Plyometrics appear to improve jumping and sprinting in female team-sport athletes

A review focused on adult female athletes

The review includes 609 healthy female participants from team sports. Eligible studies had to include a comparator group and a plyometric jump programme lasting at least two weeks. Of the 31 articles included, 25 contributed to the meta-analyses.

The researchers examined physical fitness tests, jump performance and certain movement characteristics. However, the available abstract does not detail the control groups’ activities. It therefore does not establish, for each outcome, what plyometrics offer compared with another training method.

Improvements across several physical tests

Compared with controls, the analyses show improvements in countermovement jump height, peak velocity during its propulsive phase and several drop-jump measures. Gains also appear in 10-, 20- and 30-metre sprints, as well as in the Illinois and T change-of-direction tests.

For countermovement jump height, the reported standardised effect size is 0.550. This figure makes comparisons between studies easier, but it represents neither a percentage improvement nor a number of centimetres gained. The abstract does not provide the absolute gains needed to translate these findings into individual targets.

These measurements come from physical tests. They do not directly demonstrate improved match performance.

Longer programmes appear favourable, without establishing an optimal threshold

Subgroup analyses favour interventions lasting more than six weeks for certain outcomes: the drop-jump reactive strength index, the 10-metre sprint and the Illinois test. The authors particularly highlight the results of interventions lasting at least eight weeks.

This comparison is not enough to establish a minimum effective duration or an optimal programme. The studies differ in their participants and training methods, and the findings are not consistent across all measures.

Safety remains insufficiently documented

Two studies report that three participants may have been injured during plyometric training. This information neither allows these injuries to be attributed to the jumps with certainty nor provides a robust estimate of their frequency.

Most studies have a moderate risk of bias according to the authors’ assessment. Heterogeneity also varies across analyses, limiting confidence in the exact magnitude of the benefits.

What we can take away

Plyometrics appear useful for improving several jumping and speed test results in adult female team-sport athletes. However, this review demonstrates neither a benefit in matches, nor an optimal training programme, nor a precisely quantified injury risk.