Countermovement jump performance
CONTRACTION, CONTRACTION
A two-way ANOVA did not show a significant interaction (F = 0.815; p = 0.562) but a significant main effect of condition (F = 3.058; p = 0.042) and time (F = 24.041; p < 0.001) for jump height was found. The post-hoc comparisons for the main effect of the condition indicated significantly higher CMJ heights during the WBV condition in comparison to the CTRL condition (p = 0.043; ES = 0.31). Whereas the post-hoc comparisons for the main effect of time showed that significantly higher CMJ heights were reached in post-RUN compared to pre-WU (p < 0.001; ES = 0.53) and post-WU (p = 0.001; ES = 0.42) (Fig. Jump height values during countermovement jump performance at subsequent time points.A two-way ANOVA did not show a significant interaction (F = 0.703; p = 0.55) or main effect of condition (F = 0.762; p = 0.523) but a significant main effect of time (F = 9.249; p = 0.001) for relative peak power was found. The post-hoc comparisons for the main effect of time showed significantly greater RPP in post-RUN compared to pre-WU (p = 0.025; ES = 0.39) and post-C (p = 0.002; ES = 0.48) (Fig. Relative peak power values during countermovement jump performance at subsequent time points.A two-way ANOVA did not show a significant interaction (F = 1.408; p = 0.225) or main effect of condition (F = 0.451; p = 0.718) and time (F = 0.465; p = 0.634) for contraction time (Fig. Contraction time values during countermovement jump performance at subsequent time points.