OLYMPIC WEIGHTLIFTING AND PLYOMETRIC TRAINING

WITH CHILDREN PROVIDES SIMILAR OR GREATER

PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENTS THAN TRADITIONAL
RESISTANCE TRAINING
ANIS CHAOUACHI,1 RAOUF HAMMAMI,1 SOFIENE KAABI,1 KARIM CHAMARI,2 ERIC J. DRINKWATER,3,4
4
AND DAVID G. BEHM
1
Tunisian Research Laboratory “Sports Performance Optimization,” National Center of Medicine and Science in Sports
(CNMSS), Tunis, Tunisia; 2Aspetar Orthopaedic and Sports Medicine Hospital, Research and Education Centre, Doha,
Qatar; 3School of Human Movement Studies, Charles Sturt University, Bathurst, New South Wales, Australia; and 4School of
Human Kinetics and Recreation, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John’s, Newfoundland, Canada

ABSTRACT greater performance adaptations for children. It is recommen-

Chaouachi, A, Hammami, R, Kaabi, S, Chamari, K, Drinkwater, EJ,
and Behm, DG. Olympic weightlifting and plyometric training
with children provides similar or greater performance improve-
ments than traditional resistance training. J Strength Cond Res
28(6): 1483–1496, 2014—A number of organizations recom-
mend that advanced resistance training (RT) techniques
can be implemented with children. The objective of this study
ded that any of the 3 training modalities can be implemented
under professional supervision with proper training progres-
sions to enhance training adaptations in children.
KEY WORDS youth, adolescence, strength, power, balance,
magnitude-based inferences
INTRODUCTION

was to evaluate the effectiveness of Olympic-style weightlifting
(OWL), plyometrics, and traditional RT programs with children.
Sixty-three children (10–12 years) were randomly allocated to
a 12-week control OWL, plyometric, or traditional RT program.
Pre- and post-training tests included body mass index (BMI),
sum of skinfolds, countermovement jump (CMJ), horizontal
jump, balance, 5- and 20-m sprint times, isokinetic force and
power at 60 and 3008$s21. Magnitude-based inferences were
used to analyze the likelihood of an effect having a standardized
(Cohen’s) effect size exceeding 0.20. All interventions were
generally superior to the control group. Olympic weightlifting
was .80% likely to provide substantially better improvements
than plyometric training for CMJ, horizontal jump, and 5- and
20-m sprint times, whereas .75% likely to substantially
exceed traditional RT for balance and isokinetic power at
3008$s21. Plyometric training was .78% likely to elicit sub-
stantially better training adaptations than traditional RT for bal-
ance, isokinetic force at 60 and 3008$s21, isokinetic power
at 3008$s21, and 5- and 20-m sprints. Traditional RT only
exceeded plyometric training for BMI and isokinetic power at
608$s21. Hence, OWL and plyometrics can provide similar or
Address correspondence to David G. Behm, dbehm@mun.ca.
28(6)/1483–1496
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Ó 2014 National Strength and Conditioning Association
T
here is widespread acceptance by various scientific
associations (1,10,27,28,51,59,65) and review ar-
ticles (14,15,27,36,37) that resistance training
(RT) for children can improve muscular strength
and endurance while decreasing the severity and incidence
of sport injuries (29,37,55). The Canadian Society for Exer-
cise Physiology (CSEP) position stand (10) reiterated this
information but also explored more advanced training con-
cepts such as plyometrics, instability RT, periodization, and
Olympic-style weightlifting (OWL). Other organizations
such as the United Kingdom Strength and Conditioning
Association (51) and the NSCA (28) have also advocated
that advanced multi-joint exercises such as Olympic-style
lifts and plyometrics can be incorporated into a youth RT
program. However, Olympic-style lifts involve a more com-
plex neural activation pattern, youth would need a greater
learning period with a relatively light load to become com-
petent at the movements. Faigenbaum et al. (35) states that
in some countries, children learn these lifts as early as
8 years, but resistance is not added to the bar until they have
developed the proper coordination. The possibility of an
extended learning period for OWL training might attenuate
the strength or power gains compared with traditional RT
over the same duration.
According to Haff et al. (40), Olympic-style lifts such as
the clean and jerk and snatch lifts can generate some of the
highest power outputs. They report in a 100 kg man, that the

VOLUME 28 | NUMBER 6 | JUNE 2014 | 1483

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 OWL and Plyometrics With Children
TABLE 1. Anthropometric data pre-and post-training.*
Body mass
Age (mean 6 SD)
(mean 6 SD), y pre-/post-training, kg
OWL (n = 17) 11 6 1 35.9 6 9.7/38.1 6 9.1 145.5 6 8.1/147.9 6 8.1
Plyometric training 11 6 1 40.1 6 7.2/42.3 6 6.7 149.8 6 6.7/151.8 6 6.4
(n = 17)
Traditional RT 11 6 1 39 6 11.4/40.7 6 9.1 145.1 6 8.8/147.3 6 8.7
(n = 17)
Control (no training) 11 6 1 41.1 6 7.4/42.9 6 6.7 150.4 6 7.8/152.7 6 7.5
(n = 13)
*OWL = Olympic weightlifting; RT = resistance training.
calculated power of the clean, jerk, and snatch would range
from approximately 3000 to 5400 W compared with squats
and deadlifts at 1100 W each, typical of power lifters (54).
Similar results from 8- and 15-week adult training studies
showed that OWL training provided a significant advantage
over power lifting (43) and vertical jump (66) training,
respectively for vertical jump improvements. In one of the
few studies employing OWL in a children’s RT program,
Ebada (26) instituted a 3-month children (mean age of
13.2 years) for OWL training program resulting in an aver-
age 4.9% increase in 9 strength tests (e.g., snatch, clean,
squats). An 8-week training program compared OWL and
power (e.g., squats, deadlifts) training with high school males
averaging 15.9 years of age (20). OWL training exhibited
a modest advantage over conventional power training for
vertical jump performance. Thus, as might be expected, with
training specificity, training programs emphasizing power
movements as found with OWL tend to improve power
tests such as vertical jumps to a greater extent than strength
measures with traditional strength type training programs.
Other training programs also emphasize power such as plyo-
metrics, albeit with only body mass as a resistance.
Meta-analyses by Saez de Villareal et al. (61,62) have
indicated that plyometric training could procure substantial
improvements in strength in both trained and untrained
adult men and women. Similarly Johnson et al. (47) report
in their meta-analysis that plyometric training with chil-
dren had large positive effects on jumping and running
performance with further evidence to suggest associated
improvements in kicking distance balance and agility.
However, there has been some reticence to apply these
explosive training activities with children. Prior recommen-
dations for high intensity adult plyometric training that
stated that the individual should squat at least 1.5 times
body weight before performing lower-body plyometrics
(60) may have inhibited coaches from implementing
plyometric training for youth. The CSEP position stand
the TM
1484 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Height Body fat %
(mean 6 SD) pre-/post-training;
pre-/post-training, cm Deurenberg (24) equation
15.3 6 5.7/14.9 6 5.5
16.8 6 4.7/16.7 6 4.4
15.6 6 5.1/15.3 6 4.7
16.7 6 5.3/17.04 6 4.8
recommends that plyometric training can be safe and
effective for enhancing muscle power in children (10).
Studies employing plyometric training programs for youth
reported improvements in vertical jump height (31),
rebound jump height (56), and running speed (49). Meta-
analysis by Behringer et al. (13) on the transfer of RT gains
to motor performance in youth reported the highest effect
sizes with a combination of plyometric and traditional
training programs. However there are no studies, pediatric
or adult, that have compared plyometric training to OWL
training or conventional/traditional RT.
Thus, it was the objective of this study to compare the
training effects of 12 weeks of OWL, plyometric, and
traditional RT in 10- to 12-year-old boys. Based on the
concept of training specificity (12), it was anticipated that the
OWL and plyometric training would provide the greatest
power improvements, whereas traditional RT would benefit
force measures to a greater extent.
METHODS
Experimental Approach to the Problem
The objective of this study was to evaluate the training
effects of OWL, plyometrics, and traditional RT with
children on functional and physiological measures. Sixty-
three children (10–12 years) were randomly allocated to
a 12-week control, OWL, plyometric, or traditional RT pro-
gram. Pre- and post-training tests included body mass index
(BMI), sum of skinfolds, countermovement jump (CMJ),
horizontal jump, balance, 5- and 20-m sprint times, isokinetic
force and power at 60 and 3008$s21. Magnitude-based infer-
ences were used to analyze the likelihood of an effect having
a standardized effect size exceeding 0.20.
Subjects
Sixty-three healthy boys between 10 and 12 years of age
recruited from 4 youth Judo and Wrestling development
centers affiliated with public primary schools in the area of
 TABLE 2. Training program volume (sets and repetitions).*

Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 Week 6 Week 7 Week 8 Week 9 Week 10 Week 11 Week 12

OWL
Cleans 1 set/12 2 sets/12 3 sets/12 3 sets/10 3 sets/8 1 set/12 3 sets/10 3 sets/8 1 set/12 3 sets/10 3 sets/8 1 set/12
Snatches 1 set/12 2 sets/12 3 sets/12 3 sets/10 3 sets/8 1 set/12 3 sets/10 3 sets/8 1 set/12 3 sets/10 3 sets/8 1 set/12
Shoulder push press 1 set/12 2 sets/12 3 sets/12 3 sets/10 3 sets/8 1 set/12 3 sets/10 3 sets/8 1 set/12 3 sets/10 3 sets/8 1 set/12
Kettle bell/dumbbell cross 1 set/12 2 sets/12 3 sets/12 3 sets/10 3 sets/8 1 set/12 3 sets/10 3 sets/8 1 set/12 3 sets/10 3 sets/8 1 set/12
body pull
Plyometric
Maximum CMJs 1 set/12 2 sets/12 3 sets/12 3 sets/10 3 sets/8 1 set/12 3 sets/10 3 sets/8 1 set/12 3 sets/10 3 sets/8 1 set/12
Drop jumps 1 set/12 2 sets/12 3 sets/12 3 sets/10 3 sets/8 1 set/12 3 sets/10 3 sets/8 1 set/12 3 sets/10 3 sets/8 1 set/12
Drop from a low platform and 1 set/12 2 sets/12 3 sets/12 3 sets/10 3 sets/8 1 set/12 3 sets/10 3 sets/8 1 set/12 3 sets/10 3 sets/8 1 set/12
perform ballistic -type push-ups
or clapping push-ups
Medicine ball throws forward 1 set/12 2 sets/1 3 sets/12 3 sets/10 3 sets/8 1 set/12 3 sets/10 3 sets/8 1 set/12 3 sets/10 3 sets/8 1 set/12

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

and behind the body

the
Traditional RT
Squats 1 set/12 2 sets/12 3 sets/12 3 sets/10 3 sets/8 1 set/12 3 sets/10 3 sets/8 1 set/12 3 sets/10 3 sets/8 1 set/12
Lunges 1 set/12 2 sets/12 3 sets/12 3 sets/10 3 sets/8 1 set/12 3 sets/10 3 sets/8 1 set/12 3 sets/10 3 sets/8 1 set/12
Alternate flat and incline 1 set/12 2 sets/12 3 sets/12 3 sets/10 3 sets/8 1 set/12 3 sets/10 3 sets/8 1 set/12 3 sets/10 3 sets/8 1 set/12
chest press
Unilateral shoulder flyes 1 set/12 2 sets/12 3 sets/12 3 sets/10 3 sets/8 1 set/12 3 sets/10 3 sets/8 1 set/12 3 sets/10 3 sets/8 1 set/12
VOLUME 28 | NUMBER 6 | JUNE 2014 |

or presses

*CMJ = countermovement jump; OWL = Olympic weightlifting; RT = resistance training.

TM
| www.nsca.com
1485

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 OWL and Plyometrics With Children

programs before this experi-

ment. As Judo and Wrestling
involves body weight training,
which possibly may affect
the training outcomes, no spe-
cific training was performed
by the subjects during the
study period. Pubertal stage
was determined by self-assess-
ment questionnaire, in which
subjects assess their genital
and pubic hair development
according to the criteria of
Tanner (3). Subjects ranged
from stage 1 to stage 2 of the
Tanner score. The children
were randomly allocated into
4 groups (Table 1): (a) OWL
Figure 1. Countermovement Jump. Standardized effect sizes of control, plyometric training, traditional resistance training, (b) plyometric train-
training (RT) and Olympic weight lifting (OWL) training on each variable. Plots represent the magnitude of
difference between pre-training and post-training scores on each variable. Negative values indicate the training ing, (c) traditional RT, or (d)
group decreased in performance. Error bars indicate 95% confidence limits of the mean difference between time a control group without a train-
points. The shaded area of the graph indicates the region in which the difference between groups is trivial (i.e. ing program. Groups were
between 20.20 and 0.20 standardized effect sizes).
matched for age, maturation
status, and physical character-
istics. All 4 groups were bal-
Tunis, Tunisia volunteered to participate in this study. All anced as for the sport (Judo, Wrestling) of the subjects
participants were from similar socioeconomic status and (after minor initial adjustments), and they were shown to
had the same daily school-training schedules. None of the be equivalent on all preexperimental measures (p . 0.05),
boys had an athletic background and were not previously so that post-training differences could not be ascribed to
involved in any organized strength and conditioning training unequal group composition or to preexperimental biases.
Because the study period fell
during the summer break, the
subjects’ usual training pro-
gramme was in the form of
games and technical learning,
which did not interfere with
the experimental conditions.
Parental permission and
child assent was obtained after
they were informed they could
decide whether to be in the
study or not, the objectives of
the study, possible risks, and
benefits. The study was con-
ducted according to the Dec-
laration of Helsinki, and the
protocol was fully approved
by the Ethics Committee of
the National Centre of Medi-
Figure 2. Horizontal Jump. Standardized effect sizes of control, plyometric training, traditional resistance training cine and Science of Sports
(RT) and Olympic weight lifting (OWL) training on each variable. Plots represent the magnitude of difference of Tunis (CNMSS) before
between pre-training and post-training scores on each variable. Negative values indicate the training group
decreased in performance. Error bars indicate 95% confidence limits of the mean difference between time points.
the commencement of the
The shaded area of the graph indicates the region in which the difference between groups is trivial (i.e. between assessments.
20.20 and 0.20 standardized effect sizes). Before the beginning of the
experiments, children were
the TM

1486 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 the TM

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com

Procedure
Before the commencement of
the study and the initiation
of testing, all the subjects com-
pleted a 2-week orientation
period (3 sessions per week)
to become familiar with the
general environment, form,
and technique on each fitness
test used to evaluate force,
power and balance, technique
for each training exercise,
equipment, and the experimen-
tal procedures. During this
time, the children received
consistent instructions on
proper techniques for OWL
movements, free weight RT,
Figure 3. Balance. Standardized effect sizes of control, plyometric training, traditional resistance training, and plyometric exercises, and land-
Olympic weightlifting training on each dependent variable. Plots represent the magnitude of difference between
pre- and post-training scores on each variable. Negative values indicate the training group decreased in
ing from certified strength and
performance. Error bars indicate 95% confidence limits of the mean difference between time points. The shaded conditioning specialists and
area of the graph indicates the region in which the difference between groups is trivial (i.e., between 20.20 and weightlifting coaches. Tech-
0.20 standardized effect sizes).
nique for OWL exercises was
the first priority, with the chil-
dren using wooden sticks in
examined by a physician in the CNMSS (Tunis), and were lieu of a bar progressing to an unloaded aluminum bar. The
assessed as having no injury, chronic pediatric disease, pedagogic sequence of each session followed the guidelines
orthopedic limitations, or illness that might impair their proposed by Faigenbaum and Polakowski (33) and Lloyd
ability to execute RT or to perform power tests. et al. (52). Subjects worked repetitively in modified cleans
(from blocks just above the
knee: clean pull without explo-
sion, clean pull + shrug, clean
pull + jump and shrug) and
snatch balance to a full squats,
not only to learn the skill, but to
work on flexibility as well. Once
the overhead squat was mas-
tered, the snatch from the
upper thigh (start position of
second pull) was implemented.
Progression to the snatch and
clean from the knee (hang clean
and hang snatch) and finally
from the ground completed
the first sequences of drills or
technique (16). Procedures on
how to “miss” a lift (respond
to incorrect technique) properly
were reviewed, and instructions
Figure 4. Body mass index. Standardized effect sizes of control, plyometric training, traditional resistance were regularly provided on how
training, and Olympic weightlifting training on each dependent variable. Plots represent the magnitude of to correctly return the bar to
difference between pre- and post-training scores on each variable. Negative values indicate the training group
the hang or floor position so
decreased in performance. Error bars indicate 95% confidence limits of the mean difference between time points.
The shaded area of the graph indicates the region in which the difference between groups is trivial (i.e., between that participants became auto-
20.20 and 0.20 standardized effect sizes). matic in their response to an
undesirable bar position (32).

VOLUME 28 | NUMBER 6 | JUNE 2014 | 1487

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 OWL and Plyometrics With Children

Body mass index was calculated

as weight per height squared
(kg$m22). The sum of skinfolds
was monitored with Harper-
den’s skinfold calipers (Baty
International, West Sussex, Eng-
land). Body measurements were
conducted according to Deur-
enberg et al. (24) who reported
similar prediction errors
between adults and young ado-
lescents. Deurenberg’s predic-
tion equation used was: Body
fat percentage = 222.23 +
26.56 3 log (Biceps, triceps,
subscapular, and suprailiac).
Body mass, height, BMI, and
sum of skinfold measures
Figure 5. Force60. Standardized effect sizes of control, plyometric training, traditional resistance training, and (biceps, triceps, supailiac, and
Olympic weightlifting training on each dependent variable. Plots represent the magnitude of difference between subscapular sites) were also col-
pre- and post-training scores on each variable. Negative values indicate the training group decreased in
performance. Error bars indicate 95% confidence limits of the mean difference between time points. The shaded lected after training.
area of the graph indicates the region in which the difference between groups is trivial (i.e., between 20.20 and Performance testing occurred
0.20 standardized effect sizes). before and after the 12-week
training period. The testing pro-
tocol included assessment of
Pictures and videos were used to make the instructions appro- lower-body strength and power (isokinetic force and power,
priate for children. Participants’ questions were answered dur- horizontal, and vertical jumps), acceleration (stationary 5-m
ing this time. sprint), maximal speed (flying 20-m sprint run), and static
Each subject’s height and body mass were collected using balance (Standing Stork Test). Testing was conducted pre-
a wall-mounted stadiometer and electronic scale, respectively. and post-training at the CNMSS (Tunis, Tunisia).

Training
After the initial baseline testing
session, subjects were randomly
assigned to one of the four
groups (OWL, plyometric, tra-
ditional RT, or control). Each
experimental group participated
in a 12-week group-specific
training protocol using one of
the three methods (Table 2).
The OWL group trained using
Olympic-style lift exercises. The
plyometric group followed
a structured plyometric training
program using their body
weight as resistance. Both the
OWL and plyometric exercises
were performed with a ballistic
Figure 6. Force300. Standardized effect sizes of control, plyometric training, traditional resistance training, and intent concentric contraction
Olympic weightlifting training on each dependent variable. Plots represent the magnitude of difference between (11,12) (contract as forcefully
pre- and post-training scores on each variable. Negative values indicate the training group decreased in and rapidly as possible). Unlike
performance. Error bars indicate 95% confidence limits of the mean difference between time points. The shaded
area of the graph indicates the region in which the difference between groups is trivial (i.e., between 20.20 and the traditional RT group, there
0.20 standardized effect sizes). was no enforced pacing rhythm
for the concentric or eccentric
the TM

1488 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 the TM

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com

ities were permitted outside of

the supervised training sessions.
The control group did not par-
ticipated in any training pro-
gram and was limited to their
normal daily activities during
the entire research project.
Experimental groups followed
the 12-week training program
with a frequency of 2 sessions
per week performed on noncon-
secutive days (Monday and
Thursday afternoons). Previous
investigations have clearly dem-
onstrated that RT twice per
week is sufficient for enhancing
the muscle strength of children
(10,30). A standardized warm-
Figure 7. Power60. Standardized effect sizes of control, plyometric training, traditional resistance training, and up including jogging, dynamic
Olympic weightlifting training on each dependent variable. Plots represent the magnitude of difference between
stretching exercises, calisthen-
pre- and post-training scores on each variable. Negative values indicate the training group decreased in
performance. Error bars indicate 95% confidence limits of the mean difference between time points. The shaded ics, and preparatory exercises
area of the graph indicates the region in which the difference between groups is trivial (i.e., between 20.20 and (e.g., fundamental weightlifting
0.20 standardized effect sizes).
exercises specific to their train-
ing program) was provided for
all experimental groups before
segments of the movement. The traditional RT group trained the beginning of each training session. Each training session
with free weights using slower speed movements. The eccen- ended with 5 minutes of cool-down activities including
tric, isometric, concentric contraction pacing for the traditional dynamic stretching. To ensure an equal volume of training,
RT group was 1s-1s-1s, respectively. No strength training activ- each training program session was composed of 4 different
exercises and 1 to 3 sets of 8–12
repetitions. As all exercises
were either compound lifts or
jumps, involving multi-articular
movements and multiple mus-
cle groups (Table 2), 4 exercises
per group provided sufficient
stimuli. Furthermore, the time
schedule of the children did
not permit a more extensive
training routine. All groups
performed 8–12 repetitions.
The variables of volume and
intensity were selected based
on the previous recommenda-
tions and training guidelines
for pediatric population
(10,52). Training volume (i.e.,
number of sets 3 repetitions)
was altered similarly for the
Figure 8. Power300. Standardized effect sizes of control, plyometric training, traditional resistance training, and 3 groups. During the first week,
Olympic weightlifting training on each dependent variable. Plots represent the magnitude of difference between all groups trained with 1 set of
pre- and post-training scores on each variable. Negative values indicate the training group decreased in 12 repetitions and progressed
performance. Error bars indicate 95% confidence limits of the mean difference between time points. The shaded
area of the graph indicates the region in which the difference between groups is trivial (i.e., between 20.20 and to 2 sets of 12 repetitions dur-
0.20 standardized effect sizes). ing second week. During the
third, fourth, and fifth weeks,

VOLUME 28 | NUMBER 6 | JUNE 2014 | 1489

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 OWL and Plyometrics With Children

lower repetitions are most

effective for young athletes to
learn the snatch and clean;
the total repetition number for
these 2 exercises was per-
formed in multiple sets of 4–6
repetitions using a 5–10 kg
youth-sized weightlifting bar
with wooden plates. Each pro-
gram was periodized in 2 sim-
ilar progressive mesocycles of 6
weeks. The exercises remained
the same over the first and sec-
ond mesocycle of training.
The amount of weight lifted
in the training sessions was
determined by the ability of
each individual (48) established
Figure 9. Time to 5 m. Standardized effect sizes of control, plyometric training, traditional resistance training, and from each subject’s 10 repeti-
Olympic weightlifting training on each dependent variable. Plots represent the magnitude of difference between
tions maximum in the selected
pre- and post-training scores on each variable. Negative values indicate the training group decreased in
performance. Error bars indicate 95% confidence limits of the mean difference between time points. The shaded resistance exercises. This proce-
area of the graph indicates the region in which the difference between groups is trivial (i.e., between 20.20 and dure is similar to those pre-
0.20 standardized effect sizes).
scribed in the literature (42,64).
Each subject had to lift their
maximum weight for the given
they altered the volume to 3 sets of 12, 10, and 8 repetitions, number of repetitions while using the correct technique. The
respectively. During the final week of the first mesocycle, amount of weight was increased carefully, and correct tech-
training volume was reduced to 1 set of 12 repetitions. As nique was the focus. During each training session, instructors
it has been indicated (35,52) that when prescribing training reviewed proper exercise technique and made appropriate
volume for the learning stage of OWL, multiple sets and adjustments in training resistance. The amount of weight
was increased at the next train-
ing session whether the subject
could lift the given weight with
the proper technique in the
respective exercises variant. If
a child could not complete
the required number of repeti-
tions sequentially within a set,
they were given 30 seconds–
1 minute of rest before at-
tempting to complete the set.
Throughout the study, all sub-
jects were encouraged to
increase the amount of weight
lifted and to achieve concentric
fatigue within each designated
repetition range. Because
fatigue can influence the per-
formance of explosive move-
Figure 10. Flying 20-m time. Standardized effect sizes of control, plyometric training, traditional resistance
ments and possibly increase
training, and Olympic weightlifting training on each dependent variable. Plots represent the magnitude of the risk of injury (32), and
difference between pre- and post-training scores on each variable. Negative values indicate the training group based on previous strength
decreased in performance. Error bars indicate 95% confidence limits of the mean difference between time points.
The shaded area of the graph indicates the region in which the difference between groups is trivial (i.e., between
training studies in youth (63),
20.20 and 0.20 standardized effect sizes). rest intervals between sets
within each exercise session
the TM

1490 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

were 3 minutes in length for the 3 groups to allow for ade-
quate recovery. All training sessions were directly supervised
by certified strength and conditioning specialists and weight-
lifting coaches who were knowledgeable of pediatric RT
guidelines and the pedagogical aspects of teaching weight-
lifting to school-aged youth. All the subjects completed
a minimum of 95% of scheduled training sessions.
The plyometric training group performed the following
drills for their training sessions: maximum CMJs, drop
jumps, ballistic-type push-ups/clapping push-ups, and med-
icine ball throws. Traditional strength exercises consisted of
squats, lunges, alternate flat and incline chest press, and
unilateral shoulder flyes. The pool of exercises for the OWL
program included power cleans and snatches (progression
model), in addition to shoulder push press and cross body
pull with kettle bell/dumbbell. There were no injuries
reported over the training program period. All training
sessions took place after school at the weight fitness venue
of each center that was used exclusively by the subjects in
this study on designated training days. Throughout the
training period, children typically exercised in groups of 6–8,
and an instructor-to-participant ratio of at least 1:4 was
maintained. In the course of training, there was constant
concern to ensure safety and maintain sufficient hydration
level, and to encourage all children to do their best to
achieve the best results. Clear instructions about the impor-
tance of adequate nutrition were also provided.
Testing Procedures
Both groups were tested before and after the 12-week
training period for all variables. Each testing session was
conducted over 2 separate days with the same test order.
Testing was completed at the same time on each testing day
for both pre-and post-tests, at the same indoor venue and by
the same trained investigators. The participants were asked
to wear the same type of clothing and footwear and to avoid
vigorous physical activity before or the day of any study
procedure. Subjects were prohibited from consuming food,
beverages, or any known stimuli (e.g., caffeine) that would
possibly enhance or compromise alertness during the period
of investigation. Each player was instructed and verbally
encouraged to give a maximal effort for each performance
test. Performance testing was initiated after a standardized
15-minute warm-up, including submaximal intensity run-
ning, dynamic stretching, low intensity forward, sideways,
and backward running; several acceleration runs; and jump-
ing at a progressively increased intensity. Throughout all
testing procedures, instructor-to-participant ratio of 1:1 was
maintained, and uniformed verbal encouragement was
offered to all participants.
Isokinetic Strength. The maximal voluntary isokinetic concen-
tric strength of the dominant leg was measured at 2 velocity
contractions 60 and 3008$s21 using an isokinetic dynamom-
eter (Cybex NORM; Henley Healthcare, Cybex International,
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
the TM
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com
Inc., Medway, MA, USA) according to the previously
described procedures (22). The parameters used for analysis
were peak torque (Force60 and Force300) and mean power
(Power60 and Power300) at 608$s21 and 3008$s21, respec-
tively. Excellent isokinetic reliability measurements with chil-
dren in our laboratory have been reported elsewhere
(intraclass correlation coefficients of 0.928–0.988) (22).
Countermovement jump height was assessed using a por-
table platform (Quattro-Jump; Kisler, Winterthur, Switzer-
land) according to the procedure described by Chaouachi
et al. (23). Participants were instructed to keep their hands
on their hips to minimize lateral and horizontal displace-
ment during performance, to prevent any influence of arm
movements on the vertical jumps, and to avoid coordination
as a confounding variable in the assessment of the leg exten-
sors’ neuromuscular performance (23). Participants were
encouraged to perform the eccentric phase of the jump as
quickly as possible to maximize jump height. Three trials
were performed with approximately 2 minutes recovery,
and the best result was used for analysis.
Standing Horizontal Jump. The participant stood stationary
with the toes aligned level with the start line and were
instructed to push off vigorously and jumped forward as far
as possible. Participants were allowed the use of a counter-
movement with arms and body swing. The distance jumped
from the start line at take-off to the point where the back of
the heel nearest to the take-off line landed was measured in
centimeters using a metal tape measure. The test was
repeated 3 times, and the maximum distance achieved was
recorded in centimeters and used for analysis (19,21).
Acceleration and maximal running speed were evaluated
using a stationary 5-m sprint and flying 20-m sprint.
Stationary 5-m sprint involved sprinting 5-m as fast as
possible from a stationary start position. Flying 20-m sprint
involved sprinting 20-m as fast as possible from a maximal
speed start. Time was automatically recorded using photo-
cell gates (Brower Timing Systems, Salt Lake City, UT,
USA; accuracy of 0.01 seconds) placed 0.4 m above the
ground. Subjects performed 2 maximal attempts, and the
best time was retained for analysis.
Static balance was assessed using the Stork stand balance
protocol. To perform the Stork stand test (21,57), partici-
pants stood with their opposite foot against the inside of
the supporting knee and both hands on the hips. On the
command, the subject raised the heel of their foot from
the floor and attempted to maintain their balance as long
as possible. The trial ended if the subject either moved his
hands from his hips, the ball of the dominant foot moved
from its original position, or if the heel touched the floor.
This test was carried out on the dominant leg acting as the
standing leg. The test was timed (in seconds) using a stop-
watch. The total time in seconds was recorded. The
recorded score was the best of 3 attempts. Previous test-
retest reliability scores for sprint, vertical and horizontal
VOLUME 28 | NUMBER 6 | JUNE 2014 | 1491
 OWL and Plyometrics With Children
jumps, and balance measures from our laboratory with sim-
ilar pediatric population have been high (Typical error of
measurement range from 0.3 to 3.2%) (21).
Statistical Analyses
To avoid the shortcomings of research based in null-
hypothesis significance testing, magnitude-based inferences
and precision of estimation were employed (46). Magnitude-
based inferences were conducted to assess the clinical (prac-
tical) difference in the training effects on the independent
variables between training types. Differences were calculated
within each training type (before and after training) and
between the changes affected by each training type.
Qualitative descriptors of standardized effects were as-
sessed using these criteria: trivial ,0.2, small 0.2–0.6, mod-
erate 0.6–1.2, large 1.2–2.0, and very large .2.0. Effects with
95% confidence limits substantially overlapping the thresh-
olds for small positive and negative effects (exceeding 0.2 of
the SD on both sides of zero) were defined as unclear. Clear
small or larger effect sizes (i.e., those with .75% likelihood
of being .0.20, as calculated by a previously available
spreadsheets (44,45)) were defined as substantial. Precision
of estimates was indicated with 95% confidence limits, which
defines the range representing the uncertainty in the true
value of the (unknown) population mean.
RESULTS
Within-Treatment Effects
All groups increased height to a similar extent (d = 0.24–
0.29, all comparisons ,75% likely). Changes in sum of skin-
folds were found to be trivial (d , 0.7, all comparisons ,75%
likely) for all groups.
Control. The control condition elicited likely substantial
improvements in balance (87% likely, “small”) and Power300
(82% likely, “small”) (Table 1, Figures 1–10). All other effects
were likely “trivial” (CMJ, BMI) or “unclear” (time to 5 m,
flying 20-m time, horizontal jump, Force60, Force300,
Power60, sum of skinfolds).
Plyometric. Plyometric training was very likely (.99%) to elicit
substantial improvements in nearly all variables (time to 5 m,
CMJ, horizontal jump, balance, Force60, Force300, Power300)
with effect sizes ranging from “moderate” to “very large” (Table
1, Figures 1–10). The effect on flying 20-m time and Power60
was “unclear” while BMI was 80% likely to be “trivial.”
Traditional Resistance Training. Traditional RT was .85%
likely to elicit substantial improvements in all variables, effects
ranging from “small” to “large” (Table 1, Figures 1–10). Only
traditional RT elicited substantial changes (96% likely) in BMI
increasing by a “small” 1.06 kg$m22 (95% CL 0.52–1.60).
Olympic Weightlifting. Changes in BMI with OWL were 80%
likely to be trivial (Table 1, Figures 1–10). All other variables
the TM
1492 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
were .85% likely to be substantially improved, effects rang-
ing from “moderate” to “very large.”
Between-Group Comparisons
Between-groups pretest differences were classified as trivial.
Countermovement Jump and Horizontal Jump. Although there
was no clearly substantial difference in CMJ between
plyometric and traditional RT, OWL was 96% likely to be
better than plyometric training (mean difference, lower to
upper 95% confidence limits, effect size; 3.2 cm, 0.6–5.8,
0.78) and 93% likely to be better than traditional RT (mean
difference, lower to upper 95% confidence limits, effect size;
4.1 cm, 0.2–7.9, 0.71). The only likely substantial difference
between intervention groups on horizontal jump was that
OWL was 90% likely to be superior to plyometric training
(mean difference, lower to upper 95% confidence limits,
effect size; 13.5 cm, 20.9 to 27.9, 0.63).
Balance and Anthropometrics. Olympic Weightlifting was 87%
likely to elicit substantially greater improvement to balance than
traditional RT (mean difference, lower to upper 95% confidence
limits, effect size; 5.5 seconds, 20.8 to 11.8, 0.60). Furthermore,
plyometric training was 98% likely to be substantially better
than traditional RT (mean difference, lower to upper 95% con-
fidence limits, effect size; 9.1 seconds, 2.2–16, 0.86).
Traditional RT was 92% likely to elicit substantially greater
increases in BMI than plyometric (mean difference, lower to
upper 95% confidence limits, effect size; 0.6 kg$m22, 0.0–1.2,
0.67) and 90% more likely than OWL (mean difference,
lower to upper 95% confidence limits, effect size; 0.6
kg$m22, 0.0–1.2, 0.64) training. There were no substantially
greater between-group changes in height and sum of skin-
folds (d = 0.24–0.29, all comparisons ,75% likely).
Force and Power. Plyometric training was 84% likely to elicit
substantially greater increases in Force60 than traditional RT
(mean difference, lower to upper 95% confidence limits,
effect size; 13.0 kg, 23.7 to 29.8, 0.54) and 81% likely than
OWL (mean difference, lower to upper 95% confidence
limits, effect size; 13.8 kg, 25.1 to 32.6, 0.50) training. Plyo-
metric training was 79% likely to elicit substantially greater
improvements in Force300 than traditional RT (mean differ-
ence, lower to upper 95% confidence limits, effect size;
6.7 kg, 23.1 to 16.4, 0.48).
Traditional RT was 96% likely to be substantially superior
to plyometric training at eliciting improvements in Power60
(mean difference, lower to upper 95% confidence limits,
effect size; 13.2 W, 2.3–23.8, 0.80). Regarding Power300,
plyometric training elicited more power than traditional
RT (78% likely; mean difference, lower to upper 95% confi-
dence limits, effect size; 15.8 W, 27.9 to 39.6, 0.47). Olympic
weightlifting also elicited more power than traditional RT
(76% likely; mean difference, lower to upper 95% confidence
limits, effect size; 20.7 W, 12.0–53.4, 0.44).

Time to 5 m (Acceleration) and Flying 20-m Time (Speed). For
the time to 5 m, plyometric training demonstrated the lowest
improvement when compared with traditional RT (.99%
likely; mean difference, lower to upper 95% confidence lim-
its, effect size; 0.05 seconds, 0.03–0.07, 1.2), and OWL (93%
likely; mean difference, lower to upper 95% confidence lim-
its, effect size; 0.04 seconds, 0.002–0.08, 0.70) thought there
were no clearly substantial difference between traditional RT
and OWL. Plyometric training demonstrated the lowest
improvement in flying 20-m time when compared with tra-
ditional RT (86% likely; mean difference, lower to upper 95%
confidence limits, effect size; 0.12 seconds, 20.03 to 0.27,
0.57), and OWL (81% likely; mean difference, lower to upper
95% confidence limits, effect size; 0.14 seconds, 20.05 to
0.33, 0.50) thought there were no clearly substantial differ-
ence between traditional RT and OWL.
DISCUSSION
The most important finding in this study was that 12 weeks
of OWL or plyometric training were generally equal to or
more effective for enhancing performance than traditional
RT for male youth. In summary, OWL training was likely to
provide better improvements than plyometric training for
CMJ, horizontal jump, and 5- and 20-m sprint times while
exceeding traditional RT for balance and isokinetic
Power300. Tricoli et al. (66) reported similar findings with
greater relative improvements in CMJ, squat jumps, and
10-m sprint speed after OWL vs. vertical jump training in
college-aged males. The many nonsignificant differences in
strength and sprint measures between OWL and traditional
RT in this study are complemented by similar findings by
Hoffman et al. (43) in a 15-week training program compar-
ing OWL and powerlifting in college-aged males. However
in their study, OWL provided significantly greater improve-
ments in vertical jump performance than powerlifting train-
ing. Conversely, an 8-week training program comparing
OWL and powerlifting training in high school boys did
not find statistically significant differences in vertical jump
height (20), similar to the findings in this study. From our
results, we conclude that while all training systems can
improve performance of youths, OWL is generally equal
to or superior to the other 2 forms of training.
Plyometric training was more likely to elicit better training
adaptations compared with traditional RT for balance,
isokinetic Force60 and 300, Power300. Adult strength gains
were similar with 6-(53) and 12-week (67) plyometric vs.
conventional RT training programs (average age of subjects:
22 and 25 years, respectively). However, muscle power
increased almost exclusively with plyometric training in
the 12-week training program (67). Studies employing plyo-
metric training programs for youth reported improvements
in vertical jump height (31), rebound jump height (56), and
running speed (49). However, these studies did not attempt
to compare plyometric training with other forms of strength
or power training. The present findings support the CSEP
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
the TM
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com
(10), NSCA (28), and UKSCA (51) position stands which
recommended that OWL and plyometrics can be included
in children’s RT programs to enhance strength and power
gains. This is the first study to directly compare plyometric,
OWL, and traditional RT in children.
Given that balance and coordination are not fully
developed in children (58), the implementation of more
complex, coordinated activities such as OWL and plyomet-
rics into youth RT programs has been controversial (10).
Because children rely less on glycolytic metabolism (68)
have blunted muscle hypertrophic responses (37) and lower
type 2 fibers composition areas (34) than adults, it might be
considered that high intensity strength and power training
programs may not benefit children. As OWL involves more
complex coordination (10), a prolonged duration motor
learning curve might be expected delaying potential benefi-
cial training adaptations compared with the slower velocity,
less complex movements involved with traditional RT. Fur-
thermore, the recommendation for initiating adult plyomet-
ric training indicated that the individual should squat at least
1.5 times body weight before performing lower-body plyo-
metrics (60) may have inhibited the implementation of plyo-
metric training for youth. However, these potential
impediments were not realized in this study.
It is well documented that traditional RT can provide
significant strength training adaptations in children
(1,10,27,36,37,59,65). OWL training in this study was equally
or more effective than traditional RT. OWL has been shown
to produce higher power outputs than traditional RT (40).
OWL involves an explosive intent contraction that will
involve either low or higher velocity movement dependent
on the resistance employed. Behm and Sale (11,12) demon-
strated that it was the intent to contract explosively that deter-
mined the high velocity-specific training response and not the
movement velocity. An important advantage with OWL vs.
traditional RT is the emphasis on rate of force development
(RFD) and its importance for activities such as jumping (39).
Harries et al. (41) in a meta-analysis reported a positive effect
for RT programs on vertical jump performance (mean differ-
ence, 3.08 cm; 95% CI, 1.65–4.51; Z = 4.23; P , 0.0001)
providing sufficient evidence that RT can improve muscular
power in adolescent athletes. Olympic weightlifting exercises
are explosive, multi-joint movements against a resistance,
which exemplify many athletic actions (66) accentuating the
task or action specificity of the training.
The coordinated control and stability to efficiently move
a resistance through an extended range of motion with a high
RFD necessitate strong balance capabilities. Many studies have
demonstrated that instability or balance perturbations can
impair force and power (5,7,6,25). Balance in this study was
improved to a greater extent with OWL and plyometrics than
with traditional RT. Behm and Colado (6) in a review of bal-
ance and instability RT studies reported that balance training
alone in adults with no strength, power, or functional training
improved measures of functional performance such as
VOLUME 28 | NUMBER 6 | JUNE 2014 | 1493
 OWL and Plyometrics With Children
strength, power, running, and other activities by 31% with an
effect size of 0.58 indicating a moderate magnitude of change.
Thus, the improvement of balance or stability without con-
comitant RT can improve functional performance. Because the
balance capabilities of children are not fully mature (58),
greater improvements in balance with OWL and plyometrics
could translate into greater power production.
Plyometric training in this study was superior to traditional
RT for balance, Force60, Force300, Power300, and provided
similar results for CMJ and horizontal jump. Traditional RT
only exceeded plyometric training for BMI and Power60.
Some of the advantages of plyometrics are similar to OWL.
Similar to OWL, plyometrics involve a high RFD and
explosive intent contractions that would be beneficial for
power adaptations (12). Although plyometrics do not typi-
cally involve an external resistance, the momentum (mass 3
velocity) of the body moving at high velocities generates high
ground reaction forces that must be absorbed and redirected
with the stretch-shortening cycle actions. Cappa and Behm
(17) reported ground reaction forces ranging from 2000 to
4000 N for CMJ and drop jumps, respectively. Auro (2)
reported ground reaction forces ranging from 2 to 7 times
body weight for agility and jump actions. Thus, even without
the added stress of an external resistance, plyometrics using
body mass as the resistance provides considerable tension
training stress to the individual.
Plyometrics differ from OWL, in that the movement is
more rapid providing the proprioceptive system with high
velocity movement information for both eccentric and
concentric contractions (17,18). Attempting to control the
movement of the body with high velocity descending,
ascending, and change of direction movements place sub-
stantial stress on the body to maintain balance and joint
stability. Johnson et al. (47) in their meta-analysis of plyo-
metric training for children indicated that plyometric train-
ing had a large effect on improving the ability to jump and
run with a smaller effect on improving strength. In accor-
dance with the training specificity principle (12), plyometrics
in the Johnson’s meta-analysis had the strongest effect on
jumping and running, which involve substantial high velocity
eccentric and concentric actions. Hence again similar to
OWL, the subjects in this study responded to these balance
stressors by improving balance to a greater extent than tra-
ditional RT. Improved balance and stability would contribute
to greater force and power output (5,9,8,6).
Although most pediatric RT articles emphasize the neural
component in children’s strength gains (10), increases in mus-
cle mass in children have been reported (38). Traditional RT
in this study resulted in a substantially greater BMI and body
mass after training than with OWL or plyometric training. All
groups increased height (d = 0.24–0.29) to a similar amount,
so we cannot account for the difference in BMI with greater
skeletal mass of 1 group over another. Furthermore, all groups
had “trivial” changes in skinfolds (d , 0.07). Based on a 3-
compartment model of body mass (i.e., skeletal mass, muscle
the TM
1494 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
mass, and fat mass), we eliminate skeletal and fat mass differ-
ences, and therefore account for likely substantial difference in
BMI to be because of greater muscle mass. Further explora-
tion of the capacity of children to increase muscle mass with
RT to confirm this deduction may be warranted using more
involved techniques of body composition analysis (e.g., hydro-
static weighing, DEXA). Although, all 3 training programs
can provide high overload tensions for the muscles, traditional
RT with its slower movements provides a greater time under
tension especially for the eccentric component (4,50) of the
movements compared with plyometrics and OWL.
The limitations of this study would include the limited age
group and sex of the subjects (10- to 12-year-old males).
Although the use of Tanner stages can be considered a strength
of the protocol, the self assessment may not be as valid as an
assessment by a physician. Furthermore, there were no
physiological measures such as magnetic resonance imaging,
electromyography, or evoked contractile properties to aid in
describing the mechanisms underlying the training adaptations.
This study demonstrates that more advanced RT techniques
such as OWL and plyometrics can be included in a training
program for adolescent children. The training gains from OWL
and plyometrics for jump height, balance, strength and power
measures, and sprint time were generally comparable or
superior to traditional RT. The advantages associated with
OWL and plyometrics may derive from the explosive contrac-
tions and high contraction speeds that tend to produce higher
power outputs, and the increased demand placed on balance.
PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS
The present results do not suggest that traditional RT should
be precluded from RT programs for children. In light of the
common misperceptions that high intensity, high velocity,
more complex coordinated activities like OWL and plyomet-
rics may be ineffective and lead to injury in children, this study
demonstrates the effectiveness of these training modalities. As
the competitiveness of sport is reaching into younger ages,
coaches and young athletes are seeking training advantages.
Because coordination, balance, and power are underdevel-
oped in youth, training programs implementing OWL and
plyometrics can accelerate positive training adaptations
leading to competitive advantages. The results of this study
and others (10,62) recommend that a combination of tradi-
tional RT, OWL, and plyometrics be introduced to children
who wish to resistance train to provide a variety of overload
stimuli and enhance neuromuscular training adaptations. As
suggested by a number of professional organizations, the im-
plementation of any RT program should be under professional
supervision and involve an orderly training progression.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This study was financially supported by the Tunisian
Ministary of Scientific Research, Technology and Develop-
ment of Competences, Tunisia. The authors would like to
thank the staff of the National Center of Medicine and

Science in Sports, as well as the young athletes and coaches
for their participation in this study. We especially thank
Dr Mohamed Nassef for medical screening; Dr Moktar
Chtara, Dr Olfa Turki for, Dr Lamia-Belkhiria Turki, Mme
Narjess Touati, Mr Sofiene Kassmi and Mme Khawla Hidri
for their assistance in testing.
REFERENCES
1. American College of Sports Medicine. ACSM’s Guidelines for
Exercise Testing and Prescription. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott,
Wiliams and Wilkins, 2014. pp. 84–136.
2. Auro, OV. Biomechanical characteristics of jumping. Inter J Sport
Biomech 5: 89–98, 1989.
3. Baxter-Jones, ADG, Eisenmann, JC, and Sherar, LB. Controlling
for maturation in pediatric exercise science. Pediatr Exerc Sci 17:
18–30, 2005.
4. Behm, DG. Neuromuscular implications and applications of
resistance training. J Strength Cond Res 9: 264–274, 1995.
5. Behm, DG and Anderson, KG. The role of instability with resistance
training. J Strength Cond Res 20: 716–722, 2006.
6. Behm, DG and Colado, JC. The effectiveness of resistance training
using unstable surfaces and devices for rehabilitation. Inter J Sport
Phys Therapy 7: 226–241, 2012.
7. Behm, DG, Drinkwater, EJ, Willardson, JM, and Cowley, PM.
Canadian society for Exercise Physiology position stand: The use of
instability to train the core in athletic and non-athletic conditioning.
Appl Physiol Nutr Metab 35: 11–14, 2010.
8. Behm, DG, Drinkwater, EJ, Willardson, JM, and Cowley, PM;
Canadian Society for Exercise Physiology. Canadian society for
Exercise Physiology position stand: The use of instability to train
the core in athletic and nonathletic conditioning. Appl Physiol Nutr
Metab 35: 109–112, 2010.
9. Behm, DG, Drinkwater, EJ, Willardson, JM, and Cowley, PM. The
use of instability to train the core musculature. Appl Physiol Nutr
Metab 35: 91–108, 2010.
10. Behm, DG, Faigenbaum, AD, Falk, B, and Klentrou, P. Canadian
society for Exercise Physiology position paper: Resistance training in
children and adolescents. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab 33: 547–561, 2008.
11. Behm, DG and Sale, DG. Intended rather than actual movement
velocity determines velocity-specific training response. J Appl
Physiol (1985) 74: 359–368, 1993.
12. Behm, DG and Sale, DG. Velocity specificity of resistance training.
Sports Med 15: 374–388, 1993.
13. Behringer, M, Vom Heede, A, Matthews, M, and Mester, J. Effects of
strength training on motor performance skills in children and
adolescents: A meta-analysis. Pediatr Exerc Sci 23: 186–206, 2011.
14. Blimkie, CJ. Resistance training during pre- and early puberty:
Efficacy, trainability, mechanisms, and persitence. Can J Sport Sci
17: 264–279, 1992.
15. Blimkie, CJ. Resistance training during preadolescence. Sports Med
15: 389–407, 1993.
16. Byrd, R, Pierce, K, Rielly, L, and Brady, J. Young weightlifters’
performance across time. Sports Biomech 2: 133–140, 2003.
17. Cappa, DF and Behm, DG. Training specificity of hurdle vs.
countermovement jump training. J Strength Cond Res 25: 2715–2729,
2011.
18. Cappa, DF and Behm, DG. Neuromuscular characteristics of drop
and hurdle jumps with different types of landings. J Strength Cond
Res 27: 3011–3020, 2013.
19. Castro-Pinero, J, Artero, EG, Espana-Romero, V, Ortega, FB,
Sjostrom, M, Suni, J, and Ruiz, JR. Criterion-related validity of
field-based fitness tests in youth: A systematic review. Br J Sports
Med 44: 934–943, 2010.
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
the TM
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com
20. Channell, BT and Barfield, JP. Effect of Olympic and traditional
resistance training on vertical jump improvement in high school
boys. J Strength Cond Res 22: 1522–1527, 2008.
21. Chaouachi, A, Ben Othman, A, Hammami, R, Drinkwater, EJ, and
Behm, DG. The combination of plyometric and balance training
improves sprint and shuttle run performances more often than
plyometric-only training with children. J Strength Cond Res 2013.
22. Chaouachi, A, Haddad, M, Castagna, C, Wong del, P, Kaouech, F,
Chamari, K, and Behm, DG. Potentiation and recovery following
low-and high-speed isokinetic contractions in boys. Pediatr Exerc Sci
23: 136–150, 2011.
23. Chaouachi, A, Poulos, N, Abed, F, Turki, O, Brughelli, M,
Chamari, K, Drinkwater, EJ, and Behm, DG. Volume, intensity, and
timing of muscle power potentiation are variable. Appl Physiol Nutr
Metab 36: 736–747, 2011.
24. Deurenberg, P, Pieters, JJ, and Hautvast, JG. The assessment of the
body fat percentage by skinfold thickness measurements in
childhood and young adolescence. Br J Nutr 63: 293–303, 1990.
25. Drinkwater, EJ, Pritchett, EJ, and Behm, DG. Effect of instability
and resistance on unintentional squat lifting kinetics. Inter J Sports
Physiol Perform 2: 400–413, 2007.
26. Ebada, KA. The effect of a training program on the development
of the maximal strength for weightlifting beginner’s performance.
J Phys Educ Sport Sci 13: 281–290, 2011.
27. Faigenbaum, AD. Strength training for children and adolescents.
Pediatr Adolescent Sports Injuries 19: 593–619, 2000.
28. Faigenbaum, AD, Kraemer, WJ, Blimkie, CJ, Jeffreys, I, Micheli, LJ,
Nitka, M, and Rowland, TW. Youth resistance training: Updated
position statement paper from the national strength and
conditioning association. J Strength Cond Res 23: S60–S79, 2009.
29. Faigenbaum, AD, Kraemer, WJ, Cahill, B, Chandler, J, Dziados, J,
Elfrink, LD, Formann, E, Gaudiose, M, Micheli, L, Nitka, M, and
Roberts, S. Youth resistance training: Position statement paper and
literature review. Strength Cond J 62–75, 1996.
30. Faigenbaum, AD, Loud, RL, O’Connell, J, Glover, S, and
Westcott, WL. Effects of different resistance training protocols
on upper-body strength and endurance development in children.
J Strength Cond Res 15: 459–465, 2001.
31. Faigenbaum, AD, M, JE, and Keiper, FB. Effects of a short term
plyometric and resistance training program on fitness performance
in boys aged 12 to 15 years. J Sports Sci Med 6: 519–525, 2007.
32. Faigenbaum, AD, McFarland, JE, Schwerdtman, JA, Ratamess, NA,
Kang, J, and Hoffman, JR. Dynamic warm-up protocols, with and
without a weighted vest, and fitness performance in high school
female athletes. J Athl Train 41: 357–363, 2006.
33. Faigenbaum, AD and Polakowski, C. Olympic-style weightlifting,
kid style. Strength Cond J 21: 73–76, 1999.
34. Faigenbaum, AD, Ratamess, NA, McFarland, J, Kaczmarek, J,
Coraggio, MJ, Kang, J, and Hoffman, JR. Effect of rest interval length
on bench press performance in boys, teens, and men. Pediatr Exerc
Sci 20: 457–469, 2008.
35. Faigenbaum, AD, Westcott, WL, Loud, RL, and Long, C. The
effects of different resistance training protocols on muscular
strength and endurance development in children. Pediatrics 104:
e5, 1999.
36. Falk, B and Eliakim, A. Resistance training, skeletal muscle and
growth. Pediatr Endocrinol Rev 1: 120–127, 2003.
37. Falk, B and Tenenbaum, G. The effectiveness of resistance training in
children. Sports Med 22: 176–186, 1996.
38. Fukunaga, T, Funato, K, and Ikegawa, S. The effects of resistance
training on muscle area and strength in prepubescent age. Ann
Physiol Anthropol 11: 357–364, 1992.
39. Garhammer, J and Gregor, R. Propulsion forces as a function
of intensity for weightlifting and vertical jumping. J Appl Sport Sci
Res 6: 129–134, 1992.
VOLUME 28 | NUMBER 6 | JUNE 2014 | 1495
 OWL and Plyometrics With Children
40. Haff, GG, Whitley, A, and Potteiger, JA. A brief review: Explosive
exercises and sports performance. Strength Cond J 23: 13–20, 2001.
41. Harries, SK, Lubans, DR, and Callister, R. Resistance training
to improve power and sports performance in adolescent athletes:
A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Sci Med Sport 15:
532–540, 2012.
42. Hetzler, RK, DeRenne, C, Burton, BP, Ho, KW, Chai, DX, and
Seichi, G. Effects of 12 weeks of strength training on anaerobic
power in prepubescent male athletes. J Strength Cond Res 11:
174–181, 1997.
43. Hoffman, JR, Cooper, J, Wendell, M, and Kang, J. Comparison of
Olympic vs. traditional power lifting training programs in football
players. J Strength Cond Res 18: 129–135, 2004.
44. Hopkins, WG. A spreadsheet for deriving confidence interval,
mechanistic inference and clinical inference from a p value. Sportsci
11: 16–20, 2007.
45. Hopkins, WJ. A spreadsheet for combining outcomes from several
subject groups. Sportsci 10: 51–53, 2006.
46. Hopkins, WG, Marshall, SW, Batterham, AM, and Hanin, J.
Progressive statistics for studies in sports medicine and exercise
science. Med Sci Sports Exerc 41: 3–12, 2009.
47. Johnson, BA, Salzberg, CL, and Stevenson, DA. A systematic review:
Plyometric training programs for young children. J Strength Cond Res
25: 2623–2633, 2011.
48. Keiner, M, Sander, A, Wirth, K, Caruso, O, Immesberger, P, and
Zawieja, M. Strength performance in youth: Trainability of
adolescents and children in the back and front squats. J Strength
Cond Res 27: 357–362, 2013.
49. Kotzamanidis, C. Effect of plyometric training on running
performance and vertical jumping in prepubertal boys. J Strength
Cond Res 20: 441–445, 2006.
50. Kraemer, WJ and Ratamess, NA. Fundamentals of resistance
training: Progression and exercise prescription. Med Sci Sports Exerc
36: 674–688, 2004.
51. Lloyd, RS, F, AD, Myer, GD, Stone, MH, Oliver, JL, Jeffreys, I,
Moody, J, Brewer, C, and Pierce, K. Uksca position statement: Youth
resistance training. Prof Strength Cond 26: 26–39, 2012.
52. Lloyd, SR, Oliver, LJ, Meyers, WR, Moody, AJ, and Stone, HM.
Long-term athletic development and its application to youth
weightlifting. Strength Cond J 10: 1–12, 2012.
53. MacDonald, CJ, Lamont, HS, and Garner, JC. A comparison of the
effects of 6 weeks of traditional resistance training, plyometric
training, and complex training on measures of strength and
anthropometrics. J Strength Cond Res 26: 422–431, 2012.
the TM
1496 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
54. McBride, JM, Triplett-McBride, T, Davie, A, and Newton, RU.
A comparison of strength and power characteristics between
power lifters, olympic lifters, and sprinters. J Strength Cond Res 13:
58–66, 1999.
55. McNeely, E and Armstrong, L. Strength training for children: A
review and recommendations. Physical Health Educ J 68: 1–6, 2002.
56. Meylan, C and Malatesta, D. Effects of in-season plyometric training
within soccer practice on explosive actions of young players.
J Strength Cond Res 23: 2605–2613, 2009.
57. Miller, DK: Measurement by the Physical Educator: Why and How?.
Madison, WI: Brown and Benchmark, 2002. pp. 23–64.
58. Payne, VG and Isaacs, LD: Human Motor Development. A Lifespan
Approach. Toronto, Ontario: McGraw Hill Publishers, 2005. pp. 78–80.
59. Pediatrics AAo. Strength training by children and adolescents.
Pediatrics 107: 1470–1472, 2001.
60. Baechle, TR, Earle, RW, and Wathen, D. Plyometric training. In:
Essentials of Strength Training and Conditioning. T.R.E. Baechle and W R.,
ed. Windsor, Canada: Human Kinetics Publishers, 2008. pp. 14–87.
61. Saez de Villarreal, E, Requena, B, and Cronin, JB. The effects of
plyometric training on sprint performance: A meta-analysis. J Strength
Cond Res 26: 575–584, 2012.
62. Saez-Saez de Villarreal, E, Requena, B, and Newton, RU. Does
plyometric training improve strength performance? A meta-analysis.
J Sci Med Sport 10: 132–136, 2009.
63. Sanders, A, Keiner, M, Wirth, K, and Schmidtbleicher, D. Influence
of a 2-year strength training programme on power performance in
elite youth soccer players. Eur J Sport Sci 2013.
64. Santos, EJ and Janeira, MA. Effects of complex training on explosive
strength in adolescent male basketball players. J Strength Cond Res
22: 903–909, 2008.
65. Science BAoSaE. BASES position statement on guidelines for
resistance training in young people. J Sport Sci 22: 383–390, 2004.
66. Tricoli, V, Lamas, L, Carnevale, R, and Ugrinowitsch, C. Short-term
effects on lower-body functional power development: Weightlifting
vs. vertical jump training programs. J Strength Cond Res 19: 433–437,
2005.
67. Vissing, K, Brink, M, Lonbro, S, Sorensen, H, Overgaard, K,
Danborg, K, Mortensen, J, Elstrom, O, Rosenhoj, N, Ringgaard, S,
Andersen, JL, and Aagaard, P. Muscle adaptations to plyometric
vs. resistance training in untrained young men. J Strength Cond Res
22: 1799–1810, 2008.
68. Zafeiridis, A, Dalamitros, A, Dipla, K, Manou, V, Galanis, N, and
Kellis, S. Recovery during high-intensity intermittent anaerobic exercise
in boys, teens, and men. Med Sci Sports Exerc 37: 505–512, 2005.