Original Research

Combined Sprint Interval, Plyometric, and Strength

Training in Adolescent Soccer Players: Effects on
Measures of Speed, Strength, Power, Change of
Direction, and Anaerobic Capacity
Derek D. Ferley,1 Shane Scholten,2 and Matthew D. Vukovich3
1
Avera McKennan Hospital and University Health Center, Avera Sports Institute, Sioux Falls, South Dakota; 2Augustana University,
Department of Exercise and Sport Sciences, Sioux Falls, South Dakota; and 3College of Education and Human Sciences, South Dakota
State University, Brookings, South Dakota
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr by BhDMf5ePHKbH4TTImqenVHwXmMsAVI5gi362E2/Y11F+DANThUMajwLwaoaNBj74 on 03/25/2020

Abstract
Ferley, DD, Scholten, S, and Vukovich, MD. Combined sprint interval, plyometric, and strength training in adolescent soccer
players: effects on measures of speed, strength, power, change of direction, and anaerobic capacity. J Strength Cond Res 34(4):
957–968, 2020—During winter, many soccer players train indoors to improve the aerobic and anaerobic demands of their sport.
Sprint interval training (SIT) performed on a treadmill using level and graded conditions represents a viable alternative to traditional
endurance conditioning. To date, little research exists contrasting the effects of these conditions. Therefore, the purpose of this
investigation included examining the effects of 2 approaches combining SIT, plyometrics, and strength training on performance
measures in soccer players aged 13–18 years over 8 weeks. Forty-six subjects were divided into 3 groups. Group 1 performed SIT
using predominantly inclined treadmill conditions combined with resistance and plyometric training (INC, n 5 17). Group 2
performed SIT using level treadmill grades and completed the same resistance and plyometric training (LEV, n 5 14). Group 3 was
a control group representing various sports who continued their normal training (CON, n 5 15). Pre- and posttests assessed speed,
strength, change of direction, and anaerobic capacity, including sprint speed (9.1 and 18.3 m sprint), unilateral triple hop for
distance (3HOP_L and 3HOP_R), pro agility change of direction (PA); treadmill running to exhaustion on a 20% grade (CFMod), and
hip flexor maximum strength (HF_1RM). After training, INC and LEV improved more in all measures compared with CON. Fur-
thermore, INC improved significantly more compared with LEV in 9.1- and 18.3-m sprint, 3HOP_L and 3HOP_R, PA, CFMod, and
HF_1RM (p , 0.05). We conclude that strength and plyometric training combined with incline-based SIT is more effective than
a similar training approach using level-grade SIT.
Key Words: incline running, hill running, concurrent training, acceleration, jumping

Introduction involving strength training, plyometric training, and various

Soccer is a sport characterized by high demands of sustained,
intense, intermittent exercise (26,31,36). During a 90-minute
match, players cover up to 10 km while carrying out repeated all-
out sprints, jumps, and changes of direction (29,33,36). Previous
research has shown a decline in soccer-specific tasks involving
passing accuracy and ball touches after repeated bouts of high-
intensity exercise (32). Moreover, short burst sprint ability (e.g.,
#15 m), vertical jump, and change of direction performance
represent discriminating variables between elite- and lower-level
players (34). These findings suggest that soccer players should
focus on training tactics to improve the metabolic, muscular, and
neuromuscular demands specific to their sport.
In an attempt to improve performance, many adolescent soccer
players participate in organized sports performance training
programs in winter months when there are fewer weekly soccer
practices and games (28). According to the National Strength and
Conditioning Association (NSCA), preseason training tactics for
soccer players should emphasize a combined training approach
Address correspondence to Derek D. Ferley, derek.ferley@avera.org.
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 34(4)/957–968
ª 2020 National Strength and Conditioning Association
forms of sprint interval training (SIT) (39). Strength training has
been shown to improve acceleration, the ability to change di-
rection, and repeated sprint ability (41), whereas plyometrics
enhance jump height and sprint performance by targeting the
stretch-shortening cycle (SSC) and increasing the rate of force
development (7). Meanwhile, SIT has the capacity to improve
measures of aerobic and anaerobic performance compared with
traditional endurance training with the added benefit of being
more sport-specific and less time consuming (2,4,43).
Specific to SIT, a variety of approaches are routinely used
during combined training programs for soccer players, in-
cluding short burst sprints (e.g., #25 m) performed with and
without resistance and longer (e.g., 30 seconds) bouts
(17,22,28). Incline running represents another form of SIT,
with Kavaliauskas et al. (20) reporting that soccer players
demonstrated significant improvements in aerobic and anaer-
obic performance measures following 6 weeks of twice weekly
incline training sessions. Of note, SIT performed as part of an
incline treadmill training protocol in combination with plyo-
metrics and strength training led to a significantly reduced
lower extremity injury rate among female soccer players
(U14–U18) compared with a control group (16). To date,

957

Copyright © 2020 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Combined SIT, Plyometric, and Strength Training (2020) 34:4
however, the performance outcomes of level vs. incline-based
SIT remains largely uninvestigated in soccer players.
Therefore, the purpose of this investigation included com-
paring 2 combined training approaches involving identical
strength training and plyometric training programs with dif-
ferent approaches to SIT on indices of athletic performance.
One approach consisted of all SIT performed on a level grade,
whereas in the other, the predominant focus was incline con-
ditions ranging 5–30% grade. The maximum grade of 30%
was chosen based on previous research, indicating that incline
treadmill running at 4.47 m·sec21 and 30% grade resulted in
significantly greater measures of lower-body muscle power,
muscle activity, and joint range of motion compared with level-
grade running at the same speed or same stride frequency (38).
All running intensities for both groups and all bout durations
were consistent with the definitions associated with SIT and
high-intensity interval training (4). It was hypothesized that
both groups would demonstrate gains in a variety of perfor-
mance measures but that gains demonstrated by the incline
treadmill training group would be more pronounced because
of the reported biomechanical effects associated with incline
treadmill running (38).
Methods
Experimental Approach to the Problem
This was a parallel, 3-group, longitudinal (pretraining, post-
training) study designed to investigate the effects of 2 different
approaches to SIT on indices of soccer performance, with subjects
matched according to maximal aerobic running speed (Vmax)
and then randomly assigned to a group performing SIT based on
incline (INC) or level-grade (LEV) conditions. Subjects were
matched by Vmax as previous research has reported on the effi-
cacy of this characteristic for prescribing individualized SIT for
both level and incline treadmill grades (2,9,12). A third group
served as a control group (CON); these subjects completed all pre-
and posttesting while maintaining their normal 75- to 90-minute
sport practices 4–5 times·wk21. Both INC and LEV performed
the same plyometric training and strength training exercises with
the approach to SIT representing the only difference between
training interventions. In addition to the 3 weekly workouts, INC
and LEV continued 60-minute soccer training practices 1–2
times·wk21 during the study. Treadmill group represented the
training condition. Dependent variables chosen to examine the
demands of incline vs. level-grade SIT and previously shown to be
related to optimal soccer performance were as following: coun-
termovement vertical jump (CMJ), standing long jump (SLJ),
unilateral triple hop for distance (3HOP_R; 3HOP_L), 9.1-m
sprint, 18.3-m sprint, pro agility change of direction (PA), mod-
ified Cunningham and Faulkner run to exhaustion (CFMod),
Vmax, run to exhaustion at Vmax on a 1.5% treadmill grade
(Tmax), unilateral leg press 1 repetition maximum (R leg_1RM; L
leg_1RM), bilateral leg press 1RM (2 leg_1RM), dominant side
upright hip extension 1RM (HE_1RM), dominant side upright
hip flexion 1RM (HF_1RM), and a 30-second “all-out” jump test
performed on a horizontal leg press equipped with a force plate to
assess a variety of positive (concentric) and negative (eccentric)
lower-body power characteristics, termed Plyo Press Power
Quotient (3PQ). Subjects were required to attend at least 90% of
all training sessions to be included for data analysis. Also,
investigators monitored the training status of study subjects
through weekly dialogue with each individual.
958
Copyright © 2020 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Subjects
Subject characteristics are listed in Table 1. Forty-six subjects (24
males and 22 females) between 13 and 18 years of age voluntarily
enrolled to participate in this investigation after providing in-
formed consent. Thirty-one subjects (16 males and 15 females)
were part of a local youth traveling soccer club; the remaining 15
individuals (8 males and 7 females) served as control group and
were equally active and represented competitive sports, such as
basketball, softball, baseball, and track and field. Before this in-
vestigation, all subjects had participated in various speed,
strength, and conditioning programs; however, none was en-
rolled in any formal training program in the 3 months before the
training intervention. For individuals younger than 18 years,
a child’s consent document was provided by the subject and an
informed consent document by the parent or legal guardian. We
excluded individuals ,13 and .18 years of age and those who
had experienced a lower-body injury in the previous 3 months.
The Avera McKennan Hospital and University Health Center’s
Institutional Review Board approved this study, and it conformed
to the recommendations of the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki.
Procedures
The study took place from January to March and consisted of
familiarization procedures (sessions 1–2), pretests (sessions 3–5),
an 8-week training intervention (training days 1–24), and postt-
ests (sessions 6–8), with efforts made to complete pre- and
posttests at the same time of day.
Familiarization Procedures. The week before testing, subjects
reported to the training center on 2 separate occasions spaced
a minimum 48 hours apart. Session 1 included weighing and
measuring each subject using a physician’s scale (Detecto;
Cardinal Detecto, Webb City, MO), followed by running for
5–7 minutes on a treadmill (Precor 932i, Woodinvale, WA) at
a self-selected speed. After running, subjects learned a series of
dynamic drills that were performed before every testing and
training session. After the warm-up, 4–6 trials of the following
tests were performed in the order listed: CMJ, SLJ, 3HOP_L,
and 3HOP_R. Next, subjects performed 2–3 trials of 9.1-m
sprint, 18.3-m sprint, and PA. Subjects then completed 2
leg_1RM, R leg_1RM, and L leg_1RM on a horizontal leg
press (Plyo Press; Athletic Republic, Park City, UT). Session 1
testing concluded by assessing Vmax and discussing the Tmax
test. Session 2 began with a HE_1RM strength test using an
upright multihip machine (Pro Multi-Hip; Athletic Republic),
before using the same machine to assess HF_1RM strength.
After HE and HF assessment, a 3PQ test was performed using
a load equal to the subject’s 40% 2 leg_1RM on a Plyo Press.
After a 10-minute rest, the last familiarization procedure was
completed, a modified Cunningham and Faulkner test
(CFMod). During this procedure, the subject ran to exhaustion
on a treadmill set to 80% Vmax and 20% grade.
Performance Testing. Five to 7 days after completing familiar-
ization testing, subjects undertook performance testing. These
performance tests took place over 3 sessions (sessions 3, 4, and
5) spaced 48–72 hours apart; subjects were encouraged to arrive
for testing well rested and having avoided caffeine for 2–3 hours.
Pretests were performed in the order listed below. Session 3
began with CMJ testing using a vertical jump measuring device
(Vertec; Sports Imports, Hilliard, OH), following standard
 Combined SIT, Plyometric, and Strength Training (2020) 34:4
Table 1
Subject characteristics.
INC (n 5 17)
Measure Male (n 5 8) Female (n 5 9)
Height (cm) 172.1 6 4.9 160.3 6 6.7
Body mass (kg) 66.8 6 9.9 59.3 6 10.7
Age (y) 16.4 6 1.1 15.1 6 1.1
Training experience (y) 6.9 6 0.6 6.1 6 1.1
Subject characteristics were measured mean 6 SD.
procedures. Briefly, standing reach height was first determined,
followed by maximum jump height. Countermovement depth
was self-selected and arm swing was allowed; the highest jump
of 3 trials was used for data analysis. Standing long jump was
conducted on a portable runway (Plyorobic Runway; Ecore,
Inc., Lancaster, PA). Subjects stood on the runway with their feet
20–30 cm apart before completing a maximum effort jump in
the forward direction. The maximum distance between a line
drawn on the floor and the subject’s heel closest to the line was
used for data analysis. Unilateral triple hop for distance was
performed on the same portable runway, using the same starting
line. Subjects balanced on a single leg before attempting a max-
imum effort jump in a forward direction 3 consecutive times on
the same leg and then landing on the same leg. Subjects were
instructed to “stick” the landing using only the jumping leg and
to hold the landing position for approximately 1–2 seconds
(subjects were notified that a failure to hold the landing resulted
in a mistrial and reattempt). The best of 3 trials for SLJ and
3HOP was used for data analysis. For all CMJ, SLJ, and 3HOP
tests, a 45–60 rest was given between trials. After a 5-minute
rest, sprint time for the 9.1- and 18.3-m sprints were measured
simultaneously using a 2 gate wireless timing system (Brower
Timing Systems, Draper, UT) with timing gates at 9.1 and
18.3 m, respectively. Subjects were instructed to use a 3-point
start stance by placing the dominant hand on the ground next to
the optical start sensor. The same runway and timing system was
used to perform a PA test using standard procedures. Subjects
began in a 3-point stance before turning right 90° and sprinting
4.6 m to touch a line on the runway. Subjects then turned left
180° and sprinted 9.1 m in the opposite direction and touched
another line on the runway. Finally, subjects turned right 180°
and sprinted 4.6 m back across the same starting line. For the
sprints and PA tests, a 2- to 3-minute rest was given between
trials, and the best of 3 trials was used for data analysis. Fol-
lowing a 5-minute rest, subjects then completed 2 leg_1RM
testing on the Plyo Press, followed by R leg_1RM and L
leg_1RM. The Plyo Press seat was positioned, so the subjects’
feet placed the hip and knee joint angles at approximately 90°. A
3- to 5-minute rest was given between all 1RM efforts (15).
Following a 10 minutes of rest, subjects performed a Vmax test
on a treadmill (Super Treadmill; Standard Industries, Fargo,
ND) set to 1.5% to better simulate overground running (19).
Starting speed for the Vmax test ranged 10.5–12.1 km·hr21 and
was based on the self-selected speed chosen by the subject during
the familiarization session, with the intention of completing 4 to
6 2-minute stages during the test (12). Briefly, subjects com-
pleted 2-minute stages on the Super Treadmill separated by 30-
second rests (3). At the completion of each stage, treadmill speed
was increased 0.80 km·hr21. The subject was instructed that at
least 90 seconds of the 2-minute stage must be completed for the
stage to be considered successful; the speed of the last completed
stage was defined as Vmax. If the velocity at exhaustion was
Copyright © 2020 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
| www.nsca.com
LEV (n 5 14) CON (n 5 15)
Male (n 5 8) Female (n 5 6) Male (n 5 8) Female (n 5 7)
171.9 6 10.3 162.2 6 3.4 174.5 6 5.5 165.3 6 8.2
62.5 6 13.3 60.2 6 11.6 70.9 6 8.4 56.9 6 10.4
15.4 6 0.9 14.8 6 1.1 16.4 6 1.5 15.6 6 0.5
6.4 6 1.0 5.8 6 0.8 6.9 6 1.1 6.6 6 0.5
maintained for only 60 seconds, then Vmax was calculated to be
equal to the velocity of the previous stage plus half the velocity
increase between the last 2 stages (23).
Session 4 began with maximum isoinertial strength testing for
HE_1RM and HF_1RM. Dominant side was determined by
asking the subject with which leg he or she kicked a ball (40).
Briefly, the platform of the Pro Multi-Hip was set to a height that
aligned the subject’s hip joint with the axis of the machine’s lever
arm. The HE_1RM test began with the subject flexing the hip to
approximately 120°, placing the (flexed) knee over the top of the
cam lever pad and bracing themselves with outstretched arms
using the machine’s hand railing. The subject extended the hip
and knee to an end point position of approximately 30 and 0°,
respectively, whereas the pad of the lever arm remained behind
the knee. Subjects next completed a HF_1RM test, which began
with the hip at approximately 30° of hip extension and the pad of
the lever arm slightly superior to the patella before then flexing the
hip to 90°. Maximum strength for HE and HF was defined as the
maximum load moved through the full range of motion using
good form and held for 1–2 seconds. Following a 10-minute rest,
subjects concluded session 4 testing by completing a Tmax test.
Briefly, the Super Treadmill was set to 1.5% grade, and subjects
warm up with two 15-second bouts at Vmax separated by a 60-
second rest. On the next attempt, subjects ran to exhaustion at
Vmax.
Session 5 testing began with 3PQ testing. Subjects warmed up
by performing 2 sets of 3–5 repetitions at the prescribed load,
40% of 2 leg_1RM. The warm-up sets were separated by 60–90
seconds of rest. Following a 2–3 minutes of rest, subjects per-
formed the 30-second 3PQ test. The measures assessed with 3PQ
testing include a variety of positive (concentric) and negative
(eccentric) neuromuscular characteristics, such as peak force,
peak positive and negative power, average positive and negative
power, average rate of power development, and percent positive
and negative fatigue, respectively. After a 10-minute rest, subjects
completed performance testing by undertaking a CFMod test on
the Super Treadmill. Subjects completed 2 warm-ups at 80% of
Vmax and 10 and 15% grades for 8 seconds each, respectively.
Following a 1–2 minutes of rest, the Super Treadmill was raised to
20% grade and the subject ran to exhaustion. All posttests were
performed in the same order and used the same settings and
starting speeds as pretesting.
Training Protocol. Both groups completed the same number of
running treadmill and plyometric training workouts (12 each; 24
total) in an alternating fashion over 8 weeks. Subjects were not
allowed to perform workouts on 3 consecutive days. On treadmill
training days, INC performed 15–26 bouts ranging 6–30 seconds
on grades ranging 5–30% while running at Vmax. In contrast,
LEV performed 10–14 bouts for either 6 or 30 seconds on a 1.5%
grade while running at intensities ranging 110–138% Vmax. The
top intensity of 138% Vmax was based on a previous
959
 Combined SIT, Plyometric, and Strength Training (2020) 34:4
investigation of well-trained distance runners that reported that
level grade 140% Vmax could be maintained for approximately
30 seconds (12). The only 6-second bouts for either group were
the last 2 sets of every treadmill session and consisted of short-
burst sprints on a 1.5% grade at intensities ranging 140–165%
Vmax. Work-to-rest durations for both groups were 1:4, but
subjects were given additional rest if physically unable to un-
dertake the next effort. The treadmill training protocol for each
group is listed in Table 2. Both groups performed the same
plyometric training program, which included a variety of unilat-
eral and bilateral footwork drills in anterior-posterior, medio-
lateral, and multidirectional movement patterns, bilateral
anterior-posterior and mediolateral foam block hops, unilateral
and bilateral box jumps in the anterior-posterior direction, and
unilateral and bilateral weighted squat jumps on the Plyo Press at
various percentages of each condition’s 1RM (1RM), re-
spectively. The unilateral and bilateral footwork drills involved
a 4-square pattern and have been described as low-intensity by
Chu (6). Briefly, the 4-square pattern consists of 2 122 cm lines
(one vertical, one horizontal) that bisect to form a cross, leaving 4
quadrants each 61 3 61 cm. The lower left, upper left, upper
right, and lower right squares were numbered 1, 2, 3, and 4,
respectively. A typical footwork drill (either bilateral or unilat-
eral) labeled 1–2, for example, involved an anterior-posterior
movement for the prescribed duration. Similarly, a footwork drill
labeled 1-2-3 involved starting on 1, jumping forward to 2, lat-
erally to the right to 3, and finishing by jumping diagonally back
to 1. During 4-square footwork drills, subjects were instructed to
the following: (a) keep the feet, knees, hips, and chest facing
forward at all times regardless of pattern; (b) maintain a slight
knee bend; (c) stay on the balls of the feet; (d) seek accuracy and
precision; and (e) move as intensely as possible. The plyometric
training protocol is listed in Table 3. Finally, both groups per-
formed the same strength training program: on treadmill days
upright HE and HF exercises (for each side) and bilateral leg press
were performed; on plyometric days, unilateral upright hip ab-
duction, hip adduction, and leg presses were performed. All
strength exercises involved 3 sets, repetitions ranging 8–12, and
intensities ranging 60–90% 1RM, respectively. The strength
training program is listed in Table 4.
Statistical Analyses
The statistical program JMP (v.14.0; SAS Institute, Cary, NC) was
used for all data analysis. Descriptive statistics of each outcome
variable, including means, standard deviations, and tests of nor-
mality were determined. A 2-way repeated-measures analysis of
variance (ANOVA) was used to test for the effect of training (time:
pre, post) and training program (group: INC, LEV and CON) on
CMJ, SLJ, 3HOP_L, 3HOP_R, 9.1 m, 18.3 m, PA, L leg_1RM, R
leg_1RM, 2 leg_1RM, HE_1RM, HF_1RM, Vmax, Tmax, CFMod,
and 3PQ. Absolute and relative percentage change from pre- to
posttraining was calculated for all variables, and 1-way ANOVA
was used to determine differences between the groups. A significance
level of P # 0.05 was set for all statistical analyses. Where signifi-
cance was found, a Tukey post hoc test was performed.
Results
Performance Outcomes
Two subjects required an additional week to finish the in-
vestigation because of experiencing brief illnesses unrelated to the
960
Copyright © 2020 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
training. However, all subjects completed all training sessions.
Additionally, there was no significant difference in total time
spent running between INC and LEV during treadmill sessions.
Table 5 highlights the performance responses of INC, LEV, and
CON. INC experienced significant time effect improvements in
all performance outcomes, whereas LEV experienced significant
time effect improvements in CMJ, 9.1-m sprint, PA, Vmax,
Tmax, 2 leg_1RM, L leg_1RM, R leg_1RM, and HE_1RM.
CON did not experience significant improvements in any out-
come measure. Furthermore, there were significant group by time
interactions for improvements in 9.1-m sprint, 18.3-m sprint,
3HOP_L, 3HOP_R, PA, CFMod, and HF_1RM with INC im-
proving to a greater extent than LEV and CON.
Power and Fatigue Outcomes
Table 6 highlights the power and fatigue responses of INC, LEV,
and CON during 3PQ testing. Significant time effect improve-
ments in all power and fatigue outcome measures were demon-
strated by INC and LEV; CON did not experience significant
improvements in any outcome measure. There were no significant
group by time improvements between INC and LEV.
Discussion
Soccer players routinely engage in sports performance training
programs during winter months that consist of plyometric
training, strength training, and both incline and level-grade SIT.
Specific to incline-based SIT, to date, a paucity of research exists,
highlighting the efficacy of using this approach to improve
measures related to the athletic performance of soccer players,
including speed, strength, power, change of direction, and an-
aerobic capacity. Therefore, the purpose of this investigation in-
cluded comparing 2 combined training approaches involving
identical strength training and plyometric training programs with
different approaches to SIT by examining measures that are both
unique to the effects of incline and level-grade SIT, as well as
applicable to soccer performance. The findings of the present
investigation show that level and incline-based SIT in combina-
tion with plyometric training and strength training significantly
improved measures of speed, strength, change of direction, and
anaerobic capacity in a group of adolescent soccer players. Ad-
ditionally, incline compared with level-based SIT led to signifi-
cantly greater improvements in 9.1-m sprint, 18.3-m sprint,
3HOP_L, 3HOP_R, PA, CFMod, and HF_1RM. Therefore, based
on these findings, we accept our hypothesis that incline vs. level-
based SIT would lead to greater performance gains. In our esti-
mation, the current investigation is the first to compare the
training effects between time-matched SIT performed using INC
and LEV conditions.
Combined or concurrent training programs have been used
extensively in soccer for years, and a number of previous inves-
tigations have examined the effects of these methods, including,
for example, strength training and power training, various
sequences of strength and plyometric training, plyometric train-
ing and speed training, strength training and speed training,
strength training and SIT, and optimum power training (OPL)
combined with either resisted sprints (RS) or plyometrics
(21,22,24,28,35,42,43). Moreover, the incorporation of SIT has
been primarily field based. In contrast, the use of treadmill
intervals, with a specific focus on performing those intervals on an
incline, has not been investigated.
 Combined SIT, Plyometric, and Strength Training (2020) 34:4 | www.nsca.com

Table 2
The 12-session treadmill training protocols for the 2 groups, INC and LEV.*
INC LEV
Elevation Speed Elevation
Speed (%Vmax) Repetitions (% grade) Bout (s) Total run time (s) (%Vmax) Repetitions (% grade) Bout (s) Total run time (s)
(Session 1/2) (Session 1/2) (Session 1/2) (Session 1/2)
100 2/2 5 30 60/60 105 1/1 1.5 30 30/30
100 5/4 10 20 100/80 115 1/1 1.5 30 30/30
100 3/4 15 15 45/60 120 4/4 1.5 30 120/120
100 3/4 17.5 10 30/40 125 2/3 1.5 30 60/90
140 2/2 1.5 6 12/12 140 2/2 1.5 12 12/12
Totals 15/16 247/252 10/11 252/282
(Session 3/4) (Session 3/4) (Session 3/4) (Session 3/4)
100 3/2 5 30 90/60 105 1/1 1.5 30 30/30
100 4/3 10 20 80/60 110 1/1 1.5 30 30/30
100 3/3 15 15 45/45 120 1/1 1.5 30 30/30
100 3/4 17.5 10 30/40 125 4/3 1.5 30 120/90
100 3/4 20 10 30/40 127.5 2/3 1.5 30 60/90
145 2/2 1.5 6 12/12 145 2/2 1.5 6 12/12
Totals 16/18 275/257 11/11 292/282
(Session 5/6) (Session 5/6) (Session 5/6) (Session 5/6)
100 2/2 5 30 60/60 105 1/1 1.5 30 30/30
100 3/3 10 20 60/60 110 1/1 1.5 30 30/30
100 3/3 15 15 45/45 120 1/1 1.5 30 30/30
100 4/4 17.5 10 40/40 125 2/1 1.5 30 60/30
100 3/4 20 10 30/40 127.5 3/4 1.5 30 90/120
100 3/4 22.5 10 30/40 130 2/3 1.5 30 60/90
150 2/2 1.5 6 12/12 150 2/2 1.5 6 12/12
Totals 20/22 277/297 12/13 312/342
(Session 7/8) (Session 7/8) (Session 7/8) (Session 7/8)
100 2/2 5 30 60/60 105 1/1 1.5 30 30/30
100 3/2 10 30 90/60 110 1/1 1.5 30 30/30
100 3/2 15 15 45/30 120 1/1 1.5 30 30/30
100 3/2 17.5 10 30/20 125 1/1 1.5 30 30/30
100 3/4 20 10 30/40 127.5 2/1 1.5 30 60/30
100 3/4 22.5 10 20/40 130 2/2 1.5 30 60/60
100 2/4 25 10 20/40 132.5 2/3 1.5 30 60/90
155 2/2 1.5 6 12/12 155 2/2 1.5 6 12/12
Totals 21/22 307/302 12/12 312/312
(Session 9/10) (Session 9/10) (Session 9/10) (Session 9/10)
100 2/2 5 30 60/60 105 1/0 1.5 30 30/0
100 2/2 10 30 60/60 110 1/1 1.5 30 30/30
100 2/2 15 15 30/30 120 1/1 1.5 30 30/30
100 2/2 17.5 10 20/20 125 1/1 1.5 30 30/30
100 2/2 20 10 20/20 127.5 1/1 1.5 30 30/30
100 3/3 22.5 10 30/30 130 2/1 1.5 30 60/30
100 3/4 25 10 30/40 132.5 2/3 1.5 30 60/90
100 3/4 27.5 10 30/40 135 2/3 1.5 30 60/90
160 2/2 1.5 6 12/12 160 2/2 1.5 6 12/12
Totals 21/23 292/312 13/13 342/342
(Session 11/12) (Session 11/12) (Session 11/12) (Session 11/12)
100 2/2 5 30 60/60 105 1/0 1.5 30 30/0
100 2/2 10 30 60 110 1/1 1.5 30 30/30
100 2/2 15 15 30 120 1/1 1.5 30 30/30
100 2/2 17.5 10 20 125 1/1 1.5 30 30/30
100 2/2 20 10 20 127.5 1/1 1.5 30 30/30
100 2/2 22.5 10 20 130 1/1 1.5 30 30/30
100 3/4 25 10 30/40 132.5 1/1 1.5 30 30/30
100 3/4 27.5 10 30/40 135 2/3 1.5 30 60/90
100 3/4 30 10 30/40 138 2/3 1.5 30 60/90
165 2/2 1.5 6 12/12 165 2/2 1.5 6 12/12
Totals 23/26 312/342 13/14 342/372
*Training sessions for each group (INC and LEV) are grouped in pairs: for example, sessions 1/2, 3/4, 5/6, etc. Speed (%Vmax) 5 treadmill speed during running bout; repetitions 5 the number of bouts
performed at that particular speed and incline; further, repetitions separated by (/) 5 the number of repetitions performed at that speed, elevation, and duration during that training session, respectively;
elevation (% grade) 5 treadmill grade; bout (s) 5 run time per repetition in seconds; total run time (s) 5 repetitions multiplied by bout duration in seconds.

961

Copyright © 2020 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Combined SIT, Plyometric, and Strength Training (2020) 34:4

Table 3
The 12-session plyometric training protocol performed by both groups.*
Plyometric session
Exercise 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Unilateral box jumps (reps)
15 cm 238 238 238 238
20 cm 238 238 238 238
Bilateral box jumps (reps)
30 cm 238 238 238 238
46 cm 238 238 238 238
Unilateral weighted squat jumps (reps)
40% 1RM 238
45% 1RM 238 238
50% 1RM 238 238
55% 1RM 238 238
60% 1RM 238
Bilateral weighted squat jumps (reps)
40% 1RM 238
45% 1RM 238 238
50% 1RM 238
Bilateral footwork drills (s)
1-2 1 3 20 1 3 20 1 3 20 1 3 20 1 3 20 1 3 20 1 3 20 1 3 20 3 3 20 1 3 20
1-4 1 3 20 1 3 20 1 3 20 1 3 20 1 3 20 1 3 20 1 3 20 1 3 20 3 3 20
1-2-3 1 3 20 1 3 20 1 3 20 1 3 20 1 3 20 1 3 20 1 3 20
1-3-2 1 3 20 1 3 20 1 3 20 1 3 20 1 3 20 1 3 20 1 3 20
1-2-3-4 1 3 20 1 3 20 1 3 20 1 3 20 1 3 20 1 3 20 1 3 20 1 3 20 3 3 20 1 3 20
1-4-3-2 1 3 20 1 3 20 1 3 20 1 3 20 1 3 20 1 3 20 1 3 20 3 3 20 1 3 20
Unilateral footwork drills (s)
1-2 1 3 10 2 3 10 1 3 10 2 3 10 2 3 10 1 3 10 2 3 10 2 3 10 1 3 10 1 3 10
1-4 1 3 10 2 3 10 2 3 10 2 3 10 2 3 10 2 3 10 1 3 10 1 3 10
1-3 1 3 10 2 3 10 2 3 10 2 3 10 2 3 10 1 3 10 1 3 10
4-2 1 3 10 2 3 10 2 3 10 2 3 10 2 3 10 1 3 10 1 3 10
1-2-3-4 1 3 10 1 3 10
1-4-3-2
Bilateral foam hops 15 cm (s)
1-2 1 3 10 2 3 10 2 3 10
1-4 1 3 10 2 3 10 2 3 10
Bilateral foam hops 30 cm (s)
1-2 2 3 10 2 3 10 2 3 10
1-4 2 3 10 4 3 10 2 3 10 2 3 10 2 3 10 2 3 10
Bilateral foam hops 46 cm (s)
1-2 235 235
1-4 235 235 435 235 235 235
Bilateral foam hops 61 cm (s)
1-4 235 235 435 235
Bilateral footwork drills (s)
1-2-3-4 1 3 20 1 3 20 1 3 20 1 3 20 1 3 20 1 3 20 1 3 20
1-4-3-2 1 3 20 1 3 20 1 3 20 1 3 20 1 3 20 1 3 20 1 3 20
1-4-2-3 1 3 20 1 3 20 1 3 20 1 3 20 1 3 20 1 3 20 1 3 20 1 3 20
1-2-4-3 1 3 20 1 3 20 1 3 20 1 3 20 1 3 20 1 3 20 1 3 20 1 3 20
1-3 1 3 20 1 3 20 1 3 20 1 3 20 1 3 20 1 3 20 1 3 20 1 3 20 1 3 20 1 3 20 1 3 20 1 3 20
4-2 1 3 20 1 3 20 1 3 20 1 3 20 1 3 20 1 3 20 1 3 20 1 3 20 1 3 20 1 3 20 1 3 20 1 3 20
Total box and weighted squat jump 0/280 0/360 96/190 0/370 128/80 0/340 96/190 0/310 128/80 0/320 0/460 0/280
(reps)/drill time (s)
*Exercises for each day were performed in the descending order listed above. For blank cells, no exercise was performed. All box jumps and weighted squat jumps consisted of 8 repetitions (reps) performed as
intensely as possible. All footwork drills were performed for time (in seconds), with bilateral and unilateral footwork drills lasting 20 and 10 seconds, respectively. All 15- and 30-cm bilateral foam hops were
performed for 10 seconds; all 46- and 61-cm foam hops were performed for 5 seconds. During each training session, a 60- to 90-second rest was assigned between all exercise efforts. Total box jumps or
weighted squat jump (reps)/drill time (s) 5 the total number of box and/or weighted squat jump contacts, and total time spent performing footwork drills, respectively, per session.

Previous studies have examined training programs combining
traditional strength (back squat) and power-oriented (power
clean) exercises in young soccer players (42). For example, Wong
et al. (42) investigated combined strength and power training in
14-year-old, male, soccer players performing 2 training ses-
sions·wk21 for 12 weeks (42). Pre- and posttest absolute differ-
ences in means between the experimental and control groups
revealed significant improvements in a variety of performance
measures including 3.2 cm and 0.07 seconds, respectively, for
CMJ and 10-m sprint performance. In the present investigation,
INC demonstrated greater and similar significant improvements
compared with CON in absolute differences of the means in the
same (CMJ) and similar (9.1-m sprint) tests, whereas LEV did not.
Total training sessions (24 sessions) and time committed to

962

Copyright © 2020 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Combined SIT, Plyometric, and Strength Training (2020) 34:4
Table 4
The strength training program performed by INC and LEV during the 8-week investigation.*
Bilateral leg press Unilateral leg press
Workout session Sets Reps %1RM Sets Reps
1 and 2 3 10 70–75 3 12
3 and 4 3 10 75–77.5 3 12
5 and 6 3 8 80–82.5 3 10
7 and 8 3 8 82.5–85 3 10
9 and 10 3 6 85–87.5 3 8
11 and 12 3 6 87.5–90 3 8
*After sprint interval training subjects performed hip extension, hip flexion, and bilateral leg press exercises. Alternatively, after plyometric training, subjects completed hip abduction, hip adduction, and
unilateral leg press exercises. %1RM 5 percentage of 1 repetition maximum.
individual training sessions (approximately 60 minutes) was the
same in both Wong et al. (42) and the present investigation.
However, a greater emphasis was placed on lower-body re-
sistance training in Wong et al. (42) and specifically on bilateral
exercises. In contrast, in the present investigation, one exercise
(bilateral leg press) was performed bilaterally. Previous research
indicates that unilateral limb training may be more effective at
improving muscle strength for applying force unilaterally in
sprinting and change of direction movements (13). Importantly,
during incline treadmill running, hip range of motion and joint
angular velocity during push off at the ankle, knee, and hip have
been shown to be significantly greater compared with level-grade
sprinting at the same stride frequency (38). This increased range
of joint motion during intense triple extension muscle con-
tractions, together with increased joint angular velocity, leads to
significantly greater hip muscle power during incline running and
indicates that incline treadmill running may represent a sport-
specific training tactic (38).
Others have investigated different sequences of combined
strength and plyometric training in elite 19-year-old soccer
players (21). Training twice weekly for 8 weeks, Kobal et al. (21)
had players complete traditional training (TD, strength followed
by plyometric training), complex training (CP, plyometric fol-
lowed by strength training), or contrast training (CT, alternating
strength and plyometric training set by set). The strength and
plyometric exercises were back half-squat and drop jumps (from
boxes of 30 and 45 cm), respectively. Although all groups sig-
nificantly improved back half-squat (TD, 46.3%; CP, 48.6%;
CT, 53.0%) and CMJ (TD, 14.2%, CP; 13.0%; CT, 14.7%), only
TD demonstrated significant mid to posttest improvements in 10-
and 20-m sprint performance. As to the lack of significant pre- to
posttest improvement in sprint performance by any of the groups,
the authors postulated that it may have been the result of the
“interference phenomenon,” which has been shown previously to
affect maximum sprint performance in high-level soccer players
while not affecting 1RM strength or CMJ performance during
combined training (8). In the present investigation, in addition to
significant group effects demonstrated by INC and LEV in
a similar strength exercise (2_leg 1RM), both INC and LEV also
demonstrated significant group effects in similar short-burst
sprint performance tests (9.1 and 18.3 m, respectively). One
possible explanation why INC and LEV demonstrated significant
improvements in short-burst sprint performance is that all plyo-
metric exercises in the present investigation were repeat jump
exercises vs. single drop jumps performed in Kobal et al. (21).
Previous research of repeat plyometric jump exercises indicate
that they are more effective at improving jump height (both drop
jump and repeated CMJ) than single jump plyometric exercises,
963
Copyright © 2020 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
| www.nsca.com
Hip flexion and extension Hip abduction and adduction
%1RM Sets Reps %1RM Sets Reps %1RM
65–70 3 12 65 3 12 60–65
70–75 3 12 70 3 12 65–70
75–77.5 3 10 75–77.5 3 10 70–75
77.5–80 3 10 77.5–80 3 10 75
82.5–85 3 8 82.5–85 3 8 77.5
85 3 8 85 3 8 80
which may have implications for high-velocity movements in-
volving repeated SSCs, such as sprinting (25).
Examining combined plyometric training and speed training,
Saez de Villarreal et al. (35) had 14- to 15-year-old soccer players
train 2 sessions·wk21 (approximately 40 min·session21) for 9
weeks using jumping, skipping, and hopping exercises in com-
bination with 10-m all-out sprints. The experimental vs. control
group demonstrated significant improvements in CMJ and 10-m
sprint performance by 9.4 and 4.8%, respectively. In the present
investigation, improvements in CMJ posted by INC and LEV
were greater and less, respectively, whereas in the similar short-
burst sprint performance test of 9.1 m, INC and LEV recorded
significant improvements that were similar and less, respectively.
In the study by Saez de Villarreal et al. (35), all plyometric training
involved bilateral body weight exercises (half-squats with jumps,
hurdle jump, and vertical jumps). In the present investigation, all
plyometric sessions involved a combination of unilateral and bi-
lateral exercises. In those sessions emphasizing footwork drills,
total time spent performing exercises ranged 4.5–6.5 minutes,
with unilateral footwork drills constituting 1–2 minutes of the
total. Furthermore, 4 of the 12 plyometric sessions (sessions 3, 5,
7, and 9) emphasized more traditional plyometric exercises, such
as box jumps and weighted squat jumps; in these sessions, the
number of high-intensity box jumps and weighted squat jump
contacts ranged 96–128 per session (for a total of 448 in the 4
sessions). By comparison, total contacts·session21 in Saez de
Villarreal et al. (35) ranged from 60 (week 1) to 200 (week 9).
Based on the present investigation, despite performing a majority
of low-intensity plyometric footwork drills aimed at improving
kinesthetic awareness, the relatively modest number of unilateral
and bilateral high-intensity box jumps and weighted squat jumps
seems to have provided an adequate training stimulus. Addi-
tionally, this may be a prudent approach for younger athletes who
may be engaging in plyometric training for the first time (1,6).
Finally, although the present investigation did not record the
number of ground contacts during the low-intensity footwork
drills, based on Chu’s recommendation for quantifying the 4-
square exercises, investigators and coaches could manually count
foot strikes or use force plates to determine the degree of im-
provement with training (6).
In a 9-week study of 17-year-old, male, soccer players in-
volving 2 sessions·wk21 of combined strength and speed training
(COM) compared with strength training (STR) alone, Kotzama-
nidis et al. (22) reported that both groups demonstrated a number
of significant time effect improvements, but COM demonstrated
significant time effect improvements in several additional meas-
ures (half squat, CMJ, unilateral step-up, and 30-m sprint per-
formance). For this discussion, comparisons between COM, INC,
Copyright © 2020 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

Combined SIT, Plyometric, and Strength Training (2020) 34:4

Table 5
Pretraining vs. posttraining performance outcomes following 8 weeks of training.*
INC (n 5 17) LEV (n 5 14) CON (n 5 15)
Outcome Pre Post Change % Change Pre Post Change % Change Pre Post Change % Change
CMJ (cm) 50.4 6 9.1 55.4 6 10.0 5.0 6 1.0‡ 10.2 6 5.4§ 52.1 6 9.2 55.2 6 8.5 1.3 6 0.9‡ 6.5 6 5.1§ 56.0 6 10.9 57.2 6 11.9 0.5 6 0.7 1.9 6 3.3
SLJ (cm) 192.0 6 29.4 207.4 6 31.3 15.4 6 5.5‡ 8.1 6 3.3§ 196.1 6 29.4 202.7 6 28.6 6.5 6 5.1 3.5 6 3.0 208.6 6 34.4 211.8 6 37.9 3.2 6 5.2 1.3 6 2.7
3HOP_R (cm) 500.7 6 80.6 541.6 6 81.9 41.2 6 28.0‡ 11.3 6 7.7║ 495.5 6 78.3 505.3 6 79.4 9.8 6 14.4 2.7 6 3.9 498.5 6 73.0 508.3 6 77.3 9.8 6 10.2 2.7 6 2.8
3HOP_L (cm) 500.7 6 76.6 536.1 6 79.0 35.4 6 26.3‡ 7.3 6 6.0║ 494.6 6 78.1 507.6 6 78.9 13.1 6 15.2 2.7 6 3.2 507.3 6 69.0 518.2 6 67.5 10.8 6 10.4 2.2 6 2.0
9.1-m sprint (s) 2.02 6 0.2 1.94 6 0.1 20.08 6 0.0‡ 4.0 6 1.0║ 2.03 6 0.2 1.97 6 0.1 20.05 6 0.0‡ 2.5 6 1.7† 1.94 6 0.2 1.93 6 0.2 20.01 6 0.0 0.42 6 1.2
18.3-m sprint (s) 3.40 6 0.3 3.28 6 0.3 20.12 6 0.1‡ 3.6 6 1.5║ 3.42 6 0.3 3.35 6 0.3 20.08 6 0.1 2.3 6 1.6† 3.25 6 0.3 3.24 6 0.3 20.02 6 0.0 0.47 6 0.8
PA (s) 5.24 6 0.3 5.08 6 0.3 20.17 6 0.1‡ 3.2 6 1.2║ 5.27 6 0.3 5.19 6 0.3 20.08 6 0.1‡ 1.5 6 1.5║ 5.1 6 0.4 5.09 6 0.4 20.03 6 0.0 0.63 6 0.9
CFMod (s) 43 6 12 54 6 12 11 6 3‡ 28.1 6 12.1║ 41 6 6 45 6 6 465 12.3 6 13.0 40 6 11 44 6 13 464 7.9 6 10.6
964

Vmax (m·sec21) 4.06 6 0.4 4.3 6 0.4 0.2 6 0.1‡ 6.2 6 2.6§ 4.02 6 0.5 4.24 6 0.5 0.2 6 0.1‡ 5.5 6 3.2§ 4.20 6 0.3 4.24 6 0.3 0.0 6 0.1 0.7 6 1.9
Tmax (s) 182 6 50 258 6 57 76 6 30‡ 44.7 6 23.3§ 186 6 44 261 6 57 76 6 50‡ 43.6 6 31.1§ 170 6 50 182 6 56 11 6 10 6.5 6 4.8
2 leg_1RM (kg) 129.0 6 27.1 148.0 6 29.2 19.0 6 11.7‡ 15.4 6 10.1§ 122.4 6 26.2 142.0 6 33.6 19.6 6 14.0‡ 16.1 6 11.4§ 138.5 6 41.9 143.3 6 43.4 4.8 6 5.8 3.5 6 4.2
R leg_1RM (kg) 69.5 6 15.0 81.6 6 15.9 12.0 6 6.1‡ 18.1 6 9.3§ 68.2 6 14.2 77.3 6 17.6 9.1 6 5.6‡ 13.1 6 7.2§ 76.2 6 24.1 80.0 6 25.2 3.8 6 3.1 5.1 6 3.4
L leg_1RM (kg) 69.9 6 15.6 81.4 6 16.2 11.5 6 4.8‡ 17.2 6 7.3§ 69.5 6 13.5 78.6 6 17.1 9.1 6 5.2‡ 12.7 6 6.6§ 74.4 6 23.9 78.6 6 25.7 4.2 6 3.4 5.6 6 3.8
HE_1RM (kg) 66.2 6 14.4 79.8 6 15.8 13.6 6 4.4‡ 21.3 6 8.0§ 64.6 6 12.5 75.0 6 12.1 10.4 6 4.4‡ 17.0 6 9.1§ 69.7 6 17.5 75.2 6 20.0 5.5 6 3.1 7.5 6 2.8
HF_1RM (kg) 48.0 6 11.3 56.4 6 11.7 8.4 6 2.4‡ 18.4 6 6.4║ 45.8 6 11.2 51.1 6 11.7 5.4 6 2.5 12.2 6 5.6 51.7 6 10.5 55.3 6 12.3 3.6 6 2.1 6.7 6 2.9
*CMJ 5 countermovement jump; SLJ 5 standing long jump; 3HOP_L and 3HOP_R 5 1 leg triple hop for distance; PA 5 pro agility change of direction; CFMod 5 modified Cunningham and Faulkner run to exhaustion at 80%Vmax and 20% grade; Vmax 5 maximal aerobic speed;
Tmax 5 time to exhaustion at Vmax; 2 leg_1RM 5 bilateral one repetition maximum lift during horizontal leg press; L_1RM and R_leg 1RM 5 unilateral one repetition maximum lift during horizontal leg press; HE_1RM 5 one repetition maximum lift with dominant side during upright
hip extension; HF_1RM 5 one repetition maximum lift with dominant side during upright hip flexion.
†Data are means (6SD) P , 0.05.
‡Significantly different from pre- to posttraining (P , 0.05).
§Significantly greater than CON (P , 0.05).
║Significantly greater than LEV and CON (P , 0.05).
Copyright © 2020 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

Combined SIT, Plyometric, and Strength Training (2020) 34:4

Table 6
Pretraining vs. posttraining power and fatigue outcomes of 3PQ testing for 30-seconds using 40% of 2 leg_1RM.*
INC (n 5 17) LEV (n 5 14) CON (n 5 15)
Outcome Pre Post Change %Change Pre Post Change %Change Pre Post Change %Change
Peak force 1,457.4 6 271.5 1,576.5 6 354.3 119.1 6 114.8† 7.6 6 6.7‡ 1,411.1 6 237.4 1,524.5 6 222.5 113.4 6 107.3† 8.6 6 8.2‡ 1,599.3 6 407.6 1,448.8 6 596.8 2150.4 6 375.4 210.5 6 28.0
(N)
Peak (1) 1,505 6 409 1755 6 497 249.3 6 191.6† 16.7 6 12.0‡ 1,516 6 449 1,670 6 445 153.7 6 156.0† 11.2 6 10.1‡ 1850 6 663 1808 6 649 241.7 6 105.7 22.2 6 6.2
power (N)
Peak (2) 1,083 6 367 1,326 6 495 243.2 6 193.7† 22.8 6 15.4‡ 1,099 6 410 1,294 6 431 194.8 6 146.6† 19.9 6 13.3‡ 1,193 6 480 1,194 6 453 1.1 6 134.3 1.0 6 10.8
power (N)
Avg (1) 1,320 6 393 1,544 6 417 224.6 6 120.6† 18.6 6 12.5‡ 1,252 6 377 1,425 6 384 173.1 6 137.4† 14.8 6 10.5‡ 1,617 6 609 1,582 6 570 235.3 6 120.2 1.2 6 8.2
power (N)
Avg (2) 900 6 350 1,091 6 431 190.8 6 145.0† 22.2 6 14.0‡ 882 6 354 1,043 6 351 160.8 6 97.1† 21.2 6 14.9‡ 988 6 397 977 6 371 210.9 6 91.7 20.1 6 9.5
power (N)
965

Avg RPD 3,558 6 1,302 4,509 6 1,564 950.9 6 521.7† 28.3 6 14.3‡ 3,600 6 1,149 4,477 6 1,260 877.0 6 663.5† 26.8 6 17.9‡ 4,166 6 1,657 4,085 6 1,477 280.2 6 299.0 0.5 6 11.7
(W·sec21)
(1) fatigue 19.5 6 5.1 15.2 6 3.7 4.3 6 3.4† 20.6 6 12.8‡ 20.0 6 5.7 17.0 6 3.4 3.0 6 4.2† 12.1 6 16.0‡ 19.2 6 4.2 20.0 6 3.8 20.8 6 4.3 26.9 6 22.7
(%)
(2) fatigue 17.7 6 5.3 12.8 6 4.1 4.9 6 3.3† 21.4 6 6.6‡ 4.0 6 5.3 17.4 6 4.9 4.0 6 5.3† 15.5 6 20.5‡ 16.5 6 5.2 17.7 6 5.2 21.2 6 2.8 211.2 6 22.8
(%)
Peak 1.27 6 0.1 1.37 6 0.1 0.10 6 0.0† 8.3 6 3.9‡ 1.30 6 0.1 1.38 6 0.1 0.08 6 0.1† 6.2 6 4.5‡ 1.33 6 0.2 1.33 6 0.2 0.0 6 0.0 0.0 6 3.2
velocity
(m·sec21)
*Measures with (1) are associated with concentric muscle contractions and indicate an acceleration of the load mass, that is, power generation; measures with (2) are associated with eccentric muscle contractions and indicate a deceleration of the load mass, that is, absorption of
energy. Peak force 5 the vector sum of the vertical and horizontal forces applied to the force plate (relative to its position) and represents a resultant force applied to the plate. Peak (1) or (2) power 5 watts associated with peak power generation or peak energy absorption during the
30-second test. Avg (1) or (2) power 5 average watts associated with power generation or energy absorption during the 30-second test. RPD 5 rate of power development as defined by the average slope of the line from the negative peak power to the subsequent positive peak
power during the 30-second test. % Fatigue rate (1) and (2) 5 slope of line calculated from the peak (1) and (2) jumps taken from the first and last 5 seconds, respectively, of the 30-second test. Peak velocity 5 movement velocity of the weight stack as measured by the
displacement transducer using the first central difference method.
†Significantly different from pre- to posttraining (p , 0.05).
‡Significantly greater than CON (p , 0.05).

| www.nsca.com
 Combined SIT, Plyometric, and Strength Training (2020) 34:4
and LEV are most appropriate becaue several performance
measures were similar. For example, COM demonstrated signif-
icant improvements in half squat, CMJ, unilateral step-up, and
30-m sprint performance of 8.6, 6.8, 14.0, and 3.7%, re-
spectively. In the present investigation, INC recorded significant
gains in the same (CMJ) or similar (2 leg_1RM, 1 leg_1RM, and
18.3-m sprint) performance measures that were greater than
COM, whereas LEV demonstrated greater gains compared with
COM in 2 leg_1RM and similar gains in CMJ, 1 leg_1RM, and
18.3-m sprint performance. Interestingly, the strength training
program performed by COM was similar to INC and LEV in that
both investigations involved 3 lower-body exercises. More spe-
cifically, COM used a strength training routine involving 2
exercises·session21 that targeted the powerful knee extensor
muscle group and to a lesser extent the hip extensors. In contrast,
INC and LEV performed one exercise·session21 targeting the
knee extensor muscle group and another that specifically targeted
the hip extensor and hip flexor musculature. Specific to the hip
flexor, previous research has indicated the importance of this
muscle group in achieving and maintaining maximum sprint
speed (5) and that the biarticular rectus femoris (assisting in hip
flexion) transfers energy generated by the monoarticular hip
extensors to assist in the powerful knee extensions that occur in
high-velocity triple extension movements, such as sprinting and
jumping (18,30).
A different investigation by Wong et al. (43) examined com-
bined strength training and SIT during 2 training sessions·wk21
for 8 weeks. Resistance exercises included jump squats and back
half squats, whereas SIT consisted of sixteen 15-second bouts
(with 15 seconds rest) at 120% of maximal aerobic speed (MAS)
for a total of 4 minutes of running. Performance measures that
were similar to the present investigation in which the experi-
mental group recorded significant improvements included back
squat 1RM (20.3%), CMJ (3.9%), 10-m sprint (5.8%), 30-m
sprint (2.7%), and distance covered while running at MAS
(9.2%). In the present investigation, not only did INC and LEV
demonstrate significant improvements in 2 leg_1RM, CMJ, 9.1,
and 18.3-m sprint performance that were similar but also recor-
ded significant improvements in Tmax (INC: 44.7%; LEV:
43.6%), giving insights into distance covered at a high intensity.
Specifically, in Wong et al. (43), the average improvement in
distance covered running at MAS represented 298 m; in the
present investigation, the improvement in Tmax while running at
Vmax reflected an average increase in distance run of 308 m
(INC) and 301 m (LEV), respectively. The similarities in running
intensities and total time spent running between the experimental
group in Wong et al. (43) and INC and LEV in the present in-
vestigation add further evidence to the efficacy of using low-
volume SIT performed at maximal or supramaximal intensities to
improve anaerobic endurance (2,9).
Finally, Loturco et al. (24) investigated 12 sessions of OPL
combined with either RS or plyometrics (PL), respectively, in 22-
year-old, professional, soccer players over 5 weeks. Optimum
power load was individually determined from an upright
weighted jump squat test, sled pull sprints consisted of loads
ranging 5–20% of body mass, and plyometrics were either hori-
zontal or vertical jumps (or a combination thereof). Regarding
CMJ, OPL with PL demonstrated a small effect size (0.20),
whereas OPL with RS was small (20.39). Similarly, small and
trivial effect sizes for SLJ were recorded by OPL with PL (0.40)
and OPL with RS (20.03), respectively. Interestingly, mean
maximum power output of all subjects in the weighted jump
squat test was a load equal to 60% of body mass or an average
966
Copyright © 2020 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
load of 118 kg (body mass plus 60% of body mass load). In the
present investigation, 40% of 2 leg_1RM was used for 3PQ
testing, a load equal to 122 and 129 kg for LEV and INC, re-
spectively. Although the experimental groups in Loturco et al.
(24) reported trivial effect sizes for mean maximum power out-
put, in the present investigation, both INC and LEV demon-
strated significant time effect improvements in maximum positive
power during 3PQ testing of 16.7 and 11.2%, respectively. Fur-
thermore, velocity of movement during the weighted jump squat
test in Loturco et al. (24) was reported as small and trivial for OPL
with RS and OPL with PL, respectively, whereas in the present
investigation, both INC and LEV demonstrated significant time
effect improvements in this measure during 3PQ testing of 8.3 and
6.2%, respectively. However, the training status of the subjects
(Brazilian first division professionals vs. American youth club
players) most likely had an impact on the demonstrated results
because relatively novice athletes may respond to a greater degree
when introduced to new training tactics (37).
Regarding incline treadmill running, Swanson and Caldwell
(38) reported that incline sprinting on a treadmill using intensities
and grades similar to those used in present investigation com-
pared with level-grade running at the same stride frequency led to
significantly greater: (a) extensor range of motion at the ankle,
knee, and hip; (b) average electromyographical amplitude of key
lower-body musculature during stance; and (c) average power
and energy generated during hip flexion and hip extension in the
swing phase of running, respectively. Additionally, horizontal
braking and propulsive forces associated with foot strike, stance,
and toe-off during incline treadmill running at grades of .15%
are decreased and increased, respectively, by 50 and 75% com-
pared with level-grade running (14). Combined with the alter-
ations in the kinematics and electromyographical of key
propulsive muscles during incline sprinting, this suggests that
incline running represents a particularly functional training tactic
for replicating powerful triple extension movements of the ankle,
knee, and hip while running. Moreover, this tactic may also
contribute to an enhanced ability to orient the resultant force
vector in a manner described by Morin et al. (27) that maximizes
the propulsive forces involved in acceleration and sprinting abil-
ity. Despite relatively little research into the physiological and
performance effects associated with incline treadmill training,
several investigations have reported on this training tactic in
distance runners (9–11). In these investigations, runners per-
formed 10 to 14 thirty-second bouts twice weekly for 6 weeks on
a 10% grade while running at Vmax. In well-trained distance
runners, this training led to significant improvements in Tmax
(10); however, in this same investigation, level-grade interval
training performed using Vmax and 60% Tmax (an average in-
terval of 136 seconds) as training prescriptors led to even greater
group by time results in Tmax. In another investigation, runners
using Vmax, 30 seconds and 10% grade as training prescriptors
compared with 68% Vmax, 60% Tmax (average interval of 173
seconds) and 10% grade, respectively, demonstrated significant
group by time improvements in key physiological and perfor-
mance measures, including VLT and CFMod, leading to the con-
clusion that shorter, faster SIT performed on an incline was more
effective than longer, slower incline-based interval training (9).
Interestingly, total time spent running during the shorter, faster
incline training sessions (5–7 min·session21) of each of these
investigations (9–11) was very similar to that performed by INC
in the present investigation (4–7 min·session21).
In summary, our findings show that strength and plyometric
training combined with level or incline-based SIT produced
 Combined SIT, Plyometric, and Strength Training (2020) 34:4
significant improvements in a number of measures associated
with sprinting, jumping, change of direction, strength, and an-
aerobic capacity in adolescent soccer players. Moreover, inclined-
based SIT led to even greater improvements in sprinting ability
(9.1 and 18.3 m), powerful triple extension muscle actions
(3HOP_L and 3HOP_R), change of direction (PA), glycolytic
bioenergetics (CFMod), and hip flexor strength (HF_1RM).
However, whether the improvements in these measures enhance
on-field performance remains to be determined. Furthermore, we
acknowledge limitations to this investigation, including the sub-
ject age range, a lack of reporting on biological ages of the sub-
jects, and having used both male and female players. Moreover,
although the control group in the present investigation was in-
cluded to account for the effects of physical maturation during the
study, we acknowledge that by not ensuring a matched weekly
load of sports practices between the control and experimental
groups, the strength of comparisons to the control group are
lessened. Also, although treadmill running allows greater training
precision and control over environmental factors, it may be that
overground SIT would produce different results. In addition to
these limitations, we recommend future investigations to examine
SIT using other combinations of training prescriptors. For ex-
ample, shorter, more intense, level-grade bouts or alternating
between a level-grade and incline training session each week may
be a more effective approach to SIT.
Practical Applications
Soccer at all levels is characterized by speed, acceleration,
jumping, change of direction, and aerobic and anaerobic ca-
pacity, and ever-growing numbers of players routinely par-
ticipate in off-field training programs throughout the year.
Hence, training tactics shown to significantly enhance these
measures are of great interest to players and coaches. One
particular training tactic performed by many soccer players in
off-season training is SIT, with players using both incline and
level-grade conditions. Previous investigations of incline run-
ning indicate that there may be unique metabolic, muscular, or
neuromuscular gains compared with level-grade running,
which may be of interest to players, coaches, and strength and
conditioning professionals. The results of the present in-
vestigation provide further insights into sports performance
training tactics for adolescent soccer players and indicate that
combined training tactics involving SIT, plyometrics, and
strength training can be used safely and effectively in this age
group. Specific to the SIT component of the present in-
vestigation, with increased access to commercial grade
treadmills, replicating either of the SIT protocols performed
by INC or LEV is within the capacity of many players,
coaches, and soccer organizations. Additionally, based on
several key speed and power measures that showed additional
improvements, we recommend, if logistically possible, per-
forming SIT using the INC approach in conjunction with
strength and plyometric training. Based on the findings of the
present investigation, if performing incline-based SIT, we
recommend a training session to involve a training intensity
equal to an individually determined MAS (100% Vmax) and
bout durations and treadmill grades ranging 10–30 seconds
and 5–30%, respectively, for a total of 4–6 minutes of run-
ning. Alternatively, if performing level-grade SIT, we recom-
mend a training session be consist of 30-second bouts in
combination with supramaximal aerobic speeds ranging
967
Copyright © 2020 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
| www.nsca.com
105–138% Vmax for a similar amount of total time spent
running. Furthermore, with either approach, we recommend
incorporating 2–3six-second sprint efforts using intensities of
140–165% Vmax at the end of the training session to further
enhance the neuromuscular adaptations. Finally, we encour-
age training such as this to be completed during times of the
year considered the “off-season,” traditionally, during the
winter or summer months leading up to the fall or spring
competitive seasons, respectively. However, special attention
must be given to athletes who perform SIT on treadmills, in-
cluding “spotting” them at all times and providing instruction
on proper running form and technique.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank the subjects for their effort, willingness, and
enthusiasm for participating in this study. They also greatly
appreciate the assistance of Augustana University exercise science
students Clark Vargo, Alaina Klapperich, Brooke Bleeker, and
Hunter Haman; the staff of Avera Sports; and the support of
Avera McKennan Hospital and University Health Center. The
authors of this study received no funding for this investigation
and have no conflicts of interest.
This investigation was self-funded and the authors have no
conflict of interest.
References
1. Bedoya AA, Miltenberger MR, Lopez RM. Plyometric training effects on
athletic performance in youth soccer athletes: A systematic review.
J Strength Cond Res 29: 2351–2360, 2015.
2. Billat LV. Interval training for performance: A scientific and empirical
practice. Special recommendations for middle- and long-distance running.
Part II: Anaerobic interval training. Sports Med 31: 75–90, 2001.
3. Billat VL, Slawinski J, Bocquet V, et al. Intermittent runs at the velocity
associated with maximal oxygen uptake enables subjects to remain at
maximal oxygen uptake for a longer time than intense but submaximal
runs. Eur J Appl Physiol 81: 188–196, 2000.
4. Buchheit M, Laursen PB. High-intensity interval training, solutions to the
programming puzzle. Part II: Anaerobic energy, neuromuscular load and
practical applications. Sports Med 43: 927–954, 2013.
5. Chapman AE, Caldwell GE. Kinetic limitations of maximal sprinting
speed. J Biomech 16: 79–83, 1983.
6. Chu D. Jumping into Plyometrics. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 1998.
pp. 69–74.
7. Faude O, Roth R, Di Giovine D, Zahner L, Donath L. Combined
strength and power training in high-level amateur football during the
competitive season: A randomised-controlled trial. J Sports Sci 31:
1460–1467, 2013.
8. Faude O, Schnittker R, Schulte-Zurhausen R, Muller F, Meyer T. High
intensity interval training vs. high-volume running training during pre-
season conditioning in high-level youth football: A cross-over trial.
J Sports Sci 31: 1441–1450, 2013.
9. Ferley DD, Hopper DT, Vukovich MD. Incline treadmill interval training:
Short vs. Long bouts and the effects on distance running performance. Int J
Sports Med 37: 958–965, 2016.
10. Ferley DD, Osborn RW, Vukovich MD. The effects of uphill vs. level-
grade high-intensity interval training on VO2max, Vmax, V(LT), and
Tmax in well-trained distance runners. J Strength Cond Res 27:
1549–1559, 2013.
11. Ferley DD, Osborn RW, Vukovich MD. The effects of incline and level-
grade high-intensity interval treadmill training on running economy and
muscle power in well-trained distance runners. J Strength Cond Res 28:
1298–1309, 2014.
12. Ferley DD, Vukovich MD. Predicting the intensity for performing
supramaximal incline treadmill interval training in distance runners.
J Strength Cond Res 33: 1354–1361, 2019.
13. Gonzalo-Skok O, Tous-Fajardo J, Suarez-Arrones L, et al. Single-leg
power output and between-limbs imbalances in team-sport players:
 Combined SIT, Plyometric, and Strength Training (2020) 34:4
Unilateral versus bilateral combined resistance training. Int J Sports
Physiol Perform 12: 106–114, 2017.
14. Gottschall JS, Kram R. Ground reaction forces during downhill and uphill
running. J Biomech 38: 445–452, 2005.
15. Haff GG, Triplett NT. National Strength Conditioning Association:
Essentials of Strength Training and Conditioning. Champaign, IL:
Human Kinetics, 2016. p. 396.
16. Heidt RS Jr, Sweeterman LM, Carlonas RL, Traub JA, Tekulve FX.
Avoidance of soccer injuries with preseason conditioning. Am J Sports
Med 28: 659–662, 2000.
17. Howard N, Stavrianeas S. In-season high-intensity interval training
improves conditioning in high school soccer players. Int J Exerc Sci 10:
713–720, 2017.
18. Jacobs R, Bobbert MF, van Ingen Schenau GJ. Mechanical output from
individual muscles during explosive leg extensions: The role of biarticular
muscles. J Biomech 29: 513–523, 1996.
19. Jones AM, Doust JH. A 1% treadmill grade most accurately reflects the
energetic cost of outdoor running. J Sports Sci 14: 321–327, 1996.
20. Kavaliauskas M, Kilvington R, Babraj J. Effects of in-season uphill
sprinting on physical characteristics in semi-professional soccer players.
J Sports Med Phys Fitness 57: 165–170, 2017.
21. Kobal R, Loturco I, Barroso R, et al. Effects of different combinations of
strength, power, and plyometric training on the physical performance of
elite young soccer players. J Strength Cond Res 31: 1468–1476, 2017.
22. Kotzamanidis C, Chatzopoulos D, Michailidis C, Papaiakovou G, Patikas
D. The effect of a combined high-intensity strength and speed training
program on the running and jumping ability of soccer players. J Strength
Cond Res 19: 369–375, 2005.
23. Kuipers H, Verstappen FT, Keizer HA, Geurten P, van Kranenburg G.
Variability of aerobic performance in the laboratory and its physiologic
correlates. Int J Sports Med 6: 197–201, 1985.
24. Loturco I, Kobal R, Kitamura K, et al. Mixed training methods: Effects of
combining resisted sprints or plyometrics with optimum power loads on
sprint and agility performance in professional soccer players. Front
Physiol 8: 1034, 2017.
25. Makaruk H, Czaplicki A, Sacewicz T, Sadowski J. The effects of single
versus repeated plyometrics on landing biomechanics and jumping per-
formance in men. Biol Sport 31: 9–14, 2014.
26. Mohr M, Krustrup P, Bangsbo J. Match performance of high-standard
soccer players with special reference to development of fatigue. J Sports Sci
21: 519–528, 2003.
27. Morin JB, Bourdin M, Edouard P, Peyrot N, Samozino P, Lacour JR.
Mechanical determinants of 100-m sprint running performance. Eur J
Appl Physiol 112: 3921–3930, 2012.
968
Copyright © 2020 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
28. Mujika I, Santisteban J, 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.
29. Pettersen SA, Brenn T. Activity profiles by position in youth elite soccer
players in official matches. Sports Med Int Open 3: E19–e24, 2019.
30. Prilutsky BI, Zatsiorsky VM. Tendon action of two-joint muscles:
Transfer of mechanical energy between joints during jumping, landing,
and running. J Biomech 27: 25–34, 1994.
31. Rampinini E, Sassi A, Azzalin A, et al. Physiological determinants of Yo-
Yo intermittent recovery tests in male soccer players. Eur J Appl Physiol
108: 401–409, 2010.
32. Rampinini E, Sassi A, Morelli A, et al. Repeated-sprint ability in pro-
fessional and amateur soccer players. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab 34:
1048–1054, 2009.
33. Reilly T, Reilly N, Secher P, Snell P, Williams C. Physiology of sports.
London, United Kingdom: E. & F.N. Spon, 1990. pp. 328–331.
34. Reilly T, Williams AM, Nevill A, Franks A. A multidisciplinary approach
to talent identification in soccer. J Sports Sci 18: 695–702, 2000.
35. Saez de Villarreal E, Suarez-Arrones L, Requena B, Haff GG, Ferrete C.
Effects of plyometric and sprint training on physical and technical skill
performance in adolescent soccer players. J Strength Cond Res 29:
1894–1903, 2015.
36. Stolen T, Chamari K, Castagna C, Wisloff U. Physiology of soccer: An
update. Sports Med 35: 501–536, 2005.
37. Suchomel TJ, Nimphius S, Bellon CR, Stone MH. The importance of muscular
strength: Training considerations. Sports Med 48: 765–785, 2018.
38. Swanson SC, Caldwell GE. An integrated biomechanical analysis of high
speed incline and level treadmill running. Med Sci Sports Exerc 32:
1146–1155, 2000.
39. Turner AN, Stewart PF. Strength and conditioning for soccer players.
Strength Cond J 36: 1–13, 2014.
40. van Melick N, Meddeler BM, Hoogeboom TJ, Nijhuis-van der Sanden
MWG, van Cingel REH. How to determine leg dominance: The agree-
ment between self-reported and observed performance in healthy adults.
PLoS One 12: e0189876, 2017.
41. Wisloff U, Castagna C, Helgerud J, Jones R, Hoff J. Strong correlation of
maximal squat strength with sprint performance and vertical jump height
in elite soccer players. Br J Sports Med 38: 285–288, 2004.
42. Wong PL, Chamari K, Wisloff U. Effects of 12-week on-field combined
strength and power training on physical performance among U-14 young
soccer players. J Strength Cond Res 24: 644–652, 2010.
43. Wong PL, Chaouachi A, Chamari K, Dellal A, Wisloff U. Effect of pre-
season concurrent muscular strength and high-intensity interval training
in professional soccer players. J Strength Cond Res 24: 653–660, 2010.