CC BY
148
2022
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
The effect of 8-week plyometric training on jump height, agility, speed and asymmetry
Sercin Kosova1ABCD, Ruya Beyhan2ABD, Merve Koca Kosova1ABDE
Department of Physical Education and Sports Teaching, Faculty of Sports Sciences, Dokuz Eylul University, izmir, Turkey
2Department of Physical Education and Sport, Institute of Health Sciences, Mugla Sitki Kogman University, Mugla, Turkey
Authors' Contribution: A - Study design; B - Data collection; C - Statistical analysis; D - Manuscript Preparation; E - Funds Collection. Abstract
Plyometric training is one of the most preferred methods for athletic performance improvement. This study was designed to measure the effect of 8 weeks of additional plyometric training on jump performance, lower extremity asymmetry, speed, and agility performances of adolescent fencers. This study was carried out with 26 fencers who participated in national competitions. The fencers were randomly divided into plyometric training (PLY, n = 14) and the control (n = 12) group. The PLY group did plyometric training 3 days per week for 8 weeks in addition to their fencing training. The control group only continued their fencing training. All participants performed countermovement jumps (CMJ), pro-agility, 0-5-m, 5-15-m, 0-15-m sprints, and asymmetry tests before and after 8 weeks.
Statistically significant differences were found in CMJ, (p = 0.001), pro-agility (p = 0.001), and 0-5-m (p = 0.036), 5-15-m (p = 0.018), and 0-15-m (p = 0.001) sprint results in the PLY group. However, asymmetry contact time and asymmetry flight time values did not show statistical differences. In addition, group x time interactions of CMJ (p < 0.001), pro-agility (p = 0.001), and 0-5-m (p = 0.015) and 5-15-m (p = 0.009) sprint tests were also found statistically significant.
Thus, it can be said that plyometric training contributes positively to the jumping, agility, and speed of fencers. Adolescent fencers and their trainers may be advised to focus on additional plyometric training programs. However, individual differences and training experience should also be taken into account in the determination of plyometric programs.
Keywords: plyometric, vertical jump, change of direction, fencing.
Background and Study Aim
Material and Methods
Results
Conclusions
Introduction
Fencing includes anaerobic power, agility, and speed, and a fencing bout is shaped by interactions with the opponent. In this branch, where the capacity of the lower extremities is crucial [1], there may be power differences between the extremities due to the application of technical movements.
Plyometric training has an important place in branches where lower extremity development is critical [2]. The positive effect of plyometric training, which includes quick movements, is related to the system called the stretch-shortening cycle [3]. This training method, which is indispensable for many branches, can be used for many different age groups with appropriate methods. In a study conducted on male athletes aged 13-14 years, it was reported that 8 weeks of plyometric training had a positive effect on speed and explosive strength properties [4]. In another study, basketball players with an average age of 20.1 years performed plyometric training for 6 weeks in addition to their training. At the end of this implementation, it was stated that there was an improvement in strength and agility compared with © Sercin Kosova, Ruya Beyhan, Merve Koca Kosova, 2022 doi:10.15561/26649837.2022.0102
those who did not do additional plyometric training [5]. Although the performance benefits of plyometric training are frequently shown in the literature [6, 7], more studies are needed to understand the effects of different training methods on athletes of certain age groups and branches. In addition, when using this training method, it should be remembered that the inability to set exercise levels correctly can lead to injuries, so the selection of the exercises according to age and performance level is important.
Although there is not much movement in fencing that is directly applied by jumping, improving the jump will contribute to the fencer's performance [8]. As in many other branches [9, 10], studies are investigating jumping performance in fencing [11]. Investigating asymmetry is also a frequently encountered situation in terms of athletic performance. However, it is considered normal to develop a certain amount of asymmetry in branches where one-way movements are dominant, such as fencing [12]. However, it is important to control the degree of asymmetry and to provide support with appropriate training methods to maintain performance and prevent injuries.
In fencing, where quick responses are made
as a result of one-to-one interaction in the game, speed and agility are also features that should be emphasized. The practicality of measurement methods and portable devices continue to make the evaluation of these parameters popular in sports sciences. It should not be forgotten that many features such as speed and agility, are intertwined with each other [13]. The current study aimed to examine the effects of plyometric training applied to fencers for 8 weeks on jumping performance, lower extremity asymmetry, speed, and agility.
Material and Methods
A randomized method was used in this study to investigate the effects of plyometric training on vertical jump, agility, speed, and jump asymmetries. The fencers were randomly divided into two different groups as the plyometric training group (PLY, n = 14) and the control group (n = 12). The control group did not do any additional training while continuing their fencing training, but the PLY group performed an additional plyometric training program along with their fencing training. Plyometric training was performed 3 days per week/ 8 weeks. An adjustment session was applied to the PLY group before the measurements. The training program is presented in the Table 1.
Participants
In this study, 26 athletes who trained regularly and participated in national competitions voluntarily took part. The descriptive characteristics of the participants are presented in Table 2. Necessary legal permission was obtained from the Local Research Ethics Committee (Decision Number: 2021/10-39). In addition, fencers and legal representatives of them were informed about the protocol, and each signed approved informed consent forms.
Procedures
Athlete's heights were measured with a metal tape measure. Body weights and body fat ratios were determined by body composition analysis scale (Tanita BC 730, Japan). The participants were given a 10-minute warm-up. After that, CMJ for vertical jump, pro-agility, 0-15-m sprint, and jump asymmetry tests were performed, respectively.
Countermovement Jump: Two repetitions were performed with the hands free on the mat (Smart Speed Pro-Fusion Sport, Australia). There were 45 seconds of rest between repetitions. The highest value was used for analysis.
Pro-agility Test: An electronic photocell system (Smart Speed Pro-Fusion Sport, Australia) was used for the test. Each participant performed the test twice and the best duration was used.
0-15-m sprint: The times of the participants at 5 m and 15 m were recorded. Smart Speed Pro-Fusion Sport (Australia) was used for measuring (Figure 1).
Figure 1. 0-15-m sprint test design
Asymmetry test: In the jump test measured using My Jump 2 (IOS app), the participants' right and left foot depth jumps (40-cm bench height) were recorded. Thanks to the high-speed video recording feature, the first moment of contact with the ground, the first moment of the flight phase, and the first moments of contact with the ground were marked, and the level of asymmetry between the contact and flight times of the two feet was calculated as a percentage.
Statistical Analyses
The pre and post-test values of the data were evaluated in order using boxplots, the Shapiro-Wilk normality test, homogeneity of Levene variances, box's M tests, and covariances. Two-way mixed pattern analysis of variance was used for the main effects and interactions of the plyometric training. The effect sizes were evaluated as partial Eta-squared and converted to Cohen's d. Descriptive statistics were showed as mean ± standard deviation and statistical significance was determined as <0.05. Lastly, for analyses, the IBM SPSS Statistics Ver. 20 program (Armonk, NY: IBM Corp., 2011) was used.
Results
The demographic data of the participants are presented in Table 2.
After 8 weeks of training, the performance improvement of the PLY group in 0-5-m sprints (-0.128 ± 0.04 sec, p = 0.04) were statistically significantly different compared with the control group. As a result of the training, the increase in the CMJ results of the PLY group was not statistically significant compared with the control group (0.687 ± 3.04 cm, p = 0.823). Likewise, there were no significant differences in the pro-agility test (-0.120 ± 0.15 sec, p = 0.437), 5-15-m sprint (-0.037 ± 0.06 sec, p = 0.577), 0-15-m sprint (-0.148 ± 0.10 sec, p = 0.164), asymmetry contact time (3.482 ± 3.00%, p = 0.258), and asymmetry flight time values (3.285 ± 3.72%, p = 0.387).
CMJ test results showed a statistical difference in the PLY group [F(1,13) = 28.915, p = 0.001, rjp2 = 0.690)] before and after 8 weeks of training, but in the control group [F(1,11) = 2.736, p = 0.126), rjp2 = 0.199)], no statistically significant difference was observed.
■- 2022 S^JDH
Table 1. Training programme
Week Bounce Plyometrics Set x Reps Workload
Side to side ankle hops 2 X 15 Low
1st 90 Standing jump and reach 2 X 15 Low
Front cone hops 5 X 6 Low
Side to side ankle hops 2 X 15 Low
2nd 120 Standing long jump 5 X 6 Low
Lateral jump over a barrier 2 X 15 Moderate
Double leg hops 5 X 6 Moderate
Side to side ankle hops 2 x 12 Low
Standing long jump 4 x 6 Low
3rd 120 Lateral jump over a barrier 2 X 12 Moderate
Double leg hops 3 X 8 Moderate
Lateral cone hops 2 X 12 Moderate
Side to side ankle hops 2 x 12 Low
Standing long jump 4 x 6 Low
4th 120 Lateral jump over a barrier 2 X 12 Moderate
Double-leg hops 3 X 8 Moderate
Lateral cone hops 2 X 12 Moderate
Diagonal cone hops 4 X 8 Low
Standing long jump with lateral sprint 4 X 8 Moderate
5th 140 Lateral cone hops 2 X 12 Moderate
Single-leg bounding 4 X 7 High
Lateral jump, single leg 4 X 6 High
Diagonal cone hops 2 X 7 Low
Standing long jump with lateral sprint 4 X 7 Moderate
6th 140 Lateral cone hops 4 X 7 Moderate
Cone hops with 180-degree turn 4 X 7 Moderate
Single-leg bounding 4 X 7 High
Lateral jump, single leg 2 X 7 High
Diagonal cone hops 2 X 7 Low
Standing long jump with lateral sprint 4 X 7 Moderate
Lateral cone hops 4 X 7 Moderate
Cone hops with 180-degree turn 4 X 7 Moderate
Single-leg bounding 4 X 7 High
Lateral jump, single leg 2 X 7 High
Diagonal cone hops 2 X 12 Low
Hexagon drill 2 X 12 Low
8th 120 Cone hops with a change of direction sprint 4 X 6 Moderate
Double-leg hops 3 X 8 Moderate
Lateral jump, single leg 4 X 6 High
Table 2. Anthropometric characteristics of the participants
Variables Plyometric Group Control Group
Mean±SD Mean±SD
Age (year) 15.16 ± 0.74 15.22 ± 0.86
Height (cm) 166 ± 0.08 172 ± 0.08
Weight (kg) 61.82 ± 15.33 63.30 ± 11.36
BMI 22.18 ± 4.77 21.22 ± 3.02
BFR % 22.45 ± 8.63 18.43 ± 6.85
BMI: Body mass index, BFR: Body fat ratio
15
The duration of the pro-agility test did not differ significantly between the pre-test and post-test values in the control group [F(1,11) = 1.523, p = 0.243, np2 = 0.122)], but a statistically significant difference was found in the PLY group [F(1,13) = 27.291 p = 0.001, np2 = 0.677)].
A significant difference was observed between pre-test and post-test values in 0-5-m [F(1,13) = 5.500 p = 0.036, np2 = 0.297)], 5-15 m [F(1,13) = 7.255, p = 0.018, np2 = 0.358)] and 0-15-m [F(1,13) = 22.837. p = 0.001, np2 = 0.637)] sprint performance in the PLY group. No difference was observed between the pretest and post-test values in the 0-5-m [F(1,11) = 1.993, p = 0.186, np2 = 0.153)], 5-15-m [F(1,11) = 3.975, p = 0.072, np2 = 0.265)] and 0-15-m [F(1,11) =0.029, p = 0.868, np2 = 0.003)] sprint performance in the control group.
Asymmetry contact time pre-test and post-test values in the PLY group [F(1,13) = 0.018 p = 0.894, np2 = 0.001)] and the control group [F(1,11) = 2.401, p = 0.150, np2 = 0.179)], did not show statistical differences. Similarly, there were no significant differences in asymmetry flight time values in the PLY [F(1,13) = 1.063 p = 0.321, np2 = 0.076)] and control groups [F(1,11) = 2.373, p = 0.152, np2 = 0.177)].
Group, time and group x time interactions as Anova outcomes are presented in Table 3.
Discussion
The effect of 8-week plyometric training on the performance parameters of fencers was investigated in the current study. The important findings of the current study were that the CMJ, pro-agility, and sprint results at different intervals of the participants who performed the plyometric program in addition to their regular training showed better results and these differences were not observed in the other group. In addition, the increase in the 0-5-m sprint after the plyometric program was different compared with the control group.
It has been shown in the literature that plyometric training has positive effects on athletic performance in young athletes age group [14]. It is important to perform the movements with the correct technique to see the expected effect from plyometric training. If the correct technique can be performed, the benefits of training can be seen regardless of the level of the athletes [15]. Although the athletes in this study were not adults, they all had similar fitness levels and had been training for many years. The improvements seen as a result of the study may show that the training is suitable for athletes at this level and that technique is not impaired while performing the movements.
Considering the improvement in CMJ
Table 3. Mean and SD of the outcome measures for each group before (pre) and after (post) the intervention period.
Parameters PLY (n = 14) CN (n = 12) ANOVA outcomes
Group Time Group X Time
Pre Post Pre Post F (1,24), p (d) F (1,24), p (d) F (1,24), p (d)
F=0.024, 0.878 (0.001) F=18.028, F=27.761,
CMJ 35.94±7.08 38.03±7.10 37.57±8.64 37.34±8.43 <0.001** (0.429) <0.001** (0.536)
Pro-agility (sec) 5.82±0.24 5.51±0.34 5.61±0.43 5.63±0.43 F=0.109, 0.744 (0.005) F=20.015, <0.001** (0.455) F=24.897, 0.001* (0.509)
F=6.571, F=1.482 F=6.897,
0-5-m (sec) 1.19±0.09 1.14±0.08 1.25±0.10 1.27±0.12 0.017* (0.215) 0.235 (0.058) 0.015* (0.223)
5-15-m (sec) 1.68±0.11 1.62±0.14 1.64±0.19 1.65±0.19 F= .000 0.984 (0.001) F = 4.276, 0.050* (0.151) F =7.994, 0.009* (0.250)
0-15-m (sec) 2.87±0.19 2.76±0.21 2.89±0.28 2.90±0.31 F=0.879, 0.358 (0.035) F = 2.500, 0.127 (.094) F= 3.687, 0.067 (0.133)
Asymmetry contact time (%) 11.13±8.02 10.72±6.98 9.77±8.37 7.23±8.33 F=0.916, 0.348 (0.037) F= 0.661, 0.424 (0.027) F=0.342, 0.564 (0.014)
Asymmetry flight time (%) 7.27±4.67 10.93±10.07 8.40±8.53 7.65±8.73 F=0.174, 0.680 0.007 F=0.565, 0.459 (0.023) F=1.296, 0.266 (0.051)
*P<0.05, P<0.01, PLY: plyometric training group; CN: control variance; d: by converted partial eta squared to Cohen's d.
group; sec: second; ANOVA: analysis of
2022
performance, it should be emphasized that Ntai, Tsolakis [16] stated that CMJ was an important parameter that reflected the step-lunging exercise, which is a necessary technique for fencing. Based on this finding, it can be said that participants whose CMJ performance improved as a result of additional plyometric training in this study achieved improvements that could directly contribute to fencing performance. It is also important to see improvement in pro-agility results since fencing athletes frequently change their direction when the execute special training and also in championships [17]. In addition, it is known that the results of the pro-agility test may be related to features such as jumping and sprinting [18]. Thus, it can be concluded that the 8-week program performed on the athletes in the study provided a versatile contribution to their athletic performance. When evaluated specifically for the sprint, the improvement seen in every sprint distance can be an indication that it contributes to both acceleration and the speed in the total distance run.
In this study, no significant difference was found between the percentages of asymmetry contact time and asymmetry flight time in both groups after 8 weeks. It is expected that some asymmetry will occur in a branch where the same leg is always in front and the same arm is holding a weapon. The percentages of asymmetry in this study are also within the normal range [19]. The lack of a significant change in the rates with the effect of plyometric training may be because all participants continued their daily fencing training, which included asymmetrical technical movements.
Finally, there was a significant difference in the group x time interaction of the CMJ, pro-agility, and 0-5-m and 5-15-m sprint tests. In another study investigating the effect of 8-week balance and plyometric training on performance, group time interactions were significant for drop jump and change of direction tests, but not for CMJ or sprint tests [20]. Parameters such as the branches of the participants, their sports backgrounds, their anthropometric characteristics, the content of the training performed, and whether the participants performed it correctly may cause different results. To interpret the reasons for the differences between studies from a physiologic point of view, measurements such as muscle cross-section area or motor unit activation should also be performed [21].
Conclusions
It was seen that additional plyometric training performed 3 days per week for 8 weeks improved jumping, agility, and speed parameters in adolescent fencers. Regular plyometric training will contribute to performance in branches such as fencing, where lower extremity strength is so important. For this reason, it can be recommended for coaches to perform plyometric training while the athletes are in the adolescence period. However, points such as individual differences and sports experience should be carefully evaluated and appropriate programs should be selected for athletes.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
References
1. Chang C-Y, Hung M-H, Ho C-S, Lin K-C. The Acute Effects of Whole-Body Vibration on Fencers' Special Abilities. Perceptual and motorskills,2019;126(5):973-85. https://doi.org/10.n77/0031512519863573
2. Markovic G, Mikulic P. Neuro-musculoskeletal and performance adaptations to lower-extremity plyometric training. Sports medicine, 2010;40(10):859-95. https://doi.org/10.2165/11318370-000000000-00000
3. Vetrovsky T, Steffl M, Stastny P, Tufano JJ. The efficacy and safety of lower-limb plyometric training in older adults: a systematic review. Sports Medicine, 2019;49(1):113-31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-018-1018-x
4. Fischetti F, Vilardi A, Cataldi S, Greco G. Effects of plyometric training program on speed and explosive strength of lower limbs in young athletes. Journal of Physical Education & Sport, 2018;18(4).
5. Asadi A. Effects of in-season short-term plyometric training on jumping and agility performance of basketball players. Sport Sciences for Health, 2013;9(3):133-7.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11332-013-0159-4
6. Silva AF, Clemente FM, Lima R, Nikolaidis PT, Rosemann T, Knechtle B. The effect of plyometric training in volleyball players: A systematic review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 2019;16(16):2960. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16162960
7. Eraslan L, Castelein B, Spanhove V, Orhan C, Duzgun I, Cools A. Effect of Plyometric Training on Sport Performance in Adolescent Overhead Athletes. A Systematic Review. Sports Health, 2021;13(1):37-44. https://doi.org/10.1177/1941738120938007
8. Turner AN, Harmenberg J. Why fencers should bounce: A new method of movement to engage the stretch-shortening cycle. International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, 2018;13(3):452-60. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747954117747133
9. Ferreira A, Enes C, Leao C, Goncalves L, Clemente FM, Lima R, et al. Relationship between power condition, agility, and speed performance among young roller hockey elite players. Human Movement, 2019;20(1):24-30. https://doi.org/10.5114/hm.2019.79040
10. Bencke J, Damsgaard R, Saekmose A, J0rgensen P, J0rgensen K, Klausen K. Anaerobic power and muscle strength characteristics of 11 years old elite and non-elite boys and girls from gymnastics, team handball, tennis and swimming. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 2002;12(3):171-8. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0838.2002.01128.x
11. Ntai A, Zahou F, Paradisis G, Smirniotou A, Tsolakis C. Anthropometric parameters and leg power performance in fencing. Age, sex and discipline relateddifferences. Science&Sports,2017;32(3):135-43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scispo.2016.06.011
12. Maloney SJ. The relationship between asymmetry and athletic performance:A critical review. The Journal of Strength & ConditioningResearch,2019;33(9):2579-93. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000002608
13. Di Domenico F, D'Isanto T. Role of speed and agility in the effectiveness of motor performance. Journal of Physical Education and Sport, 2019;19:1836-42.
14. Ramirez-Campillo R, Alvarez C, Sanchez-Sanchez J, Slimani M, Gentil P, Chelly MS, et al. Effects of plyometric jump training on the physical fitness of young male soccer players: Modulation of response by inter-set recovery interval and maturation status. Journal of Sports Sciences, 2019;37(23):2645-52. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2019.1626049
15. De Villarreal ES-S, Requena B, Newton RU. Does plyometric training improve strength performance? A meta-analysis. Journal of
Science and Medicine in Sport, 2010;13(5):513-22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsams.2009.08.005
16. Ntai A, Tsolakis C, Smirniotou A, Paradisis G. Anthropometric and Leg Power Factors Affect Offensive Kinetic Patterns in Fencing. International Journal of Exercise Science, 2021;14(4):919-31.
17. Kosova S, Kosova MK. The effect of the detraining period caused by the COVID-19 pandemic on the change of direction performance of fencers. Physical Education of Students, 2021;25(1):4-9. https://doi.org/10.15561/20755279.2021.0101
18. Jones M, Lorenzo D. Assessment of power, speed, and agility in athletic, preadolescent youth. J Sports Med Phys Fitness. 2013;53(6):693-700.
19. Hewit J, Cronin J, Hume P. Multidirectional leg asymmetry assessment in sport. Strength & Conditioning Journal. 2012;34(1):82-6. https://doi.org/10.1519/SSC.0b013e31823e83db
20. Bouteraa I, Negra Y, Shephard RJ, Chelly MS. Effects of combined balance and plyometric training on athletic performance in female basketball players. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research. 2020;34(7):1967-73. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000002546
21. Chelly MS, Hermassi S, Shephard RJ. Effects of in-season short-term plyometric training program on sprint and jump performance of young male track athletes. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 2015;29(8):2128-36. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000000860
Information about the authors:
Sercin Kosova; PhD; https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1005-3387; [email protected]; Faculty of Sport Sciences, Dokuz Eylul University; izmir, Turkey.
Ruya Beyhan; https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5942-7039; [email protected]; Department of Physical Education and Sport, Institute of Health Sciences, Mugla Sitki Ko^man University; Mugla, Turkey.
Merve Koca Kosova; (Corresponding Author); https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0454-2790; merve.koca@deu. edu.tr; Faculty of Sport Sciences, Dokuz Eylul University; izmir, Turkey.
Cite this article as:
Kosova S, Beyhan R, Koca Kosova M. The effect of 8-week plyometric training on jump height, agility, speed and asymmetry. Pedagogy of Physical Culture and Sports, 2022;26(1):13-18. https://doi.org/10.15561/26649837.2022.0102
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.en).
Received: 22.10.2021
Accepted: 09.12.2021; Published: 26.02.2022
