Effects of two drop-jump protocols with different volumes on vertical jump performance and its association with the force–velocity profile

Andrés Baena-Raya,Sergio Sánchez-López,Manuel A. Rodríguez-Pérez,Amador García-Ramos,Pedro Jiménez-Reyes
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00421-019-04276-6
IF: 3.346
2019-12-03
European Journal of Applied Physiology
Abstract:PurposeThis study aimed to evaluate the changes in countermovement jump (CMJ) height after two drop-jump (DJ) protocols with different volumes, and to explore the possibility of predicting the changes in CMJ height based on the vertical forceвАУvelocity (FвАУv) profile.MethodThirty-four male athletes (age: 21.9вАЙ¬±вАЙ2.0¬†years) were tested on three occasions. The FвАУv profile during the CMJ exercise was determined in the first session. Two DJ protocols (low-volume [1 set of 5 DJ trials from a 30¬†cm height] and high-volume [3 sets of 5 DJ trials from a 30¬†cm height]) were randomly performed during the second and third sessions, and the unloaded CMJ height was evaluated before (Pre), 4¬†min (Post4), 8¬†min (Post8), and 12¬†min (Post12) after the DJ protocol.ResultsCMJ height was significantly higher at Post4 (2.5¬†cm [95% confidence interval (CI)вАЙ=вАЙ2.0вАУ3.0¬†cm]; ESвАЙ=вАЙ0.35), Post8 (2.1¬†cm [95% CIвАЙ=вАЙ1.4вАУ2.8¬†cm]; ESвАЙ=вАЙ0.29) and Post12 (2.2¬†cm [95% CIвАЙ=вАЙ1.4вАУ3.0¬†cm]; ESвАЙ=вАЙ0.30) compared to Pre. The only significant interaction (protocol √Ч time) was caused by a higher increment in CMJ height at Post4 for the low-volume (8.1вАЙ¬±вАЙ3.7%) compared to the high-volume (5.8вАЙ¬±вАЙ3.9%) protocol. The FвАУv profile did not explain a significant part of the change in CMJ height (variance explainedвАЙ<вАЙ10%).ConclusionsThese results suggest that low-volume DJ protocols could be more efficient to acutely increase CMJ performance, while the change in CMJ height was not affected by the FвАУv profile.
physiology,sport sciences
What problem does this paper attempt to address?