EFFECT OF A DYNAMIC LOADED WARM-UP ON

VERTICAL JUMP PERFORMANCE

CHARLES CHATTONG, LEE E. BROWN, JARED W. COBURN, AND GUILLERMO J. NOFFAL
Human Performance Laboratory, Department of Kinesiology, California State University, Fullerton, California
ABSTRACT
Chattong, C, Brown, LE, Coburn, JW, and Noffal, GJ. Effect
of a dynamic loaded warm-up on vertical jump performance.
J Strength Cond Res 24(7): 17511754, 2010Considering
the importance of the vertical jump in several sports, an optimal
warm-up protocol may help athletes perform at their maximum
level. The purpose of this study was to investigate the
potentiating effects of different levels of external resistance
(weighted vest) during box jumps on vertical jump performance.
Twenty resistance trained men (age 22.45 61.73 years, height
176.83 6 6.67 cm, mass 76.98 6 8.56 kg) participated in this
study. Subjects performed 5 jumps onto a box equivalent in
height to their lateral femoral condyle. After a 2-minute rest
period, subjects performed 3 vertical jumps with the greatest
height being recorded. On day 1, each subject performed
a control condition with no external resistance to establish
a baseline vertical jump height. On the following days, they
performed 4 random jump conditions with a weight vest
equivalent to 5, 10, 15, or 20% of their body weight then rested
for 2 minutes before performing 3 posttest vertical jumps.
Results demonstrated no signicant interaction of condition by
time for vertical jump height. However, there was a signicant
main effect for time (p ,0.05) with posttest jump height (22.99
6 3.35 in.) being greater than pretest jump height (22.69 6
3.37 in.). Performing an active dynamic warm-up with or without
a weighted vest produced signicantly greater posttest vertical
jump performance. A dynamic warm-up may improve vertical
jump performance, albeit to a very small increment.
KEY WORDS postactivation, box jump, weight vest
INTRODUCTION
V
ertical jumping is an important aspect of multiple
sports such as basketball, volleyball, and football.
If jump height could be increased because of
a specic warm-up, this could benet an athletes
performance in a multitude of sports. Dynamic warm-up has
been demonstrated to garner positive results on subsequent
vertical jump performances (2,14). A specic dynamic warm-
up can be described as a warm-up that addresses key muscle
groups and the necessary neuromuscular coordination needed
to perform a specic action, such as the vertical jump.
In addition, studies have also shown a possible postactivation
potentiation (PAP) effect when a specic dynamic warm-up
was coupled with resistance (2,8,12,13,14). Past studies
(2,4,7,10,11,13,14) investigating PAP induced by heavy
resistance and the subsequent effects on high-power acti-
vities, such as jumping, sprinting, revealed enhanced perfor-
mance. Previous studies have employed various types of
external loading such as dumbbells, weight vests or barbells,
coupled with a movement similar to jumping or an active
dynamic warm-up and produced signicant performance
improvements. These studies show that regardless of the
type used, the concept of external loading coupled with
dynamic movements have the potential to produce signif-
icant performance improvements on subsequent power
exercises.
A possible explanation for the performance improvement
after the aforementioned activities may be PAP. Postactivation
potentiation typically occurs when performing a contraction
at near maximal or maximal intensity. Although the exact
mechanisms of PAP are not fully understood, it has been
generally proposed and accepted that PAP is associated with
phosphorylation of myosin regulatory light chains, increased
recruitment of higher order motor units, and a possible
change in pennation angle (17). Based upon these concepts if
PAP could be induced, subsequent explosive activity could be
potentially enhanced as well as performance or the training
stimulus of that activity (15).
Burkett et al. (2) used an external load equivalent to only
10% of the participants body weight and yet still elicited
a signicant improvement in subsequent vertical jump
performance. This leads to the question of whether a greater
or lesser external load (i.e., percentage of body weight) might
elicit a different response in subsequent vertical jump
performance. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to
investigate the effect of different increments of load coupled
with a specic dynamic warm-up and the subsequent effects
on vertical jump performance of college-age athletic men.
Address correspondence to Lee E. Brown, leebrown@fullerton.edu.
24(7)/17511754
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
2010 National Strength and Conditioning Association
VOLUME 24 | NUMBER 7 | JULY 2010 | 1751
METHODS
Experimental Approach to the Problem
To investigate the effects of different percentages of external
load on vertical jump performance, we used a within-subjects
design consisting of 5 testing sessions. The rst test session
involved establishing a baseline vertical jump score in a test
retest fashion without any external loading (control). The
experimental conditions required the subjects to perform box
jumps using an external load (weight vest) equal to 5, 10, 15,
and 20% of their respective bodyweight. This was done in an
attempt to elicit PAPand increase performance on subsequent
unloaded vertical jumps.
Subjects
Participants for this study consisted of 20 college age
resistance trained men (age 22.45 years 6 1.73, height
176.83 cm66.67, mass 76.98 kg 68.56) having at least 1 year
of resistance training experience. Participants who suffered
from a previous or current injury that would inhibit or
inuence their vertical jump performance were excluded from
the study. Each participant read and signed an informed
consent form approved by the University IRB before their
participation.
Procedures
All participants were instructed to refrain from any and all
strenuous lower body activities before and during the testing
period. Participants were also instructed to wear the same pair
of shoes for each testing condition in addition to comfortable
athletic apparel. Participants were also instructed to consume
water before testing. Participants were also instructed to
maintain consistent eating, sleeping, and activity habits.
During the rst testing session, each participants height,
weight, standing reach, and knee height were measured. Knee
height was measured by taking the distance from the subjects
lateral femoral condyle on their right leg to the oor. The
purpose of this measurement was to establish the box height
that each subject would use during their testing and exercise
sessions. This was done to ensure that the intensity of the box
jumps was standardized relative to each individual.
During each testing session, subjects performed a 5-minute
warm-up on a cycle ergometer at a self-selected RPM level of
25 W. Based on previous studies various stretching protocols
were excluded from this testing process because of the
inhibitory response and subsequent degradation on vertical
jump performance (1,5,8,18,19). On completion of the warm-
up, each subject performed 3 countermovement jumps with
arm swing as high as possible and displaced vanes on the
Vertec (Hilliard, OH, USA). The Vertec is considered an
appropriate tool for measuring jump height (3) The rest time
between vertical jumps ranged from 1015 seconds as
previous studies have observed no signicant decrease in
jumping performance during the indicated resting time frame
(13). The subjects vertical jump score was determined as the
difference between their reach height and their maximum
jump height. The highest jump score was used as the pretest
VJ score.
On completion of the 3 pretest vertical jumps, subjects then
performed 5 box jumps at their predetermined box height.
Subjects stood approximately 6 in. from the box and were
instructed to jump up onto the top of the box. Participants
were allowed to squat to a self-selected knee depth (6). They
were then instructed to step down and wait 10 seconds. The
tester then gave the subject a verbal countdown before
performing their next box jump. Upon completion of the
5 box jumps, subjects rested 2 minutes in a standing position.
Upon conclusion of the rest period, subjects performed
3 posttest countermovement vertical jumps with arm swing
in the same fashion as the pretest with the highest score
being recorded.
For the remaining testing sessions, participants were
randomly assigned to 1 of 4 test conditions, performing
a different test condition each session. All subsequent testing
was done at the same time of day. The 4 test conditions
consisted of different increments of external resistance using
a weighted vest. The different increments were represented as
percentages: 5, 10, 15, and 20%, of each subjects respective
bodyweight. The testing procedure for the remaining
protocols were performed exactly the same as the rst
session with the sole difference being the amount of resistance
used during the box jumps. The
rest periods between testing
sessions ranged from1 to 5 days.
Statistical Analyses
A 5 3 2 (condition 3 time)
repeated measures analysis of
variance was performed to de-
termine differences in vertical
jump height across conditions.
Ana priori alpha level of 0.05 was
used to determine signicance.
Testretest reliability was mea-
sured via the intraclass correla-
tion coefcient (ICC) statistic.
TABLE 1. Mean 6 SD (in.) of vertical jump height across all test conditions.
Percent Pretest Posttest Difference
0 22.22 6 3.86 22.80 6 3.66 0.58
5 22.82 6 3.80 23.25 6 3.68 0.43
10 22.75 6 3.04 23.00 6 3.24 0.25
15 22.97 6 3.22 23.00 6 3.24 0.03
20 22.67 6 3.15 22.90 6 3.27 0.23
Overall mean 22.69 6 3.35 22.99 6 3.37* 0.30
*Signicantly greater than pretest.
1752 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the TM
Dynamic Loaded Warm-Up
RESULTS
There was no signicant interaction between condition and
time, nor was there a main effect for test condition. However,
there was a signicant main effect for time (p = 0.008). Mean
posttest vertical jump height (22.99 6 3.35 in.) was
signicantly greater than the mean pretest vertical jump
height (22.69 6 3.37 in.) (Table 1). Effect size was very small
at 0.09. Test-retest reliability was measured via ICC and
resulted in 0.97.
DISCUSSION
The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of
different increments of load during a dynamically specic box
jump warm-up on vertical jump performance. The primary
nding of this study was that posttest vertical jump height
increased regardless of the warm-up condition. Therefore, the
addition of a weighted vest had no additional effect on
posttest jump height compared to simply performing 5 box
jumps at normal bodyweight.
Burkett et al. (2) found that vertical jump performance
signicantly improved after box jumps using resistance
equivalent to 10% bodyweight. However, the Burkett et al.
study differed in 2 signicant ways from our study. Their
box height was xed at 25 in. regardless of the subjects
height, whereas our study adjusted the box height
individually for each subject according to their measured
knee height. Our subject population had an average lateral
femoral condyle height of 20.47 in., ranging between 19.5
and 23 in. This meant that the highest box height any
subject used in our study was 23 in. Taking this into
consideration, a box jump height of 25 in. for our subject
population would have been more intense especially during
the heavier load conditions and may have elicited
a postactivation response similar to Burkett. However, it
was our intent to control the height of the box therefore
equating intensity across all subjects. However, the lower
box height used in this study may have reduced the PAP
effect because of reduced intensity level (16).
In addition, Burkett et al. (2) only used one level of external
load, 10% of bodyweight, in their study. Because of their
nding of a signicant improvement in vertical jump
performance, the original hypothesis for our study was that
different external loads might possibly elicit different out-
comes in vertical jump performance. For this reason, test
conditions of 5, 10, 15, and 20% were included. Burkett et al.s
explanation for their ndings stated that through the
performance of box jumps, subjects became more neurolog-
ically prepared to perform a similar movement, that is,
countermovement vertical jump. In addition, they also stated
the inclusion of external load provided enough resistance to
garner a muscular overload effect therefore resulting in
a greater recruitment of motor units. Although statistical
analysis of the current study revealed no signicant difference
in vertical jump performance between the test conditions,
there was signicant improvement from pretest to posttest
regardless of the condition. It may be concluded in our study,
similar to Burkett et al.s, that box jumps enhanced subjects
neurologically regardless of the amount of external load thus
leading to a signicant improvement.
In another study, Thompsen et al. (16) found that when
subjects performed a dynamic active warm-up with
a weighted vest equivalent to 10% of their body weight it
signicantly increased their subsequent vertical jump perfor-
mance. However, the duration of their dynamic active warm-
up was 10 minutes. This is a much greater length in
comparison to our study in which participants spent less than
2 minutes performing the dynamic warm-up. Furthermore,
subjects in the Thompsen et al. study wore the weighted vest
during the last 4 movements of the dynamic warm-up while
performing highly explosive movements. The prolonged
time period their subjects experienced in addition to the
explosive nature of their movements under load could have
potentially elicited greater PAP effects for the involved
muscles.
The primary nding of this study was a signicant
improvement in vertical jump height from pretest to posttest
regardless of the load condition. However, given the small
effect size and the absolute change of approximately a quarter
inch the practicality of this warm-up is small at best. Similarly,
Thompsen et al. found that subjects signicantly improved
their vertical jump height after performing an active dynamic
warm-up without the weighted vest, albeit not as great as the
weighted vest condition. They stated that performing
dynamic movements with a weighted vest garnered greater
force production because of enhanced neuromuscular
excitation or PAP. It may be suggested based on our ndings
in conjunction with those of Thompsen et al.s that
performing an active dynamic warm-up without an external
load may potentially still elicit signicant improvement in
subsequent vertical jump performance. Future research
should investigate the effects of different box heights, external
loads, and volume on postvertical jump performance.
In addition, because this was a nontraining study, a similar
study conducted for a prolonged period of time might also be
investigated as past studies have shown performance gains
in plyometric activities when comparing a short training
program to a longer training regimen (9).
PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS
It appears that performing a dynamic box jump warm-up with
as few as 5 repetitions onto a box of knee height with or
without an external load may increase subsequent counter-
movement vertical jump performance after a 2-minute rest.
Although not signicantly different from the other con-
ditions, the unloaded warm-up protocol elicited the greatest
absolute improvement in countermovement vertical jump
performance. Therefore, loaded warm-up jumps might be
replaced with unloaded jumps with a greater box height.
VOLUME 24 | NUMBER 7 | JULY 2010 | 1753
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the TM
| www.nsca-jscr.org
REFERENCES
1. Bradley, PS, Olsen, PD, and Portas, MD. The effect of static, ballistic,
and proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation stretching on vertical
jump performance. J Strength Cond Res 21: 223226, 2007.
2. Burkett, LN, Phillips, WT, and Ziuraitis, J. The best warm-up for
the vertical jump in college-age athletic men. J Strength Cond Res
19: 673676, 2005.
3. Burr, JF, Jamnik, VK, Dogra, S, and Gledhill, N. Evaluation of jump
protocols to assess leg power and predict hockey playing potential.
J Strength Cond Res 21: 11391145, 2007.
4. Chatzopoulos, DE, Michailidis, CJ, Giannakos, AK, Patikas, DA,
Antonopoulos, CB, and Kotzamanidis, CM. Postactivation poten-
tiation effects after heavy resistance exercise on running speed.
J Strength Cond Res 21: 12781281, 2007.
5. Church, JB, Wiggins, MS, Moode, FM, and Crist, R. Effect of warm-
up and exibility treatments on vertical jump performance. J Strength
Cond Res 15: 332336, 2001.
6. Domire, ZJ and Challis, JH. The inuence of squat depth on maximal
jump performance. J Strength Cond Res 25: 193200, 2007.
7. Jensen, RL and Ebben, WP. Kinetic analysis of complex training rest
interval effect on vertical jump performance. J Strength Cond Res 17:
345349, 2003.
8. Knudson, D, Bennett, K, Corn, R, Leick, D, and Smith, C. Acute
effects of stretching are not evident in the kinematics of the vertical
jump. J Strength Cond Res 15: 98101, 2001.
9. Luebbers, PE, Potteiger, JA, Hulver, MW, Thyfault, JP, Carper, MJ,
and Lockwood, RH. Effects of plyometric training and recovery on
vertical jump performance and anaerobic power. J Strength Cond Res
17: 704709, 2003.
10. Mangus, BC, Mercer, JA, Holcomb, WR, Sanchez, R, Takahashi, M,
and McWhorter, JW. Investigation of vertical jump performance
after completing heavy squat exercises. J Strength Cond Res 20:
597600, 2006.
11. Morriss, CJ, Tolfrey, K, and Coppack, RJ. Effects of short-term
isokinetic training on standing long jump performance in untrained
men. J Strength Cond Res 15: 498502, 2001.
12. Read, MM and Cisar, C. The inuence of varied rest interval lengths
on depth jump performance. J Strength Cond Res 15: 279283, 2001.
13. Rixon, KP, Lamont, HS, and Bemben, MG. Inuence of type of
muscle contraction, gender, and lifting experience on postactivation
potentiation performance. J Strength Cond Res 21: 500505, 2007.
14. Scott, SL and Docherty, D. Acute effects of heavy preloading on
vertical and horizontal jump performance. J Strength Cond Res
18: 201205, 2004.
15. Smilios, I, Pilianidis, T, Sotiropoulos, K, Antonakis, M, and
Tokmakidis, SP. Short term effects of selected exercise and load in
contrast training on vertical jump performance. J Strength Cond Res
19: 135139, 2005.
16. Thompsen, AG, Kackley, T, Palumbo, MA, and Faigenbaum, AD.
Acute effects of different warm-up protocols with and without
a weighted vest on jumping performance in athletic women.
J Strength Cond Res 21: 5256, 2007.
17. Tillin, NA and Bishop, D. Factors modulating post-activation
potentiation and its effect on performance of subsequent explosive
activities. Sports Med 39: 147166, 2009.
18. Unick, J, Kieffer, HS, Cheesman, W, and Feeney, A. The acute effects
of static and ballistic stretching on vertical jump performance in
trained women. J Strength Cond Res 19: 206212, 2005.
19. Wallmann, HW, Mercer, JA, and McWhorter, JW. Surface
electromyographic assessment of the effect of static stretching of
the gastrocnemius on vertical jump performance. J Strength Cond Res
19: 684688, 2005.
1754 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the TM
Dynamic Loaded Warm-Up