COMPARISON BETWEEN UNILATERAL AND BILATERAL

PLYOMETRIC TRAINING ON SINGLE- AND DOUBLE-LEG

JUMPING PERFORMANCE AND STRENGTH
GREGORY C. BOGDANIS,1 ATHANASIOS TSOUKOS,1 OLGA KALOHERI,1 GERASIMOS TERZIS,1
PANAGIOTIS VELIGEKAS,1 AND LEE E. BROWN2
1
School of P. E. and Sport Science, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece; and 2Human Performance
Downloaded from https://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCywCX1AWnYQp/IlQrHD36tKOuhuKL2w/+GY/Zb0K6hBu0TJf+JI8dU/EJo10IbHfGycBec0tPA== on 02/21/2019

Laboratory, California State University, Fullerton, California

ABSTRACT double-leg jumping performance, isometric leg press maximal

Bogdanis, GC, Tsoukos, A, Kaloheri, O, Terzis, G, Veligekas, P, force, and RFD when compared with bilateral training.
and Brown, LE. Comparison between unilateral and bilateral KEY WORDS eccentric training, training specificity,
plyometric training on single- and double-leg jumping perfor- countermovement jump, reactive strength index, rate of force
mance and strength. J Strength Cond Res 33(3): 633–640, development
2019—This study compared the effects of unilateral and bilat-
eral plyometric training on single- and double-leg jumping per-
INTRODUCTION

D
formance, maximal strength, and rate of force development
(RFD). Fifteen moderately trained subjects were randomly uring single- and double-leg muscle actions, the
assigned to either a unilateral (U, n = 7) or bilateral group sum of force or power generated by each limb
acting separately may be greater than the force or
(B, n = 8). Both groups performed maximal effort plyometric
power produced when the muscles of both legs
leg exercises 2 times per week for 6 weeks. The B group
act simultaneously (3,6,13). This is termed the bilateral deficit
performed all exercises with both legs, whereas the U group
and has been attributed to reduced neural drive and a failure
performed half the repetitions with each leg, so that total exer- to maximally activate the muscles of the 2 limbs when they
cise volume was the same. Jumping performance was as- contract simultaneously (30). Previous studies have shown
sessed by countermovement jumps (CMJs) and drop jumps that the maximal force bilateral deficit may be reduced signif-
(DJs), whereas maximal isometric leg press strength and RFD icantly or even eliminated, after bilateral strength training,
were measured before and after training for each leg separately because of the greater magnitude of improvement in bilateral
and both legs together. Countermovement jump improvement compared with unilateral strength (12,14). By contrast, there
with both legs was not significantly different between U (12.1 is evidence from a cross-sectional (13) and a recent training
6 7.2%) and B (11.0 6 5.5%) groups. However, the sum of study (5), suggesting that unilateral training may increase
right- and left-leg CMJ only improved in the U group (19.0 6 bilateral deficit, supporting the principle of training specificity.
Based on the phenomenon of bilateral deficit, that also
7.1%, p , 0.001) and was unchanged in the B group (3.4 6
occurs in jumping (3), it is tempting to hypothesize that
8.4%, p = 0.80). Maximal isometric leg press force with both
strength and power training performed with each leg sepa-
legs was increased similarly between groups (B: 20.1 6 6.5%,
rately (unilateral) may allow greater loads and thus greater
U: 19.9 6 6.2%). However, the sum of right- and left-leg max- adaptations compared with bilateral training. Earlier resis-
imal force increased more in U compared with B group (23.8 6 tance training studies using middle-aged and elderly men
9.1% vs. 11.9 6 6.2%, p = 0.009, respectively). Similarly, the and women (12), students (24), or postmenopausal women
sum of right- and left-leg RFD0-50 and RFD0-100 were improved (14) have presented conflicting results regarding the effec-
only in the U group (34–36%, p , 0.01). Unilateral plyometric tiveness of unilateral and bilateral lower-limb training. For
training was more effective at increasing both single- and example, Taniguchi (24) reported that only bilateral leg
extension training resulted in an increase in maximal force,
whereas Häkkinen et al. (12) and Janzen et al. (14) reported
Address correspondence to Gregory C. Bogdanis, gbogdanis@ strength gains that were specific to the training mode used
phed.uoa.gr. (bilateral or unilateral). One recent study (5) using unilateral
33(3)/633–640 and bilateral knee extension strength training found that iso-
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research metric strength gains were almost 2-fold greater after unilat-
Ó 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association eral compared with bilateral training. The possibility that

VOLUME 33 | NUMBER 3 | MARCH 2019 | 633

Copyright © 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Unilateral and Bilateral Plyometric Training

unilateral may be more effective than bilateral training may age range: 18.2 to 25.8; 8 men [age: 19.8 6 2.9 years, height:
be exploited by coaches and athletes who wish to maximize 1.78 6 0.06 m, body mass: 72.3 6 10.2 kg] and 7 women
the benefits of strength training. However, in sports requiring [mean 6 SD: age: 19.4 6 0.5 years, height: 1.64 6 0.07 m,
power, explosive force production may be more important body mass: 58.0 6 4.1 kg]) took part in this study after being
than maximal strength. In explosive movements, such as informed of the aims and possible risks involved and after
jumping, sprinting, and plyometrics, the time to develop signing an informed consent form. Participants were physi-
force is limited to less than 250 ms, and thus the ability to cally active and took part in recreational activities 2–3 times
exert force rapidly, i.e., rate of force development (RFD) is per week, without performing any resistance training. They
an important determinant of performance (16,25). In that were randomly assigned to either a unilateral (U, n = 7) or
respect, plyometric training may be more effective than resis- bilateral (B, n = 8) training group and were matched for
tance training in improving explosive force, but some studies baseline CMJ performance and maximal isometric force.
have reported conflicting results (17,20,21). Exploring the
Procedures
effects of unilateral and bilateral plyometric training has
Measurement of Countermovement Jump Performance. Counter-
important implications for practitioners who use this type
movement jump performance was defined as the displace-
of training (jumping, hopping, bounding) to improve explo-
ment of the center of mass from take-off to the vertex of the
sive performance. Thus, the purpose of this study was to
flight trajectory, calculated by flight time obtained from a force
evaluate the effects of 6 weeks of unilateral (U) vs. bilateral
plate (Applied Measurements Ltd, Reading, United Kingdom)
(B) lower-limb plyometric training on maximal strength,
with a sampling frequency of 1 kHz (26). Displacement of
RFD, and jumping performance.
center of mass was calculated by the following equation:
METHODS 2
1 t
Experimental Approach to the Problem Displacement of the center of mass ¼ g $
2 2
A repeated measures design was used to investigate the short-
term effects of unilateral vs. bilateral plyometric training on where g = 9.81 m$s22, t = flight time.
maximal force and explosive performance. Subjects were Participants were asked to jump as high as possible with their
randomly assigned to 1 of 2 groups of either unilateral or hands akimbo throughout the jump and to maintain the same
bilateral training. They were required to take part in 2 body position at the instants of take-off and landing. This
familiarization and 3 preliminary measurement sessions, includ- method has been shown to be simple and highly reliable (7)
ing countermovement jumps (CMJs), drop jumps (DJs), and the results are directly comparable with those obtained by
maximum peak force, and RFD in the leg press exercise. On inexpensive devices such as contact mats and optoelectric cells
the first 2 visits, they were familiarized with DJs, CMJs, and used widely by researchers and practitioners (10). For each
isometric leg press to maximize reliability (16). On the first measurement, participants performed 3 CMJ with 45 seconds
preliminary visit, CMJ and DJ performances were measured of rest between jumps. Countermovement jump intraclass cor-
and served as baseline values. On the second preliminary visit, relation coefficient (ICC) was 0.99 (p , 0.01).
maximum isometric force and RFD were measured. In the
third preliminary visit, 1 repetition maximum (1RM) leg exten-
Measurement of Drop Jump Performance. Drop jump height
sion and leg curl were measured. All measurements were per-
was calculated by flight time measured on the same force
formed on both legs simultaneously and each leg separately.
plate as CMJ. Participants were asked to step off a wooden
After baseline testing, subjects performed training with either
box at a set height of 30 cm without lifting their center of
unilateral (U) or bilateral (B) plyometric exercises for 6 weeks.
gravity (2,27) and land on the force plate with both legs or 1
All measurements were repeated at the end of training.
leg depending on the measurement (bilateral or unilateral).
Subjects After contact, they rebounded and immediately jumped as
This study was approved by the review board at the School high as possible trying to minimize ground contact time (31).
of PE and Sport Science of the National & Kapodistrian As in the CMJ, hands were kept akimbo throughout the
University of Athens, Greece and all procedures were in entire jump and a straight body position was maintained at
accordance with the Code of Ethics of the World Medical the instants of take-off and landing. Subjects performed 3 DJ
Association (Helsinki declaration of 1964, as revised in with 45 seconds of rest between jumps (2). Reactive strength
2013). Fifteen physical education students (mean 6 SD: index (RSI) was calculated by the following formula:

RSI m$s21 ¼ maximal DJ height3ground contact time21

the TM

634 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Copyright © 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
the TM

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

Intraclass correlation coefficients for the DJ parameters calculated as the highest 100 ms average of the force-
were the following: height: ICC = 0.95 (p , 0.01), contact time curve. Rate of force development was calculated at
time: ICC = 0.96 (p , 0.01), RSI: ICC = 0.99 (p , 0.01). specific time windows of 0–50, 0–100, 0–200, and 0–300
ms (RFD0-50, RFD0-100, RFD0-200, and RFD0-300) as the
Measurement of Maximum Isometric Force and Rate of Force slope of the force-time curve over each time window (1).
Development. Maximum isometric force and RFD were Intraclass correlation coefficients for maximum isometric
measured with the same force plate mounted firmly on force for unilateral and bilateral measurements were 0.979
a concrete wall in front of a custom-made, rigid steel leg and 0.992 (p , 0.01), respectively. Intraclass correlation
press chair, with the seat back set at a 1068 angle with the coefficient for RFD for unilateral measurements ranged
horizontal being level (27). Subjects wore Olympic from 0.873 (p , 0.01 for RFD0-50) to 0.980 (p , 0.01 for
weightlifting shoes and their torso angle relative to the RFD0-300). Intraclass correlation coefficient for RFD for
ground was 110 6 28, hip angle (between the thigh and bilateral measurements ranged from 0.951 (p , 0.01 for
the torso) was 62 6 48, and knee angle was 101 6 58 RFD0-50) to 0.990 (p , 0.01 for RFD0-300).
(1808 = full knee extension). Participants were instructed
to push with both legs “as fast and hard as possible” Calculation of Bilateral Index. Bilateral index was calculated
(16,27) for 4 seconds and avoid any counter movement. with the following formula (13):

bilateral½2-legmeasurement
Bilateral indexð%Þ ¼ 1003 2100
right þ left unilateralmeasurement

A sampling frequency of 1,000 Hz was used (11) with Negative bilateral index values indicate bilateral deficit, i.e.,
a low-pass, fourth order, zero lag Butterworth digital filter that the sum of right + left leg measurements was greater than
with a cutoff frequency of 25 Hz for smoothing the raw the 2-leg measurement, whereas a positive bilateral index in-
data (27). Two maximum trials were performed with dicates bilateral facilitation, i.e., that the 2-leg measurement
2 minutes of recovery. Maximum isometric force was was greater than the sum or the right + left leg measurements.

TABLE 1. Training program for the bilateral and unilateral training group.*†

Week 1–3 sets Week 4–6 sets Repetitions

Bilateral training group

1. Two-leg jumps for distance 2 3 10
2. Countermovement jumps 2 3 10
3. Lateral jumps 2 3 10
4. Box jumps 2 3 10
5. Jumps over hurdles 2 3 10
6. Drop jumps 2 3 10
7. Leg extensions 3 4 6 at 60% or 3 at 90% 1RMz
8. Leg curls 3 4 8 at 60% 1RM
Unilateral training group
1. Hops 2 3 5 per leg
2. Single-leg countermovement jumps 2 3 5 per leg
3. Single-leg lateral jumps 2 3 5 per leg
4. Single-leg box jumps 2 3 5 per leg
5. Single-leg jumps over hurdles 2 3 5 per leg
6. Single-leg drop jumps 2 3 5 per leg
7. Single-leg leg extensions 3 4 6 at 60% or 3 at 90% 1RMz
8. Single-leg leg curls 3 4 8 at 60% 1RM

*1RM = 1 repetition maximum.

†The program was performed twice per week for 6 wk.
zPerformed on the first or the second session of each training week (see text for details).

VOLUME 33 | NUMBER 3 | MARCH 2019 | 635

Copyright © 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Unilateral and Bilateral Plyometric Training

Plyometric Training Program. Training took place across 6

weeks. Participants trained 2 days per week, 72 hours apart
(total sessions = 12) on nonconsecutive days. Each training
session lasted 60–75 minutes. Subjects performed a stan-
dardized warm-up which included 5 minutes of light jogging
on a treadmill (z60% of predicted maximal heart rate) and
5 minutes of dynamic stretching (4,26,28). Subsequently,
they performed running warm-up drills for 10 minutes
which consisted of 2 sets of 20 m of butt kickers, a-skips,
b-skips, a-runs, and 2 3 40-m running progressions. Table 1
shows the exercises included in the training program. All
plyometric exercises were performed with maximal effort.
Leg extensions and leg curls were included in both unilateral
and bilateral training programs as supplementary exercises.
On the first training day of the week, the load for leg exten-
sion was 60% 1RM and 6 explosive repetitions were per-
formed per set. On the second day of the week, the load
for leg extension was 90% 1RM and 3 repetitions were per-
formed per set. Load was readjusted at the end of week 3.
Resting intervals were 1 minute between sets and 3 minutes
between exercises. A 10 minute-cooldown, including light
jogging and static stretching, was performed after each
session.

Statistical Analyses
Data are presented as mean 6 standard deviation. To exam-
ine the effect of unilateral and bilateral training, performan-
ces of the right and left legs were summed and compared
with 2-leg performance. Multiple 3-way mixed factor analy-
ses of variance (ANOVAs) (2 training groups 3 2 time points
3 2 measurements [2-legs or sum of right and left legs])
were conducted to examine differences in CMJ performance,
RSI, maximal isometric peak force, and RFD. When a signif- Figure 1. Baseline values of countermovement jump (CMJ)
icant 3-way interaction was observed, 2-way repeated meas- performance (upper panel) and percent improvement of CMJ
ures ANOVAs were performed. Changes in Bilateral index performance after 6 weeks of training for the unilateral and bilateral
training groups. Two LEGS: 2-leg CMJ; LEFT LEG and RIGHT LEG:
were examined using 2-way mixed factor ANOVA (2 train- single-leg CMJ; SUM (L + R): sum of left and right CMJ performance. **:
ing groups 3 2 time points). When significant main effects or p , 0.01 from pre-training (baseline) values; †: p , 0.01 between
interactions were found (p , 0.05), Tukey’s test was used for bilateral and unilateral training groups; #: p , 0.01 between CMJ
post hoc analyses. Partial eta squared (h2) values were used improvement for 2 LEGS and SUM (L + R).

to estimate effect sizes (small: 0.01 to 0.059, moderate: 0.06

to 0.137, and large .0.138). For pairwise comparisons, the
magnitude of effect sizes were determined by Cohen’s (p , 0.001, d = 0.59), respectively (Figure 1). However,
d (small: .0.2, medium: .0.5, and large: .0.8). Test-retest unilateral CMJ performance only improved in the U group
reliability for all dependent variables was assessed by the (19.0 6 7.1%, p , 0.001, d = 1.17) and was unchanged in the
ICC using a 2-way random effect model. Statistical signifi- B group (3.4 6 8.4%, p = 0.80, d = 0.08, Figure 1).
cance was set at p # 0.05. All statistical analyses were per- For CMJ bilateral index, there was a significant time 3
formed using SPSS (IBM SPSS Statistics Version 23). group interaction (p = 0.002, h2 = 0.52). At baseline, it was
not different from zero, indicating neither facilitation nor
RESULTS deficit in both groups (B: 20.4 6 12.7%, U: 0.9 6 7.2%).
For CMJ performance, there was a significant 3-way However, after training, post hoc test showed an increase
interaction (p = 0.002, h2 = 0.52). The follow-up 2-way to bilateral facilitation in the B group to 6.8 6 11.5% (p =
ANOVA (time 3 measurement) showed that after training, 0.045, d = 0.64), whereas the U group showed a nonsignifi-
the U and B groups improved 2-leg CMJ performance sim- cant increased deficit to 25.0 6 6.5% (p = 0.14, d = 0.92).
ilarly by 12.1 6 7.2% (p , 0.001, d = 1.01) and 11.0 6 5.5% For DJ, there were no 3-way (p = 0.17, h2 = 0.14) or 2-way
interactions (p . 0.26), but there was a main effect for time
the TM

636 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Copyright © 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Copyright © 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

TABLE 2. Maximal force and rate of force development (RFD) at different time windows during double-leg and single-leg (sum of right and left legs) isometric leg
press measurements, pretraining and posttraining in the bilateral and unilateral training groups.*

Bilateral training group Unilateral training group

% Pre vs. % Pre vs. Bilateral vs. unilateral group

Pretraining Posttraining post Pretraining Posttraining post improvement

Double-leg measurements
Maximal force (N) 1,766 6 583 2,093 6 611 18.5† 1,724 6 329 2,070 6 415 20.0† n.s.
RFD 0–50 (N$s21) 6,265 6 3,392 7,142 6 3,369 14.0 8,555 6 3,032 9,918 6 2,379 15.9 n.s.
RFD 0–100 (N$s21) 6,310 6 2,514 8,002 6 3,010 26.8z 7,591 6 2,308 9,674 6 1,905 27.4† n.s.
RFD 0–200 (N$s21) 5,195 6 1,944 6,280 6 2,078 20.9 5,452 6 1,406 6,821 6 1,222 25.1 n.s.
RFD 0–300 (N$s21) 3,948 6 1,509 4,765 6 1,528 20.7 3,894 6 974 4,964 6 804 27.5 n.s.
Sum of right- and left-leg
measurements

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Maximal force (N) 2,003 6 593 2,241 6 573 11.9† 2,019 6 375 2,499 6 470 23.8† ,0.01

the
RFD 0–50 (N$s21) 7,327 6 3,593 7,233 6 2,577 21.3 7,971 6 4,098 10,677 6 3,303 33.9† ,0.05
RFD 0–100 (N$s21) 7,343 6 2,873 8,330 6 2,863 13.4 7,794 6 3,160 10,620 6 2,890 36.3† ,0.05
RFD 0–200 (N$s21) 5,896 6 2,028 6,755 6 2,076 14.6 6,097 6 1,783 7,710 6 1,642 26.5 n.s.
RFD 0–300 (N$s21) 4,327 6 1,386 5,045 6 1,485 16.6 4,549 6 1,235 5,607 6 1,113 23.2 n.s.

*Data are mean 6 SD.

VOLUME 33 | NUMBER 3 | MARCH 2019 |

†p , 0.01.
zp , 0.05.

TM
| www.nsca.com
637
Unilateral and Bilateral Plyometric Training

(prepost training, p = 0.024, h2 = 0.33), showing a similar mance. This is the first study that examined explosive force
improvement for both groups (z5%, d = 0.14 for B (RFD), as well as dynamic muscle performance during
and z9%, d = 0.46 for U). There was also a main effect a multijoint movement involving hip, knee, and ankle
for time (prepost training, p = 0.03, h2 = 0.31) for contact extension, as opposed to single-joint movements (e.g., knee
time, showing a similar decrease in both groups (from 0.243 extension) used in most previous studies (e.g., 6, 14, 28). A
6 0.043 to 0.219 6 0.035 seconds, d = 0.68 for B and from novel and important finding of this study was the large
0.260 6 0.034 to 0.228 6 0.026 seconds, d = 1.07, for U). increase in maximal isometric force and RFD in the first 50
For RSI, there was no 3-way interaction, but there was and 100 ms of single-leg muscle actions, only after U
a time 3 group interaction (p = 0.013, h2 = 0.38) where the training, which may partially explain the 2-fold greater
post hoc test showed an improvement in the U group (from improvement in single-leg CMJ and the increase in RSI
1.01 6 0.22 to 1.25 6 0.25 m$s21, p = 0.001, d = 1.03) but during DJs. These improvements only after unilateral
not in the B group (from 0.93 6 0.34 to 0.97 6 0.28 m$s21, plyometric training show that the principle of training
p = 0.92, d = 0.14). specificity was valid only for unilateral training, whereas
For maximum isometric force, there was a significant 3- bilateral performance was improved equally in the U and B
way interaction (p = 0.021, h2 = 0.34). The follow-up 2-way training groups. Thus, this study highlights the effectiveness
ANOVA showed that after training, the double-leg measure- of unilateral training for increasing not only isometric
ments were increased significantly and similarly in both strength (5) but more functional parameters of explosive
groups (Table 2). However, for each leg separately, the muscle performance.
sum of maximal force of the 2 legs increased 2-fold more The large improvements in explosive lower-limb perfor-
in the U compared with the B group (d = 1.22). mance in this study may be due to the fact that multijoint
For RFD0-50 and RFD0-100, there were significant 3-way plyometric exercises were used during training, as opposed
interactions (p = 0.037, h2 = 0.29) (p = 0.03, h2 = 0.31). The to single-joint exercises used in other unilateral studies, e.g.,
follow-up 2-way ANOVAs showed that after training, RFD0- (5,12,24). Very few studies of bilateral and unilateral training
50 for the double-leg measurements remained unchanged, have used plyometric exercises. McCurdy et al. (20) exam-
but RFD0-100 was increased similarly in both groups (d = ined the effects of 8 weeks of strength and plyometric train-
0.66 for B and d = 1.05 for U, Table 2). However, the sum of ing and reported that unilateral vertical jump height
left and right legs for RFD0-50 and RFD0-100 was improved improved more after unilateral than bilateral training. How-
only in the U group (d = 0.77 and d = 1.0, respectively, Table ever, they concluded that after adjusting for pretest differ-
2), while RFD remained unchanged at all time windows in ences, the posttest scores in all measured parameters were
the B group. There were no 2-way or 3-way interactions for similar between groups. In another study that used a 6-week
RFD0-200 or RFD0-300 (p = 0.17–0.65), but there was a main plyometric program with adolescent soccer players (21), it
effect for time for both RFD0-200 and RFD0-300 (p = 0.001, was concluded that a combination of bilateral and unilateral
h2 = 0.75–0.80, Table 2) which were increased. training induced superior performance improvements than
For maximal force bilateral index, there was a significant each training mode alone. However, careful examination of
time 3 group interaction (p = 0.015, h2 = 0.37). At baseline, the 21 performance measurements in that study showed that
bilateral index was negative and similar in both groups, indi- the unilateral training groups improved marginally more
cating a bilateral deficit (B: 212.6 6 6.8%, U: 214.6 6 3.9%). than the other groups in 5 of 8 jump measurements, equally
After training, the bilateral index was not changed in either with the combination group in the 5 soccer-specific explo-
group (B: 27.3% 6 6.2%, U:217.0 6 7.5%; p = 0.065, and p = sive performance tests, whereas surprisingly, the unilateral
0.63, respectively). group improved less than the bilateral and the combination
For leg extension and leg curl 1RM, there were no groups in the 8 balance tests (21). Therefore, based on these
significant 3-way (p = 0.47–0.68) or 2-way interactions observations, it may be argued that unilateral training may
(p = 0.15–0.72), but there were significant main effects for be more effective than bilateral training both in adults and in
time for both (p , 0.001, h2 = 0.91 and p , 0.001, h2 = 0.88, adolescents. Interestingly, the total number of jumps per-
respectively), demonstrating that both groups increased sim- formed in that study (21) (2,160 jumps in 6 weeks with 2
ilarly in double-leg and the sum of both legs. The average sessions per week) was similar to the total of jumps per-
increase for leg extension 1RM was 30.8 6 14.7% (p , 0.001, formed in this study (1,800 in total).
d = 0.92) and for leg curl 1RM was 22.2 6 14.1% (p = 0.001, Another finding of this study was that similar improve-
d = 0.51). ments were seen in unilateral and bilateral plyometric
training in bilateral measurements of neuromuscular perfor-
DISCUSSION mance. Countermovement jump performance with both legs
The main finding of this study was that unilateral lower-limb significantly improved equally in the U and B groups.
plyometric training was effective at improving both single- Furthermore, RFD0-100 and maximum isometric force
and double-leg explosive performance, whereas an equal increased to similar levels after U and B training, when mea-
volume of bilateral training only improved bilateral perfor- sured with both legs simultaneously. In agreement with our
the TM

638 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Copyright © 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
the TM

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

results, Makaruk et al. (17) showed that after 12 weeks of ating capacity of single-leg muscle actions in this study is
unilateral vs. bilateral plyometric training, there was a similar inferred by the bilateral index which was large and negative.
increase in bilateral peak power and jumping ability in both Interestingly, both bilateral indices (for maximal force and
groups. This is in contrast with the principle of specificity CMJ) became more negative at the end of training, suggest-
supported by findings of other studies, which showed that ing that training load was progressively higher during the 6
unilateral training primarily enhances unilateral perfor- weeks of training, because of the ability of single-leg actions
mance, whereas bilateral training primarily enhances bilat- to produce higher force and power.
eral performance (12,21,24). These discrepancies may be A parameter that may have caused greater neuromuscular
attributed to factors such as study population, type of mea- enhancement in the unilateral training group in this study is
surement, subjects level of physical activity, sex, contraction the contribution of cross-education (22,32,33,35), defined as
type, or movement velocity (5,9,12,14,15,20,21,23). A note- the phenomenon where chronic unilateral motor activity
worthy finding of this study was that the larger gains in can affect performance of the homologous muscles in the
unilateral explosive strength and power after U were not contralateral limb (35). For example, Weir et al. (32)
transferred to bilateral performance. This may be due to observed that after 8 weeks of eccentric resistance training
reduced neural drive and failure to maximally activate with the nondominant limb, isometric strength was
muscles of the 2 limbs when contracting together (30), or increased in both the dominant and nondominant legs. They
that leg muscles operate at a different part of the force- and also reported that this enhancement was seen at specific
power-velocity relationships during faster 2-leg jumps (3). knee angles, suggesting joint angle specificity. Eccentric
The former applies to isometric force, whereas both argu- training increased the eccentric 1RM of both the trained
ments may apply to jumping performance. and untrained limbs as well as bilaterally; however, enhance-
Our results are in accordance with other studies regarding ment of the trained and the untrained limbs was greater than
maximum strength, which was increased in both groups that bilaterally. Based on this, it seems that in this study, the
after training. Botton et al. (5) found a similar improvement U group might have exhibited cross-education. The physio-
in dynamic knee extension in both U and B groups in recrea- logical mechanisms underlying cross-education of muscular
tionally active women, whereas Janzen et al. (14) concluded strength may be explained by central neural factors during
that monoarticular exercises such as leg extensions improved training (22).
maximum strength to the same degree regardless of U or B In conclusion, unilateral plyometric training was more
training intervention. Thus, it seems that the unilateral and effective in increasing both single- and double-leg jumping
bilateral plyometric training, which constituted the largest performance, isometric leg press maximal force, and RFD,
part of training in this study, did not affect the test results when compared with bilateral training. A noteworthy
of nonspecific, monoarticular dynamic tests, such as the leg finding of this study that warrants further investigation was
extension and curl. that the gains in unilateral explosive strength and power
A possible explanation for the superiority of unilateral were not transferred to bilateral performance.
plyometric training in this study may be related to neural
factors. Van Soest et al. (29) reported that unilateral vertical PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS
jumps significantly increased electromyography (EMG) These data show that unilateral plyometric training of the
activity of the vastus medialis and gastrocnemius muscles lower limbs is 2–3 fold more effective compared with an
by 10–25% compared with bilateral vertical jumps. Thus, equal volume of bilateral training when testing is performed
although EMG was not measured in this study, unilateral with each limb separately. This advantage is realized within
plyometric training may have resulted in greater neural acti- 6 weeks of twice-weekly training, with a total of 1,800 jumps.
vation of the leg muscles, resulting in a greater training load. This large increase in single-leg explosive muscle perfor-
However, Bobbert et al. (3) reported that the higher force mance could be useful for many individual and team sports
generated during single-leg jumps is not accompanied by that include high force or power single-leg muscle actions,
greater EMG activity, but is related to slower movement ranging from track and field jumping and sprinting to bas-
speed when jumping off 1 compared with 2 legs. Thus, dur- ketball and football and soccer. Furthermore, an increase in
ing unilateral plyometric training, muscles contract at slower the ability to develop high forces rapidly may be important
velocities, which are closer to their optimum, resulting in for weak and elderly persons who wish to improve balance
greater impulse (3,29). By contrast, during bilateral vertical and prevent falls. Strength and conditioning coaches should
jumps, muscles contract at greater speeds and because of the incorporate unilateral plyometric lower-limb exercises in
force-velocity relationship, produce less force (3). Moreover, their training programs for athletes and special populations.
plyometric training with additional weight (8,18) is more
effective than training with no external load (34). Taken REFERENCES
collectively, the previous findings suggest that during unilat- 1. Aagaard, P, Simonsen, EB, Andersen, JL, Magnusson, P, and
Dyhre-Poulsen, P. Increased rate of force development and neural
eral training, muscles operate at higher intensities and thus drive of human skeletal muscle following resistance training. J Appl
greater adaptation is achieved (19). The higher force gener- Physiol (1985) 93: 1318–1326, 2002.

VOLUME 33 | NUMBER 3 | MARCH 2019 | 639

Copyright © 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Unilateral and Bilateral Plyometric Training

2. Barr, MJ and Nolte, VW. Which measure of drop jump performance 19. McBride, JM, Triplett-McBride, T, Davie, A, and Newton, RU. The
best predicts sprinting speed? J Strength Cond Res 25: 1976–1982, effect of heavy- vs. light-load jump squats on the development of
2011. strength, power, and speed. J Strength Cond Res 16: 75–82, 2002.
3. Bobbert, MF, de Graaf, WW, Jonk, JN, and Casius, LJR. Explanation 20. McCurdy, KW, Langford, GA, Doscher, MW, Wiley, LP, and
of the bilateral deficit in human vertical squat jumping. J Appl Physiol Mallard, KG. The effects of short-term unilateral and bilateral lower-
(1985) 100: 493–499, 2006. body resistance training on measures of strength and power. J
4. Bogdanis, GC, Tsoukos, A, Veligekas, P, Tsolakis, C, and Terzis, G. Strength Cond Res 19: 9–15, 2005.
Effects of muscle action type with equal impulse of conditioning 21. Ramı́rez-Campillo, R, Burgos, CH, Henrı́quez-Olguı́n, C, Andrade,
activity on postactivation potentiation. J Strength Cond Res 28: 2521– DC, Martı́nez, C, Álvarez, C, Castro-Sepúlveda, M, Marques, MC,
2528, 2014. and Izquierdo, M. Effect of unilateral, bilateral, and combined
5. Botton, CE, Radaelli, R, Wilhelm, EN, Rech, A, Brown, LE, and plyometric training on explosive and endurance performance of
Pinto, RS. Neuromuscular adaptations to unilateral vs. bilateral young soccer players. J Strength Cond Res 29: 1317–1328, 2015.
strength training in women. J Strength Cond Res 30: 1924–1932, 22. Shima, N, Ishida, K, Katayama, K, Morotome, Y, Sato, Y, and
2016. Miyamura, M. Cross education of muscular strength during
6. Botton, CE, Radaelli, R, Wilhelm, EN, Silva, BGC, Brown, LE, and unilateral resistance training and detraining. Eur J Appl Physiol 86:
Pinto, RS. Bilateral deficit between concentric and isometric muscle 287–294, 2002.
actions. Isokinet Exerc Sci 21: 161–165, 2013. 23. Speirs, DE, Bennett, MA, Finn, CV, and Turner, AP. Unilateral vs.
7. Cormack, SJ, Newton, RU, McGuigan, MR, and Doyle, TLA. bilateral squat training for strength, sprints, and agility in academy
Reliability of measures obtained during single and repeated rugby players. J Strength Cond Res 30: 386–392, 2016.
countermovement jumps. Int J Sports Physiol Perform 3: 131–144, 24. Taniguchi, Y. Lateral specificity in resistance training: The effect of
2008. bilateral and unilateral training. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol 75:
8. Cormie, P, McGuigan, MR, and Newton, RU. Developing maximal 144–150, 1997.
neuromuscular power: Part 2-training considerations for improving 25. Tillin, NA, Pain, MTG, and Folland, JP. Short-term training for
maximal power production. Sports Med 41: 125–146, 2011. explosive strength causes neural and mechanical adaptations. Exp
9. Dickin, CD and Too, D. Effects of movement velocity and maximal Physiol 97: 630–641, 2012.
concentric and eccentric actions on the bilateral deficit. Res Q Exerc 26. Tsoukos, A, Bogdanis, GC, Terzis, G, and Veligekas, P. Acute
Sport 77: 296–303, 2006. improvement of vertical jump performance after isometric squats
10. Glatthorn, JF, Gouge, S, Nussbaumer, S, Stauffacher, S, Impellizzeri, depends on knee angle and vertical jumping ability. J Strength Cond
FM, and Maffiuletti, NA. Validity and reliability of Optojump Res 30: 2250–2257, 2016.
photoelectric cells for estimating vertical jump height. J Strength 27. Tsoukos, A, Veligekas, P, Brown, LE, Terzis, G, and Bogdanis, GC.
Cond Res 25: 556–560, 2011. Delayed effects of a low volume, power-type resistance exercise
11. Haff, GG, Ruben, RP, Lider, J, Twine, C, and Cormie, P. A session on explosive performance. J Strength Cond Res, 2017. Epub
comparison of methods for determining the rate of force ahead of print.
development during isometric midthigh clean pulls. J Strength Cond 28. Turki, O, Chaouachi, A, Drinkwater, EJ, Chtara, M, Chamari, K,
Res 29: 386–395, 2015. Amri, M, and Behm, DG. Ten minutes of dynamic stretching is
12. Häkkinen, K, Kallinen, M, Linnamo, V, Pastinen, UM, Newton, RU, sufficient to potentiate vertical jump performance characteristics. J
and Kraemer, WJ. Neuromuscular adaptations during bilateral Strength Cond Res 25: 2453–2463, 2011.
versus unilateral strength training in middle-aged and elderly men 29. van Soest, AJ, Roebroeck, ME, Bobbert, MF, Huijing, PA, and van
and women. Acta Physiol Scand 158: 77–88, 1996. Ingen Schenau, GJ. A comparison of one-legged and two-legged
13. Howard, JD and Enoka, RM. Maximum bilateral contractions are countermovement jumps. Med Sci Sports Exerc 17: 635–639, 1985.
modified by neurally mediated interlimb effects. J Appl Physiol 70: 30. Vandervoort, AA, Sale, DG, and Moroz, J. Comparison of motor
306–316, 1991. unit activation during unilateral and bilateral leg extension. J Appl
14. Janzen, CL, Chilibeck, PD, and Davison, KS. The effect of Physiol 56: 46–51, 1984.
unilateral and bilateral strength training on the bilateral deficit and 31. Viitasalo, JT, Salo, A, and Lahtinen, J. Neuromuscular functioning of
lean tissue mass in post-menopausal women. Eur J Appl Physiol 97: athletes and non-athletes in the drop jump. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup
253–260, 2006. Physiol 78: 432–440, 1998.
15. Kuruganti, U, Parker, P, Rickards, J, Tingley, M, and Sexsmith, J. 32. Weir, JP, Housh, DJ, Housh, TJ, and Weir, LL. The effect of
Bilateral isokinetic training reduces the bilateral leg strength deficit unilateral eccentric weight training and detraining on joint angle
for both old and young adults. Eur J Appl Physiol 94: 175–179, 2005. specificity, cross-training, and the bilateral deficit. J Orthop Sports
16. Maffiuletti, NA, Aagaard, P, Blazevich, AJ, Folland, J, Tillin, N, and Phys Ther 22: 207–215, 1995.
Duchateau, J. Rate of force development: Physiological and 33. Weir, JP, Housh, DJ, Housh, TJ, and Weir, LL. The effect of
methodological considerations. Eur J Appl Physiol 116: 1091–1116, unilateral concentric weight training and detraining on joint angle
2016. specificity, cross-training, and the bilateral deficit. J Orthop Sports
17. Makaruk, H, Winchester, JB, Sadowski, J, Czaplicki, A, and Phys Ther 25: 264–270, 1997.
Sacewicz, T. Effects of unilateral and bilateral plyometric training on 34. Wilson, GJ, Newton, RU, Murphy, AJ, and Humphries, BJ. The
power and jumping ability in women. J Strength Cond Res 25: 3311– optimal training load for the development of dynamic athletic
3318, 2011. performance. Med Sci Sports Exerc 25: 1279–1286, 1993.
18. Maloney, SJ, Turner, AN, and Fletcher, IM. Ballistic exercise as 35. Zhou, S. Chronic neural adaptations to unilateral exercise:
a pre-activation stimulus: A review of the literature and practical Mechanisms of cross education. Exerc Sport Sci Rev 28: 177–184,
applications. Sport Med 44: 1347–1359, 2014. 2000.

the TM

640 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Copyright © 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.