Vertical Jump and Power
Anthony Darmiento, CSCS, Andrew J. Galpin, PhD, CSCS, NCSA-CPT, and Lee E. Brown, EdD, CSCS*D, FNSCA
Center for Sport Performance, Department of Kinesiology, California State University, Fullerton, California
Supplemental digital content is available for this article. Direct URL citations appear in the printed text and are provided
in the HTML and PDF versions of this article on the journal’s Web site (http://journals.lww.com/nsca-scj).
SUMMARY
POWER AND JUMPING ABILITY
CORRELATE WITH SPORT PERFORMANCE. IMPROVING MAXIMAL
FORCE AND/OR VELOCITY INCREASES POWER PRODUCTION,
AND THEREFORE THEORETICALLY
ENHANCES GAME PLAY.
COACHES AND RESEARCHERS
ALIKE ACKNOWLEDGE THAT BOTH
JUMPING SPECIFIC (E.G., PLYOMETRICS) AND NONJUMPING
ACTIVITIES (E.G., RESISTANCE
TRAINING) FUNCTION AS VALUABLE METHODS OF INCREASING
POWER. HOWEVER, THEIR EFFICACY AND MECHANISMS OF
ADAPTATION ARE OFTEN ARGUED.
THIS ARTICLE PRESENTS A BRIEF
OVERVIEW OF VERTICAL JUMPING,
POWER, TRAINING MODALITIES
AND PROVIDES A SAMPLE
12-WEEK TRAINING CYCLE.
INTRODUCTION
he ability to generate skeletal
muscle power is a well-known
predictor of sport performance
(2,3,6,17). However, direct measurement
is difficult and often unfeasible; especially for coaches. Most simply use the
vertical jump (VJ) test as an indirect
measure of leg power. Power and jumping are not identical (15,26), yet correlations link them to success in a variety
of sports (rugby, volleyball, running,
etc.) (6,20,37,39). Although the relationship between jumping and power
appears clear, the optimal strategy for
improving VJ/power remains unclear.
T
The variety of training methods seem
unlimited, and their effectiveness
34
depends on the exact assessment technique and subject population (1). Comparison of these methods reveals that
although each independently alters
specific jumping kinematics (force,
velocity, peak power, rate of force
development, etc.) (1), programs that
demonstrate benefits share the following 3 concepts; VJ movements are performed (a) in small intraset volumes
(1–5 repetitions) (b) combined with
long rest intervals (2–5 minutes) (47)
and (c) in an explosive manner that
emphasizes velocity (8). The first 2
elements are critical because acute
fatigue limits subsequent power output
and overall performance in untrained
(4) and highly trained athletes (5).
However, as alluded to earlier, each
method of VJ training provides unique
benefits. The purpose of this article was
to (a) briefly examine 5 training methods frequently used to improve jump
height and power (bodyweight jumping, resisted jumping (RJ), assisted jumping (AJ), maximal strength training, and
weightlifting movements [WLM]) and
(b) outline a sample program designed
to improve jump height and power in
a moderately trained athlete.
PART A: IMPROVING JUMP HEIGHT
AND POWER
JUMPING ACTIVITIES
This section addresses the influence of
bodyweight, resisted, and assisted jump
training on VJ and power. Body weight
jumping (BWJ) refers exclusively to nonweighted lower-body plyometric exercises such as squat, countermovement,
and drop jumps (see Videos, Supplemental Digital Content 1–3, which
demonstrate a squat, http://links.lww.
com/SCJ/A81;
countermovement,
VOLUME 34 | NUMBER 6 | DECEMBER 2012
http://links.lww.com/SCJ/A82;
and
drop jump, http://links.lww.com/SCJ/
A83, respectively). According to a recent
analysis, BWJ improved maximal VJ ability 4–9% and power 2–31% (28) in both
athletes and nonathletes (27). BWJ is also
highly practical because it requires little
or no equipment, can be performed in
almost any location, and requires limited
technical ability.
The addition of an external load
(weight vest, barbell, elastic band,
etc.) during BWJ activities is referred to
as RJ (see Videos, Supplemental Digital
Content 4, which demonstrates a resisted
jump, http://links.lww.com/SCJ/A84).
Evidence indicates RJ elicits greater
improvements in VJ height (36) and
peak power (35,36) compared with
BWJ. However, increasing external
loading decreases movement velocity,
a factor in adaptation (30). For this reason, some question the ability of RJ
programs to improve performance in
activities that require high velocity
(23). RJ may also result in greater
impact forces during landing, thereby
increasing the potential for muscular
discomfort, soreness (22), and/or
injury (23).
Another method of training is AJ
(see Videos, Supplemental Digital Content 5, which demonstrates an assisted
jump, http://links.lww.com/SCJ/A85).
AJ uses an apparatus (e.g., elastic cords
or counter mass) to reduce body weight
(32). A definitive conclusion regarding
its efficacy is not possible as research
is currently limited. Available data
KEY WORDS:
weightlifting; strength; assisted jumping;
resisted jumping; plyometrics
Copyright Ó National Strength and Conditioning Association
indicate that AJ with a 10–30% reduction
of body weight acutely improves ascent
variables (44) such as peak velocity, peak
acceleration, relative peak power, and VJ
height (1,11,27,38,46) while decreasing
impact forces (1). Moreover, several
weeks of AJ training improves peak
acceleration and velocity, relative peak
power, and VJ height greater than BWJ
(38) or RJ (1) in both elite athletic and
nonathletic populations (38).
In summary, BWJ, RJ, and AJ may all
improve VJ performance and several
factors related to power production.
Of these factors, velocity seems particularly responsive to jump training.
These collective studies do not suggest
that one method is superior to
another, but rather that adaptations
(force production, takeoff velocity,
peak power, etc.) are training method
specific. Understanding the benefits
and consequences of each style enables
coaches to integrate them in a manner
that maximizes benefits and decreases
the likelihood of adverse events.
Coaches should prioritize the amount
of time allocated to each in reflection
of individual athlete goals and needs.
NONJUMPING ACTIVITIES
Enhancing velocity is obviously desirable, yet force (strength) equally influences power (42). Unsurprisingly,
subjects who compliment power training with strength training display
greater improvements in VJ height
and power output over a wide range
of external loads than subjects who
train for power alone (13). Another
study reported that in weak individuals,
BWJ training improves sprinting and
jumping to the same magnitude as
heavy strength training, although
BWJ training provided no improvements in strength (14). Although these
findings seem to diminish the relationship between strength and jumping,
they more accurately demonstrate the
ability of heavy strength training to
render similar short-term improvements in velocity and power as BWJ.
However, BWJ training will not likely
promote the same gains in maximal
strength (nor the other long-term
benefits associated with heavy strength
training); even in the relatively weak
(14). However, this is not a reason to
eliminate factors related to velocity
because maximal strength training
alone may not improve VJ performance in highly trained athletes
(18,21). It is imperative when trying
to improve power that most strength
training is done in an explosive manner
(18), emphasizing the attempt to perform each repetition at maximal velocity (8). Dualistic exercise programs
instituting both high force and high
velocity provide the most effective
stimulus for improving power production (41,42,48). Supplementing standard resistance (e.g., weight plates)
with variable resistance (e.g., elastic
bands or chains) seems worthwhile
because it may facilitate improvements
in mean and peak velocity (7), rate of
force development (40), and peak force
and power (34).
Weightlifting is a competitive sport
that contests both the snatch and the
clean and jerk. Success in weightlifting
necessitate simultaneous high force
and velocity (12,31,43). As a result, it
is highly associated with power and
frequently mislabeled as “powerlifting.”
Weightlifters are the most powerful people on the planet (10,29) and they activate fast-twitch fibers to a greater extent
than non-weightlifters during submaximal muscle contractions (e.g., the VJ)
(16). They also produce more power
than athletes with similar years of training history (24) or those who train for
only maximal speed or strength (29).
Moreover, the temporal patterns of
force production are similar during
WLM (e.g., snatch and clean and jerk
or variations of each) and VJ and as
a result, weightlifters excel at jumping
(9,10).
The wide-ranging benefits of WLM
are indisputable and documented more
thoroughly elsewhere (12,19,43). Yet,
some question their ability to improve
jumping, especially when compared
with BWJ. Tricoli et al. (45) reported
both WLM and BWJ improved performance. However, WLM were more
advantageous because their benefits
were broader and significantly greater
in the 10-m sprint speed, VJ, and squat
jump. These data indicate WLM are as
effective as BWJ at improving jumping
while simultaneously promoting several adaptations not seen with BWJ
(e.g., strength).
The paradox of weightlifting recognizes that the high complexity of
WLM enhance performance, yet discourages some from participation.
The primary hesitation surrounding
the use of WLM is the perceived difficulty of learning/teaching WLM (25).
Although a detailed discussion is beyond
the scope of this article, multiple authors
have addressed these concerns at length
and provide numerous instructional resources and strategies to assist in the
Table 1
General concepts of weekly emphasis during a 12-week preparatory
mesocycle for a moderately trained athlete with limited weightlifting
experience, interested in improving jumping ability
Block 1—work
capacity
Block 2—strength
Block 3—power
Wk 1: general
preparation
Wk 5: strength and
work capacity
Wk 9: speed strength
Wk 2: general
preparation
Wk 6: strength
Wk 10: speed strength
Wk 3: work capacity
Wk 7: maximum Strength
Wk 11: power
Wk 4: work capacity
Wk 8: strength speed
Wk 12: power
All weeks include some proportion of work capacity, strength, speed, and power training.
This table simply outlines the general weekly emphasis.
Strength and Conditioning Journal | www.nsca-scj.com
35
VOLUME 34 | NUMBER 6 | DECEMBER 2012
Block 1—WC (4 wk)
Block 2—Strength (4 wk)
Block 3—power (4 wk)
GP
WC
ST and WC
ST
Max ST
ST and S
S and ST
Power
M and Th
M and Th
M and Th
M and Th
M and Th
M and Th
M and Th
M and Th
Speed
Speed
Speed
Speed
Speed
Speed
Speed
Speed
Jump
Jump
Slam
Slam
Slam
Slam
Slam
Slam
Slam
Slam
Twist
Twist
Twist
Twist
Twist
Twist
Twist
Twist
Hop
Hop
Hop
Power
Power
Power
Power
Power
Power
Power
Power
Learn C&J
Learn C&J
C&J
C&J
C&J
C&J
C&J
C&J
Strength
Strength
Strength
Strength
Strength
Strength
Strength
Strength
Bilateral leg
Bilateral leg
Bilateral leg
Bilateral leg
Bilateral leg
Bilateral leg
Bilateral leg
Bilateral leg
Vertical pull
Vertical pull
Vertical pull
Vertical pull
Vertical pull
Vertical pull
Vertical pull
Vertical pull
Unilat. leg
Unilat. leg
Unilat. leg
Unilat. leg
Unilat. leg
Vert. press
Vert. press
Vert. press
Vert. press
Vert. press
Vert. press
Vert. press
Vert. press
Ab. Flex/Ext
Ab. Flex/Ext
Ab. Flex/Ext
WC
WC
WC
WC
WC
WC
WC
1:1work:rest
1:1work:rest
None
None
None
None
None
WC
None
The first emphasis placed in each microcycle denotes the more important aspect. For example, in week 4 of Block 2, the emphasis is strength and speed. This means emphasize strength over
speed when the two conflict within a training session. However, the emphasis is changed in the following week to speed and strength, meaning error on the side of speed. All work capacity
movements should be primarily performed concentrically, in an effort to minimize muscular damage and soreness (rowing, cycling, sled pulling, etc.). For sample exercises for each movement
see Table 4.
C&J 5 clean and jerk; GP 5 general preparation, P 5 power; S 5 speed; ST 5 strength; WC 5 work capacity.
Vertical Jump and Power
36
Table 2
Twelve-week mesocycle, Monday and Thursday—movements
Table 3
Twelve-week mesocycle, Tuesday and Saturday—movements
Block 1—WC (4 wk)
Block 2—strength (4 wk)
Block 3—power (4 wk)
GP
WC
ST and WC
ST
Max ST
ST and S
S and ST
Power
T and Sat
T and Sat
T and Sat
T and Sat
T and Sat
T and Sat
T and Sat
T and Sat
Speed
Speed
Speed
Speed
Speed
Speed
Speed
Speed
Agility
Agility
Jump
Jump
Jump
Jump
Jump
Jump
Throw
Throw
Toss
Toss
Toss
Toss
Toss
Toss
Skip
Skip
Skip
Toss
Toss
Power
Power
Learn Snatch
Power
Power
Power
Power
Power
Power
Snatch
Snatch
Snatch
Snatch
Snatch
Snatch
Strength and Conditioning Journal | www.nsca-scj.com
Strength
Strength
Strength
Strength
Strength
Strength
Strength
Strength
Bilat. back
Bilat. back
Bilat. back
Bilat. back
Bilat. back
Bilat. back
Bilat. back
Bilat. back
Horiz. pull
Horiz. pull
Horiz. pull
Ab. rotation
Ab. rotation
Ab. rotation
Ab. rotation
Ab. rotation
Horiz. press
Horiz. press
Horiz. press
Ab. rotation
Ab. rotation
Ab. rotation
WC
WC
WC
WC
WC
WC
WC
2:1work:rest
1:1work:rest
None
None
2:1work:rest
3:1work:rest
None
WC
None
For sample exercises for each movement see Table 4.
C&J 5 clean and jerk; GP 5 general preparation, P 5 power; S 5 speed; ST 5 strength; WC 5 work capacity.
37
Vertical Jump and Power
learning of WLM (12,19,43). It should
also be understood that as with the
learning of any task, a small number of
repetitions performed frequently and
consistently throughout the year (during
active recovery days or dynamic warmups, etc.) suitably develops aptitude and
confidence. Complete mastery of skill is
a byproduct of practice, not a prerequisite
of involvement. Although time constraints should always be a consideration,
the obligation to long-term athlete development should not be compromised by
a desire for immediate success. Elimination of WLM from a program for this
reason is irresponsible. Furthermore, variations such as the hang start position or
modified pulls serve as short-term alternatives to the full snatch and the clean
and jerk when technical flaws or other
barriers limit productivity.
Other implements such as medicine
balls and kettlebells are also frequently
used as substitutes for WLM (33). This
is a reasonable solution in special circumstances such as a lack of equipment (e.g., barbell and bumper plates)
and/or space. Yet, it is imperative to
recognize that these devices drive similar, but not identical adaptations. The
benefits of these alternatives will not be
as comprehensive or of the same magnitude as WLM, especially in trained
athletes. These training methods
should be considered supplements,
not equal substitutes.
PART A: SUMMARY. A combination
of multiple modalities and loading
paradigms optimizes the potential for
improvements in jumping and leg
power. However, the specific adaptations of each movement variation must
be recognized prior to implementation. Jumping activities (BWJ, RJ, AJ)
enrich power mainly through velocity.
All variations are likely to benefit less
experienced athletes, but AJ is particularly advantageous for athletes with
a history of jump training. Heavy
strength training targets force, and
thus should complement any jump
training program. WLM display
a unique ability to facilitate simultaneous gains in velocity and force,
38
making them the most effective
method of improving leg power.
PART B: PRACTICAL APPLICATION.
The following section outlines a sample 12-week mesocycle designed
to improve power production and
jumping ability. The program targets
moderately trained athletes with previous experience in jumping and general strength and conditioning
activities, but limited skill in WLM.
The foundation of its design is summarized by the phrase, “methods are
many, concepts are few,” or more
plainly, application of exercise determines adaptation, not the exercise per
se. Prescribing general concepts (work
capacity, maximum strength, speed,
etc.) as opposed to strict/specific
methods (exercise choice, volumes,
intensities, etc.) emphasizes a focus
on short-term goals and increases
the potential for variation and autonomy based on individual coach/athlete preferences and limitations
(equipment, time and/or space availability, etc.). The concepts are outlined in Tables 2 and 3 and a short
list of sample exercises for each concept is provided in Table 4, and sample volumes and intensities are
demonstrated in Tables 5 and 6. To
accomplish these concepts, most exercises should be complex (requiring
multiple joints) and performed with
maximal intended velocity across
a spectrum of loading intensities.
The periodization strategy is to
maintain moderate to high intensities
while manipulating total daily and
weekly volume (e.g., the number of
exercises, sets, and/or repetitions in
a given day and/or week).
The 12 weeks are separated into 3
blocks and each block is further divided
into 4 microcycles (Table 1). Each block
and microcycle is given an overall concept (e.g., maximal strength, strength
speed, or power), with the first word
of the concept reflecting which aspect
dictates greater emphasis. Designing
Table 4
Sample exercises for each movement
Movement
Sample Exercises
Jumps
Box jump, bounding, lateral jump, hurdles, assisted jumping
Slams
Medicine ball slam, tire slam, band pulls
Twists
Lateral medicine ball toss, full contact twist, carioca
Agility
Pro-agility, reactive shuffle, carioca, mirror drill
Throws
Soccer throw, shot-put, wood chop
Tosses
Scoop toss, lateral toss, tire flip
Bilateral leg
Front squat, back squat, overhead squat
Unilateral leg
Lunges, split-squat, step-up, one leg squat
Bilateral back
Deadlift, sumo-deadlift, zercher squats
Vertical pull
Pull-up, lat pull down, chin-up, muscle-up
Horizontal pull
Ring row, bent row, band row
Vertical press
Overhead press, handstand push-up, dip
Horizontal press
Incline press, flat press, ring push-up
Abdominal flexion
Hanging leg raises, V-up, wheel rollout
Abdominal rotation Antirotation holds, seated twists, lateral bends
Work capacity
VOLUME 34 | NUMBER 6 | DECEMBER 2012
Sprints, rowing, cycling, sled presses/pulls
Table 5
Twelve-week mesocycle, day by day—volumes
Block 1—WC (4 wk)
Block 2—strength (4 wk)
Block 3—power (4 wk)
GP
WC
ST and WC
ST
Max ST
ST and S
S and ST
Power
M and W
M and W
M and W
M and W
M and W
M and W
M and W
M and W
Speed
Speed
Speed
Speed
Speed
Speed
Speed
Speed
333
333
334
333
332
333
632
632
Power
Power
Power
Power
Power
Power
Power
Power
; 10 min
; 15 min
533
632
831
831
10 3 1
631
Strength
Strength
Strength
Strength
Strength
Strength
Strength
Strength
438
435
633
832
832
632
432
WC
WC
WC
WC
WC
WC
WC
431
531
331
None
None
None
None
Total reps/d: 187
Total reps/d: 144
Total reps/d: 105
Total reps/d: 84
Total reps/d: 83
Total reps/d: 82
Total reps/d: 66
T and Sat
T and Sat
T and Sat
T and Sat
T and Sat
T and Sat
T and Sat
Speed
Speed
Speed
Speed
Speed
Speed
Speed
Speed
333
333
334
333
332
333
632
632
Power
Power
Power
Power
Power
Power
Power
Power
;10 min
; 15 min
533
632
10 3 1
10 3 1
12 3 1
631
Strength
Strength
Strength
Strength
Strength
Strength
Strength
Strength
238
335
433
832
632
432
332
WC
WC
WC
WC
WC
WC
WC
331
331
None
None
231
331
None
Total reps/d: 94
Total reps/d: 102
Total reps/d: 54
Total reps/d: 54
Total reps/d: 63
Total reps/d: 67
Total reps/d: 54
562
492
318
276
292
298
240/120
3 3 10
WC
None
Total reps/d: 177
T and Sat
Strength and Conditioning Journal | www.nsca-scj.com
238
WC
None
Total reps/d: 91
536
The set and repetition volume is listed as total volume per exercise. For example, the speed movements performed in the GP microcycle of Block 1 will be 3 3 3 for the jump, slam, and twist
series. Week 12 will only encompass 2 total training sessions (Monday and Thursday). The final training session will be Saturday’s prescription, but performed on the last Thursday.
GP 5 general preparation, P 5 power; S 5 speed; ST 5 strength; WC 5 work capacity.
39
VOLUME 34 | NUMBER 6 | DECEMBER 2012
Block 1—WC (4 wk)
Block 2—strength (4 wk)
Block 3—power (4 wk)
GP
WC
ST and WC
ST
Max ST
ST and S
S and ST
Power
M and W
M and W
M and W
M and W
M and W
M and W
M and W
M and W
Speed
Speed
Speed
Speed
Speed
Speed
Speed
Max velocity
Max velocity
Max velocity
Max velocity
Max velocity
Max velocity
Max velocity
Power
Power
Power
Power
Power
Power
Power
N/A
;75% 3RM
;90% 2RM
1RM
;90% 1RM
;90% 1RM
;85% 1RM
Strength
Strength
Strength
Strength
Strength
Strength
Strength
;90% 8RM
;90% 5RM
;95% 3RM
;100% 2RM
;90% 2RM
;85% 2RM
;85% 2RM
WC
WC
WC
WC
WC
WC
WC
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Speed
Max velocity
Power
N/A
Strength
;90% 10RM
WC
.100% V̇O2max
N/A
T and Sat
T and Sat
T and Sat
T and Sat
T and Sat
T and Sat
T and Sat
T and Sat
Speed
Speed
Speed
Speed
Speed
Speed
Speed
Max velocity
Max velocity
Max velocity
Max velocity
Max velocity
Max velocity
Max velocity
Power
Power
Power
Power
Power
Power
Power
N/A
;75% 3RM
;90% 2RM
1RM
;95% 1RM
;95% 1RM
;85% 1RM
Strength
Strength
Strength
Strength
Strength
Strength
Strength
;85% 8RM
;85% 5RM
;90% 3RM
;95% 2RM
;85% 2RM
;80% 2RM
;80% 2RM
WC
WC
WC
WC
WC
WC
WC
WC
N/A
.100%
.100%
N/A
N/A
.100%
.100%
N/A
V̇O2max
V̇O2max
V̇O2max
V̇O2max
Speed
Max velocity
Power
N/A
Strength
;85% 8RM
Intensities are listed as approximations and should be varied based upon individual daily performances and according to the microcycle goal. For example, if the strength movement in the S
and ST microcycle of Block 3 (which is prescribed to be at ; 85% 2RM) is being performed excessively slow, the intensity should be dropped slightly as the emphasis of this block is speed, not
maximal strength. However, the intensity should be maintained in the same circumstance during the third microcycle of Block 2 as the emphasis is maximum strength.
GP 5 general preparation, P 5 power; RM, repetition maximum; S 5 speed; ST 5 strength; WC 5 work capacity.
Vertical Jump and Power
40
Table 6
Block 1—WC (4 wk) Block 2—Strength (4 wk) block
programs by concept means both coach
and athlete explicitly understand weekly
outcome goals, making critical decisions
such as elimination or alteration of
movements, volume, and/or intensity
in response to unpredicted events
(equipment malfunction, changes in
health, other life stressors, etc.) much
easier. For example, during the
“Strength” phase (week 6), a coach
might allow an athlete to increase intensity beyond the previously intended prescription, fully aware movement speed
may be slightly compromised. However,
this would not be as appropriate during
the “Speed Strength” phase (weeks 9–
10) as speed should be of greater concern than strength.
Designing by concept also allows high
daily variation in light of a fairly routine daily structure. Each day begins
with some type of mobility/injury prevention movement followed by a
dynamic warm-up. Subsequent speed,
power, strength, and work capacity
components occupy the bulk of the
training session. Specificity is achieved
by modifying the number of exercises
and/or the amount of total repetitions
dedicated to each specific adaptation
(speed, power, strength, or work
capacity) within each microcycle. For
example, during the “Strength Speed”
week, 2 speed and 3 strength exercises
are prescribed with a total weekly volume of 50 and 100 reps, respectively.
Yet, during the following “Speed
Strength” week, speed increases to 4
movements while strength volume decreases to 1 movement. Thus, the total
number of speed reps increases from 50
to 150, whereas the total number of
strength reps decreases from 100 to
50. Altering the amount of time per
day dedicated to each adaptation
slightly alters the overall microcycle
adaptations, and the combination of
each microcycle reflects the goal of
its corresponding block.
The figure demonstrates the change in
total weekly training volume, per component (speed, power, strength, and
work capacity), across the sample mesocycle. In summary, speed is moderate in
Blocks 1 and 2, and increases dramatically in Block 3; power remains constant
throughout; strength is similar in Blocks
1 and 3, but increases considerably in
Block 2; work capacity is high in Block
1, drops off substantially in Block 2, and
is almost completely eliminated in Block
3. Because its well-rounded nature
permits simultaneous training of speed,
power, and strength, WLM are the
backbone of all 3 blocks. Briefly, total
volume is high in Block 1 because the
predominant goals are to learn movements and develop work capacity. Low
impact BWJ could function well here if
applied in a manner that reinforces
proper jumping mechanics while gradually increasing workload. Total volume declines heavily during Blocks 2
and 3 as the focus shifts to maximal
force and then velocity. The second
block emphasizes force by reducing
work capacity volume, maintaining
speed and power training, and increasing strength exercises. Higher impact
BWJ, RJ, and heavy resistance movements are ideal exercise choices during
this phase. The steady decline of volume continues into the third and final
block (power) as work capacity and
strength training are reduced in favor
of maximal velocity and power. Implementing AJ here would further promote recovery and unloading while
augmenting velocity.
CONCLUSIONS
Power and jumping ability correlate to
both anaerobic and aerobic sport performance. Power requires velocity and
Figure. Twelve-week sample mesocycle. Changes in total and relative weekly volume per training concept are displayed across the
12-week training program. The program is subdivided into 3 blocks with overall goals of work capacity (Block 1),
strength (Block 2), and power (Block 3). Absolute weekly volume is represented by the total repetitions.
Strength and Conditioning Journal | www.nsca-scj.com
41
Vertical Jump and Power
force, and force requires mass and
acceleration. A brief review of literature
indicates several jumping-specific and
non-jumping–specific training methods
uniquely enhance power and jumping
ability. In general, low-intensity/highspeed movements such as plyometrics
improve velocity, high-intensity/lowspeed movements such as heavy squatting promote force production, and
WLM augment both force and velocity.
Optimal programming would therefore
include a highly variable combination of
training modalities and loading paradigms planned around athlete-specific
strengths and weaknesses.
Anthony
Darmiento is
a Masters Student
at the Center for
Sport Performance
in the Department
of Kinesiology at
California State
University,
Fullerton.
Andrew J. Galpin
is an Assistant
Professor at the
Center for Sport
Performance in the
Department of
Kinesiology at California State University, Fullerton.
Lee E. Brown is
a Professor at the
Center for Sport
Performance in
the Department
of Kinesiology at
California State
University,
Fullerton.
REFERENCES
1. Argus CK, Gill ND, Keogh JW, Blazevich AJ,
and Hopkins WG. Kinetic and training
42
comparisons between assisted, resisted,
and free countermovement jumps. J Strength
Cond Res 25: 2219–2227, 2011.
2. Baker D. Comparison of upper-body
strength and power between professional
and college-aged rugby league players.
J Strength Cond Res 15: 30–35, 2001.
3. Baker D. A series of studies on the training
of high-intensity muscle power in rugby
league football players. J Strength Cond
Res 15: 198–209, 2001.
4. Baker D. Acute negative effect of
a hypertrophy-oriented training bout on
subsequent upper-body power output.
J Strength Cond Res 17: 527–530, 2003.
5. Baker DG and Newton RU. Change in
power output across a high-repetition set of
bench throws and jump squats in highly
trained athletes. J Strength Cond Res 21:
1007–1011, 2007.
6. Baker DG and Newton RU. Comparison of
lower body strength, power, acceleration,
speed, agility, and sprint momentum to
describe and compare playing rank among
professional rugby league players.
J Strength Cond Res 22: 153–158, 2008.
14. Cormie P, McGuigan MR, and Newton RU.
Adaptations in athletic performance after
ballistic power versus strength training. Med
Sci Sports Exerc 42: 1582–1598, 2010.
15. Cronin J and Sleivert G. Challenges in
understanding the influence of maximal power
training on improving athletic performance.
Sports Med 35: 213–234, 2005.
16. Fry AC, Schilling BK, Staron RS,
Hagerman FC, Hikida RS, and Thrush JT.
Muscle fiber characteristics and
performance correlates of male Olympicstyle weightlifters. J Strength Cond Res
17: 746–754, 2003.
17. Garhammer J and Gregor RJ. Propulsion
forces as a function of intensity for
weightlifting and vertical jumping. J Appl
Sport Sci Res 6: 129–134, 1992.
18. Harris GR, Stone MH, O’Bryant HS,
Proulx CM, and Johnson RL. Short-term
performance effects of high power, high
force, or combined weight-training methods.
J Strength Cond Res 14: 14–20, 2000.
19. Hedrick A and Wada H. Weightlifting
movements: Do the benefits outweight the
risks? Strength Cond J 30: 26–34, 2008.
7. Baker DG and Newton RU. Effect of kinetically
altering a repetition via the use of chain
resistance on velocity during the bench press.
J Strength Cond Res 23: 1941–1946, 2009.
20. Hickson RC, Rosenkoetter MA, and
Brown MM. Strength training effects on
aerobic power and short-term endurance.
Med Sci Sports Exerc 12: 336–339, 1980.
8. Behm DG and Sale DG. Intended rather
than actual movement velocity determines
velocity-specific training response. J Appl
Physiol 74: 359–368, 1993.
21. Hoffman JR, Cooper J, Wendell M, and
Kang J. Comparison of Olympic vs.
traditional power lifting training programs in
football players. J Strength Cond Res 18:
129–135, 2004.
9. Canavan PK, Garrett GE, and
Armstrong LE. Kinematic and Kinetic
Relationships Between an Olympic-style
Lift and the Vertical Jump. J Strength Cond
Res 10: 127–130, 1996.
10. Carlock JM, Smith SL, Hartman MJ,
Morris RT, Ciroslan DA, Pierce KC,
Newton RU, Harman EA, Sands WA, and
Stone MH. The relationship between
vertical jump power estimates and
weightlifting ability: a field-test approach.
J Strength Cond Res 18: 534–539, 2004.
11. Cavagna GA, Zamboni A, Faraggiana T,
and Margaria R. Jumping on the moon:
power output at different gravity values.
Aerosp Med 43: 408–414, 1972.
12. Chiu LZ and Schilling BK. A primer on
weightlifting: From sport to sports training.
Strength Cond J 27: 42–48, 2005.
13. Cormie P, McCaulley GO, and
McBride JM. Power versus strength-power
jump squat training: influence on the loadpower relationship. Med Sci Sports Exerc
39: 996–1003, 2007.
VOLUME 34 | NUMBER 6 | DECEMBER 2012
22. Hori N, Newton RU, Kawamori N,
McGuigan MR, Andrews WA,
Chapman DW, and Nosaka K. Comparison
of weighted jump squat training with and
without eccentric braking. J Strength Cond
Res 22: 54–65, 2008.
23. Hrysomallis C. The effectiveness of
resisted movement training on sprinting
and jumping performance. J Strength Cond
Res 26: 299–306, 2012.
24. Izquierdo M, Hakkinen K, Gonzalez-Badillo JJ,
Ibanez J, and Gorostiaga EM. Effects of longterm training specificity on maximal strength
and power of the upper and lower extremities
in athletes from different sports. Eur J Appl
Physiol 87: 264–271, 2002.
25. Janz J, Dietz C, and Malone M. Training
explosiveness: Weightlifting and beyond.
Strength Cond J 30: 14–22, 2008.
26. Knudson DV. Correcting the use of the
term "power" in the strength and
conditioning literature. J Strength Cond
Res 23: 1902–1908, 2009.
27. Markovic G and Jaric S. Positive and
negative loading and mechanical output in
maximum vertical jumping. Med Sci Sports
Exerc 39: 1757–1764, 2007.
28. Markovic G and Mikulic P. Neuromusculoskeletal and performance
adaptations to lower-extremity plyometric
training. Sports Med 40: 859–895, 2010.
29. McBride JM, Triplett-McBride NT,
Davie A, and Newton RU. A comparison of
strength and power characteristics
between power lifters, Olympic lifters, and
sprinters. J Strength Cond Res 13: 58–
66, 1999.
30. McBride JM, Triplett-McBride T, Davie A,
and Newton RU. The effect of heavy- vs.
light-load jump squats on the development
of strength, power, and speed. J Strength
Cond Res 16: 75–82, 2002.
31. Newton H. Weightlifting? Weight lifting?
Olympic lifting? Olympic weightlifting?
Strength Cond J 21: 15–16, 1999.
32. Nuzzo JL, McBride JM, Dayne AM,
Israetel MA, Dumke CL, and Triplett NT.
Testing of the maximal dynamic output
hypothesis in trained and untrained subjects.
J Strength Cond Res 24: 1269–1276, 2010.
33. Otto WH, Coburn JW, Brown LE, and
Spiering BA. Effects of weightlifting vs.
Kettlebell training on vertical jump,
strength, and body composition. J Strength
Cond Res 33: 199–202, 2012.
34. Rhea MR, Kenn JG, and Dermody BM.
Alterations in speed of squat movement
and the use of accommodated resistance
among college athletes training for power.
J Strength Cond Res 23: 2645–2650,
2009.
35. Rhea MR, Peterson MD, Lunt KT, and
Ayllon FN. The effectiveness of resisted
jump training on the VertiMax in high school
athletes. J Strength Cond Res 22: 731–
734, 2008.
36. Rhea MR, Peterson MD, Oliverson JR,
Ayllon FN, and Potenziano BJ. An
examination of training on the VertiMax
resisted jumping device for improvements
in lower body power in highly trained
college athletes. J Strength Cond Res 22:
735–740, 2008.
and olympic weightlifting performance.
J Sports Med Phys Fitness 20: 99–102,
1980.
42. Stone MH, O’Bryant HS, McCoy L,
Coglianese R, Lehmkuhl M, and
Schilling B. Power and maximum strength
relationships during performance of
dynamic and static weighted jumps.
J Strength Cond Res 17: 140–147, 2003.
43. Stone MH, Pierce KC, Sands WA, and
Stone ME. Weightlifting: A Brief Overview.
Strength Cond J 28: 50–66, 2006.
37. Sheppard JM, Cronin JB, Gabbett TJ,
McGuigan MR, Etxebarria N, and
Newton RU. Relative importance of
strength, power, and anthropometric
measures to jump performance of elite
volleyball players. J Strength Cond Res 22:
758–765, 2008.
44. Tran TT, Brown LE, Coburn JW, Lynn SK,
Dabbs NC, Schick MK, Schick EE,
Khamoui AV, Uribe BP, and Noffal GJ.
Effects of different elastic cord assistance
levels on vertical jump. J Strength Cond
Res 25: 3472–3478, 2011.
38. Sheppard JM, Dingley AA, Janssen I,
Spratford W, Chapman DW, and
Newton RU. The effect of assisted jumping
on vertical jump height in high-performance
volleyball players. J Sci Med Sport 14: 85–
89, 2011.
45. Tricoli V, Lamas L, Carnevale R, and
Ugrinowitsch C. Short-term effects on
lower-body functional power development:
weightlifting vs. vertical jump training
programs. J Strength Cond Res 19: 433–
437, 2005.
39. Sinnett AM, Berg K, Latin RW, and
Noble JM. The relationship between field
tests of anaerobic power and 10-km run
performance. J Strength Cond Res 15:
405–412, 2001.
46. Vuk S, Markovic G, and Jaric S. External
loading and maximum dynamic output in
vertical jumping: The role of training history.
Hum Mov Sci 31: 139–151, 2012.
40. Stevenson MW, Warpeha JM, Dietz CC,
Giveans RM, and Erdman AG. Acute effects
of elastic bands during the free-weight
barbell back squat exercise on velocity,
power, and force production. J Strength
Cond Res 24: 2944–2954, 2010.
41. Stone MH, Byrd R, Tew J, and Wood M.
Relationship between anaerobic power
47. Willardson JM. A brief review: Factors
affecting the length of the rest interval
between resistance exercise sets.
J Strength Cond Res 20: 978–984, 2006.
48. Wilson GJ, Newton RU, Murphy AJ, and
Humphries BJ. The optimal training load for
the development of dynamic athletic
performance. Med Sci Sports Exerc 25:
1279–1286, 1993.
Strength and Conditioning Journal | www.nsca-scj.com
43