Secondary Logo

Journal Logo

Institutional members access full text with Ovid®

Effects of Equal Volume But Different Plyometric Jump Training Intensities on Components of Physical Fitness in Physically Active Young Males

Ramirez-Campillo, Rodrigo1; Moran, Jason2; Drury, Benjamin2; Williams, Mark2; Keogh, Justin W.3,4,5; Chaabene, Helmi6; Granacher, Urs6

The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research: February 06, 2019 - Volume Publish Ahead of Print - Issue - p
doi: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000003057
Original Research: PDF Only

Ramirez-Campillo, R, Moran, J, Drury, B, Williams, M, Keogh, JW, Chaabene, H, and Granacher, U. Effects of equal volume but different plyometric jump training intensities on components of physical fitness in physically active young males. J Strength Cond Res XX(X): 000–000, 2019—An 8-week single-blind randomized controlled trial was conducted to compare the effects of separate programs of equal volume, but different intensity, plyometric jump training (PJT), on physical fitness in healthy adults. Thirty-eight physically active males (mean age: 21.8 ± 2.5 years) participated. Subjects were randomly assigned to one of 3 PJT groups or a control (CON, n = 9) according to their jump performance. Plyometric jump training was conducted at maximal (PJT-100, n = 10), high (PJT-80, n = 9), or moderate (PJT-65, n = 10) intensity within each group. Baseline and follow-up tests were performed for the assessment of countermovement jump (CMJ) height, CMJ height with arm swing (CMJA), and drop jump height from a 20-cm drop box (DJ20), linear speed (30 m), and change-of-direction speed (CODS) (the Illinois CODS test). Results revealed significant group × time interactions for CMJ, CMJA, DJ20, 30-m sprint, and CODS (all p < 0.001; d = 0.39–0.76). Post hoc analyses showed significant improvements in all 5 fitness measures for PJT-100 (all p < 0.01, Δ3.7–13.5%, d = 0.26–1.4). For PJT-80, 3 of 5 fitness tests demonstrated significant change (CMJ: p < 0.001, Δ5.9%, d = 0.33; CMJA: p < 0.001, Δ7.0%, d = 0.43; CODS: p < 0.001, Δ3.9%, d = 0.9), and for PJT-65, only 1 test was significant (CMJ: p < 0.05, Δ2.8%, d = 0.15). No significant changes were observed in CON. Except for similar gains in DJ20 and 30-m sprint in PJT-100 and PJT-80, gains in physical fitness were, in general, greater (p < 0.05) after PJT-100 vs. PJT-80 vs. PJT-65 vs. CON. Therefore, maximal PJT intensity may induce larger physical fitness gains, although high and moderate intensities may also be useful, but to a lesser extent.

1Laboratory of Human Performance, Research Nucleus in Health, Physical Activity, and Sport, Quality of Life and Wellness Research Group, Universidad de Los Lagos (University of Los Lagos), Osorno, Chile;

2Hartpury University, Hartpury, Gloucestershire, United Kingdom;

3Faculty of Health Sciences and Medicine, Bond University, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia;

4Sports Performance Research Center New Zealand, AUT University, Auckland, New Zealand;

5Cluster for Health Improvement, Faculty of Science, Health, Education and Engineering, University of the Sunshine Coast, Sippy Downs, Queensland, Australia; and

6Division of Training and Movement Sciences, Research Focus Cognition Sciences, University of Potsdam, Potsdam, Germany

Address correspondence to Dr. Urs Granacher,

Copyright © 2019 by the National Strength & Conditioning Association.