Journal of Sports Sciences

ISSN: 0264-0414 (Print) 1466-447X (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjsp20

A biomechanical comparison of countermovement

performance after short-term traditional and
daily-undulated loaded vertical jump training

Thiemo Pelzer, Boris Ullrich, Stefan Endler, Christian Rasche & Mark Pfeiffer

To cite this article: Thiemo Pelzer, Boris Ullrich, Stefan Endler, Christian Rasche & Mark
Pfeiffer (2017): A biomechanical comparison of countermovement performance after short-term
traditional and daily-undulated loaded vertical jump training, Journal of Sports Sciences, DOI:
10.1080/02640414.2017.1422627

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2017.1422627

Published online: 29 Dec 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rjsp20

Download by: [University of Florida] Date: 29 December 2017, At: 12:51

 JOURNAL OF SPORTS SCIENCES, 2017
https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2017.1422627

A biomechanical comparison of countermovement performance after short-term

traditional and daily-undulated loaded vertical jump training
Thiemo Pelzera, Boris Ullrichb, Stefan Endlera, Christian Raschea and Mark Pfeiffera
a
Department for Theory and Practical Performance in Sports, Johannes-Gutenberg University Mainz, Institute of Sport Sciences, Mainz, Germany;
b
Section for Exercise Science and Biomechanics, Olympic Training and Testing Center, Bad Kreuznach, Germany

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

In order to assess lower extremity muscle mechanical properties in athletes, power-load characteristics Accepted 6 December 2017
during multi-joint tasks are frequently examined. This work compared 6 weeks of traditional (TP) and
KEYWORDS
daily-undulated (DUP) periodized loaded countermovement jumping (CMJ). 20 amateur athletes (age: Strength training
24.2 ± 2.6 years, height: 175.6 ± 7.1 cm, body mass: 71.5 ± 7.7 kg, 10 males/10 females) exercised three periodization; pre-season
times weekly using maximal CMJs with loads corresponding to 0%, 15% and 30% of body mass. Prior to preparation; plyometric
the training period, subjects were once-only assigned by random to either the TP or DUP training training; loaded jumping;
Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 12:51 29 December 2017

scheme. Pre-to-post training, maximal center of mass (COM) -height, -take-off velocity, -power output MDO
and -impulse were compared during CMJ with additional loads corresponding to 0–30% of body mass.
ANOVA (time * group) with repeated measures revealed significant (P < 0.05) temporal gains of maximal
COM-height (2–11%), -take-off velocity (1–7%), -power (2–8%) and -impulse (3–9%) over most loading
conditions for TP and DUP. However, ANOVA indicated no group effects for any outcome. Independent
from the periodization model, maximal power output remained statistically unchanged with increased
testing loads. For short-term conditioning periods, TP and DUP were equally effective in enhancing
biomechanical jumping variables under varying loading conditions.

Introduction Thus, power output (that can also be defined as the ratio of
work to time), is highly relevant for jumping performance. In
According to Hill’s force-velocity-relationship, muscular power
this regard, loaded jump training has demonstrated its super-
is one of the major functional properties to determine perfor-
iority compared to unloaded programs in elite athletes
mance in human movements (Cuk et al., 2016; Hill, 1938;
(Sheppard et al., 2008). Varying the applied loading condition,
Yamauchi, Mishima, Nakayama, & Ishii, 2009). Thus, its optimi-
this training type allows for optimizing muscular power output
zation has become integral during athletic conditioning pro-
by increasing both force and velocity (Teo et al., 2016;
grams and is of paramount importance in various sports
Vandevalle, Peres, Heller, Panel, & Monod, 1987). However, to
(Baker, Nance, & Moore, 2001; Bobbert, 2014; Haff &
which extent either component is responsible for exercise-
Nimphius, 2012; Teo, Newton, Newton, Dempsey, & Fairchild,
induced power alterations still remains equivocal (Allison,
2016). As kinetic energy has to be transferred along several
Brooke-Wavell, & Folland, 2013). Recent studies on power out-
body segments during most athletic tasks (Jacobs & van Ingen
put characteristics during loaded maximal vertical jumping
Schenau, 1992), muscle mechanical characteristics of multi-
revealed decreasing power output with higher loads
joint movements are of particular interest to athletes and
(Bobbert, 2014; Feeney, Stanhope, Kaminski, Machi, & Jaric,
coaches (Arabatzi, Kellis, & De Villarreal, 2010; Haff &
2016, Jaric, 2015). When examining loaded vertical jumping
Nimphius, 2012; Teo et al., 2016; Yamauchi et al., 2009). To
performance, the maximal dynamic output hypothesis (MDO)
mimic sport specific movement patterns, power training regi-
is frequently discussed, stating that “the muscular lower limb
mens are typically based on vertical jumping tasks or Olympic
system produces maximum power output during explosive
Weightlifting, involving large muscle mass and fast contraction
actions when only loaded by the mass and inertia of its own
velocities (Arabatzi et al., 2010; Mihalik, Libby, Battaglini, &
body” (Feeney et al., 2016; Jaric & Markovic, 2009; Markovic &
McMurray, 2008; Stone et al., 2003; Teo et al., 2016; Tricoli,
Jaric, 2007). In contrast to this hypothesis, external power
Lamas, Carnevale, & Ugrinowitsch, 2005). Hereby, power is
output is strongly linked to the athlete’s maximum strength
commonly defined as the product of vertical ground reaction
ability and specific long-term athletic task requirements (Haff
force and vertical center of mass (COM) velocity (Markovic &
& Nimphius, 2012), which should be considered for optimal
Jaric, 2007; McBride, Haines, & Kirby, 2011). As vertical jumping
training load calculation. For example, rugby players, who
height can only be increased by displacing the body at higher
need a high power output under loaded conditions, might
velocities, more work (the product of force and vertical dis-
suffer performance decreases if they only exercise with loads
placement) has to be produced in less time (Bobbert, 2014).

CONTACT Thiemo Pelzer pelzer@uni-mainz.de Department for Theory and Practical Performance in Sports, Johannes-Gutenberg University Mainz, Institute
of Sport Sciences, Mainz, Germany
© 2017 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
 2 T. PELZER ET AL.
corresponding to their own body mass (Bobbert, 2014; Haff &
Nimphius, 2012).
The principle of training periodization emphasizes on dif-
ferent approaches to manipulating training volume and load
over time (Harries, Lubans, & Callister, 2015; Poliquin, 1988;
Ullrich, Pelzer, Oliveira, & Pfeiffer, 2016). More detailed, tradi-
tional (TP) and undulating periodization (UP) models are most
commonly referred to in literature (Harries et al., 2015;
Hartmann et al., 2015). It was assumed that more frequent
changes of the major exercise variables should be advanta-
geous for strength and power development compared to
traditionally periodized training programs (Poliquin, 1988).
However, the current body of literature fails to provide evi-
dence for the superiority of a certain periodization model in
enhancing maximum strength and power output in subjects
with advanced training level (Harries et al., 2015; Hartmann
et al., 2015; Ullrich et al., 2015, 2016). In addition, there is a lack
of work analyzing periodization effects on muscle mechanical
Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 12:51 29 December 2017
characteristics following power-orientated multi-joint training
regimens.
Therefore, the purpose of this work was to compare the
effects of 6 weeks of traditional and daily-undulated period-
ized loaded jumping training on biomechanical countermove-
ment jumping outcomes such as COM-height, -take-off
velocity, -power and -impulse. Taking into account recent
findings (Harries et al., 2015; Hartmann et al., 2015; Ullrich
et al., 2015, 2016), we hypothesized that both periodization
models would be equally effective in enhancing vertical jump-
ing performance. Furthermore, the current work contributes to
the understanding of the lower extremity power-load relation-
ship in response to loaded jumping training (Bobbert, 2014;
Jaric & Markovic, 2009; Markovic & Jaric, 2007).
Methods
Experimental approach to the problem
This work compared power-load characteristics and biomecha-
nical jumping performance during maximal vertical CMJ per-
formance after 6 weeks of traditional (TP) and daily undulating
(DUP) loaded jumping training in moderately-trained amateur
athletes. The overall study duration was 7 weeks, starting with
a one-week familiarization period (three sessions) and a
Figure 1. Study Design for a 6-week loaded countermovement jumping training period with a traditional (TP) and daily undulating (DUP) training group.
Familiarization: All subjects exercised with 6 sets x 5 repetitions with 15% additional load (percentage of individual body mass). 0% loading condition: 6 sets x 7 repetitions without
additional load (e.g body mass); 15% loading condition: 6 sets x 5 reps with 15% additional load (% of individual body mass); 30% loading condition: 6 sets x 3 reps with 30% additional
load (% of individual body mass). Note: weekly arrangement of training load order for DUP was altered each week.
subsequent training phase (three sessions/week) of 6 weeks
(Figure 1). During the familiarization, all subjects were
instructed to perform four sets of five countermovement
jumps with an additional load of 15% of their individual
body mass in each session. With an equal ratio of males and
females, subjects were thereafter randomly assigned to either
the TP or DUP group to complete the following 6 weeks of
experimental jumping training with different loading condi-
tions. Throughout the course of training, subjects exercised in
3 weekly sessions resulting in 18 overall sessions, which com-
pared between TP and DUP. The specific loading zones and
training volumes were equated between both groups
(Figure 1). For the experimental training sessions, subjects in
both training groups exercised with loads corresponding to
0%, 15% and 30% of individual body mass, applied by a
weighted vest. While loading intensities were increased line-
arly in a two-weeks rhythm for the TP group, starting with the
0% condition, DUP loading arrangement was changed for
each session (Figure 1). Laboratory CMJ-tests were conducted
with all subjects before and at the end of the training period.
Participants
This study was conducted with 20 amateur athletes (age:
24.2 ± 2.6 years, height: 175.6 ± 7.1 cm, body mass:
71.5 ± 7.7 kg, 10 males/10 females) during the second half
of their pre-season preparation period. The respective anthro-
pometric data such as age, height [cm], body mass [kg] and
BMI are shown in Table 1.
Two female subjects (one in each periodization group)
were excluded from the initial data pool (n = 22) due to
injuries during the training period. The athletes performed in
different team sports such as handball, field hockey and bas-
ketball. The TP group consisted of four handball players, three
field hockey and three basketball players. The DUP group on
the other hand consisted of three handball players, three field
hockey players and four basketball players. All athletes had
competed at top regional division level for at least 5 years,
were experienced in total-body general resistance training for
5.1 ± 2.2 years, and had moderate plyometric jumping training
experience. In this regard, the athletes confirmed their indivi-
dual strength training history during the selection process in
written form.

Table 1. Pre-to-post anthropometric data of all participants in both training
groups TP (n = 10) and DUP (n = 10). Data are presented as mean ± SD.
pre training post training
Anthropometrics of the
participants TP DUP TP DUP
Age [years] 24.4 ± 2.2 24.0 ± 3.1 - -
Height [cm] 178.8 ± 6.8* 172.5 ± 6.1 - -
Body mass [kg] 74.6 ± 8.4 68.5 ± 5.7 74.3 ± 8.0 69.1 ± 5.7
BMI [kg/m2] 23.9 ± 1.7* 22.2 ± 0.9 23.9 ± 1.7 22.5 ± 1.3
*Significant (P < 0.05) difference to DUP pre training.
During the course of the study, all subjects continued their
sport-specific and general athletic training programs and were
instructed to maintain their regular diet. On average, the
weekly training load of the participants was about 15 hours,
subdivided into 2–3 hours of technical training, 4–6 hours of
upper body strength exercises and endurance orientated
training and 5–7 hours of competition specific training. None
of the subjects reported known medical impairments before
Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 12:51 29 December 2017
starting the study and all of them signed an informed written
consent to participation, informing them on experimental risks
prior to the first familiarization session. In line with the
Declaration of Helsinki, the Institutional Research Ethics
Committee approved all ethical standards of this work.
Procedures
Experimental loaded CMJ training
All experimental jumping training sessions were embedded in
the athlete’s pre-season conditioning training that empha-
sized on maximum upper extremity and trunk muscle strength
and were supervised by qualified conditioning experts of our
team. To minimize confounding exercise stimuli, we examined
amateur team sports athletes who agreed to avoid additional
lower extremity explosive training tasks during this short-term
intervention. Subjects got familiarized to the specific weighted
training vests (type Heavy Duty, loading capabilities from
0–30 kg, Lex Quinta Athletics, Ratingen, Germany) during 3
familiarization sessions with 4 sets x 5 jumps using additional
loads corresponding to 15% of individual body mass
(Figure 1). After being randomly assigned to either the tradi-
tional or undulating periodization model, subjects started the
6 weeks supervised experimental training period with 3 weekly
sessions (Figure 1). This training design resulted in 18 sessions
that compared between TP and DUP. The athletes of the TP
group first performed 2 weeks with no additional load (6 sets x
7 reps), followed by 2 weeks with 15% additional load (6 sets x
5 reps) and concluding with 2 weeks with 30% additional load
(6 sets x 3 reps). The individual body mass was measured at
the beginning of each training week to calculate the respec-
tive loading conditions. As body mass remained very stable in
all subjects during the training period, no progressive adjust-
ment of the training load was applied. In contrast, the DUP
training group exercised the three loading conditions within
each week throughout the training period (Figure 1). In detail,
six different loading combinations (e.g. Monday: 0% with 6
sets x 7 reps, Tuesday: 15% with 6 sets x 5 reps, Friday: 30%
with 6 sets x 3 reps) were created and randomly applied to the
DUP group for each training week (Figure 1). Each session
JOURNAL OF SPORTS SCIENCES 3
started with ten minutes submaximal rowing and hopping
and an additional ten minutes of submaximal full-body
stretching using a standardized program. Including the experi-
mental jumping training, each session lasted approximately
40 minutes and all of them were conducted on Monday,
Wednesday and Friday between 3 and 7 PM. During each set
of repetitive jumping, subjects were instructed to place their
hands on the hips and jump “as high as possible in the vertical
direction” using a self-selected knee angle range of motion
and trunk position. After landing, subjects were requested to
return to an upright standing position with the knees and
trunk fully extended and to rest within this position for 1 sec-
ond before proceeding. Whenever these guidelines were vio-
lated, subjects received feedback from our conditioning
experts. An inter-set rest of two minutes was given to each
subject. As none of the participants missed any session, a
100% training compliance was achieved in our work.
Loaded vertical CMJ performance
Loaded vertical jumping analysis was conducted on a 0.6 x
0.5m in-ground force platform with pre-amplification (Kistler
Corporation, Winterthur, Switzerland). Vertical ground reaction
force (VGFR) data were recorded at 1000Hz and digitized by an
analog-digital converter (Noraxon AIS board, 16 channels,
Noraxon Inc., Scottsdale, Arizona, USA). In addition, sagittal
knee joint angle kinematics were recorded at 200 Hz using a
telemetric inertial sensor systems (Noraxon Inc., Scottsdale,
Arizona, USA). Therefore, four sensors in total were symmetri-
cally fixed on both lower extremities at the following anato-
mical landmarks: (i) tuberositas tibiae area defining the shank
as one segment and (ii) lateral to the border of the M. vastus
lateralis at one half of the distance between the greater tro-
chanter and the articular cleft of the knee joint defining the
thigh as one rigid segment. All sensors were fixed with rigid
stripes and the individual anatomical positions were marked
with water-resistant pencils throughout the course of the
study. To avoid any magnetic interferences, the inertial sensor
reset and calibration was conducted after each jump standing
on an elevated box in the neutral position, i.e. having the knee
and hip joint fully extended. Before starting the CMJ-tests, all
subjects performed a standardized warm-up of 15 minutes
including five minute submaximal ergometer rowing followed
by dynamic lower extremity stretching exercises and two sets
of five submaximal vertical CMJ. Thereafter, subjects were
instructed to execute maximum vertical CMJ at seven different
loading conditions ranging from 0–30% of individual body
mass. Load increment was calculated in 5% intervals according
to body mass and subjects were equipped with the weighted
vest that was used during the training sessions. The 0% load-
ing condition refers to jumping against the load only imposed
by the mass and inertia of its own body. The respective loads
were randomly applied in either a linear upward (0–30%) or
downward (30–0%) order. As stronger load variations cause
dramatic alterations in mechanical power output, no stronger
randomization model was used (Bobbert, 2014). To load the
vest, 1kg weights were symmetrically added close to the sub-
jects COM. All CMJ trials were performed without natural arm
swing but with the hands placed around the hip. While jump-
ing, subjects were allowed to use a self-selected knee joint
 4 T. PELZER ET AL.
range of motion and trunk position. In-between trial rest was
set to one minute and inter-loading condition rest was set to
three minutes. Digitized VGFR and kinematic knee angle data
was synchronized and displayed online by the MyoResearch
analysis software (MyoMotion version 11.8, Noraxon Inc.
Scottsdale, Arizona, USA).
Data analysis
Digitized VGFR data were exported from the recording soft-
ware (Myoresearch, version 3.8, Noraxon Inc., Scottsdale,
Arizona, USA) to a customized biomechanical analysis compi-
ler (Velamed GmbH, Cologne, Germany), calculating maximal
center of mass COM (I) -height, (II) -take-off velocity, (III)
-power and (IV) -impulse. The vertical COM velocity during
take-off was calculated via single integration of the VGFR. To
obtain maximal COM-jumping height, VGFR data were double-
integrated. Mechanical COM-power during the positive phase
of the jumps was calculated by multiplying VGFR and vertical
Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 12:51 29 December 2017
COM-velocity and was normalized to the subject’s individual
body mass. Finally, maximal COM-impulse was computed as
the area under the force-time curve. The trial with the highest
CMJ-height within one testing condition was used as base for
calculating the results.
Statistical analysis
Kolmogorov-Smirnoff test indicated normal data distribution for
initial pre-training group comparison (TP vs. DUP) for all studied
biomechanical jumping variables. Coefficient of variation (CV)
and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) were employed to
calculate inter-day reliability of these variables over the range
of loading conditions. The maximal COM-height, -take-off velo-
city, -power and -impulse displayed CV values of 2.2–3.5%, 1.5–
4.0%, 1.6–4.4% and 3.9–5.4%. The respective ICC values ranged
from 0.98–0.99, 0.85–0.99, 0.89–0.99 and 0.82–0.88. Two-way
mixed ANOVA (time * group) with repeated measures was
applied to assess temporal and group interaction (periodization)
effects for each loading condition. To detect possible load-
dependent alterations of maximal COM-power and knee angle
depth, univariate ANOVA with repeated measures was applied in
both groups, separately for pre- and post-training testing occa-
sions. Effect sizes were calculated as recommended by Cohen
(1988) and adjusted to sample sizes n ≤ 20 (Hedges & Olkin.,
1985). Finally, post-hoc statistical power analysis (α = 0.05, 2-
tailed) was conducted for all temporal effects. Changes in COM-
height revealed power values of 6–16% for TP and 7–21% for
DUP. Take-off velocity yielded values of 6–29% and 8–28%,
respectively. Temporal effects of mechanical COM-power
achieved statistical power ranges of 9–26% for TP and 9–20%
for DUP. Impulse data showed 11–24% power for TP changes
and 7–30% for DUP. Knee angle alterations were accompanied
by power values of 7–35% in TP and 11–47% in DUP.
Results
Pre-training comparison showed significantly (P < 0.05) higher
BMI and body height values in the TP group (Table 1). No
further significant pre-training differences could be seen in
this study. For the anthropometric data, no significant pre-to
post-training changes were detected in either training group
for either body mass or BMI (Table 1).
Changes in biomechanical CMJ performance variables
With only a few exceptions for the 25% and 30% loading
conditions, ANOVA yielded significant (P < 0.05) pre-to-post
training increases in COM-height (Figure 2), COM-take-off velo-
city (Figure 3), body-mass normalized COM-power (Figure 4)
and body-mass normalized COM-impulse (Figure 5). ANOVA
detected no significant group (periodization) effects on these
temporal alterations of biomechanical CMJ performance vari-
ables (Figure 2–5). The average percentage COM-height
changes ranged from 2–7% for TP and from 8–11% using
DUP with concomitant effect size ranges of 0.11–0.34 and
0.16–0.40 (Table 2). The average percentage pre-to-post train-
ing changes of COM-take-off velocity ranged from 1–6% for TP
and from 3–7% using DUP. Effect size calculations for COM-
take-off velocity changes showed small to medium values,
ranging from 0.12–0.50 for TP and from 0.17–0.49 for DUP
(Table 2). COM-impulse data respectively showed percentage
increases of 2–4% for TP and 3–8% for DUP with small to
moderate effect size ranges of 0.25–0.44 and 0.15–0.51.
Average percentage changes of body-mass normalized
power were 3–5% for TP and 6–9% for DUP with concomitant
effect size ranges of 0.20–0.46 and 0.21–0.39 (Table 2). 95%
confidence intervals for mean differences in COM-height,
-velocity, -power and -impulse are shown for both training
groups in Figure 6 and Table 2.
Changes of load dependent COM-power output
For the pre- and post- training testing occasions, ANOVA
indicated no significant differences in maximal body mass-
normalized COM-power in either training group for all loading
conditions. Across the loading conditions, average post-hoc
power output varied between 0.3–3.3% for TP and respectively
2.5–4.9% for DUP (Figure 4).
Changes in CMJ depth
For the pre- and post- training testing occasions, ANOVA
detected significantly (P < 0.05) decreased countermovement
depth for the 0%, 10%, 15% and 20% loading conditions in
both training groups. No significant group (periodization)
effects were indicated for these temporal changes. The respec-
tive average percentage reductions for maximum knee joint
depth were between 1–5% and 3–10% for TP and DUP
(Table 3). No significant differences could be detected for
neither loading condition within each periodization group
during both testing occasions.
Discussion
This work compared 6 weeks of traditional and daily-undulat-
ing loaded countermovement jumping training with equated
loading zones and overall training volume on power-load
characteristics in amateur team-sport athletes. Taking into
account current literature reviews (Harries et al., 2015;
 JOURNAL OF SPORTS SCIENCES 5
Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 12:51 29 December 2017

Figure 2. Pre-to-post changes in maximal COM-height [cm] for both training groups TP and DUP and all testing conditions (0–30% additional load of individual body mass).
*Significant differences to pre training (P < 0.05). Data are presented as box plots with mean group values labeled as cross.

Figure 3. Pre-to-post changes in maximal COM take-off velocity [m/s] for both training groups TP and DUP and all testing conditions (0–30% additional load of
individual body mass). Data are presented as box plots with mean group values labeled as cross.
*Significant differences to pre training (P < 0.05). Data are presented as box plots with mean group values labeled as cross.

Hartmann et al., 2015), we expected no difference between TP alterations of COM-height, -velocity, -power -and -impulse.
and DUP. The main findings were that firstly, both period- Secondly, maximal power output during CMJ performance
ization models indicated a similar effectiveness on temporal remained statistically unchanged between additional loads
 6 T. PELZER ET AL.
Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 12:51 29 December 2017

Figure 4. Pre-to-post changes in maximal body-mass normalized COM-power [W/kg] for both training groups TP and DUP and all testing conditions (0–30%
additional load of individual body mass). Data are presented as box plots with mean group values labeled as cross.
*Significant differences to pre training (P < 0.05). Data are presented as box plots with mean group values labeled as cross.

Figure 5. Pre-to-post changes in maximal body-mass normalized COM-impulse [Ns/Kg] for both training groups TP and DUP and all testing conditions (0–30%
additional load of individual body mass). Data are presented as box plots with mean group values labeled as cross.
*Significant differences to pre training (P < 0.05). Data are presented as box plots with mean group values labeled as cross.

corresponding to 0–30% of body mass. Within our discussion, discuss our results with regard to the load, which maximizes
we will first focus on temporal and group effects of the afore- power output during vertical jumping (Bobbert, 2014; Jaric &
mentioned biomechanical jumping variables. Thereafter, we Markovic, 2009; Markovic & Jaric, 2007).
 JOURNAL OF SPORTS SCIENCES 7

Table 2. Pre-to-post effect sizes (Hedges g for n < 20) and 95% confidence short-term plyometric training (Arabatzi et al., 2010; Khlifa et al.,
intervals for mean differences of maximal COM-height, -power, take-off velocity
2010; Teo et al., 2016; Váczi, Tollár, Meszler, Juhász, & Karsai,
and -impulse for both training groups TP (n = 10) and DUP (n = 10) .
2013). For example, Khlifa et al. (2010) and Váczi et al. (2013)
Effect size 95% confidence intervals
[g] for mean differences reported increases of 7–10% for maximal jumping height after
Major Study outcomes TP DUP TP DUP short-term plyometric training in amateur soccer and profes-
Max. COM-jumping height 0% 0.34 0.31 −0.12–3.94 0.62–3.60 sional basketball players. Arabatzi et al. (2010) and Teo et al.
Max. COM-jumping height 5% 0.19 0.34 −0.99–3.30 1.10–3.56 (2016) both showed 5–8% higher peak COM-power during CMJ
Max. COM-jumping height 10% 0.11 0.32 −0.58–2.40 1.09–3.20 performance after 8 weeks of vertical jumping training in phy-
Max. COM-jumping height 15% 0.29 0.40 −0.39–3.35 1.06–3.88
Max. COM-jumping height 20% 0.21 0.36 −0.24–2.08 0.74–3.50 sically active students and volleyball players. In a literature
Max. COM-jumping height 25% 0.20 0.16 −1.40–3.23 −0.37–3.30 review, Cormie, McGuigan, and Newton (2011) summarized
Max. COM-jumping height 30% 0.23 0.33 −1.24–3.22 0.87–3.29 that ballistic exercises with low to moderate loads provide
Max. normalized COM-power 0% 0.20 0.28 0.08–2.80 1.14–5.02
Max. normalized COM-power 5% 0.23 0.28 −0.89–4.09 0.98–5.20 efficient training stimuli to enhance power in athletic multi-
Max. normalized COM-power 10% 0.20 0.28 −0.14–2.92 1.34–4.16 joint tasks. It was further recommended to limit the training
Max. normalized COM-power 15% 0.26 0.39 −0.49–2.90 0.79–6.08 loads during free movement jumps to 30–40% of body mass as
Max. normalized COM-power 20% 0.46 0.28 0.95–3.75 0.85–4.70
Max. normalized COM-power 25% 0.40 0.21 −0.94–5.48 0.05–4.05 higher loads induced profound alterations of individual jump-
Max. normalized COM-power 30% 0.34 0.22 −0.73–4.31 0.25–3.80 ing techniques (Feeney et al., 2016; Markovic & Jaric, 2007). Our
Max. COM-take-off velocity 0% 0.41 0.49 −0.51–0.26 0.07–0.21 athletes were therefore instructed to exercise with additional
Max. COM-take-off velocity 5% 0.46 0.30 −0.13–0.32 −0.01–0.19
Max. COM-take-off velocity 10% 0.24 0.33 −0.045–0.21 0.05–0.16 loads corresponding to 0–30% of their body mass. Compared to
Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 12:51 29 December 2017

Max. COM-take-off velocity 15% 0.37 0.47 −0.03–0.25 0.03–0.25 jumping against the load and inertia imposed by the mass of
Max. COM-take-off velocity 20% 0.50 0.32 0.04–0.24 −0.01–0.23 one’s own body, exercising with additional loads might lead to
Max. COM-take-off velocity 25% 0.19 0.26 −0.04–0.13 −0.13–0.16
Max. COM-take-off-velocity 30% 0.12 0.17 −0.09–0.14 −0.03–0.12 superior performance outcomes and is more specific to sports
Max. normalized COM-impulse 0% 0.28 0.19 −0.03–0.15 −0.04–0.18 such as rugby and football in which high external loads need to
Max. normalized COM-impulse 5% 0.25 0.27 −0.03–0.16 −0.00–0.22 be achieved (Haff & Nimphius, 2012).
Max. normalized COM-impulse 10% 0.27 0.38 −0.05–0.15 0.05–0.27
Max. normalized COM-impulse 15% 0.35 0.51 −0.01–0.21 0.09–0.31
Max. normalized COM-impulse 20% 0.37 0.44 0.02–0.19 0.11–0.25
Max. normalized COM-impulse 25% 0.44 0.36 0.06–0.18 0.08–0.22
Max. normalized COM-impulse 30% 0.24 0.26 −0.11–0.29 −0.03–0.27 Training periodization
In line with recent literature findings (Harries et al., 2015;
Hartmann et al., 2015; Pelzer, Ullrich, & Pfeiffer, 2017; Ullrich
After 6 weeks (18 sessions), the studied amateur athletes et al., 2016), our inferential statistics approach indicated that
demonstrated percentage changes of 5–16% in maximal COM- both periodization models were similarly effective in enhan-
jumping height with concomitant increases in maximal COM- cing key biomechanical jumping variables such as jumping
power of 4–11%. Studies analysing subjects of different fitness height, take-off velocity, power and impulse. Besides these
levels with moderate plyometric training experience revealed sample specific outcomes, determined by ANOVA p-value,
similar gains in maximal unloaded jumping performance after the likely range of the population value is commonly

Figure 6. 95% confidence intervals for mean pre-to-post differences of maximal COM-height [cm], power [W/Kg] and impulse [Ns/Kg] for all loading conditions and
both training groups TP and DUP.
 8 T. PELZER ET AL.

considered by confidence intervals (Batterham & Hopkins,

101.5 ± 13.8
99.9 ± 9.8
2006). In this work, the majority of DUP outcomes demon-

Post
strated intervals higher than those demonstrated for TP,

30% loading
within which the true value for mean temporal changes can
be expected. Effect sizes might indicate further advantages for

98.3 ± 10.5
96.5 ± 8.7
the undulating training model if aiming to increase the values

Pre
of the aforementioned variables. More frequent changes of
training volume and load were originally suggested to be
advantageous for the maintenance of muscle volume

99.1 ± 13.9
101.3 ± 6.7
Post
(Poliquin, 1988; Stone, O’Bryant, & Garhammer, 1981) and
may additionally counteract neural fatigue (Poliquin, 1988)
25% loading

throughout the course of training. However, there is currently

no substantial basis in literature to prove these suggestions
95.4 ± 11.7
97.1 ± 12.6

(Harries et al., 2015; Mattocks et al., 2016) and a model that

Pre

compares the mechano-chemical signal transduction between

traditional and undulating periodization schemes cannot be
provided (Mattocks et al., 2016; Toigo & Boutellier, 2006;
101.2 ± 12.1*
105.1 ± 11.6*

Ullrich et al., 2016). Summarizing this part of our work, arran-

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 12:51 29 December 2017

Table 3. Maximum CMJ knee angle depth (°) for both training groups and all loading conditions (180° = upright standing with fully extended knee joint).

Post

ging the loads during loaded jumping training with either TP

20% loading

or DUP was equally effective in enhancing vertical jumping

performance. In consequence, athletes and coaches may use
98.0 ± 12.2

both periodization schemes during short-term loaded jumping

95.1 ± 8.3
Pre

training programs.

Biomechanical key variables of jumping performance

100.8 ± 12.2*
103.9 ± 11.6*
Post

Consistent to Hill´s F-V relationship (Hill, 1938; Vandevalle

15% loading

et al., 1987), we observed a drop in COM-take-off velocity

and -jumping height with increasing load in both training
groups. However, both groups showed only small, statistically
98.2 ± 10.2
98.1 ± 13.5

non-significant, variations in maximal power output over the

Pre

range of loads (TP: < 3,5%; DUP: < 1,5 %). This finding is in line
with a computer simulation study (Bobbert, 2014), but does
not support the “maximum dynamic output hypothesis”
105.8 ± 10.7*
101.5 ± 9.7*

(MDO), introduced by Jaric and Markovic (2009). This hypoth-

Post
10% loading

esis states that power output is maximized during vertical

jumping in case subjects are loaded only by the mass and
*Significant (P < 0.05) pre-training differences. Data are presented as mean ± SD.

inertia of its body (Jaric & Markovic, 2009). The MDO hypoth-
97.3 ± 13.3
97.8 ± 8.8

esis was strengthened in several works (Feeney et al., 2016;

Pre

Jaric & Markovic, 2009; Markovic & Jaric, 2007; Nuzzo et al.,
2010) while, on the other hand, others provided evidence that
the load that maximizes power output depends on the ath-
99.3 ± 12.6
102.8 ± 13.8

lete’s lower extremity maximal strength (Baker et al., 2001;

Post

Kawamori & Haff, 2004; Stone et al., 2003). In addition, it was

5% loading

suggested that the individual intrinsic force-velocity-power

relationship of lower leg muscles influences loaded and
98.6 ± 11.9
97.7 ± 7.7

unloaded jumping performance (Bobbert, 2014). As our sub-

Pre

jects were amateur team sports athletes with moderate

strength training experiences, profound absolute strength-
power values might not be the primary explanation for the
102.7 ± 8.9*
103.3 ± 9.0*

current findings. One might also consider that it remains

Post

uncertain whether all subjects that have been examined in

0% loading

MDO studies were able to quickly adjust their control patterns

to changed loading conditions. Bobbert and Van Soest (1994)
99.7 ± 9.7
100.1 ± 9.6

reported that vertical jumping performance only benefits from

Pre

maximal strength gains if the neuromuscular coordination

patterns of the trained muscles were reoptimized.
Disturbances of movement patterns might also have occurred
DUP
TP

in those loaded jumping studies, due to the employment of


elastic straps or loaded barbells (Alcaraz, Romero-Arenas, Vila,
& Ferragut, 2011; Cuk et al., 2014; Giroux, Rabita, Chollet, &
Guilhem, 2015; Nuzzo et al., 2010). Applying training loads
close to the subject’s center of mass by using specific training
vests might minimize such effects, especially if subjects with
moderate plyometric training experience are examined
(Feeney et al., 2016). In addition, maximum net COM impulse
is considered crucial when analyzing jumping performance
(Winter et al., 2016). In this work, we found maximal body
mass normalized impulse data of 2.4–3.0 Ns*Kg−1 in a mixed
gender group of amateur team sport athletes, which was fairly
in line with other works (Hanson, Leigh, & Mynark, 2007;
McMahon, Rej, & Comfort, 2017). The mean percentage pre-
to-post changes over the range of applied testing conditions
were 2.3–4% for TP and 3–8% for DUP. These results revealed
absolute, but not significant, increases in impulse data in-
between the range of loading conditions (light to heavy) in
both training groups. Hanson et al. (2007) showed values of
Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 12:51 29 December 2017
2.9 Ns*Kg−1 for a mixed group of weight training classes and
regional team sport athletes testing CMJ performance with
heavy and light loads. McMahon et al. (2017) recently detected
net relative impulse data of about 2.2 Ns*Kg−1 for mixed
regional netballers and academic rugby players.
Countermovement depth
Another important factor that influences the effective COM-
energy, and in turn maximal power, during vertical jumping is
the countermovement depth (Bobbert, 2014; Bobbert &
Casius, 2005). In line with our work, Markovic and Jaric
(2007) and Pazin, Berjan, Nedeljkovic, Markovic, and Jaric
(2013) instructed their subjects to use free countermovement
depths to optimize their individual movement patterns.
However, this resulted in reduced countermovement depth
of up to 50% with concomitant reductions of peak COM-
energy of approximately 30% when subjects performed
loaded vertical jumps at 30% of their body mass (Markovic &
Jaric, 2007). This indicates that COM-height at the start of the
push-off largely affects the outcome of load manipulations
(Bobbert, 2014; Markovic & Jaric, 2007; Pazin et al., 2013).
Notably, countermovement depth and maximal power output
did not change significantly across loading conditions in either
training group and for either testing occasion in our work. A
decrease in peak power during vertical jumping of less than
8% was found in simulation work testing loading conditions of
up to 60% of body mass (Bobbert, 2014). Thus, additional
loading of up to 30% of body mass might not have affected
those parts of the power-load relationship that are associated
with a decrease in power output (Bobbert, 2014). Taking into
account practical guidelines, loads of up to 30% of body mass
were recommended for explosive vertical jumping training to
avoid alterations of individual jumping patterns (Feeney et al.,
2016). Compared to pre-training testing occasion, both groups
achieved post-training increased jumping-heights for all load-
ing conditions with a reduced maximal knee angle depth.
Arabatzi et al. (2010) detected reduced knee joint ROM after
Olympic Weightlifting training but not following plyometric
exercises. Although it is beyond the scope of our work, factors
such as training induced increases in mechanical efficacy
JOURNAL OF SPORTS SCIENCES 9
(McBride et al., 2011) or altered force-length properties of
the lower leg muscles (Savelberg & Meijer, 2003) might explain
said finding. The possible underlying mechanisms of training
induced ROM alterations might be examined in future works.
Limitations
Some limitations and assumptions need to be discussed. A
major assumption of most athletic training studies is that the
adaptations were the result of the experimental training and
not by confounding exercise stimuli (Ullrich et al., 2016). To
minimize such effects to the greatest possible extent, we
examined amateur team sports athletes who agreed to avoid
confounding explosive lower extremity exercises during the
short-term intervention period. In this regard, the overall train-
ing duration of 6 weeks might be insufficient to lead to sig-
nificant outcome differences between both training groups.
Although knee angle range of motion was observed during
both testing occasions, our results might be affected by
changes in hip joint ROM, which was not being controlled in
this study (Vanezis & Lees, 2005). Load specific changes in hip
joint ROM might have influenced the force-length relationship
of the biarticular rectus femoris that directs the external forces
during multi-joint lower-extremity tasks (Savelberg & Meijer,
2003). Furthermore, we employed training loads correspond-
ing to each subject’s body mass, but we did not perform a
progressive load adjustment. While this could have supressed
possible advantages of one periodization model, it allowed us
but enabled us to equalize training volume and load in both
study groups. Finally, insufficient statistical power was
acknowledged for most temporal alterations. Future works
examining loaded jumping training is therefore encouraged
to include larger sample sizes.
In conclusion, this study demonstrated that 6 weeks of
loaded vertical jumping training with either traditional (TP) or
daily undulating (DUP) periodization was similarly effective in
enhancing biomechanical jumping variables during loaded
countermovement jumps at loads corresponding to 0–30%
of body mass. Furthermore, both countermovement depth
and maximal power output remained statistically unaltered
among the examined loading conditions. These findings con-
tribute to the understanding of short-term training periodiza-
tion and help clarifying the power-load relationship by
questioning the “maximal dynamic output hypothesis”.
Practical applications
The identification of both, the most effective periodization
model and the optimal training load to maximize power out-
put has practical significance for those, designing training
programs to improve power capabilities. Our results support
previous works stating that loaded vertical jumping is an
effective method to enhance the lower-extremity power-load
relationship (Bobbert, 2014; Haff & Nimphius, 2012; Sakamoto,
Sinclair, & Naito, 2016). Even without statistical significance,
confidence intervals and effect sizes in this work indicate
superiority of the undulating program when aiming to
increase performance during explosive multi-joint tasks. A
finding that is of practical relevance to coaches was that
 10 T. PELZER ET AL.
power and jumping height were particularly enhanced with
DUP during jumping against lighter loads (0–15% of body
mass). The current work does not support the idea that
lower limb muscles are designed to produce maximum
power in rapid jumping movements when loaded only with
the mass and inertia of its own body (Markovic & Jaric, 2007).
Thus, we recommend using a range of additional loads during
jumping training as this might trigger different parts of intrin-
sic force-velocity characteristics, without relevant drops in net
power output.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
References
Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 12:51 29 December 2017
Alcaraz, P. E., Romero-Arenas, S., Vila, H., & Ferragut, C. (2011). Power-load curve
in trained sprinters. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 25(11),
3045–3050. doi:10.1519/JSC.0b013e318212e1fa
Allison, S. J., Brooke-Wavell, K., & Folland, J. P. (2013). Multiple joint muscle
function with ageing: The force–Velocity and power–Velocity relationships
in young and older men. Aging Clinical and Experimental Research, 25(2),
159–166. doi:10.1007/s40520-013-0024-y
Arabatzi, F., Kellis, E., & De Villarreal, E. S. S. (2010). Vertical jump biome-
chanics after plyometric, weight lifting, and combined (weight lifting+
plyometric) training. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 24
(9), 2440–2448. doi:10.1519/JSC.0b013e3181e274ab
Baker, D., Nance, S., & Moore, M. (2001). The load that maximizes the average
mechanical power output during jump squats in power-trained athletes. The
Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 15(1), 92–97.
Batterham, A. M., & Hopkins, W. G. (2006). Making meaningful inferences about
magnitudes. International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, 1(1),
50–57. doi:10.1123/ijspp.1.1.50
Bobbert, M. F. (2014). Effect of unloading and loading on power in simulated
countermovement and squat jumps. Medicine and Science in Sports and
Exercise, 46(6), 1176–1184. doi:10.1249/MSS.00000
00000000216
Bobbert, M. F., & Casius, L. J. (2005). Is the effect of a countermovement on jump
height due to active state development? Medicine and Science in Sports and
Exercise, 37(3), 440–446. doi:10.1249/01.MSS.0000155
389.34538.97
Bobbert, M. F., & Van Soest, A. J. (1994). Effects of muscle strengthening on
vertical jump height: A simulation study. Medicine and Science in Sports
and Exercise, 26(8), 1012–1020. doi:10.1249/00005768-199408000-
00013
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (pp.
20–26). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.
Cormie, P., McGuigan, M. R., & Newton, R. U. (2011). Developing maximal
neuromuscular power: Part 1–Biological basis of maximal power pro-
duction. Sports Med, 41(1), 17–38. doi:10.2165/11537690-000000000-
00000
Cuk, I., Markovic, M., Nedeljkovic, A., Ugarkovic, D., Kukolj, M., & Jaric, S.
(2014). Force–Velocity relationship of leg extensors obtained from
loaded and unloaded vertical jumps. European Journal of Applied
Physiology, 114(8), 1703–1714. doi:10.1007/s00421-014-2901-2
Cuk, I., Mirkov, D., Nedeljkovic, A., Kukolj, M., Ugarkovic, D., & Jaric, S. (2016).
Force–Velocity property of leg muscles in individuals of different level of
physical fitness. Sports Biomechanics, 15(2), 207–219. doi:10.1080/
14763141.2016.1159724
Feeney, D., Stanhope, S. J., Kaminski, T. W., Machi, A., & Jaric, S. (2016). Loaded
vertical jumping: Force–Velocity relationship, work, and power. Journal of
Applied Biomechanics, 32(2), 120–127. doi:10.1123/jab.2015-0136
Giroux, C., Rabita, G., Chollet, D., & Guilhem, G. (2015). What is the best
method for assessing lower limb force-velocity relationship?
International Journal of Sports Medicine, 36(02), 143–149.
Haff, G. G., & Nimphius, S. (2012). Training principles for power. Strength &
Conditioning Journal, 34(6), 2–12. doi:10.1519/SSC.0b013e31826db467
Hanson, E. D., Leigh, S., & Mynark, R. G. (2007). Acute effects of heavy- and
light-load squat exercise on the kinetic measures of vertical jumping.
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 21(4), 1012–1017.
Harries, S. K., Lubans, D. R., & Callister, R. (2015). Systematic review and
meta-analysis of linear and undulating periodized resistance training
programs on muscular strength. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning
Research, 29(4), 1113–1125. doi:10.1519/JSC.0000000000000712
Hartmann, H., Wirth, K., Keiner, M., Mickel, C., Sander, A., & Szilvas, E.
(2015). Short-term periodization models: Effects on strength and
speed-strength performance. Sports Medicine, 45(10), 1373–1386.
doi:10.1007/s40279-015-0355-2
Hedges, L. V., & Olkin., I. (1985). Statistical methods for meta-analysis. New
York, NY: Academic Press.
Hill, A. V. (1938). The heat of shortening and the dynamic constants of
muscle. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences,
126(843), 136–195. doi:10.1098/rspb.1938.0050
Jacobs, R., & van Ingen Schenau, G. J. (1992). Intermuscular coordination in
a sprint push-off. Journal of Biomechanics, 25(9), 953–965. doi:10.1016/
0021-9290(92)90031-U
Jaric, S. (2015). Force-velocity relationship of muscles performing multi-
joint maximum performance tasks. International Journal of Sports
Medicine, 36(09), 699–704. doi:10.1055/s-00000028
Jaric, S., & Markovic, G. (2009). Leg muscles design the maximum dynamic
output hypothesis. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 41(4),
780. doi:10.1249/MSS.0b013e31818f2bfa
Kawamori, N., & Haff, G. G. (2004). The optimal training load for the
development of muscular power. The Journal of Strength &
Conditioning Research, 18(3), 675–684.
Khlifa, R., Aouadi, R., Hermassi, S., Chelly, M. S., Jlid, M. C., Hbacha, H., &
Castagna, C. (2010). Effects of a plyometric training program with and
without added load on jumping ability in basketball players. The
Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 24(11), 2955–2961.
doi:10.1519/JSC.0b013e3181e37fbe
Markovic, G., & Jaric, S. (2007). Positive and negative loading and mechan-
ical output in maximum vertical jumping. Medicine and Science in Sports
and Exercise, 39(10), 1757. doi:10.1249/mss.0b013e31811ece35
Mattocks, K. T., Dankel, S. J., Buckner, S. L., Jessee, M. B., Counts, B. R.,
Mouser, J. G., . . . Loenneke, J. P. (2016). Periodization: What is it good
for? Journal of Trainology, 5(1), 6–12. doi:10.17338/trainology.5.1_6
McBride, J. M., Haines, T. L., & Kirby, T. J. (2011). Effect of loading on peak
power of the bar, body, and system during power cleans, squats, and
jump squats. Journal of Sports Sciences, 29(11), 1215–1221. doi:10.1080/
02640414.2011.587444
McMahon, J. J., Rej, S. J., & Comfort, P. (2017). Sex differences in counter-
movement jump phase characteristics. Sports, 5(1), 8. doi:10.3390/
sports5010008
Mihalik, J. P., Libby, J. J., Battaglini, C. L., & McMurray, R. G. (2008).
Comparing short-term complex and compound training programs on
vertical jump height and power output. The Journal of Strength &
Conditioning Research, 22(1), 47–53. doi:10.1519/
JSC.0b013e31815eee9e
Nuzzo, J. L., McBride, J. M., Dayne, A. M., Israetel, M. A., Dumke, C. L., &
Triplett, N. T. (2010). Testing of the maximal dynamic output hypothesis
in trained and untrained subjects. The Journal of Strength &
Conditioning Research, 24(5), 1269–1276. doi:10.1519/
JSC.0b013e3181d68691
Pazin, N., Berjan, B., Nedeljkovic, A., Markovic, G., & Jaric, S. (2013). Power
output in vertical jumps: Does optimum loading depend on activity
profiles? European Journal of Applied Physiology, 113(3), 577–589.
doi:10.1007/s00421-012-2464-z
Pelzer, T., Ullrich, B., & Pfeiffer, M. (2017). Periodization effects during
short-term resistance training with equated exercise variables in
females. European Journal of Applied Physiology, 117(3),441–454.
Poliquin, C. (1988). FOOTBALL: Five steps to increasing the effectiveness of
your strength training program. Strength & Conditioning Journal, 10(3),
34–39. doi:10.1519/0744-0049(1988)010<0034:FSTITE>2.3.CO;2
Sakamoto, A., Sinclair, P. J., & Naito, H. (2016). Strategies for maximizing
power and strength gains in isoinertial resistance training: Implications

for competitive athletes. The Journal of Physical Fitness and Sports
Medicine, 5(2), 153–166. doi:10.7600/jpfsm.5.153
Savelberg, H. H., & Meijer, K. (2003). Contribution of mono-and biarticular
muscles to extending knee joint moments in runners and cyclists. Journal
of Applied Physiology, 94(6), 2241–2248. doi:10.1152/
japplphysiol.01001.2002
Sheppard, J. M., Cronin, J. B., Gabbett, T. J., McGuigan, M. R., Etxebarria, N., &
Newton, R. U. (2008). Relative importance of strength, power, and anthro-
pometric measures to jump performance of elite volleyball players. The
Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 22(3), 758–765. doi:10.1519/
JSC.0b013e31816a8440
Stone, M. H., O’Bryant, H., & Garhammer, J. (1981). A hypothetical model for
strength training. The Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness, 21(4),
342.
Stone, M. H., O’bryant, H. S., McCoy, L., Coglianese, R., Lehmkuhl, M., &
Schilling, B. (2003). Power and maximum strength relationships during
performance of dynamic and static weighted jumps. The Journal of
Strength & Conditioning Research, 17(1), 140–147.
Teo, S. Y., Newton, M. J., Newton, R. U., Dempsey, A. R., & Fairchild, T. J.
(2016). Comparing the effectiveness of a short-term vertical jump vs.
weightlifting program on athletic power development. The Journal of
Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 12:51 29 December 2017
Strength & Conditioning Research, 30(10), 2741–2748. doi:10.1519/
JSC.0000000000001379
Toigo, M., & Boutellier, U. (2006). New fundamental resistance exercise
determinants of molecular and cellular muscle adaptations. European
Journal of Applied Physiology, 97(6), 643–663. doi:10.1007/s00421-006-
0238-1
Tricoli, V., Lamas, L., Carnevale, R., & Ugrinowitsch, C. (2005). Short-term effects
on lower-body functional power development: Weightlifting vs. vertical
jump training programs. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research,
19(2), 433–437.
JOURNAL OF SPORTS SCIENCES 11
Ullrich, B., Holzinger, S., Soleimani, M., Pelzer, T., Stening, J., & Pfeiffer, M.
(2015). Neuromuscular responses to 14 weeks of traditional and daily
undulating resistance training. International Journal of Sports Medicine,
36(07), 554–562. doi:10.1055/s-00000028
Ullrich, B., Pelzer, T., Oliveira, S., & Pfeiffer, M. (2016). Neuromuscular
responses to short-term resistance training with traditional and daily
undulating periodization in adolescent Elite Judoka. Journal of Strength
and Conditioning Research, 30(8), 2083–2099. doi:10.1519/
JSC.0000000000001305
Váczi, M., Tollár, J., Meszler, B., Juhász, I., & Karsai, I. (2013). Short-term
high intensity plyometric training program improves strength,
power and agility in male soccer players. Journal of Human
Kinetics, 36(1), 17–26. doi:10.2478/hukin-2013-0002
Vandevalle, H., Peres, G., Heller, J., Panel, J., & Monod, H. (1987). Force-
velocity relationship and maximal power on a cycle ergometer.
European Journal of Applied Physiology and Occupational Physiology,
56(6), 650–656. doi:10.1007/BF00424805
Vanezis, A., & Lees, A. (2005). A biomechanical analysis of good and
poor performers of the vertical jump. Ergonomics, 48(11–14), 1594–
1603. doi:10.1080/00140130500101262
Winter, E. M., Abt, G., Brookes, F. C., Challis, J. H., Fowler, N. E., Knudson, D.
V., . . . Morton, R. H. (2016). Misuse of “power” and other mechanical
terms in sport and exercise science research. The Journal of Strength &
Conditioning Research, 30(1), 292–300. doi:10.1519/
JSC.0000000000001101
Yamauchi, J., Mishima, C., Nakayama, S., & Ishii, N. (2009). Force–
Velocity, force–Power relationships of bilateral and unilateral leg
multi-joint movements in young and elderly women. Journal of
Biomechanics, 42(13), 2151–2157. doi:10.1016/j.
jbiomech.2009.05.032