Jump height is a poor indicator of lower limb maximal power output: theoretical demonstration, experimental evidence and practical solutions
Lower limb maximal power output (Pmax) is a key physical component of performance in many sports. During squat jump (SJ) and countermovement jump (CMJ) tests, athletes produce high amounts of mechanical work over a short duration to displace their body mass (i.e. the dimension of mechanical power). Thus, jump height has been frequently used by the sports science and medicine communities as an indicator of Pmax. However, in this article, we contended that SJ and CMJ height are in fact poor indicators of Pmax in trained populations. To support our opinion, we first detailed why, theoretically, jump height and Pmax are not fully related. Specifically, we demonstrated that individual body mass, distance of push-off, optimal loading and force-velocity characteristics confound the jump height-Pmax relationship. We also discussed the poor relationship between SJ or CMJ height and Pmax measured with a force plate based on data reported in the literature, which added to our own experimental evidence. Finally, we discussed the limitations of existing practical solutions (regression-based estimation equations and allometric scaling), and advocated using a valid, reliable and simple field-based procedure to compute individual Pmax directly from jump height, body mass and push-off distance. The latter may allow researchers and practitioners to reduce bias in their assessment of Pmax by using jump height as an input with a simple yet accurate computation method, and not as the first/only variable of interest.
Authors

Are you an author of this paper? Check the Twitter handle we have for you is correct.

Jean-Benoit Morin (add twitter)
Pedro Jiménez-Reyes (edit)
Matt Brughelli (add twitter)
Pierre Samozino (edit)
Category

Sport and Exercise Science

Subcategories
Ask The Authors

Ask the authors of this paper a question or leave a comment.

Read it. Rate it.
#1. Which part of the paper did you read?

#2. The paper contains new data or analyses that is openly accessible?
#3. The conclusion is supported by the data and analyses?
#4. The conclusion is of scientific interest?
#5. The result is likely to lead to future research?

Github
User:
None (add)
Repo:
None (add)
Stargazers:
0
Forks:
0
Open Issues:
0
Network:
0
Subscribers:
0
Language:
None
Youtube
Link:
None (add)
Views:
0
Likes:
0
Dislikes:
0
Favorites:
0
Comments:
0
Other
Sample Sizes (N=):
Inserted:
Words Total:
Words Unique:
Source:
Abstract:
None
10/19/18 05:54PM
5,670
1,938
Tweets
Nobody has tweeted about this paper.
Images
Related