(42) THE RELATIONSHIP AMONG VERTICAL JUMP HEIGHT, SPRINT TIME, AND FATIGUE INDEX IN COLLEGE STUDENTS

Peak anaerobic performance and anaerobic capacity are both important parameters in sports, especially those requiring short-duration maximal efforts. Previous researchers have found a significant relationship between the vertical jump and sprint performance. However, there is limited research on the relationship between peak anaerobic performance and resistance to fatigue.

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare peak jumping and sprinting performance to fatigue index (FI) during the running-based anaerobic sprint test (RAST).

Methods: Apparently healthy, active college-aged males and females (n = 18, age = 20.7 ± 1.1 yrs, height = 171.4 ± 7.8 cm, mass = 70.3 ± 15.4 kg) participated in this study. Following a standardized warmup, participants completed three maximal countermovement jumps (CMJs) interspersed with 30-60 sec of rest. Reach and peak jump heights were measured using a Vertec Jump Trainer with jump height (JH) calculated as the difference between standing reach height and peak jump reach height. A Tendo Weightlifting Analyzer recorded peak concentric values for jumping power (PPJ), velocity (PVJ), and force (PFJ) during the jumps. The Tendo was attached to the back of a vest in a position just superior to the waist. The jump with the greatest JH was used for analysis. Following CMJ testing, participants completed the RAST, which involves 6 maximal 35-meter sprints interspersed with 10 seconds of recovery. Sprint time was recorded and used to calculate mean velocity (MVS), force (MFS), and power (MPS) for all sprints, with force, velocity, and power from the fastest sprint used for analysis. FI was calculated as (max sprint power – minimum sprint power)/ total sprint time. Pearson product-moment correlations assessed the relationship between peak jump and sprint measures and FI (p < 0.05).

Results: Strong linear relationships were noted between FI and MPS (r = 0.91, p < 0.001), FI and MVS (r = 0.85, p < 0.001), and FI and MFS (r = 0.837, p < 0.001), indicating that a greater FI was present in those with greater maximal single sprint performance. Moderate correlations were found between FI and peak CMJ variables (PVJ: r = 0.54, p = 0.02; JH: r = 0.50, p = 0.036). Modest, non-significant correlations were found between FI and PPJ (r = 0.45, p = 0.062) and FI and PFJ (r = 0.32, p = 0.19). Body mass (BM) was not a significant predictor of FI (r = 0.24, p = 0.34).

Conclusion: Participants with greater sprint force, velocity, and power also had a higher degree of fatigue during the RAST. Similarly, those with greater CMJ velocity and JH also had a greater FI. BM did not appear to influence rate of fatigue, as BM and FI were weakly correlated. Therefore, greater peak anaerobic performance did not predict resistance to fatigue as they appear to be positively correlated. Training status and subject heterogeneity may have contributed to these data. PRACTICAL APPLICATION: As peak anaerobic capacity and fatigue index are both important parameters in sport and fitness performance, coaches and practitioners should analyze these factors separately. As those with greater maximal anaerobic performance also fatigued to a greater degree, training programs should emphasize desired adaptations.

Acknowledgements: NONE.