The correlation between jump height and mechanical power in a countermovement jump is artificially inflated.

The countermovement jump is commonly used to assess an athlete's neuromuscular capacity. The aim of this study was to identify the mechanism behind the strong correlation between jump height and mechanical power in a countermovement jump. Three athletes each performed between 47 and 60 maximal-effort countermovement jumps on a force platform. For all three athletes, peak mechanical power and average mechanical power were strongly correlated with jump height (r = 0.54-0.90). The correlation between jump height and peak power was largely determined by the correlation between jump height and the velocity at peak power (r = 0.83-0.94) and was not related to the correlation between jump height and the ground reaction force at peak power (r = -0.20-0.18). These results confirm that the strong correlation between jump height and power is an artefact arising from how power is calculated. Power is a compound variable calculated from the product of instantaneous ground reaction force and instantaneous velocity, and application of statistical theory shows that the correlation between jump height and power is artificially inflated by the near-perfect correlation between jump height and the velocity at peak power. Despite this finding, mechanical power might still be useful in assessing the neuromuscular capacity of an athlete.

Efectos del entrenamiento pliométrico acuático vs. seco sobre el salto vertical / Effects of land vs. aquatic plyometric training on vertical jump

El objetivo de este estudio fue comparar los efectos de dos programas de entrenamiento pliométrico (inmersión vs. seco) sobre el salto vertical. 65 hombres físicamente activos fueron asignados aleatoriamente a tres grupos: entrenamiento pliométrico acuático (EPA, n 20), entrenamiento pliométrico (EP, n=20) y grupo control (GC, n=25). Los grupos EPA y EP entrenaron 2 sesiones por semana durante 10 semanas, mientras que GC no realizó entrenamiento alguno. El volumen de entrenamiento fue aumentado desde 10 series de 10 repeticiones en la primera semana hasta 10 series de 55 repeticiones en la última. Tanto EPA como EP aumentaron su rendimiento en CMJ y SJ con respecto al pretest (P≤0,001) sin encontrar diferencias significativas entre grupos, mientras que GC no mostró cambios. Como conclusión, el EPA puede ser un método alternativo a EP ya que ambos producen similares mejoras sobre el salto vertical y el estrés mecánico producido por EPA es menor (AU)

The aim of this study was to compare the effects of two plyometric training program (aquatic vs. land) on vertical jump. 65 male physical education students took part in this study and were randomly assigned to three groups: aquatic plyometric training group (APT, n = 20), plyometric training group (PT, n = 20) and control group (CG, n = 25). The training program was performed for 10 weeks with a frequency of 2 sessions per week. Volume was increased from 10 sets of 10 repetitions to 10 sets of 55 repetitions. Both APT and PT increased the performance in CMJ and SJ with respect to pretest (P ≤ .001), whereas CG remained unaltered. No statistically significant difference was observed between APT and PT. In conclusion, APT may be an alternative method to PT, because both training protocols have produced similar gains in the vertical jump, but APT might cause lower mechanical stress (AU)

A Correction Equation for Jump Height Measured Using the Just Jump System.

PURPOSE: To determine the concurrent validity and reliability of the popular Just Jump system (JJS) for determining jump height and, if necessary, provide a correction equation for future reference. METHODS: Eighteen male college athletes performed 3 bilateral countermovement jumps (CMJs) on 2 JJSs (alternative method) that were placed on top of a force platform (criterion method). Two JJSs were used to establish consistency between systems. Jump height was calculated from flight time obtained from the JJS and force platform. RESULTS: Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) demonstrated excellent within-session reliability of the CMJ height measurement derived from both the JJS (ICC = .96, P < .001) and the force platform (ICC = .96, P < .001). Dependent t tests revealed that the JJS yielded a significantly greater CMJ jump height (0.46 ± 0.09 m vs 0.33 ± 0.08 m) than the force platform (P < .001, Cohen d = 1.39, power = 1.00). There was, however, an excellent relationship between CMJ heights derived from the JJS and force platform (r = .998, P < .001, power = 1.00), with a coefficient of determination (R2) of .995. Therefore, the following correction equation was produced: Criterion jump height = (0.8747 × alternative jump height) - 0.0666. CONCLUSIONS: The JJS provides a reliable but overestimated measure of jump height. It is suggested, therefore, that practitioners who use the JJS as part of future work apply the correction equation presented in this study to resultant jump-height values.