Effect of a 16 week combined strength and plyometric training program followed by a detraining period on athletic performance in pubertal volleyball players This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published in the Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research and can be accessed at http://dx.doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000002461 Introduction Volleyball is a complex sport with technical, tactical and athletic demands that require a variety of explosive physical attributes (speed, power and strength) and specific motor skills (37). Because of this, participants need to train and prepare to cope with the demands of play (37). For that reason, identifying optimal training methods to increase explosive performance is crucial to optimize performance in adolescent volleyball players. Both plyometric and strength training are recognized as important components of fitness programs and are safe methods for improving explosive actions in young players (23, 38). Systematic strength training can be used to elicit increases in maximum strength and muscle hypertrophy (24) whereas plyometric training can enhance the functionality of the stretch-shortening cycle (SSC) and muscle power capacity (25). The combination of strength and plyometric training is growing in popularity. This blend of modalities is attractive to coaches as it is a time-effective method of combining two essential forms of training. Indeed, there is evidence to suggest that it may be superior to the independent (or isolated) effect of strength or plyometric training alone. Though combined training studies conducted in young players are scarce, Faigenbaum et al. (6) suggested that the addition of plyometric training to a strength training program may be more beneficial than strength training alone for enhancing selected measures of upper and lower body power in adolescent boys.
28
Embed
Effect of a 16 week combined strength and plyometric ... · a variety of explosive physical attributes (speed, power and strength) and specific motor skills (37). Because of this,
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Effect of a 16 week combined strength and plyometric training program followed by a
detraining period on athletic performance in pubertal volleyball players
This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published in the Journal of Strength and
Conditioning Research and can be accessed at http://dx.doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000002461
Introduction
Volleyball is a complex sport with technical, tactical and athletic demands that require
a variety of explosive physical attributes (speed, power and strength) and specific motor skills
(37). Because of this, participants need to train and prepare to cope with the demands of play
(37). For that reason, identifying optimal training methods to increase explosive performance
is crucial to optimize performance in adolescent volleyball players.
Both plyometric and strength training are recognized as important components of
fitness programs and are safe methods for improving explosive actions in young players (23,
38). Systematic strength training can be used to elicit increases in maximum strength and
muscle hypertrophy (24) whereas plyometric training can enhance the functionality of the
stretch-shortening cycle (SSC) and muscle power capacity (25). The combination of strength
and plyometric training is growing in popularity. This blend of modalities is attractive to
coaches as it is a time-effective method of combining two essential forms of training. Indeed,
there is evidence to suggest that it may be superior to the independent (or isolated) effect of
strength or plyometric training alone. Though combined training studies conducted in young
players are scarce, Faigenbaum et al. (6) suggested that the addition of plyometric training to
a strength training program may be more beneficial than strength training alone for enhancing
selected measures of upper and lower body power in adolescent boys.
difference between post-training and Detraining sessions values.
APHV (years) 13.8±0.5 13.6±0.5 0.34
Effect sizes
Effect sizes and their descriptors for all performance parameters are shown in Tables 5
(within-group) and 6 (between-group).
Muscle power
Vertical jumps tests
Significant main effects of time on SJ (p<0.001), CMJ (p<0.001) and MBJ (p<0.001)
and a significant group by time interaction on SJ (p <0.001), CMJ (p<0.001) and MBJ
(p<0.05) were observed. However, no significant effect of group on jump tests was observed.
Post-hoc results showed that there were no statistically significant differences in pre-training
values between groups. The post-hoc analysis revealed that combined training significantly
increased SJ by 2.05 cm (7.07%; p<0.001), CMJ by 2.04cm (6.27%; p<0.001) and MBJ by
2.43 cm (9.13%; p<0.001). Similarly, the plyometric training significantly increased SJ by
1.21 cm (4.12%, p<0.05), CMJ by 1.1 cm (3.39%, p<0.001) and MBJ by 1.19 cm (4.41%;
p<0.01). Differences were found in the improvements between experimental groups in CMJ
(p<0.01) and MBJ (p<0.05) after training in favor of the combined group. The CG showed no
changes
A three-way ANOVA demonstrated that the CTG showed significant decreases in SJ
by 2.11cm (6.79%; p<0.001), in CMJ by 2.35 cm (6.8%; p<0.001) and in MBJ by 2.86 cm
(9.87%; p<0.001). Similarly, the PTG showed significant regression in SJ by 1.64 cm
(5.36%; p<0.001), in CMJ by 1.48 (4.38%; p<0.001) and MBJ by 1.64 cm (4.22%; p<0.001).
However, the CG showed no changes.
Medicine ball throw
Significant main effects for group (p<0.05) and time factors (p<0.001) as well as a
significant group by time interaction (p<0.001) on MBT were observed. Statistical analysis
showed that there were no statistically significant differences in pre-training values between
groups. The post hoc analysis revealed that the combined training significantly increased
(14.99%; p<0.001) MBT by 0.78 cm. Likewise, the plyometric training significantly
increased (6.70%; p<0.001) MBT by 0.35 cm. However, the CG group showed no changes in
MBT. Differences were found in the improvements between experimental groups in MBT
(ES: 0.67; p<0.001) after training in favor of the CTG. Three-way ANOVA demonstrated that
the CTG showed significant decreases of 0.64cm (10.74%; p<0.01) while the PTG showed a
regression of 0.23 cm (4.01%; p<0.001) in MBT.
Table 5. Within-group analysis pre-training, post-training and detraining means, effect sizes, confidence limits, and effect description for performance data
Variables Group Pre-
training Post-training Detraining Training effect Detraining effect
Effect size Confidence
limits
Effect
description Effect size
Confidence
limits
Effect
description
SJ
(cm)
CTG 29±5.9 31.1±5.5*** 29±5.9### 0.35 -0.16 to 0.89 Small
increase -0.37 -0.89 to 0.15
Small
decrease
PTG 29.4±3.8 30.6±3.9* 28.9±4.6 ### 0.31 -0.21 to 0.84 Small
increase -0.40 -0.93 to 0.12
Small
decrease
CG 29.8±5.9 29.4±5.4 28.8±5.8 0.02 -0.50 to 0.54 Trivial increase -0.10 -062 to 0.42 Trivial
decrease
CMJ (cm)
CTG 32.5±5.9 34.5±5.7*** 32.2±5.6### 0.35 -0.17 to 0.88 Small
increase -0.41 -0.94 to 0.11
Small
decrease
PTG 32.6±6.8 33.7±6.8*** 32.2±6.7### 0.16 0.38 to 0.68 Trivial increase -0.22 -0.74 to 0.30 Small
decrease
CG 32.2±6 32.4 ±5.8 32±5.8*# 0.04 -0.48 to 0.56 Trivial increase -0.07 -0.59 to 0.45 Trivial
decrease
MBJ (cm)
CTG 26.6±5.1 29±5.8*** 26.1±4.5### 0.44 -0.08 to 0.97 Small
increase -0.53 -1.06 to 0.00
Small
decrease
PTG 27 ±6 29.2±6.2** 26.5±6.5### 0.36 -0.17 to 0.88 Small
increase -0.42 -0.94 to 0.11
Small
decrease
CG 26.3±4.6 26.5±4.5 25.9±4.7 0.05 -0.47 to 0.57 Trivial increase -0.13 -0.65 to 0.39 Trivial
decrease
S5m
(s)
CTG 0.8±0.1 0.8±0.1*** 0.8±0.1### -0.69 -1.22 to -0.15 Moderate
increase 1.10 0.54 to 1.66
Large
decrease
PTG 0.8±0.1 0.8±0.1* 0.8±0.1## -0.46 -0.99 to 0.07 Small
increase 0.52 -0.01 to 1.05
Small
decrease
CG 0.8±0.1 0.8±0.1 0.8±0.1 0.00 -0.52 to 0.52 Trivial increase 0.13 -0.40 to 0.65 Trivial
Decrease
S10m
(s)
CTG 1.9±0.1 1.8±0.1*** 1.9±0.1### -0.31 -0.83 to 0.22 Small
increase 0.69 0.16 to 1.23 Moderate decrease
PTG 1.8±0.1 1.8±0.1* 1.9±0.1### -0.3 -0.82 to 0.23 Small
increase 0.48 -0.05 to 1.01
Small
Decrease
CG 1.9±0.2 1.9±0.1 1.9±0.2 0.06 0.46 to 0.58 Trivial increase 0.12 -0.40 to 0.65 Trivial
decrease
MBT CTG 5.2±0.6 6±0.5*** 5.4±0.6### 1.32 0.75 to 1.89 Large -1.14 -1.70 to -0.58 Large
(m) increase decrease
PTG 5.3±0.5 5.6±0.5*** 5.4±0.4 ## 0.70 0.16 to 1.23 Moderate
increase -0.49 -1.02 to 0.04
Small
decrease
CG 5.13±0.6 5.2±0.6 5.1±0.6 0.05 -0.47 to 0.57 Trivial increase -0.19 -0.71 to 0.33 Trivial
decrease
SR
(cm)
CTG -3.2±9 -2.1±8.7** -2.5±8.5* 0.12 -0.40 to 0.64 Trivial increase -0.04 -.056 to 0.48 Trivial
decrease
PTG -3.1±8.4 -2.1±8.2** -2.3±8.6* 0.11 -0.41 to 0.63 Trivial increase -0.02 -0.54 to 0.50 Trivial
decrease
CG -3.5±10.1 -3.3±10.5 -3.2±9.6 0.02 -0.50 to 0.54 Trivial increase 0.00 -0.52 to 0.53 Trivial
decrease
*p< .05, **p< .01, ***p< .001, compared with pre-training values; # p< .05, ##p< .01, ### p< .001compared with post-training and detraining values.
Abbreviations: Squat jump (SJ); countermovement jump (CMJ); multi jump (MBJ); Sprint times at 5 m (S5m) and at 10 m (S10m); medicine ball throw (MBT), sit and reach
(SR); CTG: Combined training group; PTG: Plyometric training group; CG: Control group
Speed
A three-way ANOVA showed significant main effects of time on S5m (p<0.001) and
S10m (p<0.001), as well as a significant group by time interaction on S5m (p<0.05) and
S10m (p<0.05). However, no significant effects of group factor for any sprint tests (S5m,
p=0.56; S10m, p=0.46) were found.
Statistical analysis showed that there were no statistically significant differences in
pre-training values between groups. The post hoc analysis revealed that the combined training
significantly improved S5m and S10m by 0.05 seconds (6.47%; p<0.001) and 0.07 seconds
(3.47%; p<0.001) respectively. Similarly, plyometric training significantly improved 5m
sprint and 10m sprint by 0.04 seconds (4.35%, p<0.05) and 0.04 seconds (2.39%, p<0.05)
respectively. The CG showed no changes.
After detraining, the CTG, via a three-way ANOVA, demonstrated significant
decreases in 5m and 10m sprint performance by 0.08 seconds (10.93%; p<0.001) and 0.09
(4.8%; p<0.001) respectively. Similarly, the PTG showed significant regression in 5m and
10m sprint performance by 0.04 seconds (5.53%; p<0.01) and 0.06 seconds (3.42%; p<0.001)
respectively. However, the CG showed no changes.
Sit and reach test
A significant main effect of time on the SR test (p<0.001) was observed. However, there were
no significant effects for group or group by time interaction on the SR test.
Our results showed that there were no statistically significant differences in pre-
training values between groups. The post hoc analysis revealed that, after training, both
experimental groups showed a significant (p<0.001) increase in SR. This performance was
still increased at detraining (p<0.001) compared to pre and post-training.
Table 6. Differences between the three groups in the training and detraining effects (with confidence limits) on physical performances.
Training effect Detraining effect
Effect size Confidence
limits
Effect
description Effect size
Confidence
limits
Effect
description
CMJ
CTG vs PTG
CTG vs CG
PTG vs CG
0.13
0.37
0.21
-0.39 to 0.65
-0.16 to 0.89
-0.31 to 0.73
Trivial increase
Trivial increase
Small increase
0.00
0.04
0.04
-0.52 to 0.52
-0.49 to 0.56
-0.48 to 0.56
Trivial increase
Trivial increase
Trivial increase
SJ
CTG vs PTG
CTG vs CG
PTG vs CG
0.11
0.31
0.25
-0.41 to 0.63
-0.21 to 0.83
-0.27 to 0.77
Trivial increase
Small increase
Small increase
0.01
0.03
0.02
-0.51 to 0.53
-0.49 to 0.55
-0.50 to 0.54
Trivial increase
Trivia increase
Trivia increase
MBJ
CTG vs PTG
CTG vs CG
PTG vs CG
-0.03
0.47
0.48
-0.05 to 0.49
-0.05 to 1.00
-0.05 to 1.01
Trivial increase
Small increase
Small increase
-0.07
0.04
0.1
-0.59 to 0.45
-0.48 to 0.56
-0.42 to 0.62
Trivial increase
Trivial increase
Trivial increase
S5m
CTG vs PTG
CTG vs CG
PTG vs CG
-0.36
-0.9
-0.57
- 0.89 to 0.16
-1.44 to -0.35
-1.10 to -0.04
Small increase
Moderate increase
Small increase
0.22
0.12
0.12
-0.30 to 0.47
-0.40 to 0.64
-0.64 to 0.40
Small increase
Trivial increase
Trivial increase
S10m
CTG vs PTG
CTG vs CG
PTG vs CG
0.00
-0.59
-0.57
-0.52 to 0.52
-1.12 to -0.06
-1.10 to -0.04
Trivial increase
Small increase
Small increase
0.17
-0.14
-0.27
-0.35 to 0.69
-0.66 to 0.38
-0.79 to 0.25
Trivial increase
Trivial increase
Small increase
MBT
CTG vs PTG
CTG vs CG
PTG vs CG
0.67
1.43
0.88
0.14 to 1.21
0.85 to 2.01
0.33 to 1.42
Moderate increase
Large increase
Moderate increase
-0.12
0.51
0.67
-0.64to 0.40
-0.02 to 1.04
0.13 to 1.20
Trivial increase
Small increase
Moderate increase
SR
CTG vs PTG
CTG vs CG
PTG vs CG
0.00
0.12
0.13
-0.52 to 0.52
-0.40 to 0.64
-0.39 to 0.65
Trivial increase
Trivial increase
Trivial increase
-0.03
0.08
0.1
-0.55 to 0.49
-0.44 to 0.60
-0.42 to 0.62
Trivial increase
Trivial increase
Trivial increase
Discussion
The most important finding in this study was that a 16 week program of combined
strength and plyometric training was generally more effective for decreasing body fat
percentage and improving 5- and 10-m sprint time and muscle power performance than
plyometric training alone in male adolescent volleyball players. Muscle flexibility was