Pre-Fatigue and Post-Fatigue Vertical Jumps

December 8th, 2015

California State University San Marcos

Cynthia Vargas, Corey Dole, Andrew Rice, Brittany Dunham, Katie Irving, Maria Bauer, Jessie
Nguyen, Warren Ashcroft

ABSTRACT
The role of fatigue on the performance of a
vertical countermovement jump was
investigated. Twenty unskilled female
subjects performed a series of counter
movement jumps before and after
completing a fatigue protocol to determine if
there was a significant difference between
vertical jump performances and EMG
activity of the extensor and flexor muscles
of the subjects non-dominant leg. Two
Bertec force platforms and Matlab software
were used to record flight time and push-off
phase, peak ground reaction force and
ground reaction force symmetry of the right
and left leg. A Vertec Device was used to
acquire jump height in inches. A Noraxon
Myosystem 1400L EMG, nine Biopac
Disposable Surface Electrode (EL503) and
MatLab software were used to record EMG
activity of the vastus medialis, rectus
femoris, biceps femoris, and lateral
gastrocnemius. Our results show that all pvalues were greater than .05 which indicates
that subjects showed no significant

difference in vertical jump performance or

EMG activity before and after fatigue.
Therefore, we reject the hypothesis that
performance would be altered during postfatigue when compared to pre-fatigue.
Keywords: Vertical jump, muscle fatigue,
emg, force platform, ground reaction force,
countermovement jump

Introduction
The vertical jump is a movement
performed where a person jumps vertically
to reach the highest point above the ground.
The
vertical
displacement
between
maximum reach height when one is standing
on the ground versus at the apex of the jump
gives the measurement of vertical jump
performance. Momentum, velocity, force,
and acceleration are the biomechanical
principles involved in any type of vertical
jump (2).
A countermovement jump is one
type of vertical jump. A countermovement

jump
involves
the
stages
of
countermovement, propulsion, and take off
phase (2). In a countermovement jump, the
jumper starts from an upright standing
position, makes an initial downward
movement by flexing at the knees and hips,
then immediately extends the knees and hips
again to jump vertically off the ground (15).
Many studies have used jumping to
determine the effects of strength and power
output of the lower extremities (13). Vertical
jumping can be used to determine explosive
leg strength in an individual with the
calculation of jump height. It is a useful
movement used in estimating lower
extremity strength and a reliable measure of
overall leg musculature power (6). In a
similar vertical jump simulation study,
Bobbert and Van Soest established that
actual performance of a vertical jump
depends on the control of the muscle
properties (4). However muscle strength
does determine the maximal jump height
achieved. In that study, neither increasing
the muscle strength of the knee system
adjusts the movement coordination pattern
used during vertical jumps under fatigue (4).
This information may provide useful
knowledge to comprehend motor control of
multi segment movements.
In another similar study by Psek and
Cafarelli, it was suggested that during
maximal vertical jumps a common drive
exists that controls the agonist-antagonist
muscle pair activity as a single functional
entity (11).
It was proposed that the
modulation of this common drive resulted in
similar muscle activation (EMG) between
fatigued and unfatigued jumps, but affected
the peak angular velocity and peak power

around the joints during the propulsive

phase of the movement (11).
To obtain jump height, a force
platform and Vertec measurement device
was used. The ground reaction force (GRF)
can be acquired through the force platform
(3). Ground reaction force can be used to
predict how high someone will jump (3).
Jump height can also be determined by
calculating the total take off velocity (TOV)
and time spent in the air before landing (9).
Muscle fatigue has been found to
greatly hinder overall work output and
functional performance of forceful muscle
contractions during exercise. The onset of
muscle fatigue is due to a change in
metabolic efficiency brought forth by
insufficient oxygen and nutrient delivery to
meet the demands of the muscles (5).
Physiological and metabolic changes due to
the onset of muscle fatigue have been linked
to muscle contractile state and overall power
output ability of contracting skeletal muscles
(7). One very common procedure of
measuring muscle fatigue is via the use of
surface electromyography (sEMG). During
muscle activation, motor unit neurons
transmit electrical signals throughout the
muscle resulting in excitation contraction.
These signals can be detected by sEMG
electrodes placed on the muscle and are
viewed as increases to sEMG amplitude and
low sEMG frequencies (10).
To also
measure fatigue, The Rate of Perceived
Exertion (RPE) scale will be utilized. The
RPE scale measures feelings of effort, strain,
discomfort, and/or fatigue experienced
during both aerobic and resistance training
(12).
The purpose of this study was to
determine if there was a significant

difference
between
vertical
jump
performances and EMG activity of the
extensor and flexor muscles of the leg
between the initial jump test and the
fatigued jump test.
Our null hypothesis states that there
will be neither change of performance, nor
increased EMG activity of the extensor and
flexor muscles, between the initial jump test
and the fatigued jump test. Our alternate
hypothesis states that there will be a change
of performance, as well as increased EMG
activity of the extensor and flexor muscles,
between the initial jump test and the
fatigued jump test.
Methods
Jumping Trials
Twenty unskilled college female students
with a mean standard deviation of
(22.251.83) years, (57.587.33) kg, and
(64.222.46) inches performed a series of
countermovement jumps. All subjects were
informed of the experimental procedures
and signed a consent form before
participating in the study. Subjects
completed a five-minute warm-up on a
treadmill at a speed of 2.5 mph before they
completed any jumps. Before the trial, each
subject
completed
a
practice
countermovement jump and had their max
vertical reach measured with a Vertec
Device. Following their vertical reach
measurement, subjects were instructed to
jump as high as possible when given the
command. Each subject repeated this
procedure for 3 jumps (pre-fatigue).
Following the first 3 jumps, subjects were
then fatigued. The fatigue exercises were
first demonstrated to ensure proper form.

Subjects were asked to complete up to 20

squats, 20 lunges (each leg), 20 squats with
(2) 5-pound weights, and 20 lunges (each
leg) with (2) 5-pound weights or until their
Rate of Perceived Exertion (RPE) reaches
13. If the subjects completed the first round
of exercises and were still not fatigued, then
another round was required and the weights
were increased by 5lbs each round. Once
fatigue was achieved, the subjects were
instructed to complete 3 more jumps (postfatigue). A total of 6 jumps were recorded.
EMG Procedure
Each subject was asked which foot they
would use if they were to kick a ball; this
was used to determine their dominant leg.
After the 5 minute warm-up the nondominant leg was then wiped down with a
sanitizing wipe to clean the leg of any dirt or
lotion before any electrodes were placed.
Each muscle was palpated to assure proper
location of the electrodes. A pair of two
electrodes (not touching) were placed
directly on the skin along the direction of the
muscle fibers on 4 muscles and the patella.
A total of 9 electrodes were used on each
subject. Once the electrodes were placed,
channel wires from the EMG were attached
to the electrodes. An elastic wrap was used
to hold the electrodes and wires in place
during the jumps and fatigue process in
order to prevent damage to the wires and
movement of the electrodes. A Noraxon
Myosystem 1400L EMG, nine Biopac
Disposable Surface Electrode (EL503) and
MatLab software were used to record and
measure the muscle signals from the biceps
femoris, rectus femoris, vastus medialis, and
medial gastrocnemius for 20 seconds at
1000 Hz during each jump. One electrode

was placed on the patella as a ground for the

EMG. Four of the subjects had their EMG
activity recorded using a Delsys Trigno
Wireless EMG system due to technical
difficulties with the Noraxon Myosystem
1400L EMG. The same procedure was
followed except that 4 wireless electrodes
were used instead of the nine Biopac
Disposable Surface Electrode (EL503).
Force Platform Procedure
All Subjects completed a warm-up by
walking on a treadmill at 2.5 mph for 5
minutes. A Vertec device was used to
measure the subjects max vertical reach and
jump reach, both feet had to be planted on
the floor and the subjects used one hand to
reach as high as they could. Two Bertec
force platforms and MatLab software were
used to record and measure the subjects
ground reaction force on both the left and
right side. Subjects were asked to stand off
of the force platforms. When the MatLab
programs were ready and both force
platforms were calibrated, the subject was
given a command to place one foot on each
of the force platforms. They were asked to
count for 2 seconds and then jump as high as
they can, reaching with one hand to hit the
Vertec Device. Each subject was given 30
seconds to complete the jump and data was
acquired at 1000 Hz.
Data Analysis
The data from both separate force platforms
was used to estimate the total amount of
ground reaction force (N) for each jump.
This was done by taking the ground reaction
force data from the right side of the force
platform and adding it to the ground reaction
force data from the left side of the force

platform. The total force was converted into

a line graph which was used to find the
flight time and push-off phase in seconds
along with peak ground reaction force and
the symmetry difference of the right and left
leg ground reaction force in newtons. The
average flight time, push-off phase, jump
height and peak ground reaction force was
computed for both pre-fatigue and postfatigue jumps. The standard deviation was
taken from the averages using Excel and
then a 2-tailed T-test was performed to
compare difference in performance. The
symmetry difference in the right and left leg
was found by subtracting the subjects peak
ground reaction force in the right force
platform from the left force platform. The
symmetry was then compared by taking the
subjects highest jump from pre-fatigue and
post-fatigue. The data from the 8 electrodes
was used to determine the amount of
activation for each muscle (Volts). This was
done by taking a data point from the
beginning and the end of each muscle burst
and then finding the standard deviation
using excel. The root mean square was
found by taking the average standard
deviation of all EMG data for each muscle
while muscle activity is occurring, before
and after fatigue. A T-test was performed on
each muscle to compare activation before
and after fatigue. The data from the vertec
device was used to measure vertical jump
heights of the subjects, before and after
muscle fatigue exercises. This was obtained
by subtracting vertical reach from each
respective vertical jump. Data was collected
on a total of 21 subjects. Data for one of the
subjects data was discarded because they
were an outlier.

Results

Symmetry between right and left leg ground

reaction force was compared (fig. 2).
Resulting in a P-value of 0.75 indicating
there is not a significant difference between
pre-fatigue and post-fatigue in right and left
leg on the ground reaction force platform.
Note, the variability among the subjects
decreased showing a trend of increased
symmetry post-fatigue.
Eight subjects
became more symmetric while 12 subjects
became less symmetric with fatigue.

Figure 1: Pre-fatigue and Post Fatigue of

Subjects Peak Ground Reaction Force.
Total subjects (n=20) displayed an average
of 1277.27196.87 ground reaction force
during pre-fatigue vertical jumps and an
average of 1256.18203.98 ground reaction
force during post-fatigue vertical jumps (fig.
1). Results yielded a P-value of 0.31
indicating that there is not a significant
difference between pre-fatigue and postfatigue vertical jumps.

Figure 3: Pre-fatigue jump height versus

Post-Fatigue jump height
Results show an average jump height of
13.92.69 inches jumped during pre-fatigue
and 14.052.73 inches during post-fatigue.
(Fig. 3). Resulting in a P-value of 0.59
showing that there is no significant
difference between pre and post fatigue
jump height.
Figure 2: Pre versus Post fatigue symmetry
difference of right and left leg ground
reaction force.

Figure 5: Muscle activation before and after

fatigue.
Figure 4: Pre-Fatigue and Post-Fatigue
Flight Time and Push Off Time.
Subjects showed an average of .32.11
seconds of flight time during pre-fatigue
vertical jumps and an average of .31.12
seconds of flight time during post-fatigue
vertical jumps (fig. 4). Flight time resulted
in a P-value of .61 which was not
significant. An average of .62.18 seconds
of push off time was recorded for prefatigue vertical jumps and an average of .
66.16 seconds of push off time for postfatigue vertical jumps. Resulting in a Pvalue of .27. Both of these P-values indicate
that there is no significant difference
between pre-fatigue and post-fatigue.

Results indicate that there was no significant

difference
when
comparing
muscle
activation before and after fatigue (Figure
5). Therefore we reject the hypothesis that
muscle activation would increase after
fatigue. In addition, there was no significant
change in performance after fatigue.
Therefore, we reject the hypothesis that
performance would be altered in the postfatigue jump test compared to the baseline
jump test.

Discussion
Vertical Jump Performance. The present
study indicates that vertical jump
performance was not significantly reduced
after fatiguing of muscles. However, studies
have shown that dynamic stretching,
specifically of the vastus medialis muscle,
has increased vertical jump height
significantly and increased EMG activity
versus static stretching (1). Static stretching
before activity has shown to increase
flexibility, range of motion, and decrease
injury (1). Some have suggested that static
stretching has negatively impacted short-

term strength power and should be avoided

as part of a warm up routine (1). For future
consideration dynamic stretching may be
incorporated into a warm up routine to help
increase vertical jump performance for
jumping athletes.
Electromyography. The EMG traces found
in the countermovement jumps were not
significantly different between the pre
fatigue and post fatigue jumps. However,
previous studies have found increased
activation immediately after the respective
series of fatiguing exercises (14). The
fatigue protocol in Rodackis study
consisted of knee flexions and extensions
until the participants could not complete one
repetition of 50% of their body weight. The
present studys fatigue protocol relied on the
participants interpretation of the RPE scale
and is a possible limitation if the participants
were not truly fatigued. Previous studies
have attributed the increased activation to
several factors such as the recruitment of
new motor unit pools and firing rate
synchronization (14). These mechanisms
have been generally interpreted as an
attempt by the neuromuscular system to
compensate for the failure to produce the
same force output (14).
Ground Reaction Force Symmetry. While
no significant difference exist between pre
versus post fatigue of right and left leg
ground reaction forces, an increasing trend
in symmetry post fatigue and narrowing of
variability is present. This may suggest that
fatiguing certain muscles may unknowingly
adjust the subjects weight balance more
evenly on both legs. The trend in increasing
symmetry warrants future research and
studies to further investigate these findings.

CONCLUSIONS
Results reject our alternative hypothesis that
there would be a change in performance,
increased EMG activity of extensor and
flexor muscles, from pre and post fatigue
jump test. However, our null hypothesis
supports results that no significant
differences in performance and EMG
activity from pre and post fatigue jump test.
Some factors that could affect results could
be fatiguing of different muscle groups, such
as just the gastrocnemius muscle group
versus actual muscle groups. Also, the RPE
scale measurement is subjective in nature
and some test subjects may have different
perceptions of fatigue to level 13.

REFERENCES
1. Hough, P.A., Ross, E.Z., et al. (2009).
Effects of dynamic and static stretching on
vertical jump performance and
electromyographic activity. Journal of
Strength and Conditioning Research 23(2):
507-512.
2. Abidin, N. Z., & Adam, M. B. (2013).
Prediction of Vertical Jump Height from
Anthropometric Factors in Male and Female
Martial Arts Athletes. The Malaysian
Journal of Medical Sciences: MJMS, 20(1),
3945.
3. Asakawa, D. (2015). KINE 425
Biomechanics Lab 4 Force Platform. [Class
handout]. Department of Kinesiology, Cal
State University, San Marcos, CA.

4. BOBBERT, M. F., and A. J. VAN

SOEST. Effects of muscle strengthening on
vertical jump height: a simulation study.
Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 26:10121020,
1994
5. Cifrek, M., Medved, V., Tonkovia, S.,
& Ostojia, S. (2009). Surface EMG Based
Muscle Fatigue Evaluation in Biomechanics.
Clinical Biomechanics, 24(4), 327-340.
Retrieved December 2, 2015.
6. Cordova, M., & Armstrong, C. (1996).
Reliability of Ground Reaction Force
During a Vertical Jump: Implications for
Functional Strength Assessment. Journal of
Athletic Training, 31(4), 342-345. Retrieved
December 2, 2015, from NCBI.
7. IZQUIERDO, M., GONZLEZ-IZAL,
M.,
NAVARRO-AMEZQUETA,
I.,
CALBET, J., IBAEZ, J., MALANDA,
A., . . . GOROSTIAGA, E. (2011). Effects
of Strength Training on
8. Muscle Fatigue Mapping from Surface
EMG and Blood Metabolites. Medicine and
Science in Sports and Exercise, 43(2), 303311. Retrieved December 2, 2015.
9. Moir, G. (2008). Three Different
Methods of Calculating Vertical Jump
Height from Force Platform Data in Men
and Women. Measurement in Physical
Education and Exercise Science, 4(12), 207218. Retrieved December 2, 2015.
10. Potvin, J. (1997). Effects of muscle
kinematics on surface EMG amplitude and
frequency during fatiguing dynamic
contractions. Journal of Applied Physiology,

82(1), 144-151. Retrieved December 1,

2015.
11. Psek, J. A., and E. Cafarelli. Behaviour
of coactive muscles during fatigue. J. Appl.
Physiol. 74:170175, 1993.
12. Utter, A.C., Kang, J., & Robertson,
R.J. (2014). Perceived Exertion. American
College of Sports Medicine.
13. Vaverka, F., Jakubsova, Z., Jandacka,
D., Zahradnik, D., Farana, R., Uchytil,
J., . . . Supej, M. (2013). The Influence of an
Additional Load on Time and Force
Changes in the Ground Reaction Force
During the Countermovement Vertical
Jump. Journal of Human Kinetics, 38, 191200. Retrieved December 1, 2015.
14. Rodacki, A., Fowler, N., Bennett, S.
(2002).
Vertical Jump Coordination:
Fatigue Effects. Medicine &amp Science in
Sports &amp Exercise (Impact Factor:
3.98).
02/2002;
34(1):105-16.
DOI:
10.1097/00005768-200201000-00017
15. Linthorne, N. Analysis of standing
vertical jumps using a force platform.
American Journal of Physics, November
2001; 69(11): 11981204

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors thank all the subjects who
volunteered and participated in this study.
We would also like to thank Dr. Jeff Nessler
and Dr. Deanna Asakawa for their assistance
and use of the biomechanic equipment.