Editorial Manager(tm) for Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Manuscript Draft

Manuscript Number: JSCR-08-1378R1

Title: Effect of load positioning on the kinematics and kinetics of weighted vertical jumps

Short Title: Biomechanics of resisted jumping

Article Type: Original Investigation

Keywords: Ballistic; power; weight-training.

Corresponding Author: Paul A Swinton, MSc

Corresponding Author's Institution: Robert Gordon University

First Author: Paul A Swinton, MSc

Order of Authors: Paul A Swinton, MSc;Arthur D Stewart, PhD;Ray Lloyd, PhD;Ioannis Agouris,
PhD;Justin W.L. Keogh, PhD

Manuscript Region of Origin: UNITED KINGDOM

Abstract: One of the most popular exercises for developing lower-body muscular power is the
weighted vertical jump. The present study sought to examine the effect of altering the position of the
external load on the kinematics and kinetics of the movement. Twenty nine resistance trained rugby
union athletes performed maximal effort jumps with 0, 20, 40 and 60% of their squat 1RM with the
load positioned: 1) on the posterior aspect of the shoulder using a straight barbell (SBJ); and 2) at
arms' length using a hexagonal barbell (HBJ). Kinematic and kinetic variables were calculated through
integration of the vertical ground reaction force data using a forward dynamics approach. Performance
of the HBJ resulted in significantly (p<0.05) greater values for jump height, peak force, peak power, and
peak rate of force development compared to the SBJ. Significantly (p<0.05) greater peak power was
produced during the unloaded jump compared to all trials where the external load was positioned on
the shoulder. In contrast, significantly (p<0.05) greater peak power was produced during weighted
jumps performed with 20% 1RM using the hexagonal barbell compared to all other conditions
investigated. The results suggest that when using weighted vertical jumps to improve lower-body
muscular performance, the jumps should be performed with the external load positioned at arms'
length rather than on the shoulder.

Response to Reviewers: Reviewer #1: GENERAL COMMENTS:

The purpose of this study is in line with the journals mission statement, is topical and is appropriate
for the journals target audience. The findings of this study will contribute new knowledge about
strength and conditioning and therefore warrants publication in JSCR. However, there are some areas
that could be improved.

Thank you for your positive comments.

SPECIFIC COMMENTS: (page numbering starts at the abstract)

1. Page 2, Line 52: Please provide a reference/s to support the statement "The rationale?will create
the greatest improvements in power during training." There are many factors other than the load that
will lead to improvements in power in an athlete's program. Perhaps more accurate terminology
should be utilised such as: "?will provide the greatest stimulus for power training" or similar.

The reference has been added and change in expression you recommended been made.

2. Page 3, Line 12: Please provide a reference/s to support the statement "The frequent use?for the
development of muscular power."

This statement has been removed

3. Page 5, Line 6: Please consider replacing "random" with "randomized"

Done

4. Page 5, Line 16: Why was a 1RM performed in the hexagonal barbell deadlift when the loads that
were used in the jump squats were performed relative to the squat 1RM? Please add justification for
inclusion of the two lifts.

The 1RM squat was used to scale loads to each participant and ensure the same absolute load was used
for the different jumps. By using the same absolute loads this removed a potential confounding factor.
The 1RM in the hexagonal barbell was performed principally to determine whether a similar range of
loads could be applied to the different weighted jumps (i.e. could subjects grip and hold as heavy a load
at arms' length as they could support on the shoulders). This has now been explained in text.

5. Page 5, Line 57: Why were the 1RM's performed in a randomized order? This means that for
some athletes the squat 1RM may have been affected by fatigue and if so, the loads used during the
jumps squats would have been inaccurate. Please add justification for the randomization of the 1RM's
as it applied to the results of the study.

As has now been explained in text, the athletes regularly performed multiple 1RM's during testing
sessions throughout the season and were accustomed to the practice. In addition, further support for
the use of this design has been provided in text by referencing the methods of a similar study which
provided a 30min rest period between 1RM squat and 1RM power clean tests.

6. Page 6, Line 2: Was the rest 2 minutes or 4 minutes? Why was a range of rest periods utilized?
Why were rest periods of 2-4 mins used when standard 1RM protocols require a 5 minute rest
between 1RM attempts? Please provide clarification and justification of the selected rest period and
provide referenced support.

The protocol utilized was the one highlighted by the National Strength and Conditioning Association in
their core text book. Clarification and the referenced support have been provided in text.

7. Page 6, Line 5: What constitutes a successful lift? Was the heaviest load lifted included as a 1RM
regardless of the technique used to achieve that load? What technical requirements were maintained
for a squat 1RM and deadlift 1RM (i.e. hip and/or knee angles to illustrate depth). Did the two lifts
require different hip, knee and ankle angles or were they fairly similar? How was technique
standardised across the participants?
Descriptions of the 1RM tests and statement as to what constituted a successful lift have been added in
text.

8. Page 6, Line 17-20: What was actually analysed - best jump (based on what?), average of both
jumps? Please clarify.

Best jump based on jump height, this has been clarified in text.

9. Page 6, Line 29-32: Why were two separate force plates used? How were the athletes
COM/system COM VGRF calculated - the two plates summed? What was the sampling frequency?
What were the filtering techniques used?

Two were used as Kistler force plates are generally quite small and some athletes jump stance is better
suited with the feet placed on separate plates. The sampling rate and filtering procedures have been
added in text.

10. Page 6, Line 37-42: The sentence "This was achieved by?change in momentum" has poor
structure, please re-phrase. How do you 'incorporate' VGRF data - what does this mean?

This sentence has been restructured and expanded providing additional references.

11. Page 6, Line 51: Why were subject instructed to lower themselves to ~120o hip flexion during
jump squats? What is this based on and can you provide referenced support for this condition? How
was this monitored and confirmed during testing? What happens if they didn't reach 120o or
performed too much flexion at the hip? Very importantly, what actually happened at the knee joint?
Why was the jump technique standardized? Wouldn't this standardization interfere with natural
jumping technique of some athletes? These are important questions that need to be clarified.

All subjects performed the jump squat in training and had been taught by their strength and
conditioning coach to use a countermovement to a half-squat position. We followed the same
convention in the study. All subjects dropped into a half-squat position and this was best observed by
monitoring hip motion. Our convention was to state that 180° was full extension, however, we can see
this may be confusing, and have now clarified in text that all athletes dropped into a half-squat position
and used the reference of 60° of hip flexion. We standardized the countermovement to ensure that this
variable did not influence the mechanics between the two different barbells and the different loads
used, particularly with regard to changing the overall amplitude of the movement and manipulating
impulse. Motion at the knee joint did change during the different jumps, however, the change was not
in the degree of flexion (which could have also been used to standardize) but the amount of anterior
displacement.

12. Page 7, Line 17-24: Please clarify how peak RFD was calculated, specifically what time period
was it calculated over (i.e. 5ms, 30ms etc.)

With the force plate frequency data provided this information is now available.

13. Page 8, Line 8: The significant difference in squat and hexagonal deadlift 1RM suggests that the
20, 40 & 60% squat 1RM used for the jump squats actually represent very different loads between the
SBJ and HBJ. Rough calculations based on group means suggest that the 20, 40 & 60% 1RM loads used
for SBJ actually represented ~15, 31 and 47% of 1RM in the HBJ. This would provide strong rationale
for the better performance observed in the HBJ vs the SBJ. Please discuss.
The idea that differences in relative intensity may have accounted for the disparate kinematics and
kinetics is now discussed in text.

14. Page 8, Line 10: The terminology "mean peak" is a little confusing here. Suggest re-phrasing it as
something similar to "the group average values for peak force?were?respectively"

Sentence has been removed as data has been added in table as requested in subsequent comment.

15. Page 9, Line 18: Why can the athlete jump higher & generate more power in the HBJ? What is the
theoretical rationale? Please provide a solid explanation and include referenced support for this.

Two theoretical mechanisms (technique and relative intensity) have been proposed and discussed in
text.

16. Page 9, Line 50: It would be very helpful to also include approximate relative values here (i.e.
W/kg body mass). The use of absolute values make it harder to compare to previous research and to
the readers own athletes

Done.

17. Page 9, Line 59: Incorrect reference cited. Please replace (7) with (8).

Done

18. Page 9, Line 34-46: Need to clarify that the differences/changes may simply be due to the
additional training volume performed by the VertiMax group (i.e. it is unclear if those same changes
would have been seen if another group performed the same number of additional jump squat
exercises). Please include discussion of this.

Your suggestion has been added to the discussion.

19. Page 12, Line 7-20: Repetitive, the same thing was said in the introduction. Please remove or re-
phase so it adds new information not already covered in the manuscript.

This section has now been removed

20. Page 12, Line 27-34. While a full biomechanical analysis wasn't undertaken, were any differences
in jumping technique observed? Based on the fact that they had to achieve a 120o hip angle some sort
of observation (i.e. 2D motion analysis, visual monitoring) needed to occur during the jumping, some
comments regarding possible modifications in jumping technique are warranted. If no evidence is
available then theoretical arguments/suggestion may be posed based on what was observed.

Visual monitoring and importantly video data was collected. As you have suggested theoretical
arguments based on observations of technique have been made in text.

21. Page 12, Line 44-49: Again, why did this occur? What is the theoretical rationale? Please
provide a solid explanation and include referenced support for this. Also, how can you explain these
results with respect to the jump height data - from figure 3 the jump height for the unloaded jump was
well over 10cm greater than the HBJ. Please explain.

The same reasons that can be used to explain the differences in kinematics and kinetics between the
different weighted jumps can be used to explain the changes in the load power relationship. We have
added this in text and explained how changes in the relative resistance posed by body mass may
explain the shift also.

22. Page 13. Is there any EMG or biomechanical data in the previous literature comparing the
activation levels of muscles and/or joint angles between the squat and deadlift? This may be useful to
include in the discussion and could offer some insight into the differences observed in the current
study.

Based on your previous suggestions we have highlighted the mechanisms that are most likely to
explain the differences in results reported. Also as explained in text, we have minimized the usage of
material comparing the squat and the deadlift as the movement strategy used in the HBJ is unlikely to
correspond closely with the movement strategy used when performing heavy deadlifts.

23. References: Inconsistent format used for reference 22.

Corrected

24. Table 1: Please clarify that the loads are percentages of squat 1RM in the legend. Should include
the data for the unloaded jump in this table for easy reference (i.e. it is difficult flicking between the
data in the text of the results section to the data contained in the table). Suggest only using one * to
represent difference between the jumps as opposed to the *'s against both jumps.

All suggested changes to the table have been made

We would like to thank you for your very specific and detailed comments which have greatly improved
the quality of the manuscript.

Reviewer 2

The introduction while interesting should be clear and concise and be hypothesis driven to allow the
reader to see the basis of your hypothesis. Why is this study important to the literature and what was
the major question that lead to the study and how would it impact practice if published. How does it
help coaches as this is key to the applied nature of the journal.

We have made changes to the introduction to make the section more clear. We have also explicitly
stated the purpose of the study and outlined its practical significance.

The methods need to be pristine so that the study can be replicated as to each independent and
dependent variable.

Changes have been made as per reviewer 1's suggestions to enable replication of the methods.

You need to check formatting guidelines and Instructions to Authors very carefully.

Done and adhered to.

What about controls for such things as time of day, hydration status, nutritional intakes, activity
profiles etc.

This information has now been added to the methods section.

The approach to the problem is so important as to the rationales for the study and its dependent and
independent variables.

This section has been made clearer with identification of why specific tests were chosen.

What was the test retest reliability e.g., ICCRs SEM and confidence intervals, not sure the statistical
section is very informative and you need some work here with your statistical consultant. Did you meet
the demands of your statistical assumptions as this section is unclear at best. Usually P ? 0.05 is
significant.

ICC's were used to assess intra-trial reliability and are reported in the results section. Our principal
concern regarding the data and selection of appropriate statistical tests was its distribution. Prior to
running ANOVA's, normal distribution was tested via the Shapiro-Wilk test and this has now been
stated in-text. We have also explicitly stated the alpha level considered to be significant (i.e, p<0.05).

Subject informed consent has very specific wording per author guidelines and this needs to be double
checked.

This has been checked.

You really need to look at the writing tips for the JSCR and make sure every section of the paper
contains needed information etc.

We have consulted with the section you suggested and conformed to the guidelines.

What is the training background coming into the study and what time of year etc were they tested.

This information has now been added to the subjects section of the methods.

The clarity of the paper needs to be improved a bit through out the whole paper. I sense a language
barrier as I am blinded to the source of the paper... you need to get some professional help on this.

Care has been taken to improve the clarity of the writing.

The discussion needs to better reflect the introduction and show the answers to the questions raised
and allow the reader to see what it means in context to the literature and as well physiologically or
mechanically.

The discussion has been changed to better reflect the introduction as you suggested. It now discusses
the important results obtained, and suggests physiological and mechanical mechanisms to explain the
results. Following this, the section then contextualises the information by outlining and discussing the
factors that influence the adaptation potential of weighted jumps.

The practical applications are for the coach or end user and needs to be clearer. After reading this
study I will change my practice how? Based on what, how does your study enhance this for the reader?
This is the whole purpose of this section.

A more detailed recommendation for coaches/athletes based on the results of this study and previous
research has been made.

Thank you for assistance in improving the quality of the manuscript.

Copyright Transfer Form
Cover Letter

This manuscript contains material that is original and not previously published in text or on the

Internet, nor is it being considered elsewhere until a decision is made as to its acceptability by

the JSCR Editorial Review Board.

Participants from this study were notified about the potential risks involved and gave their

written informed consent. The study was approved by the ethical review panel at Robert Gordon

University, Aberdeen, UK, prior to data collection.

To the authors’ knowledge there are no conflicts of interests in submitting this manuscript for

publication.

Regards

Paul Swinton.

School of Health Sciences Office, Robert Gordon University, Faculty of Health and

Social Care, Garthdee Road, Garthdee, Aberdeen, United Kingdom, AB10 7QG

Tel: 01224 263361

Fax: 01224 263290

Email: p.swinton@rgu.ac.uk
*Title Page (Showing Author Information)

Full Title: Effect of load positioning on the kinematics and kinetics of weighted

vertical jumps

Short Title: Biomechanics of resisted jumping

Paul A. Swinton1

Arthur Stewart2

Ray Lloyd3

Ioannis Agouris1

Justin W.L. Keogh4

1 School of Health Sciences, Robert Gordon University, Aberdeen, United Kingdom

2 Centre for Obesity Research and Epidemiology, Robert Gordon University, Aberdeen, United Kingdom

3 School of Social and Health Sciences, University of Abertay, Dundee, United Kingdom

4 Institute of Sport and Recreation Research New Zealand, School of Sport and Recreation, AUT University,

New Zealand

Corresponding Author: Paul A Swinton, School of Health Sciences Office, Robert Gordon University,

Faculty of Health and Social Care, Garthdee Road, Garthdee, Aberdeen, United Kingdom, AB10 7QG

Tel: 01224 263361

Email: p.swinton@rgu.ac.uk
Manuscript ( NO AUTHOR INFORMATION - Manuscript Text Pages, including References and Figure Legends)

ABSTRACT.
1
2 One of the most popular exercises for developing lower-body muscular power is the
3
4
5 weighted vertical jump. The present study sought to examine the effect of altering the
6
7 position of the external load on the kinematics and kinetics of the movement. Twenty
8
9
10 nine resistance trained rugby union athletes performed maximal effort jumps with 0,
11
12 20, 40 and 60% of their squat 1RM with the load positioned: 1) on the posterior
13
14
15 aspect of the shoulder using a straight barbell (SBJ); and 2) at arms’ length using a
16
17 hexagonal barbell (HBJ). Kinematic and kinetic variables were calculated through
18
19
20
integration of the vertical ground reaction force data using a forward dynamics
21
22 approach. Performance of the HBJ resulted in significantly (p<0.05) greater values for
23
24 jump height, peak force, peak power, and peak rate of force development compared to
25
26
27 the SBJ. Significantly (p<0.05) greater peak power was produced during the unloaded
28
29 jump compared to all trials where the external load was positioned on the shoulder. In
30
31
32 contrast, significantly (p<0.05) greater peak power was produced during weighted
33
34 jumps performed with 20% 1RM using the hexagonal barbell compared to all other
35
36
37
conditions investigated. The results suggest that when using weighted vertical jumps
38
39 to improve lower-body muscular performance, the jumps should be performed with
40
41 the external load positioned at arms’ length rather than on the shoulder.
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49 Key Words: Ballistic; power; weight-training.
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
 1
INTRODUCTION
2
3 The vertical jump is an important feature of many sports and is frequently
4
5
6 incorporated with other explosive body-weight exercises in training aimed at
7
8 developing muscular power and athletic performance. External resistance can be
9
10
11
added to the vertical jump to increase the intensity of the training stimulus (33). The
12
13 most common methods of applying resistance include the use of barbells, dumbbells,
14
15 weighted vests and rubber bands. The addition of external resistance to the vertical
16
17
18 jump has been shown to increase force whilst concurrently decrease velocity and rate
19
20 of force development (29). Weighted jumps have become one of the most popular
21
22
23 resistance exercises for developing muscular power based on the suggestion that
24
25 ballistic actions are more effective than using traditional resistance exercises such as
26
27
28 the squat. It is believed the primary advantage of weighted jumps is the ability to
29
30 avoid undesirable deceleration which occurs during the concentric phase of all
31
32
traditional resistance exercises (23, 30).
33
34
35
36
37 Most frequently weighted jumps are performed by placing a barbell over the posterior
38
39
40 aspect of the shoulder (Figure 1). This variation is commonly referred to as the jump
41
42 squat and requires athletes to lower the body to a chosen depth and then quickly
43
44
45 reverse the movement attempting to jump as high as possible. The jump squat has
46
47 been used extensively by researchers to investigate the load-power relationship (4, 5,
48
49
50
9, 13, 35, 36, 38). The rationale for the extensive study is the thesis that the load which
51
52 maximises power provides the most effective stimulus for power development (4)
53
54 Initial results from studies investigating the load-power relationship with the jump
55
56
57 squat reported that power was maximized with loads of 30 to 60% 1RM (4, 35, 36,
58
59 38). More recent studies have concluded that power is maximized when vertical jumps
60
61
62
63
64
65
 are performed unloaded (5, 8, 9, 13). Discrepancies between findings from initial and
1
2 recent studies are most likely the result of methodological factors such as the
3
4
5 procedure used for calculating power (5, 14). Some researchers have debated whether
6
7 a single optimal load for power development exists (6). This has led many to conclude
8
9
10 that a range of loads may result in similar improvements depending on factors such as
11
12 exercise selection, the individual athlete and their recent training history (6, 10, 12,
13
14
15 16).
16
17
18
19
20
At present, more information is available on the kinematics and kinetics of weighted
21
22 jumps performed with a barbell compared to all other methods of providing resistance.
23
24 The primary advantage of using a barbell is the wide range of loads that can be
25
26
27 applied. In contrast, the amount of resistance that can be added with a weighted vest is
28
29 relatively limited and athletes may find it difficult to stabilize and appropriately
30
31
32 position large dumbbells (34). The use of rubber bands provides a pattern of resistance
33
34 distinct from other methods. The external force created with rubber bands changes
35
36
37
with displacement of the body and resultant stretch of the resistance material (28).
38
39 During the bottom portion of the jump the overall stretch of the rubber bands is
40
41 minimized and therefore less resistance is applied. As the athlete accelerates upwards
42
43
44 and raises their centre of mass the bands progressively stretch and increase resistance
45
46 based on the stiffness of the material (28). Despite anecdotal claims that rubber bands
47
48
49 can be used to improve jumping performance (31), research is yet to systematically
50
51 investigate the effectiveness of the practice.
52
53
54
55
56 An additional method of loading the vertical jump which has not been considered in
57
58
the literature is through the use of a hexagonal barbell (Figure 2). The non-
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
 conventional barbell enables athletes to stand within its frame and hold the resistance
1
2 at arms’ length. During weighted jumps the hexagonal barbell applies resistance in a
3
4
5 similar manner to that obtained when using dumbbells. However, it is expected that
6
7 the hexagonal barbell would provide several advantages over the use of dumbbells,
8
9
10 including improved stability and greater capacity to apply a wider range of loads. In a
11
12 recent study investigating kinematics and kinetics of deadlift variations it was reported
13
14
15 that use of a hexagonal barbell produced significantly greater force, velocity and
16
17 power compared to use of a straight barbell (37). The improved mechanical stimulus
18
19
20
created when using the non-conventional barbell was attributed to positioning of the
21
22 external resistance closer to the bodies’ centre of mass, which resulted in favourable
23
24 changes in the resistance moment arms at the individual joints (37). Other
25
26
27 biomechanical studies investigating the effect of changing load position during multi-
28
29 joint resistance exercises have also demonstrated that kinematics and kinetics can be
30
31
32 altered even when the change in load position is minimal (18, 40). Therefore, the
33
34 purpose of this study was to investigate whether the kinematics and kinetics of the
35
36
37
jump squat could be altered by changing the position of the resistance from the
38
39 shoulders to arms’ length through the use of a hexagonal barbell. As the jump squat is
40
41 considered one of the most effective exercises for developing lower body power (3),
42
43
44 the ability to easily manipulate and potentially augment kinematics and kinetics of
45
46 such a popular exercise would be of practical significance to many coaches and
47
48
49 athletes.
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
 1
METHODS
2
3 Experimental approach to the problem
4
5
6 A cross-sectional, randomized cross-over design was used to compare the kinematics
7
8 and kinetics of weighted jumps performed with the load positioned on the shoulders
9
10
11
and at arms’ length. Data were collected for each subject over two sessions separated
12
13 by one week. The first session was performed in the gymnasium and involved one-
14
15 repetition maximum (1RM) testing in the squat and hexagonal barbell deadlift. The
16
17
18 1RM squat test was used to set relative intensities for the athletes and match absolute
19
20 loads for the straight barbell jump (SBJ) and hexagonal barbell jump (HBJ). The 1RM
21
22
23 hexagonal barbell test was included to investigate whether similar maximal loads
24
25 could be applied with both barbells. During the second testing session subjects
26
27
28 reported to the laboratory where they performed the SBJ and HBJ with loads equal to
29
30 20, 40 and 60% of their predetermined squat 1RM. Kinematics and kinetics were
31
32
analysed during the second session only.
33
34
35
36
37 Subjects
38
39
40 Twenty nine male rugby union athletes (age: 26.3 ± 4.6 yr; stature: 182.4 ± 6.8 cm;
41
42 mass: 94.5 ± 13.1 kg; 1RM Squat: 153.7 ± 20.3 kg) volunteered to participate in this
43
44
45 study. Each of the athletes regularly performed weighted jumps in their training and
46
47 had prior experience using both straight and hexagonal barbells. The study was
48
49
50
conducted eight weeks into the athletes preseason training after a de-load micro-cycle.
51
52 Prior to experimental testing participants were notified about the potential risks
53
54 involved and gave their written informed consent. Approval for this study was
55
56
57 provided by the ethical review panel at Robert Gordon University, Aberdeen, UK.
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
 Procedures
1
2 During the first session subjects had their 1RM back squat and 1RM hexagonal
3
4
5 barbell deadlift tested in a randomized order. All subjects were accustomed to
6
7 performing multiple 1RM tests in a single session as part of their strength and
8
9
10 conditioning provision. To further minimize the likelihood of fatigue influencing the
11
12 results a 30 minute rest period was allocated between tests (9). Based on a predicted
13
14
15 1RM load subjects performed a series of warm-up sets and up to 5 maximal attempts.
16
17 A minimum of 2 minutes and a maximum of 4 minutes recovery time was allocated
18
19
20
between maximal attempts (2). Within this time frame subjects chose to perform the
21
22 lifts based on their own perception of when they had recovered. Maximum squat
23
24 repetitions were performed to a depth where the thighs became parallel with the floor
25
26
27 (2). In contrast, the 1RM hexagonal barbell deadlifts were initiated with the load
28
29 positioned on the ground and required less hip and knee flexion. For both movements
30
31
32 a lift was deemed successful if the barbell was not lowered at any point during the
33
34 ascent and upon completion of the movement the body posture was held erect with the
35
36
37
knee and hip fully extended.
38
39
40
41 One week later subjects performed maximum effort unloaded and loaded vertical
42
43
44 jumps. The unloaded vertical jump was performed with the arms held stationary at the
45
46 side of the body. Weighted jumps were performed in a randomized order using both
47
48
49 the straight and hexagonal barbell with loads of 20, 40 and 60% of squat 1RM.
50
51 Subjects performed the downward phase of all vertical jumps to a half-squat position
52
53
54 with the hip flexed to approximately 60°. Standardization was applied across
55
56 conditions to control for potential variation caused by load position or load magnitude
57
58
during the important preparatory phase of the jump. Two attempts were performed for
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
 each condition to assess intra-trial reliability. The attempt which resulted in the
1
2 greatest vertical jump height was selected for further analysis. A minimum 2 minute
3
4
5 rest period was allocated between conditions with a longer rest period made available
6
7 if the subject felt it necessary to produce a maximum performance. All testing was
8
9
10 completed between the hours of 17:00 and 20:00 to correspond with the athletes’
11
12 regular strength and conditioning training times. Subjects followed their individual
13
14
15 nutritional practices used prior to training sessions with consumption of water (500
16
17 ml) permitted during tests. Room temperature in the gymnasium and laboratory were
18
19
20
maintained between 22 and 25° C.
21
22
23
24 Jumps were performed with a separate piezoelectric force platform (Kistler, Type
25
26
27 9281B Kistler Instruments, Winterthur, Switzerland) under each foot capturing
28
29 vertical ground reaction force (VGRF) data at 1200 Hz. Force plate data were filtered
30
31
32 using a fourth-order, zero-phase lag Butterworh filter with a 50 Hz cutoff.
33
34 Displacement, velocity and power data were calculated at the athletes’ COM during
35
36
37
unloaded trials and at the system COM (athlete + external load) during loaded trials.
38
39 The kinematic and kinetic variables were calculated using the VGRF-time data and a
40
41 forward dynamics approach that has been reported previously in the literature (20, 22,
42
43
44 24). Briefly, trials were initiated with subjects standing erect and motionless. Once
45
46 data acquisition was initiated, subjects were instructed to lower themselves to the
47
48
49 standardized depth and then quickly reverse the movement attempting to jump as high
50
51 as possible. Changes in vertical velocity of the system COM were calculated by
52
53
54 multiplying the net VGRF (VGRF recorded at the force plate minus the weight of the
55
56 athlete and the external resistance) by the intersample time period divided by the mass
57
58
of the system. Instantaneous velocity at the end of each sampling interval was
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
 determined by summing the previous changes in vertical velocity to the pre-interval
1
2 absolute velocity, which was equal to zero at the start of the movement. The position
3
4
5 change over each interval was calculated by taking the product of absolute velocity
6
7 and the intersample time period. Vertical position of the system COM was then
8
9
10 obtained by summing the position changes. Instantaneous power was calculated by
11
12 taking the product of the VGRF and the concurrent vertical velocity of the system.
13
14
15 Peak rate of force development and jump height were also used to assess the
16
17 kinematics and kinetics of the jumps. Rate of force development was calculated by
18
19
20
dividing consecutive VGRF values by the intersample time period. Jump height was
21
22 calculated from constant acceleration equations and the vertical velocity of the system
23
24 at take-off (25).
25
26
27
28
29 Statistical Analysis.
30
31
32 Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC’s) were calculated to assess intra-trial
33
34 reliability for each variable analyzed. Data for each dependent variable were
35
36
37
determined as normally distributed via the Shapiro-Wilk test for normality. Potential
38
39 kinematic and kinetic differences obtained during the SBJ and HBJ were analyzed
40
41 using a 2x3 (barbell x load) repeated measures ANOVA. Significant main effects
42
43
44 were further analyzed with Bonferroni adjusted pair-wise comparisons. Statistical
45
46 significance was accepted at p < 0.05. All statistical procedures were performed using
47
48
49 the SPSS software package (SPSS, Version 16.0, SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL).
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
 1
RESULTS
2
3 Intra-trial reliability for all variables measured was high (ICC = 0.8 to 0.98). Subjects
4
5
6 were able to lift a significantly (p<0.05) heavier 1RM load in the hexagonal barbell
7
8 deadlift compared to the back squat (195.4 ± 18.3 kg vs. 153.7 ± 20.3 kg, p<0.05).
9
10
11
Jump heights for the unloaded and weighted jumps are displayed in figure 3. The
12
13 addition of resistance significantly increased force (p<0.05) and decreased velocity
14
15 (p<0.05) when jumping. Peak rate of force development was significantly (p<0.05)
16
17
18 greater during unloaded jumps compared with the SBJ. However, similar peak rate of
19
20 force development values were obtained for unloaded jumps and the HBJ. A load
21
22
23 position effect between unloaded and weighted jumps was also found for peak power
24
25 values. Significantly greater peak power was obtained with the HBJ performed with a
26
27
28 20% 1RM load compared to all other conditions (p<0.05). In addition, no significant
29
30 (p<0.05) differences were obtained for peak power produced during unloaded jumps
31
32
and the HBJ performed with a 40% 1RM load. In contrast, peak power was
33
34
35 significantly (p<0.05) reduced when resistance was applied using the SBJ. Significant
36
37 main effects of load position were obtained for peak force, peak power and peak rate
38
39
40 of force development (p<0.05). For all variables measured there was a trend towards
41
42 higher values when performing the HBJ (Table 1). No significant interaction effects
43
44
45 between load position and load magnitude were found.
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
 1
DISCUSSION
2
3 The results of the current investigation demonstrate that positioning of the external
4
5
6 resistance significantly affects kinematics and kinetics of weighted jumps.
7
8 Customarily, when athletes perform the weighted jump they use a straight barbell
9
10
11
placed across the posterior aspect of the shoulder. The results of the present study
12
13 demonstrate that if the resistance is moved from the shoulder to arms’ length using a
14
15 hexagonal barbell the athlete can jump higher and generate greater force, power,
16
17
18 velocity and rate of force development. The improved kinematics and kinetics
19
20 obtained when using the hexagonal barbell most likely result from the change in
21
22
23 positioning of the external resistance from the shoulders to a location closer to the
24
25 bodies’ centre of mass. This change in position may enable athletes to more closely
26
27
28 replicate their unloaded vertical jump technique. To maximise performance during
29
30 vertical jumps athletes adopt a trunk position that is substantially inclined from the
31
32
vertical (39). Research has shown that this posture enables trunk rotation to
33
34
35 effectively contribute to jump performance (26) and control torque output of the lower
36
37 body joints, with greater trunk inclination emphasizing extension of the hip (39).
38
39
40 When an external load is positioned at the shoulder the moment arm of the resistance
41
42 can become large as the trunk is inclined. During squatting where the goal is often to
43
44
45 displace a heavy load the torso is positioned closer to the vertical to minimise the
46
47 resistive torque and shear force experienced at the lumbar spine (17). It is possible
48
49
50
when athletes position a barbell across the shoulder to perform the SBJ they divert
51
52 from their normal unloaded jumping technique and adopt a less effective motion
53
54 similar to their back squat. Whilst a segmental biomechanical analysis was not
55
56
57 included in this study, review of the video footage illustrated trunk inclination was
58
59 substantially less at the conclusion of the downward phase of the SBJ compared to the
60
61
62
63
64
65
 unloaded vertical jump. The video footage also showed that the athletes adopted
1
2 similar trunk positions across the 20, 40 and 60% 1RM loads, thereby supporting the
3
4
5 hypothesis that placement of an external resistance on the shoulder prompts athletes to
6
7 revert to their back squat technique. This observation is consistent with previous
8
9
10 research showing technique to be relatively unchanged during the eccentric phase of
11
12 the squat across loads of 25 to 100% of a lifter’s 3RM (15). In contrast, when athletes
13
14
15 perform weighted jumps with the hexagonal barbell the load can be held close to the
16
17 bodies’ centre of mass and moved independently of the torso. These attributes may
18
19
20
enable athletes to more closely reproduce their unloaded jump technique when
21
22 performing the movement with external resistance. Review of the video footage
23
24 appeared to illustrate a closer similarity of gross motor technique between the
25
26
27 unloaded jump and the HBJ, in particular with regard to the amount of forward torso
28
29 inclination. A more complete biomechanical analysis should be carried out to quantity
30
31
32 any differences in joint kinematics between the weighted jumps and determine
33
34 whether load position effects temporal variables or segment coordination.
35
36
37
38
39 The kinematic and kinetic improvements obtained when changing load position may
40
41 also have occurred as a result of differences in the relative intensity created when
42
43
44 using the same absolute load. Performing an exercise with a hexagonal barbell creates
45
46 less resistive torque at the lower body joints compared to using a straight barbell
47
48
49 positioned further away from the body (37). A reduction in the overall resistance
50
51 during the HBJ may have enabled the athletes to accelerate the load more effectively
52
53
54 and thereby explain the enhanced mechanical profile reported. The 1RM results from
55
56 the present study confirm the athletes were able to lift a significantly heavier load
57
58
when holding a hexagonal barbell at arms’ length compared to using a straight barbell
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
 placed on the shoulders. In the present study, loads used for both forms of weighted
1
2 jumps were scaled using the athletes’ squat 1RM only. Scaling to different maximum
3
4
5 strength tests was not used as it was expected there would be differences in movement
6
7 strategies employed when performing a 1RM deadlift and the HBJ. When lifting
8
9
10 maximum loads in the deadlift it has been reported that experienced weightlifters alter
11
12 their technique and path of the barbell to successfully overcome the sticking region (7,
13
14
15 19, 37). In addition, deadlifts are generally performed from the floor without a
16
17 preceding lowering phase, whereas, the HBJ is performed with an explosive stretch
18
19
20
shortening cycle action with the barbell reaching only approximately knee height.
21
22 Despite technical complications in scaling the intensity between weighted jumps, the
23
24 design of the hexagonal barbell and the large difference in maximum strength scores
25
26
27 suggests that a lighter load should be used in the SBJ to equate the overall resistance.
28
29 Cormie et al, (9) have previously shown that as resistance is decreased in the SBJ
30
31
32 there is a linear increase in velocity. As a result, equating the overall resistance
33
34 between jumps may have resulted in similar velocity values. However, Cormie et al,
35
36
37
(9) also reported that decreasing the resistance in the SBJ results in a linear reduction
38
39 in the amount of force produced. As the HBJ already produced significantly greater
40
41 peak force values, equating the resistance between jumps would increase the disparity
42
43
44 in force production, thereby suggesting that some of the kinematic and kinetic
45
46 improvements occurred as a result of factors other than the relative intensity of the
47
48
49 load.
50
51
52
53
54 The results from the present study also demonstrate that positioning of the external
55
56 resistance can alter the load-power relationship. When using the straight barbell the
57
58
results coincided with recent studies showing that power is maximized when no
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
 external resistance is applied (5, 8, 9, 13). In contrast, when jumps were performed
1
2 with the hexagonal barbell significantly greater peak power was produced with an
3
4
5 external resistance of 20% 1RM compared to all other conditions. No significant
6
7 difference in peak power was found when comparing the unloaded jump and the HBJ
8
9
10 performed with 40% 1RM. To maximize power during any exercise the load selected
11
12 must provide the best compromise between force and velocity (5). Vertical jumps
13
14
15 enable athletes to generate very high velocities with body mass providing enough
16
17 resistance to produce substantial force output (9). The shift in the load-power
18
19
20
relationship during the HBJ may be explained by the same mechanisms postulated to
21
22 augment the associated kinematics and kinetics. If the addition of a barbell on the
23
24 shoulder unfavourably alters technique during the SBJ then the increased force
25
26
27 associated with the addition of resistance may not compensate for the simultaneous
28
29 decrease in velocity. In contrast, if the use of the hexagonal barbell enables athletes
30
31
32 to maintain a more effective jumping motion the added resistance and subsequent
33
34 increased force may outweigh decreases in velocity and explain why high power
35
36
37
outputs are maintained to approximately 40% 1RM. Alternatively, an ability to
38
39 displace heavier maximum loads with the hexagonal barbell may also explain the shift
40
41 in the load-power relationship. As an individual’s 1RM increases, body mass if it
42
43
44 remains constant accounts for less relative resistance. Through more effective
45
46 mechanical loading with the hexagonal barbell maximum strength may increase to a
47
48
49 point where body mass alone does not provide adequate resistance to produce
50
51 comparatively large forces. Under these circumstances an external load could be
52
53
54 added to optimise the product of force and velocity.
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
 At present, weighted jumps are considered to be among the most effective exercises
1
2 for the development of lower-body power. McBride et al, (27) demonstrated that a
3
4
5 short eight week training intervention with the SBJ significantly improved strength,
6
7 power and agility of recreationally trained men. McBride et al, (27) also found that
8
9
10 the load the subjects used in training had an effect on adaptations. Subjects
11
12 performing the SBJ with a light load (30% 1RM) exhibited the greatest improvements
13
14
15 during fast velocity tasks, whereas, subjects using a heavy load (80% 1RM)
16
17 demonstrated greater improvements during slow velocity tasks. Similar velocity-
18
19
20
specific improvements in strength and power during weighted jump training have also
21
22 been reported by Cormie et al, (8). Weighted jumps are likely to be effective exercises
23
24 for developing power based on a number of factors. In the scientific literature peak
25
26
27 power values as large as 4750 to 6250 W (≈ 45 to 70 W/kg) have been reported for
28
29 male athletes performing the SBJ (5, 9, 36). In addition, research comparing exercises
30
31
32 used frequently by athletes to develop lower-body power (squat, power clean and
33
34 SBJ) demonstrated that the SBJ produced the largest power values. (9). Whilst the
35
36
37
optimal mechanical stimulus to develop muscular power is at present unknown (11), it
38
39 is likely that performing exercises at fast velocities whilst generating large power
40
41 outputs provides one of the most effective stimuli (1). It has also been hypothesised
42
43
44 that large forces absorbed by skeletal muscles during the landing phase of weighted
45
46 jumps may also be important for promoting training adaptations (23). In a study
47
48
49 conducted by Hori et al, (23) an experimental protocol was designed to isolate the
50
51 effect of landing stress during weighted jumps. Subjects performed the SBJ over an 8
52
53
54 week training period where they landed with the entire load or with just their own
55
56 bodyweight through the assistance of an electromagnetic braking device. As expected,
57
58
those that performed weighted jumps without the braking device experienced
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
 significantly larger ground reaction forces upon landing. Hori et al, (23) found
1
2 subjects that landed with the entire load demonstrated significantly greater
3
4
5 improvements in performance during high velocity tasks. In contrast, subjects that
6
7 experienced less landing stress through the use of the braking device demonstrated
8
9
10 greater improvements during low velocity tasks. In a similar study using hydraulic
11
12 resistance to control the load during jumps, Hoffman et al, (21) reported that over a 6
13
14
15 week period athletes that landed with the entire load experienced greater
16
17 improvements during low velocity 1RM tests compared with those that landed with
18
19
20
bodyweight only. The contrasting results obtained by Hori et al, (23) and Hoffman et
21
22 al, (21) can be attributed to a number of methodological differences between the
23
24 studies. Hoffman et al, (21) used a heavier load for the weighted jumps (70 vs. 30%
25
26
27 1RM) and included higher level athletes performing additional strength and power
28
29 training sessions. Whilst the specific mechanisms and adaptations obtained when
30
31
32 landing from weighted jumps are at present unknown, it is evident that the large
33
34 forces and eccentric loads imposed can provide an additional training stimulus.
35
36
37
38
39 Previous attempts have been made to modify weighted jumps to improve kinematics
40
41 and kinetics. During most forms of weighted jumps athletes are unable to use their
42
43
44 arms to contribute to the jumping motion. Specialist equipment has been created that
45
46 enables athletes to apply substantial resistance whilst allowing arm movement and
47
48
49 closer replication of jumping action used in sport. The VertiMax is a commercially
50
51 available product which features a platform on which athletes can perform sport-
52
53
54 specific movements such as the vertical jump. The platform contains bungee cords
55
56 integrated through a pulley system that can be attached to the athlete’s waist, hands
57
58
and thighs to provide a constant resistance. To investigate the effectiveness of the
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
 VertiMax, Rhea et al, (32) conducted a study with high school athletes performing
1
2 periodized strength and plyometric training over a 12 week period. The athletes were
3
4
5 randomly allocated between two groups that each performed the same volume of
6
7 lower-body resistance, sprint and body-weight jumping exercises. In addition to the
8
9
10 regular sessions, one group supplemented their training with resisted jump exercises
11
12 performed on the VertiMax. The group that performed the supplementary exercises
13
14
15 experienced significantly greater increases in power over the 12 week period as
16
17 measured during an unloaded vertical jump test (32). The authors attributed the
18
19
20
greater improvement with the inclusion of training on the VertiMax to increased
21
22 intensity and improved transfer of training due to task specificity. However, the
23
24 difference reported between groups may be attributable to additional training volume
25
26
27 performed by those using the VertiMax. Future research comparing the VertiMax to
28
29 other forms of weighted jumps is required to determine the extent to which simulating
30
31
32 the jumping action influences adaptation.
33
34
35
36
37
There have been safety concerns raised over the use of weighted jumps. It has been
38
39 suggested that large forces produced during the concentric and landing phases may
40
41 cause injury, which necessitates an extensive warm-up and performance of the
42
43
44 exercise in a non-fatigued state to reduce the risks (34). Also, when performing
45
46 weighted jumps with a barbell positioned on the shoulder there is concern that the
47
48
49 load can forcefully impact the cervical vertebrae when landing (34). Positioning the
50
51 load in the hands during the HBJ avoids this concern and should improve the safety
52
53
54 and comfort of performing weighted jumps. To provide the same loading potential as
55
56 the SBJ athletes performing jumps with the hexagonal barbell must be able to grip the
57
58
load. In the present study none of the athletes used supportive grip aids beyond chalk
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
 and were able to lift a significantly heavier 1RM load in the hexagonal barbell deadlift
1
2 compared to the back squat. This result demonstrates the stability and large potential
3
4
5 range of loads that can be applied when performing the HBJ.
6
7
8
9
10 PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS
11
12
13 Weighted jumps have been shown to be an effective exercise for developing lower-
14
15 body power. Customarily, weighted jumps are performed with the load placed on the
16
17 posterior aspect of the shoulder. The results of this study demonstrate that improved
18
19
20 kinematics and kinetics can be achieved by changing the position of the load from the
21
22 shoulder to arms’ length through the use of a hexagonal barbell. This change in load
23
24
25 position may also improve the safety and comfort when performing the exercise.
26
27 Research has shown that improvements in muscular power are greatest when ballistic
28
29
30 exercises such as weighted jumps are performed with loads ranging from 0 to 50%
31
32 1RM (10). In addition, a complete training program aimed at developing an athlete’s
33
34
35
ability to produce power against a range of resistances which may be encountered in a
36
37 sport should also include traditional resistance exercises using heavy loads (8). Based
38
39 on the results from this study, it is recommended when using weighted jumps to
40
41
42 improve muscular power the exercise should be performed with a hexagonal barbell
43
44 and include loads previously suggested by researchers (i.e., 0 to 50% 1RM).
45
46
47
48
49
50 Acknowledgments
51
52
53 The results of the present study do not constitute endorsement by the authors or the
54
55 National Strength and Conditioning Association.
56
57
58
59 Conflicts of interest: None
60
61
62
63
64
65
 Sources of funding: None
1
2
3
4
Figure Legends.
5
6
7 Figure 1- Straight barbell jump
8
9
10
Figure 2- Hexagonal barbell jump
11
12
13
14 Figure 3-Mean (+1SD) vertical jump heights across conditions. * Significantly (p <
15
16 #
0.05) different from all other trials. Significant (p < 0.05) difference between SBJ
17
18
19 and HBJ for corresponding load.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26 References
27
28
1. American College of Sports Medicine. Progression models in resistance training for
29
30 healthy adults. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc 41: 687-708, 2009.
31
32 2. Baechle TR, andEarle RW. Essentials of Strength Training and Conditioning.
33 Champaign, Il: Human Kinetics, 2008.
34
35
36 3. Baker D. Improving vertical jump performance through general, special and
37 specific strength training: A brief review. J. Strength Cond. Res 10: 131-136, 1996.
38
39
40
4. Baker D, Nance S, and Moore M. The load that maximizes the average mechanical
41 power output during jump squats in power-trained athletes. J. Strength Cond. Res 15:
42 92-97, 2001.
43
44 5. Bevan RH, Bunce PJ, Owen NJ, Bennett MA, Cook CJ, Cunningham DJ, Newton
45
46 RU, and Kilduff LP. Optimal loading for the development of peak power output in
47 professional rugby players. J. Strength Cond. Res 24: 43-47, 2010.
48
49 6. Chiu LZF, Cormie P, and Flanagan SP. Does an optimal load exist for power
50
51
training? Strength Cond. J 30: 67-69, 2008.
52
53 7. Cholewicki J, and McGill SM. Lumbar posterior ligament involvement during
54 extremely heavy lifts estimated from fluoroscopic measurements. J Biomech 25: 17-
55 28, 1992.
56
57
58 8. Cormie P, McCaulley GO, and McBride JM. Power versus strength-power jump
59 squat training: Influence on the load-power relationship. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc 39:
60 996-1003, 2007.
61
62
63
64
65
 9. Cormie P, McCaulley GO, Triplett TN, and McBride JM. Optimal loading for
1 maximal power output during lower-body resistance exercises. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc
2 39: 340-349, 2007.
3
4
5 10. Cormie P, McGuigan MR, and Newton RU. Developing maximal neuromuscular
6 power: Part 2. Sports Med 41: 125-146, 2011.
7
8
9
11. Crewther B, Cronin J, and Keogh J. Possible stimuli for strength and power
10 adaptation: acute mechanical responses. Sports Med 35: 967-989, 2005.
11
12 12. Cronin J, and Sleivert G. Challenges in understanding the influence of maximal
13 power training on improving athletic performance. Sports Med 35: 213-234, 2005.
14
15
16 13. Dayne AM, McBride JM, Nuzzo JL, Triplett TN, Skinner J, and Burr A. Power
17 output in the jump squat in adolescent male athletes. J. Strength Cond. Res 25: 585-
18 589, 2011.
19
20
21 14. Dugan EL, Doyle TLA, Humphries B, Hasson CJ, and Newton RU. Determining
22 the optimal load for jump squats: A review of methods and calculations. J. Strength
23 Cond. Res 18: 668-674, 2004.
24
25
26 15. Flanagan SP, and Salem GJ. Lower extremity joint kinetic responses to external
27 resistance variations. J. Appl Biomech 24: 58-68, 2008.
28
29 16. Frost DM, Cronin JB, and Newton RU. Have we under estimated the kinematic
30
31
and kinetic benefits of non-ballistic motion? Sports Biomech 7: 372-385, 2008.
32
33 17. Fry AC, Smith CJ, and Schilling BK. Effect of knee position on hip and knee
34 torques during the barbell squat. J. Strength Cond. Res 17: 629-633, 2003.
35
36
37 18. Gullett JC, Tillman MD, Gutierrez GM, and Chow JW. A biomechanical
38 comparison of back and front squats in healthy trained individuals. J. Strength Cond.
39 Res 23: 284-292, 2008.
40
41
42 19. Hales ME, Johnson BF, and Johnson JT. Kinematic analysis of the powerlifting
43 style squat and the conventional deadlift during competition: Is there a cross-over
44 effect between lifts? J. Strength Cond. Res 23: 2574-2580, 2009.
45
46
47
20. Harman EA, Rosenstein MT, Frykman PN, and Rosenstein RM. The effects of
48 arms and countermovement on vertical jumping. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc 22: 825-833,
49 1990.
50
51 21. Hoffman JR, Ratamess NA, Cooper JJ, Kang J, Chilakos A, and Faigenbaum AD.
52
53 Comparison of loaded and unloaded jump squat training on strength/power
54 performance in college football players. J. Strength Cond. Res 19: 810-815, 2005.
55
56 22. Hori N, Newton RU, Andrews WA, Kawamori N, McGuigan MR, and Nosaka K.
57
Comparison of four different methods to measure power output during the hang
58
59 power clean and the weighted squat jump. J. Strength Cond. Res 21: 314-320, 2007.
60
61
62
63
64
65
 23. Hori N, Newton RU, Kawamori N, McGuigan MR, Andrews WA, Chapman DW,
1 and Nosaka K. Comparison of weighted jump squat training with and without
2 eccentric braking. J. Strength Cond. Res 22: 54-65, 2008.
3
4
5 24. Kawamori N, Crum AJ, Blumert PA, and Kulik JR. Influence of different relative
6 intensities on power output during the hang power clean: Identification of the optimal
7 load. J. Strength Cond. Res 19: 698-708, 2005.
8
9
10 25. Linthorne NP. Analysis of standing vertical jumps using a force platform. Am. J.
11 Phys 69: 1198-1204, 2001.
12
13 26. Luhtanen P, andKomi PV. Segmental contribution to forces in vertical jumps.
14
15 European Journal of Applied Physiology & Occupational Physiology 38: 181-188,
16 1978.
17
18 27. McBride JM, Triplett-McBride T, Davie A, and Newton RU. The effect of heavy-
19
20
Vs. light-load jump squats on the development of strength, power, and speed. J.
21 Strength Cond. Res 16: 75-82, 2002.
22
23 28. McMaster TD, Cronin J, and McGuigan MR. Quantification of rubber and chain-
24 based resistance models. J. Strength Cond. Res 24: 2056-2064, 2010.
25
26
27 29. Moir G, Sanders R, Button C, and Glaister M. The influence of familiarization on
28 the reliability of force variables measured during unloaded and loaded vertical jumps.
29 J. Strength Cond. Res 19: 140-145, 2005.
30
31
32 30. Newton RU, Kraemer WJ, Hakkinen K, Humphries BJ, and Murphy AJ.
33 Kinematics, kinetics and muscle activation during explosive upper body movements.
34 J. Appl Biomech 12: 31-43, 1996.
35
36
37 31. Powers ME. Vertical jump training for volleyball. Strength Cond. J 18: 18-23,
38 1996.
39
40 32. Rhea MR, Peterson MD, Lunt KT, and Ayllon FN. The effectiveness of resisted
41
42
jump training on the vertimax in high school athletes. J. Strength Cond. Res 22: 731-
43 734, 2008.
44
45 33. Saéz-Saez De Villarreal E, Kellis E, Kraemer WJ, and Izquierdo M. Determining
46
variables of plyometric training for improving vertical jump height performance: A
47
48 meta-analysis. J. Strength Cond. Res 23: 495-506, 2009.
49
50 34. Schuna JM, andChristensen BK. The jump squat: Free weight barbell, smith
51 machine, or dumbbells? Strength Cond. J 32: 38-41, 2010.
52
53
54 35. Sleivert G, andTaingahue M. The relationship between maximal jump-squat
55 power and sprint acceleration in athletes. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol 91: 46-52, 2004.
56
57
36. Stone MH, O'Bryant HS, McCoy L, Coglianese R, Lehmkuhl M, and Schilling B.
58
59 Power and maximum strength relationships during performance of dynamic and static
60 weighted jumps. J. Strength Cond. Res 17: 140-147, 2003.
61
62
63
64
65
 37. Swinton PA, Stewart A, Agouris I, Keogh JWL, and Lloyd R. A biomechanical
1 analysis of straight and hexagonal barbell deadlifts using submaximal loads. J.
2 Strength Cond. Res, In press.
3
4
5 38. Thomas GA, Kraemer WJ, Spiering BA, Volek JS, Anderson JM, and Maresh
6 CM. Maximal power at different percentages of one repetition maximum: Influence of
7 resistance and gender. J. Strength Cond. Res 21: 336-342, 2007.
8
9
10 39. Vanrenterghem J, Lees A, and Clercq DD. Effect of forward trunk inclination on
11 joint power output in vertical jumping. J. Strength Cond. Res 22: 708-714, 2008.
12
13 40. Wretenberg P, Feng, Y, and Arborelius U. High- and low-bar squatting techniques
14
15 during weight-training. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc 28: 218-224, 1996.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
Table

Table 1. Kinematic and kinetic data (mean SD) for unloaded (0%1RM) and weighted jumps
performed with 20, 40 and 60% of squat 1RM. SBJ = straight barbell jump. HBJ = hexagonal
barbell jump. # Significant (p < 0.05) difference between unloaded and SBJ. † Significant (p < 0.05)
difference between unloaded and HBJ. * Significant (p < 0.05) difference between SBJ and HBJ
for corresponding load.

Variable 0% 1RM Weighted 20% 1RM 40% 1RM 60% 1RM

Jump Type
Average Force 1508 148# † SBJ 1853 214 2064 204 2291 201
(N) HBJ 1866 164 2069 171 2326 163

Peak Force 1967 202# † SBJ 2243 252* 2509 233* 2726 208*
(N) HBJ 2353 213 2689 252 2945 232

Average Velocity 1.51 0.10# † SBJ 1.23 0.12 0.98 0.13 0.87 0.15
(ms-1) HBJ 1.33 0.11 1.03 0.12 0.87 0.07

Peak Velocity 2.79 0.18# † SBJ 2.28 0.17* 1.94 0.20 1.73 0.21*
(ms-1) HBJ 2.39 0.18 1.99 0.16 1.76 0.10

Average Power 2144 191# SBJ 1994 224* 1857 286 1590 356
(W) HBJ 2158 307 2041 279 1623 202

Peak Power 4324 301# SBJ 4091 438* 4065 508 3789 542
(W) HBJ 4606 510 4386 544 3831 345

PRFD 6856 824# SBJ 4849 1218* 4695 924* 5085 917*
(Ns-1) HBJ 6723 1324 6582 1047 6751 968
Figure
Click here to download high resolution image
Figure
Click here to download high resolution image
Figure
Click here to download high resolution image
Figure
Click here to download high resolution image
Figure