EVALUATION OF PLYOMETRIC INTENSITY USING ELECTROMYOGRAPHY

WILLIAM P. EBBEN,1 CHRISTOPHER SIMENZ,1

1 2

AND

RANDALL L. JENSEN2

Department of Physical Therapy, Program in Exercise Science, Marquette University, Milwaukee, Wisconsin; Department of Health, Physical Education, and Recreation, Northern Michigan University, Michigan

ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study was to investigate the motor unit activation of the quadriceps (Q), hamstring (H), and gastrocnemius (G) muscle groups during a variety of plyometric exercises to further understand the nature of these exercises. Twenty-four athletes volunteered to perform randomly ordered plyometric exercises, thought to cover a continuum of intensity levels, including two-foot ankle hops; 15-cm cone hops; tuck, pike, and box jumps; one- and two-leg vertical jump and reach; squat jumps with approximately 30% of their 1RM squat load; and 30- and 61-cm depth jumps. Integrated electromyographic data were analyzed for each exercise using a one-way repeated-measures ANOVA. Results revealed signicant main effects for the Q when all subjects are analyzed, as well as for separate analysis of men, women, subjects with vertical jumps greater than 50 cm, and those with vertical jumps less than or equal to 50 cm (p # 0.05). Signicant main effects were also found for the G muscle group in the analysis of all subjects, as well as for men and subjects with vertical jumps greater than 50cm (p # 0.05). No signicant main effects were found for the H muscle group. Pairwise comparisons revealed a variety of differences among plyometric exercises. In some cases, plyometrics previously reported to be of high intensity, such as the depth jump, yielded relatively little motor unit recruitment compared with exercises typically thought to be of low intensity. Results can assist the practitioner in creating plyometric programs based on the nature of the motor unit recruitment.

KEY WORDS jumping, motor unit recruitment, program design

INTRODUCTION

lyometric training has burgeoned in the last 3 decades as an effective mode of training athletes. Predictably, evidence suggests that plyometric training results in superior outcomes when combined with another method of training such as weight training

Address correspondence to Dr. William P. Ebben, webben70@hotmail.com 22(3)/861868 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 2008 National Strength and Conditioning Association

or when compared with other modes of training alone (1,6 9,1618,20,23,30,32). Furthermore, plyometric training has been shown to result in biomaterial adaptation that may be important for preventing injuries (2,4,12,13,31,33). Whereas the effectiveness of this mode of training is unequivocal, information is limited regarding how to best design plyometric programs. Little is known about program design, especially with respect to quantifying the nature of the plyometric exercise and how to best incorporate it into an optimal training program. Similar to other forms of training, plyometric program design requires an understanding of a variety of program design variables, such as exercise mode, frequency, volume, program length, recovery, progression, and intensity (19). Unlike resistance training, plyometric exercise intensity is not well understood, although it may be the most important program design variable. Typically, factors such as the number of points of contact during jump landings, speed of the exercise, height of the jump, and athletes body mass have been suggested as possible factors determining intensity (19). Additionally, anecdotal recommendations exist for categories of low- to high-intensity plyometric exercises (19). Plyometric intensity has also been dened as the amount of stress placed on involved muscles and connective tissue and joints, and it is dictated by the type of exercise that is performed (19). Given this denition, it is logical that intensity could be scientically evaluated by examining a variety of kinetic variables and by assessing the activation of muscle through electromyography (EMG). Previously, kinetic and kinematic variables associated with a limited number of plyometrics have been examined. For example, studies have compared kinetic and kinematic variables of drop jumps and pendulum jumps (10), ground reaction forces (GRF) of unloaded and loaded drop jumping (28), the effect of feedback training on GRF, drop jumps of varying heights, and one-legged and two-legged countermovement jumps (22,24,29). Research quantifying the intensity of a large number of plyometric exercises is limited to studies by Jensen and Ebben (14,15), who examined 10 different exercises and demonstrated that the impulse, eccentric rate of force development (RFD), GRF, and knee joint reaction force (JRF) of plyometric exercises vary depending on the type of exercise performed and that some
VOLUME 22 | NUMBER 3 | MAY 2008 |

861

Evaluation of Plyometric Intensity Using Electromyography

type of plyometric exercise being performed. Independent variables included the type of exercise performed, and dependent variables included IEMG during each plyometric exercise.
Mean SD 3.40 18.56 12.25 1.44 9.98 9.13 4.17 16.10 11.30
Subjects

TABLE 1. Subject characteristics. Min. Max.

All subjects Age, years 19.00 31.00 22.61 Weight, kg 51.55 118.60 76.60 Vertical jump, cm 26.40 79.20 48.97 Women Age, years 19.00 23.00 21.08 Weight, kg 51.50 85.55 64.13 Vertical jump, cm 26.40 52.80 42.35 Men Age, years 19.00 31.00 24.27 Weight, kg 72.90 118.60 90.18 Vertical jump, cm 39.60 79.20 56.21

Twenty-four adult subjects (13 women and 11 men; age, 22.65 6 3.42 years; weight, 76.15 6 18.61 kg) volunteered for the study. All subjects participated in resistance training and either recreational or intercollegiate sports and were familiar with the plyometric exercises evaluated in the study. Mean vertical jumping ability and other subject characteristics are described in Table 1. Subjects provided informed consent before participation in the study. Approval for use of human subjects was obtained from the Universitys internal review board before beginning the study.
Testing Procedures

of the previous anecdotal recommendations regarding intensity are not accurate. These studies provide a foundation for understanding plyometric intensity, though many questions remain. Previous research examining motor unit activation during plyometric exercises is limited to studies comparing variations of a single exercise (21,24) or gender differences (5,11,34). No previous study has attempted to quantify differences in motor unit activity of more than two exercises. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to evaluate integrated electromyography (IEMG) activity of the gastrocnemius (G), hamstrings (H), and quadriceps (Q) muscle groups during a variety of plyometric exercises to quantify differences among the exercises.

METHODS
Experimental Approach to the Problem

This study used a randomized repeated-measures design to test the hypothesis that there are differences in the motor unit recruitment of the G, H, and Q muscles groups dependent on the

Warm-up before the plyometric exercises consisted of 5 minutes of low-intensity work on a cycle ergometer, which was followed by static stretching, including one exercise for each major muscle group with stretches held for 12 seconds, and activity-specic dynamic stretching. Subjects then performed two repetitions each of the 10 test plyometric exercises at 75% intensity. Subjects were then allowed at least 5 minutes rest before beginning the test. Exercise selection included a variety of common plyometric exercises that are performed primarily in the vertical plane and are thought to represent a continuum of intensities based on previous research (15) and anecdotal recommendations (19). The randomly ordered exercises included depth jumps from 30.48 cm and 61 cm, pike jump, tuck jump, single-leg vertical jump and reach, double-leg vertical jump and reach, squat jump holding dumbbells equal to 30% of 1RM squat, two-foot ankle hop, 15.24-cm cone hop, and a 61-cm box jump. A 1-minute rest interval was maintained between each exercise to allow recovery of the phosphagen system and to ensure maximal effort for each exercise. Subjects performed only one repetition of each exercise to minimize fatigue. Finally, randomization of the plyometric exercises reduced the likelihood of an order effect.

TABLE 2. Main effects of analysis of variance for IEMG of the 10 plyometric exercises. Total IEMG Quadriceps Signicance All subjects Men Women VJ # 50 cm VJ . 50 cm 0.013* 0.000* 0.000* 0.003* 0.009* All subjects Men Women VJ # 50 cm VJ . 50 cm Total IEMG Hamstrings Signicance 0.115 0.444 0.407 0.452 0.407 All subjects Men Women VJ # 50cm VJ . 50cm Total IEMG Gastrocnemius Signicance 0.000* 0.019* 0.143 0.106 0.016*

IEMG = integrated electromyography; VJ = vertical jump. *Signicantly different (p , 0.05).

862

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

the

TM

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

the

TM

| www.nsca-jscr.org

TABLE 3. Integrated EMG for the quadriceps muscle group for all subjects. CON 5.65 6 2.35* BOX 5.26 6 2.25* TUC 5.09 6 2.41* VJ 4.99 6 1.69 SJ30 4.55 6 1.77 ANK 4.48 6 2.12 PIK 4.31 6 2.14 SLJ 3.48 6 1.77k DJ12 3.44 6 2.21{ DJ24 2.96 6 1.37#

EMG = electromyography; DJ12 = depth jumps from 30.48 cm; DJ24 = depth jumps from 61 cm; PIK = pike jump (PIK); TUC = tuck jump; SLJ = single-leg vertical jump and reach; VJ = double-leg vertical jump and reach; SJ30 = squat jump holding dumbbells equal to 30% of 1RM squat; ANK = two-foot ankle hop; CON = 15.24-cm cone hop; BOX = 61-cm box jump. Values are mean 6 SD expressed in millivolts. *Signicantly different (p , 0.05) from SLJ, DJ12, DJ24. |Signicantly different (p , 0.05) from DJ12, DJ24. Signicantly different (p , 0.05) from SLJ, DJ12. Signicantly different (p , 0.05) from DJ24. k Signicantly different (p , 0.05) from CON, TUC, VJ, SJ30, BOX. {Signicantly different (p , 0.05) from CON, VJ, BOX. #Signicantly different (p , 0.05) from ANK, CON, TUC, PIK, VJ, SJ30, BOX.

Electromography

Electromyography was used to quantify muscle activity using a four-channel shielded cable Biopac MP 100 EMG unit (Biopac Systems, Goleta, CA). The input impedance was 120 kV, signal to noise ratio of 0.2mV and the common mode rejection ratio was 100 dB. Electromyographic data were recorded at 1,000 Hz using rectangular shaped (10 3 30 mm) Ag/Ag Cl bipolar surface electrodes (Noraxon USA, Inc., Scottsdale, AZ) with an interelectrode distance of 10 mm. Electrodes were placed on the longitudinal axis of the muscles with the H electrode placed over the biceps femoris halfway between the gluteal fold and the popliteal fossa. The Q electrode was placed over the rectus femoris halfway between the greater trochanter and medial epicondyle of the femur. The G electrode was placed on the belly of the G, on the longitudinal axis. A common reference electrode was placed 10 mm anterior and between the medial condyle and medial malleolus of the tibia. Skin preparation included shaving hair,

abrasion, and cleaning the surface with alcohol. Elastic tape was applied to ensure electrode and cable placement and to provide strain relief. Surface electrodes were connected to an amplier and streamed continuously through an analog to digital converter to an IBM-compatible notebook computer. Electromyographic data were managed with computer software (AcqKnowledge 3.2; Biopac Systems, Inc.). Saved EMG data were full wave-rectied and integrated (IEMG in mVs21) for the eccentric and concentric phases of the plyometric exercise to determine the number of active motor units and their ring rates. All data were ltered with a 10-Hz high-pass and a 500-Hz low-pass lter.
Statistical Analyses

The data from the investigation are presented as mean 6 SD. The statistical analyses were undertaken with SPSS 13.0 for Windows (SPSS, Inc., Chicago, IL) using a one-way,

TABLE 4. Integrated EMG for the quadriceps muscle group for men. CON 6.65 6 2.23* TUC 5.81 6 2.68 SJ30 5.26 6 1.98 VJ 5.09 6 1.42 BOX 4.61 6 2.28 ANK 4.56 6 1.92 PIK 3.80 6 2.14 SLJ 3.71 6 2.15k DJ24 3.52 6 1.52{ DJ12 3.50 6 2.32**

EMG = electromyography; DJ12 = depth jumps from 30.48 cm; DJ24 = depth jumps from 61 cm; PIK = pike jump (PIK); TUC = tuck jump; SLJ = single-leg vertical jump and reach; VJ = double-leg vertical jump and reach; SJ30 = squat jump holding dumbbells equal to 30% of 1RM squat; ANK = two-foot ankle hop; CON = 15.24-cm cone hop; BOX = 61-cm box jump. Values are mean 6 SD expressed in millivolts. *Signicantly different (p , 0.05) from ANK, PIK, SLJ, BOX, DJ12, DJ24. Signicantly different (p , 0.05) from SLJ, DJ12, DJ24. Signicantly different (p , 0.05) from DJ24. Signicantly different (p , 0.05) from CON. k Signicantly different (p , 0.05) from CON, TUC, SJ30. {Signicantly different (p , 0.05) from CON, TUC, VJ, SJ30. **Signicantly different (p , 0.05) from CON, TUC, VJ, SJ30.

VOLUME 22 | NUMBER 3 | MAY 2008 |

863

Evaluation of Plyometric Intensity Using Electromyography

TABLE 5. Integrated EMG for the quadriceps muscle group for woman. BOX 5.86 6 2.25* VJ 4.99 6 2.04 PIK 4.82 6 2.22 TUC 4.54 6 2.08 CON 4.42 6 1.97 ANK 4.39 6 2.48 SJ30 3.87 6 1.47 DJ12 3.42 6 2.31k SLJ 3.24 6 1.46{ DJ24 2.38 6 1.05**

EMG = electromyography; DJ12 = depth jumps from 30.48 cm; DJ24 = depth jumps from 61 cm; PIK = pike jump (PIK); TUC = tuck jump; SLJ = single-leg vertical jump and reach; VJ = double-leg vertical jump and reach; SJ30 = squat jump holding dumbbells equal to 30% of 1RM squat; ANK = two-foot ankle hop; CON = 15.24-cm cone hop; BOX = 61-cm box jump. Values are mean 6 SD expressed in millivolts. *Signicantly different (p , 0.05) from ANK, CON, SLJ, SJ30, DJ12, DJ24. Signicantly different (p , 0.05) from SLJ, DJ24. Signicantly different (p , 0.05) from DJ24. Signicantly different (p , 0.05) from BOX, DJ24. k Signicantly different (p , 0.05) from BOX. {Signicantly different (p , 0.05) from VJ, BOX. **Signicantly different (p , 0.05) from ANK, CON, TUC, PIK, VJ, SJ30, BOX.

TABLE 6. Integrated EMG for the quadriceps muscle group for subjects with a VJ # 50 cm. CON 3.44 6 1.88* VJ 3.40 6 1.68 ANK 3.39 6 1.37 PIK 3.37 6 1.67 TUC 3.17 6 1.69 SJ30 2.71 6 1.09 BOX 2.46 6 1.47 SLJ 2.30 6 1.00k DJ12 2.18 6 1.47{ DJ24 1.65 6 0.97**

EMG = electromyography; DJ12 = depth jumps from 30.48 cm; DJ24 = depth jumps from 61 cm; PIK = pike jump (PIK); TUC = tuck jump; SLJ = single-leg vertical jump and reach; VJ = double-leg vertical jump and reach; SJ30 = squat jump holding dumbbells equal to 30% of 1RM squat; ANK = two-foot ankle hop; CON = 15.24-cm cone hop; BOX = 61-cm box jump. Values are mean 6 SD expressed in millivolts. *Signicantly different (p , 0.05) from SLJ, DJ24. Signicantly different (p , 0.05) from DJ24. Signicantly different (p , 0.05) from DJ12, DJ24. Signicantly different (p , 0.05) from BOX, DJ24. k Signicantly different (p , 0.05) from CON. {Signicantly different (p , 0.05) from CON, TUC. **Signicantly different (p , 0.05) from ANK, CON, PIK, VJ, SJ30.

TABLE 7. Integrated EMG for the quadriceps muscle group for subjects with a VJ . 50 cm. CON 6.29 6 2.70* TUC 5.33 6 2.94 VJ 4.82 6 1.18 SJ30 4.79 6 2.16 ANK 4.66 6 1.68k BOX 4.61 6 2.17 PIK 4.52 6 1.82 SLJ 3.44 6 2.42{ DJ12 3.37 6 2.56k DJ24 3.28 6 1.75**

EMG = electromyography; DJ12 = depth jumps from 30.48 cm; DJ24 = depth jumps from 61 cm; PIK = pike jump (PIK); TUC = tuck jump; SLJ = single-leg vertical jump and reach; VJ = double-leg vertical jump and reach; SJ30 = squat jump holding dumbbells equal to 30% of 1RM squat; ANK = two-foot ankle hop; CON = 15.24-cm cone hop; BOX = 61-cm box jump. Values are mean 6 SD expressed in millivolts. *Signicantly different (p , 0.05) from ANK, SLJ, DJ12, DJ24. Signicantly different (p , 0.05) from SLJ, DJ24. Signicantly different (p , 0.05) from DJ24. Signicantly different (p , 0.05) from SLJ, DJ24. k Signicantly different (p , 0.05) from CON. {Signicantly different (p , 0.05) from CON, TUC, SJ30. **Signicantly different (p , 0.05) from CON, TUC, VJ, SJ30, BOX.

864

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

the

TM

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

the

TM

| www.nsca-jscr.org

TABLE 8. Integrated EMG for the gastrocnemius muscle group for all subjects. VJ 3.32 6 2.06* CON 3.25 6 2.15 TUC 3.17 6 2.14 ANK 3.05 6 1.83 PIK 3.07 6 1.97 BOX 2.86 6 2.10* SJ30 2.61 6 1.53k SLJ 2.42 6 1.18{ DJ12 2.33 6 1.60** DJ24 1.78 6 1.22

EMG = electromyography; DJ12 = depth jumps from 30.48 cm; DJ24 = depth jumps from 61 cm; PIK = pike jump (PIK); TUC = tuck jump; SLJ = single-leg vertical jump and reach; VJ = double-leg vertical jump and reach; SJ30 = squat jump holding dumbbells equal to 30% of 1RM squat; ANK = two-foot ankle hop; CON = 15.24-cm cone hop; BOX = 61-cm box jump. Values are mean 6 SD expressed in millivolts. *Signicantly different (p , 0.05) from SLJ, SJ30, DJ12, DJ24. Signicantly different (p , 0.05) from SLJ, DJ24. Signicantly different (p , 0.05) from DJ12, DJ24. Signicantly different (p , 0.05) from DJ24. k Signicantly different (p , 0.05) from VJ, DJ24. {Signicantly different (p , 0.05) from CON, PIK, VJ, DJ24. **Signicantly different (p , 0.05) from TUC, VJ. Signicantly different (p , 0.05) from ANK, CON, TUC, PIK, VJ, SJ30, BOX.

TABLE 9. Integrated EMG for the quadriceps muscle group for men. CON 3.62 6 1.85* VJ 3.47 6 1.69 TUC 3.46 6 2.23 ANK 3.45 6 1.62 PIK 3.16 6 1.46 BOX 2.76 6 1.96 SJ30 2.72 6 1.23 SLJ 2.49 6 1.12 DJ12 2.37 6 1.47 DJ24 1.93 6 1.22

EMG = electromyography; DJ12 = depth jumps from 30.48 cm; DJ24 = depth jumps from 61 cm; PIK = pike jump (PIK); TUC = tuck jump; SLJ = single-leg vertical jump and reach; VJ = double-leg vertical jump and reach; SJ30 = squat jump holding dumbbells equal to 30% of 1RM squat; ANK = two-foot ankle hop; CON = 15.24-cm cone hop; BOX = 61-cm box jump. Values are mean 6 SD expressed in millivolts. *Signicantly different (p , 0.05) from SLJ, DJ24. Signicantly different (p , 0.05) from DJ24. Signicantly different (p , 0.05) from CON. Signicantly different (p , 0.05) from ANK,CON, PIK, VJ.

TABLE 10. Integrated EMG for the quadriceps muscle group for subjects with a VJ . 50 cm. CON 3.44 6 1.88* VJ 3.40 6 1.68 ANK 3.39 6 1.37 PIK 3.37 6 1.67 TUC 3.17 6 1.69 SJ30 2.71 6 1.09 BOX 2.46 6 1.46 SLJ 2.30 6 1.00k DJ12 2.18 6 1.47{ DJ24 1.65 6 0.97**

EMG = electromyography; DJ12 = depth jumps from 30.48 cm; DJ24 = depth jumps from 61 cm; PIK = pike jump (PIK); TUC = tuck jump; SLJ = single-leg vertical jump and reach; VJ = double-leg vertical jump and reach; SJ30 = squat jump holding dumbbells equal to 30% of 1RM squat; ANK = two-foot ankle hop; CON = 15.24-cm cone hop; BOX = 61-cm box jump. Values are mean 6 SD expressed in millivolts. *Signicantly different (p , 0.05) from SLJ, DJ24. Signicantly different (p , 0.05) from DJ24. Signicantly different (p , 0.05) from DJ12. Signicantly different (p , 0.05) from DJ24. k Signicantly different (p , 0.05) from CON. {Signicantly different (p , 0.05) from ANK, TUC. **Signicantly different (p , 0.05) from ANK, CON, PIK, VJ, SJ30.

VOLUME 22 | NUMBER 3 | MAY 2008 |

865

Evaluation of Plyometric Intensity Using Electromyography

repeated-measures ANOVA to test for main effects. Assumptions for linearity of statistics were tested and met. Signicant main effects were further analyzed with Bonferroni adjusted pairwise comparison of within-subject differences among the plyometric exercises. Data were analyzed for the entire eccentric and concentric portions of the plyometric exercises. Interclass correlation coefcients (ICC) for reliability of the dependent measures ranged from 0.75 to 0.93. For the sample size used, statistical power ranged from 0.41 to 0.49 for the variables assessed in this investigation. The criterion for signicance was set at an a level of p # 0.05. plyometrics and that exercise such as cone and ankle hops are low intensity (19). The present ndings, as a measure of plyometric intensity, also contrast with previous research indicating that exercises such as the single-leg jumps and depth jumps result in the greatest impulse, peak GRF, eccentric rate of force development (14,15). With regard to depth jumps, the ndings of the present study did not change when analyzed according to gender or jumping ability, as depth jumps resulted in low IEMG in each analysis. In addition to the Q, analysis of the G indicated that exercises such as the vertical jump and cone hop resulted in greater motor unit recruitment than single-leg jumps or depth jumps and that exercises such as the tuck jump, ankle hop, and box jump all resulted in greater motor unit recruitment than the 61-cm depth jump. These ndings also contrast with a number of anecdotal recommendations regarding exercise intensity (19) and previous research examining kinetic variables of plyometric intensity (14,15). Research has previously demonstrated that single-leg jumps produce the greatest landing impulse (15), yet the present study demonstrated that this exercise produces less IEMG than exercises such as the cone hop, tuck jump, vertical jump, squat jump with 30% of the squat load, and box jumps (14). Similarly, previous research demonstrated that the single-leg jump, pike jump, and tuck jump produce the greatest knee joint reaction, but in the present study, these exercises produced less IEMG than a number of other plyometrics (15). Although not always meeting the level of statistical signicance, in all post hoc analyses of the Q and G muscle groups, the bilateral vertical jump resulted in higher average levels of motor unit recruitment than the single-leg jump, the unloaded vertical jump resulted in more motor unit recruitment than squat jumps with 30% of subjects squat load, and in all but one post hoc evaluation, the 30-cm depth jump resulted in higher levels of motor unit recruitment than the 61-cm depth jump. Thus, in conditions of greater loading because of singleleg jumping, added mass, or greater drop distance, motor unit recruitment is surprisingly lower. These ndings contrast with previous research by Zazulak et al. (34), who demonstrated that single-leg landing from depth jumps of greater height produced more EMG activity than lower depth jumps. Similarly, others have demonstrated greater EMG activity during one-legged versus two-legged jumps (24,29). Schmidtbleicher (25) previously reported that exercises with increasing stretching loads result in a reduction in muscle activation and surface EMG. Thus, it is not surprising that jumps with added mass, depth jumps, and single-leg jumps produced low EMG values compared with other plyometric exercises in this study. Explanations of the results of the present study include the possibility that increased loading selectively activates passive force-producing structures of the strength shortening cycle more than the stretch reex, which would increase motor unit recruitment. Previous research evaluating the squat demonstrated

RESULTS
Table 2 depicts the signicant main effect for the Q when all subjects were analyzed, as well as for separate analysis of men, women, subjects with vertical jumps greater than 50 cm, and those whose vertical jump was less than or equal to 50 cm (p # 0.05). Signicant main effects were also found for the G muscle group when all subjects were analyzed, as well as for men and those with vertical jumps greater than 50 cm (p # 0.05). No signicant main effects were found for the H muscle group. Bonferonni adjusted pairwise comparison of specic plyometric exercise are presented for the Q muscle groups in Tables 37 and for the G muscle group in Tables 810. Data are presented in each Table from high to low mean values.

DISCUSSION
This is the rst study to comprehensively evaluate motor unit recruitment associated with plyometric exercises. Whereas numerous studies demonstrate the effectiveness of plyometrics, little is known about how these exercises differ. Studies attempting to quantify the differences among plyometric exercises are typically limited to evaluating kinetic or kinematic variables of one or two variations (10,21,22,28). Only two studies (14,15) have evaluated several plyometric exercises in an attempt to evaluate their qualitative differences. These studies have focused on kinetic data such as ground and knee joint reaction forces and impulse. These kinetic variables are an important for further understanding of plyometric intensity. However, studies examining EMG activity, in particular, have previously only assessed variations of a single exercise (3,5,11,24,29,34). Results of the present study suggest that Q IEMG varies among a number of plyometric exercises. When all subjects were analyzed, exercises such as cone hops, box jumps, and tuck jumps resulted in more Q IEMG than exercises such as the single-leg jump, and depth jumps from 30- and 61-cm boxes. Similarly, the vertical jump stimulates more Q IEMG than either of the depth jumps, and ankle hops offer more Q IEMG than depth jumps from 61-cm boxes. In fact, depth jumps resulted in the lowest mean Q IEMG of all the exercises assessed. From the standpoint of motor unit recruitment, these nding contrast with previous anecdotal recommendations that depth jumps are the highest intensity form of

866

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

the

TM

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

increased power output during the concentric phase, despite steady Q EMG, suggesting that force production may be a function of factors other than motor unit recruitment (27). Theoretically, conditions of higher loading could increase the eccentric and amortization phases, limiting the role of the stretch reex but not the recovery of passive force. In contrast, Bobbert et al. (3) ruled out stored elastic energy as an explanation for greater jump heights when comparing jumps with and without counter-movements. Another explanation may be that plyometric exercises with the greatest overload result in greater eccentric Q:H activation ratios, resulting in Q-induced anterior tibial shear and lengthening of the anterior cruciate ligament, which has been thought to trigger the anterior cruciate ligament muscle reex arc (26), potentially inhibiting the Q IEMG. Hamstring EMG activity was highly variable among subjects, which most likely mitigated a nding of main effects. This variation may be the result of biomechanical differences in landing strategies and their effect on the moments of resistive force and external torque. Large intersubject variability in H recruitment did not change when data were analyzed based on gender and jumping ability. Scientic evaluation of plyometric exercises is necessary to design programs with progressive intensity for optimal performance and/or rehabilitation of injuries. This study, along with previous research (14,15), demonstrates that anecdotal observations regarding plyometric intensity have limitations. Although not customary, it may be instructive to compare the means of the pairwise comparisons from this study (Tables 310) even when statistical signicance was not attained, because it is likely that these averages are more evidential than common anecdotal recommendations regarding plyometric intensity. Although evaluating many plyometric exercises is necessary, it is a challenge because the family-wise error rate of multiple comparisons and the Bonferonni adjustment may resulted in an inated type II error. Despite approximately threefold differences in mean IEMG of some of the exercises, no signicance was found in other cases. Plyometric intensity may be evaluated according to a number of variables. Because the relative intensity of plyometric exercises differs according to the kinetic and kinematic variables assessed (14,15), understanding intensity is not a simple matter. Thus, we propose a paradigm by which plyometrics are evaluated according to either variables of performance enhancement or rehabilitation. For example, to understand the role of plyometrics in performance enhancement, variables such as rate of force development, rate of force development during the time to takeoff, eccentric rate of force development, peak power, reactive strength index, and motor unit recruitment may be useful. However, variables such as ground reaction force, joint reaction force, time to stabilization, and motor unit recruitment may be more useful for quantifying plyometric intensity for pre/rehabilitation. Future research should focus

the

TM

| www.nsca-jscr.org

on further quantifying these variables of intensity. Ultimately, because plyometric intensity varies according to the variables assessed, practitioners could use the result of analysis that is most applicable to the needs of those they serve.

PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS
Quantifying plyometric exercise intensity is important to optimally progress this form of exercise for developing athletic ability, injury prevention, and rehabilitation. Understanding plyometric intensity requires consideration of a variety of kinetic variables and motor unit recruitment. Results of this study provide information about the degree of motor unit recruitment associated with various plyometric exercises. If motor unit recruitment is the primary goal of the plyometric program, the ndings of this study presented in Tables 310 should be considered. Selection of the exercises offering the greatest motor unit recruitment should be prioritized in the program design. Future research may further evaluate plyometric intensity by examining a variety of kinetic variables.

REFERENCES
1. Adams, K, OShea, JP, OShea, KL, and Climstein, M. The effect of six weeks of squat, plyometric, and squat plyometric training on power production. J Appl Sports Sci Res 1: 3641, 1992. 2. Bauer, JJ, Fuchs, RK, Smith, GA, and Snow, CM. Quantifying force magnitude and loading rate from drop landings that induce osteogenesis. J Appl Biomech 17: 142152, 2001. 3. Bobbert, MF, Gerritsen, KG, Litjens, MC, and Van Soest, CM. Why is countermovement jump height greater than squat jump height? Med Sci Sports Exerc 28: 14021412, 1996. 4. Chimera, NJ, Swanik, KA, Swanik, CB, and Straub, SJ. Effects of plyometric training on muscle-activation strategies and performance in woman athletes. J Athl Train 39: 2431, 2004. 5. Croce, RV, Russell, PJ, Swartz, EE, and Decoster, LC. Knee muscular response strategies differ by developmental level but not gender during landing. Electryopmyogr Clin Neurophysiol 44:339348, 2004. 6. Delecluse C, Van Coppenolle, CH, Willems, E, Van Leemputte, M, Diels, R, and Goris, M. Inuence of high resistance and high velocity training on sprint performance. Med Sci Sports Exerc 27: 12031209, 1995. 7. Duke, S and BenEliyahu, D. Plyometrics: optimizing athletic performance through the development of power as assessed by vertical leap abilityan observational study. Chiropract Sports Med 6: 1015, 1992. 8. Fatouros, IG, Jamurtas, AZ, Leontsini, D, Taxildaris, K, Aggelousis, N, Kostopoulos, N, and Buckenmeyer, P. Evaluation of plyometric exercise training, weight training, and their combination on vertical jump performance and leg strength. J Strength Cond Res 14:470476, 2000. 9. Ford, HT, Puckett, JR, Drummand, JP, Sawyer, K, and Gantt, K. Effects of three combinations of plyometric and weight training programs on select physical tness test items. Percept Motor Skills 56: 919922, 1983. 10. Fowler, NE and Lees, A. A comparison of the kinetic and kinematic characteristics of plyometric drop-jump and pendulum exercises. J Appl Biomech 14: 260275, 1998. 11. Garrison, JC, Hart, JM, Palmieri, M, Riann, D, Kerrigan, D, and Casey, D. Lower extremity EMG in man and woman collegiate soccer players during single leg landing. J Sport Rehabil 14: 4857, 2005.
VOLUME 22 | NUMBER 3 | MAY 2008 |

867

Evaluation of Plyometric Intensity Using Electromyography

12. Hewett, TE, Lindenfeld, TN, Riccobene, JV, and Noyes, FR. The effect of neuromuscular training on incidence of knee injury in woman athletes: a prospective study. Am J Sports Med 27: 699706, 1999. 13. Hewett, TE, Stroupe, AL, Nance, TA, and Noyes, FR. Plyometric training in woman athletes: decreased impact forces and increased hamstring torques. Am J Sports Med 24: 765773, 1996. 14. Jensen, RL and Ebben, WP. Effects of plyometric variations on jumping impulse. Med Sci Sports Exerc 34: S84, 2002. 15. Jensen, RL and Ebben, WP. Ground and knee joint reaction forces during variation of plyometric exercises. In: Proceedings of the XXIII International Symposium of the Society of Biomechanics in Sports Gianikellis, KE, ed. Beijing, China; 2005. pp. 222225. 16. Lyttle, AD, Wilson, GJ, and Ostrowski, KJ. Enhancing performance: maximal power versus combined weights and plyometric training. J Strength Cond Res 10: 173179, 1996. 17. McLaughlin, EJ. A comparison between two training programs and their effects on fatigue rates in women. J Strength Cond Res 15: 2529, 2001. 18. Polhemus, R and Burkhardt, E. Effects of plyometric training drills on the physical strength gains of collegiate football players. Natl Strength Cond Assoc J 2: 1417, 1980. 19. Potach, DH and Chu, DA. Plyometric training. In: Essentials of Strength Training and Conditioning. Baechle, TR, and Earle, RW, eds. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 2000. pp. 427470. 20. Potteiger, JA, Lockwood, RH, Haub, MD, Dolezal, BA, Almuzaini, KS, Schroeder, JM, and Zebas, CJ. Muscle power and ber characteristics following 8 weeks of plyometric training. J Strength Cond Res 13: 275279, 1999. 21. Prapavessis, H, McNair, PJ, Anderson, K, and Hohepa, M. Decreasing landing forces in children: the effect of instructions. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 33: 204207, 2003. 22. Raynor, AJ and Seng, TY. Kinetic analysis of the drop jump: the effect of drop height. In: AIESEP Singapore 1997 World Conference on Teaching, Coaching and Fitness Needs in Physical Education and the Sports Science Proceedings. Walkusji, JJ, ed. Singapore; 1997. pp. 480486. 23. Rimmer, E and Sleivert, G. Effects of a plyometric intervention program on sprint performance. J Strength Cond Res 14(3): 295301, 2000. 24. Row, BS. The One-Legged and Two-Legged Vertical Jumps: A Temporal, Kinetic and Electromyographic Analysis. Eugene, OR: Microform Publications; 1999. 25. Schmidtbleicher, D. Training for power events. In: Strength and Power in Sport. P.V. Komi, ed. Boston: Blackwell Scientic; 1992. pp. 381395. 26. Solomonow, M, Baratta, R, Zhou, BH, Shoji, H, Bose, W, Beck, C, and DAmbrosia, R. The synergistic action of the anterior cruciate ligament and thigh muscles in maintaining joint stability. Am J Sports Med 15: 207213, 1987. 27. Takarada, Y, Hirano, Y, Ishige, Y, and Ishi, N. Stretch-induced enhancement of mechanical power output in human multijoint exercise with a countermovement. J Appl Physiol 83: 17491755, 1997. 28. Tsarouchas, L, Giavroglou, A, Kalamaras, K, and Prassas, S. The variability of vertical ground reaction forces during unloaded and loaded drop jumping. In: Biomechanics in Sports: Proceedings of the 12th Symposium of the International Society of Biomechanics in Sports. Budapest: International Society of Biomechanics in Sports; 1995. pp. 311314. 29. Van Soest, AJ, Roebroeck, ME, Bobbert, ME, Huijing, MF, Van Ingen, PA, and Schenau, GJ. A comparison of one-legged and two-legged counter-movement jumps. Med Sci Sports Exerc 17: 635639, 1985. 30. Vossen, JF, Kramer, JE, Burke, DG, and Vossen, DP. Comparison of dynamic push-up training on upper body power and strength. J. Strength Cond Res 14: 248253, 2000. 31. Wilkerson, GB, Colston, MA, Short, NI, Neal, KL, Hoewischer, PE, and Pixley, JJ. Neuromuscular changes in woman collegiate athletes resulting from a plyometric jump-training program. J Athl Train 39: 1723, 2004. 32. Wilson, GJ, Murphy, AJ, and Giorgi, A. Weight and plyometric training: effects on eccentric and concentric force production. Can J Appl Physiol 21: 301315, 1996. 33. Witzke, KA and Snow, CM. Effect of plyometric exercise on bone mass in adolescent girls. Med Sci Sports Exerc 32: 10511057, 2000. 34. Zazulak, BT, Ponce, PL, Straub, SJ, Medvecky, MJ, Avedisian, L, and Hewett, TE. Gender comparison of hip muscle activity during single leg landing. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 35: 292299, 2005.

868

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

the

TM