VERTICAL- VS.
HORIZONTAL-ORIENTED DROP JUMP
TRAINING: CHRONIC EFFECTS ON EXPLOSIVE
PERFORMANCES OF ELITE HANDBALL PLAYERS
ANTONIO DELLO IACONO,1,2 DOMENICO MARTONE,3 MIRJANA MILIC,4
1
Zinman College of Physical Education and Sport Sciences, Wingate Institute, Tel Aviv, Israel; 2Maccabi Tel Aviv FC, Tel
Aviv, Israel; 3Department of Movement Sciences and Wellness (DiSMEB), Parthenope University of Naples; 4Faculty of
Kinesiology, University of Split, Split, Croatia; and 5University eCampus, Novedrate, Italy
ABSTRACT
Dello Iacono, A, Martone, D, Milic, M, and Padulo, J. Vertical-
vs. horizontal-oriented drop jump training: chronic effects on
explosive performances of elite handball players. J Strength
Cond Res 31(4): 921–931, 2017—This study aimed to assess
the chronic effects of vertical drop jump (VDJ)– and horizontal
drop jump (HDJ)–based protocols on neuromuscular explosive
abilities, such as jumping, sprinting, and changes of direction
(COD). Eighteen elite male handball players (age 23.4 6 4.6
years, height 192.5 6 3.7 cm, weight 87.8 6 7.4 kg) were
assigned to either VDJ or HDJ group training twice a week for
10 weeks. Participants performed 5–8 sets 3 6–10 repetitions
of vertical alternate (VDJ) or horizontal alternate (HDJ) 1-leg
drop jumps, landing from the top of a platform 25 cm in height.
Before and after training, several performance, kinetic, and
kinematic variables were assessed. The HDJ led to greater
improvement of the sprint time (28.5% vs. 24%, p # 0.05)
and COD performance in comparison with the VDJ (27.9% vs.
21.1%, p # 0.05), whereas the VDJ caused greater improve-
ment in the vertical jump compared with the HDJ (+8.6% vs.
+4.1%, p # 0.05). Moreover, the VDJ regimen compared with
the HDJ induced greater changes in the kinetic variables asso-
ciated with vertical jumping performance, such as peak ground
reaction forces (+10.3% vs. +4.3%), relative impulse (+12.4%
vs. +5.7%), leg spring stiffness (+17.6% vs. +4.6%), contact
time (CT) (210.1% vs. 21.5%), and reactive strength index
(+7.2% vs. +2.1%); all comparisons with p # 0.05. Con-
versely, the HDJ regimen was able to improve the short-
distance and COD performances by increasing the step length
(+3.5% vs. +1.5% with p # 0.05) and reducing the CT on
COD (212.1% vs. 22.1% with p # 0.05) more than the VDJ.
This investigation showed the crucial role that specific plyomet-
Address correspondence to Dr. Antonio Dello Iacono, antdelloiacono@
virgilio.it.
31(4)/921–931
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Ó 2016 National Strength and Conditioning Association
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
AND JOHNNY PADULO4,5
ric regimens play in optimizing similar biomechanical featured
functional performances, such as jumping, sprinting, and COD.
KEY WORDS stiffness, plyometrics, neuromuscular abilities,
sprint, agility, team sport
INTRODUCTION
H
andball is a strenuous contact team sport that
involves high-intensity short-duration activi-
ties, such as sprinting, jumping, turning, push-
ing, blocking, and throwing (10). Previous
investigations, focusing on the performance model of the
discipline, have reported the game featured by a mean of
190 rhythm variations, 279 changes of direction (COD),
and 16 jumps for a total of 485 high-intensity actions
(8,9). High-intensity actions, such as sprints, counterat-
tacks, and COD, account for 10–13% (21,42) of the total
distance covered in both junior and elite handball games.
Moreover, it is important to consider that in goal situations,
either the scoring player or the assisting one mostly per-
forms actions with high-intensity technical demands (e.g.,
jumps, shots, duels), within a restricted space and with
a very limited amount of time (21). In this regard, Sibila
et al. (42), by using video match analyses, have demon-
strated a mean 10- to 12-m sprint time of 2.3 seconds
and a mean of 50 turns including COD (1808) occurring
per game (42). Hence, the intermittent and high-intensity
profile nature of the handball play highlights the impor-
tance of neuromuscular and explosive capabilities of the
player as key components for successful participation (9).
Optimal initial acceleration (4), jumping, sprinting, and the
agility to change direction, start, and stop quickly over
short distances (41) are all crucial elements of fast play
and discriminating physical demands at top levels (4,21).
Plyometrics are exercises characterized by rapid stretch-
shortening cycle (SSC) muscle actions, including a range of
unilateral and bilateral bounding, hopping, and jumping
variations (26). Typically, plyometric exercises are per-
formed with little to no external resistance, such as with
body mass only, and overload is applied by increasing the
VOLUME 31 | NUMBER 4 | APRIL 2017 | 921
 Transference Effects of Specific Plyometric Training
stretch rate through minimizing the duration of the SSC
(i.e., countermovement, bounce, reactive jumps;28) and
stretch load by increasing the height of the drop during
drop jump modes (12). Plyometric exercises can therefore
be tailored to train either short SSC movements character-
ized by a 100- to 250-millisecond duration (1,40) (i.e.,
ground contact in sprinting) or long SSC movements char-
acterized by duration greater than 250 milliseconds (1,40)
(countermovement jumps [CMJ] or COD). Considering
this biomechanical scenario, the ability to target both short
and long SSCs and the ballistic nature of plyometrics high-
light these conditioning exercises as very specific for a wide
variety of movements typically encountered in sport.
Therefore, it is not surprising that scientific studies gener-
ally report this training regimen to be an effective means for
improving explosive neuromuscular impulse-dependent
components, such as acceleration, jumping, sprinting, and
COD ability (5,26,35,36). A recent body of research has
addressed its attention to clarifying and profiling the spe-
cific effects of applying vertical or horizontal unloaded
plyometric jumps on neuromuscular capacities of elite ath-
letes (35). Contextually, Loturco et al. (24) compared the
short-term training effects of vertically and horizontally
oriented exercises on neuromuscular performance in young
soccer players. The authors reported on the capacity of
plyometrics to transfer specific neuromuscular gains to
the acceleration, speed, and jumping abilities of soccer
players. More recently, Dello Iacono et al. (10), assessing
the acute effects of vertical drop jump (VDJ)– and horizon-
tal drop jump (HDJ)–based postactivation potentiation
(PAP) protocols on neuromuscular tasks in elite handball
players, confirmed that horizontal jumps are more targeted
to acutely increase acceleration over short distances and
COD ability, whereas vertically oriented plyometrics
should be directed to vertical jump performance. From
a methodological perspective, to enhance athletic perfor-
mance in highly trained athletes, it is almost obligatory to
stress the athletic quality of interest through motor
schemes and biomechanical patterns similar to the ad-
dressed ability, thus inducing short-term responses and
long-term adaptations (38). Profiling the possible transfer-
ence effects from specific plyometrics to horizontally or
vertically oriented explosive could provide coaches with
a common sense approach for strategically selecting exer-
cises in the athlete’s overall training program.
Therefore, the objective of this study was to investigate
the effects of 2 drop jump–based protocols on neuromuscu-
lar abilities manifested in jumping, sprinting, and COD skills
in elite handball players. Because of the major importance of
horizontal force production capability in enhancing sprinting
performance over short distances and the predominant par-
ticipation of vertical forces on vertical jump tasks, it is ex-
pected that implementation of horizontal or vertical
plyometrics would induce specific mechanical adaptations
related to the axis of the movement.
the TM
922 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
METHODS
Experimental Approach to the Problem
This study adopted a counterbalanced fully controlled
research design with randomized allocation of training
intervention and pre-post assessments. Accordingly, partic-
ipants were divided into 2 training groups that performed
either VDJ (n = 9) or HDJ (n = 9) in addition to their normal
handball training sessions. We acknowledge that the present
study design could have been more powerful with a nonin-
tervention control group. However, the population from
which well-trained handball players can be drawn, belonging
to the same team and with a common conditioning back-
ground, is limited, and therefore, this dictated the approach
we used. The 2 training interventions were based on a very
recent investigation by Dello Iacono et al. (10) reporting
acute biomechanical adaptations associated with the verti-
cally and horizontally oriented drop jump tasks and specific
transference effects in enhancing consequent performance
outcomes. The current study was conducted during the
mid-part of the handball in-season period (November 2015
to January 2016). Overall, the study lasted 12 weeks and
consisted of 1 week of pretesting, 10 weeks of specific train-
ing (twice a week), and 1 week of posttesting. To isolate the
effect of 2 training protocols, additional fitness training ses-
sions (e.g., technical, tactical, and strength) during the 10
weeks of training were identical for both groups and were
limited to specific handball training exclusively. Tests
included a CMJ and the 25-m (12.5 m + 12.5 m and 1808
COD) shuttle sprint whose performance, kinetic, and kine-
matic variables were assessed at pre- and postintervention
points.
Subjects
Based on the assumption that between-group differences in
agility performance time (8) of 0.08 6 0.03 seconds and in
jump performance (11) of 1.7 6 0.3 cm are meaningful, we
used G*Power software to determine that a sample size of
$7 participants per group would provide maximal chances
of 0.5 and 25% of type I and type II errors, respectively.
Eighteen elite male handball players (age 23.4 6 4.6 years,
height 192.5 6 3.7 cm, weight 87.8 6 7.4 kg) were recruited
to participate in the study. Players had at least 8 years of
high-level practice and 6 years of specific jumping and
sprinting training experience. They trained with their own
club once a day for 90 minutes, 5 d$wk21, undergoing
technical, tactical, and strength training. Strength training
consisted of ;2 hours a week of “resistance exercises” for
upper-limb muscles only. Pilot studies conducted before the
present study showed that technical and tactical training
sessions can be qualified as intermittent and moderate-
intensity exercises (45–75% maximal oxygen uptake per-
formed over 1–1.5 hours). To be included in the study,
players had to have participated in at least 90% of the train-
ing sessions in the 2 previous competitive seasons. Written
informed consent was obtained from the participants after

receiving an oral explanation of the purpose, benefits, and
potential risks of participating in the study. This study was
approved by the Institution’s Ethics Committee.
Procedures
One week before the beginning of the training schedule, the
participants performed a familiarization session to become
acquainted with the protocols and testing procedures. On the
same day, anthropometric measurements of height and body
mass (SECA model 284, Germany) were taken. After the
familiarization session and before the training intervention,
the athletes reported to the sports hall on 2 separate
occasions, 2 days apart, with the aim of assessing the test-
retest reliability of the measurements. Finally, the same battery
of tests was conducted after the 10-week training period. All
tests were performed in the same regular indoor court, and all
participants wore suitable running shoes to limit possible
variability within the testing procedure. Each subject com-
pleted all trials at the same time of the day (12:00 PM–02:00
PM) and in similar ambient conditions of temperature (21.2 6
0.58 C) and relative humidity (61 6 2.5%). These conditions
maintain test validity and reliability with regard to any influ-
ence of circadian rhythms and diurnal variation (14). To pre-
vent an unnecessary fatigue effect, players and coaches were
instructed to avoid intense training 24 hours before each day
of testing. To reduce any interference on the experiment, par-
ticipants were prohibited from consuming any known stimu-
lant (i.e., caffeine) or depressant (i.e., alcohol) substances for
24 hours before testing and were instructed not to eat for 2–3
hours before each testing session. Upon each visit, the partic-
ipants underwent a 10-minute standardized warm-up (4 mi-
nutes of jogging, 4 minutes of dynamic stretching exercises, 2
sprints of 20 m, and jumping drills). After an active recovery
(;2 minutes of walking), participants completed an assess-
ment, consisting of either 3 CMJs or 3 shuttle sprints (25 m
= 12.5 m+ 12.5 m with a 1808 COD). Participants consumed
water ad libitum during the trials. A single member of the
research team administered all tests, such that the potential
variation in test instruction was minimized.
Day 1. Jump Test. Lower-limb explosive performance
was assessed by a CMJ test according to the protocol of
Bosco et al. (2). Participants were instructed to keep their
hands on their hips to prevent the influence of arm move-
ments. Starting position was stationary, erect, and with knees
fully extended. After assuming the starting position, the par-
ticipants squatted down to ;90⁰ of knee flexion before
beginning a powerful upward motion. Participants were in-
structed to jump as high as possible, and verbal encourage-
ment was provided before each trial. The vertical ground
reaction force (GRF) data were collected from a Kistler force
plate (Kistler Biomechanics, Winterthur, Switzerland)
mounted on a floor apparatus. Sampling frequency was set
at 500 Hz, and the signal was electronically processed and
amplified by a Kistler amplifier (Model No. 9681A). The
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
the TM
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com
force platform was regularly checked for accuracy, linearity,
and consistency over time in the loaded condition (5 mi-
nutes), using certified weights ranging from 20 to 100 kg.
The vertical jump performance (centimeters) was deter-
mined by using the vertical velocity of the center of mass
at takeoff calculated by integrating the vertical GRF through
the impulse-momentum method (15). Each athlete per-
formed 3 trials with passive recovery of 45 seconds between
jumps, and the best result was recorded for further analysis.
Calculation of the Kinetic Variables. The kinetic depen-
dent variables that were measured were peak GRF
(GRFpeak), relative vertical impulse (J), contact time (CT),
reactive strength index (RSI), and leg spring stiffness (kvert).
The CT was defined as the interval of time beginning with the
subject’s downward movement and ending at the moment of
takeoff. Specifically, the beginning of the CT was identified
when the GRF value reduced ;20 N from the bodyweight
expressed in Newton, whereas the endpoint was when the
GRF displayed the zero value. The RSI was calculated by
dividing the jump height in meters by the ground CT in
seconds. A spring-mass model was used to analyze the verti-
cal kvert, which has been defined as the ratio of the peak force
in the spring and the displacement of the spring at the instant
that the leg spring is maximally compressed. Accordingly,
kvert measures were calculated according to the method of
Comyns et al. (6), by dividing the GRFpeak by the displace-
ment of the subject from the initial downward movement to
the lowest point of the center of mass during recovery from
each CMJ. High-speed video camera data (Casio Exilim
FH100, Hi-speed, 240 fps; Casio, Tokyo, Japan) were digitized
(Kinovea, http://www.kinovea.org) to determine the vertical
downward displacement of the subject during the jumps. To
accomplish this, a passive reflective marker (14 mm diameter)
was attached to the skin at the L5-S1 level for sagittal plane
analysis. The marker placement at this level was assumed to
represent the body movement, and its 2D kinematic raw data
were further converted into displacement values (10).
Day 2. Twenty-Five-Meter Sprint Test. The 25-m sprint
test consisted of a maximal 2 3 12.5-m shuttle sprint (Figure
1) assessed by using the same setup previously described by
Figure 1. Twenty-five-meter sprint test setup.
VOLUME 31 | NUMBER 4 | APRIL 2017 | 923
 Transference Effects of Specific Plyometric Training

software (http://www.kinovea.
org). Each athlete performed 3
TABLE 1. Training schedule of vertical-oriented drop jump (VDJ) and horizontal-
oriented drop jump (HDJ) protocols. trials with passive recovery of
2 minutes between sprints, and
Preintervention (test) Week 1 Anthropometry, countermovement the best results were recorded
jump, 25-m sprint
Training period Week 2 2 3 (5 3 6–1000 /20 P) for further analysis.
Week 3 2 3 (5 3 7–1000 /20 P)
Week 4 2 3 (6 3 6–1000 /20 P) Calculation of the Kine-
Week 5 2 3 (6 3 7–1000 /20 P)
matic Variables. The kine-
Week 6 2 3 (7 3 7–1000 /20 P)
Week 7 2 3 (7 3 7–1000 /20 P) matic dependent variables
Week 8 2 3 (8 3 8–1000 /20 P) measured for the 25-m sprint
Week 9 2 3 (8 3 10–1000 /20 P) test were as follows—(a) step
Week 10 2 3 (8 3 10–1000 /20 P)
Week 11 2 3 (7 3 7–1000 /20 P) length (SL): the horizontal dis-
Postintervention (test) Week 12 Anthropometry, countermovement tance between the point of
jump, 25-m sprint touchdown of one foot to that
of the following touchdown for
HDJ = horizontal drop jump; VDJ = vertical drop jump.
0 00
( ) indicates minutes; ( ) indicates seconds. With regard to the training protocol and the opposite foot; (b) step fre-
schedule, 2 3 (5 3 6–1000 /20 P) in week 2 means 2 sessions per week consisting of 5 sets quency (SF): steps taken per
of 6 alternate single-leg drop jump repetitions with 1000 of passive recovery between repeti- second. Step frequency was
tions and 20 (20 P) of passive recovery between sets.
calculated as the inverse of step
time (1/step time), where step
time was estimated as the time
between touchdown of one
Dello Iacono et al. (8). This test has been determined as foot and touchdown of the opposite foot; and (c) CT: the
reliable for monitoring the sprinting and agility activities in time of the contact phase for both sprinting steps and COD
handball players displaying excellent agreement between the footstep (COD CT).
test-retest measurements and low intratest variability (95%
intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] ranging between
0.943 and 0.992; coefficient of variation [CV] percent rang-
ing between 0.91 and 3.58%). The subjects sprinted linearly
from the start line (A point—Figure 1) for 12.5 m, touched
a line on the floor (C point—Figure 1) with a foot, and then,
after a 1808 COD, returned to the start line, all performed as
fast as possible. Before sprinting, the subjects were asked to
assume the start position, with the front foot placed 5 cm
before the first timing gate. Strong verbal encouragement
was provided to each subject during all sprints. Time was
recorded using photocell gates (Timing-Radio Controlled;
TT-Sport, San Marino, Italy) placed at the start-finish points
and on the 10-m lines, approximately 0.5 m above the
ground, and with an accuracy of 0.001 seconds. The above
setup allowed to calculate 3 scores for the sprint test: the 10-m
in-line performance (A-B distance—the first linear 10 m from
the start point), the agility performance or COD times (B-C-B
distances—the time for the 2 3 2.5 m turnaround, between the
10 m and 15 m crossing lines), and the total sprint time (A-C-
A distance—sprint, seconds). During each test, some temporal
kinematic variables were calculated from simple video analysis
on the sagittal plane. Specifically, a camera (Casio Exilim
FH100, Hi-speed, 240 fps; Casio) was located on a 1.5-m-high
tripod, 7 m from the running lane, and perpendicular to the
acquisition space and the subjects’ plane motion (32). As for
the calibration step, the running lane was taped with kine-
matic markers placed at 5-m length intervals. The film Figure 2. Vertical (upper) and horizontal (lower) drop jump training protocols.
sequences were analyzed off-line using the Kinovea
the TM

924 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 the TM

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com

In accordance with the standard calibration method used
in this study (31), the accuracy of the measurements were
2.8 mm and 0.04 seconds for SL and CT, respectively.
Training Intervention
Training started 1 week after the baseline testing and consisted
of 2 sessions per week (on Sundays and Wednesdays) of
either VDJ or HDJ performed over a period of 10 consec-
utive weeks. This schedule comported the last week of
training to coincide with the final weekly microcycle of the
first round before the winter break (according to the local
federation calendar). In addition, both training programs
were structured according to a gradual progress plan that
included a 7-day tapering period (34) (i.e., total training
volume was reduced by 30%), with the aim of both maxi-
mizing the final performance and avoiding any negative
influence on the following training cycles (Table 1). Partic-
ipants performed 5–8 sets 3 6–10 repetitions of vertical
alternate 1-leg or horizontal alternate 1-leg drop jumps, land-
ing from the top of a platform 25 cm in height according to
the protocol previously described by Dello Iacono et al. (8).
The rest periods between repetitions and sets were 10 and
120 seconds, respectively. The athletes were instructed to
place their hands on their hips and step off the platforms
with the supporting leg straight to avoid any initial upward
propulsion or sinking, ensuring a drop height of 25 cm
(Figure 2). Participants were required to jump for maximal
height (VDJ) or maximal horizontal frontward distance
(HDJ) through minimizing their CT with the ground, with
every jump performed to maximize reactive strength (i.e.,
bounce drop jumps). One researcher and one coach super-
vised all exercises, and particular attention was paid to the
demonstration with maximal motivation given to the ath-
letes during each jump. The length of time of the protocol,
including the rest intervals and duration of the jumps, ranged
between 15 and 30 minutes.
In addition, to isolate the effect of the current 2 training
protocols, other fitness training sessions (e.g., technical,
tactical, and strength) were conducted identically in both
groups during the 10 weeks of the study. Specifically, the
average total training time for each group was ;12 h$wk21,
including similar technical, tactical strength, and basic skills’
drills. Strength training included 2 sessions per week of
upper-limb exercises (bench press and shoulder press), with
an average load of 50% of 1 repetition maximum, 3 sets for
each exercise with 2 minutes of passive recovery in between
(8O10 fast repetitions, “,1 second”), recovery between rep-
etitions (2 seconds), and work-to-rest ratio = 1:3.
Statistical Analyses
All data are presented as mean 6 SD and SE. The Shapiro-
Wilk test was used to ensure normal distribution of the re-
sults. The ICC and CV were used to determine the reliability
and the repeatability of the measures (19). The effect size
(h2) was calculated for all variables between each condition.
A paired sample t-test was used to detect differences
between pre- and posttest mean within each group. Analysis
of variance (ANOVA) for repeated measures was used to
examine the data for between-group differences at the pre-
and postintervention time points to determine the interactive
effects of training protocols. The independent variables
included one within-subject factor (time) with 2 levels (pre-
intervention and postintervention) and 1 between-subject
factor (treatment) with 2 levels (VDJ vs. HDJ). When

TABLE 2. Test-retest reliability and agreement between measures for each assessed variable.

Variables ICC 95% CI CV 95% CI

Performance
10-m sprint (s) 0.912 0.901–0.922 2.8 2.74–2.85
COD (s) 0.902 0.893–0.910 2.9 2.85–2.94
25-m sprint (s) 0.911 0.902–0.919 2.6 2.54–2.65
CMJ (cm) 0.933 0.919–0.947 3.2 3.15–3.24
Kinetics
GRFpeak (N$kg21) 0.912 0.874–0.949 3.9 3.86–3.93
Impulse (N$s21$kg21) 0.915 0.891–0.938 2.6 2.36–2.83
Kvert (kN$m21) 0.888 0.875–0.902 3.5 3.26–3.73
CT (ms) 0.899 0.889–0.908 3.2 3.14–3.25
RSI 0.906 0.892–0.920 3.6 3.54–3.65
Kinematics
Step length (m) 0.875 0.843–0.903 2.8 2.56–3.03
Step frequency (Hz) 0.925 0.913–0.936 2.2 1.88–2.51
COD CT (s) 0.910 0.896–0.924 3.3 3.25–3.35

ICC = intraclass correlation coefficient; CI = confidence interval; CV = coefficient of variation; COD = change of direction; CMJ =
countermovement jump; GRFpeak = relative peak ground reaction force; CT = contact time.
The test-retest reliability is expressed with ICC. The agreement between measures is expressed in terms of CV.

VOLUME 31 | NUMBER 4 | APRIL 2017 | 925

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Transference Effects of Specific Plyometric Training

a significant F value was achieved, Tukey’s post hoc proce-

dures were performed to locate the pairwise differences

0.629

0.774

0.948

0.407

The values are expressed as mean and SD with 95% CI in both the VDJ and the HDJ groups. Each variable is reported as baseline level (Pre) and after the potentiation protocols
between the mean values. The following dependent variables

h2
were analyzed—(a) performance variables: height of jumps in
the CMJ test, 10-m time, COD time, and total sprint time in

Protocol comparison
the 25-m sprint test; (b) kinetic variables: GRFpeak, J, kvert,
CT, and RSI in the CMJ; and (c) kinematic variables: SL, SF,

0.004§

,0.001§

,0.001§

0.004§
and CTs for the 10-m sprinting performance, COD CT of

p
the last footstep.
The alpha test for statistical significance level was set at
p # 0.05. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS Sta-
tistics 21 software (SPSS, Inc., Chicago, IL, USA).

CI = confidence interval; VDJ = vertical drop jump; HDJ = horizontal drop jump; COD = change of direction; CMJ = countermovement jump.
54.725
9.161

10.004

10.977
RESULTS

F
Tables 3–5 show the results of the 2 conditions for the per-
formance, kinetic, and kinematic parameters of the CMJ and
25-m sprint tests, respectively. At baseline (pretest points), all

1.985–2.006
1.916–1.925
1.162–1.187
1.080–1.111
5.038–5.183
5.056–5.159
44.11–48.74
42.78–43.75
the variables showed highly reliable data, with ICC ranging

95% CI
from 0.911 to 0.942 for performance parameters, from 0.888
to 0.915 for kinetic measures, and from 0.875 to 0.925 for the
kinematic values (Table 2). At the pre- and posttest interven-

zA significant difference when comparing the pre and post measures (time effect), separately for the 2 groups.
tion points, all the dependent variables showed highly reli-

Post
able intratest data, with low CVs (ranging from 2.15 to

(Post). The F, p, and h2 values are reported for the comparison of the effects of the 2 protocol modalities.
3.91%) (Table 2).

(0.036)
(0.015)
(0.028)
(0.033)
(0.157)
(0.111)
(5.02)
(1.67)
Mean (SD)
Between-group ANOVA showed no significant baseline
anthropometric, performance, kinetic, or kinematic differences

1.175
1.996z
1.921z

1.096z
5.111z
5.108z
46.43z
43.27z
TABLE 3. Performance values before and after the training protocols for both groups.

between the groups for all measurements, with all p . 0.05.

Both groups significantly improved in the 10-m sprint
time (p = 0.004 and p = 0.002 for VDJ and HDJ, respectively)
and in the CMJ (p = 0.001 and p = 0.003 for VDJ and HDJ,
respectively) from pretest to posttest (Table 3). As for the
2.068–2.089
2.090–2.105
1.173–1.200
1.176–1.201
5.206–5.409
5.233–5.370
40.14–45.29
39.79–43.26
95% CI

kinetic variables, both groups produced increased responses

for GRFpeak (p = 0.001 and p = 0.004 for VDJ and HDJ,
respectively) and impulse (p = 0.001 and p = 0.004 for
VDJ and HDJ, respectively) from pretest to posttest (Table

§Significant intergroup difference (time 3 interaction effect).

4). In addition, the kinematic variable SL also was increased
Pre

from pretest to posttest (Table 5) in both groups (p = 0.003

(0.037)
(0.026)
(0.029)
(0.028)
(0.220)
(0.149)

and p = 0.001 for VDJ and HDJ, respectively).

Mean (SD)

(5.57)
(3.76)

Between-group ANOVA of the CMJ test showed signif-

icant differences as an effect of treatment between the 2
2.079
2.098
1.187
1.189
5.308
5.302
42.72
41.53

conditions (F(1,17) = 10.977, p = 0.004 [h2 = 0.407]).

Between-group ANOVA of the 10-m performance time
showed significant differences as an effect of treatment
(VDJ vs. HDJ) with F(1,17) = 9.161 and p = 0.004 (h2 =
Group

0.629). The COD performance significantly differed between

HDJ

HDJ

HDJ

HDJ
VDJ

VDJ

VDJ

VDJ

groups as an effect of protocol (HDJ) interaction with p ,

0.001 and F(1,17) = 54.725 and p , 0.001 (h2 = 0.774).
Between-group ANOVA of the sprint time showed that sig-
nificant differences were found between the 2 protocol con-
10-m sprint (s)

25-m sprint (s)

ditions as an effect of treatment (VDJ vs. HDJ) with regard to

the sprint time, F(1,17) = 10.004 and p , 0.001 (h2 = 0.948).
CMJ (cm)
COD (s)
Variable

Significant between-group differences were found with

regard to GRFpeak, F(1,17) = 7.181 and p = 0.004 (h2 =
0.821); relative impulse, F(1,17) = 5.776 and p = 0.008 (h2 =
0.731); kvert, F(1,17) = 10.032 and p , 0.001 (h2 = 0.992);
the TM

926 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

TABLE 4. Baseline values and pre- vs. posttraining comparison of the kinetic variables for countermovement jump.

Baseline D% (post- pretest) Protocol comparison

Variable Group Mean (SD) 95% CI Mean (SD) 95% CI F p h2

GRFpeak (N$kg21) VDJ 21.34 (3.97) 20.19–22.48 10.3z (1.5) 9.8 to 10.7 7.181 0.004§ 0.821
HDJ 21.07 (4.84) 19.67–22.46 4.3z (0.4) 4.1 to 4.4
Impulse (N$s21$kg21) VDJ 15.55 (1.88) 15.01–16.09 12.4z (1.3) 12.1 to 12.7 5.776 0.008§ 0.731
HDJ 15.12 (2.12) 14.51–15.73 5.7z (0.7) 5.5 to 5.9
kvert (kN$m21) VDJ 6.04 (1.1) 5.72–6.35 17.6z (2.5) 16.9 to 18.2 10.032 ,0.001§ 0.992
HDJ 6.02 (1.6) 5.55–6.48 4.6 (1.5) 4.2 to 5.1
CT (ms) VDJ 721.2 (21.3) 715.05–727.34 210.1z (0.9) 29.8 to 210.3 5.872 0.003§ 0.687
HDJ 716.3 (20.2) 710.46–722.13 21.5 (0.4) 21.4 to 21.6
RSI VDJ 0.60 (0.05) 0.58–0.61 7.2z (0.9) 6.9 to 7.5 6.124 0.002§ 0.782
HDJ 0.59 (0.06) 0.57–0.60 2.1 (0.5) 1.9 to 2.2

CI = confidence interval; GRFpeak = relative peak ground reaction force; VDJ = vertical drop jump; HDJ = horizontal drop jump; impulse = relative impulse; kvert = leg spring
stiffness; CT = contact time; RSI = reactive strength index.
The values are expressed as mean and SD with 95% CI in both the VDJ and HDJ groups. The F, p, and h2 values are reported for the comparison of the effects of the 2 protocol modalities.
zA significant difference when comparing the pre and post measures (time effect), separately for the 2 groups.
§Significant intergroup difference (time 3 interaction effect).

TABLE 5. Baseline values and pre- vs. posttraining comparison of the kinematic variables for 25-m sprint test.

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

the
Baseline D% (post- pretest) Protocol comparison

Variable Group Mean (SD) 95% CI Mean (SD) 95% CI F p h2

SL (m), steps 0–1 VDJ 1.05 (0.05) 1.035 to 1.064 1.7z (1.3) 1.32 to 2.07 5.781 0.007§ 0.833
HDJ 1.04 (0.03) 1.031 to 1.048 3.6z (0.7) 3.39 to 3.8
,0.001§
VOLUME 31 | NUMBER 4 | APRIL 2017 |

SL (m), steps 2–4 VDJ 1.19 (0.03) 1.181 to 1.198 1.4z (0.7) 1.19 to 1.17 10.032 0.992
HDJ 1.17 (0.026) 1.164 to 1.175 3.4z (0.2) 3.34 to 3.45
Step frequency (Hz) VDJ 4.29 (0.31) 4.2 to 4.37 20.3 (0.1) 20.27 to 20.32 1.232 0.167 0.134
HDJ 4.31 (0.27) 4.23 to 4.28 0.2 (0.1) 0.27 to 0.32
0- to 10-m CTs (ms) VDJ 211.3 (34.4) 201.36 to 221.23 0.3 (0.2) 0.24 to 0.35 1.786 0.145 0.121
HDJ 201.5 (36.6) 190.93 to 212.06 0.2 (0.1) 0.17 to 0.22
COD CT (ms) VDJ 411.3 (21.4) 405.12 to 417.47 22.1 (1.1) 21.36 to 22.44 8.994 ,0.001§ 0.923
HDJ 410.5 (24.6) 403.39 to 417.60 212.1z (1.2) 211.7 to 212.4

CI = confidence interval; SL = step length; VDJ = vertical drop jump; HDJ = horizontal drop jump; CT = contact time; COD = change of direction.

TM
The values are expressed as mean and SD with 95% CI in both the VDJ and HDJ groups. The F, p, and h2 values are reported for the comparison of the effects of the 2 protocol modalities.

| www.nsca.com
zA significant difference when comparing the pre and post measures (time effect), separately for the 2 groups.
§Significant intergroup difference (time 3 interaction effect).
927
 Transference Effects of Specific Plyometric Training
CT, F(1,17) = 5.872 and p = 0.003 (h2 = 0.687); and RSI,
F(1,17) = 6.124 and p = 0.002 (h2 = 0.782).
Finally, between-group ANOVA showed significant kine-
matic differences as an effect of treatment for SL 0–1,
F(1,17) = 5.781 and p = 0.007 (h2 = 0.833); SL 2–4, F(1,17) =
10.032 and p , 0.001 (h2 = 0.992); and COD CT, F(1,17) =
8.994 and p , 0.001 (h2 = 0.923).
DISCUSSION
The present study used a specific field assessment and
a controlled design to compare the effectiveness of 2 drop
jump–based plyometric protocols on performance and bio-
mechanical aspects of jumping, sprinting, and COD per-
formances in elite handball players during the mid-phase
of the competitive period. First, the results indicated that
both training approaches led to significant improvements
in all the performance variables after a 10-week intervention.
Second, our outcomes showed different and specific adapta-
tions to each training regimen. Greater improvements in
short linear sprint and COD were observed after HDJ,
whereas CMJ measures improved more after VDJ. These
chronic effects on the explosive performances were further
supported by the specific biomechanical variables assessed.
In accordance with our hypotheses, the VDJ led to
superior effects on vertical jumping ability when compared
with the HDJ (Table 3). Our results are in agreement with
a number of previous studies that analyzed the role of ver-
tical GRF among the biomechanical features of vertical
jumps (28,37,38). As is well known, the success of vertical
jump is determined by the velocity at takeoff. From New-
ton’s second law of motion (F$Dt = m$Dv), this velocity is
determined by the preceding impulse (F$Dt) generated by an
athlete. As shown in our data (Table 4), after the VDJ, the
athletes were able to generate higher amounts of GRF in
shorter CT, thus confirming the impulse-momentum rela-
tionship and the perfect correlation between the magnitude
of the impulse, the velocity at takeoff, and the jump height
(44). In fact, the VDJ protocol increased the athletes’ ability
to apply a greater level of force against the ground during the
CMJ assessments, thus reconfirming the rationale about the
importance of vertical GRF as a key kinetic component for
vertical explosive actions. These findings are further supported
by the underlying specific kinetic acute adaptations observed
in the CMJ task after the VDJ protocol in comparison with
the HDJ (Table 4). In response to the VDJ regimen, jumps
were performed with higher relative impulse values that, cou-
pled with the increase in RSI and leg spring stiffness, indicated
that the SSC behavior was enhanced, as is evident from the
improvement of the functional performance measures of CMJ
(Table 3). In accordance with the theory of specific training
overload, in addition to the greater mechanical loading
induced by the VDJ forms in comparison with that of the
HDJ, a possible explanation for the greater improvement on
CMJ performance after VDJ training may be the evident pres-
ence of training exercise specificity between this exercise and
the TM
928 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
the CMJ test. In fact, when undertaking specific training to
enhance performance outcome in a given task, compared
with general conditioning to improve underlying neuromus-
cular ability, it is important to use exercises that provide a neu-
romuscular overload in a manner that is task specific. From
a methodological perspective, the main characteristic differ-
entiating the 2 training protocols designed in our study was
represented by the axis force orientation (Figure 2). Therefore,
lower conditioning exercise specificity of the HDJs in com-
parison with the vertical ones and with the CMJ task should
be acknowledged. As a consequence, performing VDJs repeat-
edly may have increased the chances for the VDJ group to
make greater adaptations, considering the importance of ver-
tical force production and its application in jumping perfor-
mance (38). On the other hand, concurrent increases in CMJ
jump height were also observed following the HDJ protocol
(Table 3). Vertical and horizontal 1-leg jumps are commonly
reported as independent tasks featuring different leg strength/
power qualities. However, Meylan et al. (30), investigating the
interrelationship in vertical and horizontal jump assessments,
have found moderate correlation (r = 0.64) and a shared var-
iance of ;45% between single-leg vertical and horizontal
jump tests. In this context, a recent investigation by Dobbs
et al. (13) has provided interesting data with regard to the
biomechanical responses of vertically and horizontally ori-
ented drop jump tasks. Specifically, the comparison of the
kinetic variables showed much greater magnitude of peak
vertical GRFs (z5 times) during the VDJ forms compared
with the horizontally oriented ones. Nevertheless, unilateral
HDJs performed from a landing height of 20 cm produced
peak and mean impulses similar to those occurred in the ver-
tical task (13). Consequently, it is reasonable that this mode of
plyometrics induced a moderate but sufficiently effective
mechanical stimulus that in the long term has led to positive
adaptations for the vertical performance direction. Although
this study is the first to determine the effect of specific plyo-
metric methodologies on consequent vertically or horizontally
oriented performances of elite athletes, the current results are
in agreement with those of previous investigations that have
generally demonstrated 5–15% improvements in vertical jump
height (25) because of a combination of enhanced neuromus-
cular activities and greater muscle mechanical outputs after
training.
The second finding of the present study was that both
training regimens led to specific improvements in the
horizontally oriented explosive performances, but the HDJ
group resulted in larger gains in comparison with the VDJ
group (Table 3). The 25-m sprint test, including both in-line
short-distance (10 m) sprint and COD tasks, had the partic-
ularity to assess the specific initial acceleration and agility
ability in handball players (3,8). Both initial acceleration and
agility have been found to be powerful discriminators of elite
handball players and therefore should be used as descriptive
tests for handball performance (17,33). The distance of 10 m
appeared to be the most relevant to assess the specific

quality of acceleration in handball because of the high fre-
quency of short high-intensity sprints during a game (42). A
significant greater decrease in 10-m sprint time in the HDJ
(8.5% vs. 4% for HDJ and VDJ, respectively) (Table 3) dem-
onstrated the efficiency of a specifically oriented plyometric
program to improve short-distance explosive actions of elite
handball players. The percentage of changes in performance
after a 10-week training period in the current study is in
agreement with those of previous investigations designed
for similar types of training for adult (16,18) and adolescent
(5) handball players, which reported beneficial effects on
agility and sprinting performance. Initial acceleration has
been shown to be more difficult to enhance because of the
smaller margin for improvement and the different forces
involved. Therefore, the outcomes in the current study offer
insights into the possibility of practical applications of train-
ing regimens similar to the designed HDJ given that they
could provide players with a physical advantage over equally
skilled opponents toward the critical phases of the game.
Previous reports have tried to identify the key mechanical
factors for successful performance in short-distance sprints
(7,22,45). Kawamori et al. (22) highlighted that net horizon-
tal GRF impulse normalized to body mass was the major
determining kinetic factor of the change in the horizontal
velocity of the athlete during ground contacts of sprint tasks.
However, simply attempting to maximize net horizontal
GRF impulse may result in longer ground CT and lower
SF, which could be detrimental to sprint acceleration per-
formance. In fact, sprinting velocity is the product of SL and
SF (29). Thus, to improve sprinting velocity, athletes need to
improve at least one of these factors while the other factor
remains unchanged or reduces, to a lesser extent, the gain in
the former. In our study, after a 10-week plyometric training,
all athletes performed short-distance sprints through a differ-
ent strategy in terms of temporal kinematic parameters. Spe-
cifically, no changes in CTs and SF were observed at
postintervention point for both groups, whereas SL was sig-
nificantly longer with a greater increase for the HDJ group in
comparison with the VDJ one (Table 5). In light of these
results, it was not surprising that SF was unchanged because
no significant change occurred for CTs (20). The concurrent
outcomes highlighting no pre- vs. postintervention changes
for CTs and SF associated with improved 10-m sprint per-
formances may be attributed to the athletes’ ability to pro-
duce greater horizontal forces for an optimal propulsive
action. In this regard, the interactions between SL and SF
and their influence on sprinting performance have been
widely investigated (20). Several authors (20,43) have pro-
posed that the greatest determinant of sprinting velocity is
SL, which, in turn, is most highly related to the magnitude of
the horizontal ground reaction impulse. Therefore, an opti-
mal combination of the magnitude, direction, and duration
of GRF is required for maximizing sprint acceleration per-
formance. Considering this background, it is worth nothing
that, after the 10-week intervention, significant interaction
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
the TM
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com
effects (time 3 intervention) leading to greater improve-
ments in short-distance sprinting performance were directly
attributable to the HDJ regimen (Table 3). Consequently,
players performing HDJ benefited more from the favorable
effect of specific horizontally oriented drop jumping training
on leg force production and proper application onto the
ground that, in turn, induced better sprint performances.
This conclusion is further supported by the evidence that
concurrent greater changes in SL values were observed in
HDJ when compared with the VDJ (Table 5).
Outcomes from the present study also revealed that the
HDJ regimen led to specific improvement in the horizontally
oriented COD performance and resulted in larger gains in
comparison with the VDJ protocol (Table 3). Our findings
are in agreement with the study of Dello Iacono et al. (10),
who reported similar acute performance improvements of
the same COD cutting task because of an horizontally ori-
ented drop jump–based PAP protocol. Moreover, the results
of Meylan et al. (30) support our findings, in that they have
reported horizontally oriented jump task assessment as the
single best predictor (r = 20.46 to 20.59) of COD perform-
ances similar to those involved in our study. Our data high-
light a main effect of the HDJ application on the
biomechanical parameter COD CT of the cutting maneuver
required during the COD task (Table 5). After a 10-week
period of HDJ training, the athletes were able to reduce
the ground CT of their plant step in completing the COD
by ;12.1% (Table 5) with an improved performance time of
8% (Table 3). Our results are similar to those of Sasaki et al.
(39) and Marshall et al. (27), which also found ground CT
(p # 0.05 and p , 0.01, respectively) significantly correlated
with cutting time (r = 20.65 and r = 20.48, respectively).
Although many muscle groups are involved in the multijoint
action of cutting, shorter ground CT should be given greater
emphasis, suggesting that the plant leg must demonstrate
significant control under deceleration in a cut to facilitate
efficient SSC utilization and to achieve optimal performance.
In fact, to produce a fast COD, it would be desirable to
achieve a relatively short ground CT that initially facilitates
the eccentric deceleration of the downward motion of the
body’s center of mass and consequently produces a propul-
sive phase. For instance, the performance of COD tasks has
been associated with the athletes’ ability to transfer the linear
momentum of force directly from the ground to the peak
horizontal acceleration of the body’s center of mass, which is
critical to break the inertia (i.e., starting from a zero velocity;
24). The results of the present study revealed how athletes
performed quicker COD tasks combined with shorter
ground COD CT after performing the HDJ protocol, com-
pared with the VDJ regimen (Tables 2 and 5). Thus, the
concomitant occurrences of such performance and kine-
matic responses (shorter COD time and COD CT, respec-
tively) suggest that both higher amount of horizontal GRF
and optimal horizontal-to-vertical force ratio may represent
the specific biomechanical adaptations that, in turn, have led
VOLUME 31 | NUMBER 4 | APRIL 2017 | 929
 Transference Effects of Specific Plyometric Training
to greater COD performance following HDJ protocol in
comparison with the VDJ. Moreover, the specific body con-
figuration required during the landing task of both protocols
may have produced short-term transference effects of the sub-
sequent vertically and horizontally oriented tasks (Figure 2).
Kugler and Janshen (23) found significant correlations (p #
0.05) between forward-oriented GRF associated with
forward-oriented body positions and higher accelerations;
briefly, individuals who exhibited a greater inclination of their
torso in the sagittal plane toward the direction of the finish
line, coupled with higher amounts of the propulsive force
component, tended to have faster performance times. From
a methodological perspective, the main and only characteris-
tic differentiating the 2 training protocols designed in our
study was that the conditioning stimulus was either vertical
or horizontal in nature. Therefore, the similarities and specif-
icities between the HDJ exercise and the agility maneuver
may have increased the chances for the HDJ group to make
greater adaptations, considering the importance of horizontal
force production combined with the specific whole-body bio-
mechanical configuration and its application to COD perfor-
mance (38).
In conclusion, the development of large forces upon
conditioning exercises is a fundamental requisite for inducing
neuromuscular adaptations (37), muscle remodeling
(1,16,37), and functional enhancements of athletic tasks
(38). However, competitive performance depends not only
on strength but also on the ability to exert such forces both
at a specific rate and through an orientation similar to those
required by the mechanical demands of each sportive disci-
pline (29). In other words, it seems that the importance is
not only referred to the amount of total force produced but
also the way it is oriented onto the supporting ground when
performing specific tasks (23). The results of this study can
guide conditioning specialists in choosing the training means
that best generate the acute and optimal physiological con-
ditions for consequent task enhancement and, in turn, prac-
tical means to train athletes efficiently. On the other hand,
the combination of exercises aiming to develop both vertical
and horizontal component axis forces has a logical training
construct in professional handball neuromuscular perfor-
mance development. Considering the findings of the current
study, it could be hypothesized the superiority of combined
training protocols over isolated training regimens for the
overall athletic development of elite handball players. There-
fore, further studies are needed to obtain evidence of the
optimal combination (i.e., combined vertical and horizontal
conditioning regimens) and training dose of exercises (i.e.,
proportion of vertical and horizontal exercises) required for
effective neuromuscular abilities.
PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS
In light of the chronic performance and biomechanical
adaptations associated with the vertically and horizontally
oriented conditioning regimens examined in the current
the TM
930 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
study, it is proposed that specific plyometric protocols may
induce transference effects in enhancing related performance
outcomes. Plyometric training could be prescribed as
specifically oriented exercises, which improve explosive
force production and functional performance according to
the specific sport task and the biomechanical demands.
Specifically, VDJ training, applied during 10 weeks, achieved
greater improvement in vertically oriented explosive perfor-
mance assessed by vertical jump compared with HDJ.
Conversely, HDJ elicited greater gains in horizontally
oriented functional tasks, such as short-distance sprint and
COD. Consequently, during the in-season period, handball
coaches may integrate these conditioning methodologies
into their training strategies, given that they represent
a viable means for inducing specific functional adaptations
and, in turn, for achieving enhanced performance levels.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors wish to thank each of the players and the
coaches for their efforts in completing the physical tasks
needed for the study. The authors thank Mrs. Dinah
Olswang for the English editing of the final version. The
results of the present study do not constitute endorsement of
the product by the authors or the National Strength and
Conditioning Association. The authors have no conflict of
interest to declare.
REFERENCES
1. Aagaard, P, Simonsen, EB, Andersen, JL, Magnusson, P, and Dyhre-
Poulsen, P. Increased rate of force development and neural drive of
human skeletal muscle following resistance training. J Appl Physiol
(1985) 93: 1318–1326, 2002.
2. Bosco, C, Luhtanen, P, and Komi, PV. A simple method for
measurement of mechanical power in jumping. Eur J Appl Physiol
Occup Physiol 50: 273–282, 1983.
3. Buchheit, M, Spencer, M, and Ahmaidi, S. Reliability, usefulness,
and validity of a repeated sprint and jump ability test. Int J Sports
Physiol Perform 5: 3–17, 2010.
4. Chaouachi, A, Brughelli, M, Levin, G, Boudhina, NB, Cronin, J, and
Chamari, K. Anthropometric, physiological and performance
characteristics of elite team-handball players. J Sports Sci 27:
151–157, 2009.
5. Chelly, MS, Hermassi, S, Aouadi, R, and Shephard, RJ. Effects of
8-week in-season plyometric training on upper and lower limb
performance of elite adolescent handball players. J Strength Cond Res
28: 1401–1410, 2014.
6. Comyns, TM, Harrison, AJ, and Hennessy, LK. An investigation
into the recovery process of a maximum stretch-shortening cycle
fatigue protocol on drop and rebound jumps. J Strength Cond Res 25:
2177–2184, 2011.
7. Cronin, JB and Hansen, KT. Strength and power predictors of sports
speed. J Strength Cond Res 19: 349–357, 2005.
8. Dello Iacono, A, Ardigò, LP, Meckel, Y, and Padulo, J. Effect of
small-side games and repeated shuffle sprint training on physical
performance in elite handball players. J Strength Cond Res 30:
830–840, 2016.
9. Dello Iacono, A, Eliakim, A, and Meckel, Y. Improving fitness of
elite handball players: Small-sided games vs. high-intensity
intermittent training. J Strength Cond Res 29: 835–843, 2015.

10. Dello Iacono, A, Martone, D, and Padulo, J. Acute effects of drop-
jump protocols on explosive performances of elite handball players.
J Strength Cond Res 30: 3122–3133, 2016.
11. Dello Iacono, A, Padulo, J, Eliakim, A, Gottlieb, R, Bareli, R, and
Meckel, Y. Post activation potentiation effects on vertical and
horizontal explosive performances of young handball and basketball
athletes. J Sports Med Phys Fitness 56: 1455–1464, 2016.
12. Di Giminiani, R and Petricola, S. The power output-drop height
relationship to determine the optimal dropping intensity and to monitor
the training intervention. J Strength Cond Res 30: 117–125, 2016.
13. Dobbs, CW, Gill, ND, Smart, DJ, and McGuigan, MR. Relationship
between vertical and horizontal jump variables and muscular
performance in athletes. J Strength Cond Res 29: 661–671, 2015.
14. Drust, B, Waterhouse, J, Atkinson, G, Edwards, B, and Reilly, T.
Circadian rhythms in sports performance–an update. Chronobiol Int
22: 21–44, 2005.
15. Ganiv, LM. Three different methods of calculating vertical jump
height from force platform data in men and women. Meas Phys Educ
Exerc Sci 12: 207–218, 2008.
16. Gorostiaga, EM, Granados, C, Ibanez, J, Gonzalez-Badillo, JJ, and
Izquierdo, M. Effects of an entire season on physical fitness changes in
elite male handball players. Med Sci Sports Exerc 38: 357–366, 2006.
17. Gorostiaga, EM, Granados, C, Ibanez, J, and Izquierdo, M.
Differences in physical fitness and throwing velocity among elite and
amateur male handball players. Int J Sports Med 26: 225–232, 2005.
18. Hermassi, S, Chelly, MS, Tabka, Z, Shephard, RJ, and Chamari, K.
Effects of 8-week in-season upper and lower limb heavy resistance
training on the peak power, throwing velocity, and sprint
performance of elite male handball players. J Strength Cond Res 25:
2424–2433, 2011.
19. Hopkins, WG. Measures of reliability in sports medicine and
science. Sports Med 30: 1–15, 2000.
20. Hunter, JP, Marshall, RN, and McNair, PJ. Interaction of step length
and step rate during sprint running. Med Sci Sports Exerc 36: 261–
271, 2004.
21. Karcher, C and Buchheit, M. On-court demands of elite handball,
with special reference to playing positions. Sports Med 44: 797–814,
2014.
22. Kawamori, N, Nosaka, K, and Newton, RU. Relationships between
ground reaction impulse and sprint acceleration performance in
team sport athletes. J Strength Cond Res 27: 568–573, 2013.
23. Kugler, F and Janshen, L. Body position determines propulsive
forces in accelerated running. J Biomech 43: 343–348, 2010.
24. Loturco, I, Pereira, LA, Kobal, R, Zanetti, V, Kitamura, K, Abad, CC,
and Nakamura, FY. Transference effect of vertical and horizontal
plyometrics on sprint performance of high-level U-20 soccer
players. J Sports Sci 33: 2182–2191, 2015.
25. Markovic, G, Jukic, I, Milanovic, D, and Metikos, D. Effects of sprint
and plyometric training on muscle function and athletic
performance. J Strength Cond Res 21: 543–549, 2007.
26. Markovic, G and Mikulic, P. Neuro-musculoskeletal and
performance adaptations to lower-extremity plyometric training.
Sports Med 40: 859–895, 2010.
27. Marshall, BM, Franklyn-Miller, AD, King, EA, Moran, KA,
Strike, SC, and Falvey, EC. Biomechanical factors associated with
time to complete a change of direction cutting maneuver. J Strength
Cond Res 28: 2845–2851, 2014.
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
the TM
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com
28. Marshall, BM and Moran, KA. Which drop jump technique is most
effective at enhancing countermovement jump ability,
“countermovement” drop jump or “bounce” drop jump? J Sports Sci
31: 1368–1374, 2013.
29. Mero, A and Komi, PV. EMG, force, and power analysis of sprint-
specific strength exercise. J Appl Biomech 10: 1–13, 1994.
30. Meylan, C, McMaster, T, Cronin, J, Mohammad, NI, Rogers, C, and
Deklerk, M. Single-leg lateral, horizontal, and vertical jump
assessment: Reliability, interrelationships, and ability to predict
sprint and change-of-direction performance. J Strength Cond Res 23:
1140–1147, 2009.
31. Padulo, J, Chamari, K, and Ardigò, LP. Walking and running on
treadmill: The standard criteria for kinematics studies. Muscles
Ligaments Tendons J 4: 159–162, 2014.
32. Padulo, J, D’Ottavio, S, Pizzolato, F, Smith, L, and Annino, G.
Kinematic analysis of soccer players in shuttle running. Int J Sports
Med 33: 459–462, 2012.
33. Povoas, SC, Seabra, AF, Ascensao, AA, Magalhaes, J, Soares, JM,
and Rebelo, AN. Physical and physiological demands of elite team
handball. J Strength Cond Res 26: 3365–3375, 2012.
34. Pritchard, HJ, Keogh, JWL, Barnes, MJ, and McGuigan, M. Effects
and mechanisms of tapering in maximizing muscular strength.
Strength Cond J 37(2): 72–83, 2016. Ref type: Journal (Full).
35. Ramirez-Campillo, R, Gallardo, F, Henriquez-Olguin, C,
Meylan, CM, Martinez, C, Alvarez, C, Caniuqueo, A, Cadore, EL,
and Izquierdo, M. Effect of vertical, horizontal, and combined
plyometric training on explosive, balance, and endurance
performance of young soccer players. J Strength Cond Res 29:
1784–1795, 2015.
36. Sáez de Villarreal, E, Requena, B, and Cronin, JB. The effects of
plyometric training on sprint performance: A meta-analysis.
J Strength Cond Res 26: 575–584, 2012.
37. Sáez-Sáez de Villarreal, E, Requena, B, and Newton, RU. Does
plyometric training improve strength performance? A meta-analysis.
J Sci Med Sport 13: 513–522, 2010.
38. Salaj, S and Markovic, G. Specificity of jumping, sprinting, and quick
change-of-direction motor abilities. J Strength Cond Res 25: 1249–
1255, 2011.
39. Sasaki, S, Nagano, Y, Kaneko, S, Sakurai, T, and Fukubayashi, T.
The relationship between performance and trunk movement during
change of direction. J Sports Sci Med 10: 112–118, 2011.
40. Schmidtbleicher, D. Training for power events. In: Strength and
Power in Sport. PV Komi, ed. Oxford, United Kingdom: Blackwell
Science Ltd, 1992. pp. 381–395.
41. Sheppard, JM and Young, WB. Agility literature review:
Classifications, training and testing. J Sports Sci 24: 919–932, 2006.
42. Sibila, M, Vuleta, D, and Pori, P. Position-related differences in
volumes and intensity of large-scale cyclic movements of male
players in handball. Kinesiology 36: 58–68, 2004.
43. Weyand, PG, Sternlight, DB, Bellizzi, MJ, and Wright, S. Faster top
running speeds are achieved with greater ground forces not more
rapid leg movements. J Appl Physiol (1985) 89: 1991–1999, 2000.
44. Winter, EM. Jumping: Power or impulse. Med Sci Sports Exerc 37:
523, 2005.
45. Young, W, McLean, B, and Ardagna, J. Relationship between
strength qualities and sprinting performance. J Sports Med Phys
Fitness 35: 13–19, 1995.
VOLUME 31 | NUMBER 4 | APRIL 2017 | 931