•  
  •  
 

Peak Power in Countermovement Jump Vs. Squat Jump

Abstract

JUSTIN C. MALNAR, GRAHAM J. MCCULLOCH, MAVERICK W. BRAZEAL, & CHRISTIANA G. MUDD

Advisor / Mentor: Chelette, Amber (amber.chelette@sfasu.edu)

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to investigate the differences in peak power produced by CMJs and SJs. More specifically, we aimed to determine if the relationship between jump type and peak power found in elite athletes would hold true for a more varied population. Our hypothesis based on these previous studies was that CMJs would produce higher peak power numbers than SJs.

INTRODUCTION: The countermovement jump (CMJ) and squat jump (SJ) are two different ways of measuring a subject’s vertical jump ability. The CMJ involves a smooth, immediate transition between the flexion of the loading phase and the extension of the takeoff phase. In the SJ, subjects flex to a 90° squat, hold that position, and take off without any further loading. Many studies have found that CMJs result in greater vertical jump heights than SJs. One study listed a few possible reasons for the jump height differences, including familiarity with the movements, energy loading in the elastic elements of muscle, or spinal reflexes causing increased recruitment of hip extensors during the takeoff phase (Bobbert, 1996). Another study investigated different kinetic and kinematic aspects of vertical jumps performed by elite beach volleyball players and how well those factors can be used to predict jump height. It found that in men, peak power was the most accurate predictor of jump height regardless of type. In women, peak power was found to be the most accurate predictor of CMJ height, but average power was more accurate in predicting SJ height (Riggs, 2009). 
METHODS: This study included 10 people, 5 female and 5 male, aged 20-36 years old. All of which either were athletes or had previously been athletes and are still active. For the countermovement jumps and squat jumps, a force plate was used to measure the peak power in each leg and the time in the air. Each participant did a 5-minute warm up before they got started. Each participant also went in the same order of each jump, starting with the squat jump, then the counter movement jump 3 times each.
RESULTS: There was a significant difference when comparing a person’s peak power within a squat jump versus a countermovement jump. Analysis indicated that the average peak power in the squat jump (53.73 ± " role="presentation" style="-webkit-user-drag: none; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; user-select: text; white-space-collapse: collapse; display: inline-table; line-height: normal; font-size: 13.3333px; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; border: 0px; position: relative;">± ± 11.83) was much less compared to the countermovement jump (61.25 ±" role="presentation" style="-webkit-user-drag: none; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; user-select: text; white-space-collapse: collapse; display: inline-table; line-height: normal; font-size: 13.3333px; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; border: 0px; position: relative;">±± 15.84).
CONCLUSION: These results indicate that our original hypothesis was correct, the countermovement jump showed a higher average in peak power. These results can be applied by athletes to increase their jump height because it provides data on what method is best to reach your peak power. The limitations of these results are that the data is entirely composed of current athletes, conducting the same testing on non-athletes could potentially give different results, although the results would likely still be in favor of our hypothesis. More inclusivity of different sports could offer more generalized data.

This document is currently not available here.

Share

COinS