Printer Friendly

Effects of plyometric training versus traditional weight training on strength, power, and aesthetic jumping ability in female collegiate dancers.

Abstract

While the benefits of traditional strength training for dancers has been examined, no such investigation has been performed for plyometric training. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to compare the effects of plyometric training and traditional weight training on aesthetic jumping ability, lower-body strength, and power in collegiate dancers. Eighteen female dancers who were enrolled in a minimum of one intermediate or advanced ballet or modern class at Skidmore College volunteered to participate in the study. Twelve subjects were randomly assigned to a plyometric (n = 6) or traditional weight training (n = 6) group. The remaining six subjects served as a self-selected control group. The plyometric group performed 3 sets of 8 repetitions of 4 different lower-body plyometric exercises twice a week. The weight training group performed 3 sets of 6 to 8 repetitions of 4 lower-body isotonic exercises twice a week. The control group refrained from all forms of strength training. Each subject maintained her normal dance classes throughout the six week intervention. All subjects were tested prior to and following the six-week training period. Testing consisted of assessments of jumping skill and lower-body strength and power. Strength was assessed via 3 one-repetition maximum tests: leg press, leg curl, and leg extension. Power was assessed with a Wingate anaerobic power test and vertical jump height tests. Aesthetic jumping ability was assessed via an evaluation by dance faculty at Skidmore College on ballon, jump height, ability to point the feet in the air, and overall jumping ability. There were no differences in the descriptive measures of jumping ability, strength or power among the groups at the start of the study. The plyometric group significantly increased leg press strength (37%), standing vertical jump height (8.3%), and aesthetic jump height (14%). The weight training group significantly increased leg press strength (32%), leg curl strength (23%), mean anaerobic power (6%), aesthetic jump height (22%), and aesthetic ability to point the feet in the air (20%). No significant changes were seen in the control group. The results of this study indicate that either plyometric training or traditional lower-body weight training can be useful in improving variables applicable to dance. This study also supports the notion that short-term dance training alone may not be sufficient to elicit improvements in these variables.

**********

Dance is an artistic discipline, yet one that requires extreme physical fitness of its participants. Along with the technical demands of the art, dancers must be flexible, strong, lean, and powerful. While dance training is focused on the development of technique, its explicit objective is rarely to improve the athletic components of dance. Various studies have examined the normative abilities of dancers and compared them to those of other athletes, (1-4) and have concluded that dancers are not as fit as they ought to be given the demands placed upon them. It has been suggested that this may render dancers more prone to injury, (5,6) and it may hinder their ability to perform to maximum potential. For these reasons, it is necessary to gain better understanding of the effect of supplemental training for dancers.

Strength, defined as the ability to exert maximal force, (7) is essential for the slow, controlled movements in dance such as developpe and grand rond de jambs. Power, described as the ability to exert force quickly, is vital for effective jumps in dance. Supplementary training methods such as traditional weight training and plyometric training can be used to improve strength and power, respectively. Both these methods are well-documented in the exercise physiology and sports medicine literature regarding their effectiveness in improving strength and power-related variables in general and athletic populations. (7-10) However, little research has been done on the response of dancers to traditional strength training programs. (11-14) Grossman and Wilmerding (13) reported that a low intensity program designed to train the hip flexors elicited a mean increase of six inches in the height of a leg extension a la seconde (the combined hip actions of flexion, abduction, and external rotation). This study demonstrates that supplemental strength training can positively affect technical dance ability. However, while plyometric training programs have been shown to be particularly effective for improving vertical jump height and leg strength in female athletes, (8,10) no research known to the authors has investigated plyometric training for dancers.

While the benefits of strength training on objective measures of strength have been investigated to some extent, very little research (11) has examined the effects of strength training on jumping ability in dancers, specifically subjective values such as the aesthetics of jumping ability. Given that extreme neuromuscular control is required to create aesthetically pleasing jumps, it is plausible that supplementary training geared toward improving the strength and power of the musculature required for jumping may improve aesthetics. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to examine the effects of a traditional dynamic resistance training program versus the effects of a plyometric training program on the strength, power, and aesthetic jumping ability of collegiate female dancers.

Materials and Methods

Subjects

This study used an experimental, non-random, repeated measures design. The participants (n = 18) were female collegiate dancers between the ages of 18 and 23 years. All subjects volunteered and were concurrently enrolled in at least one intermediate-advanced or advanced dance technique class. The experimental subjects were randomly assigned into a plyometric training group (n = 6) or a weight training group (n = 6). The control group (n = 6) consisted of dancers who were willing to be tested, but due to time conflicts could not commit to the training. Due to limited subject availability, only female dancers participated. This study was approved by the Skidmore College Human Subjects Review Board and all subjects completed informed consent and medical and physical activity background forms. Subjects were excluded from the study if they had orthopaedic problems relating to the lower extremities or back or if they had a known eating disorder, each as determined by responses to the medical background questionnaire.

Testing

Testing was completed in three sessions in the following order: 1. subjective dance evaluation, 2. anthropometry and lower body power assessment, and 3. maximal lower body strength assessment. A minimum of two days separated each testing sessions. Pre-and post-testing sessions occurred within one week before and after the six-week intervention period.

Subjective Dance Evaluation

A subjective dance evaluation was developed and used to examine the effects of the training programs on aesthetic jumping ability. As this was an original measure, its reliability is unknown. Three experienced

dance faculty members assessed four aspects of petit allegro technique: ballon (defined as the dancer's ability to hang suspended in the air during a jump), height of the jumps, the ability to point the feet in the air, and the dancer's overall jumping ability (defined as the dancer's ability to create an aesthetically pleasing jump). For each aspect, the faculty evaluated the subjects on a 5-point scale: 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Average, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent. The dance combination that was evaluated in each case was 16 measures long and consisted of the following steps: echappe close fifth, echappe close fifth, echappe close right leg coupe derriere, coupe assemble dessous, glissade jete dessus, temps leve, temps leve, jete dessus, assemble dessus, entrechat quatre.

Subjects were instructed to wear dance clothing with the feet clearly visible. After a self-directed warm up, the subjects were taught the jump combination and were given time to practice it. Each subject entered the studio individually and performed the combination once. One of the evaluators kept the beat throughout the combination and attempted to keep the tempo constant for each subject. The evaluators were blind to the training group designation of each subject and to the content of the training programs. The scores for each subject by each evaluator were averaged for each aspect of jumping.

Anthropometric Measurements

In order to assess possible changes in body composition with the imposed interventions, anthropometric measurements were obtained. Height was measured to the nearest tenth of a centimeter using a standard stadiometer, and body weight was measured to the nearest tenth of a kilogram using an electronic scale (Befour, Inc.) Body density and percent body fat were determined using the skinfold method. Body density was calculated using a four-site (triceps, anterior suprailiac, abdomen, thigh) equation. (15) The values were then converted from body density to percent body fat. (15)

Vertical Jump

Standing and moving vertical jump height were measured using a jump meter (Vertec). The intraclass correlation coeffi cient for the Vertical Jump test has been reported at 0.87. (16) Subjects were barefoot and began by standing flat-footed at the base of the apparatus and reaching the highest flag possible without letting the heels leave the ground. This was recorded as the standing reach. The subjects then performed a standing jump. Subjects were instructed to perform a countermovement (i.e., squat down) and immediately jump as high as possible off both feet. At the peak of the jump, subjects tapped the highest flag they could reach. The use of arms during takeoff was permitted, but a step into the jump was not. For the moving vertical jump, subjects were allowed a running start and instructed to take off from one foot. Subjects attempted to time the jump so the highest point was at the apparatus, and tapped the highest flag they could reach. For each jump condition, subjects were given six attempts with at least a 60 second rest between attempts. Vertical jump was recorded to the nearest half-inch as the standing reach subtracted from the highest attempt.

Wingate Anaerobic Power Test

The test Wingate Anaerobic Power test was performed using a cycle ergometer (Monark 814 E Ergomedic). Test-retest reliability for the Wingate Anaerobic Power test has been reported to be within the range of 0.89 to 0.99. (17) Seat height was determined for each subject so during the lowest point in the pedaling cycle the knee had a flexion of approximately 10[degrees]. Subjects were given three seconds to reach maximal sprint speed against no resistance. After the 3 seconds, 7.5% of the subject's body weight was added to resist the flywheel. Subjects then pedaled at a maximum rate for 30 seconds against the resistance. They were asked not to pace themselves and to remain seated during the test. The technicians verbally encouraged the subjects throughout the test. Absolute peak and mean power were recorded.

Maximal Strength

One-repetition maximum testing was used to determine maximal strength on the leg press, leg curl, and leg extension. Subjects warmed up and accustomed themselves to the movements by performing 8 to 10 repetitions at a submaximal load. After a 30 to 60 second period of rest, weight was progressively added in 5% to 10% increments. For the first set following the warm up, subjects were asked to perform three repetitions. For all sets thereafter, two repetitions were performed. There was a 30 to 60 second rest period between sets, during which subjects stood up and walked around. One repetition maximum was determined when the second repetition could not be performed without compromising proper lifting technique.

Training

Dancers in both experimental groups participated in supplementary training protocols twice a week. If the subjects were not warm from a dance class prior to the training session, they either jogged or cycled at a low intensity for five minutes. Each training session lasted from 30 to 45 minutes and there was a minimum of one recovery day between sessions. All training sessions were supervised by an investigator. The control group was asked to participate in no additional training beyond their regular dance regimens.

Weight Training

The weight training protocol consisted of four lower-body exercises. During the first training session, subjects began with 80% of their one repetition maximum obtained from pre-testing. The exercises were completed in the following order: decline leg press, calf raise, leg curl, and leg extension. For each exercise the subjects completed 3 sets of 6 to 8 repetitions until momentary muscle failure. There was a one minute rest period between sets. When a subject completed 8 repetitions for 2 or 3 continuous sets of an exercise, the weight was increased by 5% during the next training session.

Plyometric Training

The plyometric training protocol involved 3 sets of 8 repetitions of 4 exercises for a total of 96 "touches" per session. A touch is defined as a jump or a foot contact with the ground. All subjects were treated as novices to plyometric training, and were therefore prescribed four exercises of low to medium intensity with a low volume of total touches. The plyometric exercises were performed in the following order: depth jumps, step-ups, box jumps, and "froggies." There was a one-minute active recovery period between sets during which the subjects walked around casually.

During depth jumps, subjects stepped off a box, landed into a squat with thighs parallel to the ground, and then jumped as quickly as possible to a maximum vertical height. During step-ups, the subjects stood with the left foot on the ground and the right foot on the top of the box. The subject fully extended the right leg and jumped to a maximal height and landed with the same leg. One set was considered 8 repetitions on the right leg followed immediately by 8 repetitions on the left leg. Box jumps consisted of a two-footed countermovement hop from the floor to the top of a box. The subjects would step off of the box and repeat. "Froggies" were a two-footed maximal horizontal hop similar to a standing long jump. The jumps were sequential and commenced with a countermovement.

Intensity and height increased every three sessions. Intensity was defined as how explosively the jumps were executed. The investigators visually monitored changes in intensity and gave the subjects encouragement and feedback to ensure proper effort. The first week focused on keeping a low intensity to familiarize the subjects with plyometrics and reinforce proper form. For depth jumps, step-ups, and box jumps the box height started at 6 inches. At the fourth and seventh training sessions, the box height was increased 3 inches. For the final three sessions, intensity was progressed by making the jumps more explosive. When the box height increased the subjects were instructed to reduce the intensity for at least one training session. As the subjects acclimated to the new height, intensity would be resumed by making the jumps more explosive. Froggies were progressed solely by increasing the explosiveness of the jumps. Froggies were performed at a low intensity for the first week, a medium intensity for the second and third weeks, and were done at a high intensity for the last three weeks.

Statistical Analysis

A one-way ANOVA was used to determine if significant differences existed among the three groups for descriptive variables and dependent variables prior to training. There were no significant differences among groups for any of the variables; therefore, a post-hoc test was not needed.

To determine the effects of training, a 2 (time) x 3 (group) ANOVA with repeated measures for the time factor (pre-test vs. post-test) was employed. If a significant difference existed, a Tukey post-hoc analysis was used.

Significance was accepted at the p < 0.05 level. All results are reported as means and standard deviations.

Results

Results of the one-way ANOVA showed that there were no significant differences among the groups prior to training. There were no significant differences among the descriptive or anthropometric characteristics pre- to post-intervention for any of the groups (Table 1). Additionally, there were no differences among the groups in any of the outcome variables (strength testing, power testing, subjective dance evaluation) before training.

There was a time (pre vs. post) main effect for the plyometric group's leg press strength (+37%, p < 0.01), and for the weight training group's leg press strength (+ 32%, p < 0.01) and leg curl strength (+ 23%, p < 0.05). While both training group's increased leg press strength, there was no significant difference between these two groups in the magnitude of their respective increase (Table 2).

The weight training group significantly increased absolute mean anaerobic power from pre- to post-testing (+ 6%, p < 0.05; Table 2). The plyometric training group exhibited a significant increase in vertical jump height from pre- to post-testing (1.0 [+ or -] 0.8 in = 8.3%, p < 0.05; Table 2).

As reported in Table 2, the plyometric group significantly improved subjective jump height (+ 14%, p < 0.05), while the weight training group significantly increased both subjective jump height (+ 22%, p < 0.01) and ability to point the feet while jumping (+ 20%, p < 0.05). There was no difference between the two training groups for the changes observed from pre- to post-testing in subjective jump height.

No significant changes were seen in the control group for any variable from pre- to post-testing.

Discussion

Dance is both artistic and athletic; it is the integration of these two seemingly unrelated elements that distinguishes it from other sports and art forms. These two components of dance present a challenge to the researcher wishing to examine its pertinent aspects. Ultimately, the goal of this type of research is to determine how changes in physical fitness affect the aesthetic component of dance. In order to jump effectively dancers must have a high degree of strength and power. Therefore, the purpose of this investigation was to examine the effects of two distinct training programs on lower-body strength, power, and aesthetic jumping ability in female collegiate dancers. The results show that both types of training programs elicited gains beneficial for jumping ability in this population.

Strength may be defined as the ability to exert force through a given range of motion. (7) Dancers need high levels of strength for a variety of reasons; slow controlled movements such as developpe require the dancer to support the weight of the leg through their range of motion for several seconds, but fast explosive movements such as jumps require the dancer to exert force very quickly. This study measured total thigh strength on the inverted leg press, hamstring strength on the leg curl, and quadriceps strength on the leg extension exercises.

The weight training group improved total thigh and hamstring strength following the intervention. This supports data obtained in previous studies on female dancers that demonstrate a link between strength training and jumping endurance. (5,11) Strength training has also been shown to positively affect strength-related dance movements such as height of extension a la seconde and arabesque. (13,14) While it was beyond of the scope of this study to examine changes in extension height, the applicability of weight training to dance jump performance was demonstrated through the improvements in subjective rating of jumping skills for the dancers in the weight training group.

The plyometric group in our study improved total thigh strength by an equal absolute amount as the weight training group, which was interesting given that the plyometrics program did not specifically focus on the inverted leg press. Fatouros and colleagues (18) also found that plyometric training significantly increased strength measured by the leg press. The increased leg press strength is likely due to adaptations from the plyometric exercises used in this study, specifically activation of the stretch reflex and the series elastic components of the involved musculature. The stretch reflex is activated by muscle spindles in the agonist muscle. As the agonist is stretched during the eccentric phase of the movement, the muscle spindles activate a reflex arc culminating in stimulation of the alpha-motor neuron and enhanced concentric contraction of the agonist. (19) Put another way, stretching a muscle before concentrically contracting results in a more forceful contraction than if no prestretch occurred. In addition, elastic proteins in the muscle act in a similar manner as a rubber band to enhance the force of contraction. During the eccentric phase, these series elastic components are stretched and store potential energy. The stored energy is released upon initiation of the concentric phase, allowing a more forceful contraction. (19) The first phase of the inverted leg press consists of eccentrically loading the musculature of the hip and knee, as does the first phase of a plyometric drop jump. Likewise, the concentric phase of the leg press mimics the jumping phase of the drop jump. The observed improvement in the plyometric group in this study suggests that plyometric training is effective in increasing inverted leg press strength.

Quadriceps strength as measured by the one-repetition maximum leg extension exhibited no change in the weight training group. The absence of change in this group is perplexing given that the exercise was included in the weight training regimen. It is possible that six weeks of training was insufficient to elicit changes in quadriceps strength, owing to a training effect that had already been conferred by dance training.

Power can be defined as force exerted over time. Actions requiring high power output rely predominantly on the ATP-PC and glycolytic systems of energy. (20) In dance, effective use of muscular power is essential for fast and repetitive movements such as a series of jumps. The results of the Wingate Anaerobic Power test showed improvement in mean anaerobic power with traditional weight training and no change with plyometric training. The improvements in the weight training group are consistent with the findings of other studies. (11,18,21,22) It is interesting to note that while mean power increased in the weight training group, peak power did not. Both mean and peak power are important for dance; peak power translates to an instantaneous explosive movement such as a grand jete, whereas mean power supports an explosive combination drawn out over several seconds. This increase in mean power may indicate improved glycolytic capacity for the dancers who participated in weight training. A similar finding was demonstrated by Stalder and associates (11) who found 9 weeks of weight training significantly improved muscular endurance in collegiate dancers as measured with a dance-specific saute changement test. It is therefore plausible that weight training can be a useful training tool for short-term explosive dance combinations. It may also be plausible that the specific weight training program used in this study did not emphasize a high enough intensity to increase maximum power output.

The present study found no significant change in either peak or mean power output after plyometric training. Numerous studies have found plyometric training to be effective in improving peak power output. (18,22-24) This discrepancy may be explained by the difference in testing protocols: the majority of these studies used the Margaria stair-climbing test, whereas the present investigation used the Wingate Anaerobic Power test. The stair-climbing protocol may be more movement specific (i.e., more similar to the plyometric movements) than the cycling test, and this similarity may increase testing sensitivity. Another possible explanation lies in the plyometric program design. Given the intense neuromuscular load associated with plyometrics, the dancers were treated as novices despite their extensive jump training in dance class. The more narrow design (lack of intensity) of the plyometric training program as compared to other studies may account for the lack of improvement.

Lower-body power, as assessed by vertical jump height, improved with plyometric training but not with traditional weight training. Previous research has generally shown that traditional weight training elicits gains in vertical jump height, (9,18,21,22,25) but most of these studies incorporated power exercises such as jump squats or hang cleans, or used substantially longer duration and higher volume training periods. A one-inch increase in vertical jump height was seen in the plyometric training group. Improvements in vertical jumping ability after plyometric training have been well-documented in the literature. (18,22,23,25,26) Adams and coworkers (25) observed a 1.5 inch improvement in vertical jump height after six weeks of plyometric training. Similarly, Hewett and colleagues (26) found a 1.5 inch increase in the vertical jump height of female volleyball players after 6 weeks of plyometric training. The results of the present study are consistent with these findings.

Despite the increase in mean anaerobic power in the weight training group, no improvement was seen in this group's objective vertical jump. The discrepancy seen between the two measures of power is likely a function of specificity. Plyometric exercises train the muscular functions specifically for jumping. (27) The quick eccentric loading followed by a rapid concentric contraction trains the stretch reflex and allows the musculature to use the benefits of the energy stored in the series elastic components. (19) This directly translates to vertical jump ability. The weight training intervention in this study may not have been specific enough to elicit gains in vertical jump height.

The subjective evaluation used in this investigation shed some light on how weight training and plyometrics can affect aesthetic jumping ability. Given the artistic nature of dance, aesthetics are very important for interpreting success. There has been very little research incorporating a subjective element of dance performance, particularly in relation to jumping. Stalder and colleagues (11) found 9 weeks of supplemental weight training to positively affect subjective jumping variables in a ballet-trained population.

The weight training group improved their score in two (jump height and ability to point feet) of the four parameters of the subjective evaluation. The improvements in perceived jump height and ability to point the feet while jumping were likely due to the specific training of the gastrocnemius-soleus complex. While calf strength was not tested, the perceived increase in ability to plantar flex the feet may indicate the calf training included in the weight training protocol increased calf strength.

The plyometric training group also improved their score in perceived jump height. This corresponds with improvement in the objective vertical jump height. As mentioned previously, the type of training performed by the plyometric group was geared specifically toward improving the aspects of the leg musculature most relevant to jumping. Therefore, it is probable that improvements in stretch-reflex activity and efficiency of utilization of the series elastic components were responsible for the increase in aesthetic jump height.

Despite improvements in perceived jump height and perceived ability to point the feet, there was no change in any group for ballon or overall jumping ability. This indicates that while the dancers who participated in supplemental training were able to jump higher, their improvements did not necessarily translate into a more aesthetically pleasing jump as measured on a subjective Likert scale. It is possible that ballon and overall jumping ability are best mastered through focused technical dance training and are unaffected by supplemental conditioning such as weight training or plyometrics.

There were possible confounding factors relating to the investigation of subjective jump height in this study. The subjective scale was an original design, and therefore has not been validated. Additionally, it cannot be determined if the results were due to the training protocols or to an increased comfort level with the test process during the post-test.

There were no significant changes in any group for body fat or body weight. Although lean mass was not measured directly, it can be inferred that lean mass did not change given the lack of change in body fat and body weight. This supports the notion that supplemental muscular training does not necessarily increase lean body mass or thigh circumfrences. (5,11) As dancers have been historically wary of lifting weights out of fear of gaining muscle bulk, it is important to educate dancers as to the types of strength training that can offer benefits without causing aesthetic detriments. The results of this study indicate that low-volume, high-intensity weight training and moderate intensity plyometric training do not contribute to hypertrophy but do provide muscular benefits.

The control group exhibited no changes in any variables after the six week monitoring period. This suggests that short-term dance training alone is insufficient to improve strength, power, or jumping ability in this population. Similar results have been repeatedly demonstrated in previous investigations. (5,11,13) This presents a powerful case for the use of supplemental training to improve physiological variables related to dance. Having superior physical fitness allows the dancer to focus on the artistry of the movement instead of simply trying to complete the exercise without becoming exhausted or injured.

Future research should investigate a larger subject pool over a longer intervention period. Previous studies have shown training periods of seven weeks or greater to be more effective at improving strength and power production than periods of shorter duration. (22,23) Additionally, it would be useful to investigate the effects of different types of training in a dancing population. Previous investigators have employed weight training programs using lower loads at higher velocities (22) and combined weight training and plyometric programs (18,25) to examine strength and power improvements, but these protocols have not been applied to dancers. Finally, a cross-sectional study comparing different levels of dancers should be done to validate the subjective evaluation protocol used in this study.

Conclusion

This study investigated how two different strength training programs affected strength, power, and aesthetic jumping ability in collegiate female dancers. As dance is aesthetic in nature, it is extremely difficult to quantify improvement. In an attempt to place the results of this intervention study in the context of dance, a subjective evaluation of jumping ability was used. The results of this evaluation indicated a perceived increase in jump height and ability to point the feet in the air from traditional weight training, and a perceived increase in jump height from plyometric training.

Though dance is primarily aesthetic, it has been shown that basic improvements in strength and power can be useful in improving dancing ability. (11-14) This study found that plyometric training is effective in improving leg press strength and standing vertical jump height. Additionally, traditional weight training improved leg press and leg curl strength as well as mean anaerobic power as measured by a Wingate test. Therefore, it can be concluded that six weeks of either plyometric or traditional weight training is effective in improving strength-and power-related variables in highly trained female collegiate dancers. Furthermore, either program can positively influence technical jumping ability in this population. Finally, six weeks of dance training alone is insufficient to improve strength, anaerobic power, and jumping ability in intermediate and advanced dancers.

References

(1.) Brinson P, Dick F: The fitness and nutritional research. In: The Report of the National Inquiry to Dancer's Health and Injury. London, UK: Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation, 1996, pp. 59-69.

(2.) Hamilton WG, Hamilton LH, Marshall P, Molnar M: A profile of the musculoskeletal characteristics of elite professional ballet dancers. Am J Sports Med. 1992;20(3):267-73.

(3.) Kuno M, Fukunaga T, Hirano Y, Miyashita M: Anthropometric variables and muscle properties of Japanese female ballet dancers. Int J Sports Med. 1996;17(2):100-5.

(4.) Harley YXR, Gibson A, Harley EH, et al: Quadriceps strength and jumping effi ciency in dancers. J Dance Med Sci. 2002;6(3):87-94.

(5.) Koutedakis Y, Sharp NCC: Thigh-muscles strength training, dance exercise, dynamometry, and anthropometry in professional ballerinas. J Strength Cond Res. 2004;18(4):714-8.

(6.) Reid DC: Prevention of hip and knee injuries in ballet dancers. Sports Med. 1988;6(5):295-307.

(7.) Plowman SA, Smith DL: Exercise Physiology for Health, Fitness, and Performance (2nd ed). San Francisco: Benjamin Cummings, 2003.

(8.) Hewett T, Stroupe A, Nance T, Noyes F: Plyometric training in female athletes. Am J Sports Med. 1996;24(6):765-73.

(9.) Ford HT, Puckett JR, Drummond JP: Effects of three combinations of plyometric and weight training programs on selected physical fitness test items. Percept Mot Skills. 1983;56:919-22.

(10.) McGown C, Conlee R, Sucec A, Buono M, et al: Gold metal volleyball: the training program and physiological profile of the 1984 Olympic champions. Res Q Exerc Sport. 1990;61(2):196-200.

(11.) Stalder MA, Noble BJ, Wilkinson JG: The effects of supplemental weight training for ballet dancers. J App Sport Sci Res. 1990;4(3):95-102.

(12.) Cardinal MK, Lofman EC, Cardinal BJ: Evaluation of a supplemental strength and conditioning program for dancers. Res Q Exerc Sport. 1999;70(1):A16-7.

(13.) Grossman G, Wilmerding MV: The effect of conditioning on the height of dancer's extension in a la seconde. J Dance Med Sci. 2000;4(4):117-21.

(14.) Welsh TM, Jones GP, Lucker KD, Weaver BC: Back strengthening for dancers: a within-subject experimental analysis. J Dance Med Sci. 1998;2(4):141-8.

(15.) Heyward VH: Advanced Fitness Assessment and Exercise Prescription (4th ed). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 2002.

(16.) Ashley CD, Weiss LW: Vertical jump performance and selected physiological characteristics of women. J Strength and Cond Res, 1994;8:5-11.

(17.) Inbar O, Bar-Or O, Skinner J: The Wingate Anaerobic Test. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 1996.

(18.) Fatouros IG, Jamurtas AZ, Leontsini D, Taxildaris K, et al: Evaluation of plyometric exercise training, weight training, and their combination on vertical jumping performance and leg strength. J Strength Cond Res. 2000;14(4):470-6.

(19.) Potach DH, Chu DA: Plyometric training. In: Baechle TR, Earle RW (eds): Essentials of Strength Training and Conditioning. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 2000, pp. 427-470.

(20.) Conley M: Bioenergetics of exercise and training. In: Baechle TR, Earle RW (eds): Essentials of Strength Training and Conditioning. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 2000, pp. 73-90.

(21.) Marx JO, Ratamess NA, Nindl BC, Gotshalk LA, et al: Low-volume circuit versus high-volume periodized resistance training in women. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2001;33(4):635-43.

(22.) Wilson GJ, Newton RU, Murphy AJ, Humphries BJ: The optimal training load for the development of dynamic athletic performance. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1993;25(11):1279-86.

(23.) Luebbers PE, Potteiger JA, Hulver MW, Thyfault JP, et al: Effects of plyometric training and recovery on vertical jump performance and anaerobic power. J Strength Cond Res. 2003;17(4):704-9.

(24.) Wagner DR, Kocak MS: A multivariate approach to assessing anaerobic power following a plyometric training program. J Strength Cond Res. 1997;11(4):251-5.

(25.) Adams K, O'Shea JP, O'Shea KL, Climstein M: The effect of six weeks of squat, plyometric and squat-plyometric training on power production. J App Sport Sci Res. 1992;6(1):36-41.

(26.) Hewett TE, Stroupe AL, Nance TA, Noyes FR: Plyometric training in female athletes. Am J Sports Med. 1996;24(6)765-73.

(27.) Chu DA: Jumping into Plyometrics. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 1998.

Andrea C. Brown, B.S., Tobin J. Wells, B.S., Margaret L. Schade, B.S., Denise L. Smith, Ph.D., and Patricia C. Fehling, Ph.D.

Andrea C. Brown, B.S., Tobin J. Wells, B.S., Margaret L. Schade, B.S., Denise L. Smith, Ph.D., and Patricia C. Fehling, Ph.D., are in the Human Performance Laboratory, Department of Exercise Science, Skidmore College, Saratoga Springs, New York.

Correspondence: Patricia C. Fehling, Ph.D., Department of Exercise Science, 815 N. Broadway, Saratoga Springs, New York 12866; pfehling@skidmore.edu.
Table 1 Descriptive Characteristics *

                  Age                 Height
Group             (years)             (cm)

Plyometrics       20.3 [+ or -] 1.5   166.0 [+ or -] 2.1
Weight training   19.3 [+ or -] 1.2   160.0 [+ or -] 7.7
Control           19.5 [+ or -] 1.0   169.0 [+ or -] 9.0

                  Weight (kg)
Group             Pre-test            Post-test

Plyometrics       59.0 [+ or -] 4.5   58.9 [+ or -] 4.4
Weight training   59.8 [+ or -] 5.0   61.0 [+ or -] 4.8
Control           61.7 [+ or -] 7.0   61.6 [+ or -] 7.1

                  % Body Fat
Group             Pre-test            Post-test

Plyometrics       18.7 [+ or -] 3.7   17.7 [+ or -] 2.0
Weight training   20.6 [+ or -] 3.4   19.9 [+ or -] 4.5
Control           21.1 [+ or -] 4.5   20.9 [+ or -] 4.2

* No significant differences between groups.

Table 2 Strength, Power, and Subjective Evaluation

                           Plyometrics

                           Pre                    Post
Strength (kg)
  Leg Press                183.3 [+ or -] 30.9    251.5 [+ or -] 39.4
                                                    ([dagger])
  Knee Curl                37.5 [+ or -] 4.0      40.9 [+ or -] 3.8
  Knee Extension           62.5 [+ or -] 9.1      57.5 [+ or -] 7.7
Anaerobic Power (watts)
  Peak power               559.5 [+ or -] 105.0   570.0 [+ or -] 107.0
  Mean power               336.5 [+ or -] 34.0    347.0 [+ or -] 49.3
Vertical jump (in)
  Standing                 12.0 [+ or -] 1.2      13.0 [+ or -] 1.0 *
  Moving                   14.0 [+ or -] 2.1      14.0 [+ or -] 2.0
Subjective Evaluation
  Ballon                   3.2 [+ or -] 0.4       3.4 [+ or -] 0.4
  jump height              3.2 [+ or -] 0.4       3.6 [+ or -] 0.5 *
  Feet point               3.8 [+ or -] 0.6       3.8 [+ or -] 0.4
  Overall ability          3.2 [+ or -] 0.5       3.5 [+ or -] 0.5

                           Weight Training

                           Pre                    Post
Strength (kg)
  Leg Press                214.4 [+ or -] 61.0    282.5 [+ or -] 48.O
                                                    ([dagger])
  Knee Curl                34.8 [+ or -] 4.5      42.8 [+ or -] 3.4 *
  Knee Extension           58.7 [+ or -] 6.5      61.7 [+ or -] 4.4
Anaerobic Power (watts)
  Peak power               557.6 [+ or -] 53.4    581.8 [+ or -] 52.7
  Mean power               340.8 [+ or -] 53.5    361.1 [+ or -] 62.6 *
Vertical jump (in)
  Standing                 13.3 [+ or -] 3.3      13.8 [+ or -] 3.1
  Moving                   15.8 [+ or -] 3.3      15.3 [+ or -] 3.0
Subjective Evaluation
  Ballon                   2.7 [+ or -] 1.5       3.3 [+ or -] 0.8
  jump height              2.8 [+ or -] 1.0       3.5 [+ or -] 0.8t
  Feet point               3.0 [+ or -] 1.2       3.6 [+ or -] 0.7 *
  Overall ability          3.0 [+ or -] 1.4       3.3 [+ or -] 0.9

                           Control

                           Pre                    Post
Strength (kg)
  Leg Press                222.7 [+ or -] 65.0    229.0 [+ or -] 72.9
  Knee Curl                40.0 [+ or -] 5.7      40.9 [+ or -] 3.7
  Knee Extension           60.5 [+ or -] 10.1     56.5 [+ or -] 10.2
Anaerobic Power (watts)
  Peak power               546.5 [+ or -] 72.1    563.5 [+ or -] 65.9
  Mean power               380.7 [+ or -] 54.0    379.0 [+ or -] 56.6
Vertical jump (in)
  Standing                 12.8 [+ or -] 2.3      13.5 [+ or -] 2.0
  Moving                   16.3 [+ or -] 3.3      15.9 [+ or -] 3.2
Subjective Evaluation
  Ballon                   3.1 [+ or -] 1.0       3.6 [+ or -] 0.6
  jump height              3.1 [+ or -] 1.2       3.6 [+ or -] 0.6
  Feet point               3.3 [+ or -] 0.1       3.9 [+ or -] 0.4
  Overall ability          3.1 [+ or -] 1.2       3.8 [+ or -] 0.7

([dagger]) p < 0.01 (Significance within group, pre vs. post);
* p < 0.05 (Significance within group, pre vs. post).
COPYRIGHT 2007 J. Michael Ryan Publishing Co.
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2007 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Title Annotation:Original Article
Author:Brown, Andrea C.; Wells, Tobin J.; Schade, Margaret L.; Smith, Denise L.; Fehling, Patricia C.
Publication:Journal of Dance Medicine & Science
Geographic Code:1USA
Date:Apr 1, 2007
Words:6380
Previous Article:Positive response.
Next Article:The importance of standardized injury reporting in dance.
Topics:

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2022 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters |