Changes in Counter Movement Jump Height, Take-off Force and Maximum Concentric Power of Collegiate Athletes After Two Sessions Per Week Plyometric Training on Different Training Surfaces

Borah, Poli, Gogoi, Lakshyajit, Gogoi, Hemantajit, Govindasamy, Karuppasamy, Prasad, Sambhu, Minu, Tadang, Parpa, Koulla orcid iconORCID: 0000-0002-1139-7731 and Ben Abderrahman, Abderraouf (2023) Changes in Counter Movement Jump Height, Take-off Force and Maximum Concentric Power of Collegiate Athletes After Two Sessions Per Week Plyometric Training on Different Training Surfaces. Slobozhanskyi Herald of Science and Sport, 27 (1). pp. 34-41. ISSN 1991-0177

[thumbnail of VOR]
Preview
PDF (VOR) - Published Version
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution.

808kB

Official URL: https://doi.org/10.15391/snsv.2023-1.005

Abstract

Purpose: This study aimed to examine the effects of two sessions per week plyometric training on different surfaces on the counter movement jump height, take-off force, and maximum concentric power of collegiate athletes.

Material and methods: Male collegiate athletes (n=24, age=18.46±1.14 years, weight=64.88±5.61 kg and height=1.72±0.07 metres)) from a physical training centre were randomly and equally assigned to three groups, each trained on different surfaces (synthetic, cinder and sand). The training intervention was implemented twice a week and lasted for 8 weeks. The athletes were tested before and after the intervention to assess changes in the performance of counter movement jump height (CMJHT), take-off force (CMJTOF) and maximum concentric power (CMJMCP).

Results: Results showed that overall measurement of CMJHT, CMJTOF and CMJMCP improved significantly (p≤0.05, Δ %=10.50; p≤0.05, Δ%=11.11; p≤0.05, Δ%=11.41). However, training surfaces have no significant effect on the improvement of the selected variables (CMJHT:F(2,21)=2.37, p=0.118, ηp2=0.184; CMJTOF:F(2,21)=1.28, p=0.299, ηp2=0.109; CMJMCP:F(2,21)=0.061, p=0.941, ηp2=0.006). Further, for the synthetic track surface group CMJHT, CMJTOF and CMJMCP improved significantly (p≤0.05, Δ%=16.36; p≤0.05, Δ%=17.50; p≤0.05, Δ%=17.99); for the cinder track surface group CMJHT and CMJMCP improved significantly (p≤0.05, Δ%=9.15; p≤0.05, Δ%=10.33) and for the sand surface group only CMJHT improved significantly (p≤0.05, Δ%=5.68).

Conclusions: The findings suggest that plyometric training on different surfaces can effectively improve athletic performance, but the specific surface type does not appear to impact the outcomes significantly. The study further suggested analysing the injury risk associated with plyometric training on various training surfaces and discovering the optimal training surface for minimising injury risk while maximising performance gains.


Repository Staff Only: item control page