
Countermovement Jump Protocol: A Practical Guide
A repeatable field setup for the jump test, with the choices that make a score worth keeping.
Notes on studies, testing, training and the quieter decisions that shape performance over time.

Every note names its source trail and its practical boundary.

A repeatable field setup for the jump test, with the choices that make a score worth keeping.

Velocity feedback can sharpen load decisions, but the research does not support a universal replacement for percentage-based training.

A force-velocity profile is a model of a task, not a complete portrait of an athlete.
Wearables can make sleep visible, but a neat readiness number can hide uncertainty in the measurement.

A timing gate is only as useful as the start rule, distance, surface and repeatability around it.

Screens can organise a conversation about movement. They cannot predict an individual future from one score.

A deload is a change in training stress made for a reason, not a ritual week on a calendar.

Threshold is a useful training idea only when the intensity, duration and purpose are named.

The quality of a jump or landing session depends on more than a contact count.

A sensor can collect data without making the interpretation valid.

Observe the landing task in context before assigning a label to the athlete.

Readiness is a decision context made from repeated signals, not a coloured ring on a dashboard.

Running economy is a relationship between speed and cost, not a single technique cue.

A test that cannot repeat under the same conditions should not drive a precise decision.

A short reading workflow for moving from an abstract to a decision without overstating the evidence.

Velocity loss can describe fatigue within a set, but a cut-off is not a universal prescription.

Sleep advice becomes useful when it begins with opportunity, regularity and the person’s real schedule.

HRV is a signal shaped by measurement conditions, physiology and life outside training.