Yeah here are a few relevant to the topic:
Why is countermovement jump height greater than squat jump height?
Bobbert MF, Gerritsen KG, Litjens MC, Van Soest AJ.
Institute for Fundamental and Clinical Movement Sciences, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. M_F_Bobbert@fbw.vu.nl
Abstract
In the literature, it is well established that subjects are able to jump higher in a countermovement jump (CMJ) than in a squat jump (SJ). The purpose of this study was to estimate the relative contribution of the time available for force development and the storage and reutilization of elastic energy to the enhancement of performance in CMJ compared with SJ. Six male volleyball players performed CMJ and SJ. Kinematics, kinetics, and muscle electrical activity (EMG) from six muscles of the lower extremity were monitored. It was found that even when the body position at the start of push-off was the same in SJ as in CMJ, jump height was on average 3.4 cm greater in CMJ. The possibility that nonoptimal coordination in SJ explained the difference in jump height was ruled out: there were no signs of movement disintegration in SJ, and toe-off position was the same in SJ as in CMJ. The greater jump height in CMJ was attributed to the fact that the countermovement allowed the subjects to attain greater joint moments at the start of push-off. As a consequence, joint moments were greater over the first part of the range of joint extension in CMJ, so that more work could be produced than in SJ. To explain this finding, measured and manipulated kinematics and electromyographic activity were used as input for a model of the musculoskeletal system. According to simulation results, storage and reutilization of elastic energy could be ruled out as explanation for the enhancement of performance in CMJ over that in SJ. The crucial contribution of the countermovement seemed to be that it allowed the muscles to build up a high level of active state (fraction of attached cross-bridges) and force before the start of shortening, so that they were able to produce more work over the first part of their shortening distance Lateral gastrocnemius thickness was the strongest predictor of absolute power for all jump types and between jump types (SJ: r2 = 0.181, p = 0.034; CMJ: r2 = 0.201, p = 0.014; DDJ: r2 = 0.122, p = 0.049; CMJ-SJ: r2 = 0.201, p = 0.014; DDJ-CMJ: r2 = 0.146, p = 0.034). Lateral gastrocnemius pennation angle was also the best predictor of relative power for all 3 jump types and between jump types (SJ: r2 = 0.172, p = 0.038; CMJ: r2 = 0.416, p = 0.000; DDJ: r2 = 0.167, p = 0.024; CMJ-SJ: r2 = 0.391, p = 0.000; DDJ-CMJ: r2 = 0.136, p = 0.039). Results for jump performance differ from those previously found for sprinting in that greater pennation and shorter fascicles, positively predicting jumping ability at increased prestretch loads reinforcing the need for training specificity. Our findings in resistance-trained men indicate that where jumping is vital to athletic success one can benefit from developing LG muscle architecture along with addressing eccentric strength.
Mechanical and muscular factors influencing the performance in maximal vertical jumping after different prestretch loads.
Voigt M, Simonsen EB, Dyhre-Poulsen P, Klausen K.
Department of Medical Anatomy, Panum Institute, University of Copenhagen, Denmark.
Abstract
The objective of the present work was to study the interaction between the tendon elasticity, the muscle activation-loading dynamics, specific actions of the biarticular muscles, preloading and jumping performance during maximal vertical jumping. Six male expert jumpers participated in the study. They performed maximal vertical jumps with five different preloads. The kinematics and dynamics of the jumping movements were analysed from force plate and high speed film recordings. The amount of elastic energy stored in the tendons of the leg extensor muscles was calculated by a generalised tendon model, and the muscle coordination was analysed by surface EMG. The best jumping performances were achieved in the jumps with low preloads (counter movement jumps and drop jumps from 0.3 m). A considerable amount of the energy imposed on the legs by prestretch loading was stored in the tendons (26 +/- 3%), but the increased performance could not be explained by a contribution of elastic energy to the positive work performed during the push off. During the preloading, the involved muscles were activated at the onset of the loading. Slow prestretches at the onset of muscle activation under relatively low average stretch loads, as observed during counter movement jumps and drop jumps from 0.3 m, prevented excessive stretching of the muscle fibres in relation to the tendon length changes. This consequently conserved the potential of the muscle fibres to produce positive work during the following muscle-tendon shortening in concert with the release of the tendon strain energy. A significant increase in the activity of m. rectus femoris between jumps with and without prestretch indicated a pronounced action of m. rectus femoris in a transport of mechanical energy produced by the proximal monoarticular m. gluteus maximus at the hip to the knee and thereby enhanced the transformation of rotational joint work to translational work on the mass centre of the body. The changes in muscle activity were reflected in the net muscle powers. Vertical jumping is like most movements constrained by the intended direction of the movement. The movements of the body segments during the prestretches induced a forward rotation and during the take off, a backward rotation of the body. A reciprocal shift in the activities of the biarticular m. rectus femoris and m. semitendinosus indicated that these rotations were counteracted by changes in the direction of the resultant ground reaction vector controlled by these muscles.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)
