See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: [Link]

net/publication/309619673

Using The Split Squat To Potentiate Bilateral And Unilateral Jump

Performance

Article in The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research · October 2016

DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000001696

CITATIONS READS

18 2,364

4 authors, including:

Chris Bishop Paul Jarvis

Middlesex University 25 PUBLICATIONS 916 CITATIONS
333 PUBLICATIONS 8,293 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE

Anthony N Turner
Middlesex University
262 PUBLICATIONS 7,948 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Chris Bishop on 09 November 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 1 USING THE SPLIT SQUAT TO POTENTIATE BILATERAL AND UNILATERAL
2 JUMP PERFORMANCE
3

5 Authors:

6 Chris Bishop – MSc, Joe Tarrant – BSc, Paul Jarvis – MSc and Anthony Turner – PhD, CSCS*D

10 Affiliations:

11 London Sport Institute, Middlesex University, Allianz Park, Greenlands Lane, London, NW4 1RL,

12 United Kingdom

13

14

15

16 Corresponding Author:

17 Name: Chris Bishop

18 Address: 10 Picketts, Welwyn Garden City, Hertfordshire, AL8 7HJ

19 Email: [Link]@[Link]

20

21
22 ABSTRACT

23 The purpose of this study was to examine if a split squat conditioning exercise with no or light loads

24 could potentiate unilateral and bilateral jump performance. Twelve semi-professional rugby players

25 (age: 22.3 ± 1.4 years; height: 1.84 ± 0.05 m, mass: 92.4 ± 9.6 kg) from the English National League 1

26 performed a series of unilateral and bilateral countermovement jumps (CMJ) and broad jumps (BJ)

27 over the course of two testing days. Both testing days involved performing baseline jumps before

28 completing two sets of ten repetitions of a split squat, this completed with either bodyweight

29 (testing session 1) or a 30kg weighted vest (testing session 2). A five-minute recovery period was

30 permitted both following the warm up and following the completion of the split squat exercise.

31 Significantly larger bilateral jump scores were reported following completion of the bodyweight split

32 squat: CMJ (p = 0.001, ES = 0.44, [mean difference 2.517]), BJ (p = 0.001, ES = 0.37, [mean difference

33 3.817]), and the weighted vest split squat; CMJ (p = 0.001, ES = 0.8, [mean difference 4.383]), BJ (p =

34 0.001, ES = 0.68, [mean difference 6.817]). The findings of this study demonstrate that no or light

35 loads of a split squat conditioning exercise are able to potentiate bilateral jump performance in

36 semi-professional rugby players without the need for expensive weight room equipment. As such,

37 this may provide coaches with a viable option of enhancing bilateral jump performance as part of a

38 warm up or on-field conditioning practice.

39

40 Key Words: Post-activation potentiation, countermovement jump, broad jump, split squat

41

42

43

44

45

46

47
48 INTRODUCTION

49 Power is an essential fitness component across many individual and team sports and can be the

50 difference between successful and unsuccessful moments in match scenarios (7, 8). Although

51 possessing a high level of power does not guarantee crossover to sporting success, greater power

52 outputs have been able to distinguish between different levels of playing ability (2, 19). A common

53 method of increasing power is through the use of post-activation potentiation (PAP) whereby

54 muscular performance can be enhanced by its contractile history in the form of a conditioning

55 exercise (CE) (27, 33). Such examples include performing squats prior to a countermovement jump

56 (CMJ) (30, 33, 35) or resisted sprint methods (36) prior to sprint training. It is thought that at a

57 physiological level, the two mechanisms suggested to create PAP are the phosphorylation of myosin

58 regulatory light chains (1), which subsequently increase myofibrillar sensitivity to calcium secretion

59 from the sarcoplasmic reticulum, and recruitment of higher order motor units (24). Essentially, this

60 may enhance an athlete’s capacity for increased force production enabling a subsequent increase in

61 performance for a given task.

62 Much research has been conducted on PAP in recent years, with multiple factors such as exercise

63 selection (9, 30), strength level (29), training age (34, 37), intensity and volume of the CE (6, 11, 12,

64 31, 35) and rest periods (15, 16) all examined to derive the most practical solution for enhancing

65 performance in strength and conditioning (S&C) practice. A common theme throughout the

66 literature has been to focus on using traditional bilateral exercises as the CE. Such examples include

67 power cleans (30), back squats (29, 35, 38), and isometric squats/pulls (4, 18, 23). However, at the

68 sub-elite level, numerous potential barriers exist which may hinder an athlete’s ability to express

69 enhanced performance such as optimal technique and mobility. In addition, finance could even be

70 considered a logistical constraint. For example, not all clubs, players, and coaches will have access to

71 weightlifting platforms and expensive power racks. With this in mind, it would be prudent to identify

72 alternative methods of enhancing muscular performance for the sub-elite athlete without the
73 requirement for expensive weight room equipment or extensive external loads. While this has been

74 discovered in ballistic movements such as CMJ’s (10, 11), and drop jumps (13), this still may be

75 available from more traditional strength training exercises.

76 As such, there would appear to be a distinct lack of research on the effects of less commonly-used

77 CE’s on eliciting PAP. The split squat exercise is typically associated with reduced loads when

78 compared to bilateral equivalents (33), and due to its split-stance positioning, the necessity to rely

79 on such expensive equipment to elicit adaptation could be argued to be less, in principle. Thus far,

80 studies which have used less intense CE’s have generated conflicting results. In studies performed by

81 Smilios et al. (31) and Sotiropoulos et al. (32), light (25-35% 1RM and 30-60% 1RM respectively)

82 intensities have shown to improve CMJ height and mechanical power after using jump squats and

83 half squats as the CE. In contrast, Comyns et al. (6) observed no changes in jump height when using

84 30-65% 1RM back squats. As previously mentioned, the common denominator for these studies was

85 the use of a bilateral CE in the methodology and as such, any conclusions to be drawn from this pool

86 of PAP studies cannot be assumed if a split-stance CE was to be used.

87 Therefore, the primary aim of this study is to determine whether the split squat can potentiate

88 bilateral and unilateral jump performance in semi-professional rugby players. A secondary aim is to

89 decipher if there is a difference between bodyweight and light resistance conditions (using a

90 weighted vest) in the split squat, assuming a potentiation effect occurs. If a significant difference in

91 jump performance was noted, as hypothesised, this would enable a practically viable means of

92 eliciting PAP during on field warm-ups or conditioning practice.

93

94 METHODOLOGY

95 Experimental Approach to the Problem

96 This study was designed to determine whether no and light loads of the split squat exercise could be

97 used to potentiate bilateral and unilateral jump performance in semi-professional rugby union
 98 players. This investigation was warranted given the lack of literature surrounding the use of split-

99 stance strength exercises for PAP. For the dependent variables; the CMJ, dominant and non-

100 dominant limb single leg countermovement jump (SLCMJ), broad jump (BJ), and dominant and non-

101 dominant limb single leg broad jump(SLBJ) were measured at both time points (pre and post). These

102 specific variables were chosen for their simple and reliable field-based methods of assessing lower

103 body performance. Load (bodyweight or 30kg weighted vest) on the split squat were chosen due to

104 their relative ease by which subjects would be able to perform the task (both technically and

105 irrespective of mobility issues). Furthermore, given its split-stance positioning, unloaded or wearing

106 a 30kg weighted vest still represented a high relative intensity.

107 Subjects

108 Twelve semi-professional rugby players (age: 22.3 ± 1.4 years; height: 1.84 ± 0.05 m, mass: 92.4 ± 9.6

109 kg) playing in the English National League 1 took part in this study. All athletes had at least three

110 years resistance training experience and were experienced with both the bilateral and unilateral CMJ

111 and BJ from club training sessions, thus negating any requirements for familiarisation. The athletes

112 were asked to refrain from any exercise and to avoid consuming any alcohol and/or caffeine 24

113 hours prior to the testing. In addition, players were advised to abstain from eating anything within

114 two hours prior to each testing session in order to standardise procedures across the squad. The

115 study was approved by the London Sports Institute Ethics Committee at Middlesex University,

116 London, UK.

117 Procedures

118 Testing occurred over two days, separated by 48 hours between sessions. All players undertook a

119 standardised warm up consisting of a 4-minute slow jog and 3 x 20m shuttle runs, followed by a

120 variety of dynamic stretches that aimed to mobilise key lower body joints such as the ankles and

121 hips. Such exercises included multi-planar lunges, inchworms and glute bridges. Subjects then

122 performed two baseline jumps of each variation (bilateral and unilateral CMJ and BJ), these
123 interspersed by 30 seconds of recovery and a 3-minute rest period between CMJ and BJ variations.

124 Subjects were encouraged to jump “as explosively as possible” for each attempt. Following 5-

125 minutes of rest, subjects completed the split squat intervention (session 1: bodyweight; session 2:

126 30kg weighted vest). After an additional 5-minute rest period, post-testing jumps were completed,

127 these conducted in the same order and process as baseline testing (17). The best jump scores

128 acquired from each jumping variation were used for subsequent data analysis.

129 Countermovement Jumps. Subjects were instructed to dip to a self-selected depth before jumping

130 vertically as explosively as possible with hands fixed on their hips at all times to standardise

131 procedures. Jump height was determined using the iPhone app ‘My Jump’ which has recently been

132 shown to be a reliable method for measuring this variable (3). Subjects were asked to perform both

133 trials bilaterally first, followed by alternating unilateral trials.

134 Broad Jumps. Subjects were instructed to dip to a self-selected depth before jumping forward as

135 explosively as possible with hands fixed on their hips at all times to standardise procedures. All

136 jumps were performed alongside a tape measure fixed to the floor. Jump distance was determined

137 by measuring the rear-most point of the heel closest to the start line and was measured to the

138 nearest millimetre. Subjects were asked to perform both trials bilaterally first, followed by

139 alternating unilateral trials.

140 Split Squat. Two different conditions of the split squat were utilised in the testing days. Testing day

141 one consisted of players performing two sets of 10 repetitions (on each leg) of the bodyweight split

142 squat (see Figures 1 and 2), with a rest period of 1-minute between sets. One complete set included

143 both legs performing the split squat exercise. Subjects were instructed to control the descent on

144 each leg so as to prevent the rear knee from “banging” on the floor, whilst the ascent was

145 encouraged to be performed as explosively as possible. Depth was determined as sufficient when

146 the femur achieved parallel with the ground. Testing day two followed the same procedures;

147 however, a 30kg weight vest was worn.

148

149 ***INSERT FIGURES 1 AND 2 ABOUT HERE***

150

151 Statistical Analysis

152 Data was analyzed for normality using the Shapiro-Wilk test. To assess for reliability within

153 conditions at baseline, coefficient of variation (CV) was used. To assess for reliability between

154 conditions at baseline, intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was used. To examine for changes in

155 jumping performance, a 2 x 2 repeated measures ANOVA (condition: bodyweight and 30 kg, time:

156 pre and post) was conducted for each dependent variable, with Bonferroni post hoc statistical

157 analysis used to determine, where required, significance between time points within conditions, and

158 between conditions within time points. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05. Further data

159 analysis included calculating the smallest worthwhile change (SWC), which was determined by

160 multiplying 0.2 by the pooled standard deviations of pre and post-test measurements (14), and the

161 standard error of measurement (SEM). In addition, Cohen’s d effect sizes (ES) were calculated for

162 magnitude of change in jump performance by subtracting the pre-test mean from the post-test

163 mean and dividing by the standard deviation. Classification of ES are reported in line with

164 suggestions by Rhea (25), (trivial = <0.25, small = 0.25-0.50, moderate = 0.5-1.0 and large = >1.0).

165

166 RESULTS

167 All baseline data was normally distributed (p > 0.05). Table 1 provides a summary of reliability and

168 percentage change data analysis. All ICC’s demonstrated high levels of rank order consistency (ICC =

169 0.992-0.997) and the CV calculations were < 10% for all jumps across both split squat conditions.

170 Tables 2 and 3 show the mean pre and post results for all CMJ and BJ variables across both split

171 squat conditions.

172 CMJ. ANOVA identified a significant interaction effect of condition and time [F(1,22) = 8.553, p = 0.008,

173 ES = 0.28]. Bonferroni post hoc analysis identified significance between time points for both the

174 bodyweight condition (p = 0.001, ES = 0.44 [mean difference 2.517]), and the weighted vest

175 condition (p = 0.001, ES = 0.8 [mean difference 4.383]).

176 SLCMJ. ANOVA identified no significant interaction effect of condition and time for either the

177 dominant limb [F(1,22) = 2.984, p = 0.098, ES = 0.119] or the non-dominant limb [F(1,22) = 1.102, p =

178 0.305, ES = 0.048].

179 BJ. ANOVA identified a significant interaction effect of condition and time [F(1.22) = 10.828, p = 0.003,

180 ES = 0.33]. Bonferroni post hoc analysis identified significance between time points for both the

181 bodyweight condition (p = 0.001, ES = 0.37 [mean difference 3.817]), and the weighted vest

182 condition (p = 0.001, ES = 0.68 [mean difference 6.817]).

183 SLBJ. ANOVA identified no significant interaction effect of condition and time for either the

184 dominant limb [F(1.22) = 2.046, p = 0.167, ES = 0.085] or the non-dominant limb [F(1.22) = 0.462, p =

185 0.504, ES = 0.021].

186

187 ***INSERT TABLES 1-3 ABOUT HERE***

188

189 DISCUSSION

190 The present study observed the effect of a body weight and weighted split squat (30kg weighted

191 vest) on bilateral and unilateral CMJ and BJ performance. Results revealed that the bodyweight split

192 squat was able to enhance both bilateral and unilateral jump performance, although the bilateral

193 variations were the only two noted as statistically significant. Similarly, for the weighted split squat

194 condition significant improvements were seen in bilateral jumps, with non-significant improvements

195 identified within unilateral jump tests.

196 The notion that a bodyweight CE can potentiate muscular performance would appear to bring about

197 conflicting results. The findings from the present study that a bodyweight split squat is able to elicit a

198 significant effect on bilateral jump performance are in contrast to Esformes et al., (9), who used a

199 variety of bodyweight plyometric jumps in an attempt to potentiate the CMJ and found no

200 difference compared to a control group. Although the type of CE was different, the rest interval (5

201 minutes) and load stimulus (bodyweight) was comparable with the current study. However,

202 Masamoto et al., (20) also used bodyweight plyometric exercises in PAP research and noted a

203 significant improvement in maximal lower body strength. To the author’s knowledge, this is the first

204 study that has looked at using a split-stance bodyweight compound exercise in an attempt to acutely

205 enhance jump performance. With this in mind, direct comparisons with existing research are not

206 possible.

207 In contrast, Healy and Harrison, (12) used an isometric unilateral glute activation protocol in an

208 attempt to potentiate single leg drop jump performance and found no significant improvements. It

209 may have been that there was limited capacity for potentiation from a unilateral isometric protocol,

210 whereas the present study used a compound exercise conducted within an isotonic nature. Wilson

211 et al. (37) found that if the CE is not biomechanically similar to the jump involved, then it is less likely

212 to have a potentiating effect. This is in conjunction with the findings of numerous other studies

213 which have found improvements in jump performance when using comparable movement patterns,

214 such as half squats (5, 10, 26). The nature of using a multi-joint, split-stance movement pattern

215 would have stimulated multiple muscle groups such as the glute complex, hamstrings and

216 quadriceps (22), thus activating the relevant musculature used throughout jumping exercises,

217 highlighting task-specificity.

218 For the weighted split squat condition, the findings of this study identify that a light load was

219 sufficient enough to potentiate bilateral jump performance, although only non-significant mean

220 improvements were identified for unilateral jumps. The bulk of research investigating the effects of
221 PAP on jump performance would appear to support the use of high loads, due to increased central

222 nervous system stimulation and motor unit recruitment (5, 26). However, the popularity of research

223 surrounding PAP has resulted in researchers investigating the effects of light loads on performance

224 outcomes, given their practicality for applied practitioners (31, 32). More specifically, Sotiropoulos et

225 al. (32) used loads of 25-35% of subjects’ 1RM back squat and witnessed a 3.95% increase in jump

226 height. Furthermore, the nature of the CE was biomechanically similar to the jump, thus the notion

227 of specificity was kept within the methodology. The same could be argued for the present study,

228 whereby the CE was still a squat pattern – simply performed in a staggered stance, thus shifting the

229 focus to that of a unilateral nature, with similar mean improvements identified within the present

230 study (> 4%). Therefore, it is apparent that the use of heavy loads is not the only way to obtain

231 potentiation, given how similar relative loads are acknowledged as much greater when performed

232 within unilateral movement patterns.

233 Interestingly, the present study identified significant increases in bilateral jump performance, with

234 non-significant mean increases in unilateral jump performance; this similar between conditions.

235 Understanding why lack of significant differences were noted for the unilateral jump tests may be

236 partially explained by the variation seen in unilateral CMJ performance elsewhere in the literature

237 (21). For example, Maulder and Cronin, (21) revealed a much wider disparity between limbs for the

238 SLCMJ compared to the SLBJ, potentially indicating that the SLCMJ is a more complex movement

239 pattern to perform. This may bring to light a greater element of task complexity for unilateral jump

240 tests, this aiding in drawing conclusions to the lack of significance found. Although, mean increases

241 of between 3-5% were identified following the completion of the bodyweight split squat for

242 unilateral jump tests, with 7-13% mean improvements found following the 30kg weighted split

243 squat. However, it should be noted that whilst all post-intervention jumps occurred in the same

244 order for each testing session, there was a time-disparity between when the CMJ and BJ were

245 tested. Consequently, it is feasible that subjects were still “fatigued” at the time of CMJ testing,

246 negating any potentiation effect. This falls in line with reviews by Wilson et al. (37) and Seitz and
247 Haff (28), who both identified a window of opportunity between 7-10 minutes following a CE

248 whereby performance was enhanced. Given the rest periods permitted between jumps within the

249 present study, this may have direct implications on recovery and any potentiation experienced.

250 Therefore, these results illustrate that whilst task-specific and hindered by training experience

251 relative to the task performed, the use of no or light loads on a split-stance CE can enhance both

252 bilateral and unilateral jump performance. However, task complexity may have hindered any

253 significant unilateral enhancements in jump performance, and thus training state should be a

254 consideration for practitioners should these methods wish to be replicated.

255 Whilst the authors controlled and standardised key variables, specific limitations did arise, for

256 example loading of the weighted vest. Within the present study a standardised load of 30kg was

257 used, thus providing a varied training stimulus to each athlete relative to their strength levels (37).

258 This in turn meant that the load was not relative to the individual, by virtue of either a percentage of

259 each subject’s 1RM for the chosen exercise, or through comparable measures to bodyweight.

260 However, the key purpose of the present study was to identify whether no or light loads could offer

261 an alternative method for enhancing lower body jump performance without the use of typical

262 weight room equipment, thus the application of this study can still be considered across the applied

263 S&C field given its minimalistic approach to equipment and space required. Furthermore, the use of

264 a rear foot-elevated split squat could also aid as a practical alternative for harnessing PAP, given how

265 a raised back foot would have increased the intensity without the added requirement of more load

266 (thus increasing practicality). Finally, the warm up was of a relatively low intensity and the findings

267 do make the assumption that there was no further increase in muscle temperature, thus

268 potentiation occurred as a result of the selected methods. It could be argued however, that the

269 warm up was standardised, and as such, it is essential that coaches ensure their athletes are

270 thoroughly warmed up prior to attempting any of the aforementioned methods, thus increasing the

271 likelihood that any improvements are a true representation of PAP.

272

273 PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS

274 This study has demonstrated that the split squat, when completed both as a bodyweight exercise

275 and when loaded with a 30kg weighted vest, is an effective exercise when aiming to enhance

276 bilateral jump performance within both vertically and horizontally orientated jump tasks. The

277 findings demonstrate viable methods of implementing PAP as part of an on-field warm up or training

278 protocol, highlighting its efficacy for sub-elite rugby athletes. Consequently, practitioners could use

279 the methods employed within the present study in numerous ways to enhance their practice, for

280 example through providing time and cost efficient alternative methods for potentiation through

281 bodyweight and lighter loads, thus negating the requirement for expensive gym equipment (Olympic

282 weightlifting platforms or squat racks). Future research should look to standardise the timings of

283 post-testing jumps, with an additional element of individualisation of loading relative to each and

284 every athlete (1RM or relative to BW), as this may bring to light optimal loads on an individual level

285 which may lead to further significant enhancements to jump performance.

286

287

288

289

290

291

292

293

294
295 REFERENCES

296 1. Aagaard, P, Simonsen, EB, Andersen, JL, Magnusson, P and Dyhre-Poulson, P. Neural

297 adaptations to resistance training: Evoked V-wave and H-reflex responses. Journal of Applied

298 Physiology 92:2309–2318, 2002.

299 2. Allerheiligen, B, Arce, HH, Arthur, M, Chu, D, Vermeil, A, Lilja, L, and Woicik, M. Coaches’

300 roundtable: testing for football. Strength and Conditioning Journal 5: 12-19, 1983.

301 3. Balsalobre-Fernández, C, Glaister, M, and Lockey, RA. The validity and reliability of an iPhone

302 app for measuring vertical jump performance. Journal of Sports Sciences 33: 1574-1579,

303 2015.

304 4. Bogdanis, GC, Tsoukos, A, Veligekas, P, Tsolakis, C, and Terzis, G. Effects of muscle action

305 type with equal impulse of conditioning activity on postactivation potentiation. Journal of

306 Strength and Conditioning Research 28: 2521 – 2528, 2014.

307 5. Chiu, LZ, Fry, AC, Weiss, LW, Schilling, BK, Brown, LE, and Smith, SL. Post activation

308 potentiation response in athletic and recreationally trained individuals. Journal of Strength

309 and Conditioning Research 17: 671-677, 2003.

310 6. Comyns, TM, Harrison, AJ, Hennessy, L, and Jensen, RL. Identifying the optimal resistive load

311 for complex training in male rugby players. Sports Biomechanics 6: 59-70, 2007.

312 7. Cronin, JB, and Hansen, KT. Strength and power predictors of sports speed. Journal of

313 Strength and Conditioning Research 19: 349-357, 2005.

314 8. Duthie, GM. A framework for the physical development of elite rugby union

315 players. International journal of sports physiology and performance 1: 2-13, 2006.

316 9. Esformes, JI, Cameron, N, and Bampouras, TM. Post activation potentiation following

317 different modes of exercise. Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 24: 1911-1916,

318 2010.
319 10. Gourgoulis, V, Aggeloussis, N, Kasimatis, P, Mavromatis, G, and Garas, A. Effect of a

320 submaximal half-squat warm-up program on vertical jumping ability. Journal of Strength and

321 Conditioning Research 17: 342-344, 2003.

322 11. Hanson, ED, Leigh, S, and Mynark, RG. Acute effects of heavy-and light-load squat exercise

323 on the kinetic measures of vertical jumping. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

324 21: 1012-1017, 2007.

325 12. Healy, R, and Harrison, AJ. The effects of a unilateral gluteal activation protocol on single leg

326 drop jump performance. Sports Biomechanics 13: 33-46, 2014.

327 13. Hilfiker, R, Hubner, K, Lorenz, T, and Marti, B. Effects of drop jumps added to the warm-up of

328 elite sport athletes with a high capacity for explosive force development. Journal of Strength

329 and Conditioning Research 21: 550-555, 2007.

330 14. Hopkins, W. How to interpret changes in an athletic performance test. Sportscience 8: 1-7,

331 2004.

332 15. Kilduff, LP, Bevan, HR, Kingsley, MI, Owen, NJ, Bennett, MA, Bunce, PJ, Hore, AM, Maw, JR

333 and Cunningham, DJ. Postactivation potentiation in professional rugby players: optimal

334 recovery. Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 21: 1134-1138, 2007.

335 16. Kilduff, LP, Owen, N, Bevan, H, Bennett, M, Kingsley, MI, and Cunningham, DJ. Influence of

336 recovery time on post-activation potentiation in professional rugby players. Journal of Sports

337 Sciences 26: 795-802, 2008.

338 17. Koch, AJ, O'Bryant, HS, Stone, ME, Sanborn, K, Proulx, C, Hruby, J, Shannonhouse, E, Boros, R,

339 and Stone, MH. Effect of warm-up on the standing broad jump in trained and untrained men

340 and women. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 17: 710-714, 2003.

341 18. Lim, JJH, and Kong, PW. Effects of isometric and dynamic postactivation potentiation

342 protocols on maximal sprint performance. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 27:

343 3730 – 3736, 2013.

344 19. Lombard, WP, Durandt, JJ, Masimla, H, Green, M, and Lambert, MI. Changes in body size and

345 physical characteristics of South African under-20 rugby union players over a 13-year period.

346 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 29: 980 – 988, 2015.

347 20. Masamoto, N, Larson, R, Gates, T, and Faigenbaum, A. Acute effects of plyometric exercise

348 on maximum squat performance in male athletes. Journal of Strength and Conditioning

349 Research 17: 68-71, 2003.

350 21. Maulder, P and Cronin, J. Horizontal and vertical jump assessment: reliability, symmetry,

351 discriminative and predictive ability. Physical Therapy in Sport 6: 74-82, 2005.

352 22. McCurdy, K, O’Kelley, E, Kutz, M, Langford, G, Ernest, J, and Torres, M. Comparison of lower

353 extremity EMG between the 2-leg squat and modified single-leg squat in female athletes.

354 Journal of Sport Rehabilitation 19: 57-70, 2010.

355 23. Miyamoto, N, Kanehisa, H, Fukunaga, T, and Kawakami, Y. Effect of postactivation

356 potentiation on the maximal voluntary isokinetic concentric torque in humans. Journal of

357 Strength and Conditioning Research 25: 186-192, 2011.

358 24. Paasuke, M, Ereline, J and Gapeyevea, H. Twitch potentiation capacity of plantar-flexor

359 muscles in endurance and power athletes. Biology of Sport 15: 171–178, 1996.

360 25. Rhea, MR. Determining the magnitude of treatment effects in strength training research

361 through the use of effect size. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 18: 918 – 920,

362 2004.

363 26. Rixon, KP, Lamont, HS, and Bemben, MG. Influence of type of muscle contraction, gender,

364 and lifting experience on postactivation potentiation performance. Journal of Strength and

365 Conditioning Research 21: 500-505, 2007.

366 27. Sale, DG. Postactivation potentiation: role in human performance. Exercise and Sport Science

367 Reviews 30: 138-143, 2002.

368 28. Seitz, LB and Haff, GG. Factors modulating post-activation potentiation of jump, sprint,

369 throw, and upper-body ballistic performances: A systematic review with meta-analysis.

370 Sports Medicine 46: 231-240, 2016.

371 29. Seitz, LB, Villarreal, ES, and Haff, GG. The temporal profile of postactivation potential is

372 related to strength level. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 28: 706–715, 2014.

373 30. Seitz, LB, Trajano, GS, and Haff, GG. The back squat and the power clean: Elicitation of

374 different degrees of potentiation. International Journal of Sports Physiology and

375 Performance 9: 643–649, 2014.

376 31. Smilios, I, Pilianidis, T, Sotiropoulos, K, Antonakis, M, and Tokmakidis, SP. Short-term effects

377 of selected exercise and load in contrast training on vertical jump performance. Journal of

378 Strength and Conditioning Research 19: 135-139, 2005.

379 32. Sotiropoulos, K, Smilios, I, Christou, M, Barzouka, K, Spaias, A, Douda, H, and Tokmakidis, SP.

380 Effects of warm-up on vertical jump performance and muscle electrical activity using half-

381 squats at low and moderate intensity. Journal of Sports Science and Medicine 9: 326-331,

382 2010.

383 33. Speirs, DE, Bennett, MA, Finn, CV, and Turner, AP. Unilateral vs. bilateral squat training for

384 strength, sprints, and agility in academy rugby players. Journal of Strength and Conditioning

385 Research 30: 386-392, 2016.

386 34. Tillin, MNA, and Bishop, D. Factors modulating post-activation potentiation and its effect on

387 performance of subsequent explosive activities. Sports Medicine 39: 147-166, 2009.

388 35. Weber, KR, Brown, LE, Coburn, JW, and Zinder, SM. Acute effects of heavy-load squats on

389 consecutive squat jump performance. Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 22: 726-

390 730, 2008.

391 36. West, DJ, Cunningham, DJ, Bracken, RM, Bevan, HR, Crewther, BT, Cook, CJ and Kilduff, LP.

392 Effects of resisted sprint training on acceleration in professional rugby union players. Journal

393 of Strength and Conditioning Research 27: 1014-1018, 2013.

394 37. Wilson, JM, Duncan, NM, Marin, PJ, Brown, LE, Loenneke, JP, Wilson, SMC, Jo, E, Lowery, RP

395 and Ugrinowitsch, C. Meta-analysis of postactivation potentiation and power: effects of

396 conditioning activity, volume, gender, rest periods, and training status. Journal of Strength

397 and Conditioning Research 27: 854-859, 2013.

398 38. Witmer, CA, Davis, SE, and Moir, GL. The acute effects of back squats on vertical jump

399 performance in men and women. Journal of Sports Science and Medicine 9: 206-213, 2010.

400

401

402

403

404

405

406

407

408

409

410

411

412

413

414
415

416 Figure 1: Start position of the split squat exercise

417

418 Figure 2: Bottom position of the split squat exercise

419

420

421

422

423

424

425

426

427
428 Table 1: Data analysis for all variables under both the bodyweight and 30kg split squat conditions

Variable ICC CV (%) SWC SEM (cm) % Change

(pre-post)

CMJ (BW) 5.3 1.06 1.61 7.39

0.992
CMJ (30) 9.04 1.81 1.60 12.82

SLCMJ (BW – D) 4.24 0.85 0.88 4.07

0.993
SLCMJ (30 – D) 6.44 1.29 0.78 14.42

SLCMJ (BW – ND) 3.16 0.63 0.96 4.50

0.994
SLCMJ (30 – ND) 6.12 1.22 0.90 7.72

BJ (BW) 3.74 0.75 7.55 5.13

0.996
BJ (30) 6.39 1.27 7.07 9.16

SLBJ (BW – D) 4.04 0.81 7.71 5.00

0.997
SLBJ (30 – D) 5.73 1.01 8.34 8.62

SLBJ (BW – ND) 4.85 0.97 7.81 6.91

0.995
SLBJ (30 – ND) 6.07 1.16 7.32 8.21

CMJ = Countermovement jump; SLCMJ = Single leg countermovement jump; BJ = Broad jump; SLBJ =

Single leg broad jump; BW = Bodyweight; D = Dominant; ND = Non-dominant

ICC = Intraclass correlation coefficient; CV = Coefficient of Variation; SWC = Smallest worthwhile

change; SEM = Standard error of the mean

429

430

431

432
433 Table 2: Pre and post-intervention CMJ scores for the bodyweight and 30kg split squat conditions.

CMJ (SD) D SLCMJ (SD) ND SLCMJ (SD)

Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post
Split Squat 34.08 36.6* 14.74 15.34 14.45 15.1
(5.89) (5.57) (2.48) (3.06) (2.86) (3.32)
(BW)
Split Squat 34.16 38.54* 14.63 16.74 14.63 15.76
(5.38) (5.55) (2.33) (2.70) (2.88) (3.13)
(30Kg)
* Denotes statistically significant from equivalent baseline measurement (p < 0.01)
CMJ = Countermovement jump; SLCMJ = Single leg countermovement jump; BW = Bodyweight; D =
Dominant; ND = Non-dominant; SD = Standard deviation
N.B: All scores are reported in centimetres
434

435

436 Table 3: Pre and post-intervention BJ scores for the bodyweight and 30kg split squat conditions.

BJ (SD) D SLBJ (SD) ND SLBJ (SD)

Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post
Split Squat 189.13 198.83* 142.76 149.90 140.38 144.98
(26.56) (26.17) (25.39) (26.69) (26.49) (27.07)
(BW)
Split Squat 188.95 206.26* 141.22 153.39 140.15 151.66
(26.09) (24.49) (25.31) (28.89) (27.08) (25.36)
(30Kg)
* Denotes statistically significant from equivalent baseline measurement (p < 0.01)
BJ = Broad jump; SLBJ = Single leg broad jump; BW = Bodyweight; D = Dominant; ND = Non-
dominant; SD = Standard deviation
N.B: All scores are reported in centimetres
437

View publication stats