THE EFFECT OF SPRINTING AFTER EACH SET OF
HEAVY RESISTANCE TRAINING ON THE RUNNING
SPEED AND JUMPING PERFORMANCE OF YOUNG
BASKETBALL PLAYERS
KONSTANTINOS TSIMAHIDIS, CHRISTOS GALAZOULAS, DIMITRIOS SKOUFAS, GEORGIOS PAPAIAKOVOU,
ELENI BASSA, DIMITRIOS PATIKAS, AND CHRISTOS KOTZAMANIDIS
Laboratory of Coaching and Sport Performance, Department of Physical Education and Sport Science, Aristotle University of
Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece
ABSTRACT
Tsimahidis, K, Galazoulas, C, Skoufas, D, Papaiakovou, G,
Bassa, E, Patikas, D, and Kotzamanidis, C. The effect of
sprinting after each set of heavy resistance training on the
running speed and jumping performance of young basketball
players. J Strength Cond Res 24(8): 2102–2108, 2010—The
purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of a 10-week
heavy resistance combined with a running training program on
the strength, running speed (RS), and vertical jump perfor-
mance of young basketball players. Twenty-six junior basketball
players were equally divided in 2 groups. The control (CON)
group performed only technical preparation and the group that
followed the combined training program (CTP) performed
additionally 5 sets of 8–5 repetition maximum (RM) half squat
with 1 30-m sprint after each set. The evaluation took place
before training and after the 5th and 10th weeks of training.
Apart from the 1RM half squat test, the 10- and 30-m running
time was measured using photocells and the jump height
(squat, countermovement jump, and drop jump) was estimated
taking into account the flight time. The 1RM increased by
30.3 6 1.5% at the 10th week of training for the CTP group
(p , 0.05), whereas the CON group showed no significant
increase (1.1 6 1.6%, p . 0.05). In general, all measured
parameters showed a statistically significant increase after the
5th and 10th weeks (p , 0.05), in contrast to the CON group
(p . 0.05). This suggests that the applied CTP is beneficial for
the strength, RS, and jump height of young basketball players.
The observed adaptations in the CTP group could be attributed
Address correspondence to Kotzamanidis Christos, kotzaman@phed.
auth.gr.
24(8)/2102–2108
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Ó 2010 National Strength and Conditioning Association
the TM
2102 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
to learning factors and to a more optimal transfer of the strength
gain to running and jumping performance.
KEY WORDS strength, sprint, training, jump
INTRODUCTION
T
he concept of combined training has been initially
suggested by Verkhoshanski and Tatyan (43),
and it involves high-intensity strength and ballistic
training combined in the same session. The effec-
tiveness of a combined training is attributed to a mechanism
so-called postactivation potentiation. Regarding this mech-
anism, the twitch torque, the rate of force development, and
the ballistic performance increases, after electrical (33,35) or
voluntary activation under isometric (14,18,35) and dynamic
maximal or close to maximal contraction (11,17). On the
other hand, postactivation potentiation has no effect on the
maximal torque and the unloaded shortening velocity
(16,35).
The increased motor neuron excitability (14,42) and
augmentation in the Ca2+ kinetics and in the light myosin
chain phosphorylation (12,30) are some causes for the
existence of postactivation potentiation. Furthermore, it is
influenced by several factors, such as the muscle fiber type
(18), the performance level (17,31), the intensity (33), and
the volume (3,11) of the resistance training, the exercise
type, and the time interval between the activation and the
performance test (22).
The presence of postactivation potentiation has been
more extensively studied on jumps than sprints after a heavy
resistance stimulus. Concerning jumps, the majority of
studies verified the presence of postactivation potentiation
(11,17,22,37) although in some cases this was not very clear
(11). Regarding sprints, postactivation potentiation has been
reported during cycling (38) and running (4,29) sprints.
However, a recent study showed that a preceding heavy
resistance strength training program or a series of counter-
movement jumps did not have any effect on running speed

(RS [9]), and this was attributed to the lower applied load
volume compared with previous studies.
Running speed improves with several types of training
interventions, such as sprint training without external
resistance, towing, overspeed (7,8), and specific plyometric
(speed-bound) exercises (34). However, conflicting results
have been reported for the effect of heavy resistance strength
training on RS. There are relevant studies, which show no
effect independently of the intensity of the strength training
program (7,19,36), whereas a recent study reports a positive
effect on RS (20). The absence of adaptations on RS after
strength training has been attributed to learning factors (36),
that is, the nervous system cannot learn to control
the augmented muscle mass and strength to recruit the
appropriate motor units for the running task to increase the
RS. On the contrary, the positive effect of resistance training
on RS (20) was attributed to the strength gain per se.
After a combined training program (CTP), with sprints
after a heavy resistance strength training session, the 30-m
RS increased, whereas the 10-m RS did not change. To our
knowledge, there are no studies investigating the effect of
a CTP on RS, by performing the running trials between the
sets of the strength training program. Such a protocol design
could possibly cause a more effective transfer of the strength
gain to RS, possibly by improving all running phases and
other explosive tasks such as jumping. There is evidence that
supports this hypothesis. More specifically when jumps
were performed among the strength resistance sets, an
enhancement on jumping performance after the sets was
observed (37).
In particular for jumping, intervention programs have
a selective effect. Heavy resistance training basically increases
squat jump but not countermovement and drop jump
performance (24). Moreover, plyometric training (24,28)
and high resistance combined with plyometric training
increased all types of jumping, whereas high resistance
combined with sprint training affects squat jump only (23).
Considering maximal running performance as an intensive
stretch-shortening cycle (10,26) like drop jump, it would be
important to investigate the hypothesis if a CTP, with the
running trials performed between the resistance sets, would
affect all types of jumping performance. Moreover, according
to our knowledge, there is no study investigating the effect of
a combined resistance training program on power perfor-
mance when stretch-shortening cycle tasks, such as spring,
are performed between resistance sets.
METHODS
Experimental Approach to the Problem
This study was designed to test if a combined high resistance
training protocol with sprint trials between the sets improves
the performance of young basketball players, and more
specifically their strength level, 30-m sprint performance
(acceleration phase and maximal RS), and jumping ability
(squat, countermovement jump and drop jump). For this
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
the TM
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca-jscr.org
purpose, junior basketball players were assigned to 2 groups:
the control (CON) group that performed only technical–
tactical preparation and the CTP group that performed
additionally, for 10 weeks the CTP, consisted of a high-
intensity resistance training with maximal sprints performed
after each set of the resistance program. All participants
would be evaluated for their repetition maximum (1RM), RS
(0–10 and 0–30 m) and jump height (squat jump, counter-
movement jump, and drop jump) before the CTP group starts
training (Pre), at the fifth week of training (Post-5) and at the
end of 10-week program training (Post-10). For familiariza-
tion purposes, participants learned to perform all tests, before
the first evaluation.
Subjects
Twenty-six healthy junior basketball players volunteered to
participate in this study and were randomly assigned to either
the CON or the CTP group. All participants played in the
local junior basketball league and had no background in
resistance or plyometric training (Table 1).
The experimental procedure was performed according to
the ethic guidelines of the Aristotle University of Thessalo-
niki, Greece. All subjects were informed about the experiment
and all possible risks associated with their participation.
Before testing they filled out a medical history questionnaire
and signed the informed consent document. Their parents
were also invited before the intervention to be informed about
the study and to give their written consent as well. A physician
examined all participants and classified them to the fifth
maturation stage, according to Tanner (39).
Experimental Procedure
Both CTP and CON groups followed a preparatory training
program for 4 weeks, 3 times per week, including training
components that enhance endurance, endurance in strength,
flexibility, and coordination. This training period served as
a preparatory phase to prevent injuries (23) that could occur
because of the high intensity of the program that the CTP
group would follow. During the last week of this period, all
subjects performed all tests to be familiarized to avoid any
learning effects on their performance (9).
During the 10-week experimental period, the CON group
performed only technical and tactical preparation and did not
carry out any plyometric exercises or regular running training.
In addition to the technical and tactical training, the CTP
group performed 2 strength training sessions per week with
a 2-day interval in between. More specifically, in the first 5
weeks the CTP group carried out 5 sets of 8RM half squat, and
during the last 5 weeks, the intensity was increased to 5RM.
The resistance was adjusted every week. During the training
session of the CTP group, after each half squat set, one
maximal 30-m sprint was performed (Table 2). A resting
interval of 90 seconds was given before and after the sprint.
Only the last sprint was performed immediately after the last
weight lifting set. This was required to fulfill the experimental
conditions for another study.
VOLUME 24 | NUMBER 8 | AUGUST 2010 | 2103
 Combined Training in Young Basketball Players

TABLE 1. Age, anthropometric values, and training background of the participants.*

Groups Age (y) Body mass (kg) Height (m) Training background (y)

Combined training group (n = 13) 18.0 6 1.2 80.9 6 10.2 1.83 6 1.3 5.2 6 2.1
Control group (n = 13) 18.0 6 0.7 82.0 6 5.3 1.86 6 1.1 6.1 6 1.4

*Values are mean 6 SD.

All participants had the same coach and during the training for each subject and was constant in the subsequent testing
period followed a common technical training program, sessions.
without participation in any competitive games.
1Repetition Maximum Estimation. Before testing, participants
executed a specific warming up, including submaximal
Testing Procedures repetitions at intensities of 40–80% of their self-perceived
The tests were carried out in a sport hall, with temperature 1RM. Afterward, each participant estimated according to his
25–30°C. All subjects participated in familiarization sessions experience his 1RM. Starting 5% below the self-estimated
before their evaluation. They performed a general warming 1RM load increased gradually by 2% after each successful
up program (10 minutes cycling on a MONARKTM cycling trial. This procedure was repeated until the participants were
ergometer, Varberg, Sweden) and specific warming-up not able to execute the full range of motion for the selected
exercises. Afterward, they performed the 30-m sprint test, load. The interval between the repetitions was 5 minutes. For
the jump tests, and 1RM half squat test at 90°. the final estimation of 1RM, 3–6 trials were required. All
The half squat was performed according to previous studies testing procedures were supervised and assessed according to
(4,23). Briefly, the Smith machine was used, with adjustable the American College of Sports Medicine guidelines (2).
brackets, which forces the bar to travel over a predefined
straight and vertical path. The participants stepped under the Running Speed. As specific warm-up, the athletes executed
bar, in upright position, looking forward, and grasping firmly running trials of moderate intensity and finally 2 maximal
the bar with both hands to support its load upon their sprints with 5 minutes interval between them. The evaluation
shoulders. They were instructed to flex their knees at 90°, started 5 minutes after the end of the warming up. Intervals
with the trunk tilted slightly forward and the heels on contact included active recovery. Running speed was evaluated with
with the ground. After reaching this position, they returned 3 pairs of photocells and reflectors (TAG HeuerTM, Oberursel,
to the starting position. Knee angle was evaluated with Germany) placed at shoulders height and connected with an
a goniometer, and brackets were placed to prevent knee electronic timer. To evaluate the 0- to 10-m and 0- to 30-m
flexion above 90°. The position of the brackets was registered distances, pairs of photocells were positioned at the start, 10 m,
and 30 m. The 0- to 10-m
distance was selected as indica-
tive of the initial acceleration
TABLE 2. Experimental design of one training session for the group that followed the ability. Sprints were executed
combined training program.* from standing start position.
Verbal encouragement was
Training session
given during the maximal RS
1 First resistance set evaluation. The subjects per-
2 30-m maximal RS trial 90 s after the first resistance set formed 4 maximal trials with
3 Second resistance set 90 s after maximal RS trial a 3-minute interval between
4 30-m maximal RS trial 90 s after the second resistance set
5 Third resistance set 90 s after maximal RS trial them. The best trial was further
6 30-m maximal RS trial 90 s after the third resistance set processed.
7 Fourth resistance set 90 s after maximal RS trial
8 30-m maximal RS trial 90 s after the fourth resistance set Jumping Performance. Before
9 Fifth resistance set 90 s after maximal RS trial evaluation subjects were
10 30-m maximal RS trial immediately after the fifth resistance set. warmed up with submaximal
*RS = running speed. and a few maximal jumps of all
tested types. The following
jump types were executed: (a)
the TM

2104 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 the TM

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca-jscr.org

Squat jump: The participant started from a stationary position

with the knees flexed at 90° and jumped upward as high as
possible. (b) Countermovement jump: The participant started
from an upright standing position, performing a very fast
downward movement flexing ankles, knees, and hip and
immediately after jumping up off the ground. (c) Drop jump:
The participant jumped from a 40-cm high bench and
performed a maximal jump immediately after landing on the
floor.
All jumps were performed barefoot, with the hands placed
on the hips. The instructions were to jump as high as possible.
Jump height was evaluated with the ErgoJumpTM Boscosys-
tem apparatus (Jyvaskyla, Finland).
Statistical Analyses
Means and SEs of all dependent variables are presented. All
dependent variables were analyzed using a 2-way analysis of
Figure 1. Evolution of 1RM by group (CTP: combined training program
variance (ANOVA) 2 3 3 statistical model consisted of the group [n = 13], CON: control group [n = 13]) and time of measure (Pre:
factor GROUP (2 levels: CTP and CON groups) and the before, Post-5, and Post-10: during the 5th and 10th weeks of training).
repeated-measures factor TIME (3 levels: Pre, Post-5, and Horizontal arrows indicate significant differences between measurements
for the CTP group and asterisks (*) mark differences between groups for
Post-10 weeks of training). Pairwise comparisons were each measurement (p , 0.05).
assessed with post hoc tests. The level of significance was
set at p # 0.05. Test–retest measurements were assessed
during familiarization and the intraclass correlation co-
efficient (ICC) for all dependent variables was calculated. training period; nevertheless, the measurements 5 and 10
weeks after training showed that the CTP group had
RESULTS significantly lower sprint times compared to the CON group
Results for Repetition Maximum (Figure 2). The subjects of the CON group did not
The ICC between the trials was r = 0.94. The 2-way ANOVA differentiate their performance between measurements. This
revealed a significant interaction effect (F(2,48) = 226.7, p , was not the case with the subjects of CTP group that
0.01). There was no significant difference between groups for performed better after 5 and 10 weeks of training compared
the measurement before the training onset. During the Post-5 to the pretraining values.
and Post-10 measurement, the CTP group performed Regarding the performance for the 0- to 30-m distance, the
significantly better than the CON group (Figure 1). The 2-way ANOVA showed a similar to 0- to 10-m distance
CON group showed no significant difference between the 3 magnitude of interaction effect (F(2,48) = 10.8, p , 0.01).
measurements along time. The subjects included in the CTP Pairwise post hoc comparisons revealed significant difference
group increased their RM sig-
nificantly after the fifth week
compared to the pretraining
values. Further statistically sig-
nificant increase was observed
after 5 weeks of additional
training.
0- to 10-m and 0- to 30-m
Sprint Times
The ICCs between the trials for
0–10 and 0–30 m were 0.90 and
0.93, respectively.
Regarding the initial phase of
speed (0–10 m), a significant
interaction effect was shown
(F(2,48) = 8.47, p , 0.01). Post Figure 2. Ten and 30-m sprint times by group (CTP: combined training program group [n = 13], CON: control
group [n = 13]) and time of measure (Pre: before, Post-5, and Post-10: during the fifth and 10th weeks of training).
hoc analysis revealed no signif- Horizontal arrows indicate significant differences between measurements for the CTP group and asterisks (*) mark
icant difference between differences between groups for each measurement (p , 0.05).
groups before the onset of the

VOLUME 24 | NUMBER 8 | AUGUST 2010 | 2105

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Combined Training in Young Basketball Players
Figure 3. Squat jump, countermovement jump and drop jump by group (CTP: combined training program group [n = 13], CON: control group [n = 13]) and time
of measure (Pre: before, Post-5, and Post-10: during the 5th and 10th weeks of training). Horizontal arrows indicate significant differences between
measurements for the CTP group and asterisks (*) mark differences between groups for each measurement (p , 0.05).
between the groups after training (Post-5 and Post-10), and
this was not the case before training (Pre, Figure 2). No
significant difference was observed between measurements of
the CON group. The CTP group performed better after 5 and
10 weeks of training compared to the pretraining values and
this difference was statistically significant. Furthermore,
differences were significant between the 5th and 10th weeks
of training for the CTP group.
Jump Height
The ICC between the trials for squat, countermovement, and
drop jump was 0.94, 0.96, and 0.94, respectively. Results
showed by all jump measures significant interactions between
group and time of measure. Specifically, the F(2,48) values for
squat, countermovement jump, and drop jump were 14.3,
23.4, and 35.2, respectively.
Regarding squat jump, analysis showed no significant
difference between groups in the first test. On the contrary,
between the 5th and 10th weeks of training the trained group
performed significantly better than the CON group (Figure 3).
Between measurements, there was no significant difference
in the CON group. The subjects of the CTP group performed
significantly better after 5 and 10 weeks of training compared
to the pretraining values. The difference between the 5th and
10th week squat jump performance was significant as well.
Similar results to the squat jump were presented for the
countermovement and drop jumps as well (Figure 3).
DISCUSSION
The results obtained indicate that the 10-week strength
training program combined with running sprint trials
between the sets of the strength training had a positive effect
on the performance of the young basketball players.
the
2106 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Specifically, it caused an increase in their half squat RM, in
RS and in jumping performance. The training effect for the
CTP group reached the significance level already during the
fifth week. No changes were observed in the CON group.
The behavior of the CTP group indicates that the applied
training protocol can increase the strength even within 5
weeks. Generally speaking, the strength can increase even
after 1 week of resistance training and such adaptations are
attributed purely to neuronal factors (6). However, the results
obtained after the 5 and 10 weeks could be attributed to both
neuronal and muscular factors (15), but it was beyond our
scope to further analyze which factor contributed more and
to what extent.
The effect of combined strength training programs on RS
has been also previously documented (23). The effectiveness
of such a program was attributed to postactivation
potentiation because the RS program was performed 10
minutes after the strength program. However, in the
mentioned study, RS increased for the 0–30 m and not
for the 0- to 10-m sprint distance. In the present study,
improvement in 0- to 10-m distance was evident as well. One
possible explanation for this is that a more direct transfer of
the strength gain to RS could occur when sprints are
performed after each strength training set. This assumption
could be supported by the concept that strength gain per se
cannot be transferred to RS (36). Another explanation could
be a possible facilitation on RS that occurs because of the
postactivation potentiation effect after each set. Fatigue and
facilitation coexist during training (32), and in our case, the
facilitation could be caused by postactivation potentiation. It
has been documented that RS is not affected immediately
after a complete a heavy resistance strength training set
because of fatigue, but it is facilitated 5 minutes after (4).
TM

Although there is no information for the effect of the
postactivation potentiation on RS using intervals between
0 and 5 minutes, it seems that the 3-minute interval after
resistance set of the present study could be possibly
appropriate for postactivation potentiation on RS. This
could be supported by the half resynthesis time for
phosphocreatine that is approximately 30 seconds (40).
Nonetheless, further studies are required to determine the
optimal rest interval.
Concerning jumps, studies related to the effect of training
on jumping performance have shown that strength training
mainly increases squat jump height (24,25), whereas
plyometrics (24,28) and resistance training programs com-
bined with jumps, improves all types of jumping (13,41). An
explanation for these differences is that pure resistance
training increases the tendon stiffness, whereas plyometrics
increase the overall joint stiffness (24). A combined training
including resistance and jumping exercises affected the joint
stiffness and improved all types of jumping as well (41).
Recent studies (21,24,27,28,41) support the previously
mentioned results, reporting that the optimal effect of
a stretch-shortening cycle such as countermovement and
drop jumps depends mainly on the active stiffness (part of
joint stiffness), which contributes to a more effective the
transfer of the stored elastic energy. The applied CTP in the
present study merges strength and stretch-shortening cycle
performance, as it happens in conventional combined
programs with weights and plyometric jumps. This concept
is based on the fact that sprint is actually a continuous, very
intense stretch-shortening cycle, which requires high muscle
activation, even higher than maximal isometric contractions
(10,26). This could give another explanation for the
improvement in jump height in the present study.
In another heavy resistance strength training combined
with sprints, only the squat jump height increased (23). The
difference in effectiveness compared to the present study
could be attributed to the different applied training protocols.
Specifically in the current study, the sprints were performed
immediately after the resistance sets and not at the end of the
strength training session. It seems that the current applied
protocol is more favorable for transfer in strength gain on RS;
however, more studies with direct comparisons between the
training protocols are required for a clear conclusion.
The effect of the present CTP appeared after 5 weeks.
Relevant studies have reported that a period of 4–6 weeks
(1,44) is required for jumping enhancement after plyometric
training, whereas the respective period for RS after sprint
training is 5 weeks (5). From this point of view, it seems that
the applied combined program was sufficient to cause the
adequate adaptations on both RS and jumping performance
within the first 5 weeks of its application.
PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS
The results of this study support that high resistance half squat
training combined with running sprints between the sets can
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
the TM
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca-jscr.org
enhance half squat RM, 10- to 30-m RS, and all types of jumps
in young male basketball players with no former experience in
resistance or plyometric training. Coaches using such training
programs in young basketball players may expect adaptations
that affect positively both strength and power in a relative
short period of 5 weeks. This is important to know for the
training planning and especially when the preparation period
is short. Further studies may clarify if such adaptations are
present in high-level performance athletes as well, and if the
suggested training protocol is superior in comparison to
others.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to thank all players for their decision
to participate in this study.
REFERENCES
1. Adams, K, O’shea, L, and Climstein, M. The effect of six weeks of
squat, plyometrics and squat -plyometric training on power
production. J Appl Sport Sci Res 6: 36–41, 1992.
2. American College of Sports Medicine (ACSMS). Guidelines for
Exercise Testing and Prescription (6th ed.). Baltimore, MD: Williams &
Wilkins, 2000.
3. Behm, DG, Button, DC, Barbour, G, But, JC, and Young, WB.
Conflicting effects of fatigue and potentiation on voluntary force.
J Strength Cond Res 18: 365–372, 2004.
4. Chatzopoulos, DE, Michailidis, CJ, Giannakos, AK, Alexiou, KC,
Patikas, DA, Antonopoulos, CB, and Kotzamanidis, CM. Post-
activation potentiation effects after heavy resistance exercise on
running speed. J Strength Cond Res 21: 1278–1281, 2007.
5. Dawnson, B, Fitzsimons, M, and Green, S. Changes in performance,
muscle metabolites, enzymes and fibre types after short sprint
training. Eur J Appl Physiol 78: 163–169, 1998.
6. Del Balso, C and Cafarelli, E. Adaptations in the activation of human
skeletal muscle induced by short-term isometric resistance training.
J Appl Physiol 103: 402–411, 2007.
7. Delecluse, C. Influence of strength training on sprint running
performance: 14 Current findings and implications for training.
Spots Med 24: 147–156, 1997.
8. Delecluse, C, Vanoppeolle, H, Willems, E, Leemputte, M, Diel, R,
and Goris, M. Influence of high-resistance and high velocity training
on sprint performance. Med Sci Sports Exerc 8: 1203–1209, 1995.
9. Deutsch, M and Rhodri, L. The effect of order of exercise on
performance during a complex training session in rugby players.
J Sports Sci 26: 803–809, 2008.
10. Dietz, V, Schmidtbleicher, D, and Noth, J. Neuronal mechanisms of
human locomotion. J Neurophysiol 42: 1212–1222, 1979.
11. Doherty, D, Robbins, D, and Hodgson, M. Complex training
revisited: A review of its current status as a viable training approach.
J Strength Cond Res 26: 52–57, 2004.
12. Duchateau, J and Hainaut, K. Nonlinear summation of contractions
in striated muscle II Potentiation of intracellular Ca2+ movements in
single barnacle muscle fibers. J Muscle Res Cell Motil 7: 18–24, 1986.
13. Fatouros, I, Jamourtas, A, Leontisini, D, Taxildaris, K, Ageloysis, G,
Kostopoylos, N, and Buckenmeyer, P. Evaluation of plyometric
exercise training, weight training and their combination on vertical
jumping performance and leg strength. J Strength Cond Res 14: 470–
476, 2000.
14. Folland, JP, Wakamatsu, T, and Fimland, MS. The influence of
maximal isometric activity on twitch and H-reflex potentiation, and
quadriceps femoris performance. Eur J Appl Physiol 104: 739–748,
2008.
VOLUME 24 | NUMBER 8 | AUGUST 2010 | 2107
 Combined Training in Young Basketball Players
15. Folland, JP and Williams, AG. The adaptations to strength training
morphological and neurological contributions to increased strength.
Sports Med 37: 145–168, 2007.
16. Gossen, R and Sale, D. Effect of postactivation potentiation on
dynamic knee extension performance. Eur J Appl Physiol 83: 524–
530, 2000.
17. Gourgoulis, V, Aggelousis, N, Kasimatis, P, Mavromatis, G, and
Garas, A. Effect of the submaximal half-squats warm-up program on
vertical jumping ability. J Strength Cond Res 17: 342–344, 2003.
18. Hamada, T, Sale, DG, Macdougall, JD, and Tarnopolsky, MA.
Postactivation potentiation, fiber type, and twitch contraction time
in human knee extensor muscles. J Appl Physiol 88: 2131–2137, 2000.
19. Harris, G, Stone, H, O’ Bryant, M, Proulx, MC, and Johnson, R. Short
term performance effects of high power, high force, or combined
weight-training methods. J Strength Cond Res 14: 14–20, 2000.
20. Harris, NK, Cronin, JB, Hopkins, WG, and Hansen, KT. Squat jump
training at maximal power loads vs. heavy loads: Effect on sprint
ability. J Strength Cond Res 22: 1742–1749, 2008.
21. Hoffren, M, Ishikawa, M, and Komi, PV. Age related neuromuscular
function during drop jumps. J Appl Physiol 103: 1276–1283, 2007.
22. Jensen, LR and Ebben, PW. Kinetic analysis of complex training rest
interval effect on vertical Jump performance. J Strength Cond Res
172: 345–349, 2003.
23. Kotzamanidis, C, Chatzopoulos, D, Michailidis, C, Papaiakovou, G,
and Patikas, D. The effect of combined high resistance training and
speed training on the running velocity and jumping ability of soccer
players. J Strength Cond Res 19: 369–375, 2005.
24. Kubo, K, Morimoto, M, Komuro, T, Yata, H, Tsunoda, N, Kanehisa, H,
and Fukunaga, T. Effects of plyometric and weight training on muscle–
tendon complex and jump performance. Med Sci Sports Exerc 39:
1801–1810, 2007.
25. Kubo, K, Yata, H, Kanehisa, H, and Fukunaga, T. Effects of isometric
squat training on the tendon stiffness and jump performance. Eur J
Appl Physiol 96: 305–314, 2006.
26. Kyrolainen, H, Avela, J, and Komi, P. Changes in muscle activity with
increasing running speed. J Sports Sci 23: 1101–1109, 2005.
27. Liu, Y, Peng, C, Wei, S, Chi, J, Tsai, F, and Chen, J. Active leg stiffness
and energy stored in the muscles during maximal counter movement
jump in the aged. J Electrom Kinesiol 16: 342–351, 2006.
28. Markovic, G. Does plyometric training improve vertical jump
height? A meta-analytical review. Sports Med 41: 349–355, 2007.
29. McBride, J, Nimphius, S, and Erickson, T. The acute effects of heavy
load squats and loaded countermovement jumps on sprint
performance. J Strength Cond Res 19: 893–897, 2005.
the TM
2108 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
30. Metzger, JM, Greaser, M, and Moss, RL. Variations in cross-bridge
attachment rate and tension with phosphorylation of myosin in
mammalian skinned skeletal muscle fibers. Implications for
twitch potentiation in intact muscle. J Gen Physiol 93: 855–883,
1989.
31. Pääsuke, M, Saapar, L, Ereline, J, Gapeyeva, H, Requena, B, and
Oöpik, V. Postactivation potentiation of knee extensor muscles in
power - and endurance - trained, and untrained women. Eur J Appl
Physiol 101: 577–585, 2007.
32. Rassier, DE. The effects of length on fatigue and twitch potentiation
in human skeletal muscle. Clin Physiol 20: 474–482, 2000.
33. Requena, B, Gapeyeva, H, Garcı́a, I, Ereline, J, and Pääsuke, M.
Twitch potentiation after voluntary versus electrically induced
isometric contractions in human knee extensor muscles. Eur J Appl
Physiol 104: 463–472, 2008.
34. Rimmer, E and Sleivert, G. Effects of a plyometrics program on
sprint performance. J Strength Cond Res 3: 295-301, 2000.
35. Sale, DG. Postactivation potentiation: Role in human performance.
Exerc Sport Sci Rev 30: 138–143, 2002.
36. Sleivert, GG, Backus, RD, and Wenger, HA. The influence of
strength-sprint training sequence on multi-joint power output.
Med Sci Sports Exerc 27: 55-65, 1995.
37. Smilios, I, Pilianidis, T, Sotiropoulos, K, Antonakis, M, and
Tokmakidis, S. Short-term effects of selected exercise and load in
contrast training on vertical jump performance. J Strength Cond Res
19: 135–139, 2005.
38. Smith, C, Fry, C, Weiss, W, Yuhua, L, and Stephen, JK. The effects of
high-intensity exercise on a 10-second sprint cycle test. J Strength
Cond Res 15: 344–348, 2001.
39. Tanner, JM. Growth at Adolescence. Oxford: Blackwell Scientific
Publications, 1962.
40. Taylor, DJ, Kemp, GJ, Thompson, CH, and Radda, GK. Ageing:
Effects on oxidative function of skeletal muscle in vivo. Mol Cell
Biochem 174: 321–324, 1997.
41. Toumi, H, Best, TM, Martin, A, and Poumarat, G. Muscle plasticity
after weight and combined (weight + jump) training. Med Sci Sports
Exerc 36: 1580–1588, 2004.
42. Trimble, MH and Harp, SS. Post-exercise potentiation of the H-
reflex in humans. Med Sci Sports Exerc 36: 993–941, 1998.
43. Verkhoshanski, T and Tatyan, V. Speed-strength preparation of
future champions. Sov Sports Rev 18: 166–170, 1983.
44. Young, WB, Wilson, GJ, and Byrne, C. A comparison of drop
jump training methods: Effects of leg extensors strength qualities
and jumping performance. Int J Sports Med 20: 295–303, 1999.