Back to all available

Basketball players jump and maximal strength performance improvements after French contrast training

kinesiology
biomechanics
sports-medicine

Abstract

Background. French contrast training (FCT) is effective for improving sports performance, although its efficacy in elite basketball players is yet to be demonstrated.

Aim. To compare the effects of FCT to traditional strength training (TST) in improving jump performance and lower limb strength in elite basketball players.

Methods. Basketball players (age, 22.4 ± 1.4 years; 14 male, 2 female; elite, tier 4) were randomly allocated to FCT (n = 8) or TST group (n = 8). Before and after 8 weeks of intervention, participants were assessed in countermovement jump (CMJ), running CMJ, running single-leg CMJ, CMJ with arm-swing (CMJA), and back squat one-repetition maximum (BS 1RM). Within-group pre-post changes were analyzed using paired t-tests, and between-group differences were assessed using independent t-tests.​

Results. Within-group analyses indicated significant improvements (p < 0.05) in CMJA, running single-leg CMJ, running CMJ, and BS 1RM after FCT (effect size [ES] = 1.34, 1.47, 1.40, and 1.53, respectively) and TST (ES = 0.27, 0.42, 0.33, and 1.14, respectively). Moreover, FCT improved CMJ concentric peak velocity, impulse, and takeoff velocity (ES = 0.36, 0.33, and 0.29, respectively). Between-group comparisons revealed improved BS 1RM in FCT compared to TST (p = 0.007).

Conclusions. Both FCT and TST improved vertical jump performance and lower limb strength. However, only FCT improved CMJ power output and takeoff velocity, with greater lower limb maximal strength improvement compared to TST.

Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.
  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].