Plyometrics Without Junk Contacts
This article was submitted by a High Performance Coach (Level 4) candidate as part of their accreditation requirements.
What I’m Trying to Address
How can track and field coaches programme plyometrics so that each contact has a clear purpose, enough exposure to drive adaptation, and as little wasted volume as possible across the week, the session, and the season? Recent reviews show that plyometric training improves sprint, jump, strength, agility, and reactive strength outcomes across a wide range of athletic populations, but they also show that exact dose decisions are often under reported, inconsistently defined, and not as simple as “more contacts equals more gain”. Kons et al. (2023)
I titled this review ‘Junk Contacts’, which is obviously a very loaded and unscientific descriptor, but I’m talking about repetitions that add fatigue, noise, or habit, butno longer add the specific adaptation you were chasing. In practice, that usually happens when the coach tries to hit a pre-defined ‘number of foot contacts’ without adjusting for what’s actually happening in front of them, the athlete is too fatigued to hit the intended strategy, or the exercise choice and placement do not match the event demand. That interpretation is consistent with the literature showing that foot contacts or jump height alone can mislead, drop height is not the same as intensity, and movement strategy changes under fatigue or poor exercise selection. UKSCA (2025)
Why this matters to me and other coaches is simple. Coaches are already busy trying to fit speed work, technical work, lifting, rehab, and competition demands into crowded weeks. The thing we need to know isn’t just “How many contacts can we fit in?” but “What is the smallest dose that still gives us the adaptation we want, in the right place, with the right quality?” That is especially relevant in our sport, where event work itself is largely plyometric in nature and already creates large neural and tendon loading.
What the Evidence Strongly Supports
The strongest part of the evidence base is that plyometric training works to improve speed, agility, strength, standing and reactive jumps. An umbrella review of 29 meta analyses concluded that plyometric training improves many physical performance measures, including jump outcomes, sprint time, strength, and sport performance, although the authors also warned that many meta analyses rely on studies without control groups. In athletically trained adults, a 2025 meta analysis of 70 randomised trials involving 1,703 participants found significant benefits for 1RM squat, 10 to 30 metre sprint performance, countermovement and squat jump, reactive strength index, standing long jump, and agility tests. Kons et al. (2023)
The next strong point is that significant performance gains do not always require huge volumes. In youth, a 2023 systematic review with meta analysis reported that plyometric jump training improved strength, sprint speed, horizontal and vertical jump performance, reactive strength index, and sport specific performance, with benefits appearing after a minimal exercise dosage of 4 weeks, 8 sessions, and about 92 weekly jumps in the included studies. That does not mean 92 weekly jumps is the universal answer. It does mean coaches should be cautious about assuming that a session only becomes worthwhile after very large contact totals. Ramirez-Campillo et al. (2023)
This is supported by further research looking at lower limb stiffness. A meta analytical comparison concluded that plyometric jump training can improve lower body stiffness and that the effect was optimised with lower weekly volumes, below 250 jumps per week, over periods longer than 7 weeks. That is highly relevant for athletics coaches because stiffness qualities matter for sprinting, hurdling, jumping, and running economy, yet stiffness work is often the first area where “busy” sessions drift into clutter. Moran et al. (2023)
Reactive strength outcomes also appear to respond to structured, not endless, exposure. A 2023 meta analysis on reactive strength index, based on 61 articles and 2,576 participants, found plyometric jump training effective across the lifespan, with better effects in programmes longer than 7 weeks, more than 14 total sessions, and 3 weekly sessions versus lower frequencies in that dataset. That supports repeated exposure, but it still does not justify padding sessions with low value repetitions once intent and strategy have dropped. Ramirez-Campillo et al. (2023) - Different paper from the one referenced above by the same author in the same year confusingly!.
There is also good applied evidence that modest scheduling can work in season. A randomised trial in professional female soccer players found that one plyometric session per week over 12 weeks could significantly improve some sport specific fitness measures during the season. A separate 2024 randomised study in youth soccer found that microdosed plyometric exposure produced similar gains in jump performance, reactive strength index, and acceleration to a more traditional distribution. These are not track and field studies, so transfer should be cautious, but they support the coach friendly idea that distribution and freshness may matter as much as sheer session size. Nonnato et al. (2022)
What the Evidence Suggests, but Does Not Fully Settle
Exact dose rules are still murky. The literature reports dose as weekly jumps, total ground contacts, foot contacts, total sessions, intervention time, and sometimes only sets and reps. A 2023 review on drop jump programming argued that there is still no consensus on the best way to determine plyometric intensity and that many studies fail to report the variables that matter most for interpreting load. In other words, “contact count” is useful, but it is a blunt tool. Montoro-Bombu et al. (2023)
Direction specific transfer is also less tidy than some coaches think. A 2021 meta analytical comparison found that horizontally oriented plyometric training was at least as effective as vertical programming for vertical outcomes and superior for horizontal outcomes, especially in longer programmes and when bilateral and unilateral work were combined. That would seem to favour horizontal work for acceleration and horizontal jump tasks. However, a 2024 adult study that equated total volume at 100 foot contacts per session, twice per week for 8 weeks, found no clear superiority of vertical, horizontal, or combined programming, and little change in linear sprint speed. The safest interpretation is that direction matters, but not in a simple one exercise equals one guaranteed outcome way. Moran et al. (2021)
Drop jump intensity is another common area of confusion. A 2023 systematic, critical review concluded that drop height should not be treated as the determinant of intensity. Ground reaction forces, power output, reactive strength, jump height, movement strategy, and athlete capability all matter. The same review also pointed out the poor state of individualisation in much of the research. That means a 40 cm box may be too easy for one athlete, too disruptive for another, and the wrong task entirely for a third. Montoro-Bombu et al. (2023)
Other Thoughts
Surface and freshness are important, but precise track and field specific rules are still limited. The drop jump review notes that harder surfaces tend to allow shorter contact times, whereas softer surfaces can lengthen contact times. Anecdotal evidence suggests coaches should try and work with plyometrics exericses that mirror the ground contact demands of their event, but there is likely benefit from a variety of different types of exercises to train different components of the stretch-shortening cycle.
In the survey of Brazilian Olympic sprint and jump coaches, plyometrics were commonly used across the whole season, often on alternate days to lifting, after lifting, or in ‘complex training’ sessions, yet the paper also stresses that plyometrics may be more efficient when applied in a well rested state. So the evidence does not say there is one perfect sequence. It says quality is fragile, and fatigue changes the answer. Montoro-Bombu et al. (2023)
Where the Evidence is Weaker / Debated
For throwers, upper body plyometric training improves maximal strength, medicine ball throw performance, throwing performance, and upper limb muscle volume, but certainty of the evidence on how it directly transfers to greater performance in any of the throws events is low to very low. Garcia-Carrillo et al. (2023)
Practical conclusion from the evidence: coaches should be confident that plyometrics are valuable, less confident that more contacts are better, and very cautious about pretending that one universal contact number applies across all event groups and training weeks.
Practical Implications
The main coaching shift is to move from contact counting to contact accounting. Will I keep tracking foot contacts? Of course! But based on the evidence, I’m also accounting for their purpose. A rule that I now implement is to classify each exercise by the main adaptation I want. If the athlete can no longer perform the exercise to a high quality, that’s my cue to finish that training for the session and move on to something different.
Focus on fast stretch shortening cycle and leg stiffness for maximum velocity, hurdling rhythm, and some jump and distance running needs. These drills need crisp contacts, small yielding, and freshness. If the contact gets long and the landing gets deep, the purpose has changed.
Horizontal projection for acceleration, long jump, triple jump, and some combined events. Here, bounding, hops, and projection tasks often make more sense than just stacking vertical hurdle jumps because the directional demand is clearer, even though the evidence is mixed on how strongly direction specific the transfer always is.
Slow stretch shortening cycle and concentric power for some jump preparation, general preparation phases, and throwers who need lower body impulse but not necessarily maximal reactive rebound. These contacts can be fewer, heavier in intent, and often pair well with resistance training.
Landing skill and tissue preparation for youth development, return to higher intensity work, or weeks where competition and sprint load are already high. These are not junk just because they are simple, they become junk only when they are repeated without clear technical intent or without progression.
From a session planning point of view, the most useful coaching opinion supported by the literature is to put the highest quality, fastest, most reactive contacts where the athlete is fresh and can still learn from them. In my programmes that means early in a speed or power session, or as the key explosive piece inside a gym session, not buried after long technical volumes, heavy fatigue, or dead legs from the previous day.
While I don’t have any direct evidence confirming my suspicion, in my research I did not find one paper that supported the use of plyometrics as an 'endurance’ exercise. So even for my middle and long distance athletes, I use short and sharp plyometrics chunks towards the start of sessions.
Session Design Examples and Coaching Experiments
These examples are just that - examples, not universal prescriptions. I ran these sessions with my developing athletes, who still compete across a wide variety of events and sports.
The counts are deliberately light to moderate to focus on high quality repetitions and to show the athletes what purposeful, targted training feels like.
Sprint and Hurdle Speed Day
Session Aim: Fast stretch-shortening cycle, mix of horizontal and vertical projection (to replicate the needs of sprinting), and stiffness before maximal speed work.
Main Set:
Pogo series 2 × 8
Low Hurdle Hops 3 × 3
Individualised Drop Jumps 3 × 3
Short Alternate Bounds 2 × 6 contacts.
Approximate Total: 46 foot contacts.
Throughout the exericses I really only used one cue - “Floor is lava”. Every drill served the same family of adaptations, the total is manageable, and the most reactive work sits while the athlete is fresh. This aligns with evidence favouring purposeful repeated exposure, caution with fatigue, and the need to individualise drop work.
Long / Triple Training Day
Session Aim: Horizontal force application and projection.
Main set:
Standing Long Jump 4 × 2
Single Leg Hop to stick 3 × 3 each side
Alternate Bounds 3 × 8 contacts.
Approximate Total: 50 contacts.
This was actually done in the same week as the session above, but my logic here was that these exercises are completely different types of plyometric exercises to our sprints day. Here, we have long ground contact times and a focus on a more controlled, stable eccentric phase (really getting the athletes to ‘stick’ the landing on hop and bounds). This was also done prior to some short and full Long or Triple jumps, which in itself is a very demanding plyometric exercise. Cue I used throughout this session was “Wind Behind You”, to try and help the athletes to visualise jumping ‘out’.
Throws / Strength
Session Aim: Lower body impulse plus upper body speed strength. I don’t actually coach any athletes who compete in throws, but we do use throws as a general full body strength training.
Main Set:
Snap down to stick 2 × 4
Low box jump 4 × 3
Lateral bound to stick 2 × 3 each side
Rotational medicine ball scoop throw 4 × 3 each side
Overhead backward throw 4 × 3.
Approximate lower body landing contacts: 32, plus upper body ballistic throws.
We used a modest lower body dose, then pushed the ballistic qualities that may be especially relevant for throwers or full body training. That matches the evidence that upper body plyometric methods can improve medicine ball and throwing outcomes.
