At a glance
ClinicalIndex Comparison RecordStandardized by ClinicalIndex from the ClinicalTrials.gov record · verify against the source.
Acute Effects of Cluster-Set vs. Traditional-Set Plyometric Loading on Countermovement Jump and Reactive Strength Index in Young Tennis Players
In Brief
A clinical study evaluating Cluster Set and Traditional Set for Plyometric Training. Completed, enrolled 28 participants across 1 site.
Signals
Detailed Summary
The present study aimed to compare the acute effects of cluster-set (CS) and traditional-set (TS) plyometric loading protocols on countermovement jump (CMJ) performance and reactive strength index (RSI-mod) in young tennis players. Twenty-eight male tennis players (age: 16.7 ± 1.3 years) were randomly assigned to either a CS or TS group. Following a familiarization session, participants completed an experimental session including pre-tests (CMJ and drop jump), a plyometric loading protocol (CS: 3 × \[5 × 2 repetitions, 15 s intra-set rest, 2 min between sets\]; TS: 3 × 10 repetitions, 3 min between sets), and post-tests at 15 s, 3 min, and 6 min. CMJ height and RSI-mod were assessed using the My Jump 2 application. Borg Scale, Total Quality Recovery (TQR) were apply after post-tests at 15 s, 3 min, and 6 min.
Study Details
Timeline
Arms & Interventions
Cluster set: plyometric jumping 3 set , each set consist of 2 repetition x 5.
Traditional set: pluometric jumping 3 set, each set consist of 10 repetition.
Interventions
Cluster Set: Vertical Jumping 3 set, 2 minute rest/set, in 1 set 5 x 2 repetition, 15 sec rest after each 2 repetition.
Traditional set: Vertical jumping 3 set, 3 minute rest / set, in 1 set 10 repetition/set