Content uploaded by Matthew Ruiz
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Matthew Ruiz on Dec 04, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
EFFECTS OF DYNAMIC WARM-UP ON LOWER BODY
EXPLOSIVENESS AMONG COLLEGIATE
BASEBALL PLAYERS
TRAVIS L. FRANTZ AND MATTHEW D. RUIZ
Department of Kinesiology and Recreation Management, Huntington University, Huntington, Indiana
ABSTRACT
Frantz, TL and Ruiz, MD. Effects of dynamic warm-up on lower
body explosiveness among collegiate baseball players.
J Strength Cond Res 25(11): 2985–2990, 2011—Debate
exists between the benefits and effectiveness of a dynamic
warm-up vs. a static warm-up. This study was conducted to
compare dynamic and static warm-ups on lower body explo-
siveness as measured by stationary vertical jump (VJ) and
standing long jump (LJ) among collegiate baseball players.
Participants (n= 17; age = 19.59 61.37 years) progressed
through 3 different warm-ups on weekly testing dates over a 7-
week period. After the warm-up routines, participants were
measured for VJ height and L J distance in centimeters. The
mean jump heights for VJ were 66.49 68.28 cm for dynamic,
61.42 67.51 cm for static, and 62.72 67.84 cm for the
control condition. The mean jump distances for L J were 231.99
620.69 cm for dynamic, 219.69 620.96 cm for static, and
226.46 620.60 cm for the control. Results indicated that the
participants jumped significantly higher in both experimental
conditions while under the influence of the dynamic warm-up
(VJ—F= 22.08; df = 1.33, 21.345; p,0.00 and L J—F= 32.20;
df = 2, 32; p,0.01). Additional L J analysis determined that
individuals jumped significantly further after no warm-up
compared to after a static warm-up (26.78, p,0.05). Lower
body explosiveness is critical in baseball and many other sports
as well. The results show that dynamic warm-up increases both
VJ height and L J distance. Specifically, these findings indicate
that athletes could gain nearly 2 in. on his or her vertical jump by
simply switching from a static warm-up routine to a dynamic
routine.
KEY WORDS vertical jump, long jump, athlete, baseball, static,
stretching, dynamic stretching
INTRODUCTION
For decades, athletes have stretched before begin-
ning a physical activity to increase their level of
performance while decreasing susceptibility to
injury. However, recent research (4,5,7,8,10,13,
15,17,19) suggests that the traditional means of static
stretching before activity does not provide the benefits to
performance and injury prevention that athletes have always
assumed and is not the best means of warm-up for exercise
and physical activity. A more modern form of preworkout
activity, known as dynamic warm-up, has emerged as the
more effective method of performance enhancement.
This study has defined traditional static stretching warm-up
as consisting of various routines that use stretching while at
rest and are composed of activities intended to elongate the
muscles. A dynamic warm-up involves activities that
use active motion and momentum rather than stretching
while at rest (1).
Although some studies have shown no difference between
the effects of dynamic and static warm-up before the physical
activity or sport (2–4,20), the majority support a dynamic
warm-up as the more effective means for preparing the body
for the demands of physical activity or sport (4,5,7,8,10,
13,15,17,19). Specifically, studies have determined that a
dynamic warm-up increases leg power on jump performance
(4,5,8,10,13,19) when compared to other warm-up and
stretching routines. In addition, others have found that sprint
performance and submaximal running can also be improved
by using a dynamic warm-up before sprinting (15,17).
Although all the previously mentioned studies have shown
the acute benefits of dynamic warm-ups, an additional study
discovered that dynamic warm-ups improve measures of
power, speed, agility, endurance, flexibility, and strength over
a long-term period of time (7). Not only has a dynamic warm-
up been shown to be more beneficial than a static warm-up,
but also some evidence suggests that static stretching may
actually decrease performance. For example, static stretching
negatively impacts vertical jump performance, sprint perform-
ances, and lower-extremity power when compared to both
dynamic warm-up and no warm-up (6,9,14).
Because this area of research is relatively new and has
developed only recently, additional studies need to be
Address correspondence to Dr. Matthew D. Ruiz, mruiz@huntington.edu.
25(11)/2985–2990
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Ó2011 National Strength and Conditioning Association
VOLUME 25 | NUMBER 11 | NOVEMBER 2011 | 2985
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
conducted to continue to substantiate the evidence for
the effectiveness of a dynamic warm-up on lower body
explosiveness. In particular, dynamic warm-ups need to be
tested on different populations across the exercise, fitness, and
sport spectrum, such as collegiate baseball players. This study
was conducted in an effort to fill the gap in research, which
existed concerning the effects of warm-ups on lower body
explosiveness among the population of baseball players and
collegiate athletes. This population has not been studied
extensively in previous literature.
This study compared the effects of dynamic warm-ups, static
warm-ups, and no warm-up on lower body explosiveness as
measured by stationary vertical jump (VJ) and standing long
jump (LJ) among collegiate baseball players. Baseball players,
particularly infielders, do use jumping from a stationary
position during game play. However, measuring VJ and LJ was
chosen in an effort to determine and test overall lower body
explosiveness rather than to simply calculate stationary
jumping ability. Lower body explosiveness is critical to
baseball, a sport in which fast lower body movements must
be constantly made both in the field and at the plate. It is not
practical to test the lower body explosiveness of an outfielder
chasing down a fly ball during a practice session or game play.
The researchers of this study decided that the best way to
quantify lower body explosiveness of baseball players was
through the measurement of both VJ and LJ. Research was
conducted in an effort to generate findings to either sub-
stantiate or refute previous research studies concerning warm-
ups and its effects on various populations. The first hypothesis
in this study was that the dynamic warm-up will show the
greatest lower body explosiveness among collegiate baseball
players over a 7-week period when compared to a static warm-
up and the control condition of no warm-up. The second
hypothesis was that static warm-up would result in lower jump
heights and distances when compared to no warm-up.
METHODS
Experimental Approach to the Problem
In this study, participants progressed through 3 forms of
warm-ups. These included dynamic warm-up, static warm-
up, and no warm-up, which are defined below. The study was
conducted over a 7-week period, with the fourth week of the
study serving as an intermission and rest period. Each of the
3 warm-up conditions was tested twice on separate occasions,
once before and once after a week of intermission. One
evening a week for 7 weeks all of the participants were led
through 1 of the 3 specified preworkout warm-up conditions:
dynamic warm-up, static warm-up, and no warm-up (control)
(independent variable). Weeks 1 and 5 tested dynamic warm-
up; weeks 2 and 6 tested static warm-up; weeks 3 and 7 tested
no warm-up; and week 4 served as rest week. Upon
completion of the warm-up conducted that particular day,
participants were tested a single time at maximal effort on
2 forms of lower body explosiveness: VJ and LJ (dependent
variable). Participants conducted the specified warm-ups
(dynamic, static, or control) only on the day of testing. For
example, on Wednesday night during week 2, the participants
were led through the static routine and then tested
immediately after completing the warm-up. This testing
was only done on Wednesday. For the other 6 days of the
week when testing was not being recorded, participants
warmed up using a combination of various stretches and
plyometrics which the coaching staff had been implementing
for the past few years. This combination was not specific to
any published reference nor has it been validated in any
manner—it was simply performed based upon the preferences
of the coaching staff. This combination was performed every
day during the 7-week period when it was not a testing day.
Testing took place at either an indoor multipurpose field
house facility or an outdoor baseball complex during the
spring of 2010 at a small Midwest liberal arts university. At
both locations, participants jumped off a hard, concrete
surface wearing the same type of shoes (no cleats were
allowed). The duration of the warm-up, followed by testing,
was approximately 10–20 minutes.
Subjects
Twenty-five collegiate baseball players from a small Midwestern
liberal arts university agreed to participate in the study;
however, because of injury and scheduling conflicts, only 17
participants were included in the final results (mean age of
19.59 61.37 years). The mean height in centimeters of
the participants was 181.55 66.04 (5 ft. 11.47 62.38 in.), and
the weight was 81.51 69.32 kg (179.70 620.55 lb). All
participants were in training for competitive baseball at the
collegiate level during the time in which the study was
conducted. It was assumed because of this training that the
participants were healthy and in strong physical condition.
The institution’s Internal Review Board approved all
procedures before participants were tested. All participants
signed an informed consent.
Procedures
All the participants were taken through one of the warm-up
routines described below on the designated weekly testing
date. The form and movements necessary for each of the
individual warm-up routines were demonstrated to the
participants before conducting the routine. Researchers also
monitored the participants during the warm-up to make sure
the correct form and actions were being used throughout.
Upon completion of the routine, 2 separate testing stations
were set up, one for VJ and one for LJ. Each time the testing
was conducted, the same researcher was present at the same
station to record the values. Participants were assigned
a number upon agreeing to participate in the study. These
numbers provided the order for which the participants filed
through the testing station. This ensured that each participant
started at the same place and was tested in the same order
with the same amount of time elapsing between jumps. This
order also allowed for the testing process to go as quickly,
efficiently, and effectively as possible. For example, participant
2986
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the
TM
Warm-Ups and Lower Body Explosiveness
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
9 was first in line at the LJ station. After completing the jump,
he moved onto the next station of VJ and stood behind
participant 8. Throughout the duration of the testing,
participant 9 always remained behind participant 8 and in
front of participant 10.
The warm-up routines were carried out as follows based
upon commonly outlined exercises (18) in conjunction with
the researchers’ own preferences. The dynamic warm-up
proceeded in the following order: forward lunge with forearm
to opposite instep, backward lunge with rotation, jackknife
(inchworm), knee to chest, toe touch, straight leg march,
straight leg march with skipping, lateral shuffle with
countermovement, lateral leg swings, straight leg swings, hip
rockers, reverse hip rockers, inverted hamstring, lunge fast,
carioca short, cariocalong, falling starts, backpedal with a turn,
and backpedal with 2 lateral turns. The static warm-up
proceeded in the following order: standing hamstring stretch
to the right, left, and middle, standing quadriceps stretch on
the right and left, calf stretch to the right and left, deep side
lunge to the right and left, squatting butterfly stretch, straddle
stretch to the right, left, and middle, sitting butterfly stretch,
sitting figure-4 stretch to the right and left, torso twist to the
right and left, piriformis stretch to the right and left, and laying
quadriceps stretch to the right and left. It is important to
recognize that the specifics of the routine are not as important
as the routine as a whole. Any number of dynamic and static
exercises could be used as a part of the routine and would
seemingly yield similar results.
Because countermovement jumps (CMJs) and the Just
Jump System have both been validated and shown to be
reliable and retestable (12,13,16), they were used in this study
to measure lower body explosiveness, rather than power (11).
Stationary vertical jump was tested using the Just Jump
System. Participants stood flat footed and stationary on the
jump mat. Participants then used a CMJ to explode upward
off the mat. Height in inches was calculated by the Just Jump
System once the participant landed (7,8,11) and was then
converted to centimeters for reporting purposes.
Stationary long jump was tested using a tape measure
placed on the ground. Participants jumped forward as far as
possible from the standing, stationary position. Arm move-
ment and flexion of the legs at the knee were permitted but
regulated as consistently as possible according to the
judgment of the researcher. The same researcher recorded
data at the same station every week to maintain consistency.
Distance in centimeters was measured from the starting point
to the heel of the back foot closet to the starting point.
Statistical Analyses
Using a pair of repeated-measures analyses of variance
(RM-ANOVA), the 3 warm-up conditions (dynamic, static,
and control) were compared to determine if the type of warm-
up significantly influenced the distance, measured by the VJ
and LJ, that the participants could jump. The post hoc
analyses made pairwise comparisons using the Bonferroni
statistic. Furthermore, Mauchley’s test of sphericity was used
to indicate if the assumption of sphericity was violated; if
a violation of the assumption occurred, degrees of freedom
were corrected using the Greenhouse–Geisser estimate of
sphericity. Power (n= 17) was observed to be .0.99 with
both VJ and LJ. The effect size, as determined by partial eta
2
,
was 0.58 for the VJ and 0.67 for the LJ.
RESULTS
The 3 warm-up conditions significantly influenced the distance
at which the participants could jump, in both a VJ and L J.
Table 1 presents the means and SDs for each of the warm-up
conditions. Mauchly’s test of sphericity was met for LJ but not
for the VJ analysis (x
2
=0.50;df=2;p,0.05) so
a Greenhouse–Geisser adjustment (e=0.67)wasused.
The omnibus results of the RM-ANOVA for the VJ analysis
indicated that there was a significant difference (F= 22.08;
df = 1.33, 21.35; p,0.00) present between one or more of
the 3 warm-up conditions. The post hoc analysis made
pairwise comparisons using the Bonferroni adjustment for
multiple comparisons (Table 2). This revealed that there was
a significant difference between the dynamic warm-up and
TABLE 1. Mean jump measurements after different
warm-ups (cm).*
Warm-up
groups
Jumps
Stationary
vertical jump
Standing
long jump
Dynamic 66.49 68.28 231.99 620.69
Static 61.42 67.51 219.69 620.96
Control 62.72 67.84 226.46 620.60
*Values are given as mean 6SD.
TABLE 2. Post hoc analysis of stationary vertical jump
using Bonferroni adjustment for multiple
comparisons.
Warm-up comparison Mean difference
Dynamic Static 5.07*
Control 3.77*
Static Dynamic 25.07*
Control 21.30
Control Dynamic 23.77*
Static 1.30
*Mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.
VOLUME 25 | NUMBER 11 | NOVEMBER 2011 | 2987
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the
TM
|
www.nsca-jscr.org
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
the static warm-up (5.07, p,0.05) and the dynamic warm-
up and the control (3.77, p,0.05). This finding supported
the hypothesis that a dynamic warm-up would yield
significantly better performance, measured by distance
jumped, than both the static warm-up and control condition.
However, it did not support the hypothesis that static warm-
up would result in lower jump heights and distances when
compared to the control condition.
For LJ, sphericity can be assumed according to Mauchly’s
test (x
2
= 0.77; df = 2; p.0.05), and therefore, no further
adjustments are needed. The repeated-measures ANOVA for
LJ showed a significant difference between the dynamic
warm-up when compared to either static warm-up or the
control group of no warm-up (F= 32.20; df = 2,32; p,0.01).
The post hoc analysis made pairwise comparisons using the
Bonferroni adjustment for multiple comparisons (Table 3).
This revealed that there was a significant difference between
the dynamic warm-up and the static warm-up (12.30,
p,0.05) and between the dynamic warm-up and the
control (5.52, p,0.05). In addition, significant difference was
also found between the static warm-up and the control group
of no warm-up (26.78, p,0.05). These results support both
of the previously mentioned hypotheses.
DISCUSSION
Collegiate baseball players spend much time in pursuit of
enhancing abilities and improving performance. Various types
of warm-ups, most commonly dynamic and static, are used in
an attempt to improve performance despite debate over the
effectiveness of each in the sport and exercise realm. The
purpose of this study was to compare the effects of dynamic,
static, and no warm-ups on 2 forms of lower body
explosiveness (VJ and LJ) among collegiate baseball players
in an effort to determine if there was a significant difference in
jump performance after the various warm-up procedures.
For VJ, the average jump height improved significantly after
dynamic warm-up when compared to either static warm-up
or no warm-up. However, there was no difference found in
jumping performance for VJ between the static warm-up and
no warm-up group for VJ. When analyzing LJ the average
jump distance improved after dynamic warm-up when
compared to either a static warm-up or no warm-up. In
addition, jump distances for LJ after static warm-up were
worse than that of the no warm-up group.
The first hypothesis was supported as dynamic warm-up
did improve jump performance and therefore improved lower
body explosiveness the most. The second hypothesis that
static warm-up would actually decrease jump performance
when compared to no warm-up was supported in one form of
jumping (LJ) but not the other (VJ).
The results of this study agree with the previous findings,
which stated that dynamic warm-up improves lower body
explosiveness as measured by jumping (VJ, standing long jump,
etc.) (4,5,8,10,13,19). Jumping and sprinting use largely the
same muscle groups with the same actions and explosive
movement. It is not merely coincidence that many above
average jumpers are also above average sprinters. Knowing
this fact, it can be speculated that the improvement in lower
body explosiveness after dynamic warm-up not only increases
jumping performance but sprint performance as well. If this is
true, then the results of this study would support the findings
of additional studies which determined that dynamic warm-up
improves sprint performance (15,17). Furthermore, the lack of
increase in jump performance for LJ after static warm-ups
when compared to a control condition of no warm-up activity
is also in accord with previous research (6,9,14).
In addition, it is interesting to note that static warm-up
proved to be statistically worse than performing no warm-up
at all in one of the jump analyses (LJ). The results for LJ
indicated that simply walking onto the field or court and
immediately jumping would yield higher performances than
using a static stretching warm-up routine. Although perform-
ing no warm-up before initiating physical activity of any kind
is not recommended, results indicate that in at least some
occasions no warm-up can hold benefits to performance over
a static routine.
Researchers of this study suggest that most well-structured
dynamic warm-up routines will produce similar results in
TABLE 3. Post hoc analysis of standing long jump
using Bonferroni adjustment for multiple
comparisons.
Warm-up comparison Mean difference
Dynamic Static 12.30*
Control 5.52*
Static Dynamic 212.30*
Control 26.78*
Control Dynamic 25.52*
Static 6.78*
*Mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.
TABLE 4. Jump measurement changes for warm-up
groups when compared to no warm-up groups.
Warm-up groups
Stationary
vertical jump
Standing long
jump
cm in. cm in.
Dynamic 3.77 1.48 5.53 2.18
Static 21.30 20.51 26.77 22.67
2988
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the
TM
Warm-Ups and Lower Body Explosiveness
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
jump performance. Although the same exercises and routines
were followed precisely in this study, variation from that
procedure may not drastically change results. A variety of
well-constructed dynamic warm-ups, which use active
motion and momentum should benefit the athlete or exerciser
because it pertains to lower body explosiveness. Variations in
the dynamic warm-up routines used in other studies illustrate
this (2,4,5,9,10,12,13), because no 2 identical warm-ups were
found when examining the previous findings.
Although this study was conducted only among collegiate
baseball players, the researchers are comfortable extrapolat-
ing with some degree of certainty that significant differences
would be found among other similar populations. The results
of this study can be broadened to include baseball players of
all levels, and collegiate athletes in various sports. The
dynamic warm-up performed should increase lower body
explosiveness regardless of competition level or the sport or
physical activity of choice. However, future research should
be conducted among these different populations to continue
to validate prior findings and results.
This study did not investigate the duration of the effects of
a dynamic warm-up. This study only showed that lower body
explosiveness improved immediately after a dynamic warm-
up; it did not determine how long this improvement would
last. Further research should be conducted to examine how
long the effects of warm-ups last. It would be valuable to know
whether the warm-up conducted before competition would
still result in a competitive advantage in lower body
explosiveness by the time the ninth inning or the end of
the game rolled around hours later. If found that improvement
in lower body explosiveness declines with time after
completing the warm-up, then it could be conceivable to
perform at least an abbreviated warm-up, dynamic or
otherwise, between each and every inning to maintain the
desired explosiveness improvement.
Additional research should also be conducted concerning
a combination of static and dynamic stretching. During the
course of the study some athletes provided anecdotal evidence
by stating that they personally felt their performance would
improve if both static and dynamic warm-ups were used
together. A combination of both warm-ups was not tested in
this study. However, this is an area, which has not been widely
researched and could benefit from additional study. This study
was successful in filling the void, which previously existed in the
known literature concerning the effects of warm-ups specific to
baseball players and collegiate athletes. The study was simple in
both procedure and measurement andshould not be difficult to
repeat in various ways should another desire to do so. Although
the Just Jump System was used in this study, any validated form
of measurement would suffice for examining the effects of
adynamicwarm-up.
PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS
Simply changing to a dynamic warm-up before practice or
game play could give the competitive advantage, which
many desperately seek. Gaining 5.07 cm (1.99 in.) on
a vertical jump simply by changing the way an athlete warms
up for competition is an advantage. The results show that
static warm-up decreases vertical jump height by 1.30 cm
(0.51 in.), and dynamic increases it by 3.77 cm (1.48 in.); if
this is the case, then an athlete can gain nearly 2 in. on his
vertical by simply switching from a static warm-up routine
to a dynamic routine. Baseball, like many other sports, is
a game of inches. It cannot be predicted when that extra 2 in.
will be needed to help win the game, but it will inevitably
occur at a pivotal moment. That 2 in. could not only mean
the difference between out and safe, but win and lose, and
championships and defeat. Although there has been debate
over what warm-ups should be used before physical activity,
this study illustrates that dynamic warm-up positively
impacts lower body explosiveness among collegiate baseball
players (Table 4), and the researchers recommend that it
should be used by the coach or practitioner in an effort to
gain a competitive advantage.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The researchers would like to thank the baseball players,
coaches, and other staff at Huntington University, Hunting-
ton, IN, for their effort and cooperation in making this study
possible. Special thanks is also given to Courtney Berger,
Amanda Meyers, and Meleah Robertson for their assistance
in helping to record data. The results of the study do not
constitute the endorsement of the Just Jump System by the
authors or the National Strength and Conditioning Associ-
ation. None of the researchers have received any payment,
grant, research support, or other financial support or payment
related to this work.
REFERENCES
1. Bachle, TR and Earle, RW. Essentials of Strength Training and
Conditioning (3rd ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 2008.
2. Beedle, B, Rytter, SJ, Healy, RC, and Ward, TR. Pretesting static and
dynamic stretching does not affect maximal strength. J Strength Cond
Res 22: 1838–1843, 2008.
3. Christensen, B and Nordstrom, B. The effects of proprioceptive
neuromuscular facilitation and dynamic stretching techniques on
vertical jump performance. J Strength Cond Res 22: 1826–1831, 2008.
4. Curry, GJ, Chengkalath, D, Crouch, GJ, Romance, M, and Manns, PJ.
Acute effects of dynamic stretching, static stretching, and light
aerobic activity on muscular performance in women. J Strength Cond
Res 23: 1811–1819, 2009.
5. Dalrymple, K, Davis, S, Dwyer, G, and Moir, G. Effect of static and
dynamic stretching on vertical jump performance in collegiate
women volleyball players. J Strength Cond Res 24: 149–155, 2010.
6. Fletcher, IM and 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 21: 784–787, 2007.
7. Herman, SL and Smith, DT. Four-week dynamic stretching warm-
up intervention elicits longer-term performance benefits. J Strength
Cond Res 22: 1286–1297, 2008.
8. Holt, B and Lambourne, K. The impact of different warm-up
protocols on vertical jump performance in male collegiate athletes.
J Strength Cond Res 21: 226–229, 2008.
VOLUME 25 | NUMBER 11 | NOVEMBER 2011 | 2989
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the
TM
|
www.nsca-jscr.org
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
9. Hough, P, Ross, E, and Howatson, G. Effects of dynamic and static
stretching on vertical jump performance and electromyographic
activity. J Strength Cond Res 23: 507–512, 2009.
10. Jaggers, JR, Swank, AM, Frost, KL, and Lee, CD. The acute effects of
dynamic and ballistic stretching on vertical jump height, force, and
power. J Strength Cond Res 22: 1844–1848, 2008.
11. Knudson, DV. Correcting the use of the term ‘‘power’’ in the strength
and conditioning literature. J Strength Cond Res 23: 1902–1908, 2009.
12. Leard, J, Cirillo, M, Katsnelson, E, Kimiatek, D, Miller, T,
Trebincevic, K, and Garbalosa, J. Validity of two alternative systems
for measuring vertical jump height. J Strength Cond Res 21:
1296–1299, 2007.
13. Markovic, G, Dizdar, D, Jukic, I, and Cardinale, M. Reliability and
factorial validity of squat and countermovement jump tests.
J Strength Cond Res 18: 551–555, 2004.
14. Samuel, MN, Holcomb, WR, Guadagnoli, MA, Rubley, MD, and
Wallman, H. Acute effects of static and ballistic stretching on measures
of strength and power. JStrengthCondRes22: 1422–1427, 2008.
15. Sim, AY, Dawson, BT, Guelfi, K J, Wallman, KE, and Young, WB.
Effects of static stretching in warm-up on repeated sprint
performance. J Strength Cond Res 23: 2155–2162, 2009.
16. Slinde, F, Suber, C, Suber, L, Edwen, CE, and Svantesson, U. Test–
retest reliability of three different countermovement jumping tests.
J Strength Cond Res 22: 640–644, 2008.
17. Taylor, KL, Sheppard, JM, Lee, H, and Plummer, N. Negative effect
of static stretching restored when combined with a sport specific
warm-up component. J Sci Med Sport 12: 657–661, 2009.
18. Verstegen, M and Williams, P. Core Performance: The Revolutionary
Workout Program to Transform Your Body & Life. Emmaus, PA: Rodale
Incorporated, 2005.
19. Vetter, RE. Effects of six warm up protocols on sprint and jump
performance. J Strength Cond Res 21: 819–823, 2007.
20. Wallmann, H, Mercer, J, and Landers, M. Surface electromyographic
assessment of the effect of dynamic activity and dynamic activity
with static stretching of the gastrocnemius on vertical jump
performance. J Strength Cond Res 22: 787–793, 2008.
2990
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the
TM
Warm-Ups and Lower Body Explosiveness
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
