Professional Documents
Culture Documents
net/publication/324755442
CITATION READS
1 2,657
4 authors, including:
8 PUBLICATIONS 9 CITATIONS
University of Surrey
4 PUBLICATIONS 22 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE
Dana agar-newman
Canadian Sports Institute
8 PUBLICATIONS 35 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
All content following this page was uploaded by James Wild on 26 June 2018.
OVERVIEW
Quantifying volume-load during strength training allows the coach to fluctuate
training stress in order to facilitate favourable neuromuscular adaptations,
while reducing the risk of injury and/or illness. A review by Haff16 highlights two
distinct methods (shown in Table 1) for calculating volume-load when completing
common gym-based exercises (eg, back squat). Intensity and volume are routinely
accounted for in these equations by the load lifted (including or excluding body
mass) and the reps/sets performed, respectively. However, it is difficult to
quantify the intensity or ‘stress’ of plyometric exercises using the aforementioned
volume-load equations alone. Using bodyweight alone to account for load during
plyometric activity does not reflect the stress experienced by the athlete caused
by high ground reaction forces in short timeframes.
P R O F E SS I O N A L S T R E N GT H & C O N D I T I O N I N G / W W W. U K S CA . O R G . U K 15
PLYOMETRIC TRAINING STRESS ISSUE 47 / DECEMBER 2017
Bounding A prescribed number of consecutive Two consecutive unilateral ground contacts (ie touchdown
unilateral ground contacts (collisions) and take-off with one foot followed by the other)
Repeated CMJ
Repeated SLJ A prescribed number of consecutive bilateral One bilateral ground contact (collision) (ie touchdown
Pogo Jumps jumps (collisions) and take-off with both feet simultaneously)
Tuck Jumps
Drop Jumps
Hops A prescribed number of consecutive unilateral One ground contact with each leg (eg 5 hops / jumps on the
ground contacts (collisions) right leg followed by 5 hops / jumps on the left leg would
equate to 5 reps in total)
(eg, a depth jump) will typically result in of that work. For that reason the subsequent
significantly greater peak and rates of sections will focus on how we can achieve
ground reaction force (GRF) compared these two objectives.
to single unloaded ballistic efforts (eg,
a countermovement jump).38 For this
reason, a solution which accounts for the Volume of plyometric exercises
volume load of jumping-based exercises
which incorporate a ground contact more It can be suggested that a graduated
accurately would be useful. Verkhoshansky37 increase in volume is critical when using
described this type of ground contact as a plyometrics as part of any strength and
‘collision’ between two or more bodies conditioning (S&C) programme.40 Methods
exerting force on each other for a relatively that have been proposed include totalling
short period of time (ie, the ground and the number of session foot contacts and
an athlete’s foot). It is suggested that this distance covered.5,9,19,38
‘shock collision’ is critical for stimulating
high stretch intensities. For the purpose of Commonly 80-100 foot contacts per
this article, the term plyometric is used to session are deemed appropriate for the
describe exercises of this nature. beginner,29 whereas greater than 100
contacts of moderate intensity contacts
Defining plyometric stress effectively are recommended for the intermediate
requires an understanding of the volume of athlete.5 For advanced athletes, coaches are
work completed, together with the intensity guided to decrease volume as high intensity
16 P R O F E SS I O N A L S T R E N GT H & C O N D I T I O N I N G / W W W. U K S CA . O R G . U K
ISSUE 47 / DECEMBER 2017 PLYOMETRIC TRAINING STRESS
plyometrics are tolerated.9 For further purpose of this article the main discussion
reading on this, please see the UKSCA article will relate to the degree of associated
titled ‘A perspective on … plyometrics’.4 mechanical stress. Potach & Chu29 have
previously classified this operating under
Distance can also be used for measuring the premise that increased gravitational
volume during horizontal plyometric acceleration (ie, drop height) results in a
exercises, such as bounding.5 This has proportional increase in intensity.
obvious advantages in its simplicity where
a coach can decide the coverage of a set Several studies have since attempted to
distance to represent the ‘volume’. quantify the mechanical stress experienced
Unfortunately, due to disparities between in the lower extremities during different
athletes’ physical qualities affecting plyometric exercises. Numerous kinetic
individual bound distance (mass- variables have been used to quantify
specific strength qualities, training plyometric intensity, ranging from peak
age, coordination), distance may not be vertical GRF,6,11,12,16,17,32,37 average vertical
appropriate for the purpose of quantifying and horizontal GRF,23 eccentric rate of
volume-load. Furthermore, this method force development,6,11,12,19 peak absorption
would not be viable for monitoring ‘vertical’ power,17,36 impulse,6,11,17,26 knee joint reaction
plyometric exercises. Therefore, recording force19 and ankle, knee and hip mechanical
foot contacts/repetitions is recommended output (peak extension torque, angular
as the most reliable method for quantifying impulse, peak positive and negative
volume, although it is important that the power, positive and negative work).33
definition of a single repetition is clear These studies have provided a greater
for each exercise (Table 2). However insight into the impact characteristics of
clearly defined volume may be, using foot plyometric exercises and in turn challenge
contacts/repetitions alone is inadequate for the traditional premise that largely bases
monitoring plyometric training, as it fails stress on drop height alone.
to account for the highly variable impact
characteristics between exercises. PEAK VERTICAL GROUND REACTION FORCE
Peak vertical GRF (V-GRFp) is probably the
most commonly used measure to describe
Intensity of plyometric exercises plyometric intensity and is widely reported
within the literature.6,11,12,16,17,32,37 Table 3
Recent studies have found current provides an overview of what this research
information on intensity confusing, tells us about the intensity of common
insufficient and even erroneous.8,19,33 plyometric exercises.
Deciding what measures reflect biological
stress resulting from plyometric training The data presented in Table 3 are attained
is challenging. It must first be reiterated from studies investigating V-GRFp during
that mechanical stress is only one aspect the landing phase of plyometric exercises.
of the overall biological effect; stress and These data highlight the discrepancies
adaptation within the neurological system between the traditional intensity
for instance is largely at play during periods classification29 and the revised intensity
of plyometric training. However, for the ranking based on V-GRFp observed within
Traditional Low Low Medium Medium High High High High High High
intensity
classification29
V-GRFp (N·N-1) 5.56 4.4817 3.738 3.819 2.938 4.417 3.8238 4.9338 4.612 3.28*26
values reported, 56 6.66 3.319 3.919 3.611
relative to 3.211 3.7917
bodyweight
Mean 5.5 4.5 3.7 4 4.4 3.9 3.9 4.9 4.1 3.3
Standard - - - 0.92 1.93 0.78 0.06 - 0.71 -
deviation
Revised 1 3 9 6 4 8 7 2 5 10
intensity
ranking
(descending)
P R O F E SS I O N A L S T R E N GT H & C O N D I T I O N I N G / W W W. U K S CA . O R G . U K 17
PLYOMETRIC TRAINING STRESS ISSUE 47 / DECEMBER 2017
18 P R O F E SS I O N A L S T R E N GT H & C O N D I T I O N I N G / W W W. U K S CA . O R G . U K
ISSUE 47 / DECEMBER 2017 PLYOMETRIC TRAINING STRESS
JOINT KINETICS
Sugisaki, Okada and
Kanehisa33 quantified the
intensity of seven common
plyometric exercises based
on four mechanical output
variables, one of which was peak
joint torque. Unlike the variables
described previously within this
section, peak joint torque provides
information on how the ankle, knee
and hip each contribute to mechanical
output. For peak joint torque a one-way
repeated measures analysis of variance
revealed significant main effects of exercise
type for all joints (ankle, F[2.0, 18.4] = 51.3,
P < 0.01, knee, F[2.3, 20.5] = 5.0, P < 0.05, hip,
F[2.2, 19.4] = 12.2, P < 0.01) and a two-way
(3 joints x 7 exercises) repeated measures
analysis of variance showed significant
interactions between joint and exercise
(P < 0.01). The latter was a useful reminder
that the influence of exercise type on
the respective intensity variables will
vary between joints and to the authors’
knowledge this was the first study to highlight
this.
P R O F E SS I O N A L S T R E N GT H & C O N D I T I O N I N G / W W W. U K S CA . O R G . U K 19
PLYOMETRIC TRAINING STRESS ISSUE 47 / DECEMBER 2017
intensity and found pogo jumps, repeated but of the mean torques of around 700N.m
standing long jumps and 60cm depth jump that both exercises elicit, 283N.m is
to evoke the highest values for the ankle, knee produced at the ankle in the former and
and hip respectively. This made pogo jumps 453N.m at the hip in the latter.33 This further
in particular a large discrepancy in relation highlights the differences in mechanical
to traditional intensity classifications output between joints; the repeated SLJ
within which it is considered a low intensity could be classified as high intensity for the
exercise. The 30cm depth jump was equally hip joint, but low intensity for the ankle
misaligned, with traditional descriptors joint. It is useful for coaches to be aware that
considering it high intensity but producing inter-joint torques will vary so that exercise
relatively low values at both the knee and selection can avoid stressing a particular
ankle. Furthermore, within the study by joint or conversely aim to increase output at
Jarvis, Graham and Comfort,17 repeated that joint.
CMJs produced the highest W/Kg and this
was statistically higher than depth jumps Jenson and Ebben19 combined kinematic
from heights of up to 40cm. This concurs with kinetic force data (and subsequent
with previous studies which show that the inverse dynamics analysis) in an attempt to
depth jump is not inherently intense and the quantify plyometric intensity by assessing
classic intensity continuum needs revision.11 the joint reaction forces at the knee joint.
These discrepancies cannot be solely These forces were estimated according
attributed to the independent joint to methods previously described by
assessment, as two studies17,36 have summed Bauer, Fuchs, Smith & Snow.2 Knee joint
(negative) joint powers (summing values for reaction force (KJRF) was able to detect
the ankle, knee and hip to obtain a global statistical differences in relative intensity
value) and the divergence with traditional between each exercise condition. KJRF dis-
descriptors remained. tinguished magnitude of strain on the knee
joint between plyometric exercises such
The ability to quantify mechanical outputs as the tuck jump, which produced KJRF of
at independent joints is very useful up to nearly 10xBW, and loaded ballistics
information for the coach, but this is a time- (squat jump holding dumbbells 30%1RM)
consuming process and outputs would need which only elicited KJRF of less than half
to be summed to result in a single value of that. This suggests that the variable is
appropriate to represent overall intensity also sensitive to the increased mechanical
or ‘stress’. Also, summed mechanical output demand associated with rebounding.
data should be interpreted with caution The difficulty in using variables such as
where mean force data (from hip extension, KJRF to inform a plyometric intensity
knee extension and plantar flexion) are continuum is they require inverse dynamics
presented. For instance, mean peak extensor analyses which are time-consuming,
torques about the hip, knee and ankle infer and require expensive lab-based equipment
that both the tuck jump and repeated SLJ for 3D analysis and for obtaining
are medium-high intensity exercises, force data.
20 P R O F E SS I O N A L S T R E N GT H & C O N D I T I O N I N G / W W W. U K S CA . O R G . U K
ISSUE 47 / DECEMBER 2017 PLYOMETRIC TRAINING STRESS
P R O F E SS I O N A L S T R E N GT H & C O N D I T I O N I N G / W W W. U K S CA . O R G . U K 21
PLYOMETRIC TRAINING STRESS ISSUE 47 / DECEMBER 2017
The scale was inverted (exercise with the each individual exercise (average WF of
lowest V-GRFp value = 100%) to yield positive the exercises within that band) offering
values that could then be multiplied by the a simplified volume-load quantification.
volume of work done and form our ‘intensity’ Either system enables a consistent arbitrary
value for the volume-load calculation figure to be used as a WF that can account
(reps / foot contacts x WF). This is for the differing kinetic profile of exercises
shown as a working example in Table 5. used with an individual.
Table 4 also shows how alternatively
exercises could be bracketed by V-GRFp This article highlights some of the common
magnitude and a WF applied to each issues with monitoring systems and
of these intensity bandings rather than discrepancies of traditional plyometric
6”-12” Hurdle
Rebound Jumps 4576.9 2288.4 169 1.69
Pogo Forwards 4728.9 2364.5 175 1.75
Drop Jump 60 4881.0 2440.5 180 1.80
Lateral Hops 5078.6 2539.3 188 1.88
Hurdle Rebound
Jumps - medium hurdles 5139.5 2569.7 190 1.90
Depth Jump 75 5398.0 2699.0 199 1.99 Moderate-High 2.00
Hurdle Rebound (5000-6000N)
Jumps - High Hurdles 5458.8 2729.4 202 2.02
Medial Hops 5504.4 2752.2 203 2.03
Zig-Zag Hops 5610.8 2805.4 207 2.07
Drop Jump 75 5717.3 2858.6 211 2.11
Ankling 6097.4 3048.7 225 2.25
Depth Jump 90 6401.5 3200.8 237 2.37
Drop Jump 90 6705.6 3352.8 248 2.48
Hops R,R,L,L 7131.4 3565.7 263 2.63 High (6000-8000N) 2.59
Bounding 7222.6 3611.3 267 2.67
Depth Jump 105 7618.0 3809.0 281 2.81
Drop Jump 105 7861.2 3930.6 290 2.90
Hops R,R,R…; L,L,L 8363.0 4181.5 309 3.09
Depth Jump 120 9047.3 4523.6 334 3.34 Very High (>8000N) 3.28
Drop Jump 120 9229.7 4614.9 341 3.41
*Absolute V-GRFp1 (values for unilateral exercises are combined), Absolute V-GRFp2 (per leg), Percent Based (lowest value expressed as 100%), Weighting Factor (scale system – WF assigned to
exercise), Intensity Banding (relative to individual; values for unilateral exercises are combined), Weighting Factor (Banding system - WF assigned to band)
22 P R O F E SS I O N A L S T R E N GT H & C O N D I T I O N I N G / W W W. U K S CA . O R G . U K
ISSUE 47 / DECEMBER 2017 PLYOMETRIC TRAINING STRESS
10000.0
9000.0
8000.0
7000.0
6000.0
Absolute V-GRFp
5000.0
4000.0
3000.0
2000.0
1000.0
0.0
60
ps
75
90
90
ng
5
15
15
30
ds
30
45
45
ps
ps
60
ps
ds
0
op
le
op
7
10
10
12
12
in
L,
L,
l
ar
ar
ho
ho
di
rd
rd
p
p
kl
R,
L,
lh
lh
p
m
un
ju
ju
w
An
hu
hu
..;
R,
m
om
g
ck
ra
ia
ju
ju
ju
ju
ju
ju
ju
ju
ju
ju
ju
ju
za
k
nd
Bo
fo
R.
ju
ju
ju
ju
ed
ps
c
um
gh
te
ba
h
op
th
op
th
op
al
th
op
op
op
g-
R,
Tu
ou
op
op
pt
pt
pt
La
Ho
Sl
p
hi
Dr
Dr
Dr
Dr
Dr
Dr
pt
pt
Zi
R,
go
i
b
De
De
De
De
Po
De
De
ed
Dr
Dr
re
De
De
–
Po
ps
m
ps
e
Ho
dl
m
ur
ps
ju
”H
d
un
ju
2
–1
bo
nd
6”
re
ou
le
b
re
rd
Hu
le
rd
Hu
Absolute V-GRFp values shown for unilateral exercises are combined (force summed from left+right leg)
AUTHORS’ BIOGRAPHIES
SIMON BREARLEY, MSC, ASCC DANA AGAR-NEWMAN, MSC CSCS
Simon Brearley is the lead strength and conditioning Dana Agar-Newman is the co-lead of strength and
coach at Cranleigh School, a consultant on the PGA conditioning for the Canadian Sport Institute Pacific.
European Tour and the south region strength and
conditioning coach for England Golf.
P R O F E SS I O N A L S T R E N GT H & C O N D I T I O N I N G / W W W. U K S CA . O R G . U K 23
PLYOMETRIC TRAINING STRESS ISSUE 47 / DECEMBER 2017
References
1. Bailey, CA., Sato, K., Burnett, A. and Stone, MH. fast stretch-shortening cycle training. Strength Conditioning. Earle, R.W. & T.R. Baechle, (Ed).
Carry-over of force production symmetry in and Conditioning Journal, 30: 32-37. 2008. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics,. 2000. pp. 427-
athletes of differing strength levels. Journal of 15. Fowler, NE., and Lees, A. A comparison of 470.
Strength and Conditioning Research, 29(11): 3188- the kinetic and kinematic characteristics of 29. Potach, DH. and Chu, DA. Program Design and
3196. 2015. plyometric drop-jump and pendulum exercises. Technique for Plyometric Training. In Essentials
2. Bauer, JJ., Fuchs,RK.,Smith ,GA., and Snow, CM. Journal of Applied Biomechanics, 14: 260–275. of Strength Training and Conditioning, GG Haff
Quantifying force magnitude and loading rate 1998. and NT Triplett (Eds). Leeds: Human Kinetics,
from drop landings that induce osteogenesis. 16. Haff, G. Quantifying workloads in resistance 2015, pp. 471-520.
Journal of Applied Biomechanics,17: 142–152. training: A brief review. Professional Strength 30. Rousanoglou, E., Noutsos, K., Bayios, I. and
2001. and Conditioning, 19: 4-13. 2010. Boudolos, K. Ground reaction forces and
3. Bobbert, MF and Casius, R. Is the effect of a 17. Jarvis, M., Graham-Smith, P. and Comfort, P. throwing performance in elite and novice
countermovement on jump height due to active A methodological approach to quantifying players in two types of handball shot. Journal of
state development? Medicine and Science in plyometric intensity. Journal of Strength and Human Kinetics, 40: 49-55. 2014.
Sports and Exercise, 37(3): 440-446. 2005. Conditioning Research, 30(9): 2522-2532. 2016. 31. Schmidtbleicher, D. Training for power events.
4. Brewer, C. A perspective on…plyometrics. 18. Jensen, RL, and Ebben, WP. Impulses and In: Strength and Power in Sport. PV Komi (Ed).
Professional Strength and Conditioning Journal, ground reaction forces at progressive intensities Oxford: Blackwell, 1992. pp. 169-179.
2: 15-17. 2005. of weightlifting variations. Proceedings of the 32. Spiteri, T., Cochrane, JL., Haff, GG. and
5. Chu, DA. Jumping Into Plyometrics. Chicago, IL: XX Conference of the International Symposium Nimphius, S. Effect of strength on plant foot
Human Kinetics. 1998. of the Society of Biomechanics in Sports. 2002. kinetics and kinematics during a change of
6. Donoghue, OA., Shimojo, H. and Takagi, Pp. 222-225. direction task. European Journal of Sport
H. Impact forces of plyometric exercises 19. Jensen, RL. and Ebben, WP. Quantifying Science, 13(6): 646-652. 2013.
performed on land and in water. Sports Health: plyometric intensity via rate of force 33. Sugisaki, N., Okada, J. and Kanehisa, H.
A Multidisciplinary Approach, 3(3): 303-309. development, knee joint, and ground reaction Intensity-level assessment of lower body
2011. forces. Journal of Strength and Conditioning plyometric exercises based on mechanical
7.
Ebben, W.P., Blackard, D.O., and R.L., Jensen. Research, 21(3): 763-767. 2007. output of lower limb joints. Journal of Sport
Quantification of medicine ball vertical impact 20. Komi, PV. and Gollhofer, A. Stretch reflex can Sciences, 31(8): 894-906. 2013.
forces: Estimating effective training loads. have an important role in force enhancement 34. Turner,CH. Three rules for bone adaptation to
Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 13: during SSC-exercise. Journal of Applied mechanical stimuli. Bone, 23, 399-407, 1998.
271–274. 1999. Biomechanics, 13: 451-460. 1997. 35. Turner, CH. and Robling, AG. Exercises for
8. Ebben, W.P., Simenz, C., and Jensen, R.L. 21. Komi, PV. Strength and Power in Sport. Oxford: improving bone strength. British Journal of
Evaluation of plyometric intensity using Blackwell, 2003. Sports Medicine, 39: 188-189. 2005.
electromyography. Journal of Strength and 22. Komi, PV. Stretch-shortening cycle: A powerful 36. Van Lieshout, KG., Anderson, JG., Shelburne,
Conditioning Research, 22: 861-868. 2008. model to study normal and fatigued muscle. KB. and Davidson, BS. Intensity rankings
9. Ebben, WP. Practical guidelines for plyometric Journal of Biomechanics, 33: 1197-1206. 2000. of plyometric exercises using joint power
intensity. NSCA Performance Training Journal, 23. Lake, JP. And Lauder, MA. Mechanical demands absorption. Clinical Biomechanics, 2014.
6: 5-12. 2007. of kettlebell swing exercise. Journal of Strength 37.
Verkhoshansky, N. Shock method and
10. Ebben, WP., Caufmann, CE., Fauth, ML. and and Conditioning Research, 26(12): 3209-3216. plyometrics: Updates and an in-depth analysis.
Petushek, EJ. Kinetic analysis of concurrent 2012. Proceedings of the 9th Annual Conference of
activation potentiation during back squats 24. Leissring,SK., Petushek,EJ, Stephenson,ML.,and the United Kingdom Strength and Conditioning
and jump squats. Journal of Strength and Jensen,RL Relationship of ground and knee Association, 2013.
Conditioning Research, 24(6):1515-1519. 2010. joint reaction forces in plyometric exercises. 38. Wallace, BJ., Kernozek, TW., White, JM., Kline,
11. Ebben, WP., Fauth, ML., Garceau, LR. and In Proceedings of the 28th Conference of the DE., Wright, GA., Peng, H-T. and Huang, C-F.
Petushek, EJ. Kinetic quantification of International Society of Biomechanics in Sports, Quantification of vertical ground reaction
plyometric exercise intensity. Journal of 2010. Pp.152-155. forces of popular bilateral plyometric exercises.
Strength and Conditioning Research, 25(12): 25. Maffiuletti,N.A., Aagaard,P., Blazevich,AJ., Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research,
3288-3298. 2011. Folland,J., Tillin.N and Duchateau,J. Rate 24(1): 207-212. 2010.
12. Ebben, WP., Fauth, ML., Kaufmann, CE. and of force development: physiological and 39. Wurm, BJ., Garceau, LR., Vander Zanden, TL.,
Petushek, EJ. Magnitude and rate of mechanical methodological considerations. European Fauth, ML. and Ebben, WP. Ground reaction
loading of a variety of exercise modes. Journal Journal of Applied Physiology, 116: 1091-1116. force and rate of force development during
of Strength and Conditioning Research, 24(1): 2016. lower body resistance training exercises.
213-217. 2010. 26. Mero, A. and Komi, PV. EMG, force, power Proceedings of the XXVIII Congress of the
13. Fauth, ML., Garceau, L., Lutsch, B., Gray, A. and analysis of sprint-specific strength exercises. International Society of Biomechanics in Sports.
Szalkowski, C. Kinetic analysis of lower body Journal of Applied Biomechanics, 10: 1-13. 1994. 2010, p1.
resistance training exercises. Proceedings of the 27. Piscopo, J. and Bailey, J. Kinesiology: 40. Zwerver, J., Bredeweg, SW. and Van Den Akker-
XXVIII Congress of the International Society of The Science of Movement. New York: John Scheek, I. Prevalence of jumper’s knee among
Biomechanics in Sports. 2010, p1. Wiley & Sons, 1981 non-elite athletes from different sports: A cross-
14. Flanagan, E. and Comyns, T. The use of contact 28. Potach DH, and Chu, DA. Plyometric Training. sectional survey. American Journal of Sports
time and the reactive strength index to optimize In: Essentials of Strength Training and Medicine, 39(9): 1984-1988. 2011.
24 P R O F E SS I O N A L S T R E N GT H & C O N D I T I O N I N G / W W W. U K S CA . O R G . U K
View publication stats