See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/298565454

Effect of potentiating exercise volume on vertical jump

CONFERENCE PAPER OCTOBER 2008

READS

13

6 AUTHORS, INCLUDING:

Andy V Khamoui Lee E Brown

Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute at Harbor-UCLA Medical Center California State University, Fullerton
50 PUBLICATIONS 155 CITATIONS 628 PUBLICATIONS 2,163 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Jared W Coburn
California State University, Fullerton
321 PUBLICATIONS 2,140 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Available from: Lee E Brown

Retrieved on: 19 March 2016
 EFFECT OF POTENTIATING EXERCISE VOLUME ON VERTICAL JUMP
Andy V. Khamoui Brandon P. Uribe Diamond Nguyen Lee E. Brown, Jared W. Coburn Daniel A. Judelson
Human Performance Laboratory Department of Kinesiology California State University, Fullerton Fullerton, California, U.S.A.
ABSTRACT
Previous research has been directed at the use of a conditioning stimulus to evoke
postactivation potentiation (PAP) and improve performance [1]. The enhancement
of muscle function associated with PAP [3] makes the conditioning stimulus a
viable warm-up procedure for dynamic activities. In an effort to determine the
optimal conditions to utilize this physiological occurrence, prior studies have
manipulated variables associated with the application of PAP [2]. To our
knowledge, limited research has investigated manipulations in potentiating
exercise volume on jumping performance. Therefore, the purpose of this study
was to investigate the effect of varied back squat volume on vertical jump height
and ground reaction force. Ten males (mean SD, age 24.50 2.07 y, height
177.80 8.09 cm, body mass 92.32 11.97 kg) with at least one year of back
squat experience completed five testing sessions separated by 72 hours of rest.
On the first day of testing, subjects completed maximum vertical jump testing
without a potentiating exercise intervention (control condition) in a test-retest
fashion (3 vertical jumps, 5 minutes seated rest, followed by the final 3 vertical jumps).
Subjects then rested for five minutes before beginning 1RM back squat testing.
All squat repetitions were performed to quad parallel depth. The subsequent
four testing sessions were also conducted in a test-retest fashion (3 vertical
jumps, the experimental condition, 5 minutes seated rest, and the final 3 vertical
jumps) with experimental order randomly assigned to subjects. The four
experimental conditions required subjects to perform the back squat using a load
of 85% 1RM at the following volume assignments: 1) 1x2 2) 1x3 3) 1x4 4) 1x5.
Prior to each testing day, all subjects performed a warm-up consisting of five minutes
of submaximal cycling at 50 rpm (25 watts). All vertical jumps were performed
using a countermovement with arm swing to a self-determined depth on a
multi-component force platform (Advanced Mechanical Technology, Inc., Watertown,
MA) and with a Vertec device to determine jump height. Data acquisition
software (LabVIEW, version 7.1, National Instruments Corporation, Austin, TX)
provided values for vertical ground reaction force. Fifteen seconds of rest were
provided between vertical jumps. Repeated measures ANOVA were performed on
each dependent variable. Level of significance was accepted at p 0.05. Peak vertical
jump height increased significantly following the 1x4 condition only. The
increase in peak vertical jump height observed in the 1x5 condition approached
significance (p=0.08). Average vertical jump height significantly increased
following the back squat intervention performed at 1x4 and 1x5 only. Peak
ground reaction force significantly decreased in the control condition and
INTRODUCTION RESULTS DISCUSSION
following the back squat intervention performed at 1x2 and 1x4. The decrease in Previous research has been directed at the use of a conditioning stimulus to evoke Peak vertical jump height increased significantly following the 1x4 condition only. The increase in peak vertical jump The present study found a significant increase in jumping performance as measured by peak vertical
ground reaction force after the 1x5 condition approached significance (p=0.07). postactivation potentiation (PAP) and improve performance [1]. The enhancement height observed in the 1x5 condition approached significance (p=0.08). Average vertical jump height significantly jump height following the 1x4 condition and average vertical jump height following the 1x4 and 1x5
Average ground reaction force decreased significantly following the 1x2 of muscle function associated with PAP [3] makes the conditioning stimulus a viable increased following the back squat intervention performed at 1x4 and 1x5 only (table 1). Peak ground reaction force conditions. Collectively, this suggests that a potentiating exercise performed at a greater volume within
condition only. The present study found a significant increase in jumping warm-up procedure for dynamic activities. In an effort to determine the optimal significantly decreased in the control condition and following the back squat intervention performed at 1x2 and 1x4. the load-repetition maximum continuum (i.e. 85% ~ 5RM) augments jumping performance to a greater
performance as measured by peak vertical jump height following the 1x4 conditions to utilize this physiological occurrence, prior studies have manipulated The decrease in ground reaction force after the 1x5 condition approached significance (p=0.07). Average ground degree than lower volumes. It should be noted that this statement reflects the use of the
condition and average vertical jump height following the 1x4 and 1x5 variables associated with the application of PAP [2]. To our knowledge, limited reaction force decreased significantly following the 1x2 condition only (table 2). aforementioned potentiating exercise and load. Similar outcomes could conceivably occur as a function
conditions. Collectively, this suggests that a potentiating exercise performed at a research has investigated manipulations in potentiating exercise volume on of load, with greater loads possibly requiring a lower volume to elicit a potentiated state. Furthermore,
greater volume within the load-repetition maximum continuum (i.e. 85% ~ 5RM) jumping performance. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to investigate the the significant improvement in peak jump height exclusive to the 1x4 condition indicates that this
augments jumping performance to a greater degree than lower volumes. It Table 1. Peak and Average Vertical Jump (cm)
effect of varied back squat volume on vertical jump height and ground reaction volume assignment may be optimal for recreationally-trained individuals. In other words, 1x4 provided
should be noted that this statement reflects the use of the aforementioned force. Condition Pre-peak Post-peak peak Pre-avg VJ Post-avg peak enough of a stimulus for subjects to benefit from a potentiated state while minimizing the influence of
potentiating exercise and load. Similar outcomes could conceivably occur as a fatigue. The back squat performed at 1x2 and 1x3 was inadequate to induce advantageous conditions
control 58.80 7.11 58.93 5.81 0.13 56.13 7.03 57.28 5.95 1.15
function of load, with greater loads possibly requiring a lower volume to elicit a
while 1x5 likely produced a situation in which the potentiation-fatigue balance favored the latter.
potentiated state. Furthermore, the significant improvement in peak jump METHODS 1x2 60.07 6.31 60.71 6.71 0.64 58.17 6.42 58.80 6.76 0.63
height exclusive to the 1x4 condition indicates that this volume assignment may
1x3 59.69 6.25 59.82 6.18 0.13 57.74 6.11 58.38 6.05 0.64 Significant reductions were observed in peak vertical ground reaction force under the control, 1x2, and
be optimal for recreationally-trained individuals. In other words, 1x4 provided Ten males (mean SD, age 24.50 2.07 y, height 177.80 8.09 cm, body mass 92.32
1x4 conditions. In addition, the decrease in ground reaction force following the 1x5 back squat
enough of a stimulus for subjects to benefit from a potentiated state while 11.97 kg) with at least one year of back squat experience completed five testing 1x4 59.82 6.15 61.34 6.19* 1.52 57.66 6.47 59.56 6.09 * 1.90
intervention approached significance. This may represent depressed muscle function and force
minimizing the influence of fatigue. The back squat performed at 1x2 and 1x3 sessions separated by 72 hours of rest. On the first day of testing, subjects
1x5 59.44 6.24 60.83 5.30 ^ 1.39 57.49 6.39 59.31 5.78 * 1.82 production capabilities as a result of performing successive maximum vertical jumps and/or the
was inadequate to induce advantageous conditions while 1x5 likely produced a completed maximum vertical jump testing without a potentiating exercise
conditioning stimulus. With the exception of the 1x2 condition, average ground reaction force was not
situation in which the potentiation-fatigue balance favored the latter. Significant intervention (control condition) in a test-retest fashion (3 vertical jumps, 5 minutes *significantly greater than pre-test value (p<0.05), ^ approached significance (p=0.08)
significantly different pre-test versus post-test. The decrease in average ground reaction force following
reductions were observed in peak vertical ground reaction force under the seated rest, followed by the final 3 vertical jumps). Subjects then rested for five
the control and 1x5 conditions approached significance (p=0.07). The above ground reaction force data
control, 1x2, and 1x4 conditions. In addition, the decrease in ground reaction minutes before beginning 1RM back squat testing. All squat repetitions were
along with the observed increases in peak and average vertical jump height suggest that the ability to
force following the 1x5 back squat intervention approached significance. This performed to quad parallel depth. The subsequent four testing sessions were also Table 2. Peak and Average Vertical Ground Reaction Force (N)
produce large forces does not entirely explain the variance in jumping performance. It also implies that
may represent depressed muscle function and force production capabilities as a conducted in a test-retest fashion (3 vertical jumps, the experimental condition, 5
Condition Pre-peak Post-peak peak Pre-avg Post-avg peak PAP enhances dynamic performance through mechanisms other than peak force.
result of performing successive maximum vertical jumps and/or the minutes seated rest, and the final 3 vertical jumps) with experimental order
conditioning stimulus. With the exception of the 1x2 condition, average ground randomly assigned to subjects. The four experimental conditions required subjects control 2333.22 370.14 2269.99 342.64 * -63.23 2259.57 359.92 2230.36 343.53 ^ -29.21
reaction force was not significantly different pre-test versus post-test. The to perform the back squat using a load of 85% 1RM at the following volume 1x2 2334.40 306.08 2287.93 299.94 * -46.47 2295.03 301.75 2247.40 305.53 * -47.63
decrease in average ground reaction force following the control and 1x5 assignments: 1) 1x2 2) 1x3 3) 1x4 4) 1x5. Prior to each testing day, all subjects
CONCLUSIONS
conditions approached significance (p=0.07). The above ground reaction force 1x3 2334.12 363.97 2323.75 330.58 -10.37 2261.75 350.50 2261.54 325.45 -0.21
performed a warm-up consisting of five minutes of submaximal cycling at 50 rpm A heavy load back squat performed at a greater volume within the load-repetition maximum continuum
data along with the observed increases in peak and average vertical jump height (25 watts). All vertical jumps were performed using a countermovement with arm 1x4 2333.77 344.13 2274.82 332.87 * -58.95 2282.65 336.05 2237.56 320.09 -45.09 appears to be an appropriate potentiating exercise that could acutely enhance vertical jump performance.
(Table 1) suggest that the ability to produce large forces does not entirely swing to a self-determined depth on a multi-component force platform (Advanced
explain the variance in jumping performance. It also implies that PAP enhances 1x5 2339.87 332.79 2302.74 336.41 ^ -37.13 2279.44 317.52 2254.90 321.38 ^ -24.54
Mechanical Technology, Inc., Watertown, MA) and with a Vertec device to determine
dynamic performance through mechanisms other than peak force.
jump height. Data acquisition software (LabVIEW, version 7.1, National Instruments *significantly less than pre-test value (p<0.05), ^ approached significance (p=0.07) REFERENCES
Corporation, Austin, TX) provided values for vertical ground reaction force. Fifteen
[1]French et al. J. Strength Cond. Res. 17(4):678-685, 2003. seconds of rest were provided between vertical jumps. Repeated measures ANOVA [1]French et al. J. Strength Cond. Res. 17(4):678-685, 2003.
[2]Rixon et al. J. Strength Cond. Res. 21(2):500-505, 2007. were performed on each dependent variable. Level of significance was accepted at [2]Rixon et al. J. Strength Cond. Res. 21(2):500-505, 2007.
[3]Vandenboom et al. Am. J. Physiol. 268(3 Pt 1):C596-603, 1995. p 0.05. [3]Vandenboom et al. Am. J. Physiol. 268(3 Pt 1):C596-603, 1995.