THE EFFECT OF SHORT-TERM VERTIMAX VS.
DEPTH
JUMP TRAINING ON VERTICAL JUMP PERFORMANCE
LAKEYSHA S. MCCLENTON, LEE E. BROWN, JARED W. COBURN,
Human Performance Laboratory, California State University, Fullerton, California
ABSTRACT
The ability to generate lower body explosive power is con-
sidered an important factor in many athletic activities. Thirty-one
men and women, recreationally trained volunteers, were ran-
domly assigned to 3 different groups (control, n = 10; VertiMax,
n = 11; and depth jump, n = 10). A Vertec measuring device
was used to test vertical jump height pre- and post-training. All
subjects trained twice weekly for 6 weeks, performing approx-
imately 140 jumps. The VertiMax group increased elastic resis-
tance and decreased volume each week, while the depth jump
group increased both box height and volume each week. The
depth jump group significantly increased their vertical jump
height (pre: 20.5 6 3.98; post: 22.65 6 4.09), while the
VertiMax (pre: 22.18 6 4.31; post: 23.36 6 4.06) and control
groups (pre: 15.65 6 4.51; post: 15.85 6 4.17) did not
change. These findings suggest that, within the volume and
intensity constraints of this study, depth jump training twice
weekly for 6 weeks is more beneficial than VertiMax jump
training for increasing vertical jump height. Strength profes-
sionals should focus on depth jump exercises in the short term
over commercially available devices to improve vertical jump
performance.
KEY WORDS plyometric, stretch shorten, amortization
INTRODUCTION
T
he ability to generate lower body explosive power
can be considered an important factor in many
athletic activities. Speed-strength, also known as
power, is crucial for the performance of different
sports actions especially those involving changes in direction,
accelerations, jumping, and sprinting (10). Vertical jump per-
formance is considered an effective field evaluation of lower
body power because the height of the jump correlates sig-
nificantly with maximal power relative to body mass (W
kg21)
(18,19). Also, training that uses jumping movements has been
Address correspondence to Lee E. Brown, leebrown@fullerton.edu.
22(2)/321–325
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Ó 2008 National Strength and Conditioning Association
AND ROBERT D. KERSEY
shown to produce significant gains in lower body muscle
power (13,22).
The VertiMax, a jump training apparatus using rubber
bands, would appear to improve lower body power and
vertical jump performance. Although this jump training
modality has shown improvements anecdotally, no con-
trolled studies have been performed to determine its effec-
tiveness. The jump trainer features a 6 3 6-ft platform on
which an athlete may perform 1 and 2 foot sport–specific
movements. Four elastic cords retract down through the
platform and coil around pulleys located underneath the
platform. The VertiMax includes a belt that the athlete must
wear around the midsection of their bodies while training.
When the belt is in its proper space, the athlete can strap 2 or
all 4 cords to the belt for the desired level of resistance. Due to
the pulley system, nonvarying force is applied throughout the
entire jumping movement. A more traditional form of train-
ing to improve the production of lower body power is
plyometrics.
The most widespread approach to exercise prescription in
resistance training is based on the concept of specificity (15).
The universal thought in this theory holds that exercises
should replicate a movement as closely as possible in the type
of muscle action and contraction forces (3,6,11,15). This
theory postulates that muscles should be taught to work
(neuromotor learning) in training to improve power pro-
duction in competition.
Plyometrics are used to improve lower body power and
increase explosiveness by training the muscle to do more
work in a shorter time (10). This has been accomplished by
optimizing the stretch-shortening cycle, which occurs when
the active muscle switches from a rapid eccentric muscle
action (deceleration) to a rapid concentric muscle action
(acceleration) (10,12). The rapid eccentric movement creates
a stretch reflex producing a more forceful concentric muscle
action than could otherwise be generated from a resting
position (14). Therefore, the faster the muscle is stretched,
the greater the force produced, and the more powerful
the muscle action (20). Plyometric exercises that exploit the
stretch-shortening cycle have been shown to enhance
the performance of the concentric phase of the movement
(8) and increase power. Traditionally, plyometric exercises
include variations of bounding, hopping, and jumping
drills. However, true plyometric training requires the rapid
VOLUME 22 | NUMBER 2 | MARCH 2008 | 321
VertiMax vs. Depth Jump Training
prestretch (eccentric muscle action) of the muscle and
maximal effort of the athlete during the concentric muscle
action. This type of plyometric training can be in various
forms of depth jumps and box jumps (12).
This investigation attempted to determine the most
effective form of jump training to increase vertical jump
performance as well as expand current knowledge by pro-
viding insight into new training techniques being used in the
field. The focus of this study was short-term training only. The
program discussed here might be applicable to the power
phase of a periodized training program. Since box jumps and
VertiMax are both plyometric exercises, when done with
proper technique and effort, both movements should have
positive effects on the stretch-shortening cycle and result in an
increase in lower body power and improved vertical jump.
Therefore, the purpose of this study was to compare the
effects of a twice-weekly, 6-week depth jump training pro-
gram vs. a VertiMax basic training program.
METHODS
Experimental Approach to the Problem
To measure the effects of VertiMax jump training vs. depth
jump training on vertical jump performance, men and women
kinesiology college students were randomly assigned to 3
different groups (control, VertiMax, and depth jump) with the
VertiMax and depth jump groups participating in a 6-week
training program with almost identical volumes.
Subjects
Thirty-one men and women, recreationally trained kinesiol-
ogy students, gave written informed consent to participate in
this study. The subjects were not currently athletes and were
asked to not take part in any other plyometric or jump training
program or lower body strength training while participating
in this study. There was no significant difference in any
demographic measure between the 3 groups before testing
(Table 1).
Procedures
Each subject was measured for vertical jump height both pre-
and post-training. Pre-testing was conducted the week prior
to the initiation of training. Subjects were instructed to refrain
from exercise for 48 hours prior to testing. The pre- and
posttest procedures all followed the same routine with
TABLE 1. Group demographics (Mean 6 SD).
VertiMax Depth jump
No. 11 (8 men, 3 women) 10 (6 men, 4 women) 10 (6 men, 4 women)
Age, y 22.18 6 2.52 21.3 6 2.0
Height, inches 68.45 6 5.53 68.58 6 3.1
Weight, lbs 160.51 6 22.36 157.16 6 29.47
the TM
322 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
measurement of body weight, then a 5-minute warm-up on
cycle ergometer, then an active-dynamic stretching routine
including forward walking lunges, backward walking lunges
with arms overhead, lateral lunges, Spidermans, Franken-
steins, walking quadriceps stretches, inverted toe touches, and
high knee butt kicks (15 yd of each). Each subject then had
a 5-minute rest period before completing 2 practice vertical
jumps and 3 test jumps.
Vertical jump height was measured by the stand and reach
method using a Vertec (Sports Imports, Columbus, OH).
Subjects completed 3 test jumps with a 30-second recovery
between each jump. If a subject improved their jump height
on the third jump, they were then allowed an additional jump.
The subject’s highest jump was used to quantify lower body
power.
Each group (control, n = 10, with 4 women; VertiMax, n =
11, with 3 women; and depth jump, n = 10, with 4 women)
completed a twice-weekly 6-week training program and the
depth jump group completed a total of 137 jumps, while the
VertiMax group completed 139 jumps. No subject missed
more than 1 training session.
Depth jump subjects began by standing on a 50-cm
plyometric box and were instructed to lead with 1 foot as
they stepped down from the box and land with 2 feet on
the ground. Instantly upon ground contact, subjects were
instructed to ‘‘explode’’ off the ground by jumping as quickly
and as high as possible. The volume began low and increased
every week to accommodate training adaptations as well as
increases in the plyometric box height (Table 2). The plyo-
metric box height began at 50 cm and increased by 10 cm
every week until the sixth week at 100 cm.
The VertiMax (Model V6, Genetic Potential, Tampa, FL)
group training followed an altered basic training program. The
manufacturer suggests a cord intensity that will not signifi-
cantly alter jumping and landing kinematics. The manufac-
turer defines 3 jumps: quarter quick jumps in which the subject
has resistance and dips until the thigh is 45° to the horizontal
and then explodes upward with no pause between reps, squat
jumps in which the subject has resistance and squats until the
thighs are parallel with the floor and then explodes upward
with a pause and reset between reps, and contrast jumps in
which the subject performs multiple squat jumps with no
resistance but a pause between reps. Resistance (through the
use of the elastic cords) was
increased 3 lb each week from
0 to 15 while volume was
decreased each week (Table 2).
Control
Statistical Analyses
A 3-way mixed-factor repeated-
21.5 6 1.72 measures analysis of variance
66.58 6 4.44 (ANOVA) [2 (times) 3 2 (gen-
168.04 6 43.63
ders) 3 3 (groups)] was used to
determine statistical differences
between the 3 groups. The
 the TM

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca-jscr.org

TABLE 2. Jump training programs.

Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 Week 6

Depth jump (137-ft contacts)

Sets 3 repetitions 234 335 336 436 438 4 3 10
Box height, cm 50 60 70 80 90 100
VertiMax (139-ft contacts)
Squat jump 238 236 138 136 135 134
Quarter quick 238 236 138 136 135 134
Contrast 138 136 138 136 135 134
Resistance, lb 0 3 6 9 12 15

purpose was to ascertain whether vertical jump performance
changed as a function of 2 different interventions when com-
pared to each other and a control group and whether there
was an effect for gender. Significant interactions were fol-
lowed up by simple 1-way ANOVAs to determine the result of
interest. A priori a was set at 0.05.
RESULTS
SPSS 14.0 was used to perform the vertical jump height
statistical analysis, which included a 2 3 2 3 3 (time 3 sex 3
group), 3-way mixed-factor repeated-measures ANOVA.
There were no 3-way interactions; however, there was a
2-way interaction of time 3 group. This was followed up by
3 simple ANOVAs for time for each group. Results demo-
nstrated that the depth jump group significantly (P , 0.05)
increased their vertical jump (pre: 20.5 6 3.98; post: 22.65 6
4.09) while the VertiMax group (pre: 22.18 6 4.31; post: 23.36 6
4.06) and control group (pre: 15.65 6 4.51; post: 15.85 6 4.17)
did not change (Figure 1). Re-
liability analysis resulted in an
intraclass correlation coefficient
of 0.97 for the control subjects
between pre- and post testing.
height by approximately 2 in. (;11%), whereas the VertiMax
and control groups demonstrated no significant change.
The use of plyometrics has been advocated for many years
for improving athletic performance, especially in sports that
require speed and jumping (2). During a plyometric exercise,
the muscles undergo a very rapid stretch during the eccentric
muscle action. This stretch-shortening cycle increases elastic
energy, allowing for more power production. The stored
elastic energy and stretch reflex response of muscles are
essentially exploited in this manner, permitting more force to
be produced by the muscle during the concentric muscle
action (17). This only occurs when the time between the
eccentric and concentric actions is very short (amortization
time). Training programs that have used plyometric exercises
have been shown to positively affect performance in power-
related movements such as jumping and speed (2,8,10,20).
In the present study, improvements were seen in vertical
jump height, which support these studies.

DISCUSSION
This study was designed to
determine which short-term
training program (VertiMax vs.
depth jump) was more effective
in increasing vertical jump.
VertiMax is a new and unin-
vestigated training device con-
sisting of a platform and elastic
cords attached to the subject’s
waist. The results of the pre-
sent study demonstrated that a
twice-weekly 6-week program Figure 1. Vertical jump pre- and posttest scores between groups. A significant increase in vertical jump ability was
of depth jump training signifi- demonstrated only by the depth jump training group. *P , 0.05.
cantly increased vertical jump

VOLUME 22 | NUMBER 2 | MARCH 2008 | 323

VertiMax vs. Depth Jump Training
Improved muscle performance due to a plyometric training
program may be due in part to increased motor unit func-
tioning. Previous studies have indicated that neuromuscular
adaptations such as increased inhibition of antagonist muscles
as well as activation and cocontraction of synergistic muscles
may account for the improvements in increased vertical jump
heights (5,7,12,22). This may partially explain the differences
observed in the posttest measurements between the groups
in our study. Only the depth jump training group demo-
nstrated an improvement in vertical jumping height.
It is possible the VertiMax training group did not demo-
nstrate improvements because the training apparatus in-
creased amortization time due to the rubber band setup. Due
to the rubber bands, subjects may have spent slightly longer
time on the platform between jumps. This would be
contradictory training to the actual plyometric jump training,
which is trying to decrease the amortization time. Although
subjects were encouraged to be quick off the ground, it was
difficult at times, possibly due to the resistance created by the
rubber band setup.
In previous studies involving vertical jump, static stretching
was optional, mandatory, or not used at all. Stretching has
traditionally been incorporated into warm-up routines to
prepare muscles for activity, enhance performance, or prevent
injuries (9). However, research points to the negative acute
effects of stretching on force production, musculotendinous
stiffness, and reflex sensitivity (1,16,21). The mechanism
responsible for these effects have not been fully elucidated.
However, some researchers have shown that these negative,
acute effects may result in decreased vertical jump height.
In the present study, a dynamic warm-up was used before
the pre- and post-tests as well as before each training session.
No research studies investigating plyometrics could be found
that used dynamic warm-up before jumping. Active warm-
ups have been shown to improve coordination, flexibility,
balance, and range of motion without the negative effects of
static stretching prior to physical activity (4). Our results are
unable to specify whether the active warm-up had a positive
or negative effect on vertical jumping height.
The total volume for each program was equal by con-
trolling the total number of jumps performed in each jump
training session. Although the total volume was accounted
for, equating the intensity levels proved more difficult. Both
training programs required maximal effort with each jump.
However, the perception of maximal effort is subjective.
Verbal encouragement was used in an attempt to ensure max-
imal effort from every participant throughout the entire
duration of the program, but objective measurements of
maximal efforts were prohibitive.
It should be noted that although the VertiMax training
group improvement was not significant, it approached
statistical significance. It is possible that, if the present study
had a larger sample size or trained for a longer duration, the
VertiMax training group might have shown a significant
improvement. However, the number of subjects and training
the TM
324 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
duration were sufficient to demonstrate an improvement in
the depth jump group. Even more significant is that this study
used only recreationally trained subjects and therefore could
have expected almost any training program to produce
increased results. However, only the depth jump group
demonstrated improvement. It should also be noted that
subjects were instructed not to perform any plyometrics
outside the study and to refrain from lower body strength
training. We assume that subjects continued their normal
physical activities of upper body strength training and aerobic
activity following the given instructions.
This study was unique in that it is one of the first studies to
identify which training program was more effective in
improving vertical jump height. This study suggests that
the depth jump training was the more effective training
program by demonstrating a greater increase in vertical jump
height from pre- to post-test.
PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS
This information may assist strength and conditioning
professionals in program design for athletes or individuals
who desire to improve their lower body explosive power in
a very short time as in the power phase of their periodized
program immediately preceding the season. A twice-weekly
6-week plyometric program involving depth jumps with
varying volume and intensity appears to be more effective
than the VertiMax training device with equal number of foot
contacts.
REFERENCES
1. Avela, J, Kyrolainen, H, and Komi, PV. Altered reflex sensitivity after
repeated and prolonged passive muscle stretching. J Appl Physiol
86: 1283–1291, 1999.
2. Brown, M, Mayhew, J, and Boleach, L. Effect of plyometric training
on vertical jump performance in high school basketball players.
J Sports Med Phys Fitness 26: 1–4, 1986.
3. Canavan, PK, Garret, GE, and Armstrong, LE. Kinematics and
kinetic relationship between an Olympic style lift and the vertical
jump. J Strength Cond Res 10: 127–130, 1996.
4. Church, JB, Wiggins, MS, Moode, FM, and Christ, R. Effects of
warm up and flexibility treatments on vertical jump performance.
J Strength Cond Res 15: 332–336, 2001.
5. Cronin, JB, McNair, PJ, and Marshall, RN. The role of maximal
strength and load on initial power production. Med Sci Sports Exerc
32: 1763–1769, 2000.
6. Edgerton, VR. Neuromuscular adaptation to power and endurance
work. Can J Appl Sport Sci 1: 49–58, 1976.
7. Garhammer, J and Gregor, R. Propulsion forces as a function of
intensity for weightlifting and vertical jumping. J Appl Sports Sci Res
6: 129–134, 1992.
8. Gehri, DJ, Ricard, MD, Kleiner, DM, and Kirkendall, DT.
A comparison of plyometric training techniques for improving
vertical jump ability and energy production. J Strength Cond Res
12: 85–89, 1998.
9. Gleim, GW and McHugh, MP. Flexibility and its effects on sports
injury and performance. J Sports Med 24: 289–299, 1997.
10. Holcomb, WR, Lander, JE, Rutland, RM, and Wilson, G. The
effectiveness of a modified plyometric program on power and the
vertical jump. J Strength Cond Res 10: 89–92, 1996.

11. Hydock, D. The weightlifting pull in power development. Strength
Cond J 23: 32–37, 2001.
12. Lachance, PF. Plyometric exercises. Strength Cond 8: 16–23, 1995.
13. Paavolainen, L, Häkkinen, K, Hamalainen, I, Nummela, A, and
Rusko, H. Explosive-strength training improves 5KM running time
by improving running economy and muscle power. J Appl Physiol
86: 1527–1533, 1999.
14. Potteiger, JA, Lockwood, RH, Haub, MD, Dolezal, BA, Alumzarin,
KS, Schroeder, J, and Zebas, CJ. Muscle power and fiber
characteristics following 8 weeks of plyometric training. J Strength
Cond Res 13: 275–279, 1999.
15. Sale, D and MacDougall, D. Specificity in strength training: a review
for the coach and athlete. Can J Sport Sci 2: 87–92, 1981.
16. Schilling, BK and Stone, MH. Stretching: acute effects on strength
and power performance. Strength Cond J 22: 44–47, 2001.
17. Stone, MH. Explosive exercise and training. Strength Cond 15:
7–15, 1993.
the TM
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca-jscr.org
18. Thomas, CK, Fiatarone, MA, and Fielding, RA. Leg power in young
women: relationship to body composition, strength and function.
Med Sci Sports Exerc 28: 1321–1326, 1996.
19. Vanderwalle, H, Peres, G, Heller, J, and Monod, H. Force velocity
relationship and maximal power on a cycle ergometer. Correlation
with the height of a vertical jump. Eur J Appl Physiol Scand 11: 87–95,
1981.
20. Wagner, DR and Kocak, MS. A multivariate approach to assessing
anaerobic power following a plyometric training program. J Strength
Cond Res 11: 251–255, 1997.
21. Wilson, GJ, Elliot, BC, and Wood, GA. Stretch shortening cycle
performance enhancement through flexibility training. Med Sci Sports
Exerc 24: 116–123, 1992.
22. Young, WB and Bilby, GE. The effect of voluntary effort to
influence speed contraction on strength, muscular power
and hypertrophy development. J Strength Cond Res 7: 172–178,
1993.
VOLUME 22 | NUMBER 2 | MARCH 2008 | 325