Effects of Jumping Exercise on Muscular Power in Older Adults: A Meta-Analysis
Jump training (JT) can be used to enhance the ability of skeletal muscle to exert maximal force in as short a time as possible. Despite its usefulness as a method of performance enhancement in athletes, only a small number of studies have investigated its effects on muscle power in older adults.
The aims of this meta-analysis were to measure the effect of JT on muscular power in older adults (≥ 50 years), and to establish appropriate programming guidelines for this population.
The data sources utilised were Google Scholar, PubMed, and Microsoft Academic.
Study Eligibility Criteria
Studies were eligible for inclusion if they comprised JT interventions in healthy adults (≥ 50 years) who were free of any medical condition that could impair movement.
Study Appraisal and Synthesis Methods
The inverse variance random-effects model for meta-analyses was used because it allocates a proportionate weight to trials based on the size of their individual standard errors and facilitates analysis while accounting for heterogeneity across studies. Effect sizes (ESs), calculated from a measure of muscular power, were represented by the standardised mean difference and were presented alongside 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
Thirteen training groups across nine studies were included in this meta-analysis. The magnitude of the main effect was ‘moderate’ (0.66, 95% CI 0.33, 0.98). ESs were larger in non-obese participants (body mass index [BMI] < 30 vs. ≥ 30 kg/m2; 1.03 [95% CI 0.34, 1.73] vs. 0.53 [95% CI − 0.03, 1.09]). Among the studies included in this review, just one reported an acute injury, which did not result in the participant ceasing their involvement. JT was more effective in programmes with more than one exercise (range 1–4 exercises; ES = 0.74 [95% CI − 0.49, 1.96] vs. 0.53 [95% CI 0.29, 0.78]), more than two sets per exercise (range 1–4 sets; ES = 0.91 [95% CI 0.04, 1.77] vs. 0.68 [95% CI 0.15, 1.21]), more than three jumps per set (range 1–14 jumps; ES = 1.02 [95% CI 0.16, 1.87] vs. 0.53 [95% CI − 0.03, 1.09]) and more than 25 jumps per session (range 6–200 jumps; ES = 0.88 [95% CI 0.05, 1.70] vs. 0.49 [95% CI 0.14, 0.83]).
JT is safe and effective in older adults. Practitioners should construct varied JT programmes that include more than one exercise and comprise more than two sets per exercise, more than three jumps per set, and 60 s of recovery between sets. An upper limit of three sets per exercise and ten jumps per set is recommended. Up to three training sessions per week can be performed.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
No sources of funding were used to assist in the preparation of this article.
Conflicts of interest
Jason Moran, Rodrigo Ramirez-Campillo and Urs Granacher declare that they have no conflicts of interest relevant to the content of this review.
- 6.Chu D, Myer G. Plyometrics. Champaign: Human Kinetics; 2013.Google Scholar
- 25.Chu DA, Shiner J. Plyometrics in rehabilitation. In: Donatelli RA, editor. Sports-specific rehabilitation. St. Louis: Churchill Livingstone/Elsevier; 2007.Google Scholar
- 27.Turner HM, Bernard RM. Calculating and synthesizing effect sizes. Contemp Issues Commun Sci Disord. 2006;33:42–55.Google Scholar
- 28.Harman E. Measurement of human mechanical power. In: Maud P, Foster C, editors. Physiological ASSESSMENT OF HUMAN FITNESS. Champaign: Human Kinetics; 2006.Google Scholar
- 32.Fishbeck M, Janot J, Heil C, Alsheskie E, Daleiden A, Erickson E, et al. The effects of plyometric and agility training on balance and functional measures in middle aged and older adults. J Fit Res. 2013;2:30–40.Google Scholar
- 34.Ramirez-Campillo R, Diaz D, Martinez-Salazar C, Valdes-Badilla P, Delgado-Floody P, Mendez-Rebolledo G, et al. Effects of different doses of high-speed resistance training on physical performance and quality of life in older women: a randomized controlled trial. Clin Interv Aging. 2016;11:1797–804.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 38.The Nordic Cochrane Centre. Review manager. Cochrane Collaboration; 2014. pp. 1–43.Google Scholar
- 39.Deeks JJ, Higgins JP, Altman DG. Analysing data and undertaking meta-analyses. In: Higgins JPT, Green S (eds). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. The Cochrane Collaboration; 2008. pp. 243–96.Google Scholar
- 42.Higgins JP, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Special topics in statistics. In: Higgins JPT, Green S (eds). Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. The Cochrane Collaboration. 2008. pp. 481–529.Google Scholar
- 66.Siff MC, Verkhoshansky YV. Supertraining. Rome: Verkhoshansky; 2009. p. 578.Google Scholar
- 68.Ramirez-Campillo R, Sanchez-Sanchez, J, Gonzalo-Skok O, Rodríguez-Fernandez, A Carretero M, Nakamura F. Specific changes in young soccer player’s fitness after traditional bilateral vs. unilateral combined strength and plyometric training. Front Physiol. 2018;9:265.Google Scholar
- 69.Kramer JB, Stone MH, O’Bryant HS, Conley MS, Johnson RL, Nieman DC, et al. Effects of single vs. multiple sets of weight training: impact of volume, intensity, and variation. J Strength Cond Res. 1997;11:143–7.Google Scholar
- 75.Ebben WP. Practical guidelines for plyometric intensity. NSCA’s Perform Train J. 2007;6(5):12–6.Google Scholar