The Effect of Dynamic versus Static Stretching
Warm-up on Muscle Performance as Measured by
Vertical Jump in NCAA Division III Basketball Players
ALVERNIA UNIVERSITY ATHLETIC TRAINING PROGRAM
ALLISON AUSTIN, DEVIN EBY, ALEX LAMANNA, PATRICK MURRAY, JOSEPH PACCAGNINI, DUSTIN STUCK, ALISSA YENSER
FACULTY ADVISORS: DR. KIMBERLY STOUDT AND PROFESSOR WILLIAM THORNE
Abstract

The purpose of this research project was to examine the effect of static and
dynamic warm-up on muscle performance measured by vertical jump height.
Although both warm-up methods are widely recognized, there is no consensus
about their effect on performance. In this study, researchers measured the jump
height of NCAA Division III male and female basketball players after completion of
each of three different warm-up protocols (jogging only; jogging + static stretch;
jogging + dynamic stretch). The following statistically significant (p < 0.05) results
were obtained: 1) male jump heights were greater than female jump heights in
each of the three protocols (95% confidence interval of the difference was
typically 6 to 13 inches); 2) in direct comparison, the dynamic stretching protocol
resulted in increased jump heights relative to the static stretching protocol,
although the improvement was less than one inch. However, when comparing all
three protocols simultaneously, ANOVA results were not significant: none of the
protocols could be distinguished from the others (n = 14). It was also found that
jump heights were generally negatively correlated with the height of the
individual, although not significantly.
Purpose

The purpose of this research project was to examine the effects of static and
dynamic stretching on muscle performance as measured by vertical jump
performance.
Background

Warm ups are essential for increasing muscle temperature, muscular blood flow
and physiological responses.1

Warm ups are vital to injury prevention by reducing tissue stiffness, improving
range of motion and preventing lesions in muscles, and regulating the functional
balance of the musculoskeletal system.2

The window before physical activity is crucial for injury prevention because until
the athlete’s body is properly warmed up the body is at a high risk for injury.3

Static stretching is when elongation of the muscles occur with tension past its
resting length.2

Dynamic stretching facilitates power, sprint and jump performance with minimal
to no adverse effects.4

Dynamic stretching is expected to be superior to static stretching due to the
similarities to movements during the subsequent exercises.4

A vertical jump is a simple and effective representation of a muscles maximum
explosive performance in a single movement.5
Materials

Vertec - vertical jump
height measuring device

Apple iPhone
stopwatches

Demographic/Injury
History Questionnaire

Data Collection Sheets for
Vertical Jump
Performance

Hydration Station
Methods1

Method A:



5 minute paced jog around the
perimeter of a collegiate
basketball court
Method B:

5 minute paced jog followed by
static stretching protocol

Protocol consisted of 5 different
stretches held for 15 seconds
each repeated twice
Method C:

5 minute paced jog followed by
dynamic warm-up protocol

Protocol consisted of 12
different exercises performed
for 15 meters each repeated
twice



Inclusion Criteria
Participants

Male or Female, 18-54 years of age

Healthy collegiate basketball players
cleared for athletic participation by a
physician
Exclusion Criteria

Athletes that had not been cleared by
a physician for full participation in
athletics

Athletic Training Students enrolled in
courses instructed by AT Faculty
Advisor
This Investigation

23 Total Participants

Men’s and Women’s NCAA Division III
Basketball Teams

9 Females completed all 3 methods

5 Males completed all 3 methods
Research Questions

RQ1: Are there statistically significant differences in vertical jump height among
the three warm up protocols (A = jogging only; B = jogging + static stretch; C =
jogging + dynamic stretch)?

RQ2: Are there statistically significant differences in vertical jump height, for any of
the three protocols, depending on gender?

RQ3: Is there any interactive effect for vertical jump height between the three
protocols and gender? (i.e. Is there a different change in height, depending on
protocol, between genders?)
Paired Change in Jump Height
Overall Mean Difference
(in)
Paired Change in Jump Height (M+F)
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
-0.20
-0.40
A-->B
B-->C
A-->C
Warm-up Method Comparisons

Paired data was used due to jump heights being dependent on the same
individuals being tested 3 times.

A vs. B vs. C: p > 0.05 We cannot say that there is a significant difference between
either of the stretching methods and the jogging only method.

Used only the n = 14 individuals (9F + 5M) who performed in all three methods

When comparing A vs. B: p > 0.05 (n=16) there was no statistical significance

When comparing B vs. C: p = 0.045 < 0.05 (n=14) there was minor statistical
significance

When comparing A vs. C: p > 0.05 (n=17) there was no statistical significance
Change in Jump Height by
Gender
Overall Mean Height (in)
Jump Height vs Warm-up Method
35
30
25
20
15
Female
10
Male
5
0
A
B
C
Warm-up Method

Method A (M vs. F): p = 0.000 (significantly different, n = 11F, 12M). 95% confidence
interval of the difference in the means: 5 – 13 inches.

Method B (M vs. F): p = 0.000 (significantly different, n = 9F, 7M). 95% confidence interval
of the difference in the means: 7 – 13 inches.

Method C (M vs. F): p = 0.000 (significantly different, n = 10F, 7M). 95% confidence interval
of the difference in the means: 6 – 14 inches.

Method A vs. B vs. C (M vs. F): p = 0.000 (significantly different, n = 9F, 5M). Consequently,
the individual method results, above, are all valid.
Interactive Effects Between
Gender

Interactive Effect (Method*Gender): p > 0.05 (no significant interactive effect,
n = 9F, 5M)
Conclusions

Male jump heights were greater than female jump heights in each of the three
protocols (95% confidence interval of the difference was typically 6 to 13 inches).

The dynamic stretching protocol resulted in increased jump heights relative to the
static stretching protocol, although the improvement was less than one inch.

ANOVA results were not significant: none of the protocols could be distinguished
from the others (n = 14).

Jump heights were generally negatively correlated with the height of the
individual, although not significantly.

Comparing only methods B vs. C there was minor statistical significance
Future Considerations

A larger sample size is recommended to increase possible significance level.

Include sample that more equally represents both male and female participants.

Conduct research study in the off-season for each sport included.

Expand research to include multiple sports.
1.
Gelen E. Acute effects of different warm-up methods on jump performance in children.
Biology Of Sport [serial online]. June 2011;28(2):133-138. Available from: SPORTDiscus,
Ipswich, MA. Accessed November 9, 2014.
2.
Sotiropoulos K, Smilios I, Tokmakidis S, et al. Effects of warm-up on vertical jump
performance and muscle electrical activity using half-squats at low and moderate
intensity. Journal Of Sports Science & Medicine [serial online]. June 2010;9(2):326-331.
Available from: SPORTDiscus, Ipswich, MA. Accessed October 6, 2014.
3.
Bruno L. Franco,1,* Gabriel R. Signorelli,2,* Gabriel S. Trajano,4,* Pablo B. Costa,3,[env]* and
Carlos G. de Oliveira5, 2012. “Acute Effects of Three Different Stretching Protocols on the
Wingate Test Performance” Journal of Sports Science and Medicine , Accessed October 6,
2014
4.
Samson M, Button D, Chaouachi A, Behm D. Effects of dynamic and static stretching within
general and activity specific warm-up protocols. Journal Of Sports Science & Medicine
[serial online]. June 2012;11(2):279-285. Available from: SPORTDiscus, Ipswich, MA.
5.
Murphy J, Di Santo M, Alkanani T, Behm D. Aerobic activity before and following shortduration static stretching improves range of motion and performance vs. a traditional
warm-up. Applied Physiology, Nutrition & Metabolism [serial online]. October
2010;35(5):679-690. Available from: SPORTDiscus, Ipswich, MA. Accessed October 27, 2014.