Jason Moran1, Rodrigo Ramirez-Campillo2, Bernard Liew3, Helmi Chaabene4,5, David G Behm6, Antonio García-Hermoso7,8, Mikel Izquierdo7,9, Urs Granacher4. 1. School of Sport, Rehabilitation and Exercise Sciences, University of Essex, Colchester, Essex, UK. jmorana@essex.ac.uk. 2. Laboratory of Measurement and Assessment in Sport, Department of Physical Activity Sciences, Research Nucleus in Health, Physical Activity and Sport, Universidad de Los Lagos (University of Los Lagos), Osorno, Chile. 3. School of Sport, Rehabilitation and Exercise Sciences, University of Essex, Colchester, Essex, UK. 4. Division of Training and Movement Science, University of Potsdam, Potsdam, Germany. 5. High Institute of Sports and Physical Education, Kef, University of Jendouba, Jendouba, Tunisia. 6. School of Human Kinetics and Recreation, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John's, Canada. 7. Navarrabiomed, Complejo Hospitalario de Navarra (CHN), IdiSNA, Universidad Pública de Navarra (UPNA), Pamplona, Spain. 8. Laboratorio de Ciencias de la Actividad Física, el Deporte y la Salud, Universidad de Santiago de Chile, USACH, Santiago, Chile. 9. Grupo GICAEDS. Programa de Cultura, Física, Deporte y Recreación, Universidad Santo Tomás, Bogotá, Colombia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In accordance with the principle of training specificity, adaptations to vertically or horizontally orientated plyometric training (VPT, HPT) directly transfer to athletic tasks that are carried out in the same direction as they are performed. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to determine the relative effect of VPT and HPT on both vertical and horizontal measures of physical performance. DATA SOURCES: Google Scholar, CrossRef, Microsoft Academic, PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: To qualify for inclusion in the meta-analysis, studies must have included a plyometric training intervention that compared jumps executed in a vertical direction [i.e. countermovement jump (CMJ)] to jumps executed in a horizontal direction (i.e. standing horizontal jump). STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS: We used the inverse-variance random effects model for meta-analyses. Effect sizes, calculated from measures of horizontally or vertically orientated performance, were represented by the standardised mean difference and presented alongside 95% confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS: For between-group analysis on horizontal outcomes, there was a moderate, significant effect size (ES) in favour of HPT (0.65 [95% CI 0.12, 1.18], Z = 2.41 [p = 0.02]). For the analysis on vertical outcomes, there was a trivial, non-significant difference between VPT and HPT (- 0.04 [95% CI - 0.33, 0.24], Z = 0.0.29 [p = 0.77]). Within-group analysis showed HPT to be superior to VPT across horizontally- (1.05 [0.38, 1.72] vs. 0.84 [0.37, 1.31]) and vertically-orientated (0.74 [0.08, 1.40] vs. 0.72 [0.02, 1.43]) performance measures. For horizontally-orientated outcomes, single-factor moderator analyses showed that longer programmes (> 7 weeks), more sessions (> 12) and combined bilateral and unilateral training were most effective, favouring HPT in each case. In vertically orientated outcomes, these same variables showed only trivial differences between HBT and VBT. CONCLUSIONS: HPT is at least as effective as VPT at enhancing vertical performance but is superior at enhancing horizontal performance. This means that HPT might be a more efficient method for enhancing multi-vector performance for sport.
BACKGROUND: In accordance with the principle of training specificity, adaptations to vertically or horizontally orientated plyometric training (VPT, HPT) directly transfer to athletic tasks that are carried out in the same direction as they are performed. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to determine the relative effect of VPT and HPT on both vertical and horizontal measures of physical performance. DATA SOURCES: Google Scholar, CrossRef, Microsoft Academic, PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: To qualify for inclusion in the meta-analysis, studies must have included a plyometric training intervention that compared jumps executed in a vertical direction [i.e. countermovement jump (CMJ)] to jumps executed in a horizontal direction (i.e. standing horizontal jump). STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS: We used the inverse-variance random effects model for meta-analyses. Effect sizes, calculated from measures of horizontally or vertically orientated performance, were represented by the standardised mean difference and presented alongside 95% confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS: For between-group analysis on horizontal outcomes, there was a moderate, significant effect size (ES) in favour of HPT (0.65 [95% CI 0.12, 1.18], Z = 2.41 [p = 0.02]). For the analysis on vertical outcomes, there was a trivial, non-significant difference between VPT and HPT (- 0.04 [95% CI - 0.33, 0.24], Z = 0.0.29 [p = 0.77]). Within-group analysis showed HPT to be superior to VPT across horizontally- (1.05 [0.38, 1.72] vs. 0.84 [0.37, 1.31]) and vertically-orientated (0.74 [0.08, 1.40] vs. 0.72 [0.02, 1.43]) performance measures. For horizontally-orientated outcomes, single-factor moderator analyses showed that longer programmes (> 7 weeks), more sessions (> 12) and combined bilateral and unilateral training were most effective, favouring HPT in each case. In vertically orientated outcomes, these same variables showed only trivial differences between HBT and VBT. CONCLUSIONS: HPT is at least as effective as VPT at enhancing vertical performance but is superior at enhancing horizontal performance. This means that HPT might be a more efficient method for enhancing multi-vector performance for sport.
Authors: Irineu Loturco; Lucas A Pereira; Ronaldo Kobal; Vinicius Zanetti; Katia Kitamura; Cesar Cavinato Cal Abad; Fabio Y Nakamura Journal: J Sports Sci Date: 2015-09-21 Impact factor: 3.337
Authors: Jason J Moran; Gavin R H Sandercock; Rodrigo Ramírez-Campillo; César M P Meylan; Jay A Collison; Dave A Parry Journal: J Strength Cond Res Date: 2017-02 Impact factor: 3.775
Authors: Rodrigo Ramirez-Campillo; Cristian Álvarez; Antonio García-Hermoso; Robinson Ramírez-Vélez; Paulo Gentil; Abbas Asadi; Helmi Chaabene; Jason Moran; Cesar Meylan; Antonio García-de-Alcaraz; Javier Sanchez-Sanchez; Fabio Y Nakamura; Urs Granacher; William Kraemer; Mikel Izquierdo Journal: Sports Med Date: 2018-05 Impact factor: 11.136
Authors: Ronaldo Kobal; Tomás T Freitas; Alberto Fílter; Bernardo Requena; Renato Barroso; Marcelo Rossetti; Renato M Jorge; Leonardo Carvalho; Lucas A Pereira; Irineu Loturco Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-02-26 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Pete Draovitch; Snehal Patel; William Marrone; M Jake Grundstein; Reg Grant; Adam Virgile; Tom Myslinski; Asheesh Bedi; James P Bradley; Riley J Williams; Bryan Kelly; Kristofer Jones Journal: Arthrosc Sports Med Rehabil Date: 2022-01-28