The Difference between
the Countermovement and
Non-Countermovement
Jump: Implications on
Performance
Nick is currently the Performance Education
Manager at Athletes' Performance in Tempe,
AZ, where he oversees all continuing
education courses, and is a full-time strength
and conditioning coach. He designs and
implements performance training programs
for elite and professional athletes with a main
focus in hockey, baseball, together with
military and fire fighter based groups. Nick
has previously implemented the strength and
conditioning program for the Oregon State
University 2006 College World Series
Champions and has been the Strength and
Conditioning coach for the Pittsburgh Pirates
Rookie League team in Bradenton, Florida.
Nick is in the process of pursuing a Masters
in Strength and Conditioning through Edith
Cowan University, and has dual certifications
with Distinction through the National Strength
and Conditioning Association (CSCS, *D and
NSCA-CPT, *D).
UK STRENGTH AND CONDITIONING ASSOCIATION
4 © UKSCA | Issue 20 | WINTER 2010/11 w: www.uksca.org.uk e: info@uksca.org.uk
Nicklaas C Winkelman, CSCS, NSCA-CPT
It is well established in literature, that the use of a countermovement
jump (CMJ) will result in a higher vertical jump, when compared to a
non-countermovement jump (NCMJ), (often referred to as a squat
jump or static jump).15,26 While this point is not disputed by
researchers, there is much debate on the neuromuscular and
mechanical mechanism(s). At the centre of this argument lies the
understanding of the Stretch-Shortening Cycle (SSC). The SSC can be
defined as a rapid eccentric (stretch) muscle action, followed
immediately by a concentric (shortening) muscle action.15
An athlete’s ability to optimise the use of the SSC during a CMJ has
been termed the Eccentric Utilisation Ratio (EUR).18 It has been
proposed that a coach may be able to use the EUR to measure an
athlete’s stretch-shortening ability and use it as a consistent form of
testing to track fatigue and training readiness. While there is limited
data out there on the percentage difference between the CMJ and the
NCMJ, studies have shown various results that may depend on sport,
sex and training age.18 Carlock et al.7 examined jump height
differences between the NCMJ and the CMJ in weightlifters, and found
a 5.4% difference in females and an 11.8% difference in males.
To better understand the difference between CMJ and NCMJ, and
therefore what training variables are most important to optimise an
athlete’s ability to use the SSC, authors have focused their attention
on the neuromuscular and mechanical mechanisms. There are four
proposed mechanisms that explain why the use of the SSC during a
CMJ allows for greater jump height than a NCMJ. 1) increased
potentiation of the neuromuscular system, 2) increased myogenic
active state and force production, 3) storage and re-utilisation of
elastic energy and 4) reflex contribution.12,15,21,22,26 The aim of this
review is to present the current findings linked to these four
mechanisms and provide a recommended training framework to
maximise an athlete’s stretch-shortening ability.
Discussion
To accurately discuss the difference between the NCMJ and the CMJ we
must provide a framework for muscle action. Throughout this review,
we will be discussing muscle action in terms of Hill’s13 3-component
model of musculotendinous action. This model is composed of a
contractile element (CE) that produces active force during shortening
and lengthening contractions, a series elastic component (SEC) that is
composed of the tendon, aponeurosis and elements within the cross-
bridge (e.g. Titin), and a parallel elastic component (PEC) that is
composed of plasma membranes and connective tissue that
encapsulate the CE and SEC26 (Figure 1).

13
Figure 1. Hill’s 3-component model showing
relationship between contractile element (CE), series
elastic component (SEC) and the parallel elastic
component (PEC).
1) Potentiation
It has been previously documented that stretching an
already tetanised muscle (i.e. pre-activated) can result
in force production that is two times greater than
maximal isometric force.8,21 Since there is no stretching
phase involved in the NCMJ, there is no time for the
athlete to pre-activate or force pre-load, which could
be a contributing factor to the lower jump heights.
Additionally, studies have shown that increasing the
velocity of the stretch, and decreasing the time
between stretch and shortening (i.e. coupling time),
will further augment force production during the
shortening phase.24 This enhancement of the
shortening force has been termed potentiation.10,21 Note
that potentiation is only referring to changes in the CE
and not changes in the SEC. Potentiation involves an
increase in force production due to changes in calcium
kinetics, phosphrylation of the myosin light chains and
changes to the force-velocity characteristics of the
cross-bridges.10
McBride et al.17 examined muscle pre-activity and
eccentric muscle activity on jumping performance using
a NCMJ, CMJ and drop jump (DJ). The study resulted in
significant increase in jump height and integrated
electromyography (iEMG) activity for the CMJ compared
to the NCMJ, but no significant difference in jump
height between CMJ and DJ. Further, iEMG and
concentric peak force was significantly higher during
the DJ, compared to the NCMJ and CMJ. Komi15 noted
similar changes in muscular activity using iEMG
between NCMJ, CMJ and DJ. Therefore, it would seem
that muscle potentiation as expressed by iEMG is
related to high muscle pre-activity, fast eccentric
contraction and a quick transition from stretching to
shortening.15 While potentiation appears to be an
important mechanism in SSC, and a contributing factor
to the increase in jump height seen in the CMJ, there is
still limited research on the topic.
2) Active State Development
A second proposed mechanism for the increase in jump
height is an increase in muscle active state (AS). This
mechanism supports the idea that an athlete has more
time to build-up force or the AS of the muscle during
the CMJ compared to the NCMJ. For this reason the
athlete achieves greater hip extension moments and
concentric force, velocity and power on take-off.4 This
concept is further supported by research on rate of
force development (RFD), which clearly shows that
maximal force is typically achieved at ≥300ms.1
© UKSCA | Issue 20 | WINTER 2010/11 w: www.uksca.org.uk e: info@uksca.org.uk
Therefore, the additional time needed during the
stretching phase of the SSC allows time for a build-up
of maximal force. Simulation models have been a
common way for researchers to evaluate this
mechanism and the implications on the CMJ. Bobbert
et al.4 performed a comparison of 6 elite volleyball
players performing a CMJ and NCMJ, and compared the
data to a simulation model. The results showed an
average jump height increase of >2.5cm from NCMJ to
CMJ. Results from a simulation model constructed by
Bobbert et al.4 produced similar results. However, the
model failed to recognise the additional contribution of
elasticity to CMJ height in comparison to NCMJ height.
Bobbert et al.4 noted that the difference between
jumps in elastic energy at push-off was 13J, and
therefore the average of 274J produced during
“negative work” in the CMJ was primarily dissipated as
heat and not re-utilised as elastic energy. Additional
simulation studies by Bobbert and Casius,3 and
Anderson and Pandy2 support these findings. In the
controversial review and response by Schenau et al.21,22
the authors support the muscle AS mechanism as the
primary reason for an increase in jump height during
the CMJ. Schenau et al.21,22 suggest that changes in
RFD and peak maximal force have more to do with the
increased work being done during the concentric
phase, and less to do with the storage and re-
utilisation of elastic energy. The authors also dispute
that reflex actions are a primary mechanism and that
the amount of time needed for the Stretch Reflex (SR)
is not available during the CMJ. Both of these points
have been heavily disputed by other authors and will
be addressed in the following sections.
3) Storage and Re-Utilisation of Elastic
Energy
The original Schenau et al.21 paper has brought about a
lot of controversy within the research community.
Herzog12 stated that the target article did not present
their argument within a singular framework and used a
Hill-type13 argument for some sections and a Huxley-
type14 argument for others. Further, there was a
distinct lack of focus on the SEC and its functional
contribution to the SSC. Within the Hill13 model for
muscle action, there is a distinct focus on the SEC and
PEC, and their role in the absorption and re-utilisation
of elastic energy.
Of the proposed mechanisms underpinning the SSC,
elastic energy has been researched the most. Research
has shown that under rapid stretching, the CE will work
in an isometric or quasi-isometric state allowing for
increased levels of muscle stiffness25 and thereby cause
a deformation, (lengthening), in the more compliant
SEC.11,26 Note that PEC will change length based on the
CE and plays a primary role in passive muscle
stiffness.11,26 Studies have examined the relative
changes in the muscle and the tendon at different SSC
speeds. The tendon and the aponeurosis are
considered to be the primary elements within the SEC.
Kubo et al.16 examined in vivo changes in fascicle
(muscle) and tendon length during rapid SSC. Using
ultrasonography, the authors had participants perform
dynamic dorsiflexion into plantarflexion at slow (0.3Hz)
and fast (1.0Hz) speeds. Results showed that the
fascicle lengthened more in the slow condition (58.2 ±
5.4mm) compared to the fast condition (54.4 ±
5.5mm). Inversely, the tendon lengthened less during
the slow condition (6.4 ± 3.4mm), and more during
the fast condition (9.9 ± 2.8mm). In terms of
UK STRENGTH AND CONDITIONING ASSOCIATION
5
 shortening velocity, the tendon shortened significantly
faster (82.9 ± 17.3mm s-¹) than the fascicle (16.3 ±
17.1mm s-1). Finally, it was shown that the tendon
contributed 20.2% and 42.5% to the total amount of
work performed for the slow and fast condition,
respectively. Similar results were shown in computer
simulation studies that examined the difference
between the NCMJ and the CMJ.5,19
A slower fascicle shortening velocity is in line with the
force-velocity properties of muscle; allowing for a
greater development of force. In simulation models the
fascicle shortening velocity has been shown to
decrease by as much as 63% allowing for greater force
production.5 Further, increased shortening velocity of
the tendon allows for the overall muscle shortening
velocity to be high. The overall increase in shortening
velocity, and the intramuscular increase in force, allows
for greater power output during the CMJ. Komi15
presents the concept of slow versus fast SSC and
states that the CMJ can be considered a slow SSC and
the DJ can be considered a fast SSC. Schmidtbleicher23
classifies these further saying a slow SSC involves
ground contact times >250ms and fast SSC involves
ground contact times <250ms. Further, it has been
shown that a delay of .85s between the eccentric-
concentric muscle actions results in a 55% loss of
stored elastic energy.24 Therefore, a fast eccentric
contraction, followed by a short coupling time, allows
for the greatest storage and re-utilisation of elastic
energy. For this reason, authors have stated that the
CMJ may not be the best model to examine the SSC
mechanism, and that fast hopping or DJ may provide
more insight to the relationship between the muscle-
tendon complex during human locomotion.15
Further support for the storage and re-utilistion
mechanism can come from examining muscle and
tendon stiffness. Stiffness has been defined as the
resistance of an object to changes in length.6 In other
words, stiffness is the increase in force during
lengthening. Stiffness can be calculated by dividing
change in force by change in length (∆F/∆L), such that
the change in force per unit of elongation is
determined. In a passive state, the tendons stiffness
far exceeds that of the PEC (i.e. muscle), but in an
active state the muscle stiffness will exceed that of the
tendon, supporting the compliant storage of elastic
energy.26 Studies looking at tendon and aponeurosis
have found that, of the two, the tendon has greater
stiffness and the aponeurosis is more compliant to
deformation.11,27 Additionally, studies that have looked
at muscle stiffness and performance have found a high
correlation with decreased ground contact times.25,26
Further, the muscle exhibits higher levels of stiffness
when performing concentric and isometric
contractions.25 For this reason, there is greater storage
of elastic energy within the SEC during rapid
lengthening, due to the increased stiffness of the CE.
4) Stretch Reflex
The final mechanism that has been linked to the
increase in CMJ jump height is the involuntary stretch
reflex (SR). The SR is modulated by the muscle spindle
(MS) within the CE. The MS detects the change in
length of the CE and the rate of change in length of the
CE. When the muscle undergoes a rapid stretch, the
gamma motor neurons that innervate the MS increase
the stretch on the MS and therefore, the sensitivity to
further stretch from the muscle.10,26 This results in the
MS indirectly signaling the alpha motor neurons,
UK STRENGTH AND CONDITIONING ASSOCIATION
6 © UKSCA | Issue 20 | WINTER 2010/11 w: www.uksca.org.uk e: info@uksca.org.uk
leading to an increase in muscle activation.10,26 This
process can be broken into the short-latency response
(M1), and the long-latency response (M2).10,26 The M1
will take 30ms and the M2 will take 50-60ms, whilst
voluntary activation does not begin until 170ms.10,26
Therefore, any SSC that are >170ms allows enough
time for the SR to operate and contribute to the work
of the muscle.15
Most fast SSC observed in sport will be achieved in
>250ms.1 Note that the SR is considered one of the
primary control mechanisms for muscle stiffness during
human locomotion.26 Further support for the SR
mechanism can be derived from the studies that have
shown that the CE works in an isometric-concentric
state during rapid lengthening.16 Despite conflicting
thoughts on the degree to which the SR maximises
performance during SSC, there is enough evidence to
support that it plays a role that is most likely
conditional on the velocity of the muscle stretching
phase.
Practical Implications
The proposed mechanisms (i.e. Potentiation, Active
State Development, Stored Elastic Energy and Stretch
Reflex) contributing to the SSC, and therefore why one
achieves better performance with the CMJ, provide a
framework for developing plyometric progressions. The
efficacy of using plyometrics or “jump training” to
enhance human performance has been well established
within literature.9 Understanding neuromuscular and
mechanical differences between different types of
jumps allows the coach to develop better progressions
and develop an adaptation continuum.
The use of a NCMJ plays a large role in the
development of explosive strength in athletes. Many
sports require athletes to hold a triple flexed position
statically prior to an explosive dynamic action, (e.g.
the start of the 100m sprint). For this reason, we want
to develop what has been termed “starting strength” or
explosive concentric strength.20 Further, the NCMJ can
be used to develop coordination and develop the higher
levels of tissue tolerance needed in the CMJ and DJ.
Once an athlete has mastered the NCMJ, then
transitioning them to a CMJ is the next logical
progression. The CMJ involves a higher volume of
eccentric loading and neuromuscular efficiency.
Additionally, this provides a foundation for developing
higher levels of muscular stiffness and therefore, the
ability to better store and release elastic energy.
The DJ is the next step within the progression and
provides an environment to develop high levels of
muscle stiffness and “reactive strength.” There is
conclusive evidence that DJ, (i.e. fast SSC), will
increase SEC loading and CE stiffness to the greatest
degree. In terms of drop height, it can be
recommended to start very low and work up to
increasing the height as the athlete improves. There
will be a range of drop heights that can be used and
starting heights may vary, but a practical
recommendation is to never use a drop height that
exceeds the athlete’s current CMJ height. If the athlete
progresses prior to adaptation, (i.e. uses far too high
drop heights), this may lead to inhibitory actions upon
ground contact or potential mechanical failure (i.e.
muscle tearing).15 Finally, movements and directions
should be varied based on the sport and the position.
In Table 1 there are a series of recommendations for
categorising and progressing plyometrics.
Exercise Options Movement Direction
Emphasis
Jump: 2-leg take-off Direction: Linear, Lateral or
2-leg landing Rotational
Hop: 1-leg take-off Emphasis: Vertical or Horizontal
same 1-leg landing
Bound: 1-leg take-off
opposite 1-leg landing
Table 1. Variables used for developing plyometric progression
The relative ratio of NCMJ to CMJ (NCMJ/CMJ) can also
be used to monitor strength deficits and training
readiness. McGuigan et al.18 provides a framework for
the use of the EUR. If the ratio is >1 then the athlete
has poor stretch-shortening ability and therefore may
need to develop better coordination, muscle stiffness
and reactive strength. If the ratio is <1 then the
athlete shows they have reasonably developed stretch-
shortening capabilities. It should also be noted that the
magnitude of difference between CMJ and NCMJ,
reflected by the EUR, likely depends on the sport and
position. From a monitoring standpoint this information
can provide insight on adaptation and training
readiness. If an athlete comes off a full recovery period
and their performance remains low (e.g. EUR >1), then
further recovery could be initiated.
Conclusion
Defense can be made for each of the four proposed
mechanisms behind the SSC and the increase in jump
height seen during the CMJ and DJ. The focus for the
practitioner should not be on which mechanism is
correct, but rather how they all work together. As the
athlete anticipates the vertical jump, (i.e. CMJ), there
will be heightened pre-activity, leading to a CE
potentiation effect. As the athlete loads into the
stretching phase there will be a continual rise in the
active state of the muscle. The rise in the active state
would be initiated by the initial stretch reflex that
occurred due to a rapid change in muscle length. With
an increase stretch sensitivity, the muscle is able to act
in an isometric state with an increased firing frequency
of the alpha motor neurons, causing further increase in
the active state and muscle potentiation. The increase
in CE stiffness during the lengthening phase allows for
optimal loading of the SEC. As the athlete transitions to
the shortening phase, the SEC will be able to shorten
at a much faster velocity than the CE, allowing for
optimal force-velocity characteristics. The net result is
an increased performance on the jump due to the
combination of neuromuscular and mechanical
mechanisms.
References
1. Aagaard, P., E.B. Simonsen, J.L. Andersen, P.
Magnusson, and P. Dyhre-Poulsen. (2002). Increased rate
of force development and neural drive of human skeletal
muscle following resistance training. J Appl Physiol.
93:1318-1326,
2. Anderson, F.C., and M.G. Pandy. (1993). Storage and
utilization of elastic strain energy during jumping. J
Biomech. 26:1413-1427,
3. Bobbert, M.F., and L.J. Casius. (2005). Is the effect of a
© UKSCA | Issue 20 | WINTER 2010/11 w: www.uksca.org.uk e: info@uksca.org.uk
Movement Initiation
Progression
Drop to Squat
Non-Countermovement
Countermovement
Double Contact
Continuous
Drop Jump
+Load (ex. Weight Vest)
countermovement on jump height due to active state
development? Med Sci Sports Exerc. 37:440-446.
4. Bobbert, M.F., K.G. Gerritsen, M.C. Litjens, and A.J. Van
Soest. (1996). Why is countermovement jump height
greater than squat jump height? Med Sci Sports Exerc.
28:1402-1412.
5. Bohm, H., G.K. Cole, G.P. Bruggemann, and H. Ruder.
(2006). Contribution of muscle series elasticity to
maximum performance in drop jumping. J Appl Biomech.
22:3-13.
6. Brughelli, M., and J. Cronin. (2008). A review of research
on the mechanical stiffness in running and jumping:
methodology and implications. Scand J Med Sci Sports.
18:417-426..
7. Carlock, J.M., S.L. Smith, M.J. Hartman, R.T. Morris, D.A.
Ciroslan, K.C. Pierce, R.U. Newton, E.A. Harman, W.A.
Sands, and M.H. Stone. (2004). The relationship between
vertical jump power estimates and weightlifting ability: a
field-test approach. J Strength Cond Res. 18:534-539.
8. Cavagna, G.A., F.P. Saibene, and R. Margaria. Effect of
Negative Work on the Amount of Positive Work Performed
by an Isolated Muscle. (1965). J Appl Physiol. 20:157-158.
9. Chu, D.A. (1998). Jumping Into Plyometrics. Champaign,
IL: Human Kinetics.
10. Enoka, R.M. (2002). Neuromechanics of Human
Movement. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
11. Fukashiro, S., D.C. Hay, and A. Nagano. (2006).
Biomechanical behavior of muscle-tendon complex during
dynamic human movements. J Appl Biomech. 22:131-147.
12. Herzog, W. (1997). What is the Series Elastic Component
in Skeletal Muscle? J Appl Biomech. 13:443-448.
13. Hill, A.V. (1938). The Heat of Shortening and the Dynamic
Constraints of Muscle. In Proceedings of the Royal
Society of London, pp.136-195.
14. Huxley, A.F. (1957). Muscle structure and theories of
contraction. Prog Biophys Biophys Chem. 7:255-318.
15. Komi, P. (2003) Stretch-Shortening Cycle. In: Strength and
Power in Sport. P. Komi (Ed.) Osney Mead, Oxford:
Blackwell Science Ltd, 2003.
16. Kubo, K., H. Kanehisa, D. Takeshita, Y. Kawakami, S.
Fukashiro, and T. Fukunaga. (2000). In vivo dynamics of
human medial gastrocnemius muscle-tendon complex
during stretch-shortening cycle exercise. Acta Physiol
Scand. 170:127-135, 2000.
17. McBride, J.M., G.O. McCaulley, and P. Cormie. (2008).
Influence of preactivity and eccentric muscle activity on
concentric performance during vertical jumping. J Strength
Cond Res. 22:750-757.
18. McGuigan, M.R., T.L. Doyle, M. Newton, D.J. Edwards, S.
Nimphius, and R.U. Newton. (2006). Eccentric utilization
ratio: effect of sport and phase of training. J Strength Cond
Res. 20:992-995,.
19. Nagano, A., T. Komura, and S. Fukashiro. (2004). Effects
UK STRENGTH AND CONDITIONING ASSOCIATION
7
 of Series Elasticity of the Muscle Tendon Complex on an
Explosive Activity Performance with a Counter Movement.
J Appl Biomech. 20:85-94.
20. Poliquin, C. (2004). The Poliquin International Certification
Program: Theory Manual 1. East Greenwhich, RI: Poliquin
Performance Center.
21. Schenau, G.J.v.I., M.F. Bobbert, and A.d. Haan.(1997).
Does Elastic Energy Enhance Work and Efficiency in the
Stretch-Shortening Cycle? J Appl Biomech. 13:389-415.
22. Schenau, G.J.v.I., M.F. Bobbert, and A.d. Haan. Mechanics
and Energetics of the Stretch-Shortening Cycel: A
Stimulating Discussion. J Appl Biomech. 13:484-496.
23. Schmidtbleicher, D. (1992) Training for Power Events. In:
The Encyclopedia of Sports Medicine. P.V. Komi (Ed.)
Oxford, UK: Blackwell, 1992, pp. 169-179.
24. Wilson, G.J., B.C. Elliott, and G.A. Wood. (1991). The
effect on performance of imposing a delay during a
stretch-shorten cycle movement. Med Sci Sports Exerc.
23:364-370.
25. Wilson, G.J., A.J. Murphy, and J.F. Pryor. (1994).
Musculotendinous stiffness: its relationship to eccentric,
isometric, and concentric performance. J Appl Physiol.
76:2714-2719.
26. Wilson, J.M., and E.P. Flanagan. (2008). The role of
elastic energy in activities with high force and power
requirements: a brief review. J Strength Cond Res.
22:1705-1715.
27. Zuurbier, C.J., and P.A. Huijing. (1992). Influence of
muscle geometry on shortening speed of fibre,
aponeurosis and muscle. J Biomech. 25:1017-1026.

7th ANNUAL
CONFERENCE
18–19 JUNE, 2011

UKSCA Annual Conference 2011

As announced before Christmas, this year's UKSCA Annual
Conference will take place at the Stirling Management Centre,
which is based at the University of Stirling on 18/19 June 2011.
In response to feedback from our members and to ensure that as
many of our members as possible can attend, the format of the
conference has been changed this year to take place over 2 full
days - Saturday and Sunday, as opposed to a 3-day programme
with a late start on Friday and early finish on Sunday as previous
years.
The conference will still have the same volume of presentations,
excellent quality speakers and be a great opportunity to network
with colleagues in your field. It also means we can deliver a better
value for money CPD event for our members.
Costs and speakers will be announced over the coming weeks, but
please mark this date in your diary.
We look forward to seeing you in Stirling!

UK STRENGTH AND CONDITIONING ASSOCIATION

8 © UKSCA | Issue 20 | WINTER 2010/11 w: www.uksca.org.uk e: info@uksca.org.uk