Eccentric Utilization Ratio [EUR]: A Misunderstood metric in sport performance?
- Whistle Performance
- Mar 30
- 6 min read
If you have spent any time in a high-performance weight room or a sports science lab, you know that vertical jump testing is a foundational staple for assessing an athlete's lower-body explosive power. The two most common tests used to measure this are the Countermovement Jump (CMJ) and the Squat Jump (SJ). But what happens when you compare the data between the two?
Enter the Eccentric Utilization Ratio (EUR).
For years, coaches have used the EUR to unlock the secrets of an athlete's stretch-shortening cycle (SSC) and elastic energy usage. But recent sports biomechanics research has completely flipped the script on how we interpret this data. Here is a comprehensive, detailed guide on what the EUR is, how to measure it, the traditional way it was applied, and the paradigm-shifting science that is changing how we view it today.
What is the EUR and How Do You Measure It?
The Eccentric Utilization Ratio is simply the ratio between an athlete's Countermovement Jump and Squat Jump performance. While it is most commonly calculated using jump height, it can also be calculated using peak force or peak power.
The Formula: EUR = CMJ / SJ
How to test it:
The Squat Jump (SJ): The athlete descends into a squat (typically a 90-degree knee angle), holds that position completely still for roughly 3 seconds to eliminate any elastic momentum, and then jumps as high as possible without any downward dip.
The Countermovement Jump (CMJ): The athlete starts from a standing position, drops rapidly into a squat (also to about 90 degrees), and immediately explodes upward.
The Equipment: You can measure this using gold-standard equipment like a force plate, or accessible tools like jump mats, optical sensors, or validated smartphone apps.
The Traditional View: The Badge of Elastic Honor
Because of the downward "dip" in a CMJ, athletes can preload their muscles and tendons, meaning CMJ heights are typically 5% to 15% higher than SJ heights.
Traditionally, a higher EUR was viewed as a highly desirable trait. It was believed to reflect an athlete's superior ability to effectively store and reuse elastic energy through the stretch-shortening cycle (SSC) during the braking phase of the jump. Many practitioners aimed for an "ideal" EUR of approximately 1.1, meaning the CMJ should be about 10% higher than the SJ.
The Traditional Application: Coaches historically used the EUR to dictate training programs and track training status:
Sport-Specific Monitoring: Research from 2006 found that athletes in sports heavily reliant on stretch-shortening activities (like soccer, rugby union, and Australian Rules Football) naturally displayed higher EUR values compared to athletes in sports like softball.
Tracking Training Phases: The EUR was shown to be sensitive to different phases of the training year. For example, field hockey and rugby athletes exhibited a significant increase in their EUR from the off-season to the pre-season, reflecting a transition toward higher volumes of power and SSC-focused training.
The Plot Twist: What Modern Science Says
While the traditional view makes intuitive sense, modern biomechanical research has thrown a massive wrench into the gears. Scientists are now arguing that a high EUR might actually not be beneficial at all.
Why? It fundamentally comes down to why the CMJ is higher than the SJ. Recent theories suggest that the difference is not just about storing "elastic energy." Instead, the countermovement allows the muscles to build up a pre-contraction active state (force and tension) before the upward propulsive phase even begins.
Therefore, a massive EUR might not mean an athlete has an incredible Countermovement Jump; it might simply be the result of a terrible Squat Jump.
If an athlete performs poorly on the SJ, it is often due to a low Rate of Force Development (RFD) and high "muscle slack" (loose muscle-tendon units that take time to tighten up before force can be transmitted). These athletes fundamentally need the running start of a countermovement just to build up tension and force before they leave the ground.
The Evidence:
Poor Rate of Force Development: An exploratory study demonstrated a moderate negative correlation between EUR (based on peak force or peak power) and RFD in the Squat Jump. This suggests that athletes with a higher EUR actually have a decreased ability to rapidly develop force from a dead stop.
The Elite Jumper Paradox: A massive study of 770 participants found that ordinary physical education students actually had the highest EUR (approx. 1.19). Meanwhile, elite track and field athletes—who jumped significantly higher overall—had some of the lowest EURs (approx. 1.13). Because the track athletes' raw, dead-stop Squat Jumps were so powerful and stiff, their ratio was lower.
Lack of Correlation to On-Field Performance: A study on elite volleyball players investigated whether EUR correlated with linear sprints, approach jumps, and change-of-direction (CoD) ability. The results? The EUR showed only small, insignificant associations with these performance metrics (r = 0.31–0.34). In linear regression models, the raw CMJ height was consistently the only significant predictor of athletic performance.
Lack of Sensitivity in Untrained Athletes: An 8-week study on college-aged males compared weight training, plyometrics, and weightlifting. While raw jump height and power improved (especially in the weightlifting group), the EUR did not significantly change. This suggests that EUR might not be a sensitive or useful metric for recreationally active populations, or that it takes much longer than 8 weeks to alter.
How to Apply the EUR Today
Does this mean you should completely throw the EUR in the trash? The overwhelming consensus in recent literature suggests that coaches should probably not use the EUR for decision-making regarding training design [but if terrible squat jump - allows practitioners to target RFD in training...]. However, if you are going to look at it, it must be used with massive context:
Never Use It In Isolation: Do not interpret an EUR as "good" or "bad" on its own. You must look at the raw numbers. If Athlete A has a 20-inch SJ and a 24-inch CMJ (EUR = 1.2), and Athlete B has a 30-inch SJ and a 32-inch CMJ (EUR = 1.06), Athlete B is still the vastly superior athlete.
Beware of "Improving" the Ratio by Getting Weaker: If an athlete's EUR goes up, ensure it is because their CMJ improved, not because their SJ got worse due to a loss of raw concentric strength or an increase in muscle slack.
Prioritize Overall Power: When designing a program, your primary goal should be shifting the entire force-velocity curve to the right—meaning you want to improve overall power across the board rather than obsessing over achieving a theoretical 1.1 ratio.
The Bottom Line: The Eccentric Utilization Ratio is a fascinating microscopic look into an athlete's neuromuscular mechanics. However, modern science shows it is a secondary metric at best. Prioritize building massive raw power, rate of force development, and raw CMJ height first.
Ultimately, the Eccentric Utilization Ratio (EUR) has transitioned from being hailed as the ultimate marker of elastic energy utilization to a highly scrutinized and potentially misleading metric. Modern biomechanical research has made it clear that a high ratio does not automatically equate to superior athleticism; rather, it frequently points to a deficiency in the Squat Jump, such as a poor rate of force development or excessive muscle slack. In fact, an excessively high EUR might not be desirable at all, as it often masks an athlete's inability to rapidly generate force from a dead stop. When evaluating an athlete's true physical readiness, linear sprint speed, approach jump performance, or change-of-direction ability, raw metrics like Countermovement Jump height and peak power consistently outperform the EUR as reliable predictors of athletic success.
Furthermore, studies have shown that 8- to 12-week training programs utilizing weightlifting or plyometrics often significantly improve raw jump height and power without meaningfully altering the EUR, limiting its usefulness as a short-term progress tracker in many athletic populations. Consequently, coaches should avoid using the EUR in isolation to make sweeping decisions about training design. While it can occasionally offer a microscopic glimpse into neuromuscular changes across different training phases in specific sports, the primary focus of any strength and conditioning program must remain on foundational improvements. Coaches and athletes should prioritize building massive raw power, explosive strength, and overall jump height across the entire force-velocity curve, treating the EUR as a cautious, secondary diagnostic tool rather than a primary training goal.
References
Espada, M. C., Jardim, M., Assunção, R., Estaca, A., Ferreira, C. C., Pessôa Filho, D. M., Verardi, C. E. L., Gamonales, J. M., & Santos, F. J. (2023). Lower Limb Unilateral and Bilateral Strength Asymmetry in High-Level Male Senior and Professional Football Players. Healthcare, 11(11), 1579. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare11111579
Hawkins, S. B., Doyle, T. L. A., & McGuigan, M. R. (2009). The effect of different training programs on eccentric energy utilization in college-aged males. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 23(7), 1996-2002.
Kozinc, Ž., Pleša, J., & Šarabon, N. (2021). Questionable Utility of the Eccentric Utilization Ratio in Relation to the Performance of Volleyball Players. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(22), 11754. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182211754
Kozinc, Ž., Smajla, D., & Šarabon, N. (2024). Is larger eccentric utilization ratio associated with poorer rate of force development in squat jump? An exploratory study. International Biomechanics, 11(1), 1-5. https://doi.org/10.1080/23335432.2024.2341634
McGuigan, M. R., Doyle, T. L. A., Newton, M., Edwards, D. J., Nimphius, S., & Newton, R. U. (2006). Eccentric utilization ratio: Effect of sport and phase of training. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 20(4), 992-995.
Pleša, J., Kozinc, Ž., & Šarabon, N. (2022). A Brief Review of Selected Biomechanical Variables for Sport Performance Monitoring and Training Optimization. Applied Mechanics, 3(1), 144-159. https://doi.org/10.3390/applmech3010011
Comments