THE IMPACT OF DIFFERENT WARM-UP PROTOCOLS

ON VERTICAL JUMP PERFORMANCE IN MALE

COLLEGIATE ATHLETES
BRADY W. HOLT
1
AND KATE LAMBOURNE
2
1
Strength and Conditioning Athletic Department, University of Evansville, Evansville, Indiana;
2
Kinesiology Department,
University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study was to compare the impact of
different types of warm-up on countermovement vertical jump
(VJ) performance. Sixty-four male Division I collegiate football
players completed a pretest for VJ height. The participants were
then randomly assigned to a warm-up only condition, a warm-up
plus static stretching condition, a warm-up plus dynamic
stretching condition, or a warm-up plus dynamic exibility
condition. VJ performance was tested immediately after the
completion of the warm-up. The results showed that there was
a signicant difference (P , .05) in VJ performance between
the warm-up groups. Posttest jump performance improved in all
groups; however, the mean for the static stretching group was
signicantly lower than the means for the other 3 groups. The
static stretching negated the benets gained from a general
warm-up when performed immediately before a VJ test.
KEY WORDS power output, static stretching, dynamic stretch-
ing, dynamic exibility
INTRODUCTION
A
thletes typically perform a warm-up to prepare to
engage in practice or competition. Traditionally,
these warm-ups have included some form of static
stretching. However, there is some evidence that
static stretching can be detrimental to the power component
of athletic performance. Stretching has been shown to inhibit
drop-jump performance (16,17), vertical jump performance
(2,5,6,7), power output as measured by maximum voluntary
contraction force (3), and leg extension power (15). The
mechanisms by which static stretching impairs performance
are unknown, but it has been hypothesized to be related to
lower levels of musculotendinous stiffness (14), a reduced
ability to recruit motor units (4), or the inhibition of the acute
response of muscle proprioceptors, such as the Golgi tendon
organs (8).
The observation of performance decrements from static
stretching has led to the investigation of alternative options
for sport preparation. One such alternative is a dynamic
warm-up, which incorporates movements similar to those
performed in the sport (1). Dynamic warm-ups have been
shown to increase power output when cycling (12). Another
option that has been suggested for warm-up is dynamic
stretching, which is performed to increase dynamic exibility.
Dynamic exibility stretching consists of performing move-
ments that take the limb through the range of motion by
contracting the agonist muscle, allowing the antagonist
muscle to relax and elongate (9,10). A study by Yamaguchi
and Ishii (15) compared dynamic stretching to static
stretching and found that leg extension power was greater
after dynamic stretching. These methods of warm-up may
differ in the way they affect the non-contractile components
of the muscle and may not inhibit power performance in the
same manner as static stretching.
The purpose of the present study was to compare the
impact of these different warm-up protocols on power output
in Division I male collegiate football players. Based on the
results of previous research, it was hypothesized that a static
stretching warm-up would not benet power output as
measured by VJ performance when recovery time for the
elastic component of the muscle was not permitted. Also,
a dynamic warm-up and a dynamic exibility stretching
routine were expected to lead to better VJ performance than
static stretching because the same power decrements have
not been found with these warm-up methods. This is impor-
tant because an appropriate warm-up is critical to successful
performance in sports such as football. It is also important to
determine whether static stretching immediately prior to
power performance is detrimental, because power output is
a key component in athletic performance (13).
METHODS
Experimental Approach to the Problem
This study was a between-subjects control-group design
intended to examine the effects of 4 different warm-ups on VJ
performance. Sixty-four participants completed a general
Address correspondence to Brady Holt, bh110@evansville.edu.
1533-4287/22(1)/226229
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
2008, National Strength and Conditioning Association
226 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the TM
warm-up and were then randomly assigned to a warm-up
group. One group completed no further activity before
completing the posttest to examine the effects of a general
warm-up and to provide a control for comparison. The 3
other groups completed 1 of the following types of warm-up:
a dynamic warm-up, dynamic stretching, or static stretching.
The impact of these warm-ups was assessed via VJ perfor-
mance and the scores were analyzed using a repeated mea-
sures analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with pretest scores as
a covariate.
Subjects
Prior to conducting this study, a pilot test with 4 athletes was
performed to rene and clarify the instructions given to the
participants. The results of this test were used to determine
a sample size with adequate power to detect differences
between the groups with a power level of 0.80. Therefore,
a total of 64 players from a National Collegiate Athletics
Association Division I football team were recruited to
participate in this study. The participants ranged in age from
18 to 25 years (mean 6 SD data were 20.7 6 1.8), and had
a mean weight of 99.69 6 21.41 kg. The participants were
familiar with the VJ procedure.
This study was approved by the Universitys Institutional
Review Board, which required the participant to sign an
informed consent form prior to taking part in the study.
Procedures
Each participant completed a pretest countermovement
vertical jump followed by a 5-minute general cardiovascular
warm-up. The participants were then randomly assigned to 1
of 4 groups using a block randomization procedure to create
groups of equal number. One group completed the posttest VJ
with no further warm-up. The participants in the 3 other
groups completed the posttest VJ after participating in a static
stretching condition, a dynamic warm-up, or a dynamic
stretching warm-up. Participants in all conditions were
allowed to get a drink of water immediately after completing
the general warm-up. The posttest vertical jump was perfor-
med immediately after the completion of the warm up in
each group.
The participants in each condition were tested on
countermovement VJ height using the Vertec Vertical Jump
Tester (Sports Imports, Hilliard, OH). The countermovement
jump was calibrated based on the height of each participants
standing one-arm reach. The participants jumped from both
feet with no step in an attempt to touch the highest vane
possible. Jump height was calculated by adding the amount
of vanes reached by the participant to the reference line.
Participants continued to jump as long as the jump height
continued to increase, until 2 jumps in a row did not result
in touching a higher vane. The highest jump height was
recorded and used in the analyses.
General Warm-Up. Cardiovascular activity for the duration of
5 to 10 minutes is considered an effective general warm-up
due to an increased temperature in the muscles, increased
heart rate, and increased blood ow (7). Increased temper-
ature in the muscles allows for a greater amount of exibility,
which prepares the athlete for the movement demands of the
activity, and an increase in heart rate and blood ow delivers
oxygen and other necessary nutrients to the muscles to use
during the activity (1).
In this study, the general warm-up consisted of 5 minutes
of treadmill running. The participants began by running 1
minute at 4 miles per hour, and increased the speed by 1 mile
per hour each minute for 4 more minutes. Once the general
warm-up was completed, the participants in the warm-up
only group completed the posttest.
Static Stretch Warm-Up. The participants who were assigned
to the static stretch condition completed 5 passive stretches
with assistance from one of the investigators. The stretches
were similar to those used in previous research (15) and were
aimed at targeting the muscles involved in performing the
countermovement VJ; which include the hamstrings, the
gluteals, the lower back, the quadriceps, and the hip exors.
The stretches were held 3 times to the point of slightly
painful yet tolerable muscle discomfort for the duration of 5
seconds with rest intervals of 1 second. It is generally recom-
mended that stretches are held longer than this, however,
this was the amount of time that the participants typically
held stretches prior to activity and this time interval was
selected to mimic those conditions.
To stretch the hamstrings, the participant lay on his back
and lifted one leg, keeping it straight as the investigator moved
the leg toward the head. The gluteal stretch was also done in
a supine position, with one leg exed at the knee and crossed
over the front of the body. The investigator assisted this stretch
by placing his hands on the participants knee and ankle and
pushing the leg toward the participants head. The quadriceps
and hip exors were stretched with the participant lying
on his side with the top leg exed at the knee, and the
investigator moved the heel toward the gluteals. The lower
back was stretched with the participant lying in a supine
position with the experimenter holding both of the
participants ankles and lifting the legs toward the ceiling.
Also, while lying on his back, the participant lifted both legs
toward the ceiling with a slight bend in the knee and exion in
the ankle. The investigator assisted this stretch by placing his
body on the participants feet and leaning forward to apply his
body weight.
Dynamic Warm-Up. The dynamic warm-up involved perform-
ing 10 walking lunges, 10 reverse lunges, 10 single-leg
Romanian dead lifts, and 10 straight leg kicks with each
leg. The participants in this group also completed high
knees and reverse high knees over a distance of 10 yards.
These movements are similar to the movements used in
sport, and were selected because the participants were accus-
tomed to them as they were a part of their normal warm-up
routine.
VOLUME 22 | NUMBER 1 | JANUARY 2008 | 227
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the TM
| www.nsca-jscr.org
Dynamic Flexibility. The dynamic exibility routine involved
performing 10 repetitions on each leg of 8 different move-
ments: standing front leg swings, standing lateral leg swings,
leg scissors to the front and to the side (inverted supine
position, resting on shoulders and elbows), eagles (supine
position), scorpions (prone position), donkey kicks (from the
knees), and lateral leg swings (from the knees). The move-
ments selected were intended to warm up the muscles used
to perform a vertical jump by engaging the agonist and
antagonist muscles.
Statistical Analyses
An intraclass reliability coefcient (ICC) for the vertical jump
scores was calculated to examine the test reliability of the
vertical jump scores. A 1-way analysis of covariance
(ANCOVA) was used to determine if signicant differences
existed on the posttest scores across conditions after the
groups were equated on the pretest scores. Therefore, the
pretest scores were used as the covariate in the analysis.
Fishers least signicant difference post-hoc tests were used
to investigate signicant differences between the groups.
A result was considered statistically signicant if P # .05.
Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS 11.0 (SPSS,
Inc., Chicago, IL).
RESULTS
The initial sample consisted of 64 participants, but was
reduced to 63 after the exclusion of one outlier. The group
means for the pretest and the posttest can be found in Table 1.
The overall intraclass correlation coefcient (R) for this
measure was 0.984 with a lower bound of 0.974 and an upper
bound of 0.990.
Pretest vertical jump scores were not equivalent between
the groups; therefore, an ANCOVA was selected to perform
the analysis to adjust the posttest scores for initial pretest
differences. A Cohens d measure of effect size was calculated
for each group using the groups posttest score, the pretest
score for the entire sample, and a pooled standard deviation
for the groups in the form of mean square error. These
measures of effect size can also be found in Table 1.
The assumptions associated with ANCOVA with regard
to linearity, normality, and homogeneity of regression slopes
were met. However, the assumption of homogeneity of
variance across groups was violated.
The posttest VJ means of all 4 groups were higher than the
pretest means; however, the VJ height gain in the static
stretching group was signicantly less than the gain in the
other 3 groups. This can be seen in Figure 1.
Using these adjusted marginal means, the ANCOVA was
statistically signicant, (ANCOVA P = .001). The warm-up
condition accounted for 23.6% of the variance in the posttest
when holding constant for the pretest (ANCOVA h
2
= .236).
The coefcient of determination for this model was .955
(ANCOVA R
2
=.955), thus the rate of error was approx-
imately 4.5%.
The Fishers least signicant difference post-hoc test was
used to evaluate pairwise differences among the adjusted
means. There were signicant differences in the adjusted
means between the static stretching group and the other
groups. However, there was no statistically signicant
difference between the general warm-up, dynamic warm-
up, and dynamic stretching groups.
DISCUSSION
The purpose of this study was to determine the effects of 4
different warm-ups on power output as measured by vertical
jump test performance. The effects of static stretching were of
particular interest, because past research has indicated that
static stretching may have detrimental effects on power
output. The main nding was a signicant improvement in
vertical jump performance following a general warm-up-only
condition, a general warm-up plus dynamic warm-up con-
dition, and a general warm-up plus dynamic exibility con-
dition. However, no statistically signicant improvement was
found in the general warm-up plus static stretching condition.
These results are consistent with the growing body of
evidence that static stretching can inhibit a muscles maximal
power output (6,14,16), and were in support of the hypothesis
that static stretching would not benet vertical jump
performance.
There was also support for the hypothesis that the dyna-
mic warm-up and dynamic stretching conditions would
have positive effects on performance. There were no sta-
tistically signicant differences between the general warm-up
only group, the general warm-up plus dynamic warm-up
group, and a general warm-up plus dynamic exibility
group; however, the measures of effect size for each group
revealed that the dynamic warm-up and dynamic exibility
warm-up led to better performance than the general warm-up
alone.
Although the exact mechanisms by which static stretch-
ing elicits decrements in power performance are not known,
several possibilities have been suggested. Researchers have
posited that stretching may reduce musculotendinous
stiffness, which inhibits the production of force in the con-
tractile component of the muscle (14). Decreases in force
production may also be the result of a reduced ability to
recruit motor units as a function of inhibited neural mec-
hanisms such as myoelectric potentiation (4). Yet another
explanation for decreases in force production is the inhi-
bition of the acute response of muscle proprioceptors,
such as the Golgi tendon organs or the low threshold pain
receptors (8).
One factor that was not examined in the present study is
the effects of time on recovery after static stretching. This
study examined the effects of static stretching immediately
proceeding power performance. With enough time, the
elastic components of the muscle may recover but the
amount of time necessary for recovery deserves further
examination.
228 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the TM
Warm-up and Vertical Jump
PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS
Although conclusions about the mechanisms responsible for
decreases in power output cannot be drawn from the present
data, the ndings from this study have important practical
applications. The results of this experiment showed that
warm-up had an impact on vertical jump performance.
However, static stretching appeared to negate the benets of
this warm-up when performed immediately before a vertical
jump test. If static stretching can negatively affect perfor-
mance on the vertical jump, a skill that demands maximal
power output, it follows that the performance of similar
power skills might be negatively affected if static stretching is
undertaken prior to the activity. At the present time, it is
recommended that the hamstrings, gluteals, quadriceps, hip
exors, and lower back are not statically stretched immedi-
ately prior to performing a vertical jump if the intent is to
maximize jump performance. If increasing exibility is
a concern, it is recommended that it be developed in a
warm-up using dynamic stretching. If static stretching is used,
it may be best to delay it until after sport performance.
With regard to the dynamic warm-up and the dynamic
exibilityapproaches, it seems that either has a benecial effect
on vertical jump performance. However, these approaches
may have the additional benets such as increasing exibility
in dynamic movements. Future research might be aimed at
the exibility-enhancing and injury-preventative aspects of
these types of warm-up.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to thank Dr. Heath, Dr. DeBerard,
Dr. Kras, and Dr. Fargo for their advice on this project.
REFERENCES
1. Baechle, TR and Earle, RW. Essentials of Strength Training and
Conditioning (2
nd
ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 2000.
2. Behm, DG, Bradbury, EE, Haynes, AT, Hodder, JN, Leonard, AM,
and Paddock, NR. Flexibility is not related to stretch-induced decits
in force or power. J Sports Sci Med 5: 3342, 2006.
3. Behm, DG, Button, DC, and Butt, JC. Factors affecting force
loss with prolonged stretching. Can J Appl Phys 26: 261272,
2001.
4. Bosco, C, Tarkka, I, and Komi, PV. Effect of elastic energy and
myoelectrical potentiation of triceps surae during stretch shortening-
cycle exercise. Int J Sports Med 3: 137140, 1982.
5. Church, JB, Wiggins, MS, Moode, FM, and Crist, R. Effect of
warm-up and exibility treatments on vertical jump performance.
J Strength Cond Res 15: 332336, 2001.
6. Cornwell, A, Nelson, AG, Heise, GD, and Sidaway, B. Acute effects
of passive muscle stretching on vertical jump performance. J Hum
Mov Studies 40: 307324, 2001.
7. Devries, HA. Physiology of Exercise for Physical Education and
Athletics. Dubuque, IA: William C. Brown, 1980.
8. Moore, JC. The Golgi tendon organ: A review and update. Am J Occ
Therapy 38: 227236, 1984.
9. Murphy, DR. A critical look at static stretching: Are we doing our
patients harm? Chiro Sports Med 5: 6770, 1991.
10. Murphy, DR. Dynamic range of motion training: An alternative to
static stretching. Chiro Sports Med 8: 5966, 1994.
11. Nelson, AG, Guillory, IK, Cornwell, A, and Kokkonen, J.
Inhibition of maximal voluntary isokinetic torque production
following stretching is velocity-specic. J Strength Cond Res 15:
241246, 2001.
12. OConnor, D, Crowe, M, and Spinks, W. Warm-up exercises and leg
power. J Sci Med Sport 5: 5460, 2002.
13. Wilmore, JH and Costill, DL. Physiology of Sport and Exercise
(3
rd
ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 2004.
14. Wilson, GJ, Murphy, AJ, and Pryor, JF. Musculotendinous stiffness:
Its relationship to eccentric, isometric, and concentric performance.
J App Physiol 76: 27142719, 1994.
15. Yamaguchi, Tand Ishii, K. Effects of static stretching for 30 seconds
and dynamic stretching on leg extension power. J Strength Cond Res
19: 677683, 2005.
16. Young, WB and Behm, DG. Effects of running, static stretching
and practice jumps on explosive force production and
jumping performance. J Sports Med Phys Fitness 43: 2127,
2003.
17. Young, W and Elliot, S. Acute effects of static stretching, pro-
prioceptive neuromuscular facilitation stretching, and maximum
voluntary contractions on explosive force production and
jumping performance. Res Q Exerc Sport 72: 273279,
2001.
VOLUME 22 | NUMBER 1 | JANUARY 2008 | 229
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the TM
| www.nsca-jscr.org