See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/324755442

How to monitor net plyometric stress: guidelines for the coach

Article · December 2017

CITATIONS READS

2 6,139

4 authors:

Simon Brearley James Wild

11 PUBLICATIONS   38 CITATIONS   
University of Surrey
7 PUBLICATIONS   62 CITATIONS   
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE

Dana agar-newman Harri Cizmic

Canadian Sports Institute University of Surrey
13 PUBLICATIONS   67 CITATIONS    1 PUBLICATION   2 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Golf Strength & Conditioning View project

Force Velocity Profiling View project

All content following this page was uploaded by James Wild on 26 June 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 ISSUE 47 / DECEMBER 2017 PLYOMETRIC TRAINING STRESS

How to monitor net

plyometric training stress:
guidelines for the coach
By Simon Brearley MSc, ASCC,1 James Wild MSc, ASCC,2
Dana Agar-Newman MSc CSCS,3 and Harri Cizmic, MSc, ASCC 4
1
Cranleigh School, University of Surrey, 3Canadian Sport Institute Pacific, 4University of Bath
2

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.

In addition, inconsistencies remain around how volume of plyometric exercises

should be accounted for (ie, number of foot contacts). For these reasons, the
resulting volume load in plyometric exercises is often underestimated and may
result in inappropriate management of the training stress imposed on athletes.
Therefore, an integrated framework that better takes into account the volume
load of plyometric exercises would be desirable for practitioners who routinely
monitor their athletes’ workloads.

Plyometric exercise classification is likely to be minimal.27 Since reflex-induced

Discussion of plyometric exercise
classification has primarily focused on
ground contact time differences and the
sub-categorisation of fast and slow stretch-
shortening cycle (SSC) utilisation.5,14,21,22,31
Schmidtbleicher31 was one of the first to
make this distinction, classifying a ‘fast’ SSC
as a ground contact time of less than 250ms.
However, it has been suggested that unless
there is a rapid stretch violent enough to
evoke a reflex contribution, SSC potentiation
forces are an essential component of force
enhancement in stretch-shortening cycles,22
it is contested whether SSC activity exists
in exercises where stretch intensity is not
overly high, as is often the case in ballistic
exercises without a preceding ground
contact, ie, countermovement jump.3
Whether the SSC utilisation is considered
fast or slow, it has been shown that activities
in which a ground contact is bracketed by
preceding and subsequent aerial phases

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

Table 1. Volume load equations

BODYWEIGHT (KG): 80
ABSOLUTE VOLUME-LOAD METHOD
SET 1 SET 2 SET 3
EXERCISE REPS LOAD (KG) REPS LOAD (KG) REPS LOAD (KG) ABSOLUTE VOLUME-LOAD (KG)

Back Squat 5 100 5 100 5 100 1500

1-REPETITION MAXIMUM METHOD

SET 1 SET 2 SET 3
EXERCISE REPS %1RM REPS %1RM REPS %1RM PLANNED LOAD (%) 1RM

Back Squat 5 80 5 80 5 80 1200

SYSTEM MASS VOLUME-LOAD METHOD (SMVL)

SET 1 SET 2 SET 3
EXERCISE REPS LOAD (KG) REPS LOAD (KG) REPS LOAD (KG) SMVL (KG)

Back Squat 5 170.4 5 170.4 5 170.4 2556

System mass volume load (SMVL) is calculated by sets x reps x system mass (the external load in kg + the athlete’s body mass – the athlete’s shank and foot mass [at 12%
of body mass]19

Table 2. Foot contact definitions

EXERCISE 1 SET DEFINED AS: 1 REP DETERMINED BY:

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
significantly greater peak and rates of
ground reaction force (GRF) compared
to single unloaded ballistic efforts (eg,
a countermovement jump).38 For this
reason, a solution which accounts for the
volume load of jumping-based exercises
which incorporate a ground contact more
accurately would be useful. Verkhoshansky37
described this type of ground contact as a
‘collision’ between two or more bodies
exerting force on each other for a relatively
short period of time (ie, the ground and
an athlete’s foot). It is suggested that this
‘shock collision’ is critical for stimulating
high stretch intensities. For the purpose of
this article, the term plyometric is used to
describe exercises of this nature.
Defining plyometric stress effectively
requires an understanding of the volume of
work completed, together with the intensity
of that work. For that reason the subsequent
sections will focus on how we can achieve
these two objectives.
Volume of plyometric exercises
It can be suggested that a graduated
increase in volume is critical when using
plyometrics as part of any strength and
conditioning (S&C) programme.40 Methods
that have been proposed include totalling
the number of session foot contacts and
distance covered.5,9,19,38
Commonly 80-100 foot contacts per
session are deemed appropriate for the
beginner,29 whereas greater than 100
contacts of moderate intensity contacts
are recommended for the intermediate
athlete.5 For advanced athletes, coaches are
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
reading on this, please see the UKSCA article
titled ‘A perspective on … plyometrics’.4
Distance can also be used for measuring
volume during horizontal plyometric
exercises, such as bounding.5 This has
obvious advantages in its simplicity where
a coach can decide the coverage of a set
distance to represent the ‘volume’.
Unfortunately, due to disparities between
athletes’ physical qualities affecting
individual bound distance (mass-
specific strength qualities, training
age, coordination), distance may not be
appropriate for the purpose of quantifying
volume-load. Furthermore, this method
would not be viable for monitoring ‘vertical’
plyometric exercises. Therefore, recording
foot contacts/repetitions is recommended
as the most reliable method for quantifying
volume, although it is important that the
definition of a single repetition is clear
for each exercise (Table 2). However
clearly defined volume may be, using foot
contacts/repetitions alone is inadequate for
monitoring plyometric training, as it fails
to account for the highly variable impact
characteristics between exercises.
Intensity of plyometric exercises
Recent studies have found current
information on intensity confusing,
insufficient and even erroneous.8,19,33
Deciding what measures reflect biological
stress resulting from plyometric training
is challenging. It must first be reiterated
that mechanical stress is only one aspect
of the overall biological effect; stress and
adaptation within the neurological system
for instance is largely at play during periods
of plyometric training. However, for the
purpose of this article the main discussion
will relate to the degree of associated
mechanical stress. Potach & Chu29 have
previously classified this operating under
the premise that increased gravitational
acceleration (ie, drop height) results in a
proportional increase in intensity.
Several studies have since attempted to
quantify the mechanical stress experienced
in the lower extremities during different
plyometric exercises. Numerous kinetic
variables have been used to quantify
plyometric intensity, ranging from peak
vertical GRF,6,11,12,16,17,32,37 average vertical
and horizontal GRF,23 eccentric rate of
force development,6,11,12,19 peak absorption
power,17,36 impulse,6,11,17,26 knee joint reaction
force19 and ankle, knee and hip mechanical
output (peak extension torque, angular
impulse, peak positive and negative
power, positive and negative work).33
These studies have provided a greater
insight into the impact characteristics of
plyometric exercises and in turn challenge
the traditional premise that largely bases
stress on drop height alone.
PEAK VERTICAL GROUND REACTION FORCE
Peak vertical GRF (V-GRFp) is probably the
most commonly used measure to describe
plyometric intensity and is widely reported
within the literature.6,11,12,16,17,32,37 Table 3
provides an overview of what this research
tells us about the intensity of common
plyometric exercises.
The data presented in Table 3 are attained
from studies investigating V-GRFp during
the landing phase of plyometric exercises.
These data highlight the discrepancies
between the traditional intensity
classification29 and the revised intensity
ranking based on V-GRFp observed within

Table 3. V-GRFp data

EXERCISE
POGO REPEATED REPEATED TUCK JUMP DROP JUMP DROP JUMP DROP JUMP DROP JUMP DROP JUMP BOUNDING
CMJ SLJ (30CM) (40-46CM) (60-61CM) (90CM) (CMJ HEIGHT)

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)

*Average vertical GRF reported only

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
‘peak joint the research. Notably, the pogo and repeated
CMJ exercises which are traditionally
torque considered to be low in intensity are ranked
within the top three.
provides Previous studies have established that the
peak force occurs during the landing phase
information of plyometric exercises.17,18,28 V-GRFp has
been shown to be a valid estimation of the
on how the skeletal response to compressive strain34
and numerous studies have been able to
ankle, knee show that kinetic differences exist between
common plyometric exercises.11,12,17,19
and hip each Ebben et al12 found significant main
effects (p<0.01), demonstrating intensity
contribute to differences between a common plyometric
exercise (depth jump), ballistic exercises
mechanical (jump squat) and running. Ebben et al11
and Wallace et al17 performed similar
study designs comparing more plyometric
output’ exercises and again found V-GRFp was
able to show that kinetic differences exist
(see Table 3). Donaghue, Shimogo and
Takagi6 compared the V-GRFp of plyometric
exercises performed in water and found that
the aquatic condition masked the ability of
the variable to make distinctions between
exercises, reiterating that degree of impact
is an important intensity marker (the water
blunted the impact component). Jenson &
Ebben19 also investigated whether kinetic
variables could detect differences between
plyometric exercises but contrary to the
previous studies mentioned V-GRFp failed
to differentiate. However, this could have
been a result of the small sample size (n=6)
within the study and the diverse sporting
background of the subjects (wrestling, track
& field, volleyball), which would arguably
have created a large amount of inherent
variability within the statistical model.
V-GRFp offers a description of intensity with
sufficient reliability (mean ICC 0.92) and is
easily understood by coaches and athletes
when expressed relative to body mass.17
However, V-GRFp could be described as a
‘blind’ measure of stress, in that it yields a
peak mechanical output without giving any
insight into the pattern of force production,
the force-time integral (impulse), joint
contribution, and not necessarily an
indication of the biological stress imposed.
What can be concluded is that when it has
been used to quantify plyometric intensity/
stress, it does not align with traditional
descriptions.
ECCENTRIC RATE OF FORCE DEVELOPMENT
Both magnitude of strain and rate of strain
of the axial and appendicular skeleton are
associated with osteogenic potential of an
exercise.13,34,35 It is important to note that
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
these measures are not mutually exclusive
because rate of strain will always vary in
direct proportion to the magnitude of strain
imposed.35 Turner34 suggests that the rate
of increase of ground reaction force, or
‘strain rate’ will best estimate the skeletal
response; making eccentric rate of force
development (E-RFD) the most suitable
descriptor in this context. Ebben, Blackard &
Jenson7 previously described the usefulness
of E-RFD in establishing the threshold to
stimulate a stretch reflex, and suggested
that this measure could be used to guide
progression in a plyometric programme.
Only four studies6,11,12,19 have used E-RFD
to describe impact characteristics and
of these studies E-RFD was significantly
different across exercise type. Jenson &
Ebben19 tested the hypothesis that E-RFD
(in addition to other variables) would
detect differences between eight different
plyometric exercises and found that
exercise type explained 50.3% of the total
variance in E-RFD according to the estimate
of effect size. One challenge of using RFD
measures is that its method of calculation
varies widely within the literature, has
many associated variables (average RFD,
Time-Interval RFD, Peak RFD, Time to Peak
RFD) and is therefore difficult to compare
between studies. However, this should not
be a reason to discount its use to inform an
intensity continuum, rather a reminder that
methods need to be standardised before
attempts can be made to make sense of data.
It is worth noting, however, that attaining
reliable RFD data can be challenging25 and
this is an important factor when choosing a
variable to inform a monitoring system.
IMPULSE
Similarly to V-GRFp the impulse of
plyometric exercises performed in the
study by Donaghue, Shimogo and Takagi6
were significantly reduced in the aquatic
condition (19-54%), when compared to the
land condition suggesting that impulse is
another variable that is able to account for
the impact characteristics associated with
landing and rebounding. Jarvis, Graham-
Smith & Comfort17 found impulse to be
highly reliable (r=0.85) and concluded that it
is potentially a measure of volume-load but
not intensity or stress. This is best explained
if we consider two hypothetical jumps with
the same impulse; jump A has higher force
than jump B but in jump B the force is applied
over a longer duration. The force profile of
jump A would therefore represent higher
impact stress than jump B, but without a
visual of the integration of the force-time
graph the jump representing higher ‘stress’
would be unclear. To consolidate this,
 ISSUE 47 / DECEMBER 2017 PLYOMETRIC TRAINING STRESS

the reader can consider the function of

crumple zones in road traffic collisions;
these don’t reduce the momentum (that
must be returned to null velocity) but
rather spread the change in momentum
over a greater amount of time – thus
reducing the impact stress (or
strain if we consider this from an
energy standpoint). Considering
this, it becomes apparent that
the area under the force-time
curve quantified as a value
would maybe not be the most
appropriate variable to reflect
peak mechanical stress, as it
is the shape of the force-time
curve that would potentially
provide a better indication
of impact ‘stress’. It would,
however, be a suitable
descriptor of the total
volume of work done.

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.

Another joint kinetic measure that has been

used within the literature is (negative) joint
power17,33,36 and reliability for this measure
has been assessed17 (r=0.85). As is the
case with V-GRFp, when used to quantify
mechanical output of common plyometric
exercises, these variables present a different
order of ‘stress’ to that of Potach and Chu’s29
traditional intensity continuum. Sugisaki,
Okada and Kanehisa33 used joint power
(joint torque x joint angular velocity
expressed in W/Kg) to quantify plyometric

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
intensity and found pogo jumps, repeated
standing long jumps and 60cm depth jump
to evoke the highest values for the ankle, knee
and hip respectively. This made pogo jumps
in particular a large discrepancy in relation
to traditional intensity classifications
within which it is considered a low intensity
exercise. The 30cm depth jump was equally
misaligned, with traditional descriptors
considering it high intensity but producing
relatively low values at both the knee and
ankle. Furthermore, within the study by
Jarvis, Graham and Comfort,17 repeated
CMJs produced the highest W/Kg and this
was statistically higher than depth jumps
from heights of up to 40cm. This concurs
with previous studies which show that the
depth jump is not inherently intense and the
classic intensity continuum needs revision.11
These discrepancies cannot be solely
attributed to the independent joint
assessment, as two studies17,36 have summed
(negative) joint powers (summing values for
the ankle, knee and hip to obtain a global
value) and the divergence with traditional
descriptors remained.
The ability to quantify mechanical outputs
at independent joints is very useful
information for the coach, but this is a time-
consuming process and outputs would need
to be summed to result in a single value
appropriate to represent overall intensity
or ‘stress’. Also, summed mechanical output
data should be interpreted with caution
where mean force data (from hip extension,
knee extension and plantar flexion) are
presented. For instance, mean peak extensor
torques about the hip, knee and ankle infer
that both the tuck jump and repeated SLJ
are medium-high intensity exercises,
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
but of the mean torques of around 700N.m
that both exercises elicit, 283N.m is
produced at the ankle in the former and
453N.m at the hip in the latter.33 This further
highlights the differences in mechanical
output between joints; the repeated SLJ
could be classified as high intensity for the
hip joint, but low intensity for the ankle
joint. It is useful for coaches to be aware that
inter-joint torques will vary so that exercise
selection can avoid stressing a particular
joint or conversely aim to increase output at
that joint.
Jenson and Ebben19 combined kinematic
with kinetic force data (and subsequent
inverse dynamics analysis) in an attempt to
quantify plyometric intensity by assessing
the joint reaction forces at the knee joint.
These forces were estimated according
to methods previously described by
Bauer, Fuchs, Smith & Snow.2 Knee joint
reaction force (KJRF) was able to detect
statistical differences in relative intensity
between each exercise condition. KJRF dis-
tinguished magnitude of strain on the knee
joint between plyometric exercises such
as the tuck jump, which produced KJRF of
up to nearly 10xBW, and loaded ballistics
(squat jump holding dumbbells 30%1RM)
which only elicited KJRF of less than half
of that. This suggests that the variable is
also sensitive to the increased mechanical
demand associated with rebounding.
The difficulty in using variables such as
KJRF to inform a plyometric intensity
continuum is they require inverse dynamics
analyses which are time-consuming,
and require expensive lab-based equipment
for 3D analysis and for obtaining
force data.
 ISSUE 47 / DECEMBER 2017
Leissring et al24 examined the relationship
between V-GRFp and KJRF via regression
analysis and notably found R2 values to be as
high as 0.993 across all exercise conditions,
which is highly relevant information
considering the endeavour to simplify to a
singular intensity variable for the purpose of
monitoring.
Discussion
Intensity is inherently multifactorial, and
clearly could be broken down further and
sub-categorised. The measures discussed
within this section have focused on ground
reaction forces and their derivatives,
combined with kinematic data during
landing. The problem for the coach is that
there are other factors which will influence
intensity or stress. Such factors include:
pre-activation, forces associated with
the propulsive phase, as well as highly
individual factors – training background of
an individual, anthropometry, foot contact
area, joint angle distribution and geometry
at touchdown, associated lower limb stiffness
of the individual, and how the exercise
is coached. All of these will have a major
effect on impact characteristics, meaning
theoretically two athletes with the same
kinetic profile could experience different
levels of stress. Likewise, the individual
factors mentioned could change within
the same athlete over time whereas their
kinetic profile may remain the same, making
the change in stress difficult to detect.
All things considered, it becomes clear
that there is more to this than Newtonian
principles, and – like in any coaching –
there is a certain degree of art required here
in making programming decisions and
monitoring responses.
Having said this, kinetic quantification
can and should be used together with
our continuous coaching observation to
inform our decisions. In attempting to
sub-categorise and take into account all
possible factors we run the risk of over-
complication and confusion. Arguably the
best true insight into overall mechanical
stress (using kinetic data only) would
require a combination of a measure which
highlights the peak force experienced
and the rate at which that force was
developed (ie, V-GRFp and E-RFD),
together with impulse, which further
describes the application of force
across the full duration of impact.17
If we consider how the physicist defines
material stress or pressure (the latter
normally in the context of fluids but the
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
PLYOMETRIC TRAINING STRESS
same physics apply), it is evident that
V-GRFp is always going to be a factor that
‘V-GRFp is
needs to be accounted for when considering
plyometric ‘stress’. Therefore this should
always going
arguably be our foremost interest; ground
reaction forces are, after all, the gateway to be a factor
to other measures and the the pattern of
force production (impulse) provides useful that needs to
supplementary information but wouldn’t
be suitable as a stand-alone descriptor for be accounted
reasons discussed in the previous section.
for when
In search of the most appropriate kinetic
descriptor it is also important to consider
practicality for the coach. The work of
considering
Turner34 is potentially important in this
article because it provides evidence
plyometric
that E-RFD does reflect a component
of the biological stress imposed (bone stress’
remodelling), but reliability can be a
challenge when attaining RFD measures.25
Likewise, joint kinetics although insightful,
are not as readily obtainable for use
within a monitoring system. Obtaining a
measure of V-GRFp is quick, simple and
has the advantage of being intuitive and
easily conceived by coaches. It is also an
important justification that V-GRFp
has very strong relationships with joint
kinetic measures like KJRF. Therefore the
authors of this article recommend that as a
singular kinetic descriptor, V-GRFp can
help us understand plyometric stress
and that it should be considered when
calculating plyometric volume-load.
The final section will provide a working
example of how the practitioner can
integrate this.
Practical application
Allocating a fixed intensity to a given
plyometric exercise is a difficult task for
reasons discussed in the previous section.
However, measuring an athlete’s absolute
V-GRFp across the exercises included in
subsequent training blocks provides the
opportunity to rank exercises based on
respective magnitudes of V-GRFp produced
for that individual. Although the current
literature does not provide evidence that
V-GRFp itself relates to risk, one assumes
that biomechanical factors increasing an
individuals’ risk of injury at touchdown
would be magnified with higher V-GRFp.
Table 4 (on page 22) shows a personalised
profile of an athlete using V-GRFp values to
create an intensity continuum. A weighting
factor (WF) for each exercise was created
using a percentage change scale calculated
using the following equation:
21
 PLYOMETRIC TRAINING STRESS ISSUE 47 / DECEMBER 2017

The scale was inverted (exercise with the
lowest V-GRFp value = 100%) to yield positive
values that could then be multiplied by the
volume of work done and form our ‘intensity’
value for the volume-load calculation
(reps / foot contacts x WF). This is
shown as a working example in Table 5.
Table 4 also shows how alternatively
exercises could be bracketed by V-GRFp
magnitude and a WF applied to each
of these intensity bandings rather than
each individual exercise (average WF of
the exercises within that band) offering
a simplified volume-load quantification.
Either system enables a consistent arbitrary
figure to be used as a WF that can account
for the differing kinetic profile of exercises
used with an individual.
This article highlights some of the common
issues with monitoring systems and
discrepancies of traditional plyometric

Table 4. Intensity continuum and weighting factor

PLYOMETRIC EXERCISE ABSOLUTE V-GRFP1 ABSOLUTE V-GRFP2 PERCENT BASED WEIGHTING FACTOR INTENSITY BANDING WEIGHTING FACTOR
Depth Jump 15 2706.6 1353.3 100 1
Drop Jump 15 3025.9 1512.9 112 1.12
Depth Jump 30 3208.4 1604.2 119 1.19
Low (>4000N) 1.22
Pogo Backwards   3466.9 1733.4 128 1.28
Drop Jump 30 3558.1 1779.0 131 1.31
Depth Jump 45 3816.6 1908.3 141 1.41
Drop Jump 45 4166.3 2083.2 154 1.54
Slalom Hops 4288.0 2144.0 158 1.58
Tuck Jumps 4500.8 2250.4 166 1.66
Depth Jump 60 4531.2 2265.6 167 1.67 Moderate (4000-5000N) 1.67

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)

Table 5. Working example

SET 1 SET 2 SET 3
EXERCISE REPS/FOOT CONTACTS REPS/FOOT CONTACTS REPS/FOOT CONTACTS WF VL

30cm Drop Jump 5 5 5 1.19 15.95

Tuck Jump 5 5 5 1.66 18.3
Bounding 5 5 5 2.67 23.35
TOTALS 57.6
Volume load (VL) calculated by (sets) x reps x WF (scale system)

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

intensity classification. Recent studies between individuals/groups and help to

have increased our understanding of GRF
derivatives and how they depict the order of
intensity or ‘stress’ of common plyometric
exercises.10,11,17,19,33,36 These studies for the
most part highlight that kinetic measures
are repeatable and are able to detect
differences between exercises,
this doesn’t mean they are necessarily
meaningful descriptors of
When considering the biological effect of a
plyometric exercise, coaches are reminded
that mechanical output will vary greatly
between joints. This means an exercise
could have an average V-GRFp, yet in fact
have a particularly high mechanical output
at, say, the ankle. Generalised allocation
of fixed intensities to specific plyometric
exercises is challenging due to the variance
in their execution. Further research could
potentially explore the degree of variance
determine the efficacy of making some
generalised recommendations. For example,
should certain exercises be found to have
a low level of variance, then mean values
attained from larger cohorts could justifiably
be used to establish general intensity
but guidelines via a ranking/banding system.
These data could then also complement
‘stress’. the research of Sugisaki, Okada and
Kanehisa33 on joint dominance and help
rank intensities for ankle/knee hip
dominant sub-groups. In the event
of the coach using exercises found
to have high levels of variance,
then individual tracking of impact data
is logical, should they have the necessary Figure 1.
resources. Regardless, it is reiterated that Athlete profiling example
as always these kinetic data should (a visually friendly
supplement rather than replace the coach’s representation of the
judgement of the ‘stress’ imposed. results in Table 4)

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.

JAMES WILD, MSC ASCC HARRI CIZMIC, MSC ASCC

James Wild is the technical lead (performance) at Harri Cizmic is the lead strength and conditioning
Surrey Sports Park and a teaching fellow (sport & coach at the University of Bath.
exercise science) at the University of Surrey.

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
References
1. Bailey, CA., Sato, K., Burnett, A. and Stone, MH.
Carry-over of force production symmetry in
athletes of differing strength levels. Journal of
Strength and Conditioning Research, 29(11): 3188-
3196. 2015.
2. Bauer, JJ., Fuchs,RK.,Smith ,GA., and Snow, CM.
Quantifying force magnitude and loading rate
from drop landings that induce osteogenesis.
Journal of Applied Biomechanics,17: 142–152.
2001.
3. Bobbert, MF and Casius, R. Is the effect of a
countermovement on jump height due to active
state development? Medicine and Science in
Sports and Exercise, 37(3): 440-446. 2005.
4. Brewer, C. A perspective on…plyometrics.
Professional Strength and Conditioning Journal,
2: 15-17. 2005.
5. Chu, DA. Jumping Into Plyometrics. Chicago, IL:
Human Kinetics. 1998.
6. Donoghue, OA., Shimojo, H. and Takagi,
H. Impact forces of plyometric exercises
performed on land and in water. Sports Health:
A Multidisciplinary Approach, 3(3): 303-309.
2011.
7. 
Ebben, W.P., Blackard, D.O., and R.L., Jensen.
Quantification of medicine ball vertical impact
forces: Estimating effective training loads.
Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 13:
271–274. 1999.
8. Ebben, W.P., Simenz, C., and Jensen, R.L.
Evaluation of plyometric intensity using
electromyography. Journal of Strength and
Conditioning Research, 22: 861-868. 2008.
9. Ebben, WP. Practical guidelines for plyometric
intensity. NSCA Performance Training Journal,
6: 5-12. 2007.
10. Ebben, WP., Caufmann, CE., Fauth, ML. and
Petushek, EJ. Kinetic analysis of concurrent
activation potentiation during back squats
and jump squats. Journal of Strength and
Conditioning Research, 24(6):1515-1519. 2010.
11. Ebben, WP., Fauth, ML., Garceau, LR. and
Petushek, EJ. Kinetic quantification of
plyometric exercise intensity. Journal of
Strength and Conditioning Research, 25(12):
3288-3298. 2011.
12. Ebben, WP., Fauth, ML., Kaufmann, CE. and
Petushek, EJ. Magnitude and rate of mechanical
loading of a variety of exercise modes. Journal
of Strength and Conditioning Research, 24(1):
213-217. 2010.
13. Fauth, ML., Garceau, L., Lutsch, B., Gray, A. and
Szalkowski, C. Kinetic analysis of lower body
resistance training exercises. Proceedings of the
XXVIII Congress of the International Society of
Biomechanics in Sports. 2010, p1.
14. Flanagan, E. and Comyns, T. The use of contact
time and the reactive strength index to optimize
24
View publication stats
fast stretch-shortening cycle training. Strength
and Conditioning Journal, 30: 32-37. 2008.
15. Fowler, NE., and Lees, A. A comparison of
the kinetic and kinematic characteristics of
plyometric drop-jump and pendulum exercises.
Journal of Applied Biomechanics, 14: 260–275.
1998.
16. Haff, G. Quantifying workloads in resistance
training: A brief review. Professional Strength
and Conditioning, 19: 4-13. 2010.
17. Jarvis, M., Graham-Smith, P. and Comfort, P.
A methodological approach to quantifying
plyometric intensity. Journal of Strength and
Conditioning Research, 30(9): 2522-2532. 2016.
18. Jensen, RL, and Ebben, WP. Impulses and
ground reaction forces at progressive intensities
of weightlifting variations. Proceedings of the
XX Conference of the International Symposium
of the Society of Biomechanics in Sports. 2002.
Pp. 222-225.
19. Jensen, RL. and Ebben, WP. Quantifying
plyometric intensity via rate of force
development, knee joint, and ground reaction
forces. Journal of Strength and Conditioning
Research, 21(3): 763-767. 2007.
20. Komi, PV. and Gollhofer, A. Stretch reflex can
have an important role in force enhancement
during SSC-exercise. Journal of Applied
Biomechanics, 13: 451-460. 1997.
21. Komi, PV. Strength and Power in Sport. Oxford:
Blackwell, 2003.
22. Komi, PV. Stretch-shortening cycle: A powerful
model to study normal and fatigued muscle.
Journal of Biomechanics, 33: 1197-1206. 2000.
23. Lake, JP. And Lauder, MA. Mechanical demands
of kettlebell swing exercise. Journal of Strength
and Conditioning Research, 26(12): 3209-3216.
2012.
24. Leissring,SK., Petushek,EJ, Stephenson,ML.,and
Jensen,RL Relationship of ground and knee
joint reaction forces in plyometric exercises.
In Proceedings of the 28th Conference of the
International Society of Biomechanics in Sports,
2010. Pp.152-155.
25. Maffiuletti,N.A., Aagaard,P., Blazevich,AJ.,
Folland,J., Tillin.N and Duchateau,J. Rate
of force development: physiological and
methodological considerations. European
Journal of Applied Physiology, 116: 1091-1116.
2016.
26. Mero, A. and Komi, PV. EMG, force, power
analysis of sprint-specific strength exercises.
Journal of Applied Biomechanics, 10: 1-13. 1994.
27. Piscopo, J. and Bailey, J. Kinesiology:
The Science of Movement. New York: John
Wiley & Sons, 1981
28. Potach DH, and Chu, DA. Plyometric Training.
In: Essentials of Strength Training and
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
Conditioning. Earle, R.W. & T.R. Baechle, (Ed).
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics,. 2000. pp. 427-
470.
29. Potach, DH. and Chu, DA. Program Design and
Technique for Plyometric Training. In Essentials
of Strength Training and Conditioning, GG Haff
and NT Triplett (Eds). Leeds: Human Kinetics,
2015, pp. 471-520.
30. Rousanoglou, E., Noutsos, K., Bayios, I. and
Boudolos, K. Ground reaction forces and
throwing performance in elite and novice
players in two types of handball shot. Journal of
Human Kinetics, 40: 49-55. 2014.
31. Schmidtbleicher, D. Training for power events.
In: Strength and Power in Sport. PV Komi (Ed).
Oxford: Blackwell, 1992. pp. 169-179.
32. Spiteri, T., Cochrane, JL., Haff, GG. and
Nimphius, S. Effect of strength on plant foot
kinetics and kinematics during a change of
direction task. European Journal of Sport
Science, 13(6): 646-652. 2013.
33. Sugisaki, N., Okada, J. and Kanehisa, H.
Intensity-level assessment of lower body
plyometric exercises based on mechanical
output of lower limb joints. Journal of Sport
Sciences, 31(8): 894-906. 2013.
34. Turner,CH. Three rules for bone adaptation to
mechanical stimuli. Bone, 23, 399-407, 1998.
35. Turner, CH. and Robling, AG. Exercises for
improving bone strength. British Journal of
Sports Medicine, 39: 188-189. 2005.
36. Van Lieshout, KG., Anderson, JG., Shelburne,
KB. and Davidson, BS. Intensity rankings
of plyometric exercises using joint power
absorption. Clinical Biomechanics, 2014.
37. 
Verkhoshansky, N. Shock method and
plyometrics: Updates and an in-depth analysis.
Proceedings of the 9th Annual Conference of
the United Kingdom Strength and Conditioning
Association, 2013.
38. Wallace, BJ., Kernozek, TW., White, JM., Kline,
DE., Wright, GA., Peng, H-T. and Huang, C-F.
Quantification of vertical ground reaction
forces of popular bilateral plyometric exercises.
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research,
24(1): 207-212. 2010.
39. Wurm, BJ., Garceau, LR., Vander Zanden, TL.,
Fauth, ML. and Ebben, WP. Ground reaction
force and rate of force development during
lower body resistance training exercises.
Proceedings of the XXVIII Congress of the
International Society of Biomechanics in Sports.
2010, p1.
40. Zwerver, J., Bredeweg, SW. and Van Den Akker-
Scheek, I. Prevalence of jumper’s knee among
non-elite athletes from different sports: A cross-
sectional survey. American Journal of Sports
Medicine, 39(9): 1984-1988. 2011.