EFFICACY OF PLYOMETRIC AND RESISTANCE TRAINING ON

PERFORMANCE ADAPTATION OF BASKETBALL

PLAYERS

Author(s):

Name : Susanta Kumar Panda

Designation : Student’s Activity and Sports Officer
Address : National Institute of Technology-Mizoram
Chaltlang, Aizawl, Mizoram, PIN: 796012
E-mail : susant_z@yahoo.com
Telephone Numbers : +91-9478305529, +91-9862856863

Name : Alpana Panda

Designation : PGT (Physical Education)
Address : Scholars Home Sr. Sec. School
Rajpur Road, Dehradun, Uttarakhand
E-mail : alpana.panda@yahoo.com
Telephone Numbers : +91-9478305559, +91-8974551119
 EFFICACY OF PLYOMETRIC AND RESISTANCE TRAINING ON
PERFORMANCE ADAPTATION OF BASKETBALL
PLAYERS
Abstract:

The purpose of this investigation was to determine the effect of Plyometric and
Resistance training on the performance adaptation of male Basketball Players. The subjects
for this investigation (N=30) were collegiate athletes with at least two years of varsity
experience. The experimental groups had received a six week sub-maximal training program,
specially designed to accomplish the need of basketball players. All the subjects were
measured primarily for selected Anthropometric measures and secondarily for selected Bio-
motor and Performance variables by administering specific tests. Test-Retest method was
administered to determine the effect of highly specialized short term Training program(s) on
specific performance related parameters of athletes. For testing statistical significance,
primarily the obtained data was treated with Analysis of Co-variance (ANCOVA) and further
to access the significant improvement within training groups, Level of Significance
Difference (LSD) was employed at 0.05 level of significance. Finally some of the
anthropometric variables like Body Weight [Tab.F.05(2,26)=0.65], Standing Height
[Tab.F.05(2,26)=1.953], Arm Span [Tab.F.05(2,26)=0.089] and Hand Span
[Tab.F.05(2,26)=0.743] along with some Bio-motor abilities and Skill ability like
Coordinative Ability [Tab.F.05(2,26)=1.42], Flexibility [Tab.F.05(2,26)=0.025] and
Dribbling Ability [Tab.F.05(2,26)=1.828] showed insignificant response to both the type of
training modules. Whereas Explosive Strength [Tab.F.05(2,26)=20.676] [C.D(0.05)=2.33],
Acceleration Speed [Tab.F.05(2,26)=5.757] [C.D(0.05)=0.70], Agility
[Tab.F.05(2,26)=3.682] [C.D(0.05)=3.09], Aerobic Capacity [Tab.F.05(2,26)=10.667]
[C.D(0.05)=3.38], Shooting Ability [Tab.F.05(2,26)=3.756] [C.D(0.05)=2.08] and Throwing
Ability [Tab.F.05(2,26)=6.839] [C.D(0.05)=1.40] showed significant response to both the
modules of training. Further in the light of statistical outcome, Plyometric Training has
showed better biological response toward performance adaptation in comparison to that of
Resistance Training.

Key Words: Bio-motor Ability, Anthropometric Measure, Performance Variable and

Performance Adaptation.
 INTRODUCTION
Fitness has been a concern of man from pre-historic time. Primitive man was either fit
for fighting or was subdued by others. Long back Darwin had noticed that it was survival of
the fittest, may it be the question of man, plant, insect, animals. Nature selected the fittest for
survival and ejected the weaklings who were made to perish. One major field of fitness is
sports and games. It is to the human body what tuning is to engine. It enables us to perform
up to our potential. Fitness can be described as a condition that helps us look, feel and do our
best. More specifically it is “The ability to perform daily tasks vigorously and alertly, with
energy left over for enjoying leisure time’s activities and meeting emergency demands”. It is
the ability to endure, to bear up, to withstand stress to carry on its circumstances,

The modern era has brought for many blessings in the form of technological
advancements, high standards of living, and dream world of comforts, high achievements and
new challenges. The high level of physical fitness is most important for achieving a higher
level of efficiency in technique and tactics in most of the sports. The performance in most of
the sports is determined by many factors, among which the following three factors can be
considered as most important variables namely Bio-motor Ability (Physical Fitness),
Intelligent execution of technique (Skill ability), hereditical and physical characteristics
(Anthropometric Measures).

During the last few decades, athletics particularly long jumping has gained
tremendous popularity all over the world with the improvement in the quality of performance
in competitions and increasing awareness of the significance of athletics and games for the
development and welfare of the human being after its introduction in modern Olympic
Games. The improvement in jumping records in various International competitions (Asian
and Olympic) in the past thirty years has witnessed a dramatic change in the positive
direction. This has attracted the attention of the various educationists and sports scientist to
analyze the causes for this bloom. Finally researchers of all over the globe anonymously
agreed with the fact that innovative and scientific evolution of various specialized training
methods is the major cause for the better performance of athletes. They also conclude that
execution of highly specialized, Supervised and Scientifically designed training methods also
accelerates the Biological Adaptation capacity, in other words biological transfer of training
of an athlete.

However in a very short time, such strictly quantitative categories of modern training
methodologies were accepted and it was commonly thought that they perfectly described
motor performances in the context of sports and in particular sports training, so that a large
section of the sports literature of the 1970’s deals with various methods for their
development. In particular, the physiological basis, assumed in Zaciorskij’s work to support
the adoption of the category “muscular strength” as the reference point for motor activity, are
connected to the research carried out in Milan by Prof. Rodolf’s team on the physiology of
similar work.

The quantitative categories of modern training methodologies includes various forms

training but most importantly Plyometric Training and its variations like sand plyometrics,
aquatic plyometrics etc. and Resistance Training and its variations.

Though as all the other popular games and sports basketball performance is also
depended upon the same set of factors but when we talk about excellence in performance the
performance variables has to be carefully checked and accurately executed during the training
phase. Time is also considered as one of the most important factor in every athlete’s career.
Therefore sports scientists and researchers work restlessly to develop such a training method
that accelerates the adaptation process of homosepians and improves the performance in short
span of tome legally, without associated with pharmacological applications, which certainly
produces a development of the neuron-muscular function. Many sport scientists also have
worked in the same area with an aim to get better performance adaptation by combining two
or more than two different forms of training. The present study also indicates the same type
of research.

METHOD AND PROCEDURE

The methodology which has been used in this study was that a total of 30 (thirty)
collegiate athletes having 2 (two) years varsity experience were selected randomly and
divided randomly into 3 (three) groups i.e. Control Group, Experimental Group – I
(Plyometric) and Experimental Group – II (Resistance) as per the requirement of the study.
Primarily all the athletes were tested upon various selected direct and in-direct parameters
that influence performance of basketball players like Anthropometric Measures (Body
Weight, Standing Height, Arm Span and Hand Span), Bio-Motor Abilities (Explosive
Strength, Acceleration Speed, Coordinative Ability, Agility, Aerobic Capacity and
Flexibility) and Skill Ability (Shooting Ability, Dribbling Ability and Throwing Ability).

Further the experimental groups had received a highly specialized and well supervised
Six Week Sub-Maximal Training Program as shown in Table – 1 and Table – 2 respectively.
 Table-1

Plyometric Training Schedule for Experimental Group-I

Plyometric Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 Week 6
Training

Medicine Ball (Sit- † 3*20 (90) † 3*25 (90) † 3*30 (90) † 3*30 (80) † 3*30 (75) † 3*30 (70)
Ups With Ball Toss)

Double Stair Jumps † 3*15 (50)60 † 3*20 (50)60 † 3*25 (50)60 † 3*30 (50)60 † 3*30 (50)55 † 3*30 (50)50

Alternate Box Jump † 4* 6(40)60 † 4* 8(40)60 † 5* 8(40)60 † 5* 10(40)90 † 5* 10(40)70 † 6* 10(40)70

Skipping † 3*70 (90) † 3*75 (90) † 3*80 (90) † 3*80 (80) † 3*85 (80) † 3*85 (75)

†Sets*reps (times rest between sets) in seconds (for Sit-Ups with Ball Toss and Trunk Twist)

†Sets*reps/ at (box / stair height (cm)) times rest between sets (for Double Stair Jumps and
Alternate Box Jump)

Table-2

Resistance Training Schedule for Experimental Group-II

Resistance Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 Week 6
Training

Sit-Ups † 3*30 (120) † 3*35 (120) † 3*40 (120) † 3*40 (110) † 3*45 (110) † 3*45 (100)

Pull-Ups † 3*10 (120) † 3*12 (120) † 3*14 (120) † 3*14 (110) † 3*15 (110) † 3*15 (100)

Bench Press † 3*10 (120) † 3*12 (120) † 3*14 (120) † 3*16 (120) † 3*18 (110) † 3*20 (100)

Squat † 3*20 (120) † 3*22 (120) † 3*24 (120) † 3*26 (120) † 3*28 (110) † 3*30 (100)

†Sets*reps (times rest between sets) in seconds / in bench press and squat resistance will be
sub-maximal

Soon after the successful completion of respective training programs the pre-
administered tests were re-administered carefully in almost similar conditions and the
obtained data were processed statistically by implementing Analysis of Co-variance
(ANCOVA) and Level of Significant Difference (LSD) at 0.05 Level of Significance.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

To determine the efficacy of plyometric and resistance training on performance
adaptation of basketball players Analysis of Co-variance (ANCOVA) test was employed and
further to access significant improvement Level of Significant Difference (LSD) test has been
employed. The level of significance was set at 0.05 in both the cases.

1. Analysis of Co-variance of the means of Control and Experimental groups (I & II) in
selected Anthropometric Measures of Basketball Players were computed and data pertaining
to that have been presented below in Table – 3.
 Table – 3

Analysis of Covariance of Pre-Test, Post-Test and Adjusted Post Test on Anthropometric Measures
(Body Weight, Standing Height, Arm Span and Hand Span) of Plyometric Group, Resistance Group and
Control Group.
Sum of Sum of Sum of Sum of
D. MSS
Variables Source of variation Squares Squares Squares F-value
F Square X YX
Y XY YX
Between groups
2 209.318 188.8 197.111 111.373 55.686
(influence factor)
Body
Within groups 0.65
Weight 26 1120.551 1117.155 1932.832 -2216.78 -85.26
(other fluctuations)
Total 28 1329.869 1305.955 2129.943 -2105.4  
Between groups
2 76.066 84.466 79.866 132.764 66.382
(influence factor)
Standing
Within groups 1.953
Height 26 1037.4 987 -327.4 883.673 33.987
(other fluctuations)
Total 28 1113.466 1071.466 -247.533 1016.438  
Between groups
2 44.394 46.418 45.374 0.847 0.423
(influence factor)
Arm
Within groups 0.089
Span 26 573.969 571.051 506.433 124.207 4.777
(other fluctuations)
Total 28 618.363 617.469 551.807 125.055  
Hand Between groups
2 22.108 23.994 23.025 1.732 0.866 0.743
Span (influence factor)
Within groups
26 58.645 60.226 41.895 30.296 1.165
(other fluctuations)
Total 28 80.753 84.22 64.92 32.029  
TAB. F.05 (2, 26) = 3.37

Figure – 1

Graphical representation of obtained F-value for Anthropometric Measures (Body Weight, Standing
Height, Arm Span and Hand Span) of Plyometric Group, Resistance Group and Control Group.

3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
TAB. F.05 (2, 26) Body Weight Standing Height Arm Span Hand Span
 The obtained F-value is not significant at 0.05 level of confidence in case of all the
variables of Anthropometric Measures. The Anthropometric variables are mainly governed
by heredity of an individual, because of which it has shown a very little or no response to
either type of training. Long term training schedule may be administered to examine the
actual response.

2. Analysis of Co-variance of the means of Control and Experimental groups (I & II) in
selected Bio-Motor Abilities of Basketball Players were computed and data pertaining to that
have been presented below in Table – 4.

Table – 4

Analysis of Covariance of Pre-Test, Post-Test and Adjusted Post Test on Bio-Motor Abilities (Explosive
Strength, Acceleration Speed, Coordinative Ability, Agility, Aerobic Capacity and Flexibility) of
Plyometric Group, Resistance Group and Control Group.
Sum of Sum of Sum of Sum of
D. MSS
Variables Source of variation Square Squares Squares Squares F-value
F YX
X Y XY YX
Between groups
2 51.466 80.266 63.733 266.202 133.101
(influence factor)
Explosive
Within groups 20.676
Strength 26 53.2 33.6 -103.4 -167.369 -6.437
(other fluctuations)
Total 28 104.666 113.866 -39.666 98.833  
Between groups
2 7.552 8.077 6.564 6.605 3.302
(influence factor)
Acceleration
Within groups 5.757
Speed 26 3.753 2.736 8.139 -14.914 -0.573
(other fluctuations)
Total 28 11.305 10.813 14.703 -8.309  
Between groups
2 1.024 1.131 1.035 1.568 0.784
(influence factor)
Coordinativ
Within groups 1.42
e Ability 26 2.865 2.327 6.913 -14.352 -0.552
(other fluctuations)
Total 28 3.889 3.458 7.948 -12.784  
Between groups
2 18.783 22.615 19.733 73.714 36.857
(influence factor)
Agility Within groups 3.682
26 23.159 21.149 85.279 -292.872 -11.264
(other fluctuations)
Total 28 41.942 43.765 105.013 -219.158  
Between groups
2 718944.266 278708.267 413162.933 2883093 1441546
(influence factor)
Aerobic
Within groups 10.667
Capacity 26 1447719.1 1481705.1 -2689207.9 -3513628 -135140
(other fluctuations)
Total 28 2166663.37 1760413.37 -2276045 -630535  

Between groups
Flexibility 2 10.898 10.85 10.873 0.016 0.008 0.025
(influence factor)
 Within groups
26 95.994 96.215 91.976 8.088 0.311
(other fluctuations)
Total 28 106.892 107.066 102.85 8.105  
TAB. F.05 (2, 26) = 3.37

Figure – 2

Graphical representation of obtained F-value for Bio-Motor Abilities (Explosive Strength, Acceleration
Speed, Coordinative Ability, Agility, Aerobic Capacity and Flexibility) of Plyometric Group, Resistance
Group and Control Group.

25

20

15

10

0
TAB. F.05 (2, 26) Expl. Str. Acc. Speed C.tive Abi. Agility Aer. Capa. Flexibility

The obtained F-value is significant at 0.05 level of confidence in case of Explosive

Strength, Acceleration Speed, Agility and Aerobic Capacity. Therefore Level of Significant
Difference was resorted to find out the significance of ordered adjusted final means, which is
shown in Table – 4.1.

Table – 4.1

Testing Significance of Difference among Adjusted Post Means of Plyometric Group, Resistance Group
and Control Group on Explosive Strength, Acceleration Speed, Agility and Aerobic Capacity.

PLYOMETRIC RESISTANCE CONTROL CD AT 5% LEVEL

VARIABLE
GROUP GROUP GROUP
Explosive Strength 25.78 20.85 15.56 2.33
Acceleration Speed 8.83 7.28 7.37 0.7
Agility 19.82 17.67 14.7 3.09
Aerobic Capacity 2698.13 2585.41 1845.14 338.01

Figure – 3
Graphical representation of Critical Difference at 5% Level for Plyometric Group, Resistance Group and
Control Group on Explosive Strength, Acceleration Speed, Agility and Aerobic Capacity.

3000

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0
PLYOMETRIC GROUP RESISTANCE GROUP CONTROL GROUP CD AT 5% LEVEL

The obtained data from Table – 4.1 shows Plyometric training shows better impact on
all the selected Bio-Motor Abilities than that of Resistance Group and Control Group.

3. Analysis of Co-variance of the means of Control and Experimental groups (I & II) in Skill
Abilities of Basketball Players were computed and data pertaining to that have been
presented below in Table – 5.

Table – 5

Analysis of Covariance of Pre-Test, Post-Test and Adjusted Post Test on Skill Abilities (Shooting Ability,
Dribbling Ability and Throwing Ability) of Plyometric Group, Resistance Group and Control Group.

Sum of Sum of Sum of Sum of

D. MSS
Variables Source of variation Square Squares Squares Squares F-value
F YX
X Y XY YX
Between groups
2 4.866 11.666 2.166 38.549 19.274
(influence factor)
Shooting
Within groups 3.756
Ability 26 40.6 43.3 -84.7 -133.401 -5.13
(other fluctuations)
Total 28 45.466 54.966 -82.533 -94.851  
Between groups
2 0.866 15 2.5 34.57 17.285
(influence factor)
Dribbling
Within groups 1.828
Ability 26 39.3 48.2 -107.5 -245.852 -9.455
(other fluctuations)
Total 28 40.166 63.2 -105 -211.281  
Between groups
2 6.4666 8.2666 4.333 31.812 15.906
(influence factor)
Throwin
Within groups 6.839
g Ability 26 49 47.1 -72.6 -60.466 -2.325
(other fluctuations)
Total 28 55.466 55.366 -68.266 -28.653  
TAB. F.05 (2, 26) = 3.37
 Figure – 4
Graphical representation of obtained F-value for Skill Abilities (Shooting Ability, Dribbling Ability and
Throwing Ability) of Plyometric Group, Resistance Group and Control Group.

0
TAB. F.05 (2, 26) Shooting A. Dribbling A. Throwing A.

The obtained F-value is significant at 0.05 level of confidence in case of Shooting

Ability and Throwing Ability. Therefore Level of Significant Difference was resorted to find
out the significance of ordered adjusted final means, which is shown in Table – 5.1.

Table – 5.1

Testing Significance of Difference among Adjusted Post Means of Plyometric Group, Resistance Group
and Control Group on Shooting Ability and Throwing Ability.

PLYOMETRIC RESISTANCE CONTROL CD AT 5% LEVEL

VARIABLE
GROUP GROUP GROUP
Shooting Ability 14.38 13.21 11.5 2.08
Throwing Ability 16.99 14.36 15.34 1.4

Figure – 5
Graphical representation of Critical Difference at 5% Level for Plyometric Group, Resistance Group and
Control Group on Shooting Ability and Throwing Ability.

18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
PLYOMETRIC GROUP RESISTANCE GROUP CONTROL GROUP CD AT 5% LEVEL

The obtained data from Table – 5.1 shows Plyometric training shows better impact on
all the selected Skill Abilities than that of Resistance Group and Control Group.

CONCLUSION
Under the conditions that prevailed and within the limitations imposed by the type of
subjects and the variables selected for this study, the following conclusion may be drawn.

1. The Anthropometric variables are mainly governed by heredity of an individual,

because of which it has shown nagative response to either type of training. Long term
training schedule may be administered to examine the actual response.

2. Plyometric Training can be used as an effective training mean to enhance some

elements of Bio-Motor Abilities like Explosive Strength, Acceleration Speed, Agility
and Aerobic Capacity, which acts as an essential element that influence Athletic
performance as well as performance indicator for Basketball and other major games
and sports.

3. In Comparison to Plyometric Training, Resistance Training has showed less

significant results, it showed better result than that of Control Group. Therefore in
some cases Resistance training may be given along with Plyometric Training for
better results.

In the light of conclusion drawn and within the limitations of the study, it can
be revealed that our body systems have been gifted by nature to accommodate and
adopt themselves and change the functions according within the physiological limits.
References:
1
Adams, K., O’Shea, J.P., O’Shea, K.L. & Climstein, M (1992) The Effect of six weeks of
squat, plyometric and squat-plyometric training on power production: Journal of Strength
and Conditioning Research 6 (2), 36-41.

2
Baechle, T. R. Editor (1994) Essentials of Strength and Conditioning: The National
Strength and Conditioning Association -Human Kinetics.

3
Brownell and Hayman (1991)” Physical fitness is the total functional capacity of the
individual” Medicine & Science in Science Sports & Exercise, 4, 183-189.

4
Chatzopoulos DE, Michailidis CJ, Giannakos AK, Alexiou KC & Patikas DA, (2008) effects
of prolonged basketball skills training on maximal aerobic power, isokinetic strength, joint
mobility, and body fat:. Sports. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, Greece, Aug
(4), 32-35.

5
Drinkwater EJ, Hopkins WG, McKenna MJ, Hunt PH, Pyne DB.(2005) Modeling age and
secular differences in fitness between junior basketball players. International Journal of
Performance Analysis in Sport. 5(3): p. 107-125.

6
Kellis, Spiros E.; Tsitskaris, George K.; Nikopoulou, Maria D.; Mousikou, Katerina C.
(1999). The Evaluation of Jumping Ability of Male and Female Basketball Players According
to Their Chronological Age and Major Leagues, The Journal of Strength & Conditioning
Research. Jun (12), 151-163.
7
Trank, Robert and Lewis (1993), Physical fitness quantitative expression of the physical
condition of an individual. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, Jan (8), 253-287.

Wilson GJ, Murphy AJ, Giorgi A. (1996) Weight and plyometric training: effects on
8

eccentric and concentric force production Centre for Exercise Science & Sport
Management, Southern Cross University, Lismore NSW, Australia. Aug; 21(4):301-15.