Content uploaded by Hayriye Cakir-Atabek
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Hayriye Cakir-Atabek on Sep 26, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
Content uploaded by Hayriye Cakir-Atabek
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Hayriye Cakir-Atabek on Sep 26, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
Journal of Physical Education and Sport
®
(JPES), 14(4), Art 100, pp.643 - 648, 2014
online ISSN: 2247 - 806X; p-ISSN: 2247 – 8051; ISSN - L = 2247 - 8051 © JPES
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------643
Corresponding Author HAYRIYE ÇAKIR-ATABEK, E-mail: hari03123@hotmail.com
Original Article
Relationship between anaerobic power, vertical jump and aerobic performance in
adolescent track and field athletes
HAYRIYE ÇAKIR-ATABEK
Faculty of Sports Sciences, Anadolu University, Eskişehir, TURKIYE
Published online: December 30, 2014
(Accepted for publication December 26, 2014)
DOI:10.7752/jpes.2014.04100;
Abstract:
The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between anaerobic power and vertical jump
performance in adolescent athletes. Twenty four track and field athletes participated in this study (mean age:
15.79±0.83 years; height: 166.78±9.77 cm; weight: 57.44±13.42 kg; BMI: 20.45±3.01 kg/m2; body fat
percentage (%): 18.80±5.55). The 12 minute Cooper test was performed to estimate VO2max (41.73±6.92
ml/kg.min). After 3-7 days the subjects applied counter movement jump (CMJ) and squat jump (SJ) for the
following parameters: (1) the maximum jumping height [SJh and CMJh], (2) the total work produced by the
body in each jumping condition [SJw and CMJw: weight (kg) x jump height (m)] and (3) the anaerobic
performance [CMJpower and SJpower (kg.m/s): P= √4.9 x weight (kg) x √jump height (m)]. The Wingate
anaerobic test was applied to determine peak power, average power and fatigue index. The jumping performance
variables (height, total work and anaerobic power) and VO2max did not relate significantly to the fatigue index
(p>0.05). All jump performance variables had a significant relationship with peak power and mean power
(p<0.05 and p<0.01). Although both the absolute and relative Wingate test variables were significantly
correlated with all jump performance variables, the r values for the relative variables were lower than their
absolute counterparts. The results of the present study indicated that in field conditions the trainers may predict
anaerobic performance using the jumping properties and when the subjects’ body weight was incorporated, this
led to a more representative indicator of the subjects jumping abilities.
Key words: track and field athletes, adolescents, anaerobic power, anaerobic capacity, squat jump, counter
movement jump
Introduction
Track and field is a sport performed indoors or outdoors and made up of various competitive athletic
contests based on running, hurdling, jumping (the high jump, the long jump, the triple jump), vaulting (the pole
vault), walking events and throwing varied weights and objects (shot put, hammer throw, discus throw and
javelin throw). Additionally, there are composite events as decathlon, heptathlon or pentathlon. Therefore the
strength and anaerobic power are the basic motoric abilities that determine the sports performance. The ability of
generating significant amounts of power is considered to be a strong predictor of athletic success (Bompa, 1993).
In shorter activities the patterns like jumping, throwing or striking the muscle strength, and particularly
the ability to produce it fast plays a major role (Bencke et al., 2002). One of the most important matters in
modern sports is evaluation of the athletes’ physical capacities; for this reason many tests are used for selection
procedures, for screening candidates, or to monitor the efficacy of training systems (Norkowski, 2002). The most
common field tests used to evaluate the anaerobic power and performance in athletes are the vertical jump tests
(Brooks et al., 2000). The vertical jump tests are used as a laboratory or field functional tests to measure power
output of the legs (Malliou et al., 2003) and it is considered to be a component of performance because of its
involvement in the activities of various explosive sports (track and field events, volleyball and weight lifting)
(Tsiokanos et al., 2002).
Anaerobic performance is composed of anaerobic power and capacity. The Wingate anaerobic power
test (WAnT) is a common dynamic test used to evaluate an athlete’s anaerobic performance. As a laboratory
measure, the WAnT is considered to be the most valid and reliable instrument to assess peak power (PP) and
anaerobic capacity (Inbar et al., 1996; Powers and Howley, 1996). It has been reported that there was a
significant correlation between PP and vertical jump height in athletes (r = 0.86) and in a group of mixed athletes
and non-athletes (r = 0.82) (Kasabalis et al., 2005).
Sports performance professionals and sports scientists have been focused on performance assessment;
however there are lacks of research examining the relationships between various motor skills (Vescovi and
HAYRIYE ÇAKIR-ATABEK
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JPES ®
www.efsupit.ro
644
McGuigan, 2008). While some studies have investigated the relationship between different physical performance
variables (anaerobic performance, vertical jump performance, sprinting ability etc.) an insufficient number of
studies have been conducted on track and field adolescent athletes. However the participation of children and
adolescents in competitive sports has increased recently. Knowledge of the power outputs and jumping height
would, therefore, be useful in terms of coaching, and it would be very vital in controlling the outcomes from the
training programs (Shalfawi et al., 2011). Thus, the purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship
between Wingate anaerobic test performance, vertical jump and aerobic performance in adolescent track and
field athletes.
Method
Participants
Twenty four amateur track and field young athletes (n= 13 males, age: 15.92 ± 0.64 years; n=11
females; age: 15.63 ± 1.02 years; runners, jumpers and throwers) of boarding sports high school volunteered to
participate in this study. All participants were the member of the same team competing in the national league and
trained at least ninety minutes in a day for six days per week. Nobody of the participants had a history of major
lower limb injury and disease. At the beginning of the study all participants were informed about possible risks
and benefits of the study and written consents were obtained from them and from their parents or legal guardian.
The study was approved by the local ethical committee and was conducted in accordance with the Helsinki
Declaration.
Procedures
The study was conducted in two parts over a week period. Anthropometric data collection and evolution
of maximal oxygen uptake (VO
2
max) were performed at the same day. After 3-7 days, vertical jump and
Wingate anaerobic power test (WAnT) were performed giving sufficient recovery time between tests. All
participants were instructed to avoid from strenuous exercise for the 48h period before the tests (Bloomer et al.,
2005).
Measurements
Participants’ heights were measured using a stadiometer (Holtain, Britain) to the nearest 0.1 cm,
additionally participants’ weights, BMI (kg/m
2
) and percent body fat (%) were estimated by bioelectrical
impedance analyzer (Tanita MC-180-MA, Japan). All measurements were performed in duplicate with the
average value used as the criterion. After collecting the anthropometric data, a 12 minute walk/run test (Cooper)
was used as an indirect method to predict VO
2
max. The results were determined by multiplying the number of
tours and the distance of each tour (400 m) and adding the distance of the completed tour (meter). The VO
2
max
values were determined using the Balke formula (1961).
VO
2
ml/kg.min = 33.3 + (distance covered/12 – 150) x 0.178 ml/kg.min
Three to seven days following the VO
2
max evaluation the participants came to the laboratory in the
morning (10.00 am) for the second part of the study. After 10-15 min (Bloomer et al., 2005) of rest in sitting
position systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP) and resting heart rate (HR) were
measured on the upper arm according to the manuscript, using sphygmomanometer (Microlife BP A100,
Switzerland).
First of all participants started with a standardized warm-up of 5-7 minute of cycling at 55-60 rpm
against no load (894 Ea, Peak Bike by Monark AB, Sweden) and 5-7 minute of stretching. Following the warm-
up, participants rested for 5-min. All jumps were performed using a dedicated force platform (Sport Expert TM,
MPS-501, Tumer Electronic LDT, Turkey). After a familiarization session (learning the proper techniques of the
two jump conditions) each subject performed three maximal voluntary vertical jumps at each of two testing
conditions - Squat Jump (SJ) and Counter Movement Jump (CMJ); and the best value of the three trials were
used for further analyses.
The SJ was performed from a starting position with the subjects’ knees flexed to 90
0
, hands fixed on the
hips and with no allowance for preparatory counter-movement. The CMJ was performed from an upright
standing position, with the hands fixed on the hips and with a counter movement preparatory phase ended at a
position corresponded to the starting position in SJ. Sufficient recovery time was given among trials (more than
2 minutes). For the SJ and CMJ, three parameters were estimated (Çakır-Atabek et al., 2009): (1) the maximum
jumping height (SJh and CMJh), (2) the total work produced by the body in each jumping condition (SJw and
CMJw) which was calculated according to Genuario and Dolgener formula (1980) and (3) the power output
(SJpower and CMJpower) value which was determined using the following formula (Roger, 1990).
SJ
power
and CMJ
power
(kg.m/s) = √4.9 x body weight (kg) x √jump height (m)
The WAnT was conducted using a mechanically braked cycle ergometer (894 Ea, Peak Bike by Monark
AB, Sweden). Participants were seated on the ergometer and adjustments to the ergometer were made to ensure
an optimal cycling position. Seat height was adjusted to each participant’s satisfaction, and toe clips with straps
were used to prevent the feet from slipping of the pedals. The WAnT was conducted according to widely
accepted recommendations for standardization (Inbar et al., 1996). The WAnT was administered for 30 seconds
HAYRIYE ÇAKIR-ATABEK
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JPES ®
www.efsupit.ro
645
and the resistance was set at 7.5% of body mass. Participants were encouraged to pedal as fast as they could
prior to the application of resistance. Following application of resistance the participants continued pedaling at
maximum speed throughout the remaining 30s. Verbal encouragement was provided by the investigator.
Absolute peak power (APP), relative peak power (RPP), absolute mean power (AMP), relative mean power
(RMP) and minimum power were calculated automatically by the WAnT program via computer (Monark
Exercise AB, Sweden) and were recorded for further analysis. A fatigue index (FI) was calculated by using the
following equation (Inbar et al., 1996).
Fatigue Index (FI) = [(Peak Power Output - Minimum Power Output) / Peak Power Output] x 100
Statistical analysis
All values were presented as mean ± standard deviation. Before parametric analyses were done, the
normality of distribution of the data was assessed with Kolmogorov–Smirnov test. Then, the correlations
between Wingate anaerobic test variables (APP, RPP, AMP, RMP, and FI), jump performance variables (SJh,
CMJh, SJw, CMJw, SJpower and CMJpower) and VO
2
max was evaluated using the Pearson Product Moment
Correlation analysis. All analyses were executed using the SPSS for windows version 16.0 and statistical
significance was set at p < 0.05.
Results
Participants’ descriptive data are presented in Table 1. The squat jump (SJh, SJw and SJpower) and the
counter movement jump (CMJh, CMJw and CMJpower) values of the subjects are presented in Table 2,
moreover, the values of WAnT performance (APP, RPP, AMP, RMP, and FI (%)) of the subjects are presented
in Table 3.
Table 1: Participants’ descriptive data
Females (n=11) Males (n=13) Total (n=24)
Age (years) 15.63 ± 1.02 15.92 ± 0.64 15.79 ± 0.83
Height (cm) 159.30 ± 6.51 173.12 ± 7.28 166.79 ± 9.78
Weight (kg) 49.81 ± 4.32 63.90 ± 15.22 57.45 ± 13.43
Percent Body Fat (%) 22.92 ± 3.42 15.33 ± 4.56 18.81 ± 5.55
Body Mass Index (kg/m
2
) 19.63 ± 1.23 21.15 ± 3.87 20.45 ± 3.01
Resting SBP (mmHg) 112.91 ± 11.88 119.46 ± 12.59 116.46 ± 12.46
Resting DBP (mmHg) 69.18 ± 8.07 71.84 ± 5.83 70.63 ± 6.92
Resting HR (pulse/min) 83.82 ± 11.52 69.69 ± 12.13 76.17 ± 13.65
VO
2
max (ml.kg
-1
.min
-1
) 36.96 ± 5.09 45.77 ± 5.65 41.73 ± 6.93
Note: SBP: Systolic blood pressure, DBP: Diastolic blood pressure, HR: Heart rate, VO
2
max: Maximal oxygen
uptake
Table 2: The maximum jump height, the total work and the anaerobic power values of the subjects, produced by
the body in each jumping condition
Females (n=11) Males (n=13) Total (n=24)
SJh (cm) 24.09 ± 3.11 31.23 ± 3.70 27.96 ± 4.96
CMJh (cm) 28.18 ± 3.89 35.69 ± 4.59 32.25 ± 5.67
SJw (kg.m) 11.98 ± 1.69 20.07 ± 5.53 16.36 ± 5.84
CMJw (kg.m) 13.98± 1.84 23.00 ± 6.81 18.87 ± 6.84
SJpower (kg.m/s) 53.97 ± 5.15 79.15 ± 19.99 67.61 ± 19.60
CMJpower (kg.m/s) 58.30 ± 5.12 84.72 ± 22.15 72.61 ± 21.17
Note: SJh: Squat jump height, CMJh: Counter movement jump height, SJw: Squat jump total work, CMJw:
Counter movement jump total work, SJpower: Squat jump anaerobic power, CMJpower: Counter movement
jump anaerobic power
Table 3: Wingate anaerobic test peak power, mean power and fatigue index values of the subjects
Females (n=11) Males (n=13) Total (n=24)
Peak Power (w) 481.18 ± 55.67 854.91 ± 205.12 683.62 ± 243.89
Peak Power (w/kg) 9.68 ± 0.78 13.43 ± 1.79 11.71 ± 2.36
Mean Power (w) 272.52 ± 33.28 450.30 ± 97.58 368.82 ± 116.78
Mean Power (w/kg) 5.48 ± 0.54 7.08 ± 0.57 6.35 ± 0.98
Fatigue Index (%) 74.90 ± 3.91 79.78 ± 12.89 77.55 ± 9.97
Load (kg) 3.20 ± 0.27 4.22 ± 1.07 3.75 ± 0.95
HAYRIYE ÇAKIR-ATABEK
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JPES ®
www.efsupit.ro
646
Table 4 presents the correlation coefficients among measured variables. For all examined variables, it
appears that the jump performance variables (height, total work and anaerobic power) and VO
2
max did not have
a significant relationship with the FI (%) (p > 0.05). Furthermore, the VO
2
max did not have a significant
relationship with load (kg), peak power and mean power expressed in watt (w: absolute values) (p>0.05), but it
had a significant relationship with peak power and mean power expressed in watt/weight (w/kg: relative values)
(p<0.05). In addition, all jump performance variables (height, total work and anaerobic power) had a significant
relationship with load (kg), peak power and mean power (p<0.05 and p<0.01). Although both the absolute and
relative WAnT variables (w and w/kg) were significantly correlated with SJw, CMJw, SJpower and CMJpower
performance variables the r values for the relative variables were lower than their absolute counterparts (Table
4).
Table 4 Correlation between Wingate anaerobic test variables and vertical jump tests variables and maximal
oxygen uptake
Load (kg) APP (w) RPP(w/kg) AMP (w) RMP (w/kg) FI (%)
SJh (cm) 0.501* 0.709** 0.738** 0.699** 0.761** NS
CMJh (cm) 0.478* 0.693** 0.697** 0.669** 0.691** NS
SJw (kg.m) 0.906** 0.915** 0.598** 0.938** 0.577** NS
CMJw (kg.m) 0.893** 0.898** 0.562** 0.917** 0.530** NS
SJpower (kg.m/s) 0.955** 0.912** 0.528** 0.945** 0.502* NS
CMJpower (kg.m/s) 0.945** 0.904** 0.513** 0.934** 0.479* NS
VO
2
max (ml.kg
-1
.min
-1
) NS NS 0.535** NS 0.635** NS
Note: * p < 0.05; ** p ≤ 0.01; NS: No Significant
SJh: Squat Jump Height, CMJh: Counter Movement Jump Height, SJw: Squat Jump Total Work, CMJw:
Counter Movement Jump Total Work, SJpower: Squat Jump anaerobic power, CMJpower: Counter Movement
Jump anaerobic power, VO
2
max: Maximal Oxygen Uptake, APP: Absolute Peak Power, RPP: Relative Peak
Power, AMP: Absolute Mean Power, RMP: Relative Mean Power, FI (%): Fatigue Index
Discussion
The relationship between vertical jump performance and WAnT performance was investigated in
amateur adolescent track and field athletes. The main findings of the current study show that there is a high
correlation between WAnT performance variables (APP, RPP, AMP, RMP) and all jump performance variables,
however, the r values for the relative variables were lower than their absolute counterparts.
Anaerobic performance is important for every type of sport activities. As it is known the sudden and
high intensity power production is required in times of sudden attack and press defense during the team games,
during the sprinting, during the throwing and jumping events and also in many other sports activities. Anaerobic
performance is composed of anaerobic power and capacity. Anaerobic power reflects the ability to use the
phosphagenic system and anaerobic capacity, reflects the ability to derive energy from a combination of
anaerobic glycolysis and the phosphagen system. Anaerobic performance depends on many factors, such as body
composition, age, sex, muscle fiber composition, muscle cross sectional area, strength and training (Kin-Đşler et
al., 2008). The dynamic and static contraction power of legs are closely related to anaerobic power performance
where it is an important criterion for the sport performance in sports involving explosive efforts (Fox et al.,
1993). In addition The Wingate anaerobic power test is a reliable and the most popular method for calculating
the anaerobic peak power of lower limb muscles (Inbar et al., 1996).
The relationships between various performance variables and fatigue index have been examined by few
studies (Alemdaroğlu, 2012; Saç and Taşmektepligil, 2011; Arslan, 2005). Fatigue index is one of the criteria
that assess an athlete’s ability to sustain high power outputs during exercise. It has been reported that in first
division basketball players there was no significant relationship between VO
2
max and FI; also, there was no
significant relationship between CMJh, SJh and FI (Alemdaroğlu, 2012). In another study it has been shown that
in well trained male athletes there was not significant relationship between anaerobic power, measured with the
vertical jump, and FI (Saç and Taşmektepligil, 2011). Additionally, in a group of trained and sedentary men and
women no correlation was seen between vertical jump values and FI (Arslan, 2005). In consistent with these
results, the findings of the current study indicated that the jump performance variables (height, total work and
anaerobic power) and VO
2
max did not significantly correlate with the FI in adolescent track and field athletes
(p>0.05). In a recent study by Alemdaroğlu (2012) it was shown that there was no significant relationship
between RPP, RMP and VO
2
max. Although, the results of the present study indicated that the VO
2
max did not
correlate with load (kg), APP and AMP (p>0.05), the VO
2
max
significantly correlated with RPP and RMP
(r=0.54; r=0.64, respectively; p<0.01). Lack of findings regarding the relationship between WAnT performance
and VO
2
max limits our discussion.
Mechanical power is an essential variable for the performance in sport and in the daily activities, and
has been studied by researches for a long time. SJ and CMJ are commonly used tests to measure athlete-jumping
ability. SJ is used as a measure of lower-body concentric strength/power, while CMJ as a measure of lower-body
HAYRIYE ÇAKIR-ATABEK
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JPES ®
www.efsupit.ro
647
reactive strength/power (Newton et al., 2006). The mentioned studies suggest the two tests, SJ and CMJ, are
valid and relevant measurement tools of athletic lower-body force and power ability (Riggs and Sheppard, 2009).
When performing different types of jumps, the central nervous system uses different motor programs to execute
the neuromuscular coordination necessary for the specific jumps. The SJ can be used as the most basic functional
expression of explosive muscle strength as it requires only concentric activation. The CMJ requires moderate
eccentric activation followed by high concentric activation, and therefore requires a more complex timing and
graduation of the motor units. Thus the SJ can serve as a baseline for the potential of explosive muscle strength
and CMJ may indicate development of this potential (Bencke et al., 2002).
The results of the present study indicated that all jump performance variables (height, total work and
anaerobic power) had a significant relationship with load (kg), PP and MP (p<0.05 and p<0.01; Table 4).
Stauffer et al. (2010) observed strong significant relationship (r=0.85) between peak power measured with the
vertical jump and the WAnT in the group of 13 females basketball players (age: 19.7±1.1 years). In a similar
study conducted by Farlinger et al. (2007) the r value of correlation between the vertical jump (height) and the
modified Wingate performance (APP, AMP, RPP and RMP) was reported to be between 0.63 and 0.69 in a
group of male competitive hockey players between the ages of 15 and 22 years (mean age: 16.3±1.7 years).
Besides this, it has been reported that the correlation between the peak power measured with the vertical jump
and the absolute Wingate performance (APP, AMP) were 0.88 and 0.89 respectively. On the other hand the
correlation between the peak power measured with the vertical jump and the relative Wingate performance
(RPP, RMP) were 0.46 and 0.33 respectively (Farlinger et al., 2007). In another study conducted by Arslan
(2005) it was reported that in the regular exercise group, which included men and women, there was a positive
correlation between APP, RPP, AMP, RMP and vertical jump performance (r=0.60, r=0.49, r=0.63, r=59,
respectively). In addition it has been indicated that there was significant relationship between APP, AMP and
vertical jump performance (r=0.68, r=0.65, respectively) in the sedentary group (Arslan, 2005). Moreover, it has
been determined that the WAnT-APP was significantly correlated to vertical jump height (r=0.56) in soccer
players aged of 19.6±0.8 years (Miller et al., 2011).
In another study conducted by Bencke et al. (2002) it has been observed that there was a weak
relationship between PP development and SJ and CMJ performance (r=0.41 and r=0.46, respectively) in a group
of children (boys and girls) aged between 10 – 13 years old, which were active in swimming, tennis, gymnastics
or handball. Similar to these results, it has been reported that in a group of male athletes competing at the
national and international level (volleyball, basketball, wrestling) there was a weak relationship between vertical
jump and PP (r=0.36) (Saç and Taşmektepligil, 2011). Moreover, it has been shown that there was a weak
relationship between AMP, RMP and vertical jump (r=0.35, r=0.43) (Almuzaini and Fleck, 2008).
In contrast to the mentioned studies above, it has been indicated that there was no relationship between
APP, RPP and vertical jump performance in a group of physical education student (age: 21.66±1.66 years)
(Almuzaini and Fleck, 2008). Besides this, no relationship was observed between CMJh and APP in adolescent
skiers (age: 14.6 ± 1.1 years for boys and 14.9 ± 1.0 years for girls) (Emeterio and González-Badillo, 2010).
Additionally, no significant relationship was observed between RPP, RMP and CMJh, no significant relationship
was observed between RPP and SJh in American football players (age: 23.07±3.45 years), only the SJh was
observed to be significantly related to RMP (r=0.536) (Eyuboğlu et al., 2009). Moreover, although it has been
determined that the relationship between CMJh, SJh and PP were significant, the relationship between CMJh and
MP was not significant (Alemdaroğlu, 2012).
Conclusion
In conclusion, there are two purposes for assessing athletic performance. First and most common is to
determine quantitative improvements made after a training cycle. This allows the athlete and sport performance
professional to examine if a training stimulus was sufficient to cause a positive adaptation. This method does not
however lead the professionals in the direction that they should focus the training on. Therefore a second
purpose of athletic assessment is to point out specific weaknesses in performance using various splits (Shalfawi
et al., 2011). It is known that the SJ and CMJ are typically used as indicators of lower body power and the results
indicated that vertical jump may predict the maximal anaerobic power and could be used by coaches as a
practical and easy-to-apply field screening test (Kasabalis et al., 2005). However, it has been suggested that
when the subjects’ body weight was incorporated, this led to a more representative indicator of the subjects
jumping abilities. It means that, with same jumping height a heavier subject will need greater extension strength
to overcome the higher external resistance during jumping (Çakır–Atabek et al., 2009).
Acknowledgement: My special thanks to the physical education teacher of sports high school and athletes for
their willingness to participate in this study and to Hatice Duvarcı for her support during data collection process.
Conflict of interest The author disclose no conflicts of interest.
References
Bompa TO .(1993). Periodization of strength. Toronto, Ontario: Veritas Publishing Inc.
Bencke J, Damsgaard R, Saekmose A, Jorgensen P, Jorgensen K, Klausen K. (2002). Anaerobic power and
HAYRIYE ÇAKIR-ATABEK
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JPES ®
www.efsupit.ro
648
muscle strength characteristics of 11 years old elite and non-elite boys and girls from gymnastics, team
handball, tennis and swimming. Scand J Med Sci Sports 12(3):171–178.
Norkowski H. (2002). Anaerobic power of handball players representing various sport levels. J Hum Kinetics
7:43-50.
Brooks GA, Fahey TD, White TP, Baldwin KM. (2000). Exercise physiology: Human bioenergetics and its
applications, Mountain View CA: Mayfield Publishing Company
Malliou P, Ispirlidis I, Beneka A, Taxildaris K, Godolias G. (2003). Vertical jump and knee extensors isokinetic
performance in professional soccer players related to the phase of the training period. Isokinet Exerc Sci
11(3):165 – 169.
Tsiokanos A, Kellis E, Jamurtas A, Kellis S. (2002). The relationship between jumping performance and
isokinetic strength of hip and knee extensors and ankle plantar flexors.Isokinet Exerc Sci 10(2)107–115.
Inbar O, Bar-Or O, Skinner JS. (1996). The Wingate anaerobic test. Champaign IL: Human Kinetics, pp. 41-71.
Powers SK, Howley ET. (1996). Exercise physiology: Theory and application to fitness and performance.
Boston MA: McGraw-Hill
Kasabalis A, Douda H, Tokmakidis SP. (2005). Relationship between anaerobic power and jumping of selected
male volleyball players of different ages. Percept Mot Skills 100:607 – 614.
Vescovi JD, McGuigan MR. (2008). Relationships between sprinting, agility, and jump ability in female
athletes. J Sports Sci 26(1):97 – 107.
Shalfawi SA, Sabbah A, Kailani G, Tønnessen E, Enoksen E (2011) The relationship between running speed and
measures of vertical jump in professional basketball players: a field-test approach. J Strength Cond Res
25(11):3088-3092.
Bloomer RJ, Goldfarb AH, Wideman L, McKenzie MJ, Consitt LA (2005) Effects of acute aerobic and
anaerobic exercise on blood markers of oxidative stress. J Strength Cond Res 19(2):276-285.
Balke B (1961) Cardiopulmonary and metabolic effect of physical training, health and fitness in the modem
Word. The Atletic Đnstitute and ACSM.
Çakır-Atabek H, Sönmez AG, Yılmaz Đ. (2009). The relationship between isokinetic strength of knee
extensors/flexors, jumping and anaerobic performance. Isokinet Exerc Sci 17:1–5.
Genuario SE, Dolgener FA. (1980). The relationship of isokinetic torque at two speeds to the vertical jump. Res
Q Exerc Sport 51(4):593–598.
Rogers C. (1990). Exercise physiology laboratory manual. Dubuque IA: Wm C Brown Publishers
Kin-Işler A, Ariburun B, Özkan A, Aytar A, Tandoğan R. (2008). The relationship between anaerobic
performance, muscle strength and sprint ability in American football players. Isokinet Exerc Sci
16(2):87-92.
Fox EL, Bowers RW, Foss ML. (1993). The physiological basis of physical education and athletes. Philadelphia:
WB Saunders, pp. 422–423, 674.
Alemdaroğlu U. (2012). The relationship between muscle strength, anaerobic performance, agility, sprint ability
and vertical jump performance in professional basketball players. J Hum Kinetics 31:149 – 158.
Saç A, Taşmektepligil MY. (2011). Evaluation of the results of three different anaerobıc power tests obtained by
measurıng different sport groups. Journal of Sports and Performance Researches 2(1):5-12.
Arslan C. (2005). Relationship between the 30-second Wingate test and characteristics of isometric and
explosive leg strength in young subjects. J Strength Cond Res 19(3):658 – 666.
Newton RU, Rogers RA, Volek JS, Hakkinen K, Kraemer WJ. (2006). Four weeks of optimal load ballistic
resistance training at the end of season attenuates declining jump performance of women volleyball
players. J Strength Cond Res 20(4):955-961.
Riggs MP, Sheppard JM. (2009). The relative importance of strength and power qualities to vertical jump height
of elite beach volleyball players during the counter movement and squat jump. J Hum Sport Exerc
4(3):221-236.
Stauffer KA, Nagle EF, Goss FL, Robertson RJ. (2010). Assessment of anaerobic power in female division I
collegiate basketball players. J Exerc Physiol Online 13(1):1-9.
Farlinger CM, Kruisselbrink LD, Fowles JR. (2007). Relationships to skating performance in competitive
hockey players. J Strength Cond Res 21(3):915-922.
Miller DK, Kieffer HS, Kemp HE, Torres SE. (2011). Off-season physiological profiles of elite National
Collegiate Athletic Association Division III male soccer players. J Strength Cond Res 25(6):1508-1513.
Almuzaini KS, Fleck SJ. (2008). Modification of the standing long jump test enhances ability to predict
anaerobic performance. J Strength Cond Res 22(4):1265-1272.
Emeterio CA, González-Badillo JJ. (2010). The physical and anthropometric profiles of adolescent alpine skiers
and their relationship with sporting rank. J Strength Cond Res 24(4):1007-1012.
Eyuboğlu E, Özkan A, Köklü Y, Alemdaroğlu U, Akalan C. (2009). An investigation of the relationships
different protocols anaerobic performance tests determined in American football players. International
Journal of Human Sciences 6(2):368-379.
