International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, 2015, 10, 1036  -1040

http://dx.doi.org/10.1123/ijspp.2014-0545
© 2015 Human Kinetics, Inc. ORIGINAL INVESTIGATION

Jump-Squat Performance and Its Relationship With Relative

Training Intensity in High-Level Athletes
Pedro Jiménez-Reyes, Fernando Pareja-Blanco, Carlos Balsalobre-Fernández, Víctor Cuadrado-Peñafiel,
Manuel A. Ortega-Becerra, and Juan J. González-Badillo

Purpose: To examine the relationship between the relative load in full squats and the height achieved in jump-squat (JS) exer-
cises and to determine the load that maximizes the power output of high-level athletes. Method: Fifty-one male high-level
track-and-field athletes (age 25.2 ± 4.4 y, weight 77. ± 6.2 kg, height 179.9 ± 5.6 cm) who competed in sprinting and jumping
events took part in the study. Full-squat 1-repetition-maximum (1-RM) and JS height (JH) with loads from 17 to 97 kg were
measured in 2 sessions separated by 48 h. Results: Individual regression analyses showed that JH (R2 = .992 ± .005) and the
jump decrease (JD) that each load produced with respect to the unloaded countermovement jump (CMJ) (R2 = .992 ± 0.007) are
highly correlated with the full-squat %1-RM, which means that training intensities can be prescribed using JH and JD values.
The authors also found that the load that maximizes JS’s power output was 0%RM (ie, unloaded CMJ). Conclusions: These
results highlight the close relationship between JS performance and relative training intensity in terms of %1-RM. The authors
also observed that the load that maximizes power output was 0%1-RM. Monitoring jump height during JS training could help
coaches and athletes determine and optimize their training loads.

Keywords: power, programming, resistance training, elite athletes

One of the main problems facing strength and conditioning Furthermore, the vertical jump has been proposed as a test well
coaches is the issue of how to objectively quantify and schedule suited to the assessment of muscle power because of its validity
the resistance-training intensities undertaken by athletes to optimize and reliability and because its measurement causes practically no
exercise programming and, consequently, maximize performance.1,2 fatigue in the athlete.9,10
Of all the variables used for programming training sessions, exercise Therefore, one of the most frequently used resistance exer-
intensity is generally acknowledged as the most important factor in cises to increase lower-limb muscle performance is the jump
terms of improving strength levels.2 The most widespread method squat (JS).11,12 The JS consists of a loaded vertical jump and is
for determining resistance-training intensities is the calculation of considered a ballistic exercise specifically focused on improving
the 1-repetition-maximum (1-RM).2,3 However, measurement of explosive strength and power. In fact, several studies have found
the 1-RM requires that the athlete apply a maximum physical and significant and relevant increases in subjects’ strength capabilities
psychological effort, which could lead to underestimated values, after a resistance-training program involving the JS.13,14 Typically,
especially in non-strength-specialized subjects,4 and it could even JS intensities are determined using the squat 1-RM as a reference,
increase the risk of injuries.5 Thus, several methodologies have with many authors having studied the load for this exercise, which
been used to indirectly estimate the 1-RM from different resistance maximizes muscle power in an attempt to optimize the athlete’s
exercises, including the number of repetitions up to failure,5 rating of strength training.12,15,16 However, while research into optimal loads
perceived exertion,6 and, more recently, movement velocity.1,7 More- for JS training has increased over the past few years, there is still no
over, sport-specific activities such as vertical jumping and sprinting consensus about the intensity that elicits maximum power output
have been used to predict lower-limb muscle strength, since it is from high-level athletes, since it highly depends on the calculation
well known that both vertical jumps and short sprints are highly method used.11,17–19 It is well known that power is the product of
correlated with the 1-RM.8 For example, it has been demonstrated force and velocity, but the way these variables are measured (ie,
that both loaded and unloaded squat and countermovement jumps using forward vs inverse dynamics, peak vs average values, consid-
(CMJs) are significantly correlated to squat 1-RM (r = .77–.94).3 ering system mass vs just external load, etc) influences the resultant
power value.17,18,20 Moreover, to the best of our knowledge, there
are no studies in the literature that analyze JS performance in high-
level athletes and its relationship with relative intensity in terms of
Jiménez-Reyes is with the Dept of Physical Activity and Sport Sciences, the percentage of the 1-RM. This information could help predict
St Anthony Catholic University, Murcia, Spain. Pareja-Blanco, Ortega- squat 1-RM and, therefore, be used to program training intensities.
Becerra, and González-Badillo are with the Faculty of Sport, Pablo de Thus, the purpose of this investigation was to analyze the rela-
Olavide University, Seville, Spain. Balsalobre-Fernández is with the Dept tionship between the height reached in the JS exercise with different
of Physical Education, Sports and Human Movement, Autonomous Uni- loads and the percentage of the 1-RM that these loads represent
versity of Madrid, Madrid, Spain. Cuadrado-Peñafiel is with the Faculty and to provide descriptive information for a high-level population
of Education, Complutense University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain. Address about the optimum load in the JS exercise that maximizes athletes’
author correspondence to Pedro Jiménez-Reyes at [email protected]. peak power output.

1036
 Jump-Squat Performance in Elite Athletes   1037

Methods (body mass + external load) was considered for the calculations.
Jump height was calculated through flight time using an infrared
Subjects platform (Microgate, Italy). In addition, jump-height decrease (JD)
was calculated for each jump with respect to the unloaded CMJ (in
Fifty-one high-level male athletes who compete in sprinting and %). The force platform had a sample rate of 1000 Hz.
jumping events participated in the study (age 25.2 ± 4.4 i, weight Participants stood on the Smith machine and rested the bar on
77. ± 6.2 kg, height 179.9 ± 5.6 cm, body-fat percentage 9.9% ± their shoulders. Then, they initiated the JS from a standing position
2.3%, CMJ height 50.5 ± 5.1 cm, full-squat 1-RM 136.3 ± 22.0 and performed a crouching action to 90° of knees flexion, followed
kg). No physical limitations or musculoskeletal injuries that could immediately by a jump to maximum height. Hands remained holding
affect testing were reported. Each athlete participated in national and the bar throughout the entire movement to maintain contact between
international events during this period and had completed resistance- the bar and shoulders. The test began with a load of 17 kg, with
training programs in the past. Consequently, all of the athletes were the weight being increased up to 97 kg in 10-kg increments. Two
highly trained and familiar with the testing exercises. All were jumps separated by 1 minute of passive rest were performed with
informed in detail about the content of the study, its objectives, and each load, and 3 minutes of passive rest were given between each
potential risks and benefits, and they all signed informed-consent load increase to minimize the likelihood of fatigue. The average
forms before participation. The study was approved by the research value of the 2 jumps was used for the subsequent statistical analysis.
ethics committee of the Pablo de Olavide University, Seville, Spain.
Full-Squat 1-RM.  48 hours after the JS test, full-squat 1-RM
Downloaded by Australian Catholic University on 09/26/16, Volume 10, Article Number 8

Design strength was determined by means of an incremental loading test.

The test was conducted with the same Smith machine as the JS
The current study used a cross-sectional experimental design with testing. After a standardized warm-up, the test started. Initial load
a group of trained male track-and-field athletes. The 51 participants was set at 20 kg for all subjects and was increased up to higher loads
were divided into groups of 5 subjects to allow a recovery time of 3 in 10-kg increments; thereafter, the load was individually adjusted
minutes between attempting the JS and full-squat 1-RM tests. Each with smaller increments (1–5 kg) for accurate determination of
group of 5 athletes performed the tests twice, separated by 48 hours. 1-RM. The heaviest load that each subject could lift correctly while
completing the full motion range was considered his 1-RM.
Measures Three attempts were executed for light (<50% 1-RM), 2 for
medium (50–80% 1-RM), and only 1 for the heaviest (>80% 1-RM)
Body Composition.  At the beginning of the first testing session, loads. Interset passive rests ranged from 3 minutes (light) to 6
participant height was measured to the nearest 0.5 cm during a minutes (heavy loads). Each repetition was performed at maximum
maximum inhalation using a wall-mounted stadiometer (Seca intended velocity, since it is known that to elicit levels of strength
202, Seca Ltd, Hamburg, Germany). Then, body weight and fat and power and optimize the performance of the athlete each repeti-
percentage were determined using an 8-contact-electrode segmental tion should be performed at maximum intended velocity.21
body-composition analyzer (Tanita BC-418, Tanita Corp, Tokyo,
Japan). Body-composition measurements were conducted at the
same time of day for each athlete (10:00 AM). Statistical Analysis
Unloaded CMJ.  After a standardized warm-up consisting of 10 Standard statistical methods were used for calculation of means
minutes of jogging, dynamic stretching, and preparatory vertical and SDs. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was used to
jumps, participants performed 3 maximum unloaded CMJs. Jump determine the between-subjects reliability of jumping tests for each
height was calculated through flight time using an infrared platform testing session (average data of the 2 sessions were used). Within-
(Optojump, Microgate, Italy), and peak power output was measured subject variation for all tests was determined by calculating the coef-
using a portable force platform (Isonet, JLML, Madrid, Spain). The ficient of variation (CV). The relationships between variables were
infrared platform transforms flight time to jump height using the determined using Pearson product–moment correlation coefficient,
equation h = t2 × 1.22625, with h being the jump height in meters and second-order polynomial regressions were used to elaborate
and t being the flight time of the jump in seconds. During the prediction equations. One-way ANOVA with Bonferroni post hoc
CMJ, the subject was instructed to rest his hands on his hips while comparisons was used to detect differences between power output
performing a downward movement to 90° of knee flexion followed with different loads. The level of significance was set at .05. All
by a vertical jump of maximum effort. All subjects were instructed calculations were performed using IBM SPSS Statistic 22 software
to keep their knees straight during the flight phase of the jump and (IBM Corp, USA).
to land in an upright position. Attempts were separated by 1 minute
of passive rest. The average value of the 3 jumps was used for the Results
subsequent statistical analysis.
Both JS peak power output (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC]
Jump Squat.  Three minutes after finalizing the unloaded CMJ = .97 [95% confidence interval (CI) = .93–.98], CV = 2.5% [95%
test, subjects performed an incremental test with the JS exercise. CI = 1.3–3.6]) and full-squat 1-RM (ICC = .97 [95% CI = .93–.98],
The JS test was performed using a Smith machine (Multipower CV = 3.7% [95% CI = 2.5–4.9]) showed good reliability.
Fitness Line, Peroga, Spain), which allows a smooth vertical
displacement of the bar along a fixed pathway. A portable force Relationships Between Relative Load and Jump
platform (Isonet, JLML, Madrid, Spain) was used for ground- Performance
reaction-force measurements. The peak power output of each jump
was then calculated using forward dynamics (ie, extracting force When analyzing the relationships between the values obtained
and velocity values through force–time data).17 Whole-system mass by every single athlete for each load increment in the JS test

IJSPP Vol. 10, No. 8, 2015

 1038  Jiménez-Reyes et al

(ie, 17–97 kg), significant correlations were observed between the The Load That Maximizes Peak Power Output
height reached in centimeters, with each load and the %1-RM they
represented (R2 = .992 ± .005, CV = 0.6% [95% CI = 0.52–0.92], P Finally, we analyzed the peak power output of the JS exercise. The
< .001). Similarly, significant correlations were noted between the load that maximized the power output (the maximum power load
percentage JD that each load produced with respect to the unloaded [MPL]) was calculated to be 0% of 1-RM. The 1-way ANOVA
CMJ and the %1-RM it represented (R2 = .992 ± .007, CV = 0.7% showed statistically significant differences between the power
[95% CI = 0.53–0.91], P < .001). Mean values and standard devia- output produced with the MPL and any other load analyzed (P <
tions for the jump height and JD associated with the most-common .001). See Figure 2.
JS-training intensities (ie, %1-RM) were obtained using average data
from individual second-order polynomial regressions. See Table 1. Discussion
We also analyzed the raw data derived from the incremental
tests performed in the JS and full-squat exercises by the whole group. The results of our study showed a close relationship (R2 = .82–.89)
After plotting the variables and fitting a second-order polynomial between absolute and relative JS height and the relative load in the
line to all data points, close relationships were found between the full-squat exercise in terms of percentage of the 1-RM. Thus, with
jump heights and the %1-RMs with which those heights were data for the absolute jump height (in cm) or JD with respect to the
reached (R2 = .89) and between the JD and the %1-RM that produced unloaded CMJ (%) that a specific load produces, we can accurately
those decrements (R2 = .82). See Figure 1. estimate the %1-RM that the load represents (and, by extension,
Downloaded by Australian Catholic University on 09/26/16, Volume 10, Article Number 8

the 1-RM) without conducting an actual full-squat 1-RM test. Fur-

Predicting Load (%1-RM) From Jump-Height Data thermore, if jump height is monitored on a daily basis, which can
be done with an inexpensive, validated iPhone application,22 it is
Equations predicting the %1-RM in FS from both the jump height possible to determine whether the proposed load (in kg) for a every
and JD were obtained: single training session truly represents the real effort (% of 1-RM)
%1RM = 0.041 × JH2 – 4.700 × JH + 126.658 that was programmed. Therefore, we can deduce that if a subject
(R2 = .85; SEE = 6.65% 1-RM) reaches a greater jump height with a given load (in kg), that subject
would have increased his 1-RM in the full-squat exercise, since that
%1RM = 0.005 × JD2 + 0.701 × JD – 13.712 load would now correspond to a lower %1-RM.
(R2 = .78; SEE = 7.73% 1-RM) The prediction of the 1-RM in different-resistance exercises
has been studied widely and from different perspectives,1,5,6 because
where JH is the height (in cm) reached with a specific load on the direct measurement of 1-RM has some potential drawbacks that
JS exercise and JD is the percentage of jump-height decrease that could negatively affect the participant’s performance or even the
a specific load produces with respect to the unloaded CMJ. musculoskeletal health of some populations.1,4 Probably the most-
used methods to estimate the 1-RM are those based on the numbers
of repetitions to failure with submaximal loads, often called x-RM
tests.3,7 Although x-RM tests have been extensively examined to
determine their utility in predicting 1-RM values, it seems that
Table 1  Full-Squat Relative Intensity With Its
the maximum number of repetitions that can be performed with
Associated Jump Heights and Jump Decreases With a specific %1-RM can vary greatly (up to 100%) between differ-
Respect to the Unloaded Countermovement Jump, ent populations and athletic levels,23 meaning that its accuracy
Mean ± SD is unclear. For example, the standard error of estimate (SEE) for
Full-squat relative intensity Jump height Jump decrease
1-RM-prediction equations based on submaximal repetitions has
(%1-repetition-maximum) (cm) (%) been calculated to be up to 16%1-RM for different exercises.24
Taking into account that our results showed that the SEE of jump
10 35.7 ± 2.2 29.3 ± 4.7 height and JD was about 7%, monitoring jump performance might
15 33.1 ± 2.0 34.4 ± 4.7 be a better approach for predicting full-squat 1-RM. In addition,
20 30.7 ± 1.9 39.2 ± 4.9 performing repetitions to failure has been demonstrated to impair
muscle power and to significantly increase the degree of metabolic
25 28.4 ± 2.0 43.7 ± 5.1
and mechanical fatigue,9,25,26 so conducting x-RM testing in a sys-
30 26.3 ± 2.1 47.9 ± 5.4 tematic way could negatively affect athletes’ training programs.
35 24.3 ± 2.3 51.7 ± 5.6 Research into movement velocity to predict resistance-training
40 22.5 ± 2.4 55.2 ± 5.7 intensities has increased recently.1,7 Such studies are based on the
well-known force–velocity relationship that has been extensively
45 20.9 ± 2.4 58.4 ± 5.7 demonstrated in both in vitro and in vivo conditions,27,28 and they
50 19.4 ± 2.5 61.3 ± 5.6 probe the very close relationship (R2 > .94, SEE = 3.6–5.9% 1-RM)
55 18.0 ± 2.5 63.8 ± 5.6 existing between the relative intensity (in terms of %1-RM) and
the bar velocity for different exercises.1,7 However, although recent
60 16.8 ± 2.6 66.2 ± 5.6
research has probed the suitability of the JS test for assessment of
65 15.7 ± 2.8 68.2 ± 5.6 the force–velocity profile of the lower limbs,10 no studies, to the best
70 14.6 ± 3.0 70.1 ± 5.8 of our knowledge, have analyzed the relationship between JS height
75 13.9 ± 2.7 72.1 ± 6.1 and its relationship with relative intensity in high-level athletes.
Determination of the MPL has been extensively investigated
80 12.9 ± 2.9 73.9 ± 6.4 with different exercises, since many coaches and researchers use

IJSPP Vol. 10, No. 8, 2015

 Jump-Squat Performance in Elite Athletes   1039
Downloaded by Australian Catholic University on 09/26/16, Volume 10, Article Number 8

Figure 1 — Relationships between full-squat relative intensity (% of 1-repetition-maximum [1-RM]) and (A) jump-squat height (JH, in cm) and (B)
jump decrease (JD, in %) with respect to the unloaded countermovement-jump height. Solid lines represent the second-order polynomial lines fitted to
the data, while the dotted lines indicate the limits within which 95% of predictions will fall.

results corroborate previous studies using the same methodology

about the MPL in the JS exercise. Thus, taking into account that to
determine MPL expensive equipment must be used to obtain accu-
rate values17,18,20 and peak power output in the JS exercise occurs
at 0%1-RM, it is reasonable to think that other methodologies must
be used to program JS-training loads. Results in the current study
suggest that jump height can be an accurate, good alternative to
monitor and prescribe JS-training intensities.
These findings could have important practical applications for
coaches and athletes, who could monitor the jump height during
jump-squat testing to assess athletes’ maximum strength and power.

Practical Applications
The height reached in the JS exercise can be used as an indicator of
training load in terms of percentage of 1-RM without conducting
an actual 1-RM test. These findings could have important practical
implications for the programming and monitoring of resistance-
training loads for coaches and athletes. First, using the jump-height
Figure 2 — Peak power output with 95% CI error bars for the different data, or the decrease in the jump height produced with a specific
loads analyzed. *Significant differences between the maximal power load absolute load (in kg) with respect to the unloaded CMJ height,
and each other load (P < .001) **No statistically significant differences means that both the relative training intensity and full-squat 1-RM
between loads within that range. can be estimated. Second, the fact that peak power output was
reached with a load corresponding to 0%1-RM seems to minimize
the importance of the determination of the maximal power load for
JS-training prescription.
the MPL to schedule athletes’ power training.11,12,15,29 However,
measurement of the MPL is problematic, and, in fact, there is no
consensus about the %1-RM that corresponds to the MPL, since Conclusions
peak power-output values are highly dependent on the methodol-
ogy used. It seems that the use of kinetic equipment (ie, force Monitoring jump heights attained in the jump-squat exercise can
platforms) is the gold standard for peak-power measurement.15,17 help in scheduling training intensities on a daily basis without
Studies using this methodology have found that the MPL in the JS conducting actual 1-repetition-maximum or maximum-power-load
exercise corresponds to 0% of 1-RM (unloaded CMJ).11,17,18,29,30 Our tests.

IJSPP Vol. 10, No. 8, 2015

 1040  Jiménez-Reyes et al

Acknowledgments 15. Dugan EL, Doyle TLA, Humphries B, Hasson CJ, Newton RU.
The authors thank all the athletes who participated as subjects in this study. Determining the optimal load for jump squats: a review of methods
No sources of funding were used in the preparation of this article. and calculations. J Strength Cond Res. 2004;18:668–674. PubMed
16. Nibali ML, Chapman DW, Robergs RA, Drinkwater EJ. A rationale
for assessing the lower-body power profile in team sport athletes.
References J Strength Cond Res. 2013;27:388–397. PubMed doi:10.1519/
JSC.0b013e3182576feb
1. González-Badillo JJ, Sánchez-Medina L. Movement velocity as a 17. Cormie P, Deane R, McBride JM. Methodological concerns for
measure of loading intensity in resistance training. Int J Sports Med. determining power output in the jump squat. J Strength Cond Res.
2010;31:347–352. PubMed doi:10.1055/s-0030-1248333 2007;21:424–430. PubMed
2. Kraemer WJ, Ratamess NA. Fundamentals of resistance training: pro- 18. Cormie P, McBride JM, McCaulley GO. Validation of power measure-
gression and exercise prescription. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2004;36:674– ment techniques in dynamic lower body resistance exercises. J Appl
688. PubMed doi:10.1249/01.MSS.0000121945.36635.61 Biomech. 2007;23:103–118. PubMed
3. Stone MH, O’Bryant HS, McCoy L, Coglianese R, Lehmkuhl M, 19. McBride JM, Haines TL, Kirby TJ. Effect of loading on peak power
Schilling B. Power and maximum strength relationships during of the bar, body, and system during power cleans, squats, and jump
performance of dynamic and static weighted jumps. J Strength Cond squats. J Sports Sci. 2011;29:1215–1221. PubMed doi:10.1080/026
Res. 2003;17:140–147. PubMed 40414.2011.587444
Downloaded by Australian Catholic University on 09/26/16, Volume 10, Article Number 8

4. Ribeiro AS, do Nascimento MA, Mayhew JL, et al. Reliability of 1RM 20. Lake JP, Lauder MA, Smith NA. Barbell kinematics should not be used
test in detrained men with previous resistance training experience. to estimate power output applied to the barbell-and-body system center
Isokinet Exerc Sci. 2014;22:137–143. of mass during lower-body resistance exercise. J Strength Cond Res.
5. Willardson JM, Bressel E. Predicting a 10 repetition maximum for the 2012;26:1302–1307. PubMed doi:10.1519/JSC.0b013e31822e7b48
free weight parallel squat using the 45° angled leg press. J Strength 21. Pareja-Blanco F, Rodriguez-Rosell D, Sanchez-Medina L, Goros-
Cond Res. 2004;18:567–571. PubMed tiaga EM, Gonzalez-Badillo JJ. Effect of movement velocity during
6. Robertson RJ, Goss FL, Aaron DJ, et al. One repetition maximum pre- resistance training on neuromuscular performance. Int J Sports Med.
diction models for children using the Omni RPE scale. J Strength Cond 2014;35:916–924. PubMed doi:10.1055/s-0033-1363985
Res. 2008;22:196–201. PubMed doi:10.1519/JSC.0b013e31815f6283 22. Balsalobre-Fernández C, Glaister M, Lockey RA. The validity and
7. Sánchez-Medina L, Gonzalez-Badillo JJ, Perez CE, Pallares JG. reliability of an iPhone app for measuring vertical jump performance.
Velocity- and power-load relationships of the bench pull vs. bench J Sports Sci. 2015;33(15):1574–1579. PubMed
press exercises. Int J Sports Med. 2014;35:209–216. PubMed 23. Richens B, Cleather DJ. The relationship between the number of
8. Nuzzo JL, McBride JM, Cormie P, McCaulley GO. Relationship repetitions performed at given intensities is different in endurance
between countermovement jump performance anti multijoint isometric and strength trained athletes. Biol Sport. 2014;31:157–161. PubMed
and dynamic tests of strength. J Strength Cond Res. 2008;22:699–707. doi:10.5604/20831862.1099047
PubMed doi:10.1519/JSC.0b013e31816d5eda 24. Dohoney P, Chromiak J, Lemire D, Abadie B, Kovacs C. Prediction
9. Sánchez-Medina L, González-Badillo JJ. Velocity loss as an indi- of one repetition maximum (1-RM) strength from a 4–6 RM and a
cator of neuromuscular fatigue during resistance training. Med 7–10 RM submaximal strength test in healthy young adult males. J
Sci Sports Exerc. 2011;43:1725–1734. PubMed doi:10.1249/ Exercise Physiol. 2002;5:54–59.
MSS.0b013e318213f880 25. Izquierdo-Gabarren M, De Txabarri Expósito RG, García-Pallarés
10. Jiménez-Reyes P, Samozino P, Cuadrado-Peñafiel V, Conceição F, J, Sánchez-Medina L, De Villarreal ESS, Izquierdo M. Concurrent
González-Badillo J, Morin J-B. Effect of countermovement on power- endurance and strength training not to failure optimizes performance
force-velocity profile. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2014;114:2281–2288. gains. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2010;42:1191–1199. PubMed
PubMed doi:10.1007/s00421-014-2947-1 26. Willardson JM, Emmett J, Oliver JA, Bressel E. Effect of short-term
11. Cormie P, McCaulley GO, Triplett NT, McBride JM. Optimal loading failure versus nonfailure training on lower body muscular endurance.
for maximal power output during lower-body resistance exercises. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2008;3(3):279–293. PubMed
Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2007;39:340–349. PubMed doi:10.1249/01. 27. Hill A. The heat of shortening and the dynamic constants of muscle.
mss.0000246993.71599.bf Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 1938;126:136–195. doi:10.1098/
12. Turner AP, Unholz CN, Potts N, Coleman SG. Peak power, force, and rspb.1938.0050
velocity during jump squats in professional rugby players. J Strength 28. Gülch RW. Force-velocity relations in human skeletal muscle. Int J
Cond Res. 2012;26:1594–1600. PubMed Sports Med. 1994;15:S2–S10. PubMed doi:10.1055/s-2007-1021103
13. McBride JM, Triplett-McBride T, Davie A, Newton RU. The effect 29. Cormie P, McBride JM, McCaulley GO. Power-time, force-time, and
of heavy- vs. light-load jump squats on the development of strength, velocity-time curve analysis during the jump squat: impact of load. J
power, and speed. J Strength Cond Res. 2002;16:75–82. PubMed Appl Biomech. 2008;24:112–120. PubMed
14. Cormie P, McGuigan MR, Newton RU. Adaptations in athletic 30. Dayne AM, McBride JM, Nuzzo JL, Triplett NT, Skinner J, Burr
performance after ballistic power versus strength training. Med A. Power output in the jump squat in adolescent male athletes.
Sci Sports Exerc. 2010;42:1582–1598. PubMed doi:10.1249/ J Strength Cond Res. 2011;25:585–589. PubMed doi:10.1519/
MSS.0b013e3181d2013a JSC.0b013e3181c1fa83

IJSPP Vol. 10, No. 8, 2015