THE ACUTE EFFECTS OF MANIPULATING VOLUME AND
LOAD OF BACK SQUATS ON COUNTERMOVEMENT
VERTICAL JUMP PERFORMANCE
GAVIN L. MOIR, DAVID MERGY, C.A. WITMER, AND
Exercise Science Department, East Stroudsburg University of Pennsylvania, East Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania
ABSTRACT
Moir, GL, Mergy, D, Witmer, CA, and Davis, SE. The acute
effects of manipulating volume and load of back squats on
countermovement vertical jump performance. J Strength Cond
Res 25(6): 14861491, 2011The acute effects of manipulating
the volume and load of back squats on subsequent counter-
movement vertical jump performance were investigated in the
present study. Eleven National Collegiate Athletic Association
division II female volleyball players performed 10 countermove-
ment vertical jumps (CMJs) on a force platform 2 minutes after
the last squat repetition of a high-load (HL) or high-volume (HV)
squat protocol. Two minutes of rest was provided between
each CMJ. The HL protocol culminated in the subjects having to
perform 3 repetitions with a load equivalent to 90% 1 repetition
maximum (1RM) back squat, whereas 12 repetitions with a load
equivalent to 37% 1RM were performed in the HV protocol.
During an initial familiarization session, knee angles were
recorded during a series of CMJs, and these angles were used
to control the depth of descent during all subsequent back
squats. Jump height (JH) and vertical stiffness (VStiff) were
calculated during each of the 10 CMJ, and the change in these
variables after the 2 squat protocols was assessed using an
analysis of variance model with repeated measures on 2 factors
(Protocol [2-levels]; Time [2-levels]). There was no significant
difference in JH after the HL and HV protocols (p . 0.05).
A significant Protocol 3 Time interaction for VStiff resulted from
the increase after the HL protocol being greater than that after
the HV protocol (p = 0.03). The knee angles before the HL and
HV protocols were significantly greater than those measured
during the initial familiarization session (p = 0.001). Although
neither squat protocol provided any benefit in improving JH, the
heavy squat protocol produced greater increases in VStiff
during the CMJ. Because of the increased VStiff caused by the
HL protocol, volleyball coaches may consider using such
Address correspondence to Dr. Gavin L. Moir, gmoir@po-box.esu.edu.
25(6)/14861491
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
2011 National Strength and Conditioning Association
the TM
1486 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Copyright National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
SHALA E. DAVIS
protocols with their players to improve performance in jumps
performed from a run such as the spike and on-court agility.
KEY WORDS resistance exercise, jump height, potentiation,
vertical stiffness, volleyball
INTRODUCTION
R
esearch has shown that performing maximal or
near-maximal muscular contractions can produce
short-term increases in the maximum force pro-
duced by the stimulated muscles in a phenomenon
known as postactivation potentiation (PAP) (14). Different
underlying mechanisms have been proposed to cause PAP
with some authors proposing that phosphorylation of
myosin light chains resulting from the initial muscle activity
render the actin and myosin molecules more sensitive to Ca2+
availability (30). Others have proposed neural factors, such as
the excitability of a-motoneurons, as being responsible for
increased contractile performance after previous muscular
activity (12). Although the exact mechanisms responsible
remain to be fully delineated, the PAP effect has significant
implications for strength and conditioning practitioners. For
example, an athletes performance could be improved by
including heavy resistance exercises in the warm-up (21,28).
Alternatively, complex training methods, which involve
combining exercises against heavy loads with exercises against
lighter loads within the same session, may confer greater
overall gains in explosive strength (7,9). Despite the appeal of
the PAP effect for strength and conditioning practitioners, the
extant research has revealed inconsistent findings. For
example, maximal voluntary isometric contractions have been
shown to improve subsequent multijoint explosive movements
in some studies (10), yet not others (25). Similarly, heavy back
squats have been reported to improve subsequent vertical
jump performance (11,24,34), yet an improvement has been
absent in other studies (13,15,16,20,24,26). As such, the
practical application of PAP methods has recently been
questioned by some researchers (21).
The inconsistencies in the PAP research may arise from
a number of sources, with one being the strength of the
subjects used in the studies. For example, previous researchers
have reported that the PAP effect is greater in stronger

subjects (3,11,24), though clear criteria for defining the
strength threshold required to elicit the phenomenon remain
elusive. However, even when well-trained athletes are used,
the results still appear inconclusive (29). Another source of
inconsistency is the load used in the potentiating exercise.
Koch et al. (18) reported that neither heavy (87.5% repetition
maximum [1RM]) nor light (40% 1RM) potentiating
exercises were successful in eliciting an improvement in
broad jumps. Comyns et al. (5) found that heavy back squats
(93% 1RM) were more effective at increasing kinetic
variables associated with depth jumps than those performed
with medium (80% 1RM) or light (65% 1RM) loads. How-
ever, the potentiating protocols used were not equalized in
terms of volume load, a potentially confounding variable. In
previous research where the volume loads of the potentiating
exercises have been equalized, neither heavy nor light
potentiating protocols have been shown to be effective (13).
The timing of the PAP measurement relative to the
potentiating exercise is also likely to influence the efficacy of
the protocol. Comyns et al. (6) reported that the PAP effect
was elicited 4 minutes after the potentiating exercise. Jensen
and Ebben (15) speculated that an interval beyond 4 minutes
was required, whereas Kilduff et al. (17) reported a time
interval of between 8 and 12 minutes to be effective.
However, Gullich and Schmidtbleicher (12) noted consider-
able individual variation in the response to the PAP protocol,
with the effect occurring between 2.5 and 12.5 minutes after
the potentiating exercise. The timing of the PAP measure-
ment relative to the potentiating exercise is important given
that PAP and fatigue are proposed to exist at opposite ends of
a continuum (23).
The specificity of the potentiating exercise relative to the
exercise used as the performance measure has also been
highlighted as an important variable affecting the efficacy of
PAP protocols (14). Typically, heavy squats have been used as
the potentiating exercise with countermovement vertical
jumps (CMJs) as the performance measure. However,
previous researchers have failed to ensure specificity between
these exercises. For example, it has been shown that the
contribution of the hip and knee extensors to the squat
movement is affected by the depth of the squat (2). As such,
ensuring that the depth of the squat corresponds to that used
by the athlete during the CMJ may affect the efficacy of the
PAP protocol and may help explain some of the incon-
sistencies of previous research.
Although there is a wealth of research investigating the
PAP effect, few studies have focused on women, although the
responses of men and women have been combined in some
studies (3,12,15,29). The exceptions are Duthie et al. (8) and
Rixon et al. (24). Duthie et al. (8) reported that maximal force
averaged across 3 loaded (30% 1RM) jump squats was greater
in stronger female subjects regardless of whether the jumps
were performed before 3 sets of heavy half-squats (the
control treatment) or alternated between the sets of heavy
half-squats (contrast treatment). When the jump squats were
Copyright National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
the TM
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca-jscr.org
performed following the sets of heavy half-squats (complex
treatment), there was no significant difference between the
stronger and weaker women. The authors concluded that
complex training methods where heavy exercises precede
explosive movements may be inappropriate because of
reduced performance resulting from the heavy resistance
exercises, even in well-trained subjects. Similarly, Rixon et al.
(24) reported that height during CMJ was reduced after
a dynamic protocol culminating with 1 set of 3RM back
squats in a group of women. However, individual responses
in the PAP response were not accounted for. These results
add to the equivocal nature of the extant PAP research.
However, if the practical applications of PAP methods for
women are to be identified with a view to assisting strength
and conditioning practitioners, then studies addressing the
shortcomings of previous research are required. Therefore,
the purpose of the present study was to investigate the acute
effects of performing heavy and light back squats on the
mechanical variables of jump height (JH) and vertical
stiffness (VStiff ) during a series of vertical jumps in female
intercollegiate volleyball players.
METHODS
Experimental Approach to the Problem
This study used a blocked-randomized design to investigate
the effects of different potentiation protocols (high-load [HL]
and high-volume [HV] back squats) on a series of 10 CMJs
separated by 2 minutes performed by female volleyball
players. The depth of the squat exercises was controlled to
correspond to that used by each athlete during the CMJ, thus
increasing the specificity between the potentiating exercise
and the test movement. The mechanical variables of JH and
VStiff were calculated from a force platform during each
jump, with the maximum values achieved being used in the
subsequent analyses. This design allowed for the determina-
tion of the effectiveness of HL and HV back squat protocols as
potentiating exercises in trained women, given that previous
research has reported individual responses in the timing of the
potentiation response and few studies have analyzed the
response of women.
Subjects
Eleven division II female collegiate volleyball players (mean
age, height, and mass 19.3 6 0.5 years, 1.67 6 0.29 m, and
68.9 6 9.8 kg, respectively) volunteered to participate in this
study, which was approved by Institutional Review Board for
the Protection of Human Subjects of East Stroudsburg
University. Subjects were able to participate in the present
study if they were currently free and had been free from
musculoskeletal injury for the past 6 months while also having
a minimum of 1-year experience of resistance training. After
being informed of the risks associated with participating in the
study, a written informed consent form was obtained from
each subject before the testing. All subjects were asked to
refrain from intense exercise and standardize their diet 72
VOLUME 25 | NUMBER 6 | JUNE 2011 | 1487
 Squats and Jumping
hours before the testing sessions. The study was completed 4
months after the completion of the teams season.
Experimental Procedures
All subjects attended 4 testing sessions: a familiarization session,
a 1RM back squat determination session, an HL squat protocol,
and an HV squat protocol (HV) (Figure 1). During the
familiarization session, all subjects completed 3 CMJ for
maximal height. The motion of the subjects during these jumps
was videoed and analyzed (Dartfish Pro Suite, Alpharetta, GA,
USA) to provide the maximum knee flexion angle during the
countermovement. This knee angle was then used to control
the depth of the squat during the second testing session to
determine the 1RM back squat load. The order of the
2 potentiating sessions (HL, HV) was counterbalanced across
the subjects. Each session began with the subjects performing
a dynamic warm-up comprising walking lunges for 10 m
followed by 10 bodyweight squats and 10 CMJs.
One Repetition Maximum Parallel Back Squat. A 1RM for the
back squat was determined for each subject using the protocol
outlined by Baechle et al. (1) modified to incorporate the
depth of descent corresponding to that achieved in the CMJ
for each subject. The depth of descent was controlled by
using boxes to which the subjects descended. Spotters were
used during each squat attempt, whereas a standard 20-kg
Olympic barbell and Olympic disks (Ivanko, Reno, NV, USA)
were used during the exercise. At least 3 days rest was
provided between the 1RM procedure and the first
potentiating protocol (HL or HV).
Figure 1. Schematic representation of experimental sessions. CMJ = countermovement vertical jump; 1RM =
1 repetition maximum.
the
1488 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Copyright National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Potentiation Protocols. The HL squat protocol consisted of
2 repetitions at 50% of 1RM with a 3-minute rest period,
1 repetition at 70% of 1RM with a 4-minute rest period, and
3 repetitions at 90% of 1RM. Three repetitions at 90% of 1RM
were chosen because researchers have suggested that
resistance exercises .80% of 1RM are required to elicit
PAP (6). The HV squat protocol consisted of 12 repetitions at
37% of 1RM. Twelve repetitions at 37% of 1RM were chosen
because this load is close to 30% of 1RM, which has been
suggested to be the optimal load for power output (19).
These 2 protocols were equated by volume load (number of
repetitions 3 load), and the depth of descent for each
repetition was commensurate with the mean knee angle
calculated during the initial familiarization session. After the
squats, the subjects performed a series of 10 CMJs separated
by 2 minutes of passive recovery (1 jump every 2 minutes).
The first CMJ was performed 2 minutes after the final squat
repetition of either the HL or HV squat protocol.
Countermovement Vertical Jumps. Before each squat protocol,
the subjects performed 3 CMJs with 10 CMJs performed after
the protocols (Figure 1). All vertical jumps were performed
on a force platform (Kistler, type 9286AA, Winterthur,
Switzerland) sampling at 1,202 Hz. The subjects were
required to perform the jumps with the hands held around
the neck to avoid the use of the arms during the movement,
and 2 minutes of passive recovery (quiet sitting) was provided
between each jump. From the vertical force trace during
each jump, the variables of JH and VStiff were calculated
following the procedures outlined by Moir et al. (22). Briefly,
JH was calculated from the
vertical velocity of the center
of mass (COM) at take-off
following the integration of
the vertical force trace, whereas
VStiff was calculated as the
ratio of the vertical force to
the negative displacement of
the COM during the propulsive
phase of the jump. The coef-
ficients of variation (CVs) and
intraclass correlation coeffi-
cient (ICC) for JH in women
following this procedure are
2.2% and 0.97, respectively,
whereas the CV and ICC values
for VStiff calculated from a sin-
gle trial are 9.1% and 0.89 (22).
Statistical Analyses
All statistical analyses were
performed using the Statistical
Package for the Social Sciences
(SPSS for Windows, version
15.0, SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL,
USA). Measures of central
TM

TABLE 1. Mean maximal knee flexion angles achieved
during the 3 CMJs performed during the
familiarization session and before the HL and HV
protocols.*
Familiarization HL protocol HV protocol
80.9 6 9.1 93.0 6 7.7 98.0 6 10.4
*HL = high-load; HV = high-volume; CMJ = counter-
movement vertical jump.
Values are given as mean 6 SD.
tendency and spread of the data were represented as means
and SDs. A 1-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to
determine if there was any statistical difference in the
maximum knee flexion angle recorded during the CMJ
performed during the familiarization session and the CMJ
performed before the HL and HV protocols. Pairwise
comparisons with Bonferroni corrections were performed
to identify where the differences were. An ANOVA model
was used to determine if there was any statistical difference
between the greatest values of JH and VStiff during the CMJ
performed before and after the HL or HV protocols. The
ANOVA model had repeated measures on 2 factors: protocol
(HL, HV) and time (before protocol, after protocol). Because
of violations of normality (KolmogorovSmirnov), non-
parametric bivariate correlations (Kendalls Tau) were used
to show the relationship between 1RM back squat values and
absolute differences in the maximal mechanical variables
calculated after the 2 squat protocols. The categories of
Cohen (4) were used to establish how meaningful the
relationships were. Alpha was set at p # 0.05 for all analyses.
RESULTS
The mean 1RM for the athletes in the present study was
98.2 6 21.5 kg, producing a mean load of 88.7 6 22.0 kg
during the final repetitions of the HL protocol and 36.6 6 7.9
TABLE 2. The mean maximal JH and VStiff values achieved during CMJs performed before and after the HL and HV
protocols.*
HL protocol
Before
JH (m) 0.25 6 0.02
VStiff (kN
m21) 4.24 6 1.07
*JH = jump height; VStiff = vertical stiffness; HL = high-load; HV = high-volume; CMJ = countermovement vertical jump.
Values are given as mean 6 SD.
Copyright National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
the TM
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca-jscr.org
kg for the HV protocol. The mean volume load used during
the HL protocol was 450 6 98, whereas that during the HV
protocol was 447 6 95. These values were not significantly
different (p . 0.05).
Knee Angles
Table 1 shows the mean maximal knee flexion angles
recorded during the 3 CMJs performed during the
familiarization session and those performed before the HL
and HV protocols.
The ANOVA revealed a significant difference between
the mean maximal knee flexion angles recorded during the
3 sessions (p = 0.001). Pairwise comparisons showed that
the knee angles recorded during the familiarization session
were significantly lower than those recorded before the HL
protocol (mean difference = 212.1, p = 0.02) and the HV
protocol (mean difference = 217.1, p = 0.001).
Jump Height
Table 2 shows the mean values for the maximal JH achieved
before and after the HL and HV protocols. There was no
significant main effect or protocol 3 time interaction for JH
(p . 0.05). Despite this, 45% of the subjects actually increased
JH after the HL protocol, with only 18% demonstrating
a decrement in performance. The increases in JH were
elicited between 2 and 18 minutes after the HL protocol. The
JH was increased only in 1 subject after the HV protocol.
Small correlations were found between the change in JH
after the HL protocol and 1RM (t = 0.08, p . 0.05) and the
change in JH after the HV protocol and 1RM (t = 0.15,
p . 0.05).
Vertical Stiffness
Table 2 shows the mean values for the maximal VStiff
achieved before and after the HL and HV protocols. A
significant main effect was reported for time (p = 0.013) with
the VStiff values recorded after both squat protocols being
greater than those recorded before (mean difference = 20.43
kN
m21, p = 0.01). There was a significant protocol 3 time
interaction for VStiff (p = 0.03). This interaction resulted
from the increase after the HL protocol being greater than
that following the HV protocol (p = 0.034). When analyzing
HV protocol
After Before After
0.25 6 0.03 0.26 6 0.02 0.25 6 0.04
4.93 6 1.60 4.61 6 1.27 4.79 6 1.34
VOLUME 25 | NUMBER 6 | JUNE 2011 | 1489
 Squats and Jumping
the individual responses, it was found that 82% of the subjects
increased VStiff after the HL protocol with the increases elicited
between 4 and 20 minutes after the potentiating exercise.
Very small correlations were found between the change in
VStiff after the HL protocol and 1RM (t = 20.08, p . 0.05)
and the change in VStiff after the HV protocol and 1RM (t =
0.00, p . 0.05).
DISCUSSION
The purpose of the present study was to investigate the acute
effects of performing heavy and light back squats on
subsequent performance during a series of vertical jumps in
female volleyball players. Previous researchers have reported
that heavy (93% 1RM) back squats were more effective than
medium (80% 1RM) or light (65% 1RM) back squats at
increasing kinetic variables associated with depth jumps in
men (6). However, the potentiating protocols used were not
equalized in terms of volume load. When the volume loads of
the potentiating exercises have been equalized, neither heavy
nor light potentiating protocols have been shown to be
effective in a mixed group of men and women (13). In the
present investigation, it was found that a back squat
potentiating protocol culminating in the performance of
3 repetitions with a load equivalent to 90% 1RM produced
a significant increase in VStiff during CMJ compared to
a protocol consisting of 12 repetitions at 37% of 1RM. An
increase in VStiff holds significant implications for volleyball
athletes. For example, leg stiffness, as reflected in measures of
reactive strength (defined as the ability to quickly change
from the eccentric to concentric phase during a stretch-
shortening cycle [34]), has been implicated in agility
performance (32) and the performance of jumps from
a run-up (33), both of which are important in volleyball
(27). It is possible that volleyball coaches could use a protocol
of heavy back squats in their athletes warm-up performed
before court practices to improve performance during game-
like movements. However, further research would be
required to substantiate this proposition. It is interesting to
note that the increase in VStiff in the present study was found
despite JH not changing. Perhaps if the jump had been
performed from a run or a depth jump rather than a CMJ,
then a difference may have been recorded.
Previous researchers have reported that the PAP effect is
greater in stronger subjects (3,11,24). In the present study the
relationships between 1RM strength and the change in jump
variables (JH and VStiff ) were small at best. Duthie et al. (8)
reported that the stronger female athletes produced greater
forces during loaded jump squats than the weaker subjects
regardless of whether the jumps were performed before 3 sets
of heavy half-squats (the control treatment) or alternated
between the sets of heavy half-squats (contrast treatment).
However, such differences were absent when the jump squats
were performed after the sets of heavy half-squats (complex
treatment). The findings of the present study and those of
Duthie et al. (8) would suggest that maximal muscular
the TM
1490 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Copyright National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
strength may not mediate the PAP effect in female athletes,
although further research that directly compares men and
women is required to validate this claim.
The specificity of the potentiating exercise relative to the
exercise used as the performance measure has been high-
lighted as an important variable affecting the efficacy of PAP
protocols (14). Previous authors have emphasized specificity in
explaining the acute effects of back squats on sprint running
performance (31), whereas others have included insufficient
movement pattern specificity as a factor to explain the lack of
improvement following a heavy back squat protocol (13). In the
present study, an attempt was made to control the depth of the
back squats to equate the knee angles achieved with those used
by each subject during the CMJ given that the contribution of
the hip and knee extensors is affected by the depth of the
descent (2). However, it was found that the subjects in the
present study actually reduced the depth of descent during their
CMJ performed before the HL and HV protocols compared to
the jumps performed during the familiarization session. An
explanation as to why the subjects changed their depth of
descent during the CMJ between the familiarization session and
the subsequent testing sessions is difficult, although the
subsequent reduction in specificity between the squat exercises
and CMJ may explain the lack of improvement in JH following
either back squat protocol used in the present study. The
increase in VStiff after the HL protocol would suggest that
specificity, defined in terms of the depth of descent, is not as
important as load when selecting a potentiating protocol to elicit
a response in this mechanical variable during vertical jumps.
PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS
A back squat protocol culminating in the performance of
3 repetitions with a load equivalent to 90% 1RM produced
a significant increase in VStiff during CMJ in female volleyball
athletes, although this same back squat protocol was
ineffective at increasing JH. Such a protocol may represent
an acute method to increase VStiff in volleyball players, which
has implications for on-court agility performance and jumps
performed from a run-up. However, strength and condition-
ing practitioners should be aware of the individual responses
to such a protocol in terms of eliciting a favorable response
and the timing of the response. The specificity between the
squat movement and the jump performance, defined in terms
of the depth of descent, is not as important as load when
selecting a potentiating protocol to elicit a response in the
vertical stiffness during vertical jumps.
REFERENCES
1. Baechle, TR, Earle, RW, and Wathen, D. Resistance training. In:
Essentials of Strength Training and Conditioning. Baechle, TR and
Earle, RW. eds. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics Publishers, 2000.
pp. 395425.
2. Caterisano, A, Moss, R, Pellinger, TK, Woodruff, K, Lewis, V, Booth, W,
and Khadra, T. The effect of back squat depth on the EMG activity
of 4 superficial hip and thigh muscles. J Strength Cond Res 16:
428432, 2002.

3. Chiu, L, Fry, AC, Weiss, LW, Schilling, BK, Brown, LE, and Smith, SL.
Postactivation potentiation response in athletic and recreationally
trained individuals. J Strength Cond Res 17: 671677, 2003.
4. Cohen, J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences.
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1988.
5. Comyns, TM, Harrison, AJ, Hennessy, L, and Jensen, RL. Identifying
the optimal resistive load for complex training in male rugby players.
Sports Biomech 6: 5970, 2007.
6. Comyns, TM, Harrison, AJ, Hennesey, LK, and Jensen, R. The
optimal complex training rest interval for athletes from anaerobic
sports. J Strength Cond Res 20: 471476, 2006.
7. Docherty, D, Robbins, D, and Hodgson, M. Complex training
revisited: A review of its current status as a viable training approach.
Strength Cond J 26: 5257, 2004.
8. Duthie, GM, Young, WB, and Aitken, DA. The acute effects of heavy loads
on jump squat performance: An evaluation of the complex and contrast
methods of power development. J Strength Cond Res 16: 530538, 2002.
9. Ebben, WP, Jensen, RL, and Blackard, DO. Electromyographic and
kinetic analysis of complex training variables. J Strength Cond Res 14:
451456, 2000.
10. French, DN, Kraemer, WJ, and Cooke, CB. Changes in dynamic
exercise performance following a sequence of preconditioning
isometric muscle actions. J Strength Cond Res 17: 678685, 2003.
11. Gourgoulis, V, Aggeloussis, N, Kasimatis, P, Mavromatis, G, and
Garas, A. Effect of a submaximal half-squats warm-up program on
vertical jumping ability. J Strength Cond Res 17: 342344, 2003.
12. Gullich, A and Schmidtbleicher, D. MVC-induced short-term
potentiation of explosive performance. New Stud Athl 11: 6781, 1996.
13. Hanson, ED, Leigh, S, and Mynark, RG. Acute effects of heavy- and
light-load squat exercise on the kinetic measures of vertical jumping.
J Strength Cond Res 21: 10121017, 2007.
14. Hodgson, M, Docherty, D, and Robbins, D. Post-activation
potentiation: Underlying physiology and implications for motor
performance. Sports Med 35: 585595, 2005.
15. Jensen, R and Ebben, WP. Kinetic analysis of complex training rest
interval effect on vertical jump performance. J Strength Cond Res 17:
345349, 2003.
16. Jones, P and Lees, A. A biomechanical analysis of the acute effects of
complex training using lower limb exercises. J Strength Cond Res 17:
694700, 2003.
17. Kilduff, LP, Bevan, HR, Kingsley, MI, Owen, NJ, Bennett, MA,
Bunce, PJ, Hore, AM, Maw, JR, and Cunningham, DJ. Postactivation
potentiation in professional Rugby players: Optimal recovery.
J Strength Cond Res 21: 11341138, 2007.
18. Koch, AJ, OBryant, HS, Stone, ME, Sanborn, K, Proulx, C, Hruby, J,
Shannonhouse, E, Boros, R, and Stone, MH. Effect of warm-up on
the standing broad jump in trained and untrained men and women.
J Strength Cond Res 17: 710714, 2003.
Copyright National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
the TM
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca-jscr.org
19. Lyttle, AD, Wilson, GJ, and Ostrowski, KJ. Enhancing performance:
Maximal power versus combined weights and plyometrics training.
J Strength Cond Res 7: 173179, 1996.
20. Mangus, BC, Takahashi, M, Mercer, JA, Holcomb, WR, McWhorter, JW,
and Sanchez, R. Investigation of vertical jump performance after
completing heavy squat exercises. J Strength Cond Res 20: 597600,
2006.
21. Mathews, MJ, Mathews, HP, and Snook, B. The acute effects of
a resistance training warm-up on sprint performance. Res Sports Med
12: 151159, 2003.
22. Moir, GL, Garcia, A, and Dwyer, GB. Inter-session reliability of
kinetic and kinematic variables during vertical jumps in men and
women. Int J Sports Phys Perf 4: 317330, 2009.
23. Rassier, DE. The effects of length on fatigue and twitch potentiation
in human skeletal muscle. Clin Physiol 20: 474482, 2000.
24. Rixon, KP, Lamont, HS, and Bemben, MG. Influence of type of
muscle contraction, gender, and lifting experience on postacti-
vation potentiation performance. J. Strength Cond Res 21:
500505, 2007.
25. Robbins, D and Docherty, D. Effect of loading on enhancement of
power performance over three consecutive trials. J Strength Cond Res
19: 898902, 2005.
26. Scott, SL and Docherty, D. Acute effects of heavy preloading on
vertical and horizontal jump performance. J Strength Cond Res 18:
201205, 2004.
27. Sheppard, JM, Gabbett, T, Taylor, K-L, Dorman, J, Lebedew, AJ, and
Borgeaud, R. Development of a repeated-effort test for elite mens
volleyball. Int J Sports Phys Perf 2: 292304, 2007.
28. Smith, JC, Fry, AC, Weiss, LW, Li, Y, and Kinzey, SJ. The effects of
high-intensity exercise on a 10-second sprint cycle test. J Strength
Cond Res 15: 344348, 2001.
29. Stone, MH, Sands, WA, Pierce, KC, Ramsey, MW, and Haff, GG.
Power and power potentiation among strengthpower athletes:
preliminary study. Int J Sport Phys Perf 3: 5567, 2008.
30. Sweeney, HL, Bowman, BF, and Stull, JT. Myosin light chain
phosphorylation in vertebrate striated muscle: Regulation and
function. Am J Physiol 264: C1085C1095, 1993.
31. Yetter, M and Moir, GL. The acute effects of heavy back and front
squats on the speed during 40 m sprint trials. J Strength Cond Res
22: 159165, 2008.
32. Young, W and Farrow, D. A review of agility: Practical applications
for strength and conditioning. Strength Cond J 28: 2429, 2006.
33. Young, W, Wilson, G, and Byrne, C. Relationship between strength
qualities and performance in standing and run-up vertical jumps.
J Sports Med Phys Fitness 39: 285293, 1999.
34. Young, WB, Jenner, A, and Griffiths, K. Acute enhancement of
power performance from heavy load squats. J Strength Cond Res 12:
8284, 1998.
VOLUME 25 | NUMBER 6 | JUNE 2011 | 1491