ArticlePDF Available

Effects of Dynamic Warm-up on Lower Body Explosiveness Among Collegiate Baseball Players

Authors:

Abstract and Figures

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 explosiveness as measured by stationary vertical jump (VJ) and standing long jump (LJ) among collegiate baseball players. Participants (n = 17; age = 19.59 ± 1.37 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 LJ distance in centimeters. The mean jump heights for VJ were 66.49 ± 8.28 cm for dynamic, 61.42 ± 7.51 cm for static, and 62.72 ± 7.84 cm for the control condition. The mean jump distances for LJ were 231.99 ± 20.69 cm for dynamic, 219.69 ± 20.96 cm for static, and 226.46 ± 20.60 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 LJ-F = 32.20; df = 2, 32; p < 0.01). Additional LJ analysis determined that individuals jumped significantly further after no warm-up compared to after a static warm-up (-6.78, 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 LJ 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.
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.
... In addition to potential reductions in injury, researchers have demonstrated performance benefits attributed to sport-specific DWUs, including improved anaerobic power 62 and sprinting performance 50,75 following activity specific warm-up protocols. In examining sprint performance following various warm-up protocols, investigators determined the addition of three sprint specific exercises to a general dynamic warm-up decreased sprint time by 0.94% (ES = 0.36) in a 20 m sprint test. ...
... All athletes perform pre-activity warm-ups, 39 and considerable evidence exists supporting the use of DWUs over SWUs and CSDs for performance improvement. 40,42,[49][50][51]53,55,[58][59][60][61][62][63][64]66,[71][72][73][74][75][134][135][136] However, few investigators have examined the biomechanical aspects of warm-up on athletic movements, and research has been limited to a few common kinematic and kinetic variables, such as joint angular velocities, joint flexion angles, and GRFs. In an investigation of static stretching on the kinematics of a VJ, no significant differences were reported in peak vertical velocity, peak knee flexion, and durations of the eccentric and concentric movement phases compared to a control condition. ...
Thesis
Full-text available
My thesis research explored the biomechanical effect of warm-up strategies on landing mechanics in female volleyball athletes.
... Bu aşamada antrenörler tarafından; statik-dinamik egzersizler, Fmarc+11, Harmoknee ve miyofasyal gevşetme (Foam Roller) teknikleri gibi uygulamalar sıklıkla kullanılmaktadır. Literatürdeki araştırmalar, ana bölümde yüksek düzeyde kuvvet ve güç üretiminin sağlanabilmesinde dinamik formdaki ısınma prosedürlerinin tercih edilmesi gerektiğini belirtmektedir (30). Özellikle sıçrama, sürat ve yön değiştirmeli koşuların daha kaliteli uygulanması için dinamik türde olan ısınma seansları tercih edilmekteyken (1), son zamanlarda foam roller ekipmanı ile yapılan ve hareket genişliğini arttıran uygulamaların ısınma bölümünde uygulanmasının, bu parametrelere olumlu etkiler sağlayabileceği belirtilmektedir (31). ...
Article
Full-text available
Birçok çalışma farklı ısınma protokollerinin kuvvet, sürat gibi biyomotor özelliklere ait performans çıktılarını etkilediğinden bahsetmektedir. Foam roller ve ek direnç uygulamaları da kuvvet çalışmaları öncesi kullanılan uygulamalar olmasına rağmen bu uygulamaların farklı kuvvet çıktıları üzerine etkileri belirsizdir. Bu çalışmanın amacı Foam Roller (FR) ekipmanı ve ek dirençler kullanılarak gerçekleştirilen farklı ısınma protokollerinin, 1 tekrar maksimal (1TM) squat kuvveti ile sıçrama performansı üzerine etkilerini araştırmaktır. Çalışmaya amatör ligde futbol oynayan toplam 10 amatör gönüllü futbolcu katıldı (yaş:19.00 ± 1.49, boy:1.82 ± 0.06 cm, vücut ağırlığı: 71.30 ± 7.05 kg, vücut yağ oranı:%10.94 ± 5.73). Sporculara aralarında 2 gün olacak şekilde farklı zamanlarda iki farklı ısınma protokolü (1. Seans FR ısınma protokolü, 2. Seans kuvvet çalışmalarına özgü ısınma protokolü) uygulandıve ardından da 1TM squat (topuk yükseltme destekli ve destek olmadan) ve dikey sıçrama testleri gerçekleştirildi. Verilerin arasındaki farklarda Wilcoxon sıralı işaretler testi uygulanıp etki boyutları için matematiksel bir formül kullanıldı. Çalışmadan elde edilen temel bulgu; topuk destekli FR ısınması sonrası 1TM squat kuvvetinin, topuk desteksiz kuvvete özgü ısınma sonrasındaki kuvvet ölçüm değerlerinden istatiksel olarak anlamlı düzeyde daha yüksek olduğu yönündeydi (p< 0.05). Ancakher iki ısınma seansı sonrasında gerçekleştirilen sıçrama testleri yönünden anlamlı bir farklılık belirlenmedi (p>0.05).Sonuç olarak; amatör futbolcuların 1TM squat kuvvet ölçümlerinde hareketin çöküş aşamasındaki bozulmaların giderilmesi için kullanılan topuk yükseltme uygulamaları ile yapılacak ölçümler öncesi bu tür ısınma seanslarının kullanılmasıdaha etkili test sonuçlarının elde edilmesine yardımcı olacağı düşünülmektedir. Anahtar kelimeler: 1 tekrar maksimum, foam roller, dikey sıçrama. Abstract Many studies mention that different warming protocols affect performance outputs of biomotor properties such as force and speed. Although Foam roller and additional resistance applications are also applications used before Force studies, the effects of these applications on different force outputs are unclear. The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of different warm-up protocols using Foam Roller (FR) equipment and additional resistors on Bounce performance with 1 repeat maximal (1TM) squat force. A total of 10 amateur volunteer football players who played football in the amateur league participated in the study (age:19.00 ± 1.49, height:1.82 ± 0.06 cm, body weight: 71.30 ± 7.05 kg, body fat ratio: 10.94 ± 5.73%).
... There has been an increase in the height of the vertical jump (Chattong, Brown, Coburn et a , 2010;Sotiropoulos , Smilios , Christou et al, 2010;Faulkinbury, Stieg, Tran et a, 2011;Alikhajeh, Ramezanpour & Moghaddam, 2011) and in the flexibility of the hamstring and quadriceps muscles (Frantz & Ruiz, 2011) when performing static and dynamic stretching. Positive results have also been obtained in the performance of the sprint (Ayala, 2010;Bishop, 2003). ...
Article
Full-text available
Introduction: The purpose of this study was to determine if an aerobic warm carried out on a cycle ergometer had influence on vertical jump performance. Material and Methods: Participants: 25 football players males (2nd B, IV. Spanish Football League; age 22.7±3.3 years; height 178.8±3.9 cm, mass 75.3±6.8 kg) The warming-up consisted of pedalling for 5 minutes at 114.8±8.3 hr with a power intensity of 112.2±13.2 w, followed by 5 minutes at 147.2±6.7 hr (=197.5±38.4 w).Pre and post-test was carried out in successive days: 1 st5 day: 5 without countermovement vertical jumps (VJ1); 2 nd day:10 seconds repeated VJ 2 and third day: 60 seconds VJ 3. Heart rate was measured while performing and at recovery. Results: In VJ1, the height went from 41.9±5.4 cm in the pre-test to 43.9±5.8 in the post-test; (F=806.0; p=0.001), the flight increased in time (492.21±45.7 ms vs 508.3547.5 ms p≤ 0.001), the contact with the ground decreased (217.4 ±46.5 ms vs 211.2±23.6 ms p≤0.001) and the maximum heart rate raised 111.2±22.1 hr vs 30.0±13.8 hr. In VJ2 the height implies the jump went from 24.9±5.3cm to 25.0±4.9cm (F=329.3; p <0.001). In VJ3 the height shows the jump time went from 21.1±4.5cm to 21.3±4.2 (F=328.2; p <0.001). The number of jumps in VJ2 went from 15.7±1.7 to 15.6±0.9 (p <0.01) and in VJ3 from 97.5±6.6 to 96.6±7.2 (p <0.01). Conclusion: Two phases of 5 minute warm-ups on a cycle ergometer improves both the vertical jump performance and the heart rate throughout the process. Key words: vertical jump, cycle ergometer, heart rate, football.
... Therefore, to activate and warm up those areas of the body stretches such as Glute Bridge, inch warms, happy car angry cat and clams were used before starting the session (Stastny et al. 2016). The session started off with exercises which were split into 2 groups for day 1 and day 2 (Table 2 and 3.) sessions however, some exercises remained the same for both days (Frantz and Ruiz 2011). Due to the lack of equipment and only having 2 squat racks the group was divided in half in order to finish the session in time as the session only lasted an hour however, the high number of participants and lack of equipment resulted in the participants getting a good amount of resting between sets which was around 3 minutes which is enough amount for full recovery (De Salles et al. 2009). ...
Article
Power it vital in football as it is utilized for the main movement patterns of the sport, which include sprinting and jumping, where these two happen very frequently and improvements in both can influence the overall performance. Therefore, this study is aimed to examine the influence of resistance training on power development in the lower extremity in relation to enhancing countermovement jump height as well as improving 10 and 20m sprint performance. Male youth elite football players (n=15, age =14.5±1.5, height =164±16.3, body mass =51±14.9) participated in this study over 8 weeks, attending 2 hourly sessions a week. Each session included a dynamic warm up, several resistance training exercises including, back squat, front squat, trap bar deadlift, behind neck push press, clean pull, jump squats, Nordics, lunges with dumbbells and Bulgarian split squat as well as stretches and conditioning work such as balance and trunk. Participants were tested through countermovement jump height for lateral and bi-lateral, as well as 10- and 20-meter sprint times prior, mid and after the training programme. There was a significant improvement in the countermovement jump height for both lateral and bi-lateral. Bi-lateral performance resulted in a significant improvement over the course of 8 weeks (CMJ - Pre. 24.5±3.99cm, Mid. 26.9±4.82cm, and Post. 28.4±4.56cm) (p = 0.05). There was also a significant improvement in the lateral for both left and right legged countermovement jump. ((Left) Pre = 15.64±2.62cm, mid = 16.9±2.24cm and post = 17.7±2.10cm (p = 0.025)) ((Right) Pre =14.5±2.82cm, mid =15.5±2.6cm and post =17±2.27cm (p =0.013)). However, there was no significant difference in both 10 and 20m sprints. (10m Pre =2.036±0.091s and post = 2.030667±0.098s (p = 0.620)) and 20m (pre =3.562±0.2s and post =3.5293±0.21s (p= 0.928)). Therefore, the conclusion for this study is that 8 weeks twice a week resistance training program has a significant improvement in jumping performance for both unilateral and bi-lateral however, not the sprinting performance including 10 and 20m.
... No statistically significant differences were observed for any other variables among the different stretching protocols. Our findings correspond with previous reports that found that dynamic stretching improves vertical jump in sports such as volleyball 14 , football 15 , basketball 16 , soccer 17 , and among general recreational athletes 18 . To our knowledge, this is the first study demonstrating that dynamic stretching can improve vertical jump ability in college-level gymnasts. ...
Preprint
Full-text available
Gymnastics is a sport that requires rapid display of explosive power expressed through the vertical jump. Recent studies have shown that a static-stretching based warm-up is ineffective for explosive power expression. The aim of this study was to compare different stretching protocols and their effect on vertical jump measures. Eleven gymnasts (9 males, 2 females; 23.18 ± 2.52 yrs.) participated in this randomized crossover study. Participants were first assessed on the Countermovement Jump (CMJ), Squat Jump (SQJ), and Depth Jump (DJ) performance at baseline (no warm-up). Participants were then randomly placed into one of four stretching protocols: Static (ST), Dynamic (DY), Static + Dynamic (ST+DY), and Dynamic + Static (DY+ST) and tested again on the CMJ, SQJ, and DJ assessments. A photoelectric cell device was used to measure Vertical Jump Height (VJH), Flight Time (FT), Power Output (PO), and Reactive Strength Index (RSI). The non-parametric Friedman test was used to test differences between stretching protocols. The DY protocol showed significant improvements in VJH, FT, and PO in the CMJ. The ST, ST+DY, and DY+ST protocols did not show any significant improvements. A warm-up consisting of dynamic movements that resemble those used in the sport of gymnastics can improve vertical jump measures, as reflected through the CMJ.
... Recommendations exist for conditioning, 2-4 fitness testing, 5 flexibility, 6 and warm-ups. 7 However, there are only empirically driven recommendations concerning the ideal body composition for baseball players. ...
Article
Full-text available
Body composition is a growing concern in all sports, including baseball. This study was conducted to measure changes in body composition from the beginning of the season to the end and to determine if different changes occurred in position players compared to pitchers. Participants’ (n=29; age 19.90±1.14) body mass, body mass index (BMI), and percent body fat as estimated by skinfold calipers were recorded immediately before and after the baseball season. There was a significant decrease in weight of nearly 1 kg (P=0.02) with a corresponding decrease in BMI (P=0.02) without a change in percent body fat (P=0.31). When examined by position, significant change in percent body fat did occur between position players (−0.9%) and pitchers (+0.2%). Specifically, pitchers had increased body fat in the triceps (P=0.04), subscapular (P=0.03), and suprailiac (P=0.04) regions when compared to position players. Body composition does change during the course of a baseball season, and these changes have the potential to impact performance and outcome measures as it relates to baseball. Principles of kinesiology suggest that it could significantly influence power, speed, agility, and quickness, but further study is needed to determine the practical on-field implications of the seasonal changes in body composition observed in baseball players.
... No statistically significant differences were observed for any other variables among the different stretching protocols. Our findings correspond with previous reports that found that dynamic stretching improves vertical jump in sports such as volleyball 14 , football 15 , basketball 16 , soccer 17 , and among general recreational athletes 18 . To our knowledge, this is the first study demonstrating that dynamic stretching can improve vertical jump ability in college-level gymnasts. ...
Article
Full-text available
Background: Gymnastics is a sport that requires rapid display of explosive power expressed through the vertical jump. Recent studies have shown that a static-stretching based warm-up is ineffective for explosive power development. The aim of this study was to compare different stretching protocols and their effect on vertical jump measures. Methods: Eleven gymnasts (9 males, 2 females; 23.18±2.52 yrs) participated in this randomized crossover study. Participants were measured on the countermovement jump (CMJ), squat jump (SQJ), and depth jump (DJ) at baseline (no warm-up). Participants were then randomly placed into one of four stretching protocols: Static (ST), dynamic (DY), static + dynamic (ST+DY), and dynamic + static (DY+ST) and tested on the CMJ, SQJ, and DJ. A photoelectric cell device was used to measure vertical jump height (VJH), flight time (FT), power output (PO), and Reactive Strength Index (RSI). The non-parametric Friedman test was used to test differences between stretching protocols. Results: The DY protocol showed significant improvements in VJH, FT, and PO in the CMJ. The ST, ST+DY, and DY+ST protocols did not show any significant improvements. Conclusions: A warm-up consisting of dynamic movements that resemble those used in the sport of gymnastics can improve vertical jump measures, as reflected through the CMJ.
Article
Full-text available
z: Bu araştırmanın amacı, sekiz haftalık statik germe antrenmanlarının sıçrama performansına etkilerinin incelenmesidir. Araştırmaya 18 erkek amatör futbolcu (yaş: 21,78±4,25yıl; boy: 180,11±6,38cm; vücut ağırlığı: 76,19±7,73kg) gönüllü olarak katılmıştır. Katılımcıların esneklik, dikey sıçrama yükseklikleri ve yatay sıçrama mesafeleri sırası ile; Otur Eriş Testi (OET), Countermovement Jump (CMJ) protokolü ve Durarak Uzun Atlama Testleri (DUAT) kullanılarak ölçülmüştür. İlk ölçümlerin ardından, katılımcılar rastgele, germe (n=10) ve kontrol (n=8) grupları olmak üzere iki gruba ayrılmıştır. Germe grubuna (GG), sekiz hafta boyunca haftanın üç günü, statik germe antrenmanları uygulatılmıştır. Sekiz haftalık germe antrenmanlarının tamamlanmasından sonra, aynı ölçümler benzer sıra ile tekrarlanmış ve ön testler ile aradaki farklar değerlendirilmiştir. Elde edilen verilerin analizinde, grup içi farklılıkların belirlenmesinde bağımlı örneklem t testi, gruplar arası farklılıkların belirlenmesinde bağımsız örneklem t testi kullanılmıştır (p<0.05). Araştırma bulgularında, (GG) ön ve son test esneklik değerleri (30,60±4,78cm; 33,90±3,14cm) ve yatay sıçrama mesafelerinde (206,38±19,93 cm; 210,25±19,47 cm) istatiksel olarak anlamlı farklılıklar tespit edilmiştir (p<0,05). Gruplar arası yapılan istatiksel analizlerde ise anlamlı fark bulunamamıştır (p>0,05). Sonuç olarak, amatör futbolcularda kronik germe egzersizleri sıçrama kuvvetini olumlu etkilemektedir. Gelecekte yapılacak araştırmalarda, bu etkilerin fizyolojik ve metabolik temelini oluşturan mekanizmalar araştırılabilir. Abstract: The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of eight weeks static stretching traning on jumping. 18 male amateur soccer players (age:21,78±4,25 year; height: 180,11±6,38 cm; weight: 76,19±7,73) were voluntarily participated to study. Subjects were randomly diverted into two groups as stretching (n=10) and control (n=8). Flexibility, horizontal jump distance and vertical jump length were determined using Sit and Reach Test, Standing Long Jump Test and Countermovement Jump technique respectively. Following pre test, stretching group performed static stretching programme three days a week for eight weeks which consisting of ten static stretches that were designed to improve subjects flexibility and include jumping muscles. Following eight weeks static stretching programme, similar measurements were completed. In order to analyze gathering datas, Paired t test was used for determination of intragroups differences and İndependent t test was used for determination of intergroups differences.(p<0.05) There were statistically significant differences between pre and post test flexibiliy measurements (30,60±4,78; 33,90±3,14 cm) and horizontal jump distance (206,38±19,93; 210,25±19,47 cm) for stretching groups (p<0,05). Yet, there were no statistical differences between groups comparison (p>0,05) To conclude, performed long-term stretching programmes could effect positively on jumping in amateur soccer players. However this study couldnt explore the underlying mechanism of how this effect occured. Future researches about long-term static stretching effects on maximal muscular performances will warranted to illustrate exact physiologicals and metabolics mechanism for those effects.
Article
Although many studies have focused on stretching techniques for athletes, no comprehensive studies have investigated the use of the instrument-assisted soft tissue mobilization (IASTM) technique in young basketball players. The active properties of muscle and subjective reporting of functional ability were used to identify the effects of IASTM on the calf muscle. Active range of motion (AROM), functional fitness, and isokinetic lower strength in the knees and ankles were measured in 40 healthy young basketball players. They were divided into the IASTM group (n= 20) and a control group (CG, n= 20). Twenty asymptomatic young basketball players were treated with IASTM six times per week for 8 weeks. The remaining 20 participants did not receive a treatment intervention between tests and served as the control. Ankle AROM (two knee positions of 0∘ and 45∘ flexion), functional fitness at the knee and ankle (side-step and vertical jump), and isokinetic peak torque were determined during ankle dorsiflexion (DF) and plantar flexion (PF) and knee extension (EX) and flexion (FX). The data were analyzed using repeated-measures analysis of variance. Significant differences were observed between the two groups in IASTM and control AROM 0∘ knee flexion (right: DF; p< 0.001 and PF; p< 0.001; left: DF; p< 0.001 and PF; p= 0.011), AROM 45∘ knee flexion (right: DF; p< 0.001 and PF; p= 0.009; left: DF; p< 0.001 and PF; p= 0.001), functional fitness (side step; p= 0.001, sit and reach; p= 0.025, vertical jump; p= 0.001), ankle isokinetic strength 30∘/sec (right: DF; p= 0.001 and PF; p= 0.001; left: DF; p< 0.001 and PF; p= 0.002), ankle isokinetic strength 120∘/sec (right: DF; p= 0.049 and PF; p= 0.001; left: DF; p= 0.023 and PF; p< 0.001), knee isokinetic strength 60∘/sec (right: EX; p= 0.001, FX; p= 0.001 and hamstring and quadriceps ratio [H/Q]; p= 0.001, left: EX; p= 0.001, FX; p= 0.001 and H/Q; p= 0.001), and knee isokinetic strength 180∘/sec (right: EX; p= 0.001, FX; p= 0.001 and H/Q; p= 0.001; left: EX; p= 0.001, FX; p= 0.010 and H/Q; p= 0.001). These results suggest that IASTM improves functional fitness and lower body muscle strength in young basketball players.
Article
Full-text available
The aim of this study was to examine the effects of static stretching during warm-up on repeated sprint performance and also to assess any influence of the order in which dynamic activities (i.e., run-throughs and drills) and static stretching are conducted. Thirteen male team sport players completed a repeated sprint ability test consisting of three sets of maximal 6 x 20-m sprints (going every 25 seconds) after performing one of three different warm-up protocols in a within-subjects counterbalanced design. Each warm-up protocol involved an initial 1000-m jog, followed by either dynamic activities only (D), static stretching followed by dynamic activities (S-D), or dynamic activities followed by static stretching (D-S). First (FST), best (BST) and total (TST) 20-m sprint times were determined for each individual set of the repeated sprint ability test and overall (3 sets combined). Although consistent significant differences were not observed between trials for TST, BST, and FST, the mean values for TST in all individual sets and overall were generally slowest in the D-S condition (D = 60.264 +/- 1.127 seconds; S-D = 60.347 +/- 1.774 seconds; D-S = 60.830 +/- 1.786 seconds). This trend was supported by moderate to large effect sizes and qualitative indications of "possible" or "likely" benefits for TST, BST, and FST for the D and S-D warm-ups compared to D-S. No significant differences or large effect sizes were noted between D and S-D, indicating similar repeated sprint ability performance. Overall, these results suggest that 20-m repeated sprint ability may be compromised when static stretching is conducted after dynamic activities and immediately prior to performance (D-S).
Article
Full-text available
The results of previous research have demonstrated that static stretching (SS) can reduce muscular performance and that dynamic stretching (DS) can enhance muscular performance. The purpose of this study was to assess the effects of SS and DS on vertical jump (VJ) performance and electromyographic (EMG) activity of the m. vastus medialis. Eleven healthy men (age 21 +/- 2 years) took part in 3 conditions (no stretching [NS], SS, and DS), on separate occasions in a randomized, crossover design. During each condition, measurements of VJ height and EMG activity during the VJ were recorded. A repeated-measures analysis of variance and post hoc analysis indicated that VJ height was significantly less (4.19 +/- 4.47%) after SS than NS (p < 0.05) and significantly greater (9.44 +/- 4.25%) in DS than SS (p < 0.05). There was significantly greater EMG amplitude in the DS compared with the SS (p < 0.05). The results demonstrated that SS has a negative influence on VJ performance, whereas DS has a positive impact. Increased VJ performance after DS may be attributed to postactivation potentiation, whereas the reduction in VJ performance after SS may be attributable to neurological impairment and a possible alteration in the viscoelastic properties of the muscular tendon unit (MTU). This investigation provides some physiological basis for the inclusion of DS and exclusion of SS in preparation for activities requiring jumping performance.
Article
Full-text available
Stretching before performance is a common practice among athletes in hopes of increasing performance and reducing the risk of injury. However, cumulative results indicate a negative impact of static stretching and proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation (PNF) on performance; thus, there is a need for evaluating other stretching strategies for effective warm-up. The purpose of this study was to compare the differences between two sets of ballistic stretching and two sets of a dynamic stretching routine on vertical jump performance. Twenty healthy male and female college students between the ages of 22 and 34 (24.8 +/- 3 years) volunteered to participate in this study. All subjects completed three individual testing sessions on three nonconsecutive days. On each day, the subjects completed one of three treatments (no stretch, ballistic stretch, and dynamic stretch). Intraclass reliability was determined using the data obtained from each subject. A paired samples t-test revealed no significant difference in jump height, force, or power when comparing no stretch with ballistic stretch. A significant difference was found on jump power when comparing no stretch with dynamic stretch, but no significant difference was found for jump height or force. Statistics showed a very high reliability when measuring jump height, force, and power using the Kistler Quattro Jump force plate. It seems that neither dynamic stretching nor ballistic stretching will result in an increase in vertical jump height or force. However, dynamic stretching elicited gains in jump power poststretch.
Article
The primary aim of this study was to determine reliability and factorial validity of squat (SJ) and countermovement jump (CMJ) tests. The secondary aim was to compare 3 popular methods for the estimation of vertical jumping height. Physical education students (n = 93) performed 7 explosive power tests: 5 different vertical jumps (Sargent jump, Abalakow's jump with arm swing and without arm swing, SJ, and CMJ) and 2 horizontal jumps (standing long jump and standing triple jump). The greatest reliability among all jumping tests (Cronbach's alpha = 0.97 and 0.98) had SJ and CMJ. The reliability alpha coefficients for other jumps were also high and varied between 0.93 and 0.96. Within-subject variation (CV) in jumping tests ranged between 2.4 and 4.6%, the values being lowest in both horizontal jumps and CMJ. Factor analysis resulted in the extraction of only 1 significant principal component, which explained 66.43% of the variance of all 7 jumping tests. Since all jumping tests had high correlation coefficients with the principal component (r = 0.76-0.87), it was interpreted as the explosive power factor. The CMJ test showed the highest relationship with the explosive power factor (r = 0.87), that is, the greatest factorial validity. Other jumping tests had lower but relatively homogeneous correlation with the explosive power factor extracted. Based on the results of this study, it can be concluded that CMJ and SJ, measured by means of contact mat and digital timer, are the most reliable and valid field tests for the estimation of explosive power of the lower limbs in physically active men.
Article
The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of stretching on peak jump height during a series of vertical jumps, specifically focusing on a) static stretching (SS), b) dynamic stretching (DS) and c) no stretching (NS) performed immediately before a series of countermovement vertical jumps (CMJ). Twelve female collegiate volleyball players (mean +/- SD; age 19.5 +/- 1.1 yr; height 1.71 +/- 0.06 m; mass 71.3 +/- 8.54 kg) volunteered for this study. Data collection lasted a total of 3 weeks, and each subject performed all 3 stretching protocols, 1 session per week, with 1 week between sessions. The order of the stretching protocols was randomized for each subject. During each testing session, all subjects performed a 5-minute light jog as a warm-up, followed by 8 minutes of 1 of the stretching protocols. One minute after the completion of each protocol, 5 maximal CMJ were performed on a force platform, with each jump separated by 1 minute of passive recovery. Jump heights were calculated by integrating the vertical force trace. There were no significant differences between the SS, DS, and NS conditions for any of the jumps (p > 0.05). Despite the lack of significant effects for the group, there were notable individual responses to each of the warm-up conditions. Practitioners should be aware of the individual responses of their athletes to different types of warm-up protocols before athletic performance and the possible impact of prescribing or eliminating certain exercises.
Article
The purpose of this study was to compare three warm-up protocols--static stretching, dynamic stretching, and light aerobic activity--on selected measures of range of motion and power in untrained females and to investigate the sustained effects at 5 and 30 minutes after warm-up. A total of 24 healthy females (ages 23-29 years) attended one familiarization session and three test sessions on nonconsecutive days within 2 weeks. A within-subject design protocol with the testing investigators blinded to the subjects' warm-up was followed. Each session started with 5 minutes of light aerobic cycling followed by pretest baseline measures. Another 5 minutes of light aerobic cycling was completed and followed by one of the three randomly selected warm-up interventions (static stretching, dynamic stretching, or light aerobic activity). The following posttest outcome measures were collected 5 and 30 minutes following the intervention: modified Thomas test, countermovement jump, and isometric time to peak force knee extension measured by dynamometer. Analysis of the data revealed significant time effects on range of motion and countermovement jump changes. No significant differences (p > 0.05) were found between the warm-up conditions on any of the variables. The variation in responses to warm-up conditions emphasizes the unique nature of individual reactions to different warm-ups; however, there was a tendency for warm-ups with an active component to have beneficial effects. The data suggests dynamic stretching has greater applicability to enhance performance on power outcomes compared to static stretching.
Article
Many strength and conditioning papers have incorrectly adopted the colloquial use of the term "power" as a measure of short-term, high-intensity muscular performance despite a long history of research and editorials critical of this practice. This has lead to confusion, incorrect interpretations, and conflicting results in the literature. This paper summarizes the scientific evidence on external mechanical power as a short-term, high-intensity neuromuscular (anaerobic) performance or training variable. Many problems in the measurement and use of power in strength and conditioning research were identified, as well as problems in the use of the vertical jump as a field test of power. A critical review of the biomechanics, measurement, and training research does not support this colloquial use of the term "power." More research is needed that improves our understanding of the domains of muscular strength or neuromuscular performance, as well as partial correlation and multiple regression analyses to document the unique associations between these domains, biomechanical variables, training effects, and sport performance. Strength and conditioning research should limit the use of the term power to the true mechanical definition and provide several specific and measurement details on this measurement.
Article
The purpose of this study was to determine whether there was a significant difference in static stretching (SS), dynamic stretching (DS), and no stretching (NS) on maximal strength (one-repetition maximum [1RM]) in the bench and leg presses using free weights on 19 college-aged men and 32 women. Most of the participants were moderately to very active and had previous experience with weight training. The design was repeated measures, with each treatment being randomly assigned. Each testing session was separated by 72 hours. Moderate-intensity stretching was defined as stretching as far as possible without any assistance, and subjects were encouraged to do their best. For the SS routine, the chest, shoulder, triceps, quadriceps, and hamstrings were stretched. Three repetitions were performed for 15 seconds, each separated by a 10-second rest. For DS, the upper-body stretch was swinging each arm, one at a time, as far forward and then as far backward as possible in a diagonal plane. For the legs, the same movement was done for each leg, except performed in a sagittal plane. Each forward and backward movement took about 2 seconds. Three 30-second sets were administered, and a 10-second rest was allowed between sets. Next, 1RM was determined for the bench and leg presses in random order. Two warm-up sets were given, followed by several 1RM attempts. The last successful lift was recorded as the 1RM. Data were reported using means +/- SD. A one-way ANOVA with repeated measures was used with alpha set at 0.05. There was no significant difference among the treatments. Moderate-intensity stretching does not seem to adversely affect 1RM in the bench and leg presses.
Article
The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of 3 different warm-ups on vertical jump performance. The warm-ups included a 600-m jog, a 600-m jog followed by a dynamic stretching routine, and a 600-m jog followed by a proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation (PNF) routine. A second purpose was to determine whether the effects of the warm-ups on vertical jump performance varied by gender. Sixty-eight men and women NCAA Division I athletes from North Dakota State University performed 3 vertical jumps on a Just Jump pad after each of the 3 warm-up routines. The subjects were split into 6 groups and rotated between 3 warm-up routines, completing 1 routine each day in a random order. The results of the 1-way repeated measures analysis of variance showed no significant differences in the combined (p = 0.927), men's (p = 0.798), or women's (p = 0.978) results. The results of this study showed that 3 different warm-ups did not have a significant affect on vertical jumping. The results also showed there were no gender differences between the 3 different warm-ups.