Olympic Weightlifting and Plyometric Training With

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/258202887
Olympic Weightlifting and Plyometric Training With Children Provides Similar

or Greater Performance Improvements Than Traditional Resistance Training
Article in The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research · October 2013

DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000000305 · Source: PubMed
CITATIONS READS
30 2,358
6 authors, including:
Anis Chaouachi Raouf Hammami
232 PUBLICATIONS 4,953 CITATIONS

National center of medicine and science in sport
17 PUBLICATIONS 170 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE
Karim Chamari Eric Drinkwater

Aspetar - Qatar Orthopaedic and Sports Medicine Hospital Charles Sturt University
421 PUBLICATIONS 9,581 CITATIONS 42 PUBLICATIONS 1,657 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Foam Rolling of Quadriceps Decreases Biceps Femoris Activation View project
An acute session of roller massage prolongs voluntary torque development and diminishes evoked pain View project
All content following this page was uploaded by David Behm on 30 October 2017.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research Publish Ahead of Print
DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000000305
Olympic weightlifting and plyometric training with children provides similar

or greater performance improvements than traditional resistance training
AUTHORS: Anis Chaouachi1, Raouf Hammami1, Sofiene Kaabi1, Karim Chamari2, Eric
J. Drinkwater.3,4, David G. Behm4
D
1.TunisianResearch Laboratory ‘‘Sports Performance Optimization’’, National Center
of Medicine and Science in Sports (CNMSS), Tunis, Tunisia
2.
Aspetar, Qatar Orthopaedic and Sports Medicine Hospital, Research and
TE
Education Centre, Doha, Qatar
3.
School of Human Movement Studies, Charles Sturt University, Bathurst, New
South Wales, Australia 2795.
4.School of Human Kinetics and Recreation, Memorial University of Newfoundland,

EP
St. John’s Newfoundland, Canada.
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR: David Behm

School of Human Kinetics and Recreation,
Memorial University of Newfoundland,
C
St. John’s Newfoundland, Canada A1C 5S7

dbehm@mun.ca
tel: 709-864-3408
C
fax: 709-864-3979
A
RUNNING TITLE: Olympic weightlifting and plyometrics with children
Copyright Ó Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. All rights reserved.

47 ABSTRACT
48
49 A number of organizations recommend that advanced resistance training (RT)
50 techniques can be implemented with children. The objective of the present study
51 was to evaluate the effectiveness of Olympic weightlifting (OWL), plyometrics and
52 traditional RT programs with children. Sixty-three children (10-12 years) were
53 randomly allocated to a 12-week control, OWL, plyometric or traditional RT
D
54 program. Pre- and post-training tests included body mass index (BMI), sum of
55 skinfolds, countermovement jump (CMJ), horizontal jump, balance, 5 and 20 m
TE
56 sprint times, isokinetic force and power at 600.s-1 and 3000.s-1. Magnitude-based
57 inferences were used to analyze the likelihood of an effect having a standardized
58 (Cohen) effect size exceeding 0.20. All interventions were generally superior to the
EP
59 control group. OWL was >80% likely to provide substantially better improvements
60 than plyometric training for CMJ, horizontal jump and 5 and 20 m sprint times while
61 >75% likely to substantially exceed traditional RT for balance and isokinetic power
C
62 at 3000.s-1. Plyometric training was >78% likely to elicit substantially better training
63 adaptations than traditional RT for balance, isokinetic force at 600.s-1 and 3000.s-1,
C
64 isokinetic power at 3000.s-1, as well as 5 and 20 m sprints. Traditional RT only
65 exceeded plyometric training for BMI and isokinetic power at 600.s-1. Hence, OWL
A
66 and plyometrics can provide similar or greater performance adaptations for
67 children. It is recommended that any of the three training modalities can be
68 implemented under professional supervision with proper training progressions to
69 enhance training adaptations in children.

70 Key Words: youth, adolescence, strength, power, balance, magnitude-based
71 inferences
72
73
74 INTRODUCTION
75
76
77 There is widespread acceptance by various scientific associations (1, 9, 28,
D
78 34, 52, 60, 66) and review articles (15, 16, 28, 37, 38) that resistance training (RT)
79 for children can improve muscular strength and endurance while decreasing the
TE
80 severity and incidence of sport injuries (35, 38, 56). The Canadian Society for
81 Exercise Physiology (CSEP) position stand (9) reiterated this information but also
82 explored more advanced training concepts such as plyometrics, instability RT,

EP
83 periodization and Olympic style weightlifting (OWL). Other organizations such as
84 the United Kingdom Strength and Conditioning Association (52) and the NSCA (34)
85 have also advocated that advanced multi-joint exercises such as Olympic-style lifts
86 and plyometrics can be incorporated into a youth RT program. However, since

C
87 Olympic-style lifts involve a more complex neural activation pattern, youth would
C
88 need a greater learning period with a relatively light load to become competent at
89 the movements. Faigenbaum et al. (30) states that in some countries, children learn
A
90 these lifts as early as 8 years, but resistance is not added to the bar until they have
91 developed the proper coordination. The possibility of an extended learning period
92 for OWL training might attenuate the strength or power gains compared to
93 traditional RT over the same duration.
94 According to Haff et al. (41), Olympic-style lifts such as the clean & jerk and
95 snatch lifts can generate some of the highest power outputs. They report in a 100 kg

96 male, that the calculated power of the clean, jerk and snatch would range from
97 approximately 3000 – 5400 Watts compared to squats and deadlifts at 1100 Watts
98 each, typical of power lifters (55). Similar results from 8 and 15-week adult training
99 studies showed that OWL training provided a significant advantage over power
100 lifting (44) and vertical jump (67) training respectively for vertical jump
101 improvements. In one of the few studies employing OWL in a children’s RT program,
D
102 Ebada (27) instituted a 3-month children (mean age of 13.2 years) OWL training
103 program resulting in an average 4.9% increase in 9 strength tests (e.g. snatch, clean,
TE
104 squats). An 8-week training program compared OWL and power (e.g. squats, dead
105 lifts) training with high school males averaging 15.9 years of age (21). OWL training
106 exhibited a modest advantage over conventional power training for vertical jump
EP
107 performance. Thus as might be expected with training specificity, training programs
108 emphasizing power movements as found with OWL tend to improve power tests
109 such as vertical jumps to a greater extent than strength measures with traditional
C
110 strength type training programs. Other training programs also emphasize power
111 such as plyometrics albeit with only body mass as a resistance.

C
112 Meta-analyses by Saez de Villareal et al. (62, 63) have indicated that
113 plyometric training could procure substantial improvements in strength in both

A
114 trained and untrained adult men and women. Similarly Johnson et al. (48) report in
115 their meta-analysis that plyometric training with children had large positive effects
116 on jumping and running performance with further evidence to suggest associated
117 improvements in kicking distance balance and agility. However, there has been
118 some reticence to apply these explosive training activities with children. Prior

119 recommendations for high intensity adult plyometric training that stated that the
120 individual should squat at least 1.5 times body weight before performing lower
121 body plyometrics (61) may have inhibited coaches from implementing plyometric
122 training for youth. The CSEP position stand recommends that plyometric training
123 can be safe and effective for enhancing muscle power in children (8). Studies
124 employing plyometric training programs for youth reported improvements in
D
125 vertical jump height (36), rebound jump height (57) and running speed (50).
126 Behringer et al.’s (14) meta-analysis on the transfer of resistance training gains to
TE
127 motor performance in youth reported the highest effect sizes with a combination of
128 plyometric and traditional training programs. However there are no studies,
129 pediatric or adult, that have compared plyometric training to OWL training or
EP
130 conventional / traditional RT.
131 Thus, it was the objective of the present study to compare the training effects
132 of 12 weeks of OWL, plyometric and traditional RT in male 10-12 year old youth.
C
133 Based on the concept of training specificity (6), it was anticipated that the OWL and
134 plyometric training would provide the greatest power improvements whereas
C
135 traditional RT would benefit force measures to a greater extent.
136 METHODS
A
137 Experimental Approach to the Problem
138 The objective of the present study was to evaluate the training effects of
139 OWL, plyometrics and traditional RT with children on functional and physiological
140 measures. Sixty-three children (10-12 years) were randomly allocated to a 12-week
141 control, OWL, plyometric or traditional RT program. Pre- and post-training tests

142 included body mass index (BMI), sum of skinfolds, countermovement jump (CMJ),
143 horizontal jump, balance, 5 and 20 m sprint times, isokinetic force and power at
144 600.s-1 and 3000.s-1. Magnitude-based inferences were used to analyze the likelihood
145 of an effect having a standardized effect size exceeding 0.20.
146 Subjects
147 Sixty-three healthy boys between 10 and 12 years of age, recruited from four
D
148 youth judo and wrestling development centers affiliated with public primary
149 schools in the area of Tunis, Tunisia volunteered to participate in this study. All
TE
150 participants were from similar socio-economic status and had the same daily
151 school-training schedules. None of the boys had an athletic background and were
152 not previously involved in any organized strength and conditioning training
EP
153 programs prior to this experiment. As judo and wrestling involves body weight
154 training, which possibly may affect the training outcomes, no specific training was
155 performed by the subjects during the study period. Pubertal stage was determined
C
156 by self-assessment questionnaire in which subjects assess their genital and pubic
157 hair development according to the criteria of Tanner (3). Subjects ranged from stage
C
158 1 to stage 2 of the Tanner score. The children were randomly allocated into 4 groups
159 (Table 1): (a) OWL training, (b) plyometric training, (c) traditional RT, or a control
A
160 group without a training program. Groups were matched for age, maturation status
161 and physical characteristics. All four groups were balanced as for the sport (judo,
162 wrestling) of the subjects (following minor initial adjustments), and they were
163 shown to be equivalent on all pre-experimental measures (p > 0.05), so that post-
164 training differences could not be ascribed to unequal group composition or to pre-

165 experimental biases. As the study period fell during the summer break, the subjects'
166 usual training programme was in the form of games and technical learning, which
167 did not interfere with the experimental conditions.
168 Parental permission and child assent was obtained after they were informed
169 they could decide whether to be in the study or not, the objectives of the study,
170 possible risks and benefits. The study was conducted according to the Declaration of
D
171 Helsinki and the protocol was fully approved by the Ethics Committee of the
172 National Centre of Medicine and Science of Sports of Tunis (CNMSS) before the
TE
173 commencement of the assessments.
174 Before the beginning of the experiments, children were examined by a
175 physician in the National Center of Medicine and Science in Sports, Tunis, and were
EP
176 assessed as having no injury, chronic pediatric disease, orthopedic limitations or
177 illness that might impair their ability to execute resistance training or to perform
178 power tests.

C
179 Procedure
180 Before the commencement of the study and prior to the initiation of testing,
C
181 all the subjects completed a two-week orientation period (three sessions/week) to
182 become familiar with the general environment, form and technique on each fitness
A
183 test used to evaluate force, power and balance, technique for each training exercise,
184 equipment, and the experimental procedures. During this time, the children
185 received consistent instructions on proper techniques for OWL movements, free
186 weight resistance training, plyometric exercises and landing from certified strength
187 and conditioning specialists and weightlifting coaches. Technique for OWL exercises

188 was the first priority, with the children using wooden sticks in lieu of a bar
189 progressing to an unloaded aluminum bar. The pedagogic sequence of each session
190 followed the guidelines proposed by Faigenbaum and Polakowski (29) and Lloyd et
191 al. (53). Subjects worked repetitively in modified cleans (from blocks just above the
192 knee: clean pull without explosion, clean pull + shrug, clean pull + jump and shrug)
193 and snatch balance to a full squats, not only to learn the skill, but to work on
D
194 flexibility as well. Once the overhead squat was mastered, the snatch from the upper
195 thigh (start position of second pull) was implemented. Progression to the snatch and
TE
196 clean from the knee (hang clean and hang snatch) and finally from the ground
197 completed the first sequences of drills or technique (17). Procedures on how to
198 "miss" a lift (respond to incorrect technique) properly were reviewed and
EP
199 instructions were regularly provided on how to correctly return the bar to the hang
200 or floor position so that participants became automatic in their response to an
201 undesirable bar position (32). Pictures and videos were used to make the
C
202 instructions appropriate for children. Participants’ questions were answered during
203 this time.

C
204 Each subject’s height and body mass were collected using a wall-mounted
205 stadiometer and electronic scale, respectively. BMI was calculated as weight/height
A
206 squared (kg·m-2). The sum of skinfolds was monitored with Harperden skinfold
207 calipers (Baty International, West Sussex, England). Body measurements were
208 conducted according to Deurenberg et al. (25) who reported similar prediction
209 errors between adults and young adolescents. Deurenberg’s prediction equation
210 used was: Body fat percentage = -22.23 + 26.56 x log (Biceps, triceps, subscapular

211 and suprailiac). Body mass, height, BMI and sum of skinfold measures (biceps,
212 triceps, supailiac and subscapular sites) were also collected post-training.
213 Performance testing occurred before and following the 12-week training
214 period. The testing protocol included assessment of lower body strength and power
215 (isokinetic force and power, horizontal and vertical jumps), acceleration (stationary
216 5-m sprint), maximal speed (flying 20-m sprint run), and static balance (Standing
D
217 Stork Test). Testing was conducted pre- and post-training at the National Center of
218 Medicine and Science in Sports (CNMSS), in Tunis, Tunisia.
TE
219 Training
220 Following the initial baseline testing session, subjects were randomly
221 assigned to one of the four groups (OWL, plyometric, traditional RT or control). Each
EP
222 experimental group participated in a 12-week, group specific training protocol using
223 one of the three methods (Table 2). The OWL group trained using Olympic style lifts
224 exercises. The plyometric group followed a structured plyometric training program
C
225 using their body weight as resistance. Both the OWL and plyometric exercises were
226 performed with a ballistic intent concentric contraction (5,6)(contract as forcefully

C
227 and rapidly as possible). Unlike the traditional RT group there was no enforced
228 pacing rhythm for the concentric or eccentric segments of the movement. The
A
229 traditional RT group trained with free weights using slower speed movements. The
230 eccentric, isometric, concentric contraction pacing for the traditional RT group was
231 1s-1s-1s respectively. No strength training activities were permitted outside of the
232 supervised training sessions. The control group did not participated in any training

233 program and was limited to their normal daily activities during the entire research
234 project.
235 Experimental groups followed the 12-week training program with a
236 frequency of 2 sessions per week performed on non-consecutive days (Monday and
237 Thursday afternoons). Previous investigations have clearly demonstrated that
238 resistance training twice per week is sufficient for enhancing the muscle strength of
D
239 children (8, 31). A standardized warm-up including jogging, dynamic stretching
240 exercises, calisthenics, and preparatory exercises (e.g., fundamental weightlifting
TE
241 exercises specific to their training program) was provided for all experimental
242 groups before the beginning of each training session. Each training session ended
243 with 5 min of cool-down activities including dynamic stretching. In order to ensure
EP
244 an equal volume of training, each training program session was composed of 4
245 different exercises and 1 to 3 sets of 8 to 12 repetitions. As all exercises were either
246 compound lifts or jumps, involving multi-articular movements and multiple muscle
C
247 groups (Table 2), four exercises per group provided sufficient stimuli. Furthermore
248 the time schedule of the children did not permit a more extensive training routine.
C
249 All groups performed 8-12 repetitions.
250 The variables of volume and intensity were selected based on the previous
A
251 recommendations and training guidelines for pediatric population (8, 53). Training
252 volume (i.e.; number of sets x repetitions) was altered similarly for the three groups.
253 During the first week, all groups trained with 1 set of 12 repetitions and progressed
254 to two sets of 12 repetitions during second week. During the third, fourth and fifth
255 weeks, they altered the volume to three sets of 12, 10 and 8 repetitions, respectively.
10

256 During the final week of the first mesocycle, training volume was reduced to 1 set of
257 12 repetitions. As it has been indicated (30, 53) that when prescribing training
258 volume for the learning stage of OWL, multiple sets and lower repetitions are most
259 effective for young athletes to learn the snatch and clean, the total repetition
260 number for these two exercises was performed in multiple sets of 4-6 repetitions
261 using a 5-10 kg youth-sized weightlifting bar with wooden plates. Each program was
D
262 periodized in 2 similar progressive mesocycles of 6 weeks. The exercises remained
263 the same over the first and second mesocycle of training.
TE
264 The amount of weight lifted in the training sessions was determined by the
265 ability of each individual (49) established from each subject’s ten repetitions
266 maximum (10RM) in the selected resistance exercises. This procedure is similar to
EP
267 those prescribed in the literature (43, 65). Each subject had to lift their maximum
268 weight for the given number of repetitions while using the correct technique. The
269 amount of weight was increased carefully, and correct technique was the focus.
C
270 During each training session, instructors reviewed proper exercise technique and
271 made appropriate adjustments in training resistance. The amount of weight was
C
272 increased at the next training session if the subject could lift the given weight with
273 the proper technique in the respective exercises variant. If a child could not
A
274 complete the required number of repetitions sequentially within a set, they were
275 given 30s-1min of rest before attempting to complete the set. Throughout the study,
276 all subjects were encouraged to increase the amount of weight lifted and to achieve
277 concentric fatigue within each designated repetition range. Because fatigue can
278 influence the performance of explosive movements and possibly increase the risk of
11

279 injury (32) and based on previous strength training studies in youth (64), rest
280 intervals between sets, within each exercise session were three minutes in length
281 for the three groups to allow for adequate recovery. All training sessions were
282 directly supervised by certified strength and conditioning specialists and
283 weightlifting coaches who were knowledgeable of pediatric resistance training
284 guidelines and the pedagogical aspects of teaching weightlifting to school-aged
D
285 youth. All the subjects completed a minimum of 95% of scheduled training sessions.
286 The plyometric training group performed the following drills for their
TE
287 training sessions: maximum countermovement jumps, drop jumps, ballistic type
288 push-ups/clapping push-ups and medicine ball throws. Traditional strength
289 exercises consisted of squats, lunges, alternate flat and incline chest press, and
EP
290 unilateral shoulder flyes. The pool of exercises for the OWL program included power
291 cleans and snatches (progression model), in addition to shoulder push press and
292 kettle bell/dumbbell cross body pull. There were no injuries reported over the
C
293 training program period. All training sessions took place after school at the weight
294 fitness venue of each center that was used exclusively by the subjects in this study
C
295 on designated training days. Throughout the training period, children typically
296 exercised in groups of 6-8, and an instructor-to-participant ratio of at least 1:4 was
A
297 maintained. In the course of training there was constant concern to ensure safety
298 and maintain sufficient hydration level, as well as to encourage all children to do
299 their best to achieve the best results. Clear instructions about the importance of
300 adequate nutrition were also provided.
301 Testing Procedures
12

302 Both groups were tested prior to and after the 12-week training period for all
303 variables. Each testing session was conducted over 2 separate days with the same
304 test order. Testing was completed at the same time on each testing day for both pre-
305 and post-tests, at the same indoor venue and by the same trained investigators. The
306 participants were asked to wear the same type of clothing and footwear and to avoid
307 vigorous physical activity before or the day of any study procedure. Subjects were
D
308 prohibited from consuming food, beverages, or any known stimuli (e.g., caffeine)
309 that would possibly enhance or compromise alertness during the period of
TE
310 investigation. Each player was instructed, and verbally encouraged, to give a
311 maximal effort for each performance test. Performance testing was initiated after a
312 standardized 15-minute warm-up, including submaximal intensity running, dynamic

EP
313 stretching, low intensity forward, sideways, and backward running; several
314 acceleration runs; and jumping at a progressively increased intensity. Throughout
315 all testing procedures, and instructor-to-participant ratio of 1:1 was maintained, and
C
316 uniformed verbal encouragement was offered to all participants.
317 Isokinetic strength: The maximal voluntary isokinetic concentric strength of

C
318 the dominant leg was measured at two velocity contractions: 60 and 3000.s-1 using
319 an isokinetic dynamometer (isokinetic dynamometer: Cybex NORM; Henley

A
320 Healthcare, Cybex International, Inc., Medway, MA) according to the previously
321 described procedures (23). The parameters used for analysis were peak torque
322 (Force60 and Force300) and mean power (Power60 and Power300) at 600.s-1 and
323 3000.s-1 respectively. Excellent isokinetic reliability measurements with children in
324 our laboratory have been reported elsewhere (ICCs of 0.928 -0.988) (23).
13

325 CMJ height was assessed using a portable platform (Quattro-Jump; Kisler,
326 Winterthur, Switzerland) according to the procedure described by Chaouachi et al.
327 (24). Participants were instructed to keep their hands on their hips to minimize
328 lateral and horizontal displacement during performance, to prevent any influence of
329 arm movements on the vertical jumps, and to avoid coordination as a confounding
330 variable in the assessment of the leg extensors’ neuromuscular performance (24).
D
331 Participants were encouraged to perform the eccentric phase of the jump as quickly
332 as possible to maximize jump height. Three trials were performed, with
TE
333 approximately 2 minutes recovery and the best result was used for analysis.
334 Standing Horizontal Jump: The participant stood stationary with the toes
335 aligned level with the start line, and were instructed to push off vigorously and
EP
336 jumped forward as far as possible. Participants were allowed the use of a
337 countermovement with arms and body swing. The distance jumped from the start
338 line at take-off to the point where the back of the heel nearest to the take-off line
C
339 landed was measured in centimeters using a metal tape measure. The test was
340 repeated three times, and the maximum distance achieved was recorded in
C
341 centimeters and was used for analysis (20, 22).

A
342 Acceleration and maximal running speed were evaluated using a stationary
343 5-m sprint and flying 20-m sprint. Stationary 5-m sprint involved sprinting 5-m as
344 fast as possible from a stationary start position. Flying 20-m sprint involved
345 sprinting 20-m as fast as possible from a maximal-speed start. Time was
346 automatically recorded using photocell gates (Brower Timing Systems, Salt Lake
14

347 City, Utah, USA, accuracy of 0.01 s) placed 0.4-m above the ground. Subjects
348 performed two maximal attempts and the best time was retained for analysis.
349 Static balance was assessed utilizing the Stork stand balance protocol. To
350 perform the Stork-stand-test (22, 58), participants stood with their opposite foot
351 against the inside of the supporting knee and both hands on the hips. On the
352 command, the subject raised the heel of their foot from the floor and attempted to
D
353 maintain their balance as long as possible. The trial ended if the subject either
354 moved his hands from his hips, the ball of the dominant foot moved from its original
TE
355 position, or if the heel touched the floor. This test was carried out on the dominant
356 leg acting as the standing leg. The test was timed (s) using a stopwatch. The total
357 time in seconds was recorded. The recorded score was the best of three attempts.
EP
358 Previous test-retest reliability scores for sprint, vertical and horizontal jumps
359 and balance measures from our laboratory with similar pediatric population have
360 been high (Typical error of measurement [TEM] range from 0.3% to 3.2%)(22).
C
361 Statistical Analysis
362 To avoid the shortcomings of research based in null-hypothesis significance

C
363 testing, magnitude-based inferences and precision of estimation were employed
364 (46). Magnitude-based inferences were conducted to assess the clinical (practical)
A
365 difference in the training effects on the independent variables between training
366 types. Differences were calculated within each training type (before and after
367 training) and between the changes affected by each training type.
368 Qualitative descriptors of standardized effects were assessed using these
369 criteria: trivial < 0.2, small 0.2-0.6, moderate 0.6-1.2, large 1.2-2.0 and very large
15

370 >2.0. Effects with 95% confidence limits substantially overlapping the thresholds for
371 small positive and negative effects (exceeding 0.2 of the standard deviation on both
372 sides of zero) were defined as unclear. Clear small or larger effect sizes (i.e. those
373 with >75% likelihood of being greater than 0.20, as calculated by a previously
374 available spreadsheets (45, 47) were defined as substantial. Precision of estimates
375 was indicated with 95% confidence limits, which defines the range representing the
D
376 uncertainty in the true value of the (unknown) population mean.
377 RESULTS
TE
378 Within Treatment Effects
379 All groups increased height to a similar extent (d=0.24-0.29, all comparisons
380 <75% likely). Changes in sum of skinfolds were found to be trivial (d<0.7, all
EP
381 comparisons <75% likely) for all groups.
382 Control (Table 1, Figures 1-10)
383 The control condition elicited likely substantial improvements in balance

C
384 (87% likely, “small”) and Power300 (82% likely, “small”). All other effects were
385 likely “trivial” (CMJ, BMI) or “unclear” (time to 5m, flying 20m time, horizontal jump,
C
386 Force60, Force300, Power60, sum of skinfolds).
387 Plyometric (Table 1, Figures 1-10)

A
388 Plyometric training was very likely (>99%) to elicit substantial
389 improvements in nearly all variables (time to 5m, CMJ, Horizontal jump, balance,
390 Force60, Force300, Power300) with effect sizes ranging from “moderate” to “very
391 large”. The effect on Flying 20m time and Power60 was “unclear” while BMI was
392 80% likely to be “trivial”.
16

393 Traditional RT (Table 1, Figures 1-10)
394 Traditional RT was >85% likely to elicit substantial improvements in all
395 variables, effects ranging from “small” to “large”. Only traditional RT elicited
396 substantial changes (96% likely) in BMI increasing by a “small” 1.06 kg/m2 (95% CL
397 0.52 to 1.60).
398 Olympic Weightlifting (OWL) (Table 1, Figures 1-10)
D
399 Changes in BMI with OWL were 80% likely to be trivial. All other variables
400 were >85% likely to be substantially improved, effects ranging from “moderate” to
TE
401 “very large”.
402 Between Group Comparisons
403 Between groups pre-test differences were classified as trivial.

EP
404 Countermovement Jump (CMJ) and Horizontal Jump
405 While there was no clearly substantial difference in CMJ between plyometric
406 and traditional RT, OWL was 96% likely to be better than plyometric training (mean
C
407 difference, lower to upper 95% confidence limits, effect size; 3.2 cm, 0.6 to 5.8, 0.78)
408 and 93% likely to be better than traditional RT (4.1 cm, 0.2 to 7.9, 0.71).
C
409 The only likely substantial difference between intervention groups on
410 horizontal jump was that OWL was 90% likely to be superior to plyometric training
A
411 (13.5 cm, -0.9 to 27.9, 0.63).
412 Balance and Anthropometrics
413 OWL was 87% likely to elicit substantially greater improvement to balance
414 than traditional RT (5.5 s, -0.8 to 11.8, 0.60). Furthermore, plyometric training was
415 98% likely to be substantially better than traditional RT (9.1 s, 2.2 to 16, 0.86).
17

416 Traditional RT was 92% likely to elicit substantially greater increases in BMI
417 than plyometric (0.6 kg/m2, 0.0 to 1.2, 0.67) and 90% more likely than OWL (0.6
418 kg/m2, 0.0 to 1.2, 0.64) training. There were no substantially greater between group
419 changes in height and sum of skinfolds. "(d=0.24-0.29, all comparisons <75%
420 likely)"
421 Force and Power
D
422 Plyometric training was 84% likely to elicit substantially greater increases in
423 Force60 than traditional RT (13.0 kg, -3.7 to 29.8, 0.54) and 81% likely than OWL
TE
424 (13.8 kg, -5.1 to 32.6, 0.50) training. Plyometric training was 79% likely to elicit
425 substantially greater improvements in Force300 than traditional RT (6.7 kg, -3.1 to
426 16.4, 0.48).

EP
427 Traditional RT was 96% likely to be substantially superior to plyometric
428 training at eliciting improvements in Power60 (13.2 Watts, 2.3 to 23.8, 0.80).
429 Regarding Power300, plyometric training elicited 15.8 Watts more power than
C
430 traditional RT (78% likely, -7.9 to 39.6, 0.47). OWL also elicited more power than
431 traditional RT (76% likely, 20.7 Watts, 12.0 to 53.4, 0.44).

C
432 Time to 5-m (acceleration) and Flying 20-m time (speed)
433 For the time to 5-m, plyometric training demonstrated the lowest
A
434 improvement when compared to traditional RT (>99% likely, 0.05 s, 0.03 to 0.07,
435 1.2) and OWL (93% likely, 0.04 s, 0.002 to 0.08, 0.70) thought there were no clearly
436 substantial difference between traditional RT and OWL. Plyometric training
437 demonstrated the lowest improvement in flying 20-m time when compared to
438 traditional RT (86% likely, 0.12 s, -0.03 to 0.27, 0.57) and OWL (81% likely, 0.14 s, -
18

439 0.05 to 0.33, 0.50) thought there were no clearly substantial difference between
440 traditional RT and OWL.
441 DISCUSSION
442
443 The most important finding in the present study was that 12 weeks of OWL
444 or plyometric training were generally equal to or more effective for enhancing
445 performance than traditional RT for male youth. In summary, OWL training was
D
446 likely to provide better improvements than plyometric training for CMJ, horizontal
447 jump and 5 and 20-m sprint times while exceeding traditional RT for balance and
TE
448 isokinetic power300. Tricoli et al. (67) reported similar findings with greater
449 relative improvements in CMJ, squat jumps and 10 m sprint speed following OWL
450 versus vertical jump training in college aged males. The many non-significant
EP
451 differences in strength and sprint measures between OWL and traditional RT in the
452 present study are complemented by similar findings by Hoffman et al. (44) in a 15-
453 week training program comparing OWL and powerlifting in college aged males.
C
454 However in their study, OWL provided significantly greater improvements in
455 vertical jump performance than powerlifting training. Conversely, an 8-week

C
456 training program comparing OWL and powerlifting training in high school boys did
457 not find statistically significant differences in vertical jump height (21), similar to
A
458 the findings in the present study. From our results, we conclude that while all
459 training systems can improve performance of youths, OWL is generally equal to or
460 superior to the other two forms of training.
461 Plyometric training was more likely to elicit better training adaptations
462 compared to traditional RT for balance, isokinetic Force60 and 300, Power300.
19

463 Adult strength gains were similar with 6- (54) and 12-week (68) plyometric versus
464 conventional RT training programs (average age of subjects: 22 and 25 years
465 respectively). However, muscle power increased almost exclusively with plyometric
466 training in the 12-week training program (68). Studies employing plyometric
467 training programs for youth reported improvements in vertical jump height (36),
468 rebound jump height (57) and running speed (50). However these studies did not
D
469 attempt to compare plyometric training to other forms of strength or power
470 training. The present findings support the CSEP (8), NSCA (34), and UKSCA (52)
TE
471 position stands which recommended that OWL and plyometrics can be included in
472 children’s RT programs to enhance strength and power gains. This is the first study
473 to directly compare plyometric, OWL and traditional RT in children.

EP
474 Given that balance and coordination are not fully developed in children (59),
475 the implementation of more complex, coordinated activities such as OWL and
476 plyometrics into youth resistance training programs has been controversial (8). As
C
477 children rely less on glycolytic metabolism (69), have blunted muscle hypertrophic
478 responses (38) and lower type II fibres composition areas (33) than adults, it might
C
479 be considered that high intensity strength and power training programs may not
480 benefit children. As OWL involves more complex coordination (8), a prolonged
A
481 duration motor learning curve might be expected delaying potential beneficial
482 training adaptations compared to the slower velocity, less complex movements
483 involved with traditional RT. Furthermore, the recommendation for initiating adult
484 plyometric training indicated that the individual should squat at least 1.5 times body
485 weight before performing lower body plyometrics (61) may have inhibited the
20

486 implementation of plyometric training for youth. However these potential
487 impediments were not realized in the present study.
488 It is well documented that traditional RT can provide significant strength
489 training adaptations in children (1, 9, 28, 37, 38, 60, 66). OWL training in the present
490 study was equally or more effective than traditional RT. OWL has been shown to
491 produce higher power outputs than traditional RT (41). OWL involves an explosive
D
492 intent contraction that will involve either low or higher velocity movement
493 dependent upon the resistance employed. Behm and Sale (5, 6) demonstrated that it
TE
494 was the intent to contract explosively that determined the high velocity specific
495 training response and not the movement velocity. An important advantage with
496 OWL versus traditional RT is the emphasis on rate of force development (RFD) and
EP
497 its importance for activities such as jumping (40). Harries et al. (42) in a meta-
498 analysis reported a positive effect for resistance training programs on vertical jump
499 performance (Mean Difference 3.08cm [95% CI 1.65, 4.51] Z = 4.23 [P < 0.0001])
C
500 providing sufficient evidence that RT can improve muscular power in
501 adolescent athletes. OWL exercises are explosive, multi-joint movements against a
C
502 resistance, which exemplify many athletic actions (67) accentuating the task or
503 action specificity of the training.

A
504 The coordinated control and stability to efficiently move a resistance through
505 an extended range of motion with a high RFD necessitate strong balance capabilities.
506 Many studies have demonstrated that instability or balance perturbations can
507 impair force and power (7, 11, 13, 26). Balance in the present study was improved
508 to a greater extent with OWL and plyometrics than with traditional RT. Behm and
21

509 Colado (13) in a review of balance and instability RT studies reported that balance
510 training alone in adults with no strength, power or functional training improved
511 measures of functional performance such as strength, power, running and other
512 activities by 31% with an effect size of 0.58 indicating a moderate magnitude of
513 change. Thus, the improvement of balance or stability without concomitant RT can
514 improve functional performance. Since the balance capabilities of children are not
D
515 fully mature (59), greater improvements in balance with OWL and plyometrics
516 could translate into greater power production.
TE
517 Plyometric training in the present study was superior to traditional RT for
518 balance, Force60, 300, Power300, and provided similar results for CMJ and
519 horizontal jump. Traditional RT only exceeded plyometric training for BMI and
EP
520 Power60. Some of the advantages of plyometrics are similar to OWL. Similar to
521 OWL, plyometrics involve a high RFD and explosive intent contractions that would
522 be beneficial for power adaptations (6). Although plyometrics do not typically
C
523 involve an external resistance, the momentum (mass x velocity) of the body moving
524 at high velocities generates high ground reaction forces that must be absorbed and
C
525 redirected with the stretch-shortening cycle (SSC) actions. Cappa and Behm (18)
526 reported ground reaction forces ranging from 2000 and 4000 N for CMJ and drop
A
527 jumps respectively. Auro and Viitasalo (2) reported ground reaction forces ranging
528 from 2-7 times body weight for agility and jump actions. Thus even without the
529 added stress of an external resistance, plyometrics using body mass as the
530 resistance provides considerable tension training stress to the individual.
22

531 Plyometrics differ from OWL in that the movement is more rapid providing
532 the proprioceptive system with high velocity movement information for both
533 eccentric and concentric contractions (18, 19). Attempting to control the movement
534 of the body with high velocity descending, ascending and change of direction
535 movements places substantial stress upon the body to maintain balance and joint
536 stability. Johnson et al. (48) in their meta-analysis of plyometric training for children
D
537 indicated that plyometric training had a large effect on improving the ability to jump
538 and run with a smaller effect on improving strength. In accordance with the training
TE
539 specificity principle (6), plyometrics in the Johnson meta-analysis had the strongest
540 effect on jumping and running which involve substantial high velocity eccentric and
541 concentric actions. Hence again similar to OWL, the subjects in the present study
EP
542 responded to these balance stressors by improving balance to a greater extent than
543 traditional RT. Improved balance and stability would contribute to greater force and
544 power output (7, 10, 12, 13).

C
545 Although most pediatric resistance training articles emphasize the neural
546 component in children’s strength gains (8), increases in muscle mass in children
C
547 have been reported (39). Traditional RT in the present study resulted in a
548 substantially greater BMI and body mass following training than with OWL or
A
549 plyometric training. All groups increased height (d=0.24-0.29) to a similar amount
550 so we cannot account for the difference in BMI with greater skeletal mass of one
551 group over another. Furthermore, all groups had "trivial" changes in skinfolds
552 (d<0.07). Based on a three compartment model of body mass (i.e. skeletal mass,
553 muscle mass and fat mass), we eliminate skeletal and fat mass differences and
23

554 therefore account for likely substantial difference in BMI to be due to greater muscle
555 mass. Further exploration of the capacity of children to increase muscle mass with
556 resistance training to confirm this deduction may be warranted using more involved
557 techniques of body composition analysis (e.g. hydrostatic weighing, DEXA)..
558 Although, all three training programs can provide high overload tensions for the
559 muscles, traditional RT with its slower movements provides a greater time under
D
560 tension especially for the eccentric component (4, 51) of the movements compared
561 to plyometrics and OWL.
TE
562 The limitations of the present study would include the limited age group and
563 sex of the subjects (10-12 year old males). While the use of Tanner stages can be
564 considered a strength of the protocol, the self assessment may not be as valid as an
EP
565 assessment by a physician. Furthermore, there were no physiological measures such
566 as magnetic resonance imaging, electromyography or evoked contractile properties
567 to aid in describing the mechanisms underlying the training adaptations.

C
568 The present study demonstrates that more advanced RT techniques such as
569 OWL and plyometrics can be included in a training program for adolescent children.
C
570 The training gains from OWL and plyometrics for jump height, balance, strength and
571 power measures and sprint time were generally comparable or superior to
A
572 traditional RT. The advantages associated with OWL and plyometrics may derive
573 from the explosive contractions and high contraction speeds that tend to produce
574 higher power outputs as well as the increased demand placed on balance.
575 PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS

576
24

577 The present results do not suggest that traditional RT should be precluded
578 from resistance training programs for children. In light of the common
579 misperceptions that high intensity, high velocity, more complex coordinated
580 activities like OWL and plyometrics may be ineffective and lead to injury in children,
581 the present study demonstrates the effectiveness of these training modalities. As
582 the competitiveness of sport is reaching into younger ages, coaches and young
D
583 athletes are seeking training advantages. Since coordination, balance and power are
584 underdeveloped in youth, training programs implementing OWL and plyometrics
TE
585 can accelerate positive training adaptations leading to competitive advantages. The
586 results of the present study and others (8, 63) recommend that a combination of
587 traditional RT, OWL and plyometrics be introduced to children who wish to
EP
588 resistance train in order to provide a variety of overload stimuli and enhance
589 neuromuscular training adaptations. As suggested by a number of professional
590 organizations, the implementation of any resistance training program should be

C
591 under professional supervision and involve an orderly training progression.
592
C
593
594
595
596
A
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
25

608 TABLE LEGEND
609
610 Table 1: Anthropometric data pre- and post training.
611
612 Table 2: Training program volume (sets and repetitions).
613
614
615
616
617 FIGURE LEGENDS
618
D
619 Figure 1: Figure illustrates the training program variables over the 12-week period.
620
621 Figures 2-10: Figures demonstrate standardized effect sizes of control, plyometric
622 training, traditional resistance training (RT) and Olympic weight lifting (OWL)
TE
623 training on each dependent variable. Plots represent the magnitude of difference
624 between pre-training and post-training scores on each variable. Negative values
625 indicate the training group decreased in performance. Error bars indicate 95%
626 confidence limits of the mean difference between time points. The shaded area of
627 the graph indicates the region in which the difference between groups is trivial (i.e.
628 between -0.20 and 0.20 standardized effect sizes).
EP
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
C
636
637
638
C
639
640
641
642
A
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
26

654 References
655
656 1. American College of Sports Medicine: ACSM's guidelines for exercise testing
657 and prescription. Lippincott, Wiliams and Wilkins, Philadelphia, PA., 84-136, 2014.
658 2. Auro OV, J. Biomechanical characteristics of jumping. Inter J Sport Biomech 5:

659 89-98, 1989.
660 3. Baxter-Jones ADG, Eisenmann JC and Sherar LB. Controlling for maturation in
661 pediatric exercise science. Pediatr Exerc Sci 17: 18-30, 2005.
662 4. Behm DG. Neuromuscular implications and applications of resistance training. J
D
663 Strength Cond Res 9: 264-274, 1995.
664 5. Behm DG and Sale DG. Intended rather than actual movement velocity
665 determines velocity-specific training response. J Appl Physiol 74: 359-68, 1993.
TE
666 6. Behm DG and Sale DG. Velocity specificity of resistance training. Sports Med
667 15: 374-88, 1993.
668 7. Behm DG and Anderson K. The role of instability with resistance training. J
EP
670 8. Behm DG, Faigenbaum AD, Falk B and Klentrou P. Canadian society for exercise
671 physiology position paper: Resistance training in children and adolescents. Appl Physiol
672 Nutr Metab 33: 547-61, 2008.
673 9. Behm DG, Faigenbaum AD, Falk B and Klentrou P. Canadian society for exercise
674 physiology position paper: Resistance training in children and adolescents. Appl Physiol
C
675 Nutr Metab 33: 547-561, 2008.
676 10. Behm DG, Drinkwater EJ, Willardson JM and Cowley PM. The use of instability
677 to train the core musculature. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab 35: 91-108, 2010.
C
678 11. Behm DG, Drinkwater EJ, Willardson JM and Cowley PM. Canadian society for
679 exercise phytsiology position stand: The use of instability to train the core in athletic and
680 non-athletic conditioning. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab 35: 11-14, 2010.
A
681 12. Behm DG, Drinkwater EJ, Willardson JM, Cowley PM and Canadian Society for
682 Exercise P. Canadian society for exercise physiology position stand: The use of
683 instability to train the core in athletic and nonathletic conditioning. Appl Physiol Nutr
684 Metab 35: 109-12, 2010.
685 13. Behm DGC, J.C. The effectiveness of resistance training using unstable surfaces
686 and devices for rehabilitation. Inter J Sport Phys Therapy 7: 226-241, 2012.
27

687 14. Behringer M, Vom Heede A, Matthews M and Mester J. Effects of strength
688 training on motor performance skills in children and adolescents: A meta-analysis.
689 Pediatr Exerc Sci 23: 186-206, 2011.
690 15. Blimkie CJ. Resistance traing during preadolescence. Sports Med 15: 389-407,
691 1993.
692 16. Blimkie CJR. Resistance training during pre-and early puberty: Efficacy,
693 trainability, mechanisms, and persitence. Can J Sport Sci 17: 264-279, 1992.
694 17. Byrd R, Pierce K, Rielly L and Brady J. Young weightlifters' performance across
695 time. Sports Biomechanics / Inter Society Biomechanics in Sports 2: 133-40, 2003.
D
696 18. Cappa DF and Behm DG. Training specificity of hurdle vs. Countermovement
697 jump training. J Strength Cond Res: 2011.
TE
698 19. Cappa DF and Behm DG. Neuromuscular characteristics of drop and hurdle
699 jumps with different types of landings. J Strength Cond Res: 2013.
700 20. Castro-Pinero J, Artero EG, Espana-Romero V, Ortega FB, Sjostrom M, Suni J
701 and Ruiz JR. Criterion-related validity of field-based fitness tests in youth: A systematic
702 review. Br J Sports Med 44: 934-43, 2010.
EP
703 21. Channell BT and Barfield JP. Effect of olympic and traditional resistance training
704 on vertical jump improvement in high school boys. J Strength Cond Res 22: 1522-7,
705 2008.
706 22. Chaouachi A, Ben Othman A, Hammami R, Drinkwater EJ and Behm DG. The
707 combination of plyometric and balance training improves sprint and shuttle run
C
708 performances more often than plyometric-only training with children. J Strength Cond
709 Res: 2013.
710 23. Chaouachi A, Haddad M, Castagna C, Wong del P, Kaouech F, Chamari K and
C
711 Behm DG. Potentiation and recovery following low- and high-speed isokinetic
712 contractions in boys. Pediatr Exerc Sci 23: 136-50, 2011.
713 24. Chaouachi A, Poulos N, Abed F, Turki O, Brughelli M, Chamari K, Drinkwater

A
714 EJ and Behm DG. Volume, intensity, and timing of muscle power potentiation are
715 variable. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab 36: 736-47, 2011.
716 25. Deurenberg P, Pieters JJ and Hautvast JG. The assessment of the body fat
717 percentage by skinfold thickness measurements in childhood and young adolescence. Br
718 J Nutr 63: 293-303, 1990.
719 26. Drinkwater E, Pritchett E and Behm DG. Effect of instability and resistance on
720 unintentional squat lifting kinetics. Inter J Sports Physiol Perform 2: 400-413, 2007.
28

721 27. Ebada KA. The effect of a training program on the development of the maximal
722 strength for weightlifting beginner's performance. Selcuk University J Phys Educ Sport
723 Sci 13: 281-290, 2011.
724 28. Faigenbaum A. Strength training for children and adolescents. Pediatr Adolescent
725 Sports Injuries 19: 593-619, 2000.
726 29. Faigenbaum AD and Polakowski C. Olympic-style weightlifting, kid style.

727 Strength Cond J 21: 73-76, 1999.
728 30. Faigenbaum AD, Westcott WL, Loud RL and Long C. The effects of different
729 resistance training protocols on muscular strength and endurance development in
D
730 children. Pediatrics 104: e5, 1999.
731 31. Faigenbaum AD, Loud RL, O'Connell J, Glover S and Westcott WL. Effects of
732 different resistance training protocols on upper-body strength and endurance development
TE
733 in children. J Strength Cond Res 15: 459-465, 2001.
734 32. Faigenbaum AD, McFarland JE, Schwerdtman JA, Ratamess NA, Kang J and
735 Hoffman JR. Dynamic warm-up protocols, with and without a weighted vest, and fitness
736 performance in high school female athletes. J Athl Train 41: 357-363, 2006.
EP
737 33. Faigenbaum AD, Ratamess NA, McFarland J, Kaczmarek J, Coraggio MJ, Kang J
738 and Hoffman JR. Effect of rest interval length on bench press performance in boys, teens,
739 and men. Pediatr Exerc Sci 20: 457-469, 2008.
740 34. Faigenbaum AD, Kraemer WJ, Blimkie CJ, Jeffreys I, Micheli LJ, Nitka M and
741 Rowland TW. Youth resistance training: Updated position statement paper from the
742 national strength and conditioning association. J Strength Cond Res 23: S60-S79, 2009.
C
743 35. Faigenbaum AD, Kraemer WJ, Cahill B, Chandler J, Dziados J, Elfrink LD,
744 Formann E, Gaudiose M, Micheli L, Nitka M and Roberts S. Youth resistance training:
745 Position statement paper and literature review. Strength Cond J December: 62-75, 1996.
C
746 36. Faigenbaum ADM, J.E.; Keiper, F.B. Effects of a short term plyometric and
747 resistance training program on fitness performance in boys aged 12 to 15 years. J Sports
A
748 Sci Med 6: 519-525, 2007.
749 37. Falk B and Tenenbaum G. The effectiveness of resistance training in children.
750 Sports Med 22: 176-186, 1996.
751 38. Falk B and Eliakim A. Resistance training, skeletal muscle and growth. Pediatr
752 Endocrinol Rev 1: 120-127, 2003.
753 39. Fukunaga T, Funato K and Ikegawa S. The effects of resistance training on
754 muscle area and strength in prepubescent age. The Annals Physiol Anthropol 11: 357-64,
755 1992.
29

756 40. Garhammer J and Gregor R. Propulsion forces as a function of intensity for
757 weightlifting and vertical jumping. J Appl Sport Sci Res 6: 129-134, 1992.
758 41. Haff GG, Whitley A and Potteiger JA. A brief review: Explosive exercises and
759 sports performance. Strength Cond J 23: 13-20, 2001.
760 42. Harries SK, Lubans DR and Callister R. Resistance training to improve power and
761 sports performance in adolescent athletes: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Sci
762 Med Sport 15: 532-40, 2012.
763 43. Hetzler RK, DeRenne C, Burton BP, Ho KW, Chai DX and Seichi G. Effects of
764 12 weeks of strength training on anaerobic power in prepubescent male athletes. J
D
766 44. Hoffman JR, Cooper J, Wendell M and Kang J. Comparison of olympic vs.
767 Traditional power lifting training programs in football players. J Strength Cond Res 18:
TE
768 129-35, 2004.
769 45. Hopkins WG. A spreadsheet for deriving confidence interval, mechanistic
770 inference and clinical inference from a p value. Sportsci 11: 16-20, 2007.
771 46. Hopkins WG, Marshall SW, Batterham AM and Hanin J. Progressive statistics for
EP
772 studies in sports medicine and exercise science. Med Sci Sports Exerc 41: 3-12, 2009.
773 47. Hopkins WJ. A spreadsheet for combining outcomes from several subject groups.
774 Sportsci 10: 51-53, 2006.
775 48. Johnson BA, Salzberg CL and Stevenson DA. A systematic review: Plyometric
776 training programs for young children. J Strength Cond Res 25: 2623-33, 2011.
C
777 49. Keiner M, Sander A, Wirth K, Caruso O, Immesberger P and Zawieja M. Strength
778 performance in youth: Trainability of adolescents and children in the back and front
779 squats. J Strength Cond Res 27: 357-62, 2013.
C
780 50. Kotzamanidis C. Effect of plyometric training on running performance and

781 vertical jumping in prepubertal boys. J Strength Cond Res 20: 441-5, 2006.
A
782 51. Kraemer WJ and Ratamess NA. Fundamentals of resistance training: Progression
783 and exercise prescription. Med Sci Sports Exerc 36: 674-688, 2004.
784 52. Lloyd RSF, A.D.; Myer, G.D.; Stone, M.H.; Oliver, J.L.; Jeffreys, I.; Moody, J.;
785 Brewer, C.; Pierce, K. Uksca position statement: Youth resistance training. Prof Strength
786 Cond 26: 26-39, 2012.
787 53. Lloyd SRO, L. J; Meyers, W. R; Moody, A. J; Stone, H. M. Long-term athletic

788 development and its application to youth weightlifting. Strength Cond J 10: 1-12, 2012.
30

789 54. MacDonald CJ, Lamont HS and Garner JC. A comparison of the effects of 6
790 weeks of traditional resistance training, plyometric training, and complex training on
791 measures of strength and anthropometrics. J Strength Cond Res 26: 422-31, 2012.
792 55. McBride JM, Triplett-McBride T, Davie A and Newton RU. A comparison of
793 strength and power characteristics between power lifters, olympic lifters, and sprinters. J
795 56. McNeely E and Armstrong L. Strength training for children: A review and
796 recommendations. Physical Health Educ J 68: 1-6, 2002.
797 57. Meylan C and Malatesta D. Effects of in-season plyometric training within soccer
D
798 practice on explosive actions of young players. J Strength Cond Res 23: 2605-13, 2009.
799 58. Miller DK: Measurement by the physical educator: Why and how? Brown and
800 Benchmark, Madison, Wisconsin, USA, 2002, pp. 23-64.
TE
801 59. Payne VG and Isaacs LD: Human motor development. A lifespan approach.
802 McGraw Hill Publishers, Toronto, Ontario, 2005, pp. 78-80.
803 60. Pediatrics AAo. Strength training by children and adolescents. Pediatrics 107:
804 1470-1472, 2001.
EP
805 61. Potach DHC, Chu D.A.: Plyometric training. In: Baechle TRE, R.W. (ed)
806 Essentials of strength training and conditioning. Human Kinetics Publishers, Windsor,
807 Ontario, Canada, 2008, pp. 14-87.
808 62. Saez de Villarreal E, Requena B and Cronin JB. The effects of plyometric training
809 on sprint performance: A meta-analysis. J Strength Cond Res 26: 575-84, 2012.
C
810 63. Saez-Saez de Villarreal ER, B.; Newton, R.U. Does plyometric training improve
811 strength performance? A meta-analysis. J Sci Med Sport 10: 132-136, 2009.
C
812 64. Sanders AK, M.; Wirth, K.; Schmidtbleicher, D.; . Influence of a 2-year strength
813 training programme on power performance in elite youth soccer players. Eur J Sport Sci:
814 2013.
A
815 65. Santos EJ and Janeira MA. Effects of complex training on explosive strength in
816 adolescent male basketball players. J Strength Cond Res 22: 903-909, 2008.
817 66. Science BAoSaE. Bases position statement on guidelines for resistance trainnig in
818 young people. J Sport Sci 22: 383-390, 2004.
819 67. Tricoli V, Lamas L, Carnevale R and Ugrinowitsch C. Short-term effects on

820 lower-body functional power development: Weightlifting vs. Vertical jump training
821 programs. J Strength Cond Res 19: 433-7, 2005.
31

822 68. Vissing K, Brink M, Lonbro S, Sorensen H, Overgaard K, Danborg K, Mortensen
823 J, Elstrom O, Rosenhoj N, Ringgaard S, Andersen JL and Aagaard P. Muscle adaptations
824 to plyometric vs. Resistance training in untrained young men. J Strength Cond Res 22:
825 1799-1810, 2008.
826 69. Zafeiridis A, Dalamitros A, Dipla K, Manou V, Galanis N and Kellis S. Recovery
827 during high-intensity intermittent anaerobic exercise in boys, teens, and men. Med Sci
828 Sports Exerc 37: 505-512, 2005.
829
D
TE
EP
C
C
A
32

Table 1: Anthropometric data pre- and post-training
Age Body mass (kg ± SD) Height (cm ± SD) Body fat %
(years ± Pre- / post-training pre- / post-training
SD) Deurenberg (1990) equation
D
Olympic Weight lifting 11 ± 1 35.9 ± 9.7 / 38.1 ± 9.1 145.5 ± 8.1 / 147.9 ± 8.1 15.3 ± 5.7 / 14.9 ± 5.5
(OWL) n=17
Plyometric Training 11 ± 1 40.1 ± 7.2 / 42.3 ± 6.7 149.8 ± 6.7 / 151.8 ± 6.4 16.8 ± 4.7 / 16.7 ± 4.4
TE
n=17
Traditional Resistance 11 ± 1 39 ± 11.4 / 40.7 ± 9.1 145.1 ± 8.8 / 147.3 ± 8.7 15.6 ± 5.1 / 15.3 ± 4.7
Training (RT)
n=17
Control (no training) 11 ± 1 41.1 ± 7.4 / 42.9 ± 6.7 150.4 ± 7.8 / 152.7 ± 7.5 16.7 ± 5.3 / 17.04 ± 4.8
EP
n=13
C
C
A

Table 2: Training program volume (sets and repetitions).
Week-1 Week-2 Week-3 Week-4 Week-5 Week-6 Week-7 Week-8 Week-9 Week-10 Week-11 Week-12
1 set 2 sets 3 sets 3 sets 3 sets 1 set 3 sets 3 sets 1 set 3 sets 3 sets 1 set
Cleans
/12 /12 /12 /10 /8 /12 /10 /8 /12 /10 /8 /12
D
Snatches
/12 /12 /12 /10 /8 /12 /10 /8 /12 /10 /8 /12
OWL
1 set / 2 sets 3 sets 3 sets 3 sets 1 set / 3 sets 3 sets 1 set / 3 sets 3 sets 1 set
Shoulder Push press
TE
12 /12 /12 /10 /8 12 /10 /8 12 /10 /8 /12
Kettle bell / dumbbell cross body pull
12 /12 /12 /10 /8 12 /10 /8 12 /10 /8 /12
Maximum Countermovement jumps
EP
/12 /12 /12 /10 /8 /12 /10 /8 /12 /10 /8 /12
Drop jumps
/12 /12 /12 /10 /8 /12 /10 /8 /12 /10 /8 /12
Drop from a low platform and
Plyometric
perform 1 set / C2 sets 3 sets 3 sets 3 sets 1 set / 3 sets 3 sets 1 set / 3 sets 3 sets 1 set
Ballistic -type push-ups or clapping 12 /12 /12 /10 /8 12 /10 /8 12 /10 /8 /12
push-ups
Medicine ball throws forward and 1 set / 2 sets 3 sets 3 sets 3 sets 1 set / 3 sets 3 sets 1 set / 3 sets 3 sets 1 set
C
behind the body 12 /1 /12 /10 /8 12 /10 /8 12 /10 /8 /12
A
Squats
/12 /12 /12 /10 /8 /12 /10 /8 /12 /10 /8 /12
Traditional Lunges
/12 /12 /12 /10 /8 /12 /10 /8 /12 /10 /8 /12
Resistance
Alternate flat and incline chest press, 1 set / 2 sets 3 sets 3 sets 3 sets 1 set / 3 sets 3 sets 1 set / 3 sets 3 sets 1 set
Training
12 /12 /12 /10 /8 12 /10 /8 12 /10 /8 /12
Unilateral shoulder flyes or presses
12 /12 /12 /10 /8 12 /10 /8 12 /10 /8 /12

Figure 1:
E D
P T
C E
AC
Figure 2
E D
P T
C E
AC
Figure 3
E D
P T
CE
A C
Figure 4

E D
PT
C E
AC
Figure 5

E D
P T
CE
AC
Figure 6

E D
P T
CE
AC
Figure 7

ED
P T
C E
AC
Figure 8

E D
P T
C E
Figure 9
AC
E D
P T
C E
Figure 10
AC
E D
P T
C E
AC

Olympic Weightlifting and Plyometric Training With

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Olympic Weightlifting and Plyometric Training With

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Olympic Weightlifting and Plyometric Training With Children Provides Similar

Article in The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research · October 2013

Anis Chaouachi Raouf Hammami

232 PUBLICATIONS 4,953 CITATIONS

Karim Chamari Eric Drinkwater

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Foam Rolling of Quadriceps Decreases Biceps Femoris Activation View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Olympic weightlifting and plyometric training with children provides similar

4.School of Human Kinetics and Recreation, Memorial University of Newfoundland,

CORRESPONDING AUTHOR: David Behm

St. John’s Newfoundland, Canada A1C 5S7

RUNNING TITLE: Olympic weightlifting and plyometrics with children

Copyright Ó Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. All rights reserved.

51 was to evaluate the effectiveness of Olympic weightlifting (OWL), plyometrics and

52 traditional RT programs with children. Sixty-three children (10-12 years) were

53 randomly allocated to a 12-week control, OWL, plyometric or traditional RT

55 skinfolds, countermovement jump (CMJ), horizontal jump, balance, 5 and 20 m

57 inferences were used to analyze the likelihood of an effect having a standardized

64 isokinetic power at 3000.s-1, as well as 5 and 20 m sprints. Traditional RT only

66 and plyometrics can provide similar or greater performance adaptations for

67 children. It is recommended that any of the three training modalities can be

68 implemented under professional supervision with proper training progressions to

69 enhance training adaptations in children.

Copyright Ó Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. All rights reserved.

82 explored more advanced training concepts such as plyometrics, instability RT,

86 and plyometrics can be incorporated into a youth RT program. However, since

91 developed the proper coordination. The possibility of an extended learning period

93 traditional RT over the same duration.

Copyright Ó Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. All rights reserved.

111 such as plyometrics albeit with only body mass as a resistance.

113 plyometric training could procure substantial improvements in strength in both

Copyright Ó Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. All rights reserved.

124 employing plyometric training programs for youth reported improvements in

135 traditional RT would benefit force measures to a greater extent.

137 Experimental Approach to the Problem

Copyright Ó Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. All rights reserved.

145 of an effect having a standardized effect size exceeding 0.20.

Copyright Ó Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. All rights reserved.

167 did not interfere with the experimental conditions.

174 Before the beginning of the experiments, children were examined by a

178 power tests.

Copyright Ó Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. All rights reserved.

200 or floor position so that participants became automatic in their response to an

203 this time.

Copyright Ó Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. All rights reserved.

218 Medicine and Science in Sports (CNMSS), in Tunis, Tunisia.

226 performed with a ballistic intent concentric contraction (5,6)(contract as forcefully

Copyright Ó Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. All rights reserved.

235 Experimental groups followed the 12-week training program with a

237 Thursday afternoons). Previous investigations have clearly demonstrated that

240 exercises, calisthenics, and preparatory exercises (e.g., fundamental weightlifting

249 All groups performed 8-12 repetitions.

Copyright Ó Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. All rights reserved.

Copyright Ó Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. All rights reserved.

282 directly supervised by certified strength and conditioning specialists and

283 weightlifting coaches who were knowledgeable of pediatric resistance training

284 guidelines and the pedagogical aspects of teaching weightlifting to school-aged

288 push-ups/clapping push-ups and medicine ball throws. Traditional strength

300 adequate nutrition were also provided.

301 Testing Procedures

Copyright Ó Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. All rights reserved.

312 standardized 15-minute warm-up, including submaximal intensity running, dynamic