Back

Progressive plyometric training improves jumping performance and reduces force-velocity imbalance in collegiate volleyball players

Wu, H.; Xi, X.; Li, J.

2026-07-30 physiology
10.64898/2026.07.22.740194 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Few studies have focused on plyometric interventions lasting over 24 weeks in team-sport athletes, and little research has validated the practical utility of personalized force-velocity assessment. A total of 36 university volleyball athletes (21.35{+/-}1.87 years) were randomly allocated into either a 32-week plyometric training group (PT, n=18) or a low-intensity active control group (CON, n=18); 34 players completed the trial (17 per group). PT completed three weekly training sessions, while CON maintained routine technical practice and general low-intensity conditioning. CMJ height, RSImod, and force-velocity profiles (F, V, peak power, FV imbalance) were evaluated at baseline and at weeks 8, 16, 24, and 32. PT increased CMJ height from 33.1{+/-}4.8 cm to 38.4{+/-}5.2 cm, a net gain of 5.3 cm (p<0.01, d=0.99, 95% CI [0.57, 1.41]); CON showed negligible change (+0.5 cm, p=0.68). The PT group also improved RSImod by 31.6% (d=0.87, 95% CI [0.45, 1.29], p<0.01) and peak power by 18.4% (d=0.76, 95% CI [0.35, 1.17], p=0.004). Meanwhile, FV imbalance dropped markedly by 31.4%, from 28.3% to 19.4% (d=-0.68, 95% CI [-1.09, -0.27], p=0.024). No significant F-V changes occurred in CON. The reduction in FV imbalance correlated moderately with CMJ gain (r= - 0.53, p=0.024), whereas the change in peak power did not (r=0.21, p=0.39). Overall, 32 weeks of periodized plyometric training enhanced jump performance, reactive strength, and power, and reduced the force-velocity (FV) imbalance by approximately 31%. The magnitude of improvements in jump performance (16%) and FV imbalance reduction (31%) observed in this 32-week periodized program fall within a similar range to previously reported effects of individualized F-V training (14% and 40%, respectively). However, direct numerical comparisons are confounded by differences in study design, population, and methodology; head-to-head trials are needed.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.