Content uploaded by Haris Pojskic
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Haris Pojskic
Content may be subject to copyright.
Journal of Human Kinetics volume 35/2012, 89-98 89
Section III – Sports Training
1-College of Human Kinetics, University of the Philippines – Diliman, Philippines .
2-Faculty of Physical Education and Sport, Tuzla University, Bosnia and Herzegovina .
.
Authors submi tted their contribution of the article to the editorial board.
Accepted for printing in Journal of Human Kinetics vol. 3 5/2012 on December 2012.
Effect of Various Warm -Up Protocols on Jump Performance in
College Football Players
by
Jeffrey C. Pagaduan 1,Haris Pojskić2, Edin Užičanin2, Fuad Babajić2
The purpose of this study was to identify the effects of warm -up strategies on countermovement jum p
performance. Twenty -nine male college football players (age: 19.4 ± 1.1 years; body height: 179.0 ± 5.1 cm; body mass :
73.1 ± 8.0 kg; % body fat: 11.1 ± 2.7) from the Tuzla University underwent a control (no warm -up) and different
warm-up conditions: 1. general warm -up; 2. general warm -up with dynamic stretching; 3. general warm -up, dynamic
stretching and passive stretching; 4. passive static stretching; 5. passive static stretching and general warm -up; and, 6.
passive static stretching, general warm -up and dynamic stretching. Countermovement jump performance was
measured after each intervention or control. Results from one way repeated measures ANOVA revealed a significant
difference on warm -up strategies at F (4.07, 113.86) = 69.56, p < 0.001, eta square d = 0.72. Bonferonni post hoc
revealed that a general warm -up and a general warm -up with dynamic stretching posted the greatest gains among all
interventions. On the other hand, no warm -up and passive static stretching displayed the least results in
countermovement jump performance. In conclusion, countermovement jump performance preceded by a general warm -
up or a general warm-up with dynamic stretching posted superior gains in countermovement jump performance.
Key words: warm-up, static stretching, dynami c stretching, athletes, vertical jump
Introduction
Team sports, like basketball, soccer ,
handball and American football consist of high
intensive movements that include sprints, jumps,
intermittent movement direction and speed
changes with many accelera tion and deceleration
motions. These kinds of activities require proper
body preparation in order to enable athletes to
show their full physical potential,
correspondingly to have as best as possible sport
performance from the very beginning of a
competition. A warm-up refers to the execution of
physical exercise prior to the main activity in
training or a competition (Hendrick, 1992).
Coaches use different warm -up routines to
facilitate the increase of body temperature, the
acceleration of metabolism, and working
capacities of heart and lungs of the athletes. A
typical warm -up consists of aerobic activity
(jogging, cycling, rope jumping etc.) followed by
different kinds of stretching exercises
(passive/active static stretching, or dynamic active
stretching), but some use specific sport exercises
or a combination of all above mentioned (Samson
et al., 2012; Chaouachi et al., 2010; Vetter, 2007;
Fletcher and Jones, 2004; Knudson et al., 2001).
The stretching activity is generally promoted as a
way of improvi ng flexibility and prevent ing
injuries, although existing evidence do es not
support this thesis ( Magnusson and Renström,
2006). Dynamic and static stretching are the two
major types of stretching interventions. Dynamic
stretching involves the execution of a muscle
group to a full range of motion without the help
of an external force. On the other hand static
stretching utilize s the assistance of an external
90 Effect of Various Warm -Up Protocols on Jump Performance
Journal of Human Kinetics volume 3 5/2012 http://www.johk.pl
force to achieve the full range of motion of a
muscle group.
Previous studies revealed that static
stretching led to reduced knee extensor power
and jump performance compared to dynamic
stretching (Costa et al., 2010; Hough et al., 2009;
Yamaguchi and Ishii, 2005; Cornwell et al., 2002).
However, when static stretching was incorporated
with other dyn amic activities (e.g. jogging),
similar jump performance with dynamic
stretching and dynamic activities was observed
(Vetter, 2007; Chaouachi et al., 2010). Some
authors reported deleterious effects of static
stretching on sprint performance despite being
combined with dynamic stretching or an aerobic
warm-up (Sim et al., 2009; Winchester et al., 2008;
Fletcher et al., 2007).
The purpose of this study was to
determine the effects of different warm -up
protocols on countermovement jump performance
in college football players. It was hypothesized
that counteremovement jump performance
preceded by dynamic actions would exhibit better
results than static stretching or no warm -up.
Material and methods
Participants
Twenty-nine healthy male college football
players (age: 19.4 ± 1.1 years; body height: 179.0 ±
5.1 cm; body mass : 73.1 ± 8.0 kg; % body fat: 11.1 ±
2.7) from the Tuzla University volunteered to
participate in the study. They had a competitive
experience of 6.5 ± 2.1 years and participated 10
hours per week in regular football training
sessions and 3 hours per week in strength and
conditioning training. A randomized control trial
was applied to all the participants. None of the
athletes had a history of neuromuscular disease or
reported injur ies for the past six months. The
participants were informed about the purpose of
the study, testing protocols, research benefits and
potential risks. All of them signed a written
informed consent. No dietary intervention was
recommended in the study. The Ethical
Committee of the Tuzla University approved the
study with procedures conforming to the
principles of the Declaration of Helsinki on
human experimentation.
Procedures
All experiments were carried out at the
Exercise Science Laboratory of Faculty of Physical
Education and Sport, Tuzla University from 8 to
10 am. The experimental protocol design is
displayed in Figure 1. Sessions were separated by
48 hours. Control and experimental groups were
succeeded by countermovement jump trials after
1 minute of control or intervention. On Day 1
anthropometrics data were collected and the
participants did not perform any warm -up
activity. Day 2 was allotted to general warm -up
performance. The general warm -up (GW)
consisted of five minutes running at a preset pace.
This was equivalent to 12 circles around an 86 m
circumference area. In the first four circles, the
participants had to run 30 seconds per circle. 25
seconds was required to finish the second four
circles. In the last four circles, the participants had
to run 20 seconds per circle. On Day 3, the
participants performed GW and dynamic active
stretching (DS). DS consisted of 7 exercises
performed in 7 minutes (Table 1). Each exercise
consisted of 2 sets of 20 seconds with a rest
interval of 10 seconds between sets. The rest
interval between exercises was 10 seconds.
Table 1
Dynamic Stretching Exercises
Table 2
Static Stretching Ex ercises
The participants executed GW, DS and
passive static stretching (SS) on Day 4. Seven
static stretching exercises for 7 minutes were
performed (Table 2). SS followed the same
volume as in DS.
Straight Leg March
Butt Kicks
Carioca
High Knees
Reverse Lunge with Twist
Power Shuffle (Step Slide)
Jogging with Squats
Standing Quadriceps Stretch
Standing Calf Stretch
Standing Hamstring Stretch
Single Leg Straddle
Inverted Hurdler's Stretch
Lying Single Knee to Chest
Seated Cross -Legged Gluteus Stretch
by Pagaduan J.C. et al. 91
© Editorial Committee of Journal of Human Kinetics
Figure 1
Experimental Protocols
However, for unilateral stretching exercises, the
first set was performed using the left limb
followed by the right limb in the next set. All
interventions involving SS were executed to the
point of discomfort when stretching. SS was
performed on Day 5. SS and GW protocol was
administered during Day 6. Lastly, SS, GW a nd
DS were executed by the participants on Day 7.
Measures
With regard to a nthropometrics data,
body height (BH) was measured to the nearest
0.01m with a portable stadiometer (Astra scale
27310, Gima, Italy). Body mass (BM) and body fat
percentage (%BF) w ere measured by a bioelectric
body composition analyzer (Tanita TBF -300
increments 0.1%; Tanita, Tokyo, Japan).
Countermovement Jump Performance
(CMJ) was assessed according to the protocol
described by Bosco et al. (1983). Players were
asked to start fro m an upright position with
straight legs and with hands on hips in order to
eliminate contribution of arm swing on jump
height. The players executed a downward
movement before the jump. Players performed a
natural flexion before take -off. The participants
were instructed to land in an upright position and
to bend the knees on landing. Each player
performed three maximal CMJ jumps, allowing
three minutes of recovery between the trials . The
highest score was used for analysis. The jumps
were assessed using a portable device called the
OptoJump System (Microgate, Bolzano, Italy)
which is an optical measurement system
consisting of a transmitting and receiving bar
(each bar being one meter long). Each of these
contains photocells, which are positioned two
millimeters from the ground. The photocells from
the transmitting bar communicate continuously
with those on the receiving bar. The system
detects any interruptions in communication
between the bars and calculates their duration.
This makes it possible to meas ure flight time and
jump height during the jump performance. The
jump height is expressed in centimeters.
Statistical Analysis
Data are expressed as means and
standard deviations. The Kolmogorov -Smirnov
test was applied to test the data for normality.
Interclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and
coefficient of variation (CV) was calculated to
assess reliability of the three vertical jump trails.
One way repeated measures ANOVA was
utilized to determine a significant difference in
performance among the inte rventions. Effect size
was established using eta squared. Bonferonni
post hoc contrast was applied to determine
pairwise comparison between interventions.
Statistical significance was set at p˂0.05. All
statistical analyses were completed with the SPSS
software statistical package (SPSS Inc., Chicago,
IL; Version 14.0).
92 Effect of Various Warm -Up Protocols on Jump Performance
Journal of Human Kinetics volume 3 5/2012 http://www.johk.pl
Results
Warm-up protocols and CMJ height are
displayed in Table 3. Results from one way
repeated measures ANOVA s howed a significant
difference i n warm-up strategies at F (4.07, 113.86)
= 69.56, p < 0.001, eta squared = 0.72. Post hoc tests
using Bonferroni correction determined that NW
was significantly lower compared to GW, GW -DS,
GW-DS-SS, SS-GW, SS-GW-DS at p = 0.001. GW
elicited significant CMJ than GW -DS-SS and SS at
p < 0.001. GW-DS posted better CMJ scores in
comparison with GW -DS-SS, SS, and SS-GW-DS
at p < 0.001. GW-DS-SS was significantly higher
compared to SS but was lower than SS -GW-DS at
p < 0.001. SS showed lower CMJ performance than
SS-GW and SS -GW-DS at p < 0.001.
Discussion
The purpose of this study was to
investigate the effect of various warm -up
protocols on countermovement jump
performance. Results revealed that performance
of GW and GW -DS posted superior gains in CMJ
scores than other warm -up protocols examined in
the study. Possible mechanisms in performance
enhancement compared to other protocols include
improvement in muscle stiffness and nervous
system activation (Fletcher, 2010; Hough et al.,
2009; Guissard and Duchateau, 2006; Kubo et al.,
1999).
The reduced e ffect o n jumping
performance preceded by SS in this study agree s
with the findings posted by Esposito et al. (2011).
One possible mechanism that may explain the
power output deficit of SS is the reduction in
muscle stiffness (Esposito et al., 2011; Kubo et al.,
2001; Wilson et al., 1992). SS may have led to more
compliant series elastic components by decreasing
actin - myosin overlapping and cross bridge
formation. This produced a longer transmission of
force to the insertion of the tendon. Another
possible explanation is the reduction in the
hysteresis of the muscle tendons (Kubo et al.,
2002; Kubo et al., 2001). Hysteresis is the loss of
energy as heat due to internal damping. The
reduction of energy dissipation in the tissues after
passive stretching m ay have caused t he decreased
tendon hysteresis i n a similar vein . SS may have
decreased muscle temperature and reduced nerve
conduction velocity (Evans et al., 2002; Davies and
Young, 1983; Bergh and Ekblom, 1979) . Lastly,
the stimuli in the static stretc hing protocol may
have produced a level of neural inhibition that
reduced the activation of motor units, thus
resulting in lower countermovement jump
performance (Costa et al., 2010; Hough et al., 2009;
Cornwell et al., 2002).
In this study, there was a n on-significant
difference in CMJ between NW and SS. However,
SS showed higher CMJ scores than NW. This
finding may imply that performance of SS instead
of NW is favorable to CMJ. In another light, when
SS is combined with GW and DS, CMJ deficit is
reduced. The existence of better CMJ when SS is
applied pre GW and DS than post GW and DS
suggests that mechanical and neural responses
similar to SS may be reduced if SS is succeeded by
dynamic actions. This finding coincided with the
study administered by Holt and Lambourne
(2008) but contradicted other studies (Chaouachi
et al., 2010; Vetter, 2007).
Table 3
Warm-Up Protocols and CMJ Height (mean, standard deviation )
Warm-Up Protocols
CMJ Height
(cm)
ICC
CV
No Warm-Up
33.7, 3.8
0,87
0,11
General Warm -Up
38.0, 4.3
0,91
0,11
General Warm -Up, Dynamic Stretching
39.1, 4.8
0,95
0,12
General Warm -Up, Dynamic Stretching, Passive Static Stretching
36.2, 4.7
0,93
0,13
Passive Static Stretching
34.3, 4.1
0,84
0,12
Passive Static Stretching, General Warm -Up
37.4, 4.2
0,92
0,11
Passive Static Stretching, General Warm -Up, Dynamic Stretching
38.2, 4.3
0,9
0,11
by Pagaduan J.C. et al. 93
© Editorial Committee of Journal of Human Kinetics
The study of Chaouachi et al. (2010)
involved elite or national level student -athletes
from different sports. On the other hand, the
participants in Ve tter’s study (2007) included
physically active and recreationally active
individuals. Both studies suggest that variations
in physiological demands and a physical activity
level may influence the effect of integrating SS
with GW and DS in CMJ performance.
In conclusion, the use of warm -up
protocols may produce mechanical and neural
responses that may affect countermovement jump
performance. In this study, performing SS and
NW before CMJ showed significant reductions in
CMJ. Also, SS following dynamic w arm-up
interventions inhibited the jump performance in
collegiate football athletes. It is interesting that the
application of dynamic active stretching
conducted after passive stretching could not
recover negative effects of passive stretching.
Although the study provided evidence that may
assist practitioners in designing warm -up
strategies in performance settings, certain
limitations should be noted. The study is only
limited to an acute finding using CMJ
performance only. Future studies should warrant
the use of other performance measures in longer
time settings. Also, the experimental protocols
failed to quantify physiological measures (e.g.
heart rate, temperature) which may be helpful in
understanding the current findings. Finally, the
results in the study are specific to the participants
chosen for the experiment . Caution should be
exercised in generalizing the effects across other
population.
References
Bergh U, Ekblom B. Influence of muscle temperature on maximal muscle strength and power ou tput in
human skeletal muscle. Acta Physiol Scand , 1979; 107: 33-37
Bosco C, Luhtanen P, Komi PV. A simple method for measurement of mechanical power in jumping. Eur J
Appl Physiol, 1983; 50: 273-282
Chaouachi A, Castagna C, Chtara M, Brughelli M, Turki O , Galy O, Chamari K, Behm DG. Effect of warm -
ups involving static or dynamic stretching on agility, sprinting, and jumping performance in
trained individuals. J Strength Cond Res, 2010; 24(8): 2001-2011
Cornwell A, Nelson AG, Sidaway B. Acute effects of st retching on the neuromechanical properties of the
tricep surae complex. Eur J Appl Physiol , 2002; 86: 428 -434
Costa PB, Rya n ED, Herda TJ, Walter AA, Hoge KM, Cramer JT. Acute effects of passive stretching on the
electromechanical delay and evoked twitch p roperties. Eur J Appl Physiol , 2010; 108: 301 -310
Davies CTM, Young K. Effect of temperature on the contractile properties and muscle power of triceps surae
in humans. Journal of Applied Physiology , 1983; 55 (1): 191 -195
Esposito F, Limonta E, Cè E. Time course of stretching -induced changes in mechanomyogram and force
characteristics. J Electromyogr Kines, 2011; 21: 795 –802
Evans RK, Rubley MK, Draper DO, Parcell AC, Young B. The effect of three warm -up techniques on
temperature rise and decay in human mus cle. Med Sci Sports Exerc , 2002; 34 (5): S
Fletcher I. The effect of different dynamic stretch velocities. Eur J of Appl Physiol, 2010; 109: 491-498
Fletcher IM, Anness R. The Acute Effects of Combined Static and Dynamic Stretch Protocols on Fifty -Meter
Sprint Performance in Track and Field Athletes. J Strength Cond Res, 2007; 21(3):784-787
Fletcher IM, Jones B. The effect of different warm -up protocols on 20 meter sprint peformance in trained
rugby union players. J Strength Cond Res, 2004; 18 (4): 885-888
Guissard N, Duchateau J. Neural aspects of muscle stretching. Exercise Sport Science Review 2006; 34 (4):
154-158
Hedrick A. Physiological responses to warm -up. J Strength Cond Res, 1992; 14: 25-27
94 Effect of Various Warm -Up Protocols on Jump Performance
Journal of Human Kinetics volume 3 5/2012 http://www.johk.pl
Holt BW, Lambourne K.The impact of different warm -up protocols on vertical jump performance in male
collegiate athletes. J Strength Cond Res, 2008; 22(1): 226 -229
Hough P, Ross EZ, Howatson G. Effects of Dynamic and Static Stretching on Vertical Jump Performance and
Electromyographic Activity. J Strength Cond Res, 2009; 23(2): 507-512
Knudson D, Bennett K, Corn R, Leick D, Smith C. Acute effects of stretching are not evident in the
kinematics of the vertical jump. J Strength Cond Res , 2001; 15(1):98 -101
Kubo K, Kanehisa H, Fukunaga T. Effects of stretching trai ning on viscoelastic properties of human tendon
structures in vivo. J Appl Physiol, 2002, 92(2): 595 -601
Kubo K, Kanehisa H, Kawakami Y, Fukuaga T. Influence of static stretching on viscoelastic propertiesof
human tendon structures in vivo. J Appl Physiol, 2001; 90(2): 520-527
Kubo K, Kawakami Y, Fukunaga T. Influence of elastic properties of tendon structures on jump performance
in humans. J Appl Physiol, 1999; 87(6): 2090 -2096
Magnusson P, Renström P. The European College of Sports Sciences Position state ment: The role of
stretching exercises in sports. Eur J Sport Sci , 2006; 6(2): 87-91
Samson M, Button D, Chaouachi A, Behm D. Effects of dynamic and static stretching within general and
activity specific warm -up protocols. J Sport Sci Med, 2012; 11: 279-285
Sim AY,Dawson BT ,Guelfi KJ,Wallman KE ,Young WB. Effects of static stretching in warm -up on repeated
sprint performance. J Strength Cond Res , 2009; 23(7): 2155-62
Vetter RE. Effects of Six Warm -Up Protocols on Sprint and Jump Performance. J Strength Cond Res, 2007;
21(3): 819-823
Wilson G, Elliott B, Wood G. Stretch shorten cycle performance enhancement through flexibility training.
Med Sci Sports Exerc , 1992; 24 (1): 116 -123
Winchester JB, Nelson AG, Landin D, Young MA, Schexnayder IC: Static stretching impairs sprint
performance in collegiate track and field athletes. J Strength Cond Res, 2008; 22(1): 13-18
Yamaguchi T, Ishii K. Effects of static stretching for 30 seconds and dynamic stretching on leg extension
power. J Strength Cond Res, 2005; 19(3): 677-83
Corresponding author:
Jeffrey C. Pagaduan
College of Human Kinetics, University of the Philippines – Diliman
Diliman, Quezon City, Philippines 1101
Phone: 63 915 860 8976
E-mail: jcpagaduan@gmail.com
