(13) OPTIMAL LOAD FOR PEAK POWER OUTPUT IN THE COUNTERMOVEMENT JUMP - PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR ATHLETES OF DIFFERENT STRENGTH LEVELS

Purpose: Although previous research has contributed to defining the optimal load to maximize concentric peak power output (PPO) in the countermovement jump (CMJ), the difference between athletes presenting various levels of strength remains uncertain. The purpose of this study was to determine the optimal load range for PPO during the CMJ while controlling for relative strength levels. Methods: Twelve participants (age 27 ± 4 years; height 172 ± 9.4 cm; body mass 78.3 ± 7.8 kg) completed an incremental CMJ test, performing three jumps per loading condition with loads corresponding to 0, 10, 20, 30, 40, and 50% of body weight. Additionally, participants completed three isometric mid-thigh pull (IMTP) trials. PPO and peak isometric force were measured using force plates sampling at 1000 Hz. Results: Participants were ranked above and below the 50th percentile based on relative peak isometric force and subsequently divided into two groups: above average (TOP: 38.7 ± 2.6 N/kg) and below average (LOW: 31.4 ± 3.5 N/kg). A repeated measures ANOVA was conducted to determine differences in PPO across loading conditions. A significant main effect for load was observed (p < 0.01). Results of the Bonferroni-adjusted pairwise comparisons indicated that PPO was significantly higher in the LOW group at 20–30% of body weight compared to 0–10% and 40% body weight (p < 0.01), with no significant difference between 20% and 30% (p = 0.645). In the TOP group, PPO was significantly higher at 30–40% of body weight compared to 0–20% and 50% of body weight (p < 0.01), with no significant difference between 30% and 40% (p = 0.645). Conclusions: These findings suggest that optimal loading for maximizing PPO in the CMJ varies based on relative strength levels. Athletes with greater relative strength may benefit from training with higher loads (30–40% body weight) to maximize PPO, whereas athletes with lower relative strength may benefit from lower loads (20–30% body weight). Practical Applications: Identifying individualized optimal loads in the countermovement jump while taking into consideration athletes' strength levels can help strength and conditioning professionals develop targeted power training strategies to enhance neuromuscular performance. Acknowledgements: None