Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 1998, 12(3), 204-208 (© 1998 National Strength & Conditioning Association Effects of Varying Levels of Muscular Fatigue on Vertical Jump Performance Tlias Smilios Department of Physical Education, Temple University, Philadelphia, Pennsyliania 19122, Reference Data Smilios, l. Effects of varying levels of muscular fatigue ‘on vertical jump performance. J. Strength and Cond. Res. 12(3):204-208, 1998. ABSTRACT ‘This study was conducted (a) to determine the effects of vary- ing levels of muscular fatigue on vertical jump performance and (b) to see ifthe initial level of leg strength influenced this, response. Twelve college men were tested for leg-press, strength (1-RM) and for vertical jump. Subjects were sepa- rated into a high- or low-strength group (n= 6 per group) based on 1-RM leg press. Vertical jump was measured before and after fatigue was induced (by lifting loads of 50, 70, or 90% I-RM until exhaustion). The effect was to produce strength decrements of 50, 30, and 10%, respectively. All fa- tigue values differed significantly (p < 0.01) from resting val- tues. When comparing work and distance jumped, there were significant differences between 50% and 10% fatigue levels, as well as between 30% and 10% only on the work produced. No differences (p > 0.05) were found between groups under all conditions. Thus, increasing fatigue by reducing the strength capacity ofthe leg muscles leads to gradual decre- ‘ments in vertical jump, but not in proportion to strength dec- rement. The decrease in vertical jump performance is inde- pendent of the initial strength level Key Words: muscle function, work, power, recovery, strength, weight training, Introduction Muscle power is defined as the rate of work production as determined by the force produced by the muscle and the velocity of muscle shortening (4, 20). A decrease in cither component subsequently reduces power perfor- mance. One factor that influences power is fatigue, which is defined as the relative reduction in maximum, force (4) or, more generally, as the failure to sustain a required force or power output (10). Fatigue has proven, detrimental to performance, and research has shown, mote specifically that power output declines with fa- tigue (2, 3, 2, 24), Studies examining power output and fatigue on a cycle ergometer have shows’ decrements in power per- formance. Sargeant et al. (24) found a decrease in peak power at a rate of 2% per second by cycling for 20 sec at 204 110 rpm. Similarly, McCartney et al. (21) reported a power decrease to 53.7% of initial value with a rate of decline of 17.8 + 2.4 W per sec while exercising for 30 sec at 100 rpm, In maximum exercise for 30 sec at peak power, movement velocity was found to be positively related to mean power and power decrement, but in- versely related to the ability to maintain power output (18, 22). Belen and Sargeant (2) examined how prior exer- cise, for 6 min at 90% of VO, max with a pedal rate of 90 rpm, would affect power output of performances ex- ecuted at different velocities of movement. Fatigue had. a greater effect on peak and mean power produced at velocities higher than 90 rpm, but no effect at lower ve- locities. The rate of decline in peak power was also greater at velocities higher than 105 rpm vs. at lower velocities. Ina subsequent study, Beelen and Sargeant (3) found that, levels of fatigue induced by exercise at 60 and 120 rpm, did not differentially affect peak power or the rate of de- cline in power. Fatigue generated at both conditions had. a greater effect on power output produced at a high ve- locity of movement, 120 rpm, than at 60 rpm. However, when exercise at 60 rpm involved the same power out- put as exercise at 120 rpm, the latter resulted in greater reduction of peak power at 120 rpm. Fatigue generated at a higher velocity of movement, 120 rpm, resulted in a ‘greater reduction in peak power than at 60 rpm. These studies reveal the detrimental effects of fa- tigue on power measured by various performances but only on a cycle ergometer. No study has examined the effects of varying levels of muscular fatigue on a ballis- ticmovement such as vertical jump, which is frequently used in sports. Vertical jump is considered an effective field evaluation of muscular power because the height of the jump correlates significantly with maximal power, in units related to body mass (W X kg”) (25, 28). Fur- thermore, in these studies, fatigue was not precisely quantified and was induced by pedaling at different velocities of movement. Thus the purposes of the present study were (a) to determine the effects of varying levels of leg fatigue, induced by lifting weights, on vertical jump perfor mance when fatigue is defined as percent of strength decrement; and (b) to examine whether the initial strength level affects vertical jump performance under fatigue conditions.Methodology Twelve male university students enrolled in an advanced weight training class volunteered to participate in this, study. Their mean age, height, and weight were: 25.33 + 5.51 yrs, 179.08 + 5.48 om, and 80.58+ 9.05 kg, They signed informed consent prior to the study. Subjects were di- vided into two strength groups (n = 6 each) based on max- imum leg press: a high strength group (173.33 + 12.11 kg) and a low strength group (141.66 + 13.29 kg). The groups did not differ in age, height, or weight (Hest; p > 0.05). Consequently, any differences in vertical jump between, groups should be attributed to differences in leg strength. ‘The subjects were fatigued to exhaustion by execut- ing as many repetitions as possible with loads of 50, 70, and 90% of their 1-RM, after which their vertical jump, performance was measured. Vertical jump performance was expressed in relative values as the distance (cm) jumped, and in absolute values as the work (Joules) performed in executing the jump. Testing Leg strength was measured with the 1-RM method on, the leg press station of a Universal Gym apparatus. The subjects sat with the knee at a 60° angle. Each subject performed 10 reps for warm-up with a weight he esti- mated to be approximately 50% of his 1-RM. Subjects were familiar with the leg press and had previously trained on the lift. After 2 min of rest, the subject per- formed 4 to 5 reps with a weight he estimated as being about 70% of his 1-RM. After each 2 min of rest, loads were increased by 10 kg followed by one repetition, until the 1-RM load was reached. Vertical jump was measured with the modified vertical power jump (MVP}) test as introduced by Gray et al. (13), who reported a test-retest reliability of 0.977 and a validity of 0.989 for the test. The test measured, work (J) based on the distance jumped vertically and the subject's body weight. To execute the MVPJ test, each subject stood side- ‘ways next to a wall on which a scale measured in centi- meters was attached. He extended the dominant arm, above his head and folded the other arm behind his back. The height of the extended fingertips was mea- sured on the scale while the subject stood on tiptoes. Then, while maintaining the same position of the arms, the trunk held straight, the subject adopted a full squat, position, He then sprung upward and marked the height, of the jump with chalked fingertips. The difference be- tween the length of the extended fingertips and the dis- tance jumped was recorded to the nearest centimeter and converted to work (vertical jump performance in absolute values) by the following equation: Work ())= {body mass (kg) * distance jumped (cm)]/ 100} x 0.10134. Vertical jump in relative values was measured by the distance between the reach of the extended finger- Levels of Muscular Fatigue 205 tipsand the height jumped in cm. The best of 3 attempts, separated by 2 min of rest, yielded the test score. ‘The MVFJ test was chosen due the relative stan- dardization of the jumping technique because it allows no arm swing or movement of the torso. The jump is, initiated from a full squat position and depends on the strength of the hip and leg extensors, the very muscles that become fatigued in the leg press exercise. Conse- quently, this type of jump was more appropriate for identifying the effects of fatigue (caused by the leg press) on vertical jump performance. On Day 1, vertical jump without fatigue induce- ment was measured first, then leg strength was mea- sured. The effects of fatigue on vertical jump were as- sessed 48 to 72 hours later. To induce fatigue, subjects repeatedly lifted loads of 90, 70, or 50% of their 1-RM until exhaustion. The respective strength decrements achieved were: 10, 30, and 50% less than 1-RM strength. The order ofloads was selected at random for each sub- ject, and the 3 levels of fatigue inducement were sepa- rated by I-week intervals in a counterbalanced way. After reaching each level of fatigue, subjects were immediately (within 8 sec) tested on the vertical jump. Following the jump test, they immediately (within 8 sec), returned to the leg press machine and lifted a load 80% of I-RM for as many repetitions as possible in order to estimate recovery from fatigue. The time interval from fatigue level to the test of recovery was approximately 16sec. The extent of recovery indicated the approximate level of fatigue the subjects experienced during the ver- tical jump test. ‘The pace of lifting during fatigue inducement was the same forall loads, with the concentric and eccentric, phases of movement each executed in 1 sec. A metro- nome was used to set the pace. The movement was con- tinued with no rest periods between repetitions, Prior to inducing fatigue with a load of 90% 1-RM, a warm-up procedure was followed that involved 10 reps with a load of 50% 1-RM, followed by 4 to 5 reps after 2 min of rest with a load of 70% 1-RM. When 70% 1-RM was used to induce fatigue, 10 reps with a load ‘of 50% I-RM served as a warm-up. When a load of 50% 1-RM was used to induce fatigue, no warm-up was undertaken. To calculate the extent of fatigue recovery follow- ing the MVP] test from the number of repetitions with a load of 80% 1-RM, a regression equation (y = a+ bx) was determined for each subject based on the number of repetitions with loads of 100, 90, 70, and 50% of 1- RM. After obtaining y or %1-RM, strength after fatigue ‘was predicted by the following equation: Fatigue 1-RM = (80% 1-RM / %1-RM) x 100. The extent of fatigue expressed relatively to the rested I-RM was calculated by the following equation: % of Resting 1-RM = (Fatigue 1-RM / Resting 1-RM) x 100.206 Smilios Forexample, if Subject A had a resting 1-RM of 150 kg, and after reaching a specific level of fatigue and having performed the MVP] test was capable of 3 reps with 120 kg (80% of 150 kg), the percent of fatigued 1- RMrepresented by the 120 kg was calculated as follows based on his regression equation: %1-RM =100 + (-2) x = 100 + (-2) x 3 = 94%, Then, fatigue I-RM was calcu- lated: Fatigue 1-RM = (80% 1-RM/%I-RM) x 100 = (120/94) x 100 = 127.65 kg. The fatigue 1-RM of 127.65 kg represented 85.1% of the resting 1-RM of 150 kg {(0127.65 /150) x 100 =85.1 %]. Consequently, Subject A recovered to 85.1% of his resting 1-RM. Statistical Analysis Two different analyses were carried out using a2 x 4 ANOVA with 2 levels of strength and 4 levels of fatigue. One analysis involved the dependent variable of the distance jumped and the other involved the dependent, variable of the work produced during the jump. A 2. 3 ANOVA was used to examine the differences between both groups and among the3 levels of fatigue in strength capacity after recovery from fatigue. Significant F-val ues for main effects of groups and fatigue levels or in- teraction were analyzed with the Tukey HSD procedure. For all tests, the significance level was set at p < 0.05. Results ‘Means and standard deviations for distance jumped and work produced by both groups under resting conditions and the 3 levels of fatigue are presented in Table 1. Fa- tigue level is expressed as percent of strength decrement, of 10, 30, and 50% which resulted by repeatedly lifting, loads of 90, 70, and 50% of 1-RM, respectively. Statisti- cal analysis showed that both the distance jumped and the work produced decreased significantly with fatigue (p < 0.01), and that this decrease was independent of the initial strength level since the groups did not differ significantly from each other over all conditions of fa- tigue, although the high strength group presented con- sistently higher values (Table 1) For both distance jumped and work produced in the jump, there were differences between the resting conditions and 10, 30, and 50% fatigue levels. Similarly, differences were found between 10 and 50% fatigue lev- els, with jumping performance diminishing at increas- ing levels of fatigue. Significant differences were found between 30 and 10% fatigue levels, but only for the work produced during the jump. At the more extreme levels, of fatigue of 30 and 50%, no significant differences were found (Table 1) Strength capacity after recovery from the 3 levels of fatigue for both groups is presented in Table 2 as per- centages of the resting 1-RM load (%1-RM). Statistical analysis showed that strength capacity after recovery from fatigue differed only between the fatigue condi- tions of 10 and both 30 and 50% of strength decrement. The two groups did not differ significantly in strength recovered after fatigue inducement. When the recov- ‘Table 1 ‘Vertical Distance Jumped and Work Produced (M +SD) During Jump at Rest and 3 Levels of Fatigue Faigue level (Gof strength decrement) Group nm Resting (10% 30% 5% Distance (em) High 6 328 SSBB H3 469450 48.0 Low 6 36 = 33S 469 46346955 Total 2317 de 212187 456 0 tod 61359 Work) Hligh 6 2672-2094 19041792 53 £53 7S MBL Low 6 219 1872 ISH 1306 45.7 457340074540 Total 122546 © 202.0" 172.6% 1549" S411 $592 +4550 "Significantly lower than resting (p< 0.01) ‘Sigificanty lower than 10% fatigue level (p< 0.01) Table 2 Strength Capacity as Measure of Recovery Immediately ‘After Vertical Jump (Mf +SD) “Fig level (Goof strength decrement) Group n 10% 20% 50% High 6 878 83.2 sis 445 29 27 Low 6 888 86.1 843 358 369 449 Total n BB 846" 82.9 350 353 440 = Significantly lower than 10% fatigue level. ery was calculated as a percentage of strength improve- ment, strength recovered by 66% after a 50% decrement and by 21% after a 30% decrement; there was no recov- ery (-2%) after a 10% decrement: Discussion ‘The results of the present study showed that vertical jump decreased with increased levels of muscular fa- tigue, regardless of initial strength level. ‘These findings, are in agreement with the theory of the detrimental ef- fects of fatigue on performance (10), since all levels of, fatigue significantly decreased both the work produced in the jump and the distance jumped. Even a fatigue level of only 10% of strength decrementhad an adverse effect on jumping performance. The motor unit recruitment patterns during efforts, of high muscle force may provide some insight into ourfindings. Research data from studies that recorded. motor unit recruitment during increasing intensities of force and during ballistic contractions have shown a progressive recruitment pattern of motor units: the fast-twitch fibers were activated only at high intensities of force, firing with higher frequency and contributing, more force per motor unit than slow-twitch fibers (8, 16, 17, 26). ‘The faster the movement, the higher the contribu- tion of fast-twitch motor units in total power output (12, 14), However, a high percentage of fast-twitch fibers in a muscle correlated significantly with the decrease in peak torque, maximal isometric force, and rate of force production during maximal sustained isokinetic and isometric contractions (5, 23, 27, 29). Thus, fast-twitch, fibers are more susceptible to fatigue during maximal exercise than are slow-twitch fibers. At exercise with a oad 50% of strength, both fast-and slow-twitch muscle fibers are recruited (1, 15), significantly decreasing the muscles’ force and power production, ‘The difference in research design between the present study and others that examined the effects of varying levels of fatigue on performance limits the com- parison of the results Beelen and Sargeant (3) used an isokinetic cycle ergometer to induce fatigue and measure power, whereas the present study used a vertical jump to as- sess performance. Fatigue was not precisely quantified, in Beelen and Seargent’s study, and was induced by pedaling for 6 min at 92% of VO, max at 60 and 120 rpm, Fatigue decreased the power generated at high velocity, 120 rpm, but not at a low velocity of 60 rpm; the 2 levels of fatigue did not differ significantly from each other. However, when their subjects induced fa- tigue by pedaling at 60 rpm and by producing the same power output as by pedaling at 120 rpm, the latter pro- tocol led to a greater decrease in power output. Beelan and Sargeant concluded that fatigue is greater at higher velocities of movement due to the greater fatiguability of fast-twitch fibers In the present study, fatigue was not induced by pedaling at varying velocities of movement but was instead defined as percent of strength decrement. Also, fatigue was precisely quantified and was induced by repeatedly lifting, until exhaustion, loads of 50, 70, and 90% I-RM which resulted in strength decrements of 50, 30, and 10%, respectively. The results revealed that the igher the strength decrement, the higher the decrement in vertical jump performance. Ewing and Stull (11) and Kearney and Stull (19) followed a similar approach for inducing fatigue by decreasing the strength in a maximum voluntary con- traction (MVC) by 20, 40, and 60%. They found an in- verse relationship between fatigue level and rate of force development. The same inverse relationship was found in the present study, between levels of fatigue and jumping performance. Levels of Muscular Fatigue 207 ‘Vertical Jump (em) om) 6 USO Fatigue Level (% of strength decrement) Figure 1. Vertical jump scores in response to resting conditions (0%) and fatigue levels of 10, 30, and 50% of strength decrement for a high- and a low-strength group and both groups combined (total) Another finding in the present study was that fa- tigue decreased vertical jump at a level not proportional, to the decrements in strength. Strength decrements of, 10, 30, and 50% decreased the vertical distance jumped by 21, 30, and 39%, and decreased the work produced during the jump by 22, 33, and 41%, respectively. It ap- pears that although strength decrement had a linear relationship with fatigue level (fatigue in the present study was defined as strength decrement), the decrease in vertical jump did not follow this linear pattern, and, there was a greater decrease in performance when heavier loads were used to induce fatigue (Figure 1). This probably occurred because a ballistic movement such as vertical jump not only depends on the force ca~ pacity of the muscle but also on the velocity of shorten- ing. Studies on animal single-muscle fibers and bundles, in vitro and in situ, have shown that fatigue decreases not only the force-generating capacity of the muscle but also its velocity of shortening (6, 7, 9). However, in the present study, the rate of recovery after each level of fatigue was not the same. Indeed, analysis of the recovery data show that strength recov- ery was higher after fatigue with loads of 70 and 50% of 1-RM as compared to the 90% load. If the fatigue level, had been maintained for a longer time, the vertical jump. decrement might have followed strength decrement levels more closely. Practical Applications Vertical jump performance decreases independently from the initial strength level. The difference between, the two groups tended to increase with each increasing, level of fatigue, but without reaching significance. Lev- els of 10 to 50% of strength decrement have an increas- ingly detrimental effect on vertical jump, but with the latter not being proportional to the strength decrement. Exercise until exhaustion with light loads leads to a208 Smilios ‘gradual strength decrement with a concomitant reduc- tion in jumping performance. However, the results of the present study show that one can recover rapidly from fatigue induced by a light load and the ability for vertical jumping is restored quickly. Exercise with heavier loads seems to produce a greater decrement in jumping performance compared to the respective strength decrement and, due to a slower recovery pe- riod, this reduction in performance is sustained longer. References 1, Andersen, P, and G. Sjogaard. Selective glycogen depletion in the subgroups of type II muscle fibres during intensive ‘submaximal exercise in man, Acta Physiol. Set 9526A. 1976. 2, Belen, A.,and A. Sargeant. Effect of fatigue on maximal power ‘output at different contraction velocities in humans. J. App Physiol. 71:2332-2397, 1991, 93, Beelen, A. and A. Sargeant. Effect of prior exercise at different pedalling frequencies on maximal power in humans. Fur. | Appl Pysiol 6:102-107. 198, 4. Bigland.Ritchie, B, F Bellamare, and JJ. Woods. Excitation fre- “quencies and sites of fatigue. In: Human Muscle Pour. NL. Jones, N. McCartney, and A.J. MeComas, eds. Champaiga, IL: Human kinetics, 1986. pp. 197-213, 5, Colliander, EB, G.A. Dudley, and P.A. Tesch. Skeletal muscle fi ber type composition and performance during repeated ‘bouts of maximal, concentric contractions. Eur. J. APP. Physi. 5881-86. 1988. 6, Cooke, R, K. Franks, GB, Luciani, and E. Pate. The inhibition of rabbit skeletal muscle contraction by hydrogen ions and phosphate. J. Physiol. (Lond. 385:77-97. 1988. 7. DeHaan,A,,D.A Jones, and AJ. Sargeant. Changesia velocity of shortening, power output and relaxation rate dung fatigue ‘of rat medial gastrocnemius muscle. Pflugers Arch. 413422- 428, 198, 8. Desment, JE. and E, Goda Ballistic contractions in man Char- acteristic recruitment pattern of single motor units ofthe ti alis anterior muscle |. Physiol. Lond.) 24:673-693. 1977 9, Edman, KAP, and AR. Mattiazzi, Effects of fatigue and altered pH on isometric force and velocity of shortening a zero load in frog muscle fibres. J. Muse. Res. Cell Mot. 2321-334. 1981, 30. Edwards, RH. Biochemical basis of fatigue in exercise perfor mance: Catastrophe theory of muscular fatigue In: Biochem ny of Exercise. H.G. Knuttgen, LA, Vogel and J. Poortmans, ‘eds, Champaign, IL: Huan Kinetis, 1983, pp. 328, M1. Ewing, JL, and A.G. Stull. Rate of force development in the Ihandgrip muscles by females as a function of fatigue level Res. Q.Exer Sport 8517-23, 1984 12. Faulkner, JA, DR. Claflin, and K.K. McCully. Power output of fast and slow fibers from human skeletal muscles. In: Munian ‘Muscle Power. NL Jones, N. McCartney, and A.J. McComas, ‘eds. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 1986, pp. 81-94 13. Gray, RK, KB. Start, and DJ. Glencross. A useful modification, ‘of the vertical power jump, Res. Q, 33230235, 1962 1A. Gregor, RJ., RV. Edgerton, JJ. Perrine, DS. Campion, and C. DeBus. Torque-velacity relationships and muscle fber com- position inelite female athletes. J. yp. Piso. 47388-392, 197 15. Greig, C, AJ. Sargeant, and N.K.Vollestad. Muscle force and fibre recruitment during dynamic exercise in man. |. Physi ond.) 371176P. 1976, 16, Grimby;L. Firing properties of single human motor units during, locomotion. J Physio, (Land). 346:195-202. 1984 17, Grimby, L, and J. Hannerz, Firing rate and recruitment order of too extensor motor units in different modes of voluntary contraction. J. Physiol. (Lon). 268865-879. 1977 18, Jones, NL, N. McCartney, Graham, LL. Sprit, ].M. Kowalchuk, GF Heigenhauser, and [R.Sutton, Muscle performance and metabolism in maximal isokinetic cyeling at slow and fast speeds. J. Appl Physiol 59:132-136, 198. 19, Kearney, 1, and G.A, Stull. Effect of fatigue Ievel on the rate of force development by the grip-flexer muscles. Med. Sci. Sports Exe. 13338-382. 1981 20, Knuttgen, HG, and PV: Komi. Basic definitions for exercise In ‘Strengtt and Power in Sport PN. Komi, ed, Oxford: Blackwell Scientific, 1992. pp. 3-5 21. McCartney, N., G).F. Heigenhauser, and N.L. Jones. Effects of ‘pH on maximal power output and fatigue during short-term ‘dynamic exercise. J. Appl Physiol, 35:225-229. 1983, 22, McCartney, N,, GLE Heigenhauser, and N.L. Jones. Power out- putand fatigue of human muscle in maximal cycling exercise. J Appl, Physiol. 55:218-224. 198. 23, Nilsson, J.P Tesch, and A. Thorstensson. Fatigue and EMG of peated fast voluntary contractions in man. Acts Psa. Scand 101:194-198. 1977. 24, Sargeant, AJ, E. Hoinville, and A. Young. Maximum leg force ‘and power output during short-term dynamic exercise Ap Physiol 51: 1175-1182, 1951 25, Thomas, M. M.A. Fiotarone, and R.A. Fielding, Leg power in young women: Relationship to body composition, strength, and function. Me. Si. Sports Exer. 28:1321-1326, 1996. 26, Thomas, CK,, BH. Ross, and B. Calancie. Human motor-unit recruitment during isometric contractions and repeated dy- namic movements, J. Newrophys, 5711-324. 1987, 27. Thorstensson, A, and J Karlsson. Fatiguability and fibre compo- Sition of human skeletal muscle. Acta Physiol. Scand. 98318- 522, 1976, 28, Vandewalle, H, C. Pees J Heller J. Panel, and H. Monod. Force ‘velocity relationship and maximal power on a cycle ergom- «ter Correlation with the height ofa vertical jump. Eur J Appl Physiol. 56:650-656. 1987. 29, Viltasalo, LT, and PV. Komi. Fffects of fatigue on isometric force ‘nd relaxation time characteristics im human skeletal muscle ‘Acta Physiol Scand. 1-87-95. 1981, Note: ‘The study was conducted while the author was at Temple University. For correspondence, contact the author at: 14 Tdomenis str, Thessaloniki 56123, Greece.