The Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness 2020 Jul 28

DOI: 10.23736/S0022-4707.20.10882-X

Copyright © 2020 EDIZIONI MINERVA MEDICA

language: English

A comparison of the effects of plyometric and virtual training on physical and functional performance: a randomized, controlled, clinical trial

Daniel F. LOBATO ✉, Vitória A. TEIXEIRA, Isabelle FROES, Marina A. DONZELI, Dernival BERTONCELLO

Human Movement Analysis Laboratory, Applied Physical Therapy Department, Federal University of Triangulo Mineiro, Uberaba, Brazil

BACKGROUND: This study compared the effects of plyometric training (PT) and virtual training (VT) on physical and functional performance.
METHODS: Fifty-five moderately-trained women participated in this randomized, controlled, prospective study. The subjects were randomly assigned to VT (n=20), PT (n=18), and control (CG, n=17) groups. The VT was performed using the Your Body Shape Fitness Evolved 2012TM exergame in an Xbox360/KineticTM environment. The PT was based on the methods used in previous studies. Both interventions were performed 3 times per week for 8 weeks. Participants in the CG were not submitted to any type of intervention. Physical performance (fitness and athleticism levels) was assessed using the Nike+ Kinetic TrainingTM exergame in an Xbox360/KineticTM environment. Functional performance was assessed using the shuttle run (SR), triple hop test (THT), and six-meter timed hop test (STHT).
RESULTS: Post-intervention fitness and athleticism levels were significantly greater in VT (P < 0.001 and P = 0.009) and in PT (P < 0.001 and P = 0.003) than baselines values. Only VT post-intervention fitness level was significantly greater compared to CG (P = 0.03). Postintervention SR values were significantly lower than baselines values in all groups (P <0.001). VT (P = 0.08) and PT (P = 0.006) post-intervention values were significantly lower compared to CG. Post-intervention THT values were significantly greater than baselines values in VT and PT (P < 0.001). VT (P = 0.04 - dominant limb) and PT (P = 0.003 -dominant limb and P = 0.03 - non-dominant limb) post-intervention values were significantly greater compared to CG. Post-intervention STHT values were significantly lower than baselines values in VT (P < 0.001), PT (P < 0.001) and CG (P = 0.01-0.02). PT post-intervention dominant (P = 0.01) and non-dominant (P = 0.03) limb values were significantly lower compared to CG.
CONCLUSIONS: Both VT and PT are beneficial for improving physical and functional performance. Therefore, VT might be a new tool that can be used for physical exercise practice and conditioning training in moderately-trained women.

KEY WORDS: Functional performance; Plyometric; Virtual reality; Functional tests