Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Plyometrics have been used for many decades in the Russian and eastern
European training of track and field athletes.1,2,3 A well known track and field
coach in Russia, began the concept that he referred to as shock training or jump
training. However, former Purdue University women’s track coach Fred Wilt first
coined the actual term plyometrics in 1975.
The word plyometrics is actually a derivation from the Greek words plythein or
plyo- which means to increase and metric, which means to measure3.
Consequently, the purpose of plyometrics may be thought of as “to increase the
measurement.” Typically the measurement is sports performance outcomes
demonstrated in testing or competition such as throwing, serving velocity, jump
height or sprint speed6,7. Plyometric drills involve starting, stopping, and change of
movement directions which contribute to agility development.
The potential and theoretical training benefits of plyometric exercises for the upper
and lower extremities include, but are not limited to the following concepts: ability
to increase average power and velocity; increased peak force and velocity of
acceleration; increased time for force development energy storage in the SEC; the
ability for heightened levels of muscle activation; and the ability to evoke stretch
reflexes7,8 By desensitizing the GTO, plyometric exercises allow muscles to
generate force by having the musculoskeletal system tolerate increased workloads
without the GTO firing.
Specific recommendations will be made for a testing hierarchy for initiating both
UE and LE plyometrics in the following sections. The authors of this manuscript
believe that each specific movement pattern involved in the activity should be
trained initially in isolation to work each kinematic chain link, allowing the sports
activity to be dissected into smaller components and trained with isolated
movements first.
Agility9 The ability to quickly change body position or direction of the body.
Agility is also influenced by body balance, coordination, the position of the center
of gravity, as well as running speed and skill. Agility can be improved with agility
training drills but also by improving the specific individual fitness elements of
speed, balance, power and co-ordination.
Agility is one of the key components of fitness and is valuable in many sports and
physical activities. Think of the sports where you have to use agility. In team
sports such as football, soccer, basketball, hockey, volleyball and badminton. You
must quickly respond to movements of the other players and of the ball.
Agility Tests9: - Shuttle runs are often done as an agility test as well as a drill to
build sports agility. Markers are set up and you sprint from one marker to the other,
do a quick turn and sprint back. `The US Military Academy uses a shuttle run test.
The National Football League uses a 5-10-5 shuttle run as an agility test and drill.
The Illinois Agility Run Test is often used by schools and law enforcement as a
test of agility. It uses a running course and involves not only a shuttle run, but also
weaving between four cones. Because it has been used for many years, there are
norms and a grading system that can be applied.
The SPARQ rating combines testing for speed, power, agility, reaction and
quickness. It is sport-specific as well as a test for general athleticism. The general
assessment tests include the agility shuttle 5-10-5 to measure agility. For sport-
specific agility, they use a lane agility drill for basketball, a shuttle cross pick-up
for hockey, and the arrowhead drill for soccer. The SPARQ rating is used by many
sports training companies and certified SPARQ trainers.
KEYWORDS
Studies have proved that plyometrics is effective in increasing agility. Some of the
resources suggested that the plyometrics helps in increasing flexibility and
endurance. But there is lack of evidence suggesting efficacy of plyometrics on the
agility, so there is need to do these research.
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Makaruk H.1, Czaplicki A.2, Sacewicz T.2, Sadowski J.1 2014. The study was
done to examine the chronic effects of single and repeated jumps training on
vertical landing force (VGRF) and jump height in untrained men. Thirty-six
untrained physical education students with a plyometric training background were
randomly assigned to a single jump group (SJG, n =12), repeated jumps group
(RJG, n =12), and control group (CON, n =12). The SJG performed only single
jumps, the RJG executed repeated (consecutive) jumps, whereas the control group
did not perform any exercises at all. The results suggested that repeated jumps are
beneficial for simultaneous landing force reduction and jumping performance
enhancement.
Different coaching methods are often used to improve performance. This study
compared the effectiveness of 2 methodologies for speed and agility conditioning
for random, intermittent, and dynamic activity sports (e.g., soccer, tennis, hockey,
basketball, rugby, and netball) and the necessity for specialized coaching
equipment. Two groups were delivered either a programmed method (PC) or a
random method (RC) of conditioning with a third group receiving no conditioning
(NC). PC participants used the speed, agility, quickness (SAQ) conditioning
method, and RC participants played supervised small-sided soccer games. PC was
also subdivided into 2 groups where participants either used specialized SAQ
equipment or no equipment. A total of 46 (25 males and 21 females) untrained
participants received (mean +/- SD) 12.2 +/- 2.1 hours of physical conditioning
over 6 weeks between a battery of speed and agility parameter field tests. Two-way
analysis of variance results indicated that both conditioning groups showed a
significant decrease in body mass and body mass index, although PC achieved
significantly greater improvements on acceleration, deceleration, leg power,
dynamic balance. Further research is required to establish whether these benefits
transfer to sport-specific tasks as well as to the underlying mechanisms resulting in
improved performance.
Hypothesis:
Study design:
Study population:
Study duration:
Purposive sampling.
Selection criteria:
INCLUSION CRITERIA
Age group between 17 to 30 yrs.
Both male and female players.
Subjects playing badminton since 6 months or more.
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
Any neurological, auditory, visual defect.
Subjects not willing to participate in training programme.
Pregnancy.
Acute injury (1st day to 2 weeks).
Outcome measures:
• Illinois agility test- It is a fitness test designed to test one’s sports agility. It’s
a simple test which is easy to administer and require little equipment. It tests
the ability to turn in different directions and different angles.
Figure1: appendix 2
Procedure:
Before data collection the purpose and procedure was fully explained and informed
consent was obtained from each player. 30 players were identified as potential
participants for this study, undergoing training in camps and academy. After
studied various agility test like shuttle run test, diagonal cone test, SPARQ rating ;
Illinois agility test was used to obtain information related to agility of the
badminton players.
Before data collection height, weight, age of the participants was taken. Height was
measured by bodymeter measuring scale and weight was measured by digital
weighing machine. Test was performed before the players for better understanding.
Thirty screened badminton players were participated in the study and later divided
equally into two groups of equal size 15 by using a simple random sampling
(lottery method) technique that constituted two groups and further designated as
“control group” and “experimental group”.
Baseline observation was taken among all the participants for both the control
group and the experimental group. Group I(control) was given conventional
treatment while group II(experimental) receives plyometric program along with
conventional treatment.
Conventional treatment comprises of Foot work- side step, cross step, forward and
backward. Service- forehand long service and backhand short service. Match play,
forehand lob, Clear/lift, Drive, Net.
Plyometric program comprises of Side to side ankle hop, Standing jump and reach,
Front cone hops, Lateral jump over barrier, Double leg hops, Diagonal cone hops,
Standing long jump with lateral sprint, Lateral cone hops, Cone hops with180
degree turn, Single leg bounding, Lateral jump single leg.
Agility assesses the participant’s flexibility, speed, power and quickness. Data is
analyzed to know the effect of Plyometrics on the agility of badminton players.
Conventional treatment was given for six weeks and one day in a week for both the
groups. Group II along with conventional treatment receives Plyometric program
for six weeks and one day in a week. After intervention in groups, the data had re-
collected at 6th week and for further statistical analysis utilized as post-intervention
observations.
Match play
Match play 30
Match play 30
Drive 30
Net 30
Match play 30
Cross drop 45
Match play 30
Match play 30
Special test:-
o The Illinois Agility Test (Getchell, 1979) is a commonly used test of agility
in sports.
o Procedure: The length of the course is 10 meters and the width (distance
between the start and finish points) is 5 meters. Four cones are used to mark
the start, finish and the two turning points. Another four cones are placed
down the center an equal distance apart. Each cone in the center is spaced
3.3 meters apart. Subjects should lie on their front (head to the start line) and
hands by their shoulders. On the 'Go' command the stopwatch is started, and
the athlete gets up as quickly as possible and runs around the course in the
direction indicated, without knocking the cones over, to the finish line, at
which the timing is stopped.
o Results: An excellent score is under 15.2 seconds for a male, less than 17
seconds for a female.
o Advantages: This is a simple test to administer, requiring little equipment.
Also, the player’s ability to turn in different directions and different angles is
tested.
o Variations: the starting and finishing sides can be swapped, so that turning
direction is reversed.
Statistical method:
1. Parametric test titled paired t-test used to identify the significance of mean
differences of timings measured on Illinois agility test.
2. Independent sample t-test is used.
Statistical analysis-
x
i 1
i
Mean ,
n
x X
n
2
i
S. D. i 1
(If n<30)
n 1
n
Where x
i 1
i =Sum of all observations and
X
t (Degree of freedom=n-1).
S. E. ( X)
S. E. X )
S. D.
n
DATA ANALYSIS:
Table 1:-
Table one highlight the distribution of age of studied badminton players of both the
groups.
Distribution of age of badminton player
Control group
60.0
53.3
Experimental
Percentage (%)
50.0
group
40.0
40.0
30.0 26.7
26.7
26.7
20.0
13.3
10.0 6.7 6.7
0.0
18-20 20-22 22-24 24-26
Age (years)
Figure 1–Bar diagram showing the age distribution of studied badminton players of
control group and experimental group.
Table 2:-
The gender wise distribution of studied badminton players highlights in table two.
Distribution of sex of badminton player
50.0
40.0
33.3
33.3
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
Control group Experimental group
Table three highlights the distribution of age, height and weight of badminton
players included in the control group and experimental group.
Control group
140.0
120.0
100.0
80.0
60.0 54.6 53.0
40.0
20.0
20.0
20.8 1.7 4.5 4.5 3.3 2.3
0.0 1.7
Mean SD of Mean SD of Mean SD of
age age height height weight weight
Figure 3-Bar diagram depicting the distribution and comparison of the mean and
standard deviation of age, height and weight of selected badminton
players of control and experimental groups.
TABLE 4:-
Table four reports that the conventional treatment alone and plyometric training
with conventional treatment programs found to be the effective treatment protocols
for improving the agility statuses among badminton players.
TABLE 5:-
Scatter of time
Group and (second) t-
Sampling LOS
Differences statistic
stage Mean ± SD
Control 25.88±2.12
Baseline
30
Groups
Control
29 Experimental
28
27
Time (second)
26
25
24
23
22
21
Pre IAT
Time measured on Illionis agility test (IAT) at baseline in groups
Figure 4–Box-and-Whisker diagram presented the distribution of time on IAT and
comparison at pretreatment stage between selected badminton players of
control group and experimental group.
TABLE 6:-
Scatter of time
Group and (second) t-
Sampling LOS
Differences statistic
stage Mean ± SD
Control 25.16±2.23
intervention
Post-
28
26
Time (second)
24
22
20
Post IAT
Time measured on Illionis agility test (IAT) at post intervention stage in groups
efficacy was found on the basis of agility of the badminton players by conventional
treatment alone and plyometrics along with conventional treatment.
Table no.1
Reports the distribution of age of studied badminton players of both the groups
(experimental and control) found with little variation when the age of players of
the control group compared with experimental group.
Control group- First (18-20yrs) lower age group shows 53.3% of the badminton
players with the frequency of 8 in numbers. While the second (20-22yrs) age
groups shows 40% of the badminton players with the frequency of 4 in numbers.
Third (22-24yrs) age group shows 13.3% of the badminton players with the
frequency of 2 in numbers. Fourth (24-26yrs) age group shows 6.7% of the
badminton players with the frequency of 1 in number.
Experimental group- First (18-20yrs) lower age group shows 26.7% of the
badminton players with the frequency of 4 in numbers. While the second (20-
22yrs) age groups shows 40% of the badminton players with the frequency of 6 in
numbers. Third (22-24yrs) age group shows 26.7% of the badminton players with
the frequency of 4 in numbers. Fourth (24-26yrs) age group shows 6.7% of the
badminton players with the frequency of 1 in number.
Table no.2
Control group- First (male) shows 66.7% with the frequency of 10 in numbers.
Second (female) shows 33.3% with the frequency of 5 in numbers.
Experimental group- First (male) shows 66.7% with the frequency of 10 in
numbers. Second (female) shows 33.3% with the frequency of 5 in numbers.
This was easily sees in table that the distribution of gender found to be similar and
thus the sex matched controls indicated the removal of biasness regarding the
distribution of gender of studied badminton players documented similar for the two
groups.
Table no.3
Reports the distribution of age, height and weight of badminton players included in
the control group and the experimental group.
Age:
Mean (Mean ± SD) age of badminton players of control group (20.00±1.69 years)
found to be little smaller as compared to mean age of badminton players of
experimental group (20.80±1.74 years).
Height:
Weight:
Results indicated that the differences in mean age, height and weight were not
statistically significant between the two groups and hence the study indicated the
removal of biasness regarding the distributions for age, height and weight of
studied badminton players and were reported similar for the two groups.
The statistical agreement indicated that the distribution of age, height and weight
of studied badminton players at the time of admission for inclusion of subjects in
the control and experimental groups found to be similar.
Table no.4
Reports show that the conventional treatment alone and Plyometric training with
conventional treatment program found to be effective. Statuses of agility of
badminton players of control group improved after intervention of conventional
treatment alone. At post intervention the average (Mean ± SD) time on IAT
(25.16±2.23 second) among badminton players of control group found with little
reduction as compared to average time on IAT (25.88±2.12 second) at baseline
sampling stage one. These mean difference in time on IAT (0.72 second) between
baseline and post intervention among badminton players of control group were
strongly significant (p<0.001) was concreted on statistical ground.
Table no.5
Table no.6
The statistical results of present research indicated that the Plyometric training
when used as an adjunct to conventional treatment observed as an effective
conservative treatment for improving agility among badminton players.
DISCUSSION: