How to Programme Plyometrics for Explosive Performance

Plyometric training isn't short of exercises. The difficult part is knowing which exercise, for which athlete, and when to use them...

In this article we will pick apart the overall view of how we as athletes and coaches look at using plyometrics for sports performance. 

Why Plyometric Exercise Selection Matters

The dominance of social media has provided a digital library of "How-To’s" and "Top 10’s" that includes a mix of jump exercises, of varying intensities, physiological demands, capacities and injection points. 

But the problem isn’t that we don't have enough exercises. 

It’s in knowing which exercise to use, why they are being used, when to know if the athlete is ready for it, and how to progress from it.

With the initial idea of plyometrics being grouped within the idea that they belong under one umbrella label athletes and coaches can have exercises considered to have the same adaptation and stimulus.

This is where quite a bit of confusion begins, especially when we hear legacy terms that have become buzzwords like the “stretch shortening cycle” being used as broad terms when various jump based movements are grouped together agnostic of how force is being applied, how log the ground contact is, or the adaptation that is attempting to be achieved.

A countermovement jump, hurdle hops, bounds, and a depth drop jump may all be the fabled stretch shortening cycle, but this doesn't mean they all provide the same stimulus or should be used for the same adaptation demands.

When we look at the research Dello lacono et al. which highlighted during a study of Elite handball players comparing a focus group testing vertically based jump movements vs horizontally based jump movements, when there was a change in the directional orientation of drop jump movements, the adaptation was also changed. With the horizontal movement being the catalyst for indications of improvements in sprinting and change of direction.

While the vertically orientated jump movements showed greater improvements in counter movement jumps. This demonstrates that the direction of force application can bias the overall adaptation for the athlete given the plyometric movement.

This uncovers a unique but important starting point

Plyometrics used in performance output is not simply about choosing a type of jump or landing, but choosing the stimulus for the adaptation we are aiming for.

To choose the initial stimulus in an efficient way athletes and coaches should aim to understand 4 things.

Bringing about a confusion on how we assess, plan, and progress plyometrics given the overall ….

How to Programme Plyometrics:

The 4 Keys to Transfer

---

1. Direction of Force in plyometric programming

Irrespective of sport but the consideration of the adaptation, when we are talking about directional force application, what are we thinking about?

• Vertical

• Horizontal

• Lateral 

With the inclusion of multidirectional movement 

Understanding this is key because it can influence qualities that we are aiming to transfer to 

If your goal is improving acceleration, prescribing or doing a movement that orientates the centre of mass vertically can provide an unintended change in stimulus to one that teaches the athlete to project horizontally governing the qualities of acceleration. This does not leave the vertical force displacement useless by any means but it can confuse the exercise selection with the performance quality we want to target.

We’re not saying that vertical bias plyometric movements have no transfer to sprinting

What we’re indicating is that the plyometric selection should ideally be predominantly biased towards the mechanical demands of the overall quality we are trying to affect, in this case horizontal hip displacement.

What Does the Research Say About Force Direction?

Dello Iacono et al., 2017; Loturco et al., 2015 and Loturco et al. both highlight how force direction influences adaptation when programming plyometrics. 

---

2. Ground Contact Time and Stretch-Shortening Cycle Behaviour

   
   

Now we move on to this question 

How much time does the athlete have to produce force?

In this instance we will be able to look at how similar looking plyometric exercises can have different adaptations.

When we look at the depth drop jump 

Long vs Short Ground Contact Times

Athlete A:

Drops from a height that is above knee height, with the aim of orienting themselves to prepare to jump as high as possible, if the height of the box causes the athletes to struggle with the forces that challenge the vertical counter movement jump the athlete will spend a longer time on the ground in order to oppose the downward forces.

Athlete B:

Drops from a mid shin height box with the same intention of landing and jumping as high as possible.

The key difference is the time Athlete B spends on the ground could be shorter/more reactive than Athlete A. 

Is this good, or bad?.. It depends on the desired adaptation force production or reactivity.

If we are aiming for reactive strength and the capacity to rapidly absorb and redirect forces this is influenced by the shorter time of amortisation from landing to jumping, so if the adaptation the athlete is aiming for is to create and develop reactive movement, the lower height may be more inline with this for Athlete B given that it allows Athlete B to have a short ground contact while having an effective rebound height.

What Does the Research Say About Ground Contact Time?

Depth jump: long contact vs short contact rebound (side-by-side stills) 

Hennessy and Kilty found a strong relationship between bounce-drop-jump performance and 30 m and 100 m sprint performance in trained female sprinters, highlighting the potential importance of reactive SSC qualities to sprint performance. This does not mean improving the drop jump improve sprint performance like for like.

This is also where we need some nuance.

The traditional classification often divides stretch-shortening-cycle actions into approximately fast (<250 ms) and slow (>250 ms) contacts. However, more recent research has questioned whether a single ground-contact-time threshold adequately describes the complexity of SSC behaviour.

So instead of simply asking:

"Is this a fast or slow plyometric?"

I prefer asking:

"Does the athlete have the amount of time to produce force here that matches the quality we're trying to develop?"

---

3. Movement Pattern and Force Application

Now we need to look at how force is being applied by the athlete determining how to program plyometrics

Are they:

• Jumping/landing from/with two legs (Bilaterally) 

• Jumping/landing from/with one leg (Unilaterally)

• Intending to produce one maximal effort 

• Intending to produce multiple contacts 

• Moving forward 

• Moving laterally 

• Varying their centre of mass in multiple directions 

It all matters in the assessment for progression or regression and transfer

Unilateral vs Bilateral Plyometric Demands

When we look at the bilateral and unilateral jumps onto a box, both being explosive movements, however the demands on coordination and stability differ and even if the intention is the same the movement pattern and force application strategies have an impact on the goal for the athlete.

Unilateral bound vs bilateral jump comparison (technique breakdown frames) 

When Gonzalo-Skok et al. (2019) compared horizontal unilateral and vertical-bilateral plyometric approaches in elite youth basketball players and demonstrated that manipulating the direction and method of force application supports the influence of performance adaptations when specificity is involved in exercise selection.

This is where the understanding of the specific adaptation of the movement for the specific athlete's goal, both at a micro and macro level becomes more useful to performance transfer, than just what is popular. 

So your question dear coach/athlete should stop being “What is the best plyometric?” 

It should really be

“What movement problem/deficiency am I trying to resolve?”

---

4. Athlete readiness, intensity & progression

   
   

We need to consider the athlete's profile and disposition 

It’s very possible to have the “perfect” plyometric exercise that provides the exact adaptation goal, but the given stimulus is incorrect for that athlete based on their profile.

What Should an Athlete Be Able to Tolerate?

When we are looking at determining the type of plyometric prescription before we start, we need to consider if the athlete can:

• Tolerate the landing forces by maintaining key positions

• Control braking forces 

• Maintain the intended ground contact strategy

• Repeat the contacts without losing significant positioning in quality of movement 

Because something as small as a difference of 10 inches a on a box or distance to over  can change the demands of a movement and ground contact. 

 Progressing Reactive and Eccentric Demand

NOTE: This is an example progression rather than a fixed hierarchy. Exercise intensity depends on variables including height, speed, direction, contact strategy, unilateral/bilateral execution and athlete capacity.

Drop height / RSI individualisation research

Research comparing different drop-jump heights, and work individualising drop height through reactive-strength measures, shows why simply prescribing the same box height to every athlete is difficult to justify. 

And this is ultimately the problem the Plyometric Toolkit was created to solve.

How the Plyometric Toolkit Applies the Framework

Not to give athletes another database of jumps.

But to create a decision-making system that helps athletes and coaches determine:

• What should I use?

• Why am I using it?

• Is the athlete ready for it?

• And what should come next?

Get the Toolkit - £29.99

---

References

Dello Iacono, A., Martone, D., Milic, M., & Padulo, J. (2017). Vertical- vs. horizontal-oriented drop jump training: Chronic effects on explosive performances of elite handball players. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 31(4), 921–931. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000001555

Gonzalo-Skok, O., Sánchez-Sabaté, J., Izquierdo-Lupón, L., & Sáez de Villarreal, E. (2019). Influence of force-vector and force application plyometric training in young elite basketball players. European Journal of Sport Science, 19(3), 305–314. https://doi.org/10.1080/17461391.2018.1502357

Hennessy, L., & Kilty, J. (2001). Relationship of the stretch-shortening cycle to sprint performance in trained female athletes. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 15(3), 326–331. https://doi.org/10.1519/00124278-200108000-00011

Jeffreys, M. A., De Ste Croix, M. B. A., Lloyd, R. S., Oliver, J. L., & Hughes, J. D. (2019). The effect of varying plyometric volume on stretch-shortening cycle capability in collegiate male rugby players. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 33(1), 139–145. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000001907

Loturco, I., Pereira, L. A., Kobal, R., Zanetti, V., Kitamura, K., Abad, C. C. C., & Nakamura, F. Y. (2015). Transference effect of vertical and horizontal plyometrics on sprint performance of high-level U-20 soccer players. Journal of Sports Sciences, 33(20), 2182–2191. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2015.1081394

Ramirez-Campillo, R., Alvarez, C., García-Pinillos, F., Sanchez-Sanchez, J., Yanci, J., Castillo, D., Loturco, I., Chaabene, H., Moran, J., & Izquierdo, M. (2018). Optimal reactive strength index: Is it an accurate variable to optimize plyometric training effects on measures of physical fitness in young soccer players? Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 32(4), 885–893. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000002467