such as peak velocity, peakacceleration, relative peak power, and VJheight (1,11,27,38,46) while decreasingimpact forces (1). Moreover, severalweeks of AJ training improves peakacceleration and velocity, relative peakpower, and VJ height greater than BWJ(38) or RJ (1) in both elite athletic andnonathletic populations (38).

In summary, BWJ, RJ, and AJ may allimprove VJ performance and severalfactors related to power production.Of these factors, velocity seems partic-ularly responsive to jump training.These collective studies do not suggestthat one method is superior toanother, but rather that adaptations(force production, takeoff velocity,peak power, etc.) are training methodspecific. Understanding the benefitsand consequences of each style enablescoaches to integrate them in a mannerthat maximizes benefits and decreasesthe likelihood of adverse events.Coaches should prioritize the amountof time allocated to each in reflectionof individual athlete goals and needs.

NONJUMPING ACTIVITIES

Enhancing velocity is obviously desir-able, yet force (strength) equally influ-ences power (42). Unsurprisingly,subjects who compliment power train-ing with strength training displaygreater improvements in VJ heightand power output over a wide rangeof external loads than subjects whotrain for power alone (13). Anotherstudy reported that in weak individuals,BWJ training improves sprinting andjumping to the same magnitude asheavy strength training, althoughBWJ training provided no improve-ments in strength (14). Although thesefindings seem to diminish the relation-ship between strength and jumping,they more accurately demonstrate theability of heavy strength training torender similar short-term improve-ments in velocity and power as BWJ.However, BWJ training will not likelypromote the same gains in maximalstrength (nor the other long-term

benefits associated with heavy strengthtraining); even in the relatively weak(14). However, this is not a reason toeliminate factors related to velocitybecause maximal strength trainingalone may not improve VJ perfor-mance in highly trained athletes(18,21). It is imperative when tryingto improve power that most strengthtraining is done in an explosive manner(18), emphasizing the attempt to per-form each repetition at maximal veloc-ity (8). Dualistic exercise programsinstituting both high force and highvelocity provide the most effectivestimulus for improving power produc-tion (41,42,48). Supplementing stan-dard resistance (e.g., weight plates)with variable resistance (e.g., elasticbands or chains) seems worthwhilebecause it may facilitate improvementsin mean and peak velocity (7), rate offorce development (40), and peak forceand power (34).

Weightlifting is a competitive sportthat contests both the snatch and theclean and jerk. Success in weightliftingnecessitate simultaneous high forceand velocity (12,31,43). As a result, itis highly associated with power andfrequently mislabeled as “powerlifting.”Weightlifters are themost powerful peo-ple on the planet (10,29) and they acti-vate fast-twitch fibers to a greater extentthan non-weightlifters during submaxi-mal muscle contractions (e.g., the VJ)(16). They also produce more power

than athletes with similar years of train-ing history (24) or those who train foronly maximal speed or strength (29).Moreover, the temporal patterns offorce production are similar duringWLM (e.g., snatch and clean and jerkor variations of each) and VJ and asa result, weightlifters excel at jumping(9,10).

The wide-ranging benefits of WLMare indisputable and documented morethoroughly elsewhere (12,19,43). Yet,some question their ability to improvejumping, especially when comparedwith BWJ. Tricoli et al. (45) reportedboth WLM and BWJ improved perfor-mance. However, WLM were moreadvantageous because their benefitswere broader and significantly greaterin the 10-m sprint speed, VJ, and squatjump. These data indicate WLM are aseffective as BWJ at improving jumpingwhile simultaneously promoting sev-eral adaptations not seen with BWJ(e.g., strength).

The paradox of weightlifting recog-nizes that the high complexity ofWLM enhance performance, yet dis-courages some from participation.The primary hesitation surroundingthe use of WLM is the perceived diffi-culty of learning/teaching WLM (25).Although a detailed discussion is beyondthe scope of this article, multiple authorshave addressed these concerns at lengthand provide numerous instructional re-sources and strategies to assist in the

Table 1General concepts of weekly emphasis during a 12-week preparatorymesocycle for a moderately trained athlete with limited weightlifting

experience, interested in improving jumping ability

Block 1—workcapacity

Block 2—strength Block 3—power

Wk 1: generalpreparation

Wk 5: strength andwork capacity

Wk 9: speed strength

Wk 2: generalpreparation

Wk 6: strength Wk 10: speed strength

Wk 3: work capacity Wk 7: maximum Strength Wk 11: power

Wk 4: work capacity Wk 8: strength speed Wk 12: power

All weeks include some proportion of work capacity, strength, speed, and power training.This table simply outlines the general weekly emphasis.

Strength and Conditioning Journal | www.nsca-scj.com 35

Table 2Twelve-week mesocycle, Monday and Thursday—movements

Block 1—WC (4 wk) Block 2—Strength (4 wk) Block 3—power (4 wk)

GP WC ST and WC ST Max ST ST and S S and ST Power

M and Th M and Th M and Th M and Th M and Th M and Th M and Th M and Th

Speed Speed Speed Speed Speed Speed Speed Speed

Jump Jump Slam Slam Slam Slam Slam Slam

Slam Slam Twist Twist Twist Twist Twist Twist

Twist Twist Hop Hop Hop

Power Power Power Power Power Power Power Power

Learn C&J Learn C&J C&J C&J C&J C&J C&J C&J

Strength Strength Strength Strength Strength Strength Strength Strength

Bilateral leg Bilateral leg Bilateral leg Bilateral leg Bilateral leg Bilateral leg Bilateral leg Bilateral leg

Vertical pull Vertical pull Vertical pull Vertical pull Vertical pull Vertical pull Vertical pull Vertical pull

Unilat. leg Unilat. leg Unilat. leg Unilat. leg Unilat. leg Vert. press Vert. press Vert. press

Vert. press Vert. press Vert. press Vert. press Vert. press

Ab. Flex/Ext Ab. Flex/Ext Ab. Flex/Ext

WC WC WC WC WC WC WC WC

None 1:1work:rest 1:1work:rest None None None None None

The first emphasis placed in eachmicrocycle denotes themore important aspect. For example, in week 4 of Block 2, the emphasis is strength and speed. This means emphasize strength overspeed when the two conflict within a training session. However, the emphasis is changed in the following week to speed and strength, meaning error on the side of speed. All work capacitymovements should be primarily performed concentrically, in an effort to minimize muscular damage and soreness (rowing, cycling, sled pulling, etc.). For sample exercises for each movementsee Table 4.

C&J 5 clean and jerk; GP 5 general preparation, P 5 power; S 5 speed; ST 5 strength; WC 5 work capacity.

Vertic

alJumpandPower

VOLUME34

|NUMBER

6|DECEMBER

2012

36

Table 3Twelve-week mesocycle, Tuesday and Saturday—movements

Block 1—WC (4 wk) Block 2—strength (4 wk) Block 3—power (4 wk)


T and Sat T and Sat T and Sat T and Sat T and Sat T and Sat T and Sat T and Sat


Agility Agility Jump Jump Jump Jump Jump Jump

Throw Throw Toss Toss Toss Toss Toss Toss

Toss Toss Skip Skip Skip


Learn Snatch Snatch Snatch Snatch Snatch Snatch Snatch


Bilat. back Bilat. back Bilat. back Bilat. back Bilat. back Bilat. back Bilat. back Bilat. back

Horiz. pull Horiz. pull Horiz. pull Ab. rotation Ab. rotation Ab. rotation Ab. rotation Ab. rotation

Horiz. press Horiz. press Horiz. press

Ab. rotation Ab. rotation Ab. rotation


None 2:1work:rest 1:1work:rest None None 2:1work:rest 3:1work:rest None

For sample exercises for each movement see Table 4.

C&J 5 clean and jerk; GP 5 general preparation, P 5 power; S 5 speed; ST 5 strength; WC 5 work capacity.

Stre

ngth

andConditio

ningJo

urnal|www.nsca-scj.c

om

37

learning of WLM (12,19,43). It shouldalso be understood that as with thelearning of any task, a small number ofrepetitions performed frequently andconsistently throughout the year (duringactive recovery days or dynamic warm-ups, etc.) suitably develops aptitude andconfidence. Complete mastery of skill isa byproduct of practice, not a prerequisiteof involvement. Although time con-straints should always be a consideration,the obligation to long-term athlete devel-opment should not be compromised bya desire for immediate success. Elimina-tion of WLM from a program for thisreason is irresponsible. Furthermore, var-iations such as the hang start position ormodified pulls serve as short-term alter-natives to the full snatch and the cleanand jerk when technical flaws or otherbarriers limit productivity.

Other implements such as medicineballs and kettlebells are also frequentlyused as substitutes for WLM (33). Thisis a reasonable solution in special cir-cumstances such as a lack of equip-ment (e.g., barbell and bumper plates)and/or space. Yet, it is imperative torecognize that these devices drive sim-ilar, but not identical adaptations. Thebenefits of these alternatives will not beas comprehensive or of the same mag-nitude as WLM, especially in trainedathletes. These training methodsshould be considered supplements,not equal substitutes.

PART A: SUMMARY. A combinationof multiple modalities and loadingparadigms optimizes the potential forimprovements in jumping and legpower. However, the specific adapta-tions of each movement variation mustbe recognized prior to implementa-tion. Jumping activities (BWJ, RJ, AJ)enrich power mainly through velocity.All variations are likely to benefit lessexperienced athletes, but AJ is particu-larly advantageous for athletes witha history of jump training. Heavystrength training targets force, andthus should complement any jumptraining program. WLM displaya unique ability to facilitate simulta-neous gains in velocity and force,

making them the most effectivemethod of improving leg power.

PART B: PRACTICAL APPLICATION.

The following section outlines a sam-ple 12-week mesocycle designedto improve power production andjumping ability. The program targetsmoderately trained athletes with pre-vious experience in jumping and gen-eral strength and conditioningactivities, but limited skill in WLM.The foundation of its design is sum-marized by the phrase, “methods aremany, concepts are few,” or moreplainly, application of exercise deter-mines adaptation, not the exercise perse. Prescribing general concepts (workcapacity, maximum strength, speed,etc.) as opposed to strict/specificmethods (exercise choice, volumes,intensities, etc.) emphasizes a focuson short-term goals and increasesthe potential for variation and auton-omy based on individual coach/ath-lete preferences and limitations

(equipment, time and/or space avail-ability, etc.). The concepts are out-lined in Tables 2 and 3 and a shortlist of sample exercises for each con-cept is provided in Table 4, and sam-ple volumes and intensities aredemonstrated in Tables 5 and 6. Toaccomplish these concepts, most ex-ercises should be complex (requiringmultiple joints) and performed withmaximal intended velocity acrossa spectrum of loading intensities.The periodization strategy is tomaintain moderate to high intensitieswhile manipulating total daily andweekly volume (e.g., the number ofexercises, sets, and/or repetitions ina given day and/or week).

The 12 weeks are separated into 3blocks and each block is further dividedinto 4 microcycles (Table 1). Each blockand microcycle is given an overall con-cept (e.g., maximal strength, strengthspeed, or power), with the first wordof the concept reflecting which aspectdictates greater emphasis. Designing

Table 4Sample exercises for each movement

Movement Sample Exercises

Jumps Box jump, bounding, lateral jump, hurdles, assisted jumping

Slams Medicine ball slam, tire slam, band pulls

Twists Lateral medicine ball toss, full contact twist, carioca

Agility Pro-agility, reactive shuffle, carioca, mirror drill

Throws Soccer throw, shot-put, wood chop

Tosses Scoop toss, lateral toss, tire flip

Bilateral leg Front squat, back squat, overhead squat

Unilateral leg Lunges, split-squat, step-up, one leg squat

Bilateral back Deadlift, sumo-deadlift, zercher squats

Vertical pull Pull-up, lat pull down, chin-up, muscle-up

Horizontal pull Ring row, bent row, band row

Vertical press Overhead press, handstand push-up, dip

Horizontal press Incline press, flat press, ring push-up

Abdominal flexion Hanging leg raises, V-up, wheel rollout

Abdominal rotation Antirotation holds, seated twists, lateral bends

Work capacity Sprints, rowing, cycling, sled presses/pulls

Vertical Jump and Power

VOLUME 34 | NUMBER 6 | DECEMBER 201238

Table 5Twelve-week mesocycle, day by day—volumes



M and W M and W M and W M and W M and W M and W M and W M and W


3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 6 3 2 6 3 2


; 10 min ; 15 min 5 3 3 6 3 2 8 3 1 8 3 1 10 3 1 6 3 1


3 3 10 4 3 8 4 3 5 6 3 3 8 3 2 8 3 2 6 3 2 4 3 2


None 4 3 1 5 3 1 3 3 1 None None None None

Total reps/d: 177 Total reps/d: 187 Total reps/d: 144 Total reps/d: 105 Total reps/d: 84 Total reps/d: 83 Total reps/d: 82 Total reps/d: 66



3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 6 3 2 6 3 2


;10 min ; 15 min 5 3 3 6 3 2 10 3 1 10 3 1 12 3 1 6 3 1


2 3 8 2 3 8 3 3 5 4 3 3 8 3 2 6 3 2 4 3 2 3 3 2


None 3 3 1 3 3 1 None None 2 3 1 3 3 1 None

Total reps/d: 91 Total reps/d: 94 Total reps/d: 102 Total reps/d: 54 Total reps/d: 54 Total reps/d: 63 Total reps/d: 67 Total reps/d: 54

536 562 492 318 276 292 298 240/120

The set and repetition volume is listed as total volume per exercise. For example, the speed movements performed in the GP microcycle of Block 1 will be 33 3 for the jump, slam, and twistseries. Week 12 will only encompass 2 total training sessions (Monday and Thursday). The final training session will be Saturday’s prescription, but performed on the last Thursday.

GP 5 general preparation, P 5 power; S 5 speed; ST 5 strength; WC 5 work capacity.

Stre

ngth

andConditio

ningJo

urnal|www.nsca-scj.c

om

39

Table 6Block 1—WC (4 wk) Block 2—Strength (4 wk) block



M and W M and W M and W M and W M and W M and W M and W M and W


Max velocity Max velocity Max velocity Max velocity Max velocity Max velocity Max velocity Max velocity


N/A N/A ;75% 3RM ;90% 2RM 1RM ;90% 1RM ;90% 1RM ;85% 1RM


;90% 10RM ;90% 8RM ;90% 5RM ;95% 3RM ;100% 2RM ;90% 2RM ;85% 2RM ;85% 2RM


N/A .100% V̇O2max N/A N/A N/A N/A



Max velocity Max velocity Max velocity Max velocity Max velocity Max velocity Max velocity Max velocity


N/A N/A ;75% 3RM ;90% 2RM 1RM ;95% 1RM ;95% 1RM ;85% 1RM


;85% 8RM ;85% 8RM ;85% 5RM ;90% 3RM ;95% 2RM ;85% 2RM ;80% 2RM ;80% 2RM


N/A .100% .100% N/A N/A .100% .100% N/A

V̇O2max V̇O2max V̇O2max V̇O2max

Intensities are listed as approximations and should be varied based upon individual daily performances and according to themicrocycle goal. For example, if the strength movement in the Sand STmicrocycle of Block 3 (which is prescribed to be at; 85% 2RM) is being performed excessively slow, the intensity should be dropped slightly as the emphasis of this block is speed, notmaximal strength. However, the intensity should be maintained in the same circumstance during the third microcycle of Block 2 as the emphasis is maximum strength.

GP 5 general preparation, P 5 power; RM, repetition maximum; S 5 speed; ST 5 strength; WC 5 work capacity.

Vertic

alJumpandPower

VOLUME34

|NUMBER

6|DECEMBER

2012

40

programs by concept means both coachand athlete explicitly understand weeklyoutcome goals, making critical decisionssuch as elimination or alteration ofmovements, volume, and/or intensityin response to unpredicted events(equipment malfunction, changes inhealth, other life stressors, etc.) mucheasier. For example, during the“Strength” phase (week 6), a coachmight allow an athlete to increase inten-sity beyond the previously intended pre-scription, fully aware movement speedmay be slightly compromised. However,this would not be as appropriate duringthe “Speed Strength” phase (weeks 9–10) as speed should be of greater con-cern than strength.

Designing by concept also allows highdaily variation in light of a fairly rou-tine daily structure. Each day beginswith some type of mobility/injury pre-vention movement followed by adynamic warm-up. Subsequent speed,power, strength, and work capacitycomponents occupy the bulk of thetraining session. Specificity is achievedby modifying the number of exercisesand/or the amount of total repetitionsdedicated to each specific adaptation(speed, power, strength, or work

capacity) within each microcycle. Forexample, during the “Strength Speed”week, 2 speed and 3 strength exercisesare prescribed with a total weekly vol-ume of 50 and 100 reps, respectively.Yet, during the following “SpeedStrength” week, speed increases to 4movements while strength volume de-creases to 1 movement. Thus, the totalnumber of speed reps increases from 50to 150, whereas the total number ofstrength reps decreases from 100 to50. Altering the amount of time perday dedicated to each adaptationslightly alters the overall microcycleadaptations, and the combination ofeach microcycle reflects the goal ofits corresponding block.

The figure demonstrates the change intotal weekly training volume, per com-ponent (speed, power, strength, andwork capacity), across the sample meso-cycle. In summary, speed is moderate inBlocks 1 and 2, and increases dramati-cally in Block 3; power remains constantthroughout; strength is similar in Blocks1 and 3, but increases considerably inBlock 2; work capacity is high in Block1, drops off substantially in Block 2, andis almost completely eliminated in Block3. Because its well-rounded nature

permits simultaneous training of speed,power, and strength, WLM are thebackbone of all 3 blocks. Briefly, totalvolume is high in Block 1 because thepredominant goals are to learn move-ments and develop work capacity. Lowimpact BWJ could function well here ifapplied in a manner that reinforcesproper jumping mechanics while grad-ually increasing workload. Total vol-ume declines heavily during Blocks 2and 3 as the focus shifts to maximalforce and then velocity. The secondblock emphasizes force by reducingwork capacity volume, maintainingspeed and power training, and increas-ing strength exercises. Higher impactBWJ, RJ, and heavy resistance move-ments are ideal exercise choices duringthis phase. The steady decline of vol-ume continues into the third and finalblock (power) as work capacity andstrength training are reduced in favorof maximal velocity and power. Imple-menting AJ here would further pro-mote recovery and unloading whileaugmenting velocity.

CONCLUSIONS

Power and jumping ability correlate toboth anaerobic and aerobic sport per-formance. Power requires velocity and

Figure. Twelve-week sample mesocycle. Changes in total and relative weekly volume per training concept are displayed across the12-week training program. The program is subdivided into 3 blocks with overall goals of work capacity (Block 1),strength (Block 2), and power (Block 3). Absolute weekly volume is represented by the total repetitions.


force, and force requires mass andacceleration. A brief review of literatureindicates several jumping-specific andnon-jumping–specific training methodsuniquely enhance power and jumpingability. In general, low-intensity/high-speed movements such as plyometricsimprove velocity, high-intensity/low-speed movements such as heavy squat-ting promote force production, andWLM augment both force and velocity.Optimal programming would thereforeinclude a highly variable combination oftraining modalities and loading para-digms planned around athlete-specificstrengths and weaknesses.

Anthony

Darmiento isa Masters Studentat the Center forSport Performancein the Departmentof Kinesiology atCalifornia StateUniversity,Fullerton.

Andrew J.Galpin

is an AssistantProfessor at theCenter for SportPerformance in theDepartment ofKinesiology at Cal-ifornia State Uni-versity, Fullerton.

Lee E. Brown isa Professor at theCenter for SportPerformance inthe Departmentof Kinesiology atCalifornia StateUniversity,Fullerton.

REFERENCES1. Argus CK, Gill ND, Keogh JW, Blazevich AJ,

and Hopkins WG. Kinetic and training

comparisons between assisted, resisted,

and free countermovement jumps. J Strength

Cond Res 25: 2219–2227, 2011.

2. Baker D. Comparison of upper-body

strength and power between professional

and college-aged rugby league players.

J Strength Cond Res 15: 30–35, 2001.

3. Baker D. A series of studies on the training

of high-intensity muscle power in rugby

league football players. J Strength Cond

Res 15: 198–209, 2001.

4. Baker D. Acute negative effect of

a hypertrophy-oriented training bout on

subsequent upper-body power output.


5. Baker DG and Newton RU. Change in

power output across a high-repetition set of

bench throws and jump squats in highly

trained athletes. J Strength Cond Res 21:

1007–1011, 2007.

6. Baker DG and Newton RU. Comparison of

lower body strength, power, acceleration,

speed, agility, and sprint momentum to

describe and compare playing rank among

professional rugby league players.


7. Baker DGandNewtonRU. Effect of kinetically

altering a repetition via the use of chain

resistance on velocity during the bench press.


8. Behm DG and Sale DG. Intended rather

than actual movement velocity determines

velocity-specific training response. J Appl

Physiol 74: 359–368, 1993.

9. Canavan PK, Garrett GE, and

Armstrong LE. Kinematic and Kinetic

Relationships Between an Olympic-style

Lift and the Vertical Jump. J Strength Cond

Res 10: 127–130, 1996.

10. Carlock JM, Smith SL, Hartman MJ,

Morris RT, Ciroslan DA, Pierce KC,

Newton RU, Harman EA, Sands WA, and

Stone MH. The relationship between

vertical jump power estimates and

weightlifting ability: a field-test approach.


11. Cavagna GA, Zamboni A, Faraggiana T,

and Margaria R. Jumping on the moon:

power output at different gravity values.

Aerosp Med 43: 408–414, 1972.

12. Chiu LZ and Schilling BK. A primer on

weightlifting: From sport to sports training.

Strength Cond J 27: 42–48, 2005.

13. Cormie P, McCaulley GO, and

McBride JM. Power versus strength-power

jump squat training: influence on the load-

power relationship. Med Sci Sports Exerc

39: 996–1003, 2007.

14. Cormie P, McGuigan MR, and Newton RU.

Adaptations in athletic performance after

ballistic power versus strength training.Med

Sci Sports Exerc 42: 1582–1598, 2010.

15. Cronin J and Sleivert G. Challenges in

understanding the influence of maximal power

training on improving athletic performance.

Sports Med 35: 213–234, 2005.

16. Fry AC, Schilling BK, Staron RS,

Hagerman FC, Hikida RS, and Thrush JT.

Muscle fiber characteristics and

performance correlates of male Olympic-

style weightlifters. J Strength Cond Res

17: 746–754, 2003.

17. Garhammer J and Gregor RJ. Propulsion

forces as a function of intensity for

weightlifting and vertical jumping. J Appl

Sport Sci Res 6: 129–134, 1992.

18. Harris GR, Stone MH, O’Bryant HS,

Proulx CM, and Johnson RL. Short-term

performance effects of high power, high

force, or combined weight-training methods.


19. Hedrick A and Wada H. Weightlifting

movements: Do the benefits outweight the

risks? Strength Cond J 30: 26–34, 2008.

20. Hickson RC, Rosenkoetter MA, and

Brown MM. Strength training effects on

aerobic power and short-term endurance.

Med Sci Sports Exerc 12: 336–339, 1980.

21. Hoffman JR, Cooper J, Wendell M, and

Kang J. Comparison of Olympic vs.

traditional power lifting training programs in

football players. J Strength Cond Res 18:

129–135, 2004.

22. Hori N, Newton RU, Kawamori N,

McGuigan MR, Andrews WA,

Chapman DW, and Nosaka K. Comparison

of weighted jump squat training with and

without eccentric braking. J Strength Cond

Res 22: 54–65, 2008.

23. Hrysomallis C. The effectiveness of

resisted movement training on sprinting

and jumping performance. J Strength Cond

Res 26: 299–306, 2012.

24. Izquierdo M, Hakkinen K, Gonzalez-Badillo JJ,

Ibanez J, and Gorostiaga EM. Effects of long-

term training specificity on maximal strength

and power of the upper and lower extremities

in athletes from different sports. Eur J Appl

Physiol 87: 264–271, 2002.

25. Janz J, Dietz C, and Malone M. Training

explosiveness: Weightlifting and beyond.


26. Knudson DV. Correcting the use of the

term "power" in the strength and

conditioning literature. J Strength Cond

Res 23: 1902–1908, 2009.

Vertical Jump and Power

VOLUME 34 | NUMBER 6 | DECEMBER 201242

27. Markovic G and Jaric S. Positive and

negative loading and mechanical output in

maximum vertical jumping. Med Sci Sports

Exerc 39: 1757–1764, 2007.

28. Markovic G and Mikulic P. Neuro-

musculoskeletal and performance

adaptations to lower-extremity plyometric

training. Sports Med 40: 859–895, 2010.

29. McBride JM, Triplett-McBride NT,

Davie A, and Newton RU. A comparison of

strength and power characteristics

between power lifters, Olympic lifters, and

sprinters. J Strength Cond Res 13: 58–

66, 1999.

30. McBride JM, Triplett-McBride T, Davie A,

and Newton RU. The effect of heavy- vs.

light-load jump squats on the development

of strength, power, and speed. J Strength

Cond Res 16: 75–82, 2002.

31. Newton H. Weightlifting? Weight lifting?

Olympic lifting? Olympic weightlifting?


32. Nuzzo JL, McBride JM, Dayne AM,

Israetel MA, Dumke CL, and Triplett NT.

Testing of the maximal dynamic output

hypothesis in trained and untrained subjects.


33. Otto WH, Coburn JW, Brown LE, and

Spiering BA. Effects of weightlifting vs.

Kettlebell training on vertical jump,

strength, and body composition. J Strength

Cond Res 33: 199–202, 2012.

34. Rhea MR, Kenn JG, and Dermody BM.

Alterations in speed of squat movement

and the use of accommodated resistance

among college athletes training for power.

J Strength Cond Res 23: 2645–2650,

2009.

35. Rhea MR, Peterson MD, Lunt KT, and

Ayllon FN. The effectiveness of resisted

jump training on the VertiMax in high school

athletes. J Strength Cond Res 22: 731–

734, 2008.

36. Rhea MR, Peterson MD, Oliverson JR,

Ayllon FN, and Potenziano BJ. An

examination of training on the VertiMax

resisted jumping device for improvements

in lower body power in highly trained

college athletes. J Strength Cond Res 22:

735–740, 2008.

37. Sheppard JM, Cronin JB, Gabbett TJ,

McGuigan MR, Etxebarria N, and

Newton RU. Relative importance of

strength, power, and anthropometric

measures to jump performance of elite

volleyball players. J Strength Cond Res 22:

758–765, 2008.

38. Sheppard JM, Dingley AA, Janssen I,

Spratford W, Chapman DW, and

Newton RU. The effect of assisted jumping

on vertical jump height in high-performance

volleyball players. J Sci Med Sport 14: 85–

89, 2011.

39. Sinnett AM, Berg K, Latin RW, and

Noble JM. The relationship between field

tests of anaerobic power and 10-km run

performance. J Strength Cond Res 15:

405–412, 2001.

40. Stevenson MW, Warpeha JM, Dietz CC,

Giveans RM, and Erdman AG. Acute effects

of elastic bands during the free-weight

barbell back squat exercise on velocity,

power, and force production. J Strength

Cond Res 24: 2944–2954, 2010.

41. Stone MH, Byrd R, Tew J, and Wood M.

Relationship between anaerobic power

and olympic weightlifting performance.

J Sports Med Phys Fitness 20: 99–102,

1980.

42. Stone MH, O’Bryant HS, McCoy L,

Coglianese R, Lehmkuhl M, and

Schilling B. Power and maximum strength

relationships during performance of

dynamic and static weighted jumps.


43. Stone MH, Pierce KC, Sands WA, and

Stone ME. Weightlifting: A Brief Overview.


44. Tran TT, Brown LE, Coburn JW, Lynn SK,

Dabbs NC, Schick MK, Schick EE,

Khamoui AV, Uribe BP, and Noffal GJ.

Effects of different elastic cord assistance

levels on vertical jump. J Strength Cond

Res 25: 3472–3478, 2011.

45. Tricoli V, Lamas L, Carnevale R, and

Ugrinowitsch C. Short-term effects on

lower-body functional power development:

weightlifting vs. vertical jump training

programs. J Strength Cond Res 19: 433–

437, 2005.

46. Vuk S, Markovic G, and Jaric S. External

loading and maximum dynamic output in

vertical jumping: The role of training history.

Hum Mov Sci 31: 139–151, 2012.

47. Willardson JM. A brief review: Factors

affecting the length of the rest interval

between resistance exercise sets.


48. Wilson GJ, Newton RU, Murphy AJ, and

Humphries BJ. The optimal training load for

the development of dynamic athletic

performance. Med Sci Sports Exerc 25:

1279–1286, 1993.


vertical jump and power

Documents