Adarq.org
Performance Area => Peer Reviewed Studies Discussion => Topic started by: LBSS on October 19, 2010, 11:13:59 am
-
EFFECTS OF A PLYOMETRIC TRAINING PROGRAM WITH AND WITHOUT ADDED LOAD ON JUMPING ABILITY IN BASKETBALL PLAYERS
ABSTRACT
Khlifa, R, Aouadi, R, Hermassi, S, Chelly, MS, Jlid, MC, Hbacha, H, and Castagna, C. Effects of a plyometric training program with and without added load on jumping ability in basketball players. J Strength Cond Res 24(X): 000000, 2010The purpose of this investigation was to examine the effect of a standard plyometric training protocol with or without added load in improving vertical jumping ability in male basketball players. Twenty-seven players were randomly assigned to 3 groups: a control group (no plyometric training), plyometric training group (PG), and loaded plyometric group (LPG, weighted vests 1011% body mass). Before and after the 10-week training program, all the players were tested for the 5-jump test (5JT), the squat jump (SJ), and the countermovement jump (CMJ). The PG and LPG groups performed 2 and 3 training sessions per week, during the ?rst 3 and the last 7 weeks, respectively. The results showed that SJ, CMJ, and 5JT were signi?cantly improved only in the PG and LPG groups. The best effects for jumps were observed in LPG (p , 0.01), which showed signi?cantly higher gains than the PG (p , 0.05). In conclusion, it appears that loads added to standard plyometric training program may result in greater vertical and horizontal-jump performances in basketball players.
-
EFFECTS OF A PLYOMETRIC TRAINING PROGRAM WITH AND WITHOUT ADDED LOAD ON JUMPING ABILITY IN BASKETBALL PLAYERS
ABSTRACT
Khlifa, R, Aouadi, R, Hermassi, S, Chelly, MS, Jlid, MC, Hbacha, H, and Castagna, C. Effects of a plyometric training program with and without added load on jumping ability in basketball players. J Strength Cond Res 24(X): 000000, 2010The purpose of this investigation was to examine the effect of a standard plyometric training protocol with or without added load in improving vertical jumping ability in male basketball players. Twenty-seven players were randomly assigned to 3 groups: a control group (no plyometric training), plyometric training group (PG), and loaded plyometric group (LPG, weighted vests 1011% body mass). Before and after the 10-week training program, all the players were tested for the 5-jump test (5JT), the squat jump (SJ), and the countermovement jump (CMJ). The PG and LPG groups performed 2 and 3 training sessions per week, during the ?rst 3 and the last 7 weeks, respectively. The results showed that SJ, CMJ, and 5JT were signi?cantly improved only in the PG and LPG groups. The best effects for jumps were observed in LPG (p , 0.01), which showed signi?cantly higher gains than the PG (p , 0.05). In conclusion, it appears that loads added to standard plyometric training program may result in greater vertical and horizontal-jump performances in basketball players.
any idea what the plyometric routine was? curious to see how intense it was.
-
Paper doesn't go into detail. They used the protocol described in this paper, just added weight or not:
Luebbers, PE, Potteiger, JA, Hulver, MW, Thyfault, JP, Carper, MJ, and Lockwood, RH. Effects of plyometric training and recovery on
vertical jump performance and anaerobic power. J Strength Cond Res 17: 704709, 2003.
That's what I was looking for the other day.
Anyone have access to this? College kids? Search on PubMed, it'll be there.
-
Got the other paper, no thanks to you schlubs :P
Here is the protocol:
"The jump training exercises were performed 3 days per week. The intensity for all exercises was maximal, with changes in the number of sets and repetitions occurring with each session. The plyometric training included 2-legged vertical jumps, tuck jumps, 2-legged broad jumps, 1- and 2-legged bounding, and depth jumps completed from a height of 40 cm. During the
bounding and depth jump exercises, subjects were instructed to minimize ground contact. Instructions for all other exercises were to attain maximal height during muscle movement. The recovery time between repetitions and sets was 1530 seconds.
"Equal work volume between the 2 groups was controlled by equating the total number of repetitions performed for each jumping activity and the total meters covered during the bounding. The program totals were as follows: vertical jumps 850 repetitions, bounding 450 m, broad jumping 675 m, and depth jumping 240 repetitions. Weekly summaries of each of the training programs are shown in Table 1.
"Additional physical training beyond normal daily activity was not allowed for either group. The groups were also instructed to continue their usual dietary habits throughout the study. Each group completed posttest measurements 48 hours after cessation of their program and again after an additional 4-week recovery period. The same testing schedule and procedures as used for initial pretesting were followed. No control was administered for physical activity or training during the 4-week recovery period with the exception that no plyometric exercises were to be performed."
I have the rest of the paper if anyone wants to look at the table.
-
Interesting study. I remember Kellyb mentioning that loads on jumping/bounding/sprinting movements should be such that they reduce height/distance covered/sprint times by no more than 10%. Do you think a 10-11% BM load would only elicit a <10% performance drop-off?
-
Interesting study. I remember Kellyb mentioning that loads on jumping/bounding/sprinting movements should be such that they reduce height/distance covered/sprint times by no more than 10%. Do you think a 10-11% BM load would only elicit a <10% performance drop-off?
No idea. Wonder why he said that...
-
Interesting. Do you have data on the SVJ/RVJ and strength numbers of the athletes before the test? My point of view has always been:
1) Athlete is weak and slow: Plyometrics are of little use
2) Athlete is moderately strong: Plyometrics are useful but weighted plyometrics are not.
3) Athlete is strong reactive and does not carry extra bodyfat: Plyometrics and weighted plyometrics are useful.
Obviously the scale is continuous. But the point is basically the more advanced the trainee is the more helpful weighted plyos are. I think of weighted plyos sort of like depth jumps from a large height. For advanced athletes they are great. For beginners they are simply a fast track to injury.
-
Interesting. Do you have data on the SVJ/RVJ and strength numbers of the athletes before the test? My point of view has always been:
1) Athlete is weak and slow: Plyometrics are of little use
2) Athlete is moderately strong: Plyometrics are useful but weighted plyometrics are not.
3) Athlete is strong reactive and does not carry extra bodyfat: Plyometrics and weighted plyometrics are useful.
Obviously the scale is continuous. But the point is basically the more advanced the trainee is the more helpful weighted plyos are. I think of weighted plyos sort of like depth jumps from a large height. For advanced athletes they are great. For beginners they are simply a fast track to injury.
ya, that's why on here you'll catch alot of us talking about "low level reactive work", stuff like repetitive tuck jumps, pogos, line hop drills, etc.. i like those for beginners or any experience level, as long as they do not carry a high body fat % and are healthy, it's good to get in some rebounding training even if you're weak, but the intensity of the rebound training has to be low if you're weak... people who are really weak trying to perform depth jumps, bounds, etc, are asking for problems.. however, i consider low box dj's as safe for beginners, like 12" boxes etc.. any level of athlete will benefit from light rebound training, it still reinforces improvements in rfd/SEC efficiency.
pC