Home > Journals > The Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness > Past Issues > The Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness 2003 March;43(1) > The Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness 2003 March;43(1):21-7

CURRENT ISSUE
 

ARTICLE TOOLS

Reprints

THE JOURNAL OF SPORTS MEDICINE AND PHYSICAL FITNESS

A Journal on Applied Physiology, Biomechanics, Preventive Medicine,
Sports Medicine and Traumatology, Sports Psychology


Indexed/Abstracted in: Chemical Abstracts, CINAHL, Current Contents/Clinical Medicine, EMBASE, PubMed/MEDLINE, Science Citation Index Expanded (SciSearch), Scopus
Impact Factor 1,215


eTOC

 

Original articles  EXERCISE PHYSIOLOGY AND BIOMECHANICS


The Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness 2003 March;43(1):21-7

Copyright © 2009 EDIZIONI MINERVA MEDICA

language: English

Effects of running, static stretching and practice jumps on explosive force production and jumping performance

Young W. B. 1, Behm D. G. 2

1 School of Human Movement and Sport Sciences University of Ballarat, Ballarat, Victoria, Australia 2 School of Human Kinetics and Recreation Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John’s Newfoundland, Canada


PDF  


Aim. The inter­ac­tion ­between run­ning, ­stretching and prac­tice ­jumps ­during ­warm-up for ­jumping ­tests has not ­been inves­ti­gated. The pur­pose of the ­present ­study was to com­pare the ­effects of run­ning, ­static ­stretching of the leg exten­sors and prac­tice ­jumps on explo­sive ­force pro­duc­tion and ­jumping per­for­mance.
­Methods. Six­teen vol­un­teers (13 ­male and 3 ­female) par­tic­i­pated in ­five dif­ferent ­warm-ups in a ran­dom­ised ­order ­prior to the per­for­mance of two ­jumping ­tests. The ­warm-ups ­were con­trol, 4 min run, ­static ­stretch, run + ­stretch, and run + ­stretch + prac­tice ­jumps. ­After a 2 min ­rest, a con­cen­tric ­jump and a ­drop ­jump ­were per­formed, ­which ­yielded 6 var­i­ables ­expressing ­fast ­force pro­duc­tion and ­jumping per­for­mance of the leg ­extensor mus­cles (con­cen­tric ­jump ­height, ­peak ­force, ­rate of ­force devel­oped, ­drop ­jump ­height, con­tact ­time and ­height/­time).
­Results. Gen­er­ally the ­stretching ­warm-up pro­duced the ­lowest ­values and the run or run + ­stretch + ­jumps ­warm-ups pro­duced the ­highest ­values of explo­sive ­force pro­duc­tion. ­There ­were no sig­nif­i­cant dif­fer­ences (p<0.05) ­between the con­trol and run + ­stretch ­warm-ups, ­whereas the run ­yielded sig­nif­i­cantly ­better ­scores ­than the run + ­stretch ­warm-up for ­drop ­jump ­height (3.2%), con­cen­tric ­jump ­height (3.4%) and ­peak con­cen­tric ­force (2.7%) and ­rate of ­force devel­oped (15.4%).
Con­clu­sion. The ­results indi­cated ­that sub­max­imum run­ning and prac­tice ­jumps had a pos­i­tive ­effect ­whereas ­static ­stretching had a neg­a­tive influ­ence on explo­sive ­force and ­jumping per­for­mance. It was sug­gested ­that an alter­na­tive for ­static ­stretching ­should be con­sid­ered in ­warm-ups ­prior to ­power activ­ities.

top of page

Publication History

Cite this article as

Corresponding author e-mail