Abstract
Objective: The aim of this study was to compare the effects of 6-week cluster versus traditional plyometric training sets on jumping ability, sprint and agility performance.
Materials and methods: Thirteen college students were assigned to a cluster sets group (N = 6) or traditional sets group (N = 7). Both training groups completed the same training program. The traditional group completed five sets of 20 repetitions with 2 min of rest between sets each session, while the cluster group completed five sets of 20 [2 × 10] repetitions with 30/90- s rest each session. Subjects were evaluated for countermovement jump (CMJ), standing long jump (SLJ), t test, 20-m and 40-m sprint test performance before and after the intervention. Results: Both groups had similar improvements (P < 0.05) in CMJ, SLJ, t test, 20-m, and 40-m sprint. However, the magnitude of improvement in CMJ, SLJ and t test was greater for the cluster group (effect size [ES] = 1.24, 0.81 and 1.38, respectively) compared to the traditional group (ES = 0.84, 0.60 and 0.55). Conversely, the magnitude of improvement in 20-m and 40- m sprint test was greater for the traditional group (ES = 1.59 and 0.96, respectively) compared to the cluster group (ES = 0.94 and 0.75, respectively).
Conclusions: Although both plyometric training methods improved lower body maximal- intensity exercise performance, the traditional sets methods resulted in greater adaptations in sprint performance, while the cluster sets method resulted in greater jump and agility adaptations.
Materials and methods: Thirteen college students were assigned to a cluster sets group (N = 6) or traditional sets group (N = 7). Both training groups completed the same training program. The traditional group completed five sets of 20 repetitions with 2 min of rest between sets each session, while the cluster group completed five sets of 20 [2 × 10] repetitions with 30/90- s rest each session. Subjects were evaluated for countermovement jump (CMJ), standing long jump (SLJ), t test, 20-m and 40-m sprint test performance before and after the intervention. Results: Both groups had similar improvements (P < 0.05) in CMJ, SLJ, t test, 20-m, and 40-m sprint. However, the magnitude of improvement in CMJ, SLJ and t test was greater for the cluster group (effect size [ES] = 1.24, 0.81 and 1.38, respectively) compared to the traditional group (ES = 0.84, 0.60 and 0.55). Conversely, the magnitude of improvement in 20-m and 40- m sprint test was greater for the traditional group (ES = 1.59 and 0.96, respectively) compared to the cluster group (ES = 0.94 and 0.75, respectively).
Conclusions: Although both plyometric training methods improved lower body maximal- intensity exercise performance, the traditional sets methods resulted in greater adaptations in sprint performance, while the cluster sets method resulted in greater jump and agility adaptations.