Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research Publish Ahead of Print

DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000002425

Title: Effects of contrast strength vs. plyometric training on lower limb explosive

performance, ability to change direction and neuromuscular adaptation in soccer players

D
Running title: Contrast strength vs. plyometric training in junior soccer player

Laboratory

TE
Research Unit (UR17JS01) « Sport Performance, Health & Society», Higher Institute of Sport
and Physical Education of Ksar Said, University of La Manouba, Tunis, Tunisia.

Authors: Mehrez Hammami1, Nawel Gaamouri1, Roy J. Shephard3 and Mohamed Souhaiel
Chelly1,2.
EP
Author’s affiliations
1. Research Unit (UR17JS01) « Sport Performance, Health & Society», Higher Institute of
Sport and Physical Education of Ksar Saîd, University of “La Manouba”, Tunis, Tunisia.
2: Higher Institute of Sport and Physical Education of Ksar Said, University of “La
C

Manouba”, Tunis, Tunisia.

3: Faculty of Kinesiology and Physical Education, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON,
Canada.
C

Correspondance
A

Mohamed Souhaiel Chelly, Ph, D.

Institut Supérieur du Sport et de l’Education Physique de Ksar Said, la Manouba, 2010, Tunis,
Tunisie.
Phone : ++ 216 98 53 41 53
e-mail:csouhaiel@yahoo.fr

Copyright ª 2018 National Strength and Conditioning Association

 Contrast strength vs. plyometric training in junior soccer player 1

Abstract

The aim was to compare the effects of two differing 8-week in-season strength training

programs (contrast strength training [CST] vs. plyometric training [PT]) on selected

performance tests (5 and 40m sprints, S 4 X 5 m change of direction test, squat (SJ) and

countermovement (CMJ) jumps , leg peak power on a cycle ergometer force-velocity test, 1-

repetition maximal (1-RM) half squat, and electromyographic [EMG] activity of the vastus

D
lateralis, vastus medialis and rectus femoris muscles during vertical jump tests). Forty male

soccer players (age = 15.8 ± 0.4 years; body mass = 58.8 ± 6.3 kg; body height = 1.74 ± 0.06

TE
m; body fat = 10.5 ± 1.9 %) were divided between a contrast strength (CSG, n = 14),

plyometric (PG, n = 14) and control groups (CG, n = 12). Both training programs enhanced

sprint performance (p<0.001 in 5m; p≤0.05 in 40m) and change of direction test scores

(p<0.001) relative to controls. PG and CSG increased SJ height relative to the CG, with a
EP
slightly greater response in CSG compared to PG (p≤0.05). The majority of CMJ scores

increased significantly in both CSG and PG relative to the CG, with no inter-group

differences in training response. The majority of force-velocity scores increased significantly

C

in the CSG relative to PG and CG. The EMG parameters also increased in the CSG relative to

both PG and CG. In summary, most measures of athletic performance in male soccer players
C

were enhanced after CST and PT. However, the improvement of physical performance was

better with eight weeks of CST than with PT. Thus, coaches should be encouraged to include
A

CST as an element of in-season conditioning.

Key words: change of direction, junior soccer players, RMS, peak power.

Copyright ª 2018 National Strength and Conditioning Association

 Contrast strength vs. plyometric training in junior soccer player 2

INTRODUCTION

Soccer is one of the most popular sports among people world-wide (14, 34). It has evolved

substantially since its origin in the Middle Ages (36), and is now a complex skilled activity.

Optimal performance requires extensive preparation in technical, mental and especially

tactical skills (3, 4), but such preparation must be supplemented by adequate physical

preparation. The emergence of new methods of training requires familiarity with the demands

D
of competition, the athlete's abilities and the qualities required for peak performance (9, 39).

Technological developments such as Global Positioning Systems (GPS), high-frequency

TE
cameras and computer software now allow a detailed analysis of movement patterns during a

soccer match (6, 12, 21, 32). The physiological need is, essentially, for a combination of high

aerobic and anaerobic abilities. Harley et al. (21) recorded a young soccer player (U-16)

running a total distance of 7672 m during a 75-minute game. Similarly, Bucheit et al. (6)
EP
found youth players (U-17) sprinting an average distance of 8448 m, 501 m at speeds of 16 to

19 km.h-1 and 428 m at speeds >19.1 km.h-1 during a 2 x 40 min game played on a 100 X 70m

surface. In addition to such high intensity sprinting, soccer players engage in jumps, tackles,
C

and multiple changes of direction. To win a running or jumping contest or to get the ball

before the opponent, youth soccer players also need a combination of strength and power in
C

their lower limb muscles (3, 6).

Contrast strength training (CST) and plyometric training (PT) constitute two different
A

potential tactics to enhance the maximal strength and power of the muscles used in youth

soccer. Contrast strength training is characterized by the use of high and low loads in the same

training session (38). The details of such regimens have differed. In one previous

investigation, six repetition sets with 70 and 90% of 1-repetition maximum (1-RM) loads

were alternated with six repetition sets of loads between 30 and 50% of 1-RM, executed at

maximum speed (11).

Copyright ª 2018 National Strength and Conditioning Association

 Contrast strength vs. plyometric training in junior soccer player 3

Six or more weeks of contrast strength training has previously been shown as effective in

improving both muscle strength and power, with adaptations in both neuromuscular function

and muscle morphology (17, 20).

Plyometric exercises involve repeated stretch-shortening cycles (SSC), a rapid muscle stretch

(eccentric phase) being followed immediately by a rapid shortening of the muscle (concentric

phase) (28). The rapid eccentric muscle contraction facilitates an increased force and power

D
output during the succeeding concentric contraction, provided that the movements are

performed rapidly (19, 28, 42).

TE
The impact of strength training on measures of athletic performance such as sprinting, agility,

and vertical jumping remains controversial (20). Garcia-Pinillos et al. (17) found that contrast

training without external loads (isometric + plyometric) was effective in improving soccer-

specific skills such as vertical jumping, sprinting, agility, and kicking speed in young soccer
EP
players. Hammami et al. (20) also found increases in sprinting, agility, and the ability to make

repeated changes of direction (RCOD) after contrast strength training. Maio Alves et al. (25)

reported improvements in 5 and 15m sprinting speeds and squat jump performance, but
C

observed no gains in the countermovement jump or agility tests. Chelly et al. (9) further noted

increases in vertical jump and sprinting in soccer players in response to plyometric training,
C

but Herrero et al. (23) observed no significant gains in 20-m sprint times unless four weeks of

plyometric training was supplemented by electro-myostimulation. In view of these discordant

A

results, it was thought desirable to assess further the acute responses to strength training,

comparing the relative merits of contrast strength and plyometric training.

To the best of our knowledge this is the first investigation to have compared the effects of

contrast strength training vs plyometric training on some crucial physical abilities in junior

soccer players. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to compare the effects of contrast

strength training vs. plyometric training on sprint speeds, ability to change direction, vertical

Copyright ª 2018 National Strength and Conditioning Association

 Contrast strength vs. plyometric training in junior soccer player 4

jump performance, leg peak power and neuromuscular adaptations as indicated by recordings

of electromyographic (EMG) activity. Our null hypothesis was that both training methods

would enhance these aspects of physical performance equally.

METHODS

Experimental approach to the problem

The current study aimed to compare the effects of CST and PT on sprinting, jumping, agility,

D
peak power and neuromuscular adaptations in junior male soccer players. A team of

TE
experienced players was divided randomly between three groups: a contrast strength group

(CSG; n = 14), a plyometric group (PG; n = 14), and a control group (standard in-season

regimen) (CG; n = 12). All participants completed two familiarization trials in the two weeks

before experimental measurements, with the exception of the cycle ergometer force-velocity
EP
test (where participants completed only one familiarization trial) and the anthropometric

assessments and EMG recordings (which were carried out without any familiarization).

Experimental measurements began four months into the playing season. Baseline data were
C

collected before the start of CST and PT, during the winter rest period (the first two weeks of

January was a rest period for all players, with no official competitions) and tests were
C

repeated after completion of the 8-week training period. On both occasions, the protocol

comprised assessments of sprint performance with measurement of the time at 40m; change of
A

direction tests (sprint 4 x 5 m (S 4 X 5 m)); a 1-RM half squat; a force-velocity test; and a

vertical jump with EMG recordings from the vastus lateralis, vastus medialis and rectus

femoris muscles. Testing sessions were carried out at a consistent time of the day, and under

the same experimental conditions, at least 3 days after the most recent competition. Players

maintained their normal intake of food and fluids during the experimental assessments.

However, they drank no caffeine-containing beverages in the 4 hours preceding testing, and

ate no food for two hours before testing.

Copyright ª 2018 National Strength and Conditioning Association

 Contrast strength vs. plyometric training in junior soccer player 5

Verbal encouragement ensured maximal effort throughout. The post-training tests were

conducted 5-9 days after the last training session, in order to allow adequate recovery from

the acute effects of resistance training.

Subjects

All procedures were approved by the Institutional Review Committee for the ethical use of

D
human participants, according to current national laws and regulations. Participants and their

parents or guardians signed their informed consent after receiving both a verbal and a written

TE
explanation of the experimental design and its potential risks. The participants (40 junior male

soccer players, elite-level championship) were told that they could withdraw from the trial

without penalty at any time. All were examined by the team physician, with a particular focus

on orthopedic and other conditions that might preclude resistance training and all were found
EP
to be in good health. The three groups (CSG, PG, CG) were well matched in terms of their

initial physical characteristics (Table 1).

C

***Table 1 about here ***

C

Procedures

The study was performed during an 8-week period from January to March. All participants
A

engaged in the same training sessions, supervised by the coaches of the three teams, from the

beginning of the competitive season (September) until the end of the trial (March). They

engaged in soccer training 4–5 times per week and played one official game per week.

Standard training sessions lasted 90 minutes; usually, these emphasized skill activities at

various intensities, offensive and defensive strategies, and 25 to 30 minutes of continuous

play, with only brief interruptions by the coach.

Copyright ª 2018 National Strength and Conditioning Association

 Contrast strength vs. plyometric training in junior soccer player 6

The CG maintained this pattern of training, but for eight weeks CSG and PG replaced a part

of their standard regimen (the technical and tactical skills activities) by the specific training

program under evaluation.

Details of contrast and plyometric training programs

Details of the CST regimen are given in Table 2. Each Tuesday and Thursday for 2 months,

D
the initial part of the standard regimen was replaced by CST (Table 2). Half-squats were used

as a training exercise. Each Tuesday, the CSG performed rising sets (70% 1-RM to 90% 1-

TE
RM) followed by descending sets (90% 1-RM to 70% 1-RM), and each Thursday they carried

out rising sets (70% 1-RM to 90% 1-RM). This resistance training program was supplemented

by three consecutive countermovement jumps with the arms held on the hip joint after every

set in the first four weeks, and in the second four weeks by one countermovement jump with
EP
the arms again held on the hip joint, followed by a 15m sprint. The loads were calculated

using the individual's previously measured 1-RM. This value was reassessed at the fourth

week and the loadings were correspondingly updated. Strength training sessions lasted for
C

some 45 minutes. Their aim was to obtain an optimal increase in muscle strength, followed by

a delayed increase in muscle power.

C

***Table 2 about here ***

A

Details of the PT regiment are given in Table 3. Sessions began from rest with a 15-minute

warm-up and lasted for some 20 minutes. Jumps were performed vertically on a tartan track.

Participants were instructed to perform both hurdle jumps and drop jumps to the maximal

possible height, with minimal ground contact time. Both hurdle and drop jumps were

performed with minimal knee flexion; the ground was touched with the balls of the feet only,

Copyright ª 2018 National Strength and Conditioning Association

 Contrast strength vs. plyometric training in junior soccer player 7

thereby specifically stressing the calf muscles (27). Hurdling comprised seven to ten

continuous jumps over hurdles spaced at intervals of 1 m. Each set of drop jumps comprised

seven to ten maximal rebounds after dropping from a 0.6-m to 0.7-m box, with a pause of five

seconds between each rebound (27).

***Table 3 about here***

D
Testing Schedule

Testing was integrated into the weekly training schedule, with all field tests performed on a

TE
tartan surface. A standardized battery of warm-up exercises was carried out before maximal

effort. Experimental measurements were performed in a fixed order over three days. On the

first test day, participants sprinted over a 40 m distance, with timers set at 5 m and 40 m; they

then carried out the change of direction test (S 4 X 5 m). The second day was devoted to
EP
anthropometric measurements, followed by the 1-RM half squat test. On the third day, a

combined vertical jump (squat jump and countermovement jump) was performed, with EMG

recording, and a cycle-ergometer force-velocity test was completed.

C

Day one

40m sprint performance

C

The 40m sprint began with a standardized warm-up (20 min). Participants then ran 40m, with

paired photocell timers (Microgate, Bolzano, Italy) placed at 5m and 40m. Tests started from
A

a standing position, with the front foot placed 0.2 m behind the first photocell beam. Three

trials were separated by 6-8 min of active recovery, with the best result being recorded.

4 X 5 m sprint (S 4 X 5 m)

The S 4 X 5 m sprint test required frequent directional changes. Five cones were set 5 m apart

and paired photocell timers (Microgate, Bolzano, Italy) were placed at the starting and

finishing lines. Participants began from a standing position, with a cone between their legs,

and the front foot 0.2 m behind the first photocell beam.

Copyright ª 2018 National Strength and Conditioning Association

 Contrast strength vs. plyometric training in junior soccer player 8

At an acoustic signal, they ran 5 m to point A; there, they made a 90° turn to the right and ran

five meters to point B. After a second 90° turn to the left, they ran to point C, where they

made an 180° turn to the right and ran to the finishing line (39).

Day two

Anthropometry

D
The overall percentage of body fat was estimated from the biceps, triceps, subscapular, and

suprailiac skinfolds, using the equations of Durnin and Womersely for adolescent males aged

TE
16-19.9 years (13):

% Body fat = (4.95/ (Density -4.5)) ● 100

where Density = 1.162–0.063 (LOG sum of four skinfolds)

Leg muscle volume

EP
Measurements of the circumferences at the maximal level of the calf just above the ankle and

skinfolds on the back and each side of the calf plus leg length (from the trochanter major to

the lateral malleolus) were added to data for the thigh to calculate the leg muscle volume (24).
C

Mean Cross Sectional Area (CSA) of the thigh

The mean thigh CSA was calculated from maximal and mid-thigh circumferences.
C

Considering the circumference of the thigh as a circle, its radius R was calculated as:

Circumference (C) = 2π • Radius (R)

A

R = C/2π

The radius of the muscular component of the mid thigh (r) was estimated by allowing for the

double thickness of anterior and posterior skin folds:

r = R – [(mid-thigh anterior skin fold + mid-thigh posterior skin fold)/4]

The thigh CSA equalled π • r² (cm²).

Copyright ª 2018 National Strength and Conditioning Association

 Contrast strength vs. plyometric training in junior soccer player 9

1-RM half-squat at 90°knee flexion

Each participant kept an upright position, looking forwards and firmly grasping with both

hands a bar that was also supported on the shoulders. The knees were bent until they reached

an angle of 90°. The participant then raised himself to the upright position, with the lower

limbs fully extended. Since the technique was not familiar to the participants, an instructor

demonstrated it, and all participants performed eight technical training sessions during the

D
month preceding definitive 1-RM measurements. During familiarization sessions, a pre-test

RM determined an approximate 1-RM value. To measure the experimental 1-RM, a barbell

TE
was loaded with free weights across the upper back, using 90% of the pre-test 1-RM as an

initial loading. Two consecutive loaded flexion-extensions were performed at 90 degrees knee

flexion. Each time the two repetitions were mastered, a load of five kg was added, after

allowing a recovery interval of five minutes. When the participant had performed two
EP
successful repetitions at the pre-test RM value, a load of 1 kg was added after the recovery

period. If the individual was unable to complete the second repetition with the new loading,

this load was considered as the individual’s one maximal repetition (1-RM). The number of
C

lifting actions required before reaching an individual's 1-RM ranged from three to six.

Day three
C

Squat jump and countermovement jump

Characteristics of the squat jump (SJ) and the countermovement jump (CMJ) (jump height,
A

maximal force before take-off, maximal velocity before take-off and the average power of the

jump) were determined using a force platform (Quattro Jump, version 1.04, Kistler Instrument

AG, Winterthur, Switzerland). Jump height was determined as the center of mass

displacement, calculated from the recorded force and body mass. Participants began the SJ at

a knee angle of 90 degrees, avoiding any downward movement, and they performed a vertical

jump by pushing upwards, keeping their legs straight throughout.

Copyright ª 2018 National Strength and Conditioning Association

 Contrast strength vs. plyometric training in junior soccer player 10

The CMJ began from an upright position, making a rapid downward movement to a knee

angle of 90 degrees and simultaneously beginning to push-off. One minute of rest was

allowed between three trials of each test, the highest jump being used in subsequent analyses.

EMG recording

We applied differential bipolar surface electrodes (BagnoliTM Desktop EMG systems,

D
Delsys® Inc., Boston, USA) longitudinally over the muscle belly and parallel to the muscle

fibers of the vastus lateralis (VL), vastus medialis (VL) and rectus femoris (RF) muscles of

TE
the right leg, in accordance with European recommendations for surface electromyography

(22). The skin was first shaved and cleaned with an alcohol-ether-acetone solution. Electrodes

were then placed on the VL at ≈ 2/3 distance between the anterior superior iliac spine and the

lateral aspect of the patella, with a reference electrode attached to a bony prominence on the
EP
patella of the same leg. An elastic bandage prevented cable movement during jumping. To

ensure consistent electrode replacement from pre- to post-test, pictures of the electrode

placement were taken for every athlete.

C

The signal was amplified, filtered, recorded (Bagnoli-4 EMG System, DelSys® Inc., Boston,

USA) and stored for subsequent analysis, using the EMGworks 4.0.4.3 software (Calculation
C

Toolkit 1.5.1.0, Delsys EMGworks, Natick, MA). EMG data were quantified using the root

mean square voltage (RMS) during both the SJ (upward pushing phase until the beginning of
A

the takeoff phase) and the CMJ (during the rapid downward movement to a knee angle of ~90

degrees until the beginning of the takeoff phase). The frequency spectrum of each epoch of

EMG data was analyzed using a fast Fourier transformation. Analysis was restricted to

frequencies in the range 5 – 500 Hz, as the EMG signal content outside of this range consists

mostly of noise.

Copyright ª 2018 National Strength and Conditioning Association

 Contrast strength vs. plyometric training in junior soccer player 11

The force–velocity test

The force-velocity test was performed on a mechanically braked cycle ergometer (Monark

894 E Ergometer, Vansbro, Sweden). Individuals completed five short maximal sprints

against braking forces corresponding to 2.5%, 5%, 7.5%, 9% and 11.5% of the individual's

body mass, with rest intervals of at least five minutes between trials. Software allowed

estimation of velocity, braking force and power output during each trial. Leg peak power

D
(LPP) was judged to have been reached when additional loading induced a decrease in power

output. Relationships between braking force and pedaling velocity were plotted for each

TE
individual. Maximal pedaling velocity (V0) and maximal force (F0) were calculated using an

accepted regression equation (40).

Statistical Analyses
EP
Statistical analyses were carried out using the SPSS 20 program for Windows (SPSS, Inc,

Chicago, IL, USA). Normality of all variables was verified using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov

procedure. Levene’s test was used to determine homogeneity of variance. Means and SDs
C

were calculated, using standard statistical methods. Training-related effects were assessed by

2-way analyses of variance with repeated measures (group x time). If a significant F value
C

was observed, Tukey’s post hoc procedure was applied to locate pair-wise differences. A

p≤0.05 was accepted as a criterion of statistical significance, whether a positive or a negative

A

difference was seen (i.e., a 2-tailed test was adopted). Effect sizes were reported for a main

effect of group, a main effect of time and a main effect of group x time interaction; findings

were classified as small (0.00 ≤ d ≤ 0.49), medium (0.50 ≤ d ≤ 0.79), and large (d ≥ 0.80) as

suggested by Cohen (10).

Copyright ª 2018 National Strength and Conditioning Association

 Contrast strength vs. plyometric training in junior soccer player 12

RESULTS

Before the 8-week intervention, data showed no significant differences between CSG, PG and

CG. No significant changes were observed in leg muscle volume, thigh muscle volume or

cross-sectional area after completion of either the PT or the CST programs (Table 4).

However, after the intervention both experimental groups showed significant decreases of

times for all sprint and change of direction tests relative to controls, with no significant inter-

D
group differences in response between trained groups (Table 5). In most comparisons of SJ

and CMJ scores, increases were greater for CSG than for PG (Table 6). The RMS values of

TE
the CSG also increased significantly relative to PG and CG for all muscle groups except VL

(Table 7). Moreover, the CSG showed substantial gains of 1-RM half-squat and force-velocity

scores relative to the other two groups (Table 8).

EP
***Table 4 about here ***

***Table 5 about here ***

***Table 6 about here ***

C

***Table 7 about here ***

***Table 8 about here ***

C
A

DISCUSSION

In the current study, the contrast strength training regimen alternated biomechanically

comparable strength exercises and sport-specific drills in the same workout (with

countermovement jumps and sprinting replacing low loads). The aim was to compare the

effectiveness of this type of CST and of PT with respect to gains in linear sprinting, ability to

change direction, vertical jumping, power, strength and neuromuscular adaptations in U-17

male soccer players.

Copyright ª 2018 National Strength and Conditioning Association

 Contrast strength vs. plyometric training in junior soccer player 13

The results show that CSG yielded greater improvements in SJ, CMJ, 1-RM half-squat, and

neuromuscular adaptations, but that the PG showed significantly greater improvements in the

SJ test compared with CG, and that there were no differences between the two training

regimens with respect to 5m, 40m and S 4 X 5 tests. An original feature of this study was the

inclusion of jumping and sprint-training exercises during CST; indeed, to our knowledge, this

is the first study that has compared responses to CST and PT in soccer players.

D
The results demonstrated an improvement of 1-RM half-squat in all groups. However, the

CSG showed the greatest improvement, with no significant difference of gains between PG

TE
and CG. Many previous investigations have found an enhancement of 1-RM half-squat

performance after strength training (8, 18, 37). Gabriel et al. (16) suggested that

strength/power adaptations were largely associated with increases in the cross-sectional area

of the muscle, but no significant increase of thigh cross-sectional area or limb muscle volumes
EP
was found in the current study (Table 4). Nevertheless, leg power per unit of thigh or lower

limb muscle volume did show increases in CSG relative to both PG and CG (Table 8). In this

regard, Hammami et al. (18) also found increases of leg peak power as evaluated by a force-
C

velocity test after half-squat strength training, despite the absence of changes in thigh cross-

sectional area and muscle volumes. The effects of contrast strength training thus seem due
C

primarily to neuromuscular adaptations, such as more effective motor unit recruitment, rate

coding (frequency or rate of action potentials), synchronization, and inter-muscular

A

coordination (1, 16).

Furthermore, the present study revealed no significant change in 1-RM half-squat

performance after plyometric training. Other studies have yielded contradictory results.

Vissing et al. (41) suggested that plyometric training induced improvement in all three tests of

maximal strength (leg extension; knee extension and hamstring curl), and explained these

improvements by shorter training periods or a higher initial training status of the participants.

Copyright ª 2018 National Strength and Conditioning Association

 Contrast strength vs. plyometric training in junior soccer player 14

Many studies have found a high correlation between leg extensor muscle strength and sprint

performance (29, 31). An increase in muscle strength of the lower limbs could improve the

ability to carry out short duration sprints (29). The review of Silva et al. (37) suggested that a

23.5% increase in 1-RM half-squat was needed to achieve a 2% improvement in sprint

performance over 10- and 40-m distances. The results of the current study are consistent with

these findings, with faster 5m and 40m times in both CSG (5m: 10.9%; 40m: 8.3%) and PG

D
(5m: 7.3%; 40m: 3.4%). Other studies have yielded contradictory results when evaluating the

effects of strength training combined with sports skills. Garcia-Pinillos et al. (17) observed a

TE
significant improvement in 5m, 10m, 20m and 30m times (p<0.05) in soccer players aged

15.9 years after 12 weeks of a contrast training program that included 3 exercises (1 isometric

session and two plyometric sessions without external loads). Franco-Marquez et al. (15)

reported that a combination of six weeks of resistance training with standard soccer training
EP
produced greater gains in sprint performance than typical soccer training alone. In contrast,

Herrero et al. (23) found no significant improvements in 20 m sprint times of male physical

education students after 4-weeks of electromyostimulation. Likewise, Markovich et al. (27)

C

found no speeding of 20 m sprint times of male physical education students after ten weeks of

plyometric training. These discrepancies could be due to the type of training (intensity and
C

duration, isometrics, resistance, plyometric, or isokinetic programs), and to difference in the

sampled population.
A

In addition to linear sprinting, soccer players make many changes of direction during a soccer

game. In the current study, the S 4 X 5 m change of direction score did not change

significantly after training. However, Hammami et al. (20) applied a similar program, and

they found significant improvements in both strength and contrast strength groups relative to

controls, with no differences in gains of agility between strength and contrast strength groups

except in terms of the S 4 X 5 m test score. Garcia-Pinillos et al. (17) found that 12 weeks of a

Copyright ª 2018 National Strength and Conditioning Association

 Contrast strength vs. plyometric training in junior soccer player 15

contrast training program (isometric + plyometric) with no external loads improved the

performance of the Balsam agility test (p<0.001) in 15.9-year-old soccer players. In contrast,

Cavaco et al. (7) found no significant improvements in the 15m sprint times of youth soccer

players after six weeks of complex training. Further, Herrero et al. (23) observed no

significant speeding of 20-m sprint times unless electromyostimulation was combined with

four weeks of plyometric training. The spectrum of possible factors associated with these

D
discrepant results includes the players’ age, background and initial training status, differing

training periods, the structure of the training intervention, game exposure, and distinct

TE
force/power qualities and technical factors that influence event- or sport-specific changes of

direction (COD); in particular, greater change of direction enhancement is seen in adolescents

than in adults (37).

Both of the present experimental groups (CSG and PG) significantly improved their SJ height
EP
relative to the CG (Table 6), with only slight differences between CSG and PG. For PG, the

increase can be explained by the training specificity principle, with a similarity in kinetics and

kinematics between jump and half-squat exercises. In contrast, the CSG increased their SJ
C

height relative to the PG and CG, with no significant difference between the latter two groups.

In young untrained men, Vissing et al. (41) observed a significant improvement in CMJ in
C

both of their experimental groups (plyometric and conventional resistance training). On

average, 24% 1-RM improvements during squats resulted in CMJ and SJ increases of
A

approximately 6.8% (37). Hammami et al. (18) also observed that eight weeks of strength

training with external loads (70% to 90% 1-RM) had a positive effect on SJ and CMJ

performance in male soccer players. In contrast, Mujika et al. (30) saw no significant

increases in the CMJ performance of junior soccer players after seven weeks of contrast

training. Differences in the strength program (intensity, duration, frequency and type of

exercise) and in methodology (youth vs. young soccer players; elite vs. regional soccer

Copyright ª 2018 National Strength and Conditioning Association

 Contrast strength vs. plyometric training in junior soccer player 16

players; duration of intervention) could contribute to these discrepancies. Potential

adaptations include an increased neural drive to the agonist muscles, improved intermuscular

coordination, and changes in the mechanical characteristics of the muscle-tendon complex.

The gains in CMJ performance and in mechanical parameters such as velocity and relative

power during CMJ in the CSG support the hypothesis that neurophysiological changes of this

type improve the ability to store and release elastic energy during a stretch-shortening cycle

D
(5, 16).

Factors other than neuromuscular adaptations may also be involved. For example, individuals

TE
may adopt a better technique, their body mass may have decreased, or they may experience

favorable psychological or hormonal influences on the day of testing. An increase in neural

drive has often been adduced to explain strength gains in the absence of muscle hypertrophy

(5, 16). A numbers of papers have reported increases in EMG activity induced by strength
EP
training (5, 18, 35). To verify this suggestion, the EMG was recorded from VL, VM and RF

during performance of the SJ and CMJ tests. The results demonstrated that eight weeks of

contrast strength training significantly improved all EMG parameters relative to the PG and
C

CG, with the exception of RMS values for SJ.VL and CMJ.VL. Hammami et al. (18) also

found that the RMS values of male soccer players during the SJ and CMJ were increased after
C

strength training. Moreover, Arbatzi et al. (2) showed a reduction of medial gastrocnemius

EMG activity coupled with smaller kinematic changes after combined weight lifting +
A

plyometric training, suggesting that such training affects mainly knee muscle strength

capacity without causing clear changes in the CMJ technique. Prieske et al. (33) further

observed significant gains in maximal isometric trunk extension force (5%, p < 0.05, d = 0.86)

after nine weeks of resistance training. However, Manolopoulos et al. (26) found that ten

weeks of soccer-specific, strength and technique training induced no EMG changes other than

an increase in the averaged EMG for the vastus medialis.

Copyright ª 2018 National Strength and Conditioning Association

 Contrast strength vs. plyometric training in junior soccer player 17

These discrepancies could reflect differences in the type of training (plyometric, strength,

intensity and duration), or inconsistencies in the placement of EMG electrodes between

testing and retesting. The increases of EMG activity seen after CST in the current study seem

linked to changes in motor unit firing frequency, rate coding and impulse synchronization

(5).

Limitations of this work include the lack of quantification of the Tanner developmental stage

D
for the players, and potential differences in the placement of the EMG electrodes (since the

physique developed slightly over the two months between initial and final tests). Moreover,

TE
we did not evaluate the dominant leg, making it is necessary to choose a test with the same

number and the same angles of change of direction for left and right sides, in order to

neutralize dominant leg effects.

EP
PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS

Improving muscle function and resulting sport performance are primary tasks for strength and

conditioning professionals. From a practical point of view, the study demonstrates that eight
C

weeks of a contrast strength training regimen (exercise intensity: 70-90% of 1-RM; sets: 3-5;
C

repetitions: 3-8, with a CMJ + 10m sprint as a contrast exercise after each repetition)

enhances the physical capacities of soccer players more than allocation of a similar time to
A

plyometric training. Inclusion of a twice weekly short-term high-intensity contrast strength

training program within regular in-season soccer practice enhances many factors relevant to

athletic performance in U-17 male soccer players (sprinting, ability to change direction,

vertical jumping, strength, power and neuromuscular adaptations), particularly when this

tactic is compared with soccer training plus plyometric training or standard soccer training

alone.

Copyright ª 2018 National Strength and Conditioning Association

 Contrast strength vs. plyometric training in junior soccer player 18

Coaches may thus opt to use programs that combine strength training with the practice of

soccer skills as a helpful tactic to improve the strength and power of their athletes during the

competitive season.

Acknowledgments:

The authors thank the “Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research, Tunis, Tunisia”

D
for financial support.

TE
REFERENCES

1. Aagaard P, Simonsen EB, Andersen JL, Magnusson P, and Dyhre-Poulsen P.

Increased rate of force development and neural drive of human skeletal muscle
EP
following resistance training. J Appl Physiol (1985) 93: 1318-1326, 2002.

2. Arabatzi F, Kellis E, and Saez-Saez De Villarreal E. Vertical jump biomechanics after

plyometric, weight lifting, and combined (weight lifting + plyometric) training. J

C

Strength Cond Res 24: 2440-2448, 2010.

3. Aslan A, Acikada C, Guvenc A, Goren H, Hazir T, and Ozkara A. Metabolic demands

C

of match performance in young soccer players. J Sports Sci Med 11: 170-179, 2012.

4. Bangsbo J. The physiology of soccer--with special reference to intense intermittent

A

exercise. Acta Physiol Scand Suppl 619: 1-155, 1994.

5. Behm DG. neuromuscular implications and application of resistance training. J

Strength Cond Res 9: 264-274, 1995.

6. Buchheit M, Mendez-Villanueva A, Simpson BM, and Bourdon PC. Match running

performance and fitness in youth soccer. Int J Sports Med 31: 818-825, 2010.

7. Cavaco B, Sousa N, Dos Reis VM, Garrido N, Saavedra F, Mendes R, and Vilaca-

Alves J. Short-term effects of complex training on agility with the ball, speed,

Copyright ª 2018 National Strength and Conditioning Association

 Contrast strength vs. plyometric training in junior soccer player 19

efficiency of crossing and shooting in youth soccer players. J Hum Kinet 43: 105-112,

2014.

8. Chelly MS, Fathloun M, Cherif N, Ben Amar M, Tabka Z, and Van Praagh E. Effects

of a back squat training program on leg power, jump, and sprint performances in

junior soccer players. J Strength Cond Res 23: 2241-2249, 2009.

9. Chelly MS, Ghenem MA, Abid K, Hermassi S, Tabka Z, and Shephard RJ. Effects of

D
in-season short-term plyometric training program on leg power, jump- and sprint

performance of soccer players. J Strength Cond Res 24: 2670-2676, 2010.

TE
10. Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Erlbaum, 1988.

11. Cometti G. Los Métodos modernos de Musculacion. Editorial Paidotribo, Barcelona,

Spain. 1998.

12. Coutts AJ and Duffield R. Validity and reliability of GPS devices for measuring
EP
movement demands of team sports. J Sci Med Sport 13: 133-135, 2010.

13. Durnin JV and Womersley J. Body fat assessed from total body density and its

estimation from skinfold thickness: measurements on 481 men and women aged from
C

16 to 72 years. Br J Nutr 32: 77-97, 1974.

14. Fowler P, Duffield R, and Vaile J. Effects of domestic air travel on technical and
C

tactical performance and recovery in soccer. Int J Sports Physiol Perform 9: 378-386,

2014.
A

15. Franco-Marquez F, Rodriguez-Rosell D, Gonzalez-Suarez JM, Pareja-Blanco F,

Mora-Custodio R, Yanez-Garcia JM, and Gonzalez-Badillo JJ. Effects of Combined

Resistance Training and Plyometrics on Physical Performance in Young Soccer

Players. Int J Sports Med 2015: 16, 2015.

Copyright ª 2018 National Strength and Conditioning Association

 Contrast strength vs. plyometric training in junior soccer player 20

16. Gabriel DA, Kamen G, and Frost G. Neural adaptations to resistive exercise:

mechanisms and recommendations for training practices. Sports Med 36: 133-149,

2006.

17. Garcia-Pinillos F, Martinez-Amat A, Hita-Contreras F, Martinez-Lopez EJ, and

Latorre-Roman PA. Effects of a contrast training program without external load on

vertical jump, kicking speed, sprint, and agility of young soccer players. J Strength

D
Cond Res 28: 2452-2460, 2014.

18. Hammami M, Negra Y, Billaut F, Hermassi S, Shephard RJ, and MS. aC. Effects of

TE
lower-limb strength training on agility, repeated sprinting with changes of direction,

leg peak power, and neuromuscular adaptations of soccer players. . J Strength Cond

Res, 2017.

19. Hammami M, Negra Y, Aouadi R, Shephard RJ, and Chelly MS. Effects of an In-
EP
season Plyometric Training Program on Repeated Change of Direction and Sprint

Performance in the Junior Soccer Player. J Strength Cond Res 30: 3312-3320, 2016.

20. Hammami M, Negra Y, Shephard RJ, and Souhaiel Chelly M. Effects of leg contrast
C

strength training on sprint, agility and repeated change of direction performance in

male soccer players. J Sports Med Phys Fitness 17: 06951-06951, 2017.
C

21. Harley JA, Barnes CA, Portas M, Lovell R, Barrett S, Paul D, and Weston M. Motion

analysis of match-play in elite U12 to U16 age-group soccer players. J Sports Sci 28:
A

1391-1397, 2010.

22. Hermens HJ, Freriks B, Disselhorst-Klug C, and Rau G. Development of

recommendations for SEMG sensors and sensor placement procedures. J

Electromyogr Kinesiol 10: 361-374, 2000.

Copyright ª 2018 National Strength and Conditioning Association

 Contrast strength vs. plyometric training in junior soccer player 21

23. Herrero JA, Izquierdo M, Maffiuletti NA, and Garcia-Lopez J. Electromyostimulation

and plyometric training effects on jumping and sprint time. Int J Sports Med 27: 533-

539, 2006.

24. Jones P and Pearson J. Anthropometric determination of leg fat and muscle plus bone

volumes in young male and female adults. J Physiol 204: 66-69, 1969.

25. Maio Alves JM, Rebelo AN, Abrantes C, and Sampaio J. Short-term effects of

D
complex and contrast training in soccer players' vertical jump, sprint, and agility

abilities. J Strength Cond Res 24: 936-941, 2010.

TE
26. Manolopoulos E, Papadopoulos C, and Kellis E. Effects of combined strength and

kick coordination training on soccer kick biomechanics in amateur players. Scand J

Med Sci Sports 16: 102-110, 2006.

27. Markovic G, Jukic I, Milanovic D, and Metikos D. Effects of sprint and plyometric
EP
training on muscle function and athletic performance. J Strength Cond Res 21: 543-

549, 2007.

28. Markovic G and Mikulic P. Neuro-musculoskeletal and performance adaptations to

C

lower-extremity plyometric training. Sports Med 40: 859-895, 2010.

29. McBride JM, Blow D, Kirby TJ, Haines TL, Dayne AM, and Triplett NT.
C

Relationship between maximal squat strength and five, ten, and forty yard sprint times.

J Strength Cond Res 23: 1633-1636, 2009.

A

30. Mujika I, Santisteban J, and Castagna C. In-season effect of short-term sprint and

power training programs on elite junior soccer players. J Strength Cond Res 23: 2581-

2587, 2009.

31. Penailillo L, Espildora F, Jannas-Vela S, Mujika I, and Zbinden-Foncea H. Muscle

Strength and Speed Performance in Youth Soccer Players. J Hum Kinet 50: 203-210,

2016.

Copyright ª 2018 National Strength and Conditioning Association

 Contrast strength vs. plyometric training in junior soccer player 22

32. Petersen C, Pyne D, Portus M, and Dawson B. Validity and reliability of GPS units to

monitor cricket-specific movement patterns. Int J Sports Physiol Perform 4: 381-393,

2009.

33. Prieske O, Muehlbauer T, Borde R, Gube M, Bruhn S, Behm DG, and Granacher U.

Neuromuscular and athletic performance following core strength training in elite

youth soccer: Role of instability. Scand J Med Sci Sports 26: 48-56, 2016.

D
34. Reilly T. Motion analysis and physiological demands. In: Reilly T, William AM, eds

Science and Soccer London:Routledge: 59-72, 2003.

TE
35. Sale DG. Neural adaptation to resistance training. Med Sci Sports Exerc 20: S135-145,

1988.

36. Shephard RJ. An illustrated history of health and fitness, from pre-history to our post-

modern world. Cham, Switzerland: Springer Verlag, 2015.

EP
37. Silva JR, Nassis GP, and Rebelo A. Strength training in soccer with a specific focus

on highly trained players. Sports Med Open 1: 1, 2015.

38. Smilios I, Pilianidis T, Sotiropoulos K, Antonakis M, and Tokmakidis SP. Short-term

C

effects of selected exercise and load in contrast training on vertical jump performance.

J Strength Cond Res 19: 135-139, 2005.

C

39. Sporis G, Jukic I, Milanovic L, and Vucetic V. Reliability and factorial validity of

agility tests for soccer players. J Strength Cond Res 24: 679-686, 2010.
A

40. Vandewalle H, Peres G, Heller J, Panel J, and Monod H. Force-velocity relationship

and maximal power on a cycle ergometer. Correlation with the height of a vertical

jump. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol 56: 650-656, 1987.

41. Vissing K, Brink M, Lonbro S, Sorensen H, Overgaard K, Danborg K, Mortensen J,

Elstrom O, Rosenhoj N, Ringgaard S, Andersen JL, and Aagaard P. Muscle

Copyright ª 2018 National Strength and Conditioning Association

 Contrast strength vs. plyometric training in junior soccer player 23

adaptations to plyometric vs. resistance training in untrained young men. J Strength

Cond Res 22: 1799-1810, 2008.

42. Wang YC and Zhang N. Effects of plyometric training on soccer players. Exp Ther

Med 12: 550-554, 2016.

D
TE
EP
C
C
A

Copyright ª 2018 National Strength and Conditioning Association

Table 1. Physical characteristics of study participants.

Age (years) Body mass (kg) Height (m) % Body fat

CSG (n=14) 16.1±0.5 59.0±7.2 1.77±0.05 10.5±1.8

PG (n=14) 15.7±0.2 58.9±6.7 1.75±0.06 9.9±2.2

CG (n=12) 15.8±0.2 58.3±5.2 1.68±0.05 11.3±1.4

CSG =contrast strength group; PG= plyometric group; CG =control group.

D
TE
EP
C
C
A

Copyright ª 2018 National Strength and Conditioning Association

Table 2. Details of supplementary in-season program adopted by contrast strength training
group (CSG) over 8 consecutive weeks.

Intensity Sets Repetitions

70% 1-RM 3 8

80% 1-RM 5 4

85%1-RM 4 3

90% 1-RM 3 3

D
1-RM= one repetition maximal effort

TE
EP
C
C
A

Copyright ª 2018 National Strength and Conditioning Association

Table 3. Supplementary in-season training program adopted by the plyometric group.

Week Exercise Sets Reps

1 0.5 m hurdle jump 5 7

2 0.5 m hurdle jump 7 10

3 0.6 m hurdle jump 10 7

4 0.6 m hurdle jump 5 10

D
5 0.6 m drop jump 4 7

6 0.6 m drop jump 4 10

TE
7 0.7 m drop jump 4 7

8 0.7 m drop jump 4 10

Reps : repetitions
EP
C
C
A

Copyright ª 2018 National Strength and Conditioning Association

Table 4. Comparison of lower limb muscle volumes and cross-sectional areas between
experimental and control groups before (pre-) and after (post-) the 8-week trial.

ANOVA

Variable Group Pre-trial Post-trial p-value Effect size

Leg muscle volume (L) CSG 7.4±1.4 8.1±1.1 0.396 a 0.025

PG 7.8±1.5 8.0±1.4 0.314 b 0.014

CG 7.4±1.4 7.4±1.4 0.625 c 0.013

D
Thigh muscle volume (L) CSG 4.7±1.0 5.2±0.7 0.486 a 0.019

PG 5.2±1.0 5.2±0.9 0.422 b 0.009

TE
CG 5.3±1.1 5.3±1.1 0.550 c 0.016

Mean thigh CSA (cm²) CSG 140±41 159±17 0.736 a 0.008

PG 152±21 156±21 0.197 b 0.022

EP
CG 155±29 155±29 0.390 c 0.025

CSG =contrast strength training group; PG= plyometric training group; CG =control group;
a: denotes a main effect of group, b: denotes a main effect of time; c: denotes a group*time
interaction
C
C
A

Copyright ª 2018 National Strength and Conditioning Association

Table 5. Comparison of sprint times and ability to change direction between experimental and

control groups before and after the 8-week trial.

ANOVA

Variables Group Pre-trial Post-trial p-value Effect Size

Sprint times

5m (s) CSG 1.13±0.04 1.01±0.17 0.262 a 0.036

D
PG 1.08±0.05 1.00±0.09 <0.001 b 0.183

CG 1.03±0.06 1.08±0.04 <0.001 c 0.278

TE
40m (s) CSG 5.93±0.22 5.43±0.17 0.106 a 0.059

PG 5.75±0.26 5.55±0.26 <0.001 b 0.211

CG 5.85±0.32 5.75±0.33 0.023 c 0.097

EP
Ability to change direction

S 4 X 5 m (s) CSG 6.25±0.26 5.83±0.47 0.061 a 0.073

PG 6.25±0.23 6.04±0.20 <0.001 b 0.168

CG 6.15±0.25 6.21±0.24 0.001 c 0.175

C

S4 X 5 = sprinting 4 X 5 m; CSG =contrast strength training group; PG= plyometric training

group; CG =control group ; a: denotes a main effect of group, b: denotes a main effect of
C

time; c = denote a main effect of group x time interaction.

A

Copyright ª 2018 National Strength and Conditioning Association

Table 6. Comparison of vertical jump and maximal strength (back half-squat) performance
between experimental and control groups before (pre-) and after (post-) the 8-week trial.

ANOVA
Variables Group Pre-trial Post-trial p-value Effect size
Squat jump
Height (cm) CSG 36.8±2.8 45.4±3.7 ***¥ 0.001 a 0.232
PG 36.9±4.7 41.0±5.5 € <0.001 b 0.171
CG 36.2±3.8 34.8±4.5 <0.001 c 0.190
Force (N) CSG 1268±197 1427±141 * 0.028 a 0.092
PG 1220±164 1297±222 0.109 b 0.034
CG 1221±192 1191±209 0.205 c 0.042

D
-1
Velocity (m.s ) CSG 2.38±0.09 2.78±0.09 *** <0.001 a 0.260
PG 2.41±0.17 2.56±0.18€€ <0.001 b 0.240
CG 2.39±0.16 2.33±0.18 <0.0001c 0.293
Power (W.N-1) CSG 2.1±0.3 2.5±0.1 ***¥¥ <0.001 a 0.276

TE
PG 2.0±0.3 2.0±0.3 0.050 b 0.051
CG 1.9±0.3 1.9±0.3 0.008 c 0.123
Power (W) CSG 1221±261 1544±186 ***¥ <0.001 a 0.213
PG 1169±223 1270±274 0.021 b 0.070
CG 1111±245 1066±228 0.023 c 0.097
Countermovement jump
EP
Height (cm) CSG 38.2±2.1 47.0±5.9 ** 0. 001 a 0.167
PG 36.9±3.9 42.1±6.0 <0.001 b 0.180
CG 37.9±5.4 37.2±4.5 0.003 c 0.147
Force (N) CSG 1226±247 1408±228 * 0.018 a 0.102
PG 1216±206 1264±150 0.087 b 0.039
CG 1149±169 1158±196 0.268 c 0.035
Velocity (m.s-1) CSG 2.53±0.12 2.72±0.19 *¥ 0.002 a 0.156
C

PG 2.42±0.09 2.59±0.16 0.004 b 0.109

CG 2.47±0.20 2.44±0.18 0.036 c 0.086
Power (W.N-1) CSG 2.4±0.2 2.5±0.4 ¥ 0.031 a 0.090
PG 2.2±0.3 2.3±0.3 0.231 b 0.019
C

CG 2.3±0.4 2.3±0.4 0.440 c 0.022

Power (W) CSG 1360±199 1563±340 0.133 a 0.053
PG 1305±207 1427±192 0.066 b 0.045
CG 1338.12±254.96 1320±245 0.268 c 0.035
A

1-RM half squat at 90

1-RM CSG 92.2±7.2 135±7 *¥ 0.001 a 0.164
PG 98±20 107±22 <0.001 b 0.275
CG 94±14 100±19 <0.001 c 0.235
SJ = squat jump; CMJ = countermovement jump; CST= contrast strength training group; PG =
plyometric training group ; CG = control group; a: denotes a main effect of group, b: denotes a main
effect of time; c = denote a group x time interaction; * = denotes a significant difference between
CSG and CG; € =denotes a significant difference between PG and CG; ¥= denotes a significant
difference between CSG and PG.; * : p≤0.05 ; ** : p≤0.01 ; *** : p≤0.001 ; € : p≤0.05; ¥: p≤0.05; ¥¥:
p≤0.01

Copyright ª 2018 National Strength and Conditioning Association

Table 7. Comparison of root means squares of EMG voltages for squat jump and counter
movement jump between experimental and control groups before (pre-) and after (post-) the
8-week trial.

ANOVA

Variables Group Pre-trial Post-trial p-value Effect size

SJ
RMS.VL (µv) CSG 213±160 319±118 0.039 0.084 a
PG 216±71 211±64 0.205 0.022 b
CG 212±24 193±57 0.038 0.085 c
RMS.VM (µv) CSG 189±110 358±86 *¥ <0.001 0.186 a

D
PG 181±87 187±145 0.006 0.099 b
CG 183±20 187±17 0.001 0.162 c
RMS.RF (µv) CSG 177±21 371±70 *¥ 0.001 0.164 a
PG 187±42 228±214 0.001 0.149 b

TE
CG 170±21 173±51 0.002 0.160 c
CMJ
RMS.VL (µv) CSG 226±163 323±96 0.031 0.090 a
PG 191±26 226±134 0.174 0.025 b
CG 226±76 190±53 0.081 0.066 c
RMS.VM (µv) CSG 221±91 380±33 *¥ 0.002 0.150 a
PG 202±26 238±80 0.001 0.128 b
EP
CG 220±138 229±138 0.009 0.119 c
RMS.RF (µv) CSG 226±54 434±36 ***¥¥ <0.001 0.295 a
PG 193±39 221±40 <0.001 0.192 b
CG 195±148 223±169 0.001 0.184 c
RMS= root mean square EMG voltage; VL= vastus lateralis; VM= vastus medialis; RF=
rectus femoris; CST= contrast strength training group; PG = plyometric training group ; CG =
control group; a: denotes a main effect of group, b: denotes a main effect of time; c = denote a
C

group x time interaction; * = denotes a significant difference between CSG and CG; ¥= denotes a
significant difference between CSG and PG. * : p≤0.05 ; *** : p≤0.001; ¥: p≤0.05; ¥¥: p≤0.01 ;
C
A

Copyright ª 2018 National Strength and Conditioning Association

Table 8. Force–velocity test scores for lower limbs in experimental and control groups before and after the 8-week trial.
ANOVA
Variables Group Pre-trial Post-trial p-value Effect size
Leg Peak Power (W) CSG 467±70 654±90*¥ 0.001 a 0.179
PG 395±90 570±114 0.000 b 0.355
CG 468±74 480±76 0.001 c 0.176

D
Leg Peak Power (W/N) CSG 0.81±0.13 1.07±0.16 *¥ 0.002 a 0.159
PG 0.67±0.12 0.92±0.18 <0.001 b 0.338

TE
CG 0.84±0.12 0.84±0.12 0.001 c 0.164
Leg Peak Power (W/Lower limbs muscle volume) CSG 65.1±15.4 80.6±10.8 ¥ 0.006 a 0.128
PG 51.4±11.3 71.3±11.2 <0.001b 0.189
CG 65.5±17.2 66.2±12.4 0.025 c 0.095

EP
Leg Peak Power (W/thigh muscle volume) CSG 104±31 125 ±18*¥ <0.001 a 0.207
PG 77±18 110 ±18 <0.001 b 0.182
CG 91±19 93±18 0.033 c 0.088
Leg Peak Power (W/CSA) (W/cm2) CSG 6.4±13.3 3.8±0.5 0.244 a 0.037
PG 2.3±0.5 3.3±0.6 0.649 b 0.003

Maximal pedaling velocity (rpm)

C CG
CSG
PG
3.1±0.6
168±21
145±32
3.2±0.6
199±21 *
199±19
0.448 c
0.032 a
<0.001 b
0.021
0.089
0.370
C
CG 156±26 176±20 0.037 c 0.085
Maximal force (N) CSG 9.7±1.4 12.0±1.2* 0.008 a 0.123
A
PG 10.6±2.4 11.2±1.8 € 0.002 b 0.125
CG 9.3±1.0 10.0±1.6 0.107 c 0.059
CST= contrast strength training group; PG = plyometric training group ; CG = control group; a: denotes a main effect of group, b: denotes a
main effect of time; c = denote a group x time interaction; * = denotes a significant difference between CSG and CG; € =denotes a
significant difference between PG and CG; ¥= denotes a significant difference between CSG and PG. * : p≤0.05 ; € : p≤0.05; ¥: p≤0.05.

Copyright ª 2018 National Strength and Conditioning Association