VERTICAL AND HORIZONTAL JUMP TESTS ARE STRONGLY ASSOCIATED WITH COMPETITIVE PERFORMANCE IN 100-M DASH EVENTS

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research Publish Ahead of PrintDOI: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000000849

VERTICAL AND HORIZONTAL JUMP TESTS ARE STRONGLY ASSOCIATED

WITH COMPETITIVE PERFORMANCE IN 100-M DASH EVENTS

Submission type: Research Note

Irineu Loturco1 ( ), Lucas Adriano Pereira¹, Cesar Cavinato Cal Abad¹, Ricardo Antônio

D’Angelo2, Victor Fernandes2, Katia Kitamura1, Ronaldo Kobal1, Fabio Yuzo Nakamura3

1- NAR - Nucleus of High Performance in Sport, São Paulo, SP, Brazil

2- BMF – BOVESPA, Track & Field Club, São Paulo, SP, Brazil

3- State University of Londrina, Londrina, PR, Brazil

Address for Correspondence:

Irineu Loturco ( )

NAR - Nucleus of High Performance in Sport.

Av. Padre José Maria, 555 - Santo Amaro, 04753-060 – São Paulo, SP, Brazil.

Tel.: +55-11-3758-0918

E-mail: [email protected]

ACCEPTED

Copyright � Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. All rights reserved.

Running head: JUMP TESTS ARE RELATED TO SPRINTING PERFORMANCE

ACCEPTED


ABSTRACT 1

Fourteen male elite sprinters performed short-distance sprints and jump tests up to 2

18 days prior to 100-m dash competitions in track & field to determine if these tests are 3

associated with 100-m sprint times. Testing comprised squat jumps (SJ), countermovement 4

jumps (CMJ), horizontal jumps (HJ), maximum mean propulsive power relative to body 5

mass in loaded jump squats (MPPR) and a flying start 50-m sprint. Moderate associations 6

were found between speed tests and competitive 100-m times (r = 0.54, r = 0.61 and r = 7

0.66 for 10-, 30- and 50-m, respectively, P < 0.05). In addition, the MPPR was very largely 8

correlated with 100-m sprinting performance (r = 0.75, P < 0.01). The correlations of SJ, 9

CMJ and HJ with actual 100-m sprinting times amounted to -0.82, -0.85 and -0.81, 10

respectively. Due to their practicality, safeness and relationship with the actual times 11

obtained by top-level athletes in 100-m dash events, it is highly recommended that SJ, 12

CMJ, and HJ be regularly incorporated into elite sprint testing routines. 13

14

Keywords: sprinting; Olympic athletes; muscle power; speed performance; track & field; 15

plyometrics 16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

ACCEPTED


INTRODUCTION 25

Performance variance in endurance running competitions is largely explained by the 26

triad maximal oxygen consumption, lactate threshold and running economy (19). For this 27

reason, training intervention studies have aimed at improving these variables in isolation or 28

in combination in order to enhance the athletes’ performance (31, 35). Surprisingly, to our 29

knowledge, there are no studies investigating the associations between physical or 30

physiological traits and competitive performance in sprinters, especially at the top-level. 31

Therefore, finding competitive performance correlates in a relatively homogeneous group 32

of sprinters is still a challenge. This is especially important at a time when upper human 33

performance in the 100-m sprint is being discussed, due to the astonishing times obtained 34

by both male and female athletes (16). 35

The sprint exercise is predominantly supplied by the anaerobic turnover of 36

adenosine triphosphate, with a significant drop in muscle pH and elevation in oxygen 37

consumption (2, 5). Anaerobic capacity, as measured by maximal oxygen deficit, partly 38

determines success in sprinting (29). However, this capacity has to be coupled with the 39

ability to increase the rate of anaerobic energy release (36) (i.e., anaerobic power). 40

Additionally, from a mechanical point of view, forces applied during the foot-ground 41

contact are related to the ability to reach top speeds (37). The combined metabolic and 42

mechanical factors related to sprinting cannot be fully manifested without the large 43

prevalence of fast twitch fibers in the lower limb muscles (22) and training-related neural 44

adaptations inherent to fast muscle activation (32). Similar characteristics appear to 45

determine performance in other explosive tasks, such as vertical jumps (VJ) (14, 24). 46

Therefore, positive associations are expected between jumping and sprinting abilities. 47

ACCEPTED


The scarce literature using less qualified sprinters evidenced that VJ and drop-jump 48

outcomes combined with the reactive strength index explained 89.6% of mean velocities in 49

several sprinting distances (34). In top-level sprinters, loaded and unloaded jumping 50

performances were highly correlated with the speed reached by elite sprinters in tests of up 51

to 50-m (13, 23).From these results, it was suggested that strength-power development is 52

important for athletes to achieve higher velocities over short-distances (23). It remains to be 53

established whether actual performance in 100-m and personal bests are related to jumping 54

ability. A recent editorial published in a sports science journal (11) claimed that regarding 55

monitoring tools, cost- and time-effective systems resulting in simple practices should be 56

sought rather than unnecessary complex systems. This is even more important in 57

developing countries with low resources to assess athletes in sports disciplines like track & 58

field sprinting. 59

Therefore, the purpose of this study was to ascertain whether, for top-level sprinters, 60

the actual performance in 100-m dash competitions is associated with neuromechanical 61

capacities measured by specific short-distance speed assessments and jump tests (in loaded 62

and unloaded conditions). Based on extensive published data confirming the strong 63

correlations between various neuromuscular measures and sprinting ability (12, 18, 20, 23, 64

26), we hypothesized that jump performance-related metrics would be significantly 65

correlated with 100-m sprint times. 66

67

METHODS 68

69

Experimental Approach to the Problem 70

ACCEPTED


This study employed a cross-sectional correlational design to describe and explore 71

the relationships between speed and vertical jump test results (in loaded and unloaded 72

conditions), and actual 100-m dash performance in top-level sprinters. All sprinters were 73

familiar with the testing procedures, which were carried out during the competitive training 74

period, from 14 to 18 days prior to competitions where actual performance was measured. 75

Before the tests – executed on the same day – the athletes performed 20-min of general and 76

specific warm-up, including moderate running (10-min), active stretching (5-min) and 77

specific sprint drills (5-min). The order of the evaluations was as follows: test 1) squat 78

jumps (SJ) and countermovement jumps (CMJ); test 2) horizontal jumps (HJ); test3) 79

sprinting speed; and (90-min afterwards) test 4) mean propulsive power in jump squats. The 80

athletes received standard instructions on required pre-test behavior, including a minimum 81

of 8-h sleep, balanced nutrition and avoidance of beverages or food containing alcohol and 82

caffeine 83

84

Subjects 85

Fourteen male elite sprinters (age: 24.9 ± 3.8 years; height: 178.7 ± 6.4 cm and body 86

mass: 77.8 ± 8.5 kg) volunteered to participate in the study. The sample comprised elite 87

athletes who participated in Olympic, Pan-American and South-American Games, with 88

personal records, on average, 7% longer than the men’s 100-m world-record (i.e., ≈ 10.28 ± 89

0.10 sec), thus attesting their high level of competitiveness. Athletes were briefed on the 90

experimental risks and benefits of the study, and signed a written informed consent 91

agreeing to take part. The study was approved by the local Ethics Committee. 92

93

Vertical jumps 94

ACCEPTED


VJs were assessed with the hands on the hips, using SJ and CMJ. For SJ, a static 95

position with a 90° knee-flexion angle was maintained for 2-sec before each attempt 96

without any preparatory movement. For CMJ, the sprinters performed a downward 97

movement followed by a complete extension of the lower limbs, freely determining the 98

amplitude of the countermovement. Five attempts at each jump were performed on a 99

contact platform (Smart-Jump; Fusion Sport, Brisbane, Australia), interspersed by 15-sec 100

intervals. The obtained flight time (t) was used to estimate the VJ height (h) (i.e., h = gt2/8). 101

The best attempt was retained for further analysis. 102

103

Horizontal jumps 104

Sprinters performed the HJ starting from a standing position. They commenced the 105

jump by swinging their arms and bending their knees to provide maximal forward drive. A 106

take-off line was drawn on the ground, positioned immediately adjacent to a jump sandbox. 107

The jump-length measurement was determined using a metric tape measure (Lufkin, 108

L716MAGCME, Appex Group, USA), from the take-off line to the nearest point of landing 109

contact (i.e., back of the heels). Each athlete executed three attempts and the longest 110

distance was considered. 111

112

Jump squats 113

Mean propulsive power (MPP) was assessed in the jump squat exercise executed 114

on a Smith-machine (Technogym Equipment, Cesena, Italy). Athletes performed three 115

repetitions at maximal velocity for each load, starting at 40% body mass (BM); with loads 116

of 10% BM progressively added in each set until a decrease in MPP was observed. Subjects 117

executed a knee flexion until the thigh was parallel to the ground, then, following a 118

ACCEPTED


command, jumped as quickly as possible without their shoulder losing contact with the bar. 119

A 5-min interval was provided between sets. A linear transducer (T-Force, Ergotech, 120

Murcia, Spain) attached to the Smith-machine bar was used to obtain the MPP. The bar-121

position data were sampled at 1,000 Hz using a PC (Toshiba, Tokyo, Japan). MPP rather 122

than peak power was used as Sanchez-Medina et al. (33) observed that these mechanical 123

values during the propulsive phase better reflect the differences in neuromuscular potential 124

between individuals. This method avoids underestimation of the true strength potential as 125

the higher the mean velocity (and lower the relative load), the greater the relative 126

contribution of the braking phase to the entire concentric time. The relative values of MPP 127

(MPPR) were obtained by dividing the higher values of MPP by the athletes’ BM (W/kg). 128

129

Speed testing 130

Sprinters performed two attempts at a flying start 50-m test to assess maximum 131

speed, with a 5-min interval between attempts. Four pairs of photocells (Smart-Speed, 132

Fusion Equipment, Brisbane, Australia) were positioned at distances of 0-, 10-, 30- and 50-133

m. Athletes started each attempt 5-m behind the first photocell timing-gate, accelerating as 134

much as possible before crossing the starting line. The best 50-m performance was retained. 135

136

Statistical Analyses 137

Data are presented as mean ± standard deviation (SD). A Pearson product moment 138

correlation coefficient was used to analyze the relationships between jump and speed test 139

results and actual sprinters’ performances during competition. The threshold used to 140

qualitatively assess the correlations was based on Hopkins (17), using the following 141

criteria: <0.1, trivial; 0.1 - 0.3, small; 0.3 - 0.5, moderate; 0.5 - 0.7, large; 0.7 - 0.9, very 142

ACCEPTED


large; >0.9 nearly perfect. Data normality was checked via the Shapiro-Wilk test. The 143

statistical significance level for all the analyses was set at P<0.05, using the two-tailed test 144

of significance. Intraclass correlations (ICCs) and coefficient of variation (CV) were used to 145

indicate reproducibility of SJ, CMJ, HJ, and jump squats for height, distance and mean 146

propulsive power. 147

148

RESULTS 149

All data presented normal distribution (P > 0.05). The ICC for the jump squats, SJ, 150

CMJ, HJ and sprint times in 10-, 30- and 50-m were all > 0.90. The CV for all variables 151

analyzed was lower than 1%. 152

Table 1 presents the means (SD) and the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the SJ, 153

CMJ, HJ, MPPR, and the sprint times at 10-, 30-, and 50-m and competitive 100-m dash 154

time. Table 2 shows the correlations between MPPR and short-distance sprint tests (10-, 155

30-, and 50-m) with actual 100-mperformance. Large associations were found between 156

speed tests and competitive 100-m times (r = 0.54, r = 0.61 and r = 0.66 for 10-, 30- and 157

50-m, respectively, P < 0.05). The MPPR was very largely correlated with 100-m sprinting 158

performance (r = 0.75, P < 0.01). Figure 1 depicts the correlations between SJ, CMJ, and 159

HJ and 100-m dash times. The jump tests were very largely associated with 100-m dash 160

performance (r = -0.82, r = -0.85 and r = -0.81 for SJ, CMJ, and HJ, respectively, P < 161

0.01). 162

163

***INSERT TABLE 1 HERE*** 164

165

***INSERT TABLE 2 HERE*** 166

ACCEPTED


167

***INSERT FIGURE 1 HERE*** 168

169

DISCUSSION 170

This study aimed to identify potential factors associated with sprinters’ performance 171

in official competitions. The main finding of this investigation was that, providing they are 172

executed few days (~2 weeks) before the competition, simple vertical and horizontal jump 173

test outcomes are very largely associated with actual 100-m dash performance in a sample 174

composed of male top-level sprinters. Moreover, the relative outputs of mean propulsive 175

power collected during jump squats demonstrated a correlation of -0.75 with actual speed 176

achieved by these athletes. Importantly, despite their apparent specificity, the “partial-177

distance velocity tests” have only a moderate correlation with 100-m dash times. 178

The fact that practical jump tests are related to competitive sprinting performance is 179

very remarkable. Sprint training methods are full of technology, and the possibility of 180

monitoring sprinters’ athleticism using non-expensive tests especially favors the track & 181

field programs developed across emergent countries. Similarly, even the leading sports 182

nations may benefit from this method, as head coaches and strength & conditioning 183

specialists avoid assessing athletes’ speed close to competitions due to the high risk of 184

injury involved in all-out tests. 185

Despite the simplicity of the assessments, unloaded jump tests (SJ, CMJ and HJ) 186

had stronger associations with sprinting performance than MPPR. It must be mentioned that 187

the MPPR is measured “on the barbell” and it does not reflect the actual power output of a 188

given movement (8, 9, 27).Conversely, jump heights are measures able to express values 189

already corrected by the body weight. If during a VJ a subject jumps higher, he necessarily 190

ACCEPTED


produces higher values of relative force and relative power (N.kg-¹ and W.kg-¹, 191

respectively) than his weaker counterpart (3, 7). To achieve maximal height during a jump 192

attempt, the athlete’s center of mass needs to be as high as possible (in relation to the 193

ground), attaining the highest vertical velocity at the take-off (15). At this moment, the 194

subject follows a sequential pattern of lower limb segmental rotation, resulting in a great 195

amount of external forces, which are applied to overcome the inertia and accelerate the 196

body vertically (6). As the ground reaction force increases, the jump height increases. 197

Equally, the transition from lower to higher velocities (i.e., top-speed sprinting) results in 198

shorter support phase duration with a concomitant increase in vertical peak force (28). In 199

addition, the distances achieved during HJ are dependent on the athletes’ ability to transfer 200

the linear momentum of force directly from the ground to the peak horizontal acceleration 201

of the body’s centre of mass, which is also critical to break the inertia and attain high 202

velocities over short-distances (4, 18, 23). It is reasonable to assume that these mechanical 203

relative values tend to be more associated with the sprinters’ actual performance, since 204

during the competitions they have to push their bodies forward as rapidly as possible, 205

applying great amounts of force against the ground. 206

The strong relationship between MPPR and 100-m sprint-times (r = -0.75) cannot 207

be overlooked. However, loaded jump testing may be potentially dangerous for athletes 208

when performed a short time before competitions (30). Differently from unloaded 209

conditions (SJ and CMJ), jump squats using loads close to or higher than BM may 210

represent risks to joints and spine, by substantially increasing the ground reaction forces at 211

the landing moment (38). To some extent, the stronger values of correlation coefficients 212

(with 100-m times) presented by CMJ and SJ (r ≈ -0.84) when compared to loaded 213

conditions (r = -0.75, for MPPR) may be explained by the mechanical principles involved 214

ACCEPTED


in these assessments. The jump height is entirely related to the body’s vertical acceleration 215

and the acceleration is equal to force divided by mass (i.e., sprinter’s weight) (21). As a 216

result, for unloaded circumstances, higher jumping heights do not indicate only higher 217

values of relative force, but furthermore, indicate superior capacities to accelerate one’s 218

own body weight (1). Conversely, during jump squats, the power outputs (MPPR) are 219

directly collected from the barbell, which do not reflect the actual mechanical values (i.e., 220

acceleration and velocity) of the athletes’ body centre of mass during a given movement 221

(10). It is conceivable that these mechanical differences may influence our findings, 222

resulting in stronger associations between sprinting times and unloaded vertical jumps. 223

Finally, the “loaded jump squat” evaluations are long lasting and involve expensive 224

equipment (i.e., linear position transducers), limiting their usefulness in the field, while 225

unloaded jump heights can be measured by simple “vertical jump-and-reach tests” (8). 226

Nevertheless, both unloaded and loaded jump squats are fed by the immediate energy 227

supply from the intramuscular phosphagens and require the neural control inherent to 228

ballistic movements that are also important in sprinting (32, 36). 229

In addition to the aforementioned weaker correlations with actual sprint times, all-230

out speed assessments also involve inherent risks (e.g., muscle and tendon injuries). It is 231

likely that closer proximity to competitions contributes to raising the fear presented by 232

coaches and athletes when executing speed tests, thus compromising their outcomes and 233

reducing the correlations between “sprint-test-times” and “sprint-competition-times”. This 234

is due to the fact that top running speeds are related to high ground reaction forces rather 235

than more rapid repositioning of limbs in the air, meaning that the will to maximally engage 236

neuromuscular abilities is a prerequisite for achieving best performances in all-out speed 237

tests (37). Increases in the magnitude of the eccentric forces – and, consequently, in the 238

ACCEPTED


ground reaction forces -at the landing moment during the “loading stance phase” may result 239

in undesirable injury risks (25). 240

This study is limited by the relatively small sample size. On the other hand, to our 241

knowledge this is the first study testing the relationship between unloaded and loaded jump 242

test performances and actual competitive performance in high caliber athletes. Hence, 243

interpretation of the results should take this important aspect into account. 244

To conclude, as long as they are executed few weeks before the competitions, 245

vertical and horizontal jump tests are directly related with 100-m dash times. The results 246

presented herein confirm that coaches are able to determine the readiness of their athletes 247

for 100-m performance by using simple SJ, CMJ and HJ. Short-distance speed test results 248

and jump squat power outputs (MPPR) have weaker correlations than unloaded jump 249

heights and distance (SJ, CMJ and HJ) with actual sprinting performance. Additionally, 250

these measurements involve a number of intrinsic problems, such as injury risks, 251

assessment time required and expensive equipment costs. Finally, with the stronger 252

correlations presented by practical unloaded jumps, these assessments should be considered 253

reliable enough to be related to actual sprinting times in highly competitive sprinters. 254

255

PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS 256

From a practical perspective, simple jump tests can be used to assess the readiness 257

of the sprinters’ neuromuscular system to perform better during official competitions. 258

Anecdotally, assessing performance using these tests is a common practice in track & field; 259

however, it is possible that coaches are not aware of the strong and real potential of the 260

outcomes to forecast forthcoming competitive sprinting results. Therefore, we suggest that 261

measuring lower limb explosiveness by means of unloaded vertical jumps (SJ and CMJ) 262

ACCEPTED


and HJ may be useful in training and testing routines, due to their safeness and ability to 263

strongly explain 100-m dash performance in top-level athletes. Further longitudinal studies 264

are needed to fully elucidate the validity of jump tests in predicting changes in sprinters’ 265

performance (i.e., longitudinal validity) due to training and the potential effects of tapering 266

and detraining periods on this relationship. 267

268

REFERENCES 269

1. Bodor M. Quadriceps protects the anterior cruciate ligament. J Orthop Res 19: 629-270

633, 2001. 271

2. Bogdanis GC, Nevill ME, Boobis LH, and Lakomy HK. Contribution of 272

phosphocreatine and aerobic metabolism to energy supply during repeated sprint 273

exercise. J Appl Physiol 80: 876-884, 1996. 274

3. Bosco C, Luhtanen P, and Komi PV. A simple method for measurement of 275

mechanical power in jumping. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol 50: 273-282, 276

1983. 277

4. Brechue WF, Mayhew JL, and Piper FC. Characteristics of sprint performance in 278

college football players. J Strength Cond Res 24: 1169-1178, 2010. 279

5. Bundle MW, Hoyt RW, and Weyand PG. High-speed running performance: a new 280

approach to assessment and prediction. J Appl Physiol 95: 1955-1962, 2003. 281

6. Bunton EE, Pitney WA, Cappaert TA, and Kane AW. The role of limb torque, 282

muscle action and proprioception during closed kinetic chain rehabilitation of the 283

lower extremity. J Athl Train 28: 10-20, 1993. 284

7. Copic N, Dopsaj M, Ivanovic J, Nesic G, and Jaric S. Body composition and muscle 285

strength predictors of jumping performance: differences between elite female 286

ACCEPTED


volleyball competitors and nontrained individuals. J Strength Cond Res 28: 2709-287

2716, 2014. 288

8. Cormie P, McBride JM, and McCaulley GO. The influence of body mass on 289

calculation of power during lower-body resistance exercises. J Strength Cond Res 290

21: 1042-1049, 2007. 291

9. Cormie P, McCaulley GO, Triplett NT, and McBride JM. Optimal loading for 292

maximal power output during lower-body resistance exercises. Med Sci Sports 293

Exerc 39: 340-349, 2007. 294

10. Cormie P, McGuigan MR, and Newton RU. Developing maximal neuromuscular 295

power: Part 1-biological basis of maximal power production. Sports Med 41: 17-38, 296

2011. 297

11. Coutts AJ. In the Age of Technology, Occam's Razor Still Applies. Int J Sports 298

Physiol Perform 9: 741, 2014. 299

12. Cronin JB and Hansen KT. Strength and power predictors of sports speed. J 300

Strength Cond Res 19: 349-357, 2005. 301

13. Dobbs CW, Gill ND, Smart DJ, and McGuigan MR. Relationship between vertical 302

and horizontal jump variables and muscular performance in athletes. J Strength 303

Cond Res in press, 2014. 304

14. Fry AC, Webber JM, Weiss LW, Harber MP, Vaczi M, and Pattison NA. Muscle 305

fiber characteristics of competitive power lifters. J Strength Cond Res 17: 402-410, 306

2003. 307

15. Harman EA, Rosenstein MT, Frykman PN, and Rosenstein RM. The effects of arms 308

and countermovement on vertical jumping. Med Sci Sports Exerc 22: 825-833, 309

1990. 310

ACCEPTED


16. Haugen T, Tonnessen E, and Seiler S. 9.58 and 10.49: Nearing the citius End for 311

100m? Int J Sports Physiol Perform in press, 2014. 312

17. Hopkins WG. A Scale of Magnitudes for Effect Statistics. A New View of 313

Statistics, 2002. 314

18. Hudgins B, Scharfenberg J, Triplett NT, and McBride JM. Relationship between 315

jumping ability and running performance in events of varying distance. J Strength 316

Cond Res 27: 563-567, 2013. 317

19. Joyner MJ and Coyle EF. Endurance exercise performance: the physiology of 318

champions. J Physiol 586: 35-44, 2008. 319

20. Kale M, Asci A, Bayrak C, and Acikada C. Relationships among jumping 320

performances and sprint parameters during maximum speed phase in sprinters. J 321

Strength Cond Res 23: 2272-2279, 2009. 322

21. Kane JW and Sternheim MM. Vertical jumping, in: Physics. New York: Wiley, 323

1978, pp 22-24. 324

22. Korhonen MT, Cristea A, Alen M, Hakkinen K, Sipila S, Mero A, Viitasalo JT, 325

Larsson L, and Suominen H. Aging, muscle fiber type, and contractile function in 326

sprint-trained athletes. J Appl Physiol 101: 906-917, 2006. 327

23. Loturco I, D'Angelo RA, Fernandes V, Gil S, Kobal R, Abad CCC, Kitamura K, 328

and Nakamura FY. Relationship between sprint ability and loaded/unloaded jump 329

tests in elite sprinters. J Strength Cond Res in press, 2014. 330

24. Loturco I, Ugrinowitsch C, Roschel H, Tricoli V, and Gonzalez-Badillo JJ. Training 331

at the optimum power zone produces similar performance improvements to 332

traditional strength training. J Sports Sci Med 12: 109-115, 2013. 333

ACCEPTED


25. Mahdi HJ. Effects of plyometric training and augmented feedback on lower 334

extremity biomechanics during the landing task. Michigan: ProQuest, 2007. 335

26. Markstrom JL and Olsson CJ. Countermovement jump peak force relative to body 336

weight and jump height as predictors for sprint running performances: 337

(in)homogeneity of track and field athletes? J Strength Cond Res 27: 944-953, 338

2013. 339

27. McBride JM, Haines TL, and Kirby TJ. Effect of loading on peak power of the bar, 340

body, and system during power cleans, squats, and jump squats. J Sports Sci 29: 341

1215-1221, 2011. 342

28. Nilsson J and Thorstensson A. Ground reaction forces at different speeds of human 343

walking and running. Acta Physiol Scand 136: 217-227, 1989. 344

29. Olesen HL, Raabo E, Bangsbo J, and Secher NH. Maximal oxygen deficit of sprint 345

and middle distance runners. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol 69: 140-146, 1994. 346

30. Patterson C, Raschner C, and Platzer HP. Power variables and bilateral force 347

differences during unloaded and loaded squat jumps in high performance alpine ski 348

racers. J Strength Cond Res 23: 779-787, 2009. 349

31. Piacentini MF, De Ioannon G, Comotto S, Spedicato A, Vernillo G, and La Torre 350

A. Concurrent strength and endurance training effects on running economy in 351

master endurance runners. J Strength Cond Res 27: 2295-2303, 2013. 352

32. Ross A, Leveritt M, and Riek S. Neural influences on sprint running: training 353

adaptations and acute responses. Sports Med 31: 409-425, 2001. 354

33. Sanchez-Medina L, Perez CE, and Gonzalez-Badillo JJ. Importance of the 355

propulsive phase in strength assessment. Int J Sports Med 31: 123-129, 2010. 356

ACCEPTED


34. Smirniotou A, Katsikas C, Paradisis G, Argeitaki P, Zacharogiannis E, and Tziortzis 357

S. Strength-power parameters as predictors of sprinting performance. J Sports Med 358

Phys Fitness 48: 447-454, 2008. 359

35. Stoggl T and Sperlich B. Polarized training has greater impact on key endurance 360

variables than threshold, high intensity, or high volume training. Front Physiol 5: 361

33, 2014. 362

36. Weyand PG, Lee CS, Martinez-Ruiz R, Bundle MW, Bellizzi MJ, and Wright S. 363

High-speed running performance is largely unaffected by hypoxic reductions in 364

aerobic power. J Appl Physiol 86: 2059-2064, 1999. 365

37. Weyand PG, Sternlight DB, Bellizzi MJ, and Wright S. Faster top running speeds 366

are achieved with greater ground forces not more rapid leg movements. J Appl 367

Physiol 89: 1991-1999, 2000. 368

38. Zink AJ, Perry AC, Robertson BL, Roach KE, and Signorile JF. Peak power, 369

ground reaction forces, and velocity during the squat exercise performed at different 370

loads. J Strength Cond Res 20: 658-664, 2006. 371

372

373

374

375 ACCEPTED


FIGURE LEGEND 376

377

Figure 1. Correlations between vertical (unloaded conditions) and horizontal jump tests 378

with actual 100-m dash times (**P< 0.01). 379

380

381

382

383

384

385

386

387

388

389

390

391

392

393 ACCEPTED


Table 1. Descriptive analysis (mean, standard deviation [SD], and 95% confidence

interval, [CI]) of the jumps in loaded and unloaded conditions, and short-distance sprint

tests.

CI (95%) Mean ± SD

Lower Upper

SJ (cm) 47.99 ± 3.68 45.86 50.11

CMJ (cm) 50.79 ± 4.16 48.38 53.19

HJ (m) 2.90 ± 0.11 2.84 2.96

10-m (s) 1.27 ± 0.02 1.26 1.28

30-m (s) 3.31 ± 0.04 3.29 3.33

50-m (s) 5.20 ± 0.07 5.16 5.24

MPPR (W.kg-1) 13.46 ± 0.61 13.11 13.81

TIME (s) 10.49 ± 0.19 10.38 10.60

SJ = squat jump; CMJ = counter movement jump; MPPR = mean propulsive power

relative to body mass; TIME = 100-m sprint time.

ACCEPTED


Table 2. Correlations between short-distance sprints (at 10-, 30- and 50-m), mean

propulsive power relative to body mass (MPPR) and actual 100-m dash times (TIME).

10-m 30-m 50-m MPPR TIME

10-m 1 0.77** 0.51# -0.54* 0.54*

30-m 0.77** 1 0.84** -0.62* 0.61*

50-m 0.51# 0.84** 1 -0.67** 0.66**

MPPR -0.54* -0.63* -0.67** 1 -0.75**

TIME 0.54* 0.61* 0.66** -0.75** 1 #P = 0.06, *P < 0.05, **P< 0.01.

ACCEPTED


ACCEPTED


Documents

VERTICAL AND HORIZONTAL JUMP TESTS ARE STRONGLY ASSOCIATED WITH COMPETITIVE PERFORMANCE IN 100-M DASH EVENTS