Vertical Jump and Power
Anthony Darmiento, CSCS, Andrew J. Galpin, PhD, CSCS, NCSA-CPT, and Lee E. Brown, EdD, CSCS*D, FNSCA
Center for Sport Performance, Department of Kinesiology, California State University, Fullerton, California
Supplemental digital content is available for this article. Direct URL citations appear in the printed text and are provided
in the HTML and PDF versions of this article on the journal’s Web site (http://journals.lww.com/nsca-scj).
SUMMARY
POWER AND JUMPING ABILITY
CORRELATE WITH SPORT PER-
FORMANCE. IMPROVING MAXIMAL
FORCE AND/OR VELOCITY IN-
CREASES POWER PRODUCTION,
AND THEREFORE THEORETICALLY
ENHANCES GAME PLAY.
COACHES AND RESEARCHERS
ALIKE ACKNOWLEDGE THAT BOTH
JUMPING SPECIFIC (E.G., PLYO-
METRICS) AND NONJUMPING
ACTIVITIES (E.G., RESISTANCE
TRAINING) FUNCTION AS VALU-
ABLE METHODS OF INCREASING
POWER. HOWEVER, THEIR EFFI-
CACY AND MECHANISMS OF
ADAPTATION ARE OFTEN ARGUED.
THIS ARTICLE PRESENTS A BRIEF
OVERVIEW OF VERTICAL JUMPING,
POWER, TRAINING MODALITIES
AND PROVIDES A SAMPLE
12-WEEK TRAINING CYCLE.
INTRODUCTION
he ability to generate skeletal
T muscle power is a well-known
predictor of sport performance
(2,3,6,17). However, direct measurement
is difficult and often unfeasible; espe-
cially for coaches. Most simply use the
vertical jump (VJ) test as an indirect
measure of leg power. Power and jump-
ing are not identical (15,26), yet corre-
lations link them to success in a variety
of sports (rugby, volleyball, running,
etc.) (6,20,37,39). Although the relation-
ship between jumping and power
appears clear, the optimal strategy for
improving VJ/power remains unclear.
The variety of training methods seem
unlimited, and their effectiveness
34 VOLUME 34 | NUMBER 6 | DECEMBER 2012
depends on the exact assessment tech-
nique and subject population (1). Com-
parison of these methods reveals that
although each independently alters
specific jumping kinematics (force,
velocity, peak power, rate of force
development, etc.) (1), programs that
demonstrate benefits share the follow-
ing 3 concepts; VJ movements are per-
formed (a) in small intraset volumes
(1–5 repetitions) (b) combined with
long rest intervals (2–5 minutes) (47)
and (c) in an explosive manner that
emphasizes velocity (8). The first 2
elements are critical because acute
fatigue limits subsequent power output
and overall performance in untrained
(4) and highly trained athletes (5).
However, as alluded to earlier, each
method of VJ training provides unique
benefits. The purpose of this article was
to (a) briefly examine 5 training meth-
ods frequently used to improve jump
height and power (bodyweight jump-
ing, resisted jumping (RJ), assisted jump-
ing (AJ), maximal strength training, and
weightlifting movements [WLM]) and
(b) outline a sample program designed
to improve jump height and power in
a moderately trained athlete.
PART A: IMPROVING JUMP HEIGHT
AND POWER
JUMPING ACTIVITIES
This section addresses the influence of
bodyweight, resisted, and assisted jump
training on VJ and power. Body weight
jumping (BWJ) refers exclusively to non-
weighted lower-body plyometric exer-
cises such as squat, countermovement,
and drop jumps (see Videos, Supple-
mental Digital Content 1–3, which
demonstrate a squat, http://links.lww.
com/SCJ/A81; countermovement,
Copyright Ó National Strength and Conditioning Association
http://links.lww.com/SCJ/A82; and
drop jump, http://links.lww.com/SCJ/
A83, respectively). According to a recent
analysis, BWJ improved maximal VJ abil-
ity 4–9% and power 2–31% (28) in both
athletes and nonathletes (27). BWJ is also
highly practical because it requires little
or no equipment, can be performed in
almost any location, and requires limited
technical ability.
The addition of an external load
(weight vest, barbell, elastic band,
etc.) during BWJ activities is referred to
as RJ (see Videos, Supplemental Digital
Content 4, which demonstrates a resisted
jump, http://links.lww.com/SCJ/A84).
Evidence indicates RJ elicits greater
improvements in VJ height (36) and
peak power (35,36) compared with
BWJ. However, increasing external
loading decreases movement velocity,
a factor in adaptation (30). For this rea-
son, some question the ability of RJ
programs to improve performance in
activities that require high velocity
(23). RJ may also result in greater
impact forces during landing, thereby
increasing the potential for muscular
discomfort, soreness (22), and/or
injury (23).
Another method of training is AJ
(see Videos, Supplemental Digital Con-
tent 5, which demonstrates an assisted
jump, http://links.lww.com/SCJ/A85).
AJ uses an apparatus (e.g., elastic cords
or counter mass) to reduce body weight
(32). A definitive conclusion regarding
its efficacy is not possible as research
is currently limited. Available data
KEY WORDS:
weightlifting; strength; assisted jumping;
resisted jumping; plyometrics
indicate that AJ with a 10–30% reduction
of body weight acutely improves ascent
variables (44) such as peak velocity, peak
acceleration, relative peak power, and VJ
height (1,11,27,38,46) while decreasing
impact forces (1). Moreover, several
weeks of AJ training improves peak
acceleration and velocity, relative peak
power, and VJ height greater than BWJ
(38) or RJ (1) in both elite athletic and
nonathletic populations (38).
In summary, BWJ, RJ, and AJ may all
improve VJ performance and several
factors related to power production.
Of these factors, velocity seems partic-
ularly responsive to jump training.
These collective studies do not suggest
that one method is superior to
another, but rather that adaptations
(force production, takeoff velocity,
peak power, etc.) are training method
specific. Understanding the benefits
and consequences of each style enables
coaches to integrate them in a manner
that maximizes benefits and decreases
the likelihood of adverse events.
Coaches should prioritize the amount
of time allocated to each in reflection
of individual athlete goals and needs.
NONJUMPING ACTIVITIES
Enhancing velocity is obviously desir-
able, yet force (strength) equally influ-
ences power (42). Unsurprisingly,
subjects who compliment power train-
ing with strength training display
greater improvements in VJ height
and power output over a wide range
of external loads than subjects who
train for power alone (13). Another
study reported that in weak individuals,
BWJ training improves sprinting and
jumping to the same magnitude as
heavy strength training, although
BWJ training provided no improve-
ments in strength (14). Although these
findings seem to diminish the relation-
ship between strength and jumping,
they more accurately demonstrate the
ability of heavy strength training to
render similar short-term improve-
ments in velocity and power as BWJ.
However, BWJ training will not likely
promote the same gains in maximal
strength (nor the other long-term
benefits associated with heavy strength than athletes with similar years of train-
training); even in the relatively weak ing history (24) or those who train for
(14). However, this is not a reason to only maximal speed or strength (29).
eliminate factors related to velocity Moreover, the temporal patterns of
because maximal strength training force production are similar during
alone may not improve VJ perfor- WLM (e.g., snatch and clean and jerk
mance in highly trained athletes or variations of each) and VJ and as
(18,21). It is imperative when trying a result, weightlifters excel at jumping
to improve power that most strength (9,10).
training is done in an explosive manner The wide-ranging benefits of WLM
(18), emphasizing the attempt to per- are indisputable and documented more
form each repetition at maximal veloc- thoroughly elsewhere (12,19,43). Yet,
ity (8). Dualistic exercise programs some question their ability to improve
instituting both high force and high jumping, especially when compared
velocity provide the most effective with BWJ. Tricoli et al. (45) reported
stimulus for improving power produc- both WLM and BWJ improved perfor-
tion (41,42,48). Supplementing stan- mance. However, WLM were more
dard resistance (e.g., weight plates) advantageous because their benefits
with variable resistance (e.g., elastic were broader and significantly greater
bands or chains) seems worthwhile in the 10-m sprint speed, VJ, and squat
because it may facilitate improvements jump. These data indicate WLM are as
in mean and peak velocity (7), rate of effective as BWJ at improving jumping
force development (40), and peak force while simultaneously promoting sev-
and power (34). eral adaptations not seen with BWJ
Weightlifting is a competitive sport (e.g., strength).
that contests both the snatch and the The paradox of weightlifting recog-
clean and jerk. Success in weightlifting nizes that the high complexity of
necessitate simultaneous high force WLM enhance performance, yet dis-
and velocity (12,31,43). As a result, it courages some from participation.
is highly associated with power and The primary hesitation surrounding
frequently mislabeled as “powerlifting.” the use of WLM is the perceived diffi-
Weightlifters are the most powerful peo- culty of learning/teaching WLM (25).
ple on the planet (10,29) and they acti- Although a detailed discussion is beyond
vate fast-twitch fibers to a greater extent the scope of this article, multiple authors
than non-weightlifters during submaxi- have addressed these concerns at length
mal muscle contractions (e.g., the VJ) and provide numerous instructional re-
(16). They also produce more power sources and strategies to assist in the
Table 1
General concepts of weekly emphasis during a 12-week preparatory
mesocycle for a moderately trained athlete with limited weightlifting
experience, interested in improving jumping ability
Block 1—work Block 2—strength Block 3—power
capacity
Wk 1: general Wk 5: strength and Wk 9: speed strength
preparation work capacity
Wk 2: general Wk 6: strength Wk 10: speed strength
preparation
Wk 3: work capacity Wk 7: maximum Strength Wk 11: power
Wk 4: work capacity Wk 8: strength speed Wk 12: power
All weeks include some proportion of work capacity, strength, speed, and power training.
This table simply outlines the general weekly emphasis.
Strength and Conditioning Journal | www.nsca-scj.com 35
36

Vertical Jump and Power

VOLUME 34 | NUMBER 6 | DECEMBER 2012

Table 2
Twelve-week mesocycle, Monday and Thursday—movements
Block 1—WC (4 wk) Block 2—Strength (4 wk) Block 3—power (4 wk)

GP WC ST and WC ST Max ST ST and S S and ST Power

M and Th M and Th M and Th M and Th M and Th M and Th M and Th M and Th

Speed Speed Speed Speed Speed Speed Speed Speed

Jump Jump Slam Slam Slam Slam Slam Slam
Slam Slam Twist Twist Twist Twist Twist Twist
Twist Twist Hop Hop Hop
Power Power Power Power Power Power Power Power
Learn C&J Learn C&J C&J C&J C&J C&J C&J C&J
Strength Strength Strength Strength Strength Strength Strength Strength
Bilateral leg Bilateral leg Bilateral leg Bilateral leg Bilateral leg Bilateral leg Bilateral leg Bilateral leg
Vertical pull Vertical pull Vertical pull Vertical pull Vertical pull Vertical pull Vertical pull Vertical pull
Unilat. leg Unilat. leg Unilat. leg Unilat. leg Unilat. leg Vert. press Vert. press Vert. press
Vert. press Vert. press Vert. press Vert. press Vert. press
Ab. Flex/Ext Ab. Flex/Ext Ab. Flex/Ext
WC WC WC WC WC WC WC WC
None 1:1work:rest 1:1work:rest None None None None None
The first emphasis placed in each microcycle denotes the more important aspect. For example, in week 4 of Block 2, the emphasis is strength and speed. This means emphasize strength over
speed when the two conflict within a training session. However, the emphasis is changed in the following week to speed and strength, meaning error on the side of speed. All work capacity
movements should be primarily performed concentrically, in an effort to minimize muscular damage and soreness (rowing, cycling, sled pulling, etc.). For sample exercises for each movement
see Table 4.

C&J 5 clean and jerk; GP 5 general preparation, P 5 power; S 5 speed; ST 5 strength; WC 5 work capacity.
 Table 3
Twelve-week mesocycle, Tuesday and Saturday—movements
Block 1—WC (4 wk) Block 2—strength (4 wk) Block 3—power (4 wk)

GP WC ST and WC ST Max ST ST and S S and ST Power

T and Sat T and Sat T and Sat T and Sat T and Sat T and Sat T and Sat T and Sat

Speed Speed Speed Speed Speed Speed Speed Speed

Agility Agility Jump Jump Jump Jump Jump Jump
Throw Throw Toss Toss Toss Toss Toss Toss
Toss Toss Skip Skip Skip
Power Power Power Power Power Power Power Power
Learn Snatch Snatch Snatch Snatch Snatch Snatch Snatch
Strength and Conditioning Journal | www.nsca-scj.com

Strength Strength Strength Strength Strength Strength Strength Strength

Bilat. back Bilat. back Bilat. back Bilat. back Bilat. back Bilat. back Bilat. back Bilat. back
Horiz. pull Horiz. pull Horiz. pull Ab. rotation Ab. rotation Ab. rotation Ab. rotation Ab. rotation
Horiz. press Horiz. press Horiz. press
Ab. rotation Ab. rotation Ab. rotation
WC WC WC WC WC WC WC WC
None 2:1work:rest 1:1work:rest None None 2:1work:rest 3:1work:rest None
For sample exercises for each movement see Table 4.

C&J 5 clean and jerk; GP 5 general preparation, P 5 power; S 5 speed; ST 5 strength; WC 5 work capacity.
37
Vertical Jump and Power
learning of WLM (12,19,43). It should
also be understood that as with the
learning of any task, a small number of
repetitions performed frequently and
consistently throughout the year (during
active recovery days or dynamic warm-
ups, etc.) suitably develops aptitude and
confidence. Complete mastery of skill is
a byproduct of practice, not a prerequisite
of involvement. Although time con-
straints should always be a consideration,
the obligation to long-term athlete devel-
opment should not be compromised by
a desire for immediate success. Elimina-
tion of WLM from a program for this
reason is irresponsible. Furthermore, var-
iations such as the hang start position or
modified pulls serve as short-term alter-
natives to the full snatch and the clean
and jerk when technical flaws or other
barriers limit productivity.
Other implements such as medicine
balls and kettlebells are also frequently
used as substitutes for WLM (33). This
is a reasonable solution in special cir-
cumstances such as a lack of equip-
ment (e.g., barbell and bumper plates)
and/or space. Yet, it is imperative to
recognize that these devices drive sim-
ilar, but not identical adaptations. The
benefits of these alternatives will not be
as comprehensive or of the same mag-
nitude as WLM, especially in trained
athletes. These training methods
should be considered supplements,
not equal substitutes.
PART A: SUMMARY. A combination
of multiple modalities and loading
paradigms optimizes the potential for
improvements in jumping and leg
power. However, the specific adapta-
tions of each movement variation must
be recognized prior to implementa-
tion. Jumping activities (BWJ, RJ, AJ)
enrich power mainly through velocity.
All variations are likely to benefit less
experienced athletes, but AJ is particu-
larly advantageous for athletes with
a history of jump training. Heavy
strength training targets force, and
thus should complement any jump
training program. WLM display
a unique ability to facilitate simulta-
neous gains in velocity and force,
38 VOLUME 34 | NUMBER 6 | DECEMBER 2012
making them the most effective (equipment, time and/or space avail-
method of improving leg power. ability, etc.). The concepts are out-
lined in Tables 2 and 3 and a short
PART B: PRACTICAL APPLICATION. list of sample exercises for each con-
The following section outlines a sam- cept is provided in Table 4, and sam-
ple 12-week mesocycle designed ple volumes and intensities are
to improve power production and demonstrated in Tables 5 and 6. To
jumping ability. The program targets accomplish these concepts, most ex-
moderately trained athletes with pre- ercises should be complex (requiring
vious experience in jumping and gen- multiple joints) and performed with
eral strength and conditioning maximal intended velocity across
activities, but limited skill in WLM. a spectrum of loading intensities.
The foundation of its design is sum- The periodization strategy is to
marized by the phrase, “methods are maintain moderate to high intensities
many, concepts are few,” or more while manipulating total daily and
plainly, application of exercise deter- weekly volume (e.g., the number of
mines adaptation, not the exercise per exercises, sets, and/or repetitions in
se. Prescribing general concepts (work a given day and/or week).
capacity, maximum strength, speed, The 12 weeks are separated into 3
etc.) as opposed to strict/specific blocks and each block is further divided
methods (exercise choice, volumes, into 4 microcycles (Table 1). Each block
intensities, etc.) emphasizes a focus and microcycle is given an overall con-
on short-term goals and increases cept (e.g., maximal strength, strength
the potential for variation and auton- speed, or power), with the first word
omy based on individual coach/ath- of the concept reflecting which aspect
lete preferences and limitations dictates greater emphasis. Designing
Table 4
Sample exercises for each movement
Movement Sample Exercises
Jumps Box jump, bounding, lateral jump, hurdles, assisted jumping
Slams Medicine ball slam, tire slam, band pulls
Twists Lateral medicine ball toss, full contact twist, carioca
Agility Pro-agility, reactive shuffle, carioca, mirror drill
Throws Soccer throw, shot-put, wood chop
Tosses Scoop toss, lateral toss, tire flip
Bilateral leg Front squat, back squat, overhead squat
Unilateral leg Lunges, split-squat, step-up, one leg squat
Bilateral back Deadlift, sumo-deadlift, zercher squats
Vertical pull Pull-up, lat pull down, chin-up, muscle-up
Horizontal pull Ring row, bent row, band row
Vertical press Overhead press, handstand push-up, dip
Horizontal press Incline press, flat press, ring push-up
Abdominal flexion Hanging leg raises, V-up, wheel rollout
Abdominal rotation Antirotation holds, seated twists, lateral bends
Work capacity Sprints, rowing, cycling, sled presses/pulls
 Table 5
Twelve-week mesocycle, day by day—volumes
Block 1—WC (4 wk) Block 2—strength (4 wk) Block 3—power (4 wk)

GP WC ST and WC ST Max ST ST and S S and ST Power

M and W M and W M and W M and W M and W M and W M and W M and W

Speed Speed Speed Speed Speed Speed Speed Speed

333 333 334 333 332 333 632 632
Power Power Power Power Power Power Power Power
; 10 min ; 15 min 533 632 831 831 10 3 1 631
Strength Strength Strength Strength Strength Strength Strength Strength
3 3 10 438 435 633 832 832 632 432
WC WC WC WC WC WC WC WC
None 431 531 331 None None None None
Total reps/d: 177 Total reps/d: 187 Total reps/d: 144 Total reps/d: 105 Total reps/d: 84 Total reps/d: 83 Total reps/d: 82 Total reps/d: 66
T and Sat T and Sat T and Sat T and Sat T and Sat T and Sat T and Sat T and Sat
Strength and Conditioning Journal | www.nsca-scj.com

Speed Speed Speed Speed Speed Speed Speed Speed

333 333 334 333 332 333 632 632
Power Power Power Power Power Power Power Power
;10 min ; 15 min 533 632 10 3 1 10 3 1 12 3 1 631
Strength Strength Strength Strength Strength Strength Strength Strength
238 238 335 433 832 632 432 332
WC WC WC WC WC WC WC WC
None 331 331 None None 231 331 None
Total reps/d: 91 Total reps/d: 94 Total reps/d: 102 Total reps/d: 54 Total reps/d: 54 Total reps/d: 63 Total reps/d: 67 Total reps/d: 54
536 562 492 318 276 292 298 240/120
The set and repetition volume is listed as total volume per exercise. For example, the speed movements performed in the GP microcycle of Block 1 will be 3 3 3 for the jump, slam, and twist
series. Week 12 will only encompass 2 total training sessions (Monday and Thursday). The final training session will be Saturday’s prescription, but performed on the last Thursday.

GP 5 general preparation, P 5 power; S 5 speed; ST 5 strength; WC 5 work capacity.

39
40

Vertical Jump and Power

VOLUME 34 | NUMBER 6 | DECEMBER 2012

Table 6
Block 1—WC (4 wk) Block 2—Strength (4 wk) block
Block 1—WC (4 wk) Block 2—strength (4 wk) Block 3—power (4 wk)

GP WC ST and WC ST Max ST ST and S S and ST Power

M and W M and W M and W M and W M and W M and W M and W M and W

Speed Speed Speed Speed Speed Speed Speed Speed

Max velocity Max velocity Max velocity Max velocity Max velocity Max velocity Max velocity Max velocity
Power Power Power Power Power Power Power Power
N/A N/A ;75% 3RM ;90% 2RM 1RM ;90% 1RM ;90% 1RM ;85% 1RM
Strength Strength Strength Strength Strength Strength Strength Strength
;90% 10RM ;90% 8RM ;90% 5RM ;95% 3RM ;100% 2RM ;90% 2RM ;85% 2RM ;85% 2RM
WC WC WC WC WC WC WC WC
N/A .100% V̇O2max N/A N/A N/A N/A
T and Sat T and Sat T and Sat T and Sat T and Sat T and Sat T and Sat T and Sat
Speed Speed Speed Speed Speed Speed Speed Speed
Max velocity Max velocity Max velocity Max velocity Max velocity Max velocity Max velocity Max velocity
Power Power Power Power Power Power Power Power
N/A N/A ;75% 3RM ;90% 2RM 1RM ;95% 1RM ;95% 1RM ;85% 1RM
Strength Strength Strength Strength Strength Strength Strength Strength
;85% 8RM ;85% 8RM ;85% 5RM ;90% 3RM ;95% 2RM ;85% 2RM ;80% 2RM ;80% 2RM
WC WC WC WC WC WC WC WC
N/A .100% .100% N/A N/A .100% .100% N/A
V̇O2max V̇O2max V̇O2max V̇O2max
Intensities are listed as approximations and should be varied based upon individual daily performances and according to the microcycle goal. For example, if the strength movement in the S
and ST microcycle of Block 3 (which is prescribed to be at ; 85% 2RM) is being performed excessively slow, the intensity should be dropped slightly as the emphasis of this block is speed, not
maximal strength. However, the intensity should be maintained in the same circumstance during the third microcycle of Block 2 as the emphasis is maximum strength.

GP 5 general preparation, P 5 power; RM, repetition maximum; S 5 speed; ST 5 strength; WC 5 work capacity.
programs by concept means both coach
and athlete explicitly understand weekly
outcome goals, making critical decisions
such as elimination or alteration of
movements, volume, and/or intensity
in response to unpredicted events
(equipment malfunction, changes in
health, other life stressors, etc.) much
easier. For example, during the
“Strength” phase (week 6), a coach
might allow an athlete to increase inten-
sity beyond the previously intended pre-
scription, fully aware movement speed
may be slightly compromised. However,
this would not be as appropriate during
the “Speed Strength” phase (weeks 9–
10) as speed should be of greater con-
cern than strength.
Designing by concept also allows high
daily variation in light of a fairly rou-
tine daily structure. Each day begins
with some type of mobility/injury pre-
vention movement followed by a
dynamic warm-up. Subsequent speed,
power, strength, and work capacity
components occupy the bulk of the
training session. Specificity is achieved
by modifying the number of exercises
and/or the amount of total repetitions
dedicated to each specific adaptation
(speed, power, strength, or work
Figure. Twelve-week sample mesocycle. Changes in total and relative weekly volume per training concept are displayed across the
12-week training program. The program is subdivided into 3 blocks with overall goals of work capacity (Block 1),
strength (Block 2), and power (Block 3). Absolute weekly volume is represented by the total repetitions.
capacity) within each microcycle. For
example, during the “Strength Speed”
week, 2 speed and 3 strength exercises
are prescribed with a total weekly vol-
ume of 50 and 100 reps, respectively.
Yet, during the following “Speed
Strength” week, speed increases to 4
movements while strength volume de-
creases to 1 movement. Thus, the total
number of speed reps increases from 50
to 150, whereas the total number of
strength reps decreases from 100 to
50. Altering the amount of time per
day dedicated to each adaptation
slightly alters the overall microcycle
adaptations, and the combination of
each microcycle reflects the goal of
its corresponding block.
The figure demonstrates the change in
total weekly training volume, per com-
ponent (speed, power, strength, and
work capacity), across the sample meso-
cycle. In summary, speed is moderate in
Blocks 1 and 2, and increases dramati-
cally in Block 3; power remains constant
throughout; strength is similar in Blocks
1 and 3, but increases considerably in
Block 2; work capacity is high in Block
1, drops off substantially in Block 2, and
is almost completely eliminated in Block
3. Because its well-rounded nature
Strength and Conditioning Journal | www.nsca-scj.com
permits simultaneous training of speed,
power, and strength, WLM are the
backbone of all 3 blocks. Briefly, total
volume is high in Block 1 because the
predominant goals are to learn move-
ments and develop work capacity. Low
impact BWJ could function well here if
applied in a manner that reinforces
proper jumping mechanics while grad-
ually increasing workload. Total vol-
ume declines heavily during Blocks 2
and 3 as the focus shifts to maximal
force and then velocity. The second
block emphasizes force by reducing
work capacity volume, maintaining
speed and power training, and increas-
ing strength exercises. Higher impact
BWJ, RJ, and heavy resistance move-
ments are ideal exercise choices during
this phase. The steady decline of vol-
ume continues into the third and final
block (power) as work capacity and
strength training are reduced in favor
of maximal velocity and power. Imple-
menting AJ here would further pro-
mote recovery and unloading while
augmenting velocity.
CONCLUSIONS
Power and jumping ability correlate to
both anaerobic and aerobic sport per-
formance. Power requires velocity and
41
Vertical Jump and Power
force, and force requires mass and comparisons between assisted, resisted,
acceleration. A brief review of literature and free countermovement jumps. J Strength
indicates several jumping-specific and Cond Res 25: 2219–2227, 2011.
non-jumping–specific training methods 2. Baker D. Comparison of upper-body
uniquely enhance power and jumping strength and power between professional
ability. In general, low-intensity/high- and college-aged rugby league players.
J Strength Cond Res 15: 30–35, 2001.
speed movements such as plyometrics
3. Baker D. A series of studies on the training
improve velocity, high-intensity/low-
speed movements such as heavy squat- of high-intensity muscle power in rugby
league football players. J Strength Cond
ting promote force production, and
Res 15: 198–209, 2001.
WLM augment both force and velocity.
4. Baker D. Acute negative effect of
Optimal programming would therefore
a hypertrophy-oriented training bout on
include a highly variable combination of
subsequent upper-body power output.
training modalities and loading para-
J Strength Cond Res 17: 527–530, 2003.
digms planned around athlete-specific
5. Baker DG and Newton RU. Change in
strengths and weaknesses.
power output across a high-repetition set of
bench throws and jump squats in highly
trained athletes. J Strength Cond Res 21:
Anthony 1007–1011, 2007.
Darmiento is
6. Baker DG and Newton RU. Comparison of
a Masters Student
lower body strength, power, acceleration,
at the Center for speed, agility, and sprint momentum to
Sport Performance describe and compare playing rank among
in the Department professional rugby league players.
of Kinesiology at J Strength Cond Res 22: 153–158, 2008.
California State 7. Baker DG and Newton RU. Effect of kinetically
University, altering a repetition via the use of chain
Fullerton. resistance on velocity during the bench press.
J Strength Cond Res 23: 1941–1946, 2009.
8. Behm DG and Sale DG. Intended rather
Andrew J. Galpin than actual movement velocity determines
is an Assistant velocity-specific training response. J Appl
Professor at the Physiol 74: 359–368, 1993.
Center for Sport 9. Canavan PK, Garrett GE, and
Performance in the Armstrong LE. Kinematic and Kinetic
Department of Relationships Between an Olympic-style
Kinesiology at Cal- Lift and the Vertical Jump. J Strength Cond
ifornia State Uni- Res 10: 127–130, 1996.
versity, Fullerton. 10. Carlock JM, Smith SL, Hartman MJ,
Morris RT, Ciroslan DA, Pierce KC,
Newton RU, Harman EA, Sands WA, and
Lee E. Brown is Stone MH. The relationship between
a Professor at the vertical jump power estimates and
Center for Sport weightlifting ability: a field-test approach.
J Strength Cond Res 18: 534–539, 2004.
Performance in
the Department 11. Cavagna GA, Zamboni A, Faraggiana T,
of Kinesiology at and Margaria R. Jumping on the moon:
power output at different gravity values.
California State
Aerosp Med 43: 408–414, 1972.
University,
12. Chiu LZ and Schilling BK. A primer on
Fullerton.
weightlifting: From sport to sports training.
Strength Cond J 27: 42–48, 2005.
13. Cormie P, McCaulley GO, and
McBride JM. Power versus strength-power
REFERENCES jump squat training: influence on the load-
1. Argus CK, Gill ND, Keogh JW, Blazevich AJ, power relationship. Med Sci Sports Exerc
and Hopkins WG. Kinetic and training 39: 996–1003, 2007.
42 VOLUME 34 | NUMBER 6 | DECEMBER 2012
14. Cormie P, McGuigan MR, and Newton RU.
Adaptations in athletic performance after
ballistic power versus strength training. Med
Sci Sports Exerc 42: 1582–1598, 2010.
15. Cronin J and Sleivert G. Challenges in
understanding the influence of maximal power
training on improving athletic performance.
Sports Med 35: 213–234, 2005.
16. Fry AC, Schilling BK, Staron RS,
Hagerman FC, Hikida RS, and Thrush JT.
Muscle fiber characteristics and
performance correlates of male Olympic-
style weightlifters. J Strength Cond Res
17: 746–754, 2003.
17. Garhammer J and Gregor RJ. Propulsion
forces as a function of intensity for
weightlifting and vertical jumping. J Appl
Sport Sci Res 6: 129–134, 1992.
18. Harris GR, Stone MH, O’Bryant HS,
Proulx CM, and Johnson RL. Short-term
performance effects of high power, high
force, or combined weight-training methods.
J Strength Cond Res 14: 14–20, 2000.
19. Hedrick A and Wada H. Weightlifting
movements: Do the benefits outweight the
risks? Strength Cond J 30: 26–34, 2008.
20. Hickson RC, Rosenkoetter MA, and
Brown MM. Strength training effects on
aerobic power and short-term endurance.
Med Sci Sports Exerc 12: 336–339, 1980.
21. Hoffman JR, Cooper J, Wendell M, and
Kang J. Comparison of Olympic vs.
traditional power lifting training programs in
football players. J Strength Cond Res 18:
129–135, 2004.
22. Hori N, Newton RU, Kawamori N,
McGuigan MR, Andrews WA,
Chapman DW, and Nosaka K. Comparison
of weighted jump squat training with and
without eccentric braking. J Strength Cond
Res 22: 54–65, 2008.
23. Hrysomallis C. The effectiveness of
resisted movement training on sprinting
and jumping performance. J Strength Cond
Res 26: 299–306, 2012.
24. Izquierdo M, Hakkinen K, Gonzalez-Badillo JJ,
Ibanez J, and Gorostiaga EM. Effects of long-
term training specificity on maximal strength
and power of the upper and lower extremities
in athletes from different sports. Eur J Appl
Physiol 87: 264–271, 2002.
25. Janz J, Dietz C, and Malone M. Training
explosiveness: Weightlifting and beyond.
Strength Cond J 30: 14–22, 2008.
26. Knudson DV. Correcting the use of the
term "power" in the strength and
conditioning literature. J Strength Cond
Res 23: 1902–1908, 2009.
27. Markovic G and Jaric S. Positive and
negative loading and mechanical output in
maximum vertical jumping. Med Sci Sports
Exerc 39: 1757–1764, 2007.
28. Markovic G and Mikulic P. Neuro-
musculoskeletal and performance
adaptations to lower-extremity plyometric
training. Sports Med 40: 859–895, 2010.
29. McBride JM, Triplett-McBride NT,
Davie A, and Newton RU. A comparison of
strength and power characteristics
between power lifters, Olympic lifters, and
sprinters. J Strength Cond Res 13: 58–
66, 1999.
30. McBride JM, Triplett-McBride T, Davie A,
and Newton RU. The effect of heavy- vs.
light-load jump squats on the development
of strength, power, and speed. J Strength
Cond Res 16: 75–82, 2002.
31. Newton H. Weightlifting? Weight lifting?
Olympic lifting? Olympic weightlifting?
Strength Cond J 21: 15–16, 1999.
32. Nuzzo JL, McBride JM, Dayne AM,
Israetel MA, Dumke CL, and Triplett NT.
Testing of the maximal dynamic output
hypothesis in trained and untrained subjects.
J Strength Cond Res 24: 1269–1276, 2010.
33. Otto WH, Coburn JW, Brown LE, and
Spiering BA. Effects of weightlifting vs.
Kettlebell training on vertical jump,
strength, and body composition. J Strength
Cond Res 33: 199–202, 2012.
34. Rhea MR, Kenn JG, and Dermody BM.
Alterations in speed of squat movement
and the use of accommodated resistance
among college athletes training for power.
J Strength Cond Res 23: 2645–2650,
2009.
35. Rhea MR, Peterson MD, Lunt KT, and
Ayllon FN. The effectiveness of resisted
jump training on the VertiMax in high school
athletes. J Strength Cond Res 22: 731–
734, 2008.
36. Rhea MR, Peterson MD, Oliverson JR,
Ayllon FN, and Potenziano BJ. An
examination of training on the VertiMax
resisted jumping device for improvements
in lower body power in highly trained
college athletes. J Strength Cond Res 22:
735–740, 2008.
37. Sheppard JM, Cronin JB, Gabbett TJ,
McGuigan MR, Etxebarria N, and
Newton RU. Relative importance of
strength, power, and anthropometric
measures to jump performance of elite
volleyball players. J Strength Cond Res 22:
758–765, 2008.
38. Sheppard JM, Dingley AA, Janssen I,
Spratford W, Chapman DW, and
Newton RU. The effect of assisted jumping
on vertical jump height in high-performance
volleyball players. J Sci Med Sport 14: 85–
89, 2011.
39. Sinnett AM, Berg K, Latin RW, and
Noble JM. The relationship between field
tests of anaerobic power and 10-km run
performance. J Strength Cond Res 15:
405–412, 2001.
40. Stevenson MW, Warpeha JM, Dietz CC,
Giveans RM, and Erdman AG. Acute effects
of elastic bands during the free-weight
barbell back squat exercise on velocity,
power, and force production. J Strength
Cond Res 24: 2944–2954, 2010.
41. Stone MH, Byrd R, Tew J, and Wood M.
Relationship between anaerobic power
Strength and Conditioning Journal | www.nsca-scj.com
and olympic weightlifting performance.
J Sports Med Phys Fitness 20: 99–102,
1980.
42. Stone MH, O’Bryant HS, McCoy L,
Coglianese R, Lehmkuhl M, and
Schilling B. Power and maximum strength
relationships during performance of
dynamic and static weighted jumps.
J Strength Cond Res 17: 140–147, 2003.
43. Stone MH, Pierce KC, Sands WA, and
Stone ME. Weightlifting: A Brief Overview.
Strength Cond J 28: 50–66, 2006.
44. Tran TT, Brown LE, Coburn JW, Lynn SK,
Dabbs NC, Schick MK, Schick EE,
Khamoui AV, Uribe BP, and Noffal GJ.
Effects of different elastic cord assistance
levels on vertical jump. J Strength Cond
Res 25: 3472–3478, 2011.
45. Tricoli V, Lamas L, Carnevale R, and
Ugrinowitsch C. Short-term effects on
lower-body functional power development:
weightlifting vs. vertical jump training
programs. J Strength Cond Res 19: 433–
437, 2005.
46. Vuk S, Markovic G, and Jaric S. External
loading and maximum dynamic output in
vertical jumping: The role of training history.
Hum Mov Sci 31: 139–151, 2012.
47. Willardson JM. A brief review: Factors
affecting the length of the rest interval
between resistance exercise sets.
J Strength Cond Res 20: 978–984, 2006.
48. Wilson GJ, Newton RU, Murphy AJ, and
Humphries BJ. The optimal training load for
the development of dynamic athletic
performance. Med Sci Sports Exerc 25:
1279–1286, 1993.
43