International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, 2014, 9, 993-999

http://dx.doi.org/10.1123/ijspp.2013-0486
© 2014 Human Kinetics, Inc.
www.IJSPP-Journal.com
ORIGINAL INVESTIGATION

Jumping and Hopping in Elite and Amateur Orienteering Athletes

and Correlations to Sprinting and Running
Kim Hébert-Losier, Kurt Jensen, and Hans-Christer Holmberg

Purpose: Jumping and hopping are used to measure lower-body muscle power, stiffness, and stretch-shortening-cycle utilization
in sports, with several studies reporting correlations between such measures and sprinting and/or running abilities in athletes.
Neither jumping and hopping nor correlations with sprinting and/or running have been examined in orienteering athletes. Methods:
The authors investigated squat jump (SJ), countermovement jump (CMJ), standing long jump (SLJ), and hopping performed by 8
elite and 8 amateur male foot-orienteering athletes (29 ± 7 y, 183 ± 5 cm, 73 ± 7 kg) and possible correlations to road, path, and
forest running and sprinting performance, as well as running economy, velocity at anaerobic threshold, and peak oxygen uptake
(VO2peak) from treadmill assessments. Results: During SJs and CMJs, elites demonstrated superior relative peak forces, times
to peak force, and prestretch augmentation, albeit lower SJ heights and peak powers. Between-groups differences were unclear
for CMJ heights, hopping stiffness, and most SLJ parameters. Large pairwise correlations were observed between relative peak
and time to peak forces and sprinting velocities; time to peak forces and running velocities; and prestretch augmentation and
forest-running velocities. Prestretch augmentation and time to peak forces were moderately correlated to VO2peak. Correlations
between running economy and jumping or hopping were small or trivial. Conclusions: Overall, the elites exhibited superior
stretch-shortening-cycle utilization and rapid generation of high relative maximal forces, especially vertically. These functional
measures were more closely related to sprinting and/or running abilities, indicating benefits of lower-body training in orienteering.

Keywords: athletic performance, foot orienteering, jump tests, off-road running, stiffness

Jump tests are used in several sports to assess lower-body
muscle power,1 vertical stiffness,2 and stretch-shortening-cycle
utilization,3 with jump performance often correlating with or
predicting individual sprinting and/or running abilities.1,4–6 More
precisely, horizontal- and vertical-jump distances of physically
active individuals are strongly correlated with their 20-m-sprint
times,4 and peak CMJ forces strongly predict maximal 10-m-sprint
velocities of track and field athletes.6 Peak CMJ forces5 and leg
stiffness1,5 also exhibit strong relationships with running economy
(RE).
In foot orienteering, athletes navigate an unmarked course
using a map and compass, running rapidly on varied terrain. Elite
orienteers demonstrate a high peak aerobic power,7 distinct abil-
ity to run on steep inclines,8,9 and efficient running on difficult
terrain.10,11 Accordingly, jump assessment in orienteering should
show large correlations with the running performance of athletes,
such as demonstrated in other sports involving running. However,
to our knowledge, the current literature lacks such evidence for the
sport of orienteering.
Since orienteering requires jumping over obstacles, running
uphill and downhill, and responding to rapid changes in surfaces,
the ability of the lower body to store and release elastic energy
effectively—in combination with adequate levels of muscle strength,
power, and endurance12—may also contribute to outstanding
orienteering performance. In other sports, jumping and hopping
Hébert-Losier and Holmberg are with the Dept of Health Sciences, Mid
Sweden University, Östersund, Sweden. Jensen is with the Inst of Sports
Science and Clinical Biomechanics, University of Southern Denmark,
Odense, Denmark. Address author correspondence to Kim Hébert-Losier
at kim.hebert-losier@miun.se.
assessments can clearly differentiate between athletes with distinct
abilities,2,3 for example, greater CMJ heights in sprinters than in
endurance runners.3 Thus, jumping performances in elite orienteer-
ing athletes could also differ from amateurs, for example, greater
prestretch augmentation underlining a better functional use of the
stretch-shortening cycle. However, these assumptions are yet to
be verified.
Furthermore, the ranking of an orienteer during competition
can be determined by a short, rapid sprint (eg, at the beginning of
a mass start or during the final stretch toward the finish). Thus,
short-distance sprints with rapid accelerations are highly pertinent
in competitive orienteering. Currently, studies in this area typically
involve 1.5- to 10-km distances,10,11 which might explain the lack
of studies examining correlations between jumping and sprinting
in orienteering, although such correlations have been reported in
several other sports.4,6,13 Such information in orienteering might
highlight desirable characteristics for athletes and assist in indi-
vidualizing training programs.
With these considerations, the aims of the current investiga-
tion were twofold. The first was to compare jumping and hopping
performances between elite and amateur orienteer athletes, and the
second was to investigate pairwise correlations between jumping
and hopping, and sprinting and running performance. On the basis
of previous findings from other sport disciplines, we hypothesized
that the jump performance of elite orienteer athletes would differ
from that of amateurs, with noticeable differences in vertical- and
horizontal-jump heights and distances, peak forces, and stretch-
shortening-cycle utilization. We anticipated large correlations
between jumping and hopping, and sprinting and running, especially
between peak countermovement forces and sprinting velocities, as
well as between vertical stiffness and RE.

993
 994  Hébert-Losier, Jensen, and Holmberg
Methods
Subjects
Eight elite (mean ± SD age 27.1 ± 5.4 y, height 183.1 ± 6.3 cm, mass
71.9 ± 6.0 kg) and 8 amateur (31.1 ± 8.9 y, 183.0 ± 4.1 cm, 73.8
± 8.6 kg) male orienteer athletes provided their written informed
consent before participating in this study. The elites ran ~10.5 h/
wk (40% road, 35% path, 25% forest) and were all contenders for
the Swedish National Orienteering Team. The amateurs ran ~3.5
h/wk (25% road, 45% path, 30% forest) and were all members of
a local recreational orienteering club.
The RE and peak aerobic power of subjects had recently (<1
mo) been tested while they ran on a treadmill according to standard
incremental protocols.11 Briefly, the RE test involved series (3–6)
of submaximal 4-minute runs with 1-minute rest periods using a
0% treadmill incline and increase in velocity of 1 km/h with each
step. The attainment of a blood lactate concentration of at least 4
Downloaded by University of Iowa Libraries on 09/17/16, Volume 9, Article Number 6
mmol/L at the end of a step was used to define the running veloc-
ity at anaerobic threshold (vAT). To assess peak aerobic power, an
incremental treadmill-incline protocol was used starting with a 0%
incline. After 2 minutes, this incline was increased by 2% and then
by a further 2% every 90 seconds until exhaustion. Based on the RE
test, the starting velocity was set so that each individual should be
exhausted after 4 to 6 minutes.11 For the elites and amateurs, these
velocities were 19.4 ± 0.5 km/h and 15.4 ± 0.7 km/h, and the actual
times to exhaustion were 5 minutes 50 seconds ± 58 seconds and
5 minutes 24 seconds ± 72 seconds, respectively.
For the respiratory measurements, a Douglas-bag system was
used to collect expiratory gas continuously during the last minute
of each step of the RE test and the last 2 to 3 minutes of the maxi-
mal test using sampling times from 30 to 45 seconds. Heart rates
were recorded continuously using a FS1-model heart-rate monitor
from Polar Electro Oy (Kempele, Finland), and blood lactate con-
centrations were measured within 60 seconds of each step of the
RE test using a Biosen Sport C-Line blood-lactate analyzer (EKF-
Diagnostic GmbH, Magdeburg, Germany) via 25-μL samples taken
from a fingertip. The RE at 15 km/h (RE15km/h), vAT, and peak oxygen
uptake (VO2peak) of elites were 185.1 ± 8.7 mL · kg–1 · km–1, 18.6
± 0.5 km/h, and 69.1 ± 2.6 mL · kg–1 · min–1, respectively. The cor-
responding values in amateurs were 201.4 ± 5.5 mL · kg–1 · km–1,
15.0 ± 0.8 km/h, and 55.4 ± 3.1 mL · kg–1 · min–1. In both groups,
the peak heart rate was 188 ± 6 beats/min.
Design
A repeated-measures design was employed that required subjects to
attend 3 experimental sessions, 2 to 3 weeks apart, with the first 2 in
the field and the third in a laboratory. All sessions were completed
after the competitive orienteering season, with preapproval from
the regional ethical review board (Umeå, Sweden) and adherence
to the latest amendments of the Declaration of Helsinki.
The 2-km Runs
After a warm-up including 20 minutes of light running, short sprints,
brief accelerations, and self-selected dynamic stretches, each subject
ran one 2-km course each on a road, on a path, and in a forest as
fast as possible. Each 2-km course was relatively flat (total climb
~10 m), considered “easy” in terms of orienteering, delimited by
brightly colored tape, randomized, and separated by 10-minute light-
running recovery. To improve reproducibility of measures,14 subjects
performed a familiarization run on these 2-km courses in training
the week before data collection. Acceptable reproducibility of time
trials run off-road 7 days apart (ie, CV 2.3%) has been reported
previously after initial familiarization with such time trials.14
Data-collection sessions were completed at 6 PM on a weekday
with temperatures from 10°C to 12°C, overcast skies, and light
precipitation. Each subject wore a global positioning system with
a heart-rate monitor (Garmin Forerunner 305, Garmin International
Inc, Olathe, KS, USA) sampling at 1 Hz. These data were extracted
using QuickRoute Software version 2.3 (freely available for down-
load at http://www.matstroeng.se/quickroute/en/index.php) and used
to determine the mean velocity (total distance divided by time, in
m/s) and heart rate (normalized to peak heart rate, in %) for each
2-km course. Respiratory measurements were not collected during
the field test because of lack of access to a portable gas-exchange
analyzer.
The 20-m Sprints
After a 10-minute warm-up similar to the 20-minute one described
for the 2-km runs, each subject sprinted 3 × 20 m as fast as possible,
once on a road, once on a path, and once in a forest, to assess the
running velocity during the acceleration phase of sprint running.
Each sprint was on a level surface and followed by 2-minute walk-
ing recovery. Each set of 3 × 20-m sprints was randomized, with 5
m to minor the effect of the initial steps toward sprint acceleration
and over 10 m for deceleration. High levels of reproducibility of
20-m-sprint performance (ie, CV 1.9% across 5 sessions) have been
reported, without need for familiarization.15
Sprints were completed during 1 weekend with temperatures
from 7°C to 11°C, clear skies, and no precipitation. An equal number
of elites and amateurs were tested in the morning and afternoon.
Sprint times were recorded using a timing-gate system (MuscleLab
version 8, Ergotest Innovation AS, Porsgrunn, Norway) with paired
photoelectric sensors (model WL170-N132, SICK AG, Waldkirch,
Germany) placed on 1-m-high tripods at the start and end of each
sprint. Sprint times were converted to velocities (m/s), with the
quickest sprint on each surface subsequently analyzed. Subjects
were asked to wear their usual running shoes during all running
trials, using the same footwear in the 20-m sprints, 2-km runs, and
treadmill testing procedures.
The Jumping and Hopping Tests
Standard familiarization and testing methods were employed to
assess jumping16 and hopping,17 which have been described in
detail previously16,17 and therefore only summarized here. At the
laboratory, each subject watched a video that visually demonstrated
and verbally described the proper performance of the jumping and
hopping tests. Subjects then performed a light-intensity 5-minute
warm-up running on a treadmill (model RL 2500E, Rodby Innova-
tion AB, Vänge, Sweden), practiced the jumping and hopping tests
under the supervision and guidance of the principle investigator,
and took a 2-minute rest before testing.
A calibrated force plate (Kistler, Winterthur, Switzerland)
sampled ground-reaction forces at 1000 Hz during jumps and hops
using MARS version 1.0.3 (S2P Ltd., Ljubljana, Slovenia) and built-
in modules for squat jump (SJ), CMJ, standing long jump (SLJ),
and repetitive hopping (HOP). Subjects completed 3 trials of each
task interspersed by 2 minutes of rest, zeroing the force plate before
each trial. Since footwear can influence the human–ground inter-
actions during ground contact18 and jump performance,19 subjects
were barefoot with hands on hips, feet shoulder width apart, and

eyes directed forward in all jumping and hopping trials. If subjects
failed to perform a trial adequately (eg, hands were not maintained
on hips), it was replaced with another trial after a 2-minute rest.
For SJs, subjects jumped (vertically) as high as possible from
a static squat position with the hips and knees flexed to ~90° (ie,
180° being upright stance with the trunk, femur, and tibia aligned).
For CMJs, subjects jumped (vertically) as high as possible from
erect standing using a prior downward countermovement motion.
In both cases, subjects were told to land in a position similar to
takeoff (ie, with the knees straight and the ankles plantar flexed).
For SLJs, subjects jumped (horizontally) forward as far as possible
from an erect standing position, using a prior countermovement and
without falling backward on landing. No particular specifications
were provided regarding the depth or velocity of all countermove-
ment motions.
The single jumps with the greatest vertical SJ height (hSJ, in
cm), vertical CMJ height (hCMJ, in cm), and horizontal displacement
of the center of gravity during SLJ (dSLJ, in cm) were identified using
Downloaded by University of Iowa Libraries on 09/17/16, Volume 9, Article Number 6
MARS based on the takeoff velocities. The peak force relative to
body weight (fpeak, in % BW), peak power relative to body weight
(ppeak, in W/kg), and time to peak force (tpeak, in s) associated with
these jumps were extracted. The prestretch augmentation (PSA, in
%) was computed according to Walshe et al20 using the equation
(hCMJ – hSJ)/hSJ.
For HOPs, subjects hopped (vertically) first on both legs, then
once on the right and once on the left in randomized right-to-left
order. They were instructed to act as springs during hopping, keep
their knees straight, land in a position similar to takeoff (ie, with
the ankles plantar flexed), keep in pace with a metronome, and
minimize ground contact during hops to limit secondary move-
ments in other joints. Each trial consisted of 33 successive hops
performed at 2.2 Hz indicated audibly by the TempoPerfect© v. 2.02
computerized metronome (NCH Software, Canberra, Australia).
The ground-reaction-force data extracted by MARS were treated
in MATLAB (The MatWorks, Inc, Natick, MA, USA), converting
the force curves to vertical accelerations using the subjects’ mass
and gravitational acceleration (g = 9.82 m/s2).17 Acceleration curves
were then integrated twice to yield velocities and positions using
central difference expressions, evaluating velocities (v) halfway
between accelerations (a) and positions (p) with a time step of Δτ =
0.001 second. The initial position and velocity integration constants
were defined stating a zero vertical position of the center of mass
at initial ground contact and takeoff, respectively.
Leg stiffness (k) was computed as the ratio between the
maximal vertical upward ground-reaction force (fmax) and maximal
vertical downward displacement of the center of mass (pmax) during
ground contact as k = fmax/pmax. Stiffness was calculated from each
of the 33 hops, sorted in an ascending order, and the mean of the
medial 22 of the 33 values extracted to provide a unique k value
from the 2-leg (kboth), right-leg (kright), and left-leg (kleft) trials.17 All
jump and hop variables derived here have demonstrated generally
acceptable between-days reproducibility,16 with an average CV of
8.5% (range 3.3–19.1%), with tpeak showing the highest CV.
Data Analysis
Mean ± SD were computed for all variables to describe the data. To
limit bias arising from nonuniformity of error,21 log-transformed
values (except for the PSA, which contained negative numbers and
could not be log-transformed) were used during analysis. No P-value
statistics were calculated considering the inherent limitations linked
to significance testing and their dependencies on sample size.22
Jumping and Running in Orienteering   995
Instead, between-groups comparisons of means were performed
using a modified statistical spreadsheet and inferential statistics
that emphasize precision of estimation rather than null-hypothesis
testing.23
Magnitude-based inferential statistics were calculated using
appropriate between-subjects SD values, with 0.20 of these standard
deviations indicating the smallest worthwhile difference in means.24
Magnitudes of the standardized effects (ES) were interpreted using
thresholds of 0.2, 0.6, 1.2, and 2.0 for small, moderate, large, and
very large differences, respectively.21 ESs between –0.19 and 0.19
were considered trivial. The chance that the true value of the ES
was practically meaningful was evaluated qualitatively as follows:
<1%, almost certainly not; 1% to 5%, very unlikely; >5% to 25%,
unlikely; >25% to 75%, possible; >75% to 95%, likely; >95% to
99%, very likely; >99%, almost certain.23 An effect was deemed
clear if its confidence interval did not overlap the thresholds for
small positive and small negative effects (ie, 5%).
Finally, pairwise correlations between jumping and hopping
variables and those from the 20-m sprints, 2-km runs, and baseline
values for RE15km/h, vAT, and VO2peak were examined using Pearson
product–moment correlation coefficients (r). Magnitudes of r were
interpreted using thresholds of .1, .3, .5, and .7 for small, moderate,
large, and very large correlations, respectively.21 All data processing
and analyses were performed using Microsoft Excel 2010 (Microsoft
Corp, Redmond, WA, USA).
Results
Table 1 summarizes jumping and hopping variables and results
from the between-groups comparison of means. Overall, moderate
and clear between-groups differences were observed in SJ and CMJ
performances. Despite moderately lower hSJ, possibly smaller hCMJ,
and possibly to likely lower ppeak, the elites exhibited greater PSA,
higher fpeak, and shorter tpeak in these 2 vertical-jump tests. With
the exception of a moderately shorter tpeak in elites during SLJs, no
clear between-groups differences were discerned in SLJ and HOP
performance.
Descriptive summaries of sprinting and running performance
are provided in Table 2, and their correlations with jumping and
hopping variables in Table 3. On the 2-km time trials, the mean
heart-rate values recorded were 94% ± 3% of peak heart rate, with
no clear differences between elites and amateurs.
For the most part, the fpeak and tpeak associated with the 3 jumping
tasks exhibited moderate to large correlations with the 20-m-sprint
velocities of subjects, with greater fpeak and shorter tpeak observed
in faster sprinters. The SJ parameters were more closely related to
the forest sprints, while those from the CMJ and SLJ to the road
or path sprints.
Correlations between jumping tests and 2-km-running veloci-
ties were generally weaker, being the largest between the running
velocities and the hSJ, tpeak of the SJ, tpeak of the CMJ, and PSA.
The ppeak parameter showed moderate correlations at best, with
strongest correlations between the 2 vertical ppeak values and the
2-km-running velocities on the path and between the horizontal ppeak
and the 20-m-sprint velocities on the road and on the path. Higher
vertical ppeak was associated with slower 2-km running velocities,
but higher horizontal ppeak with faster 20-m sprints.
With regard to the baseline values acquired on a treadmill, triv-
ial or small correlations were observed between all jump measures
and subjects’ RE15/km. The fpeak and tpeak during the CMJ exhibited
the largest correlations with the vAT, with higher fpeak and shorter
tpeak observed with faster vAT. The tpeak of the SJ, tpeak of the CMJ,
 996  Hébert-Losier, Jensen, and Holmberg

Table 1  Performance of Squat Jump, Countermovement Jump, Standing Long Jump, and Repetitive Hopping by
Elite and Amateur Orienteer Subjects, Mean ± SD
Test Parameter Elite (n = 8) Amateur (n = 8) ES (magnitude) Chance of meaningful difference
Squat jump hSJ (cm) 29.0 ± 5.1 32.5 ± 4.2 0.75 (moderate) 87% (likely, clear)
fpeak (% body weight) 258.1 ± 31.9 232.4 ± 20.5 –0.89 (moderate) 91% (likely, clear)
ppeak (W/kg) 48.6 ± 5.7 51.0 ± 4.3 0.47 (small) 71% (possible, clear)
tpeak (ms) 193 ± 63 243 ± 59 0.80 (moderate) 89% (likely, clear)
Countermovement jump hCMJ (cm) 31.2 ±3.5 32.4 ± 4.4 0.27 (small) 55% (possible, unclear)
fpeak (% body weight) 241.7 ±27.0 224.7 ± 14.0 –0.72 (moderate) 86% (likely, clear)
ppeak (W/kg) 44.8 ±4.9 47.3 ± 3.9 0.53 (small) 75% (likely, unclear)
tpeak (ms) 577 ± 102 662 ± 90 0.87 (moderate) 91% (likely, clear)
(%) 9.2 ± 13.3 -0.3 ± 9.0 –0.78 (moderate) 88% (likely, clear)
Downloaded by University of Iowa Libraries on 09/17/16, Volume 9, Article Number 6

Standing long jump dCOG (cm) 81.1 ± 10.0 82.6 ± 10 0.14 (trivial) 45% (possible, unclear)
fpeak (% body weight) 67.7 ± 6.8 68.7 ± 8.7 0.10 (trivial) 41% (possible, unclear)
ppeak (W/kg) 13.4 ± 2.0 13.6 ± 3.1 0.01 (trivial) 34% (possible, unclear)
tpeak (ms) 738 ± 151 906 ± 240 0.67 (moderate) 83% (likely, clear)
Repetitive hopping kboth (kN/m) 30.5 ± 6.8 30.6 ± 10.1 –0.09 (trivial) 41% (possible, unclear)
kright (kN/m) 18.5 ± 3.0 19.4 ± 4.4 0.15 (trivial) 46% (possible, unclear)
kleft (kN/m) 18.6 ± 2.4 19.5 ± 4.6 0.14 (trivial) 45% (possible, unclear)

Abbreviations: ES, standardized effect; hSJ, vertical-squat-jump height; fpeak, peak force relative to body weight; ppeak, peak power relative to body weight; tpeak, time to
peak force; hCMJ, vertical-countermovement-jump height; PSA, prestretch augmentation; dCOG, horizontal-standing-long-jump displacement of the center of gravity; kboth,
stiffness during hopping on both legs; kright, stiffness during hopping on the right leg; kleft, stiffness during hopping on the left leg.
Note: The magnitudes of the ES and chances of practically meaningful differences for the between-groups comparison of means are provided. Between-groups comparisons
were performed on the log-transformed values (except for PSA where the raw data contained negative values). Magnitudes of the ES were interpreted using thresholds
of < 0.2, 0.2, 0.6, 1.2, and 2.0 for trivial, small, moderate, large, and very large, respectively.21 The effect was clear when its 95% confidence interval did not overlap the
thresholds for small positive and small negative effects. Quantitative chances of a practically meaningful ES were evaluated as <1%, almost certainly not; 1–5%, very
unlikely; >5–25%, unlikely; >25–75%, possible; >75–95%, likely; >95–99%, very likely; >99%, almost certain.23

Table 2  Velocity (m/s) in the 20-m Sprints and 2-km Runs by Elite and Amateur Subjects, Mean ± SD
Test Condition Elite (n = 8) Amateur (n = 8) ES (magnitude) Chance of meaningful difference
20-m sprint Road 7.6 ± 0.2 7.0 ± 0.4 –1.59 (large) >99% (almost certain, clear)
Path 7.3 ± 0.2 6.8 ± 0.3 –2.06 (very large) >99% (almost certain, clear)
Forest 7.0 ± 0.4 6.3 ± 0.3 –1.96 (large) >99% (almost certain, clear)
2-km run Road 5.6 ± 0.2 4.5 ± 0.2 –4.21 (very large) >99% (almost certain, clear)
Path 4.6 ± 0.2 3.7 ± 0.2 –4.06 (very large) >99% (almost certain, clear)
Forest 3.7 ± 0.2 2.9 ± 0.2 –4.64 (very large) >99% (almost certain, clear)

Abbreviation: ES, standardized effect.

Note: Between-groups comparisons were performed on the log-transformed values. Magnitudes of the ES were interpreted using thresholds of <0.2, 0.2, 0.6, 1.2, and 2.0
for trivial, small, moderate, large, and very large, respectively.21 The effect was clear when its 95% confidence interval did not overlap the thresholds for small positive
and small negative effects. Quantitative chances of a practically meaningful ES were evaluated as <1%, almost certainly not; 1–5%, very unlikely; >5–25%, unlikely;
>25–75%, possible; >75–95%, likely; >95–99%, very likely; >99%, almost certain.23

PSA, and hSJ were the most strongly correlated to VO2peak, showing
moderate correlations. Similar to results from the field tests, the ppeak
of jumps showed moderate correlations at best with the laboratory
measures, with more powerful subjects exhibiting lower VO2peak. All
HOP variables exhibited small to trivial correlations with the 20-m
sprints, 2-km runs, and treadmill-test variables, except for the kright
of athletes demonstrating moderate correlations with the VO2peak.
Discussion
Our primary aim was to compare the jumping and hopping perfor-
mance of elite and amateur orienteer athletes. As could be antici-
pated, the relative peak vertical forces, PSA (indicator of stretch-
shortening-cycle functional utilization), and times to peak vertical
and horizontal forces were all clearly superior in elites. In contrast,
 Downloaded by University of Iowa Libraries on 09/17/16, Volume 9, Article Number 6

Table 3  Intercorrelation Matrix Between the Performance During Jumping and Hopping and the 20-m Sprints, 2-km Runs, and Baseline Running
Economy and Peak Oxygen-Uptake Values of the Orienteer Subjects (N = 16), r (magnitude)

20-m sprints (m/s) 2-km runs (m/s) Treadmill testsa

RE15km/h VO2peak
Test Parameter vroad vpath vforest vroad vpath vforest (mL · kg–1 · km–1) vAT (km/h) (mL · kg–1 · min–1)
SJ hSJ (cm) –.01 (trivial) –.09 (trivial) –.34 (mod) –.34 (mod) –.52 (large) –.40 (mod) .20 (small) –.33 (mod) –.40 (mod)
fpeak (% BW) .53 (large) .55 (large) .59 (large) .34 (mod) .42 (mod) .50 (mod) –.24 (small) .36 (mod) .37 (mod)
ppeak (W/kg) .10 (small) .02 (trivial) –.14 (small) –.31 (mod) –.38 (mod) –.28 (small) .21 (small) –.24 (small) –.32 (mod)
tpeak (ms) –.26 (small) –.33 (mod) –.57 (large) –.23 (small) –.49 (mod) –.52 (large) .26 (small) –.16 (small) –.41 (mod)
CMJ hCMJ (cm) .17 (small) .06 (trivial) –.09 (trivial) –.17 (small) –.25 (small) –.08 (trivial) –.03 (trivial) –.27 (small) –.18 (small)
fpeak (% BW) .67 (large) .66 (large) .44 (mod) .43 (mod) .21 (small) .38 (mod) –.23 (small) .45 (mod) .24 (small)
ppeak (W/kg) .13 (small) –.01 (trivial) –.23 (small) –.26 (small) –.44 (mod) –.28 (small) .20 (small) –.29 (small) –.34 (mod)
tpeak (ms) –.62 (large) –.63 (large) –.57 (large) –.52 (large) –.37 (mod) –.49 (mod) .06 (trivial) –.42 (mod) –.45 (mod)
PSA (%) .24 (small) .24 (small) .43 (mod) .35 (mod) .49 (mod) .50 (large) –.25 (small) .23 (small) .41 (mod)
SLJ dCOG (cm) .31 (mod) .24 (small) .09 (trivial) –.13 (small) –.22 (small) .00 (trivial) .09 (trivial) –.17 (small).540 –.18 (small).498
fpeak (% BW) .48 (mod) .39 (mod) .24 (small) –.03 (trivial) –.15 (small) .04 (trivial) .15 (small) –.06 (trivial).833 –.22 (small).408
ppeak (W/kg) .44 (mod) .36 (mod) .28 (small) –.04 (trivial) –.12 (small) .08 (trivial) .08 (trivial) –.06 (trivial).158 –.21 (small)
tpeak (ms) –.51 (large) –.50 (mod) –.40 (mod) –.45 (mod) –.27 (small) –.41 (mod) .28 (small) –.37 (mod).158 –.30 (mod)
HOP kboth (kN/m) .08 (trivial) .21 (small) .12 (small) .03 (trivial) –.02 (trivial) .08 (trivial) .16 (small) –.04 (trivial) –.05 (trivial)
kright (kN/m) .05 (trivial) .15 (small) .04 (trivial) –.13 (small) –.20 (small) –.04 (trivial) .10 (trivial) –.05 (trivial) –.32 (mod)
kleft (kN/m) .03 (trivial) .13 (small) .04 (trivial) –.12 (small) –.17 (small) –.07 (trivial) .12 (small) –.04 (trivial) –.29 (small)

Abbreviations: Vroad, velocity on a road; vpath, velocity on a path; vforest, velocity in a forest; RE15km/h, running economy at 15 km/h; vAT, velocity at anaerobic threshold; VO2peak, highest oxygen uptake recorded during the aerobic-
capacity test; SJ, squat jump; hSJ, vertical SJ height; fpeak, peak force relative to body weight; ppeak, peak power relative to body weight; tpeak, time to peak force; CMJ, countermovement jump; HCMJ, vertical CMJ height; PSA,
prestretch augmentation; SLJ, standing long jump; dCOG, horizontal SLJ displacement of the center of gravity; kboth, stiffness during 2-leg hopping; kright, stiffness during right-leg hopping; kleft, stiffness during left-leg hopping.
Note: Magnitudes of Pearson product–moment correlation coefficients (r) were interpreted using thresholds of 0.1, 0.3, 0.5, and 0.7 for small, moderate, large, and very large correlations, respectively.21 The RE15km/h data
analyses are on 7 amateurs because 1 amateur did not reach the 15-km/h threshold. Large correlations are in bold.
a Measures obtained from treadmill running tests following standardized incremental protocols.11

997
 998  Hébert-Losier, Jensen, and Holmberg
in the purely concentric lower-body SJ test, the elites jumped lower
than amateurs and developed slightly less peak power relative to
body weight. These latter findings most likely reflect muscle adapta-
tions resulting from the more extensive endurance training of our
elites; for example, higher endurance is associated with a larger
proportion of slow-twitch lower-body muscle fibers.12,25 However,
such adaptations did not hinder the ability of our elite subjects to
develop high relative peak forces rapidly during both the squat and
the CMJs, consistent with previous studies involving elite athletes
where increases in strength did not necessarily translate into greater
power.26 The peak force of our elites during jumping was probably
reached at a moment of lower velocity and, in combination with
shorter push-off times, explains why their tpeak was shorter and fpeak
higher, without a more pronounced ppeak.
Unexpectedly, the between-groups differences with respect
to SLJ distance, fpeak, and ppeak, as well as hopping stiffness, were
trivial and unclear. The lack of difference in the SLJ may be linked
to its complexity, with the total horizontal distance largely influ-
Downloaded by University of Iowa Libraries on 09/17/16, Volume 9, Article Number 6
enced by the takeoff angle and jump technique.27 Furthermore,
although parameters derived from ground-reaction forces during
jumps are used as the “gold standard” reference for quantify-
ing performance,28 the between-sessions reproducibility of such
parameters derived from horizontal jumps is generally lower than
that of vertical jumps.16 Therefore, identifying and interpreting
differences in force-derived parameters might be more challenging
for the horizontal SLJ.
Nonetheless, the fact that the relative peak vertical, but not
horizontal, jump force was greater in our elites than amateurs may
simply reflect the importance of vertical lower-body strength in
orienteering. Indeed, these findings are consistent with the reported
pronounced ability of high-performing orienteering athletes to run
uphill.8,9 Earlier research involving members of the Swiss National
Orienteering Team revealed that those who ran more rapidly uphill
tended to place better during world championships.8 More recent
investigations indicate that the correlations between the VO2peak
and maximal running velocities of national-level orienteering ath-
letes are larger when tested at an extreme 22% treadmill incline (r
= .845, P < .01) than on a flat treadmill (r = .46, P > .32).9 Since
running uphill augments ground-reaction forces and activation of
leg-extensor muscles,29 it appears reasonable that our elites showed
superior fpeak during the vertical jumps, a characteristic that could
assist uphill running.
The lack of differences in hopping stiffness may be due to
several factors. For one, running was the primary mode of exercise
for all our orienteer athletes.2 Moreover, the use of a simple spring-
mass model to characterize human motion has inherent limitations17;
for example, the model does not consider the neural mechanisms
regulating stiffness. At a more defined level, differences between
groups might have been discerned, for example, by ultrasound30 or
free oscillation1,20 procedures.
That being said, enhanced stiffness generally exerts a negative
impact on PSA and functional use of the stretch-shortening cycle.
The latter trait may be more beneficial than increased vertical
stiffness for orienteering athletes, who must respond rapidly to
alterations in running terrain and obstacles. Ultrasound-imaging
evidence suggests that intricate muscle–tendon interactions con-
tribute to the effective use of the stretch-shortening cycle in the
lower body, with lower tendon stiffness actually characterizing
competitive long-distance runners.30 Indeed, Kubo et al30 suggest
that more compliant lower-limb tendons may prevent fatigue, since
the tendinous structures absorb impact shocks, and allow lower
shortening velocities of muscle fibers.
Our second aim was to investigate correlations between jump-
ing and hopping and between sprinting and running performance
in orienteering athletes. Similar to observations by Markström
and Olsson,6 the countermovement fpeak and 20-m-sprint velocities
of our athletes exhibited strong positive correlations. However,
leg stiffness in our study exhibited no large correlations with any
of the sprinting or running variables, contrasting with previous
findings that hopping stiffness correlates closely with RE5 and
maximal 40-m-sprint velocities13 and predicts performance during
the latter stages of a 100-m sprint,13 but agreeing with indications
that stiffness does not influence performance during 5-m and 10-m
accelerations and sprints.31 In combination with the limitations of
the spring-mass model discussed herein, the specific sprinting and
hopping variables, different computational methods, and types of
subjects involved might explain the discrepancies in study findings.
At the same time, large pairwise correlations were observed
here between the relative peak SJ and CMJ forces and 20-m-sprint
velocities; between the tpeak during the SJs, CMJs, and SLJs and
the 20-m-sprint and 2-km-running velocities; and between the PSA
and the 2-km-running velocity in the forest. Although correlations
between jumping and hopping performance and treadmill-based
RE, vAT, and VO2peak were weaker—in support of previous state-
ments that laboratory measures are not always valid indicators of
orienteer performance12—moderate correlations still suggest that
VO2peak and vAT were higher in orienteers exhibiting greater PSA,
shorter tpeak, and superior fpeak during SJs, despite lower ppeak. Thus,
the orienteering athletes who exhibited a better functional utiliza-
tion of their stretch-shortening cycle and greater ability to generate
high relative peak forces in a shorter time were also most often the
ones with better sprinting, running, and aerobic capacities, indicat-
ing the value of testing and training lower-body muscles in such
athletes. Accordingly, the incorporation of lower-body plyometric
exercises, which require use of the stretch-shortening cycle, quick
movements, and rapid generation of high forces,32 into orienteering
training might be beneficial for performance.
Considering both the magnitudes of the standardized effects
and correlation coefficients, it could be speculated that short tpeak is
the most important for running in orienteering, more than fpeak, ppeak,
and jump height or distance. On the other hand, the jump-related
between-groups differences detected were much smaller than those
relating to the 20-m sprints and 2-km runs and obviously those at
baseline for RE15km/h, vAT, and VO2peak. Indeed, separately analyzing
these variables reveals effect sizes that are very large (2.1 to 4.5) and
almost certainly meaningful. Consequently, although lower-body
strength, power, and endurance are factors that may contribute to
orienteering performance, high maximal aerobic capacity7 and
efficient running10,11 are physical attributes essential for successful
orienteering. Finally, we also acknowledge that the low number of
subjects limits our ability to generalize results and make unequivo-
cal conclusions concerning differences in jumping and hopping
abilities of elite and amateur orienteer athletes. Nonetheless, our
results provide a basis that future research work may extend on,
assist in guiding coaches and training requirements in orienteering,
and contribute to the identification of factors that promote high
performance in this sport.
Practical Applications and Conclusions
Jump tests are used in several sports to assess lower-body power,
vertical stiffness, and stretch-shortening-cycle utilization, with
many studies reporting substantial correlations between jumping
and sprinting or running performance. Here, we found that differ-

ences between elite and amateur orienteer athletes were greater in
connection with squat and CMJs than with standing horizontal long
jumps and repetitive hopping. Despite lower SJ and CMJ heights
and relative peak powers, our elites demonstrated superior relative
peak forces, shorter times to peak force, and better PSA, and these
measures were correlated with sprinting, running, and aerobic per-
formance, indicating a benefit of lower-body testing and training
in orienteering. Accordingly, incorporating plyometric exercises,
especially involving vertical motions, might benefit orienteering
performance since plyometrics rely on stretch-shortening-cycle
utilization and the rapid development of high forces.
Acknowledgments
The authors acknowledge the support of Peter Öberg and Ola Jodal during
the field-testing procedures. The authors thank Fredrik Edin and Kurt
Jensen for providing the baseline values from laboratory testing of run-
ning economy and peak oxygen uptake. We also thank Professor Claes
Downloaded by University of Iowa Libraries on 09/17/16, Volume 9, Article Number 6
Annerstedt for allowing us to use the laboratory testing facility at the
University of Gothenburg.
References
1. Dumke CL, Pfaffenroth CM, McBride JM, McCauley GO. Rela-
tionship between muscle strength, power and stiffness and running
economy in trained male runners. Int J Sports Physiol Perform.
2010;5(2):249–261. PubMed
2. Hobara H, Kimura K, Omuro K, et al. Determinants of difference in leg
stiffness between endurance- and power-trained athletes. J Biomech.
2008;41(3):506–514. doi:10.1016/j.jbiomech.2007.10.014
3. Harrison AJ, Keane SP, Coglan J. Force–velocity relationship and
stretch-shortening cycle function in sprint and endurance athletes. J
Strength Cond Res. 2004;18(3):473–479. PubMed
4. Maulder P, Cronin J. Horizontal and vertical jump assessment: reli-
ability, symmetry, discriminative and predictive ability. Phys Ther
Sport. 2005;6(2):74–82. doi:10.1016/j.ptsp.2005.01.001
5. Dalleau G, Belli A, Bourdin M, Lacour JR. The spring-mass model
and the energy cost of treadmill running. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup
Physiol. 1998;77(3):257–263. PubMed doi:10.1007/s004210050330
6. Markström JL, Olsson C-J. Countermovement jump peak force rela-
tive to body weight and jump height as predictors for sprint running
performances: (in)homogeneity of track and field athletes? J Strength
Cond Res. 2013;27(4):944–953. doi:10.1519/JSC.0b013e318260edad
7. Jensen K, Johansen L, Secher NH. Influence of body mass on
maximal oxygen uptake: effect of sample size. Eur J Appl Physiol.
2001;84(3):201–205. doi:10.1007/s004210170005
8. Zürcher S, Clènin G, Marti B. Uphill running capacity in Swiss elite
orienteers. Sci J Orienteer. 2005;16(1):4–11.
9. Lauenstein S, Wehrlin J, Marti B. Differences in horizontal versus
uphill running performance in male and female Swiss world class
orienteers. J Strength Cond Res. 2013;27(11):2952–2958. doi:10.1519/
JSC.0b013e31828bf2dc
10. Smekal G, Von Duvillard SP, Pokan R, et al. Respiratory gas exchange
and lactate measures during competitive orienteering. Med Sci Sports
Exerc. 2003;35(4):682–689. doi:10.1249/01.mss.0000058358.14293.de
11. Jensen K, Johansen L, Kärkkäinen OP. Economy in track run-
ners and orienteers during path and terrain running. J Sports Sci.
1999;17(12):945–950. doi:10.1080/026404199365335
12. Rolf C, Andersson G, Westblad P, Saltin B. Aerobic and anaero-
bic work capacities and leg muscle characteristics in elite ori-
enteers. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 1997;7(1):20–24. PubMed
doi:10.1111/j.1600-0838.1997.tb00112.x
Jumping and Running in Orienteering   999
13. Bret C, Rahmani A, Dufour AB, Messonnier L, Lacour JR. Leg
strength and stiffness as ability factors in 100 m sprint running. J
Sports Med Phys Fitness. 2002;42(3):274–281. PubMed
14. Easthope CS, Nosaka K, Caillaud C, Vercruyssen F, Louis J, Briss-
walter J. Reproducibility of performance and fatigue in trail run-
ning. J Sci Med Sport. 2014;17(2):207–211. PubMed doi:10.1016/j.
jsams.2013.03.009
15. Moir G, Button C, Glaister M, Stone MH. Influence of familiarization
on the reliability of vertical jump and acceleration sprinting perfor-
mance in physically active men. J Strength Cond Res. 2004;18(2):276–
280. PubMed
16. Hébert-Losier K, Beaven CM. The MARS for squat, countermove-
ment and standing long jump performance analyses: are measures
reproducible? J Strength Cond Res. 2014;28(7):1849–1857. PubMed
doi:10.1519/JSC.0000000000000343
17. Hébert-Losier K, Eriksson A. Leg stiffness measures depend on com-
putational method. J Biomech. 2014;47(1):115–121. doi: 10.1016/j.
jbiomech.2013.09.027
18. Bishop M, Fiolkowski P, Conrad B, Brunt D, Horodyski M. Ath-
letic footwear, leg stiffness, and running kinematics. J Athl Train.
2006;41(4):387–392. PubMed
19. LaPorta JW, Brown LE, Coburn JW, et al. Effects of different foot-
wear on vertical jump and landing parameters. J Strength Cond Res.
2013;27(3):733–737. doi:10.1519/JSC.0b013e318280c9ce
20. Walshe AD, Wilson GJ, Murphy AJ. The validity and reliability of a
test of lower body musculotendinous stiffness. Eur J Appl Physiol.
1996;73(3–4):332–339. doi:10.1007/bf02425495
21. Hopkins WG, Marshall SW, Batterham AM, Hanin J. Progressive
statistics for studies in sports medicine and exercise science. Med Sci
Sports Exerc. 2009;41(1):3–13. doi:10.1249/MSS.0b013e31818cb278
22. Levine TR, Hullett CR. Eta squared, partial eta squared, and misre-
porting of effect size in communication research. Hum Commun Res.
2002;28(4):612–625. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2002.tb00828.x
23. Hopkins WG. A spreadsheet for analysis of straightforward controlled
trials. SportScience, 2003:7.
24. Cohen J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences.
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; 1988.
25. Abernethy PJ, Thayer R, Taylor AW. Acute and chronic responses of
skeletal muscle to endurance and sprint exercise: a review. Sports Med.
1990;10(6):365–389. PubMed doi:10.2165/00007256-199010060-
00004
26. Baker D. Comparison of upper-body strength and power between
professional and college-aged rugby league players. J Strength Cond
Res. 2001;15(1):30–35. PubMed
27. Wakai M, Linthorne NP. Optimum take-off angle in the stand-
ing long jump. Hum Mov Sci. 2005;24(1):81–96. doi:10.1016/j.
humov.2004.12.001
28. Reeve TC, Tyler CJ. The validity of the SmartJump contact
mat. J Strength Cond Res. 2013;27(6):1597–1601. doi:10.1519/
JSC.0b013e318269f7f1
29. Padulo J, Powell D, Milia R, Ardigò LP. A paradigm of uphill running.
PLoS One. 2013;8(7):e69006. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0069006
30. Kubo K, Tabata T, Ikebukuro T, Igarashi K, Yata H, Tsunoda N. Effects
of mechanical properties of muscle and tendon on performance in
long distance runners. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2010;110(3):507–514.
doi:10.1007/s00421-010-1528-1
31. Lockie R, Murphy A, Knight T, Janse de Jonge X. Factors that dif-
ferentiate acceleration ability in field sport athletes. J Strength Cond
Res. 2011;25(10):2704–2714. doi:10.1519/JSC.0b013e31820d9f17
32. Markovic G, Mikulic P. Neuro-musculoskeletal and performance
adaptations to lower-extremity plyometric training. Sports Med.
2010;40(10):859–895. doi:10.2165/11318370-000000000-00000