Next Article in Journal
Spectral Information Divergence-Driven Diffusion Networks for Hyperspectral Target Detection
Next Article in Special Issue
The Effects of FIFA 11+ and Harmoknee Warm-Up Protocols on Flexibility, Vertical Jump and Shooting Speed in Female Football Players: A Comparative Study
Previous Article in Journal
Machine Learning-Based 3D Soil Layer Reconstruction in Foundation Pit Engineering
Previous Article in Special Issue
Reliability Study of Weight-Bearing Upper Extremity Sway Test Performed on a Force Plate in the One-Handed Plank Position
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Applied Sciences
Volume 15
Issue 8
10.3390/app15084079
applsci-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Optimal Recovery Time for Post-Activation Performance Enhancement After an Acute Bout of Plyometric Exercise on Unilateral Countermovement Jump and Postural Sway in National-Level Female Volleyball Players

by
Fatih Karabel
1 and
Yücel Makaracı
2,*
1
Department of Sports Sciences, Institute of Health Sciences, Karamanoğlu Mehmetbey University, Karaman 70200, Turkey
2
Department of Coaching Education, Faculty of Sports Sciences, Karamanoğlu Mehmetbey University, Karaman 70100, Turkey
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Appl. Sci. 2025, 15(8), 4079; https://doi.org/10.3390/app15084079
Submission received: 8 March 2025 / Revised: 3 April 2025 / Accepted: 7 April 2025 / Published: 8 April 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Effects of Physical Training on Exercise Performance—2nd Edition)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Post-activation performance enhancement (PAPE) has been proposed to improve strength, power, or speed following a conditioning contraction, yet, few studies have investigated its impact on postural performance. This study aimed to examine the effects of an acute bout of plyometric exercise with varying recovery intervals on unilateral countermovement jump (CMJ) performance and postural sway in female volleyball players. Twenty-four national-level female athletes (age: 20.83 ± 2.93 years; height: 1.72 ± 0.18 m; body mass: 61.21 ± 11.77 kg; and body mass index: 20.60 ± 2.67 kg/m2) participated in the study. They conducted unilateral CMJ and postural sway assessments on both dominant and non-dominant legs under baseline conditions, as well as four recovery intervals (2 min: R2, 4 min: R4, 6 min, R6, and 8 min: R8). These assessments were performed following a 30 s repetitive CMJ (RCMJ-30) serving as an acute plyometric conditioning activity. A force plate was used to capture force–time- and center of pressure-derived metrics. Maximum and mean jump heights during the RCMJ-30 test demonstrated moderate-to-good interday reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.62–0.83). Significant differences in unilateral CMJ and postural sway metrics were observed across conditions following the plyometric stimulus. R8 was the most effective recovery interval for improving both jump height and flight time in both legs (p < 0.01). The greatest enhancement in unilateral postural performance was found in the R6 condition (p < 0.05), with more pronounced effects in the non-dominant leg. These findings support the effectiveness of the RCMJ-30 as a PAPE protocol for enhancing both unilateral CMJ performance and postural control. Practitioners should adjust recovery intervals based on specific performance goals to maximize PAPE benefits.

1. Introduction

Athletes, coaches, and performance specialists commonly use various warm-up strategies to enhance muscle strength and power [1]. One such approach, the post-activation potentiation (PAP) phenomenon, has been employed for nearly two decades and involves high-intensity muscle contractions to prime the body for subsequent physical activities and competitions [2,3]. The goal of PAP is to temporarily enhance the muscle’s force-producing capacity by engaging in a high-intensity exercise before performing an explosive movement, such as a jump or sprint [4,5,6,7,8]. However, the temporary enhancement in muscular performance (i.e., strength, power, or speed) is based on voluntary force production following high-intensity muscle contractions [9]. This has recently been termed post-activation performance enhancement (PAPE) to differentiate it from the classical PAP, which was originally defined as the increase in electrically evoked twitch force or torque following submaximal and maximal conditioning contractions [10,11].
From a molecular perspective, the mechanisms underlying PAPE involve the phosphorylation of myosin light chains, which increases the sensitivity of actin and myosin to calcium ions (Ca2+), thus accelerating force development [2]. This molecular framework suggests that a preload stimulus could potentially improve athletic performance metrics, such as strength, power, and speed, in athletes, enhancing their overall explosive capabilities [12]. Several factors, including gender, muscle fiber type, muscle strength level, training experience, and contraction type, play a crucial role in the transient mechanism of action following a conditioning stimulus [13]. In addition to these variables, an appropriate recovery time (rest interval) is another important consideration [14]. Previous studies have shown that optimal recovery time after a conditioning stimulus is between 0 and 11 min for the best results [14,15,16]. A recent systematic review found that jump-based and squat-based PAPE protocols enhance jump height and sprint performance within 0–15 min and 0–10 min recovery windows, respectively, in team-sport athletes [17].
Resistance and plyometric exercises are recommended as the most effective conditioning methods for enhancing sprinting and change of direction performance [8]. Furthermore, conditioning-related factors such as protocol duration, multiple sets, and moderate-to-high intensity loads (>85% 1RM) are essential for optimizing PAPE outcomes. Resistance exercises may produce a stronger PAPE effect for maximal power movements, while plyometric exercises enhance explosive movements through the stretch-shortening cycle and are particularly effective for vertical jumps [4,18,19,20]. However, some research has shown that plyometric conditioning may not enhance performance in sprint performance or horizontal-approach for track and field athletes [21,22,23]. These null findings may be explained in a population-specific context. Guerra et al. [24] further emphasized that the effectiveness of plyometric PAPE protocols depends on the athletes’ fitness levels. Positive effects of various PAPE approaches have also been observed in volleyball players, including enhancements in vertical jump [20,25], standing long jump [26], isometric mid-thigh pull [27], and jumping power [28], which are critical for highlighting the importance of lower-extremity power, particularly jumping ability, in volleyball.
Even though the aforementioned positive effects are mainly observed in trained populations, PAPE protocols also carry potential drawbacks. For instance, high-intensity activation, such as resistance training, prior to a performance can increase the risk of sports-related injuries [29]. Additionally, the equipment required for such high-intensity activation is not always readily available in competition settings [30]. Given these limitations, incorporating plyometric-based conditioning activity (e.g., the 30 s repetitive countermovement jump [RCMJ-30]) in pre-competition routines may optimize performance for athletes while minimizing equipment needs and maintaining low intensity. This approach may also reduce injury risk, distinguishing it from traditional PAP, which involves highly standardized, lab-based protocols.
In volleyball, balance is crucial for maintaining postural stability during movements such as approach, jumping, and blocking [31]. Additionally, maintaining postural stability is crucial during all actions involving floor contact (e.g., sliding, diving, or spiking with a fall) [32]. Riemann and Schmitz [33] further emphasized that most sports require athletes to rely on a single-leg base of support at certain moments, making single-leg tests a logical and necessary tool for assessing postural stability in clinical or sports-medicine research settings. While PAPE is primarily associated with explosive movements, it is also possible that enhancing maximal voluntary strength and power could be used to improve postural balance. This idea stems from the temporary increase in muscular activity following high-intensity exercise, which enhances actin–myosin interactions and promotes cross-bridge formation [34]. Additionally, conditioning activity stimulates the central nervous system by increasing upper motor unit recruitment [35]. In this regard, the effective use of the PAPE strategy can be considered a key factor in improving postural balance, alongside enhancing muscle function [36]. Overall, improving unilateral jump performance and postural control in volleyball players within the PAPE framework can significantly enhance their competitive performance.
The possible impact of PAPE on postural sway remains unexamined, despite several studies exploring its effects on jump performance in volleyball players [20,26,27,28]. Additionally, further research is needed to clarify performance changes following acute conditioning activity. Therefore, the aim of this study was to investigate the effect of an acute bout of plyometric exercise stimulus with varying recovery intervals on unilateral jump performance and postural sway in national-level female volleyball players. We hypothesized that (1) the test parameters of RCMJ-30 would provide reliable measures without exhibiting a learning effect, and (2) that there would be differences in CMJ and postural performance across different recovery intervals following the acute conditioning activity (RCMJ-30) in both the dominant and non-dominant legs of national-level female volleyball players.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Participants

A power analysis was conducted using G*Power 3.1 to determine the appropriate sample size for the study. Based on a significance level of 0.05, an effect size f of 0.40, and a power of 0.95 for a single group with five repeated measurements, the analysis indicated that a sample of 16 participants would be sufficient [10]. Consequently, 24 female volleyball players (age: 20.83 ± 2.93 years, height: 1.72 ± 0.18 m, body mass: 61.21 ± 11.77 kg, body mass index: 20.60 ± 2.67 kg/m2, and training age: 10.56 ± 4.18 years) were randomly selected from athletes competing at the national level. The age range of participants was 18 to 25 years. All athletes were right-leg dominant (n = 24), with the dominant limb determined as the leg they would use to kick a ball [37].
The inclusion criteria for participation were as follows: participants had to be over 18 years of age, have at least 5 years of competitive volleyball experience, have no medical conditions, be free of pain, and have no injury during the data-collection phase. The exclusion criteria included the inability to participate in team training for more than one consecutive month, have undergone a lower-extremity-specific surgical procedure in the past year, or have irregular menstrual cycles. This study was approved by the Clinical Research Ethical Review Board of Karamanoğlu Mehmetbey University, in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki (Approval ID: 08-2023/10, dated 13 September 2023).

2.2. Procedure

This study aimed to examine the effect of an acute bout of plyometric stimulus (RCMJ-30) applied with varying recovery intervals on unilateral CMJ performance and postural sway in national-level female volleyball players. A one-group repeated measures (pretest–posttest) design was employed. Data collection occurred during the official competition period in October 2023. Before starting the data collection, the team coaches and athletes were individually briefed on the study procedures. Written informed consent was obtained from all participants who met the study’s inclusion criteria. These athletes then completed a one-week familiarization period, which involved repetitive vertical jump and unilateral exercises (single-leg jump and stance) to reduce potential learning effects.
During the data-collection process, demographic and anthropometric characteristics were recorded first. On the same day, baseline measurements of the CMJ and postural sway for both the dominant and non-dominant legs were completed. On subsequent measurement days, athletes underwent unilateral CMJ and postural sway assessments following different recovery intervals of 2, 4, 6, and 8 min (i.e., R2, R4, R6, and R8), after the PAPE protocol. Before the conditioning activity to induce PAPE, all participants performed a standardized 10 min warm-up consisting of stretching and mobility exercises targeting the major muscle groups of the lower limbs [37]. Recovery intervals (in minutes) were randomized for each participant using a computerized random number generator (Microsoft® Excel) and administered in a non-sequential order. Unilateral CMJ and postural sway measurements were each performed as a single valid repetition, strictly adhering to the recovery intervals following the RCMJ-30. All participants (n = 24) completed every stage of the study, including the familiarization period and all measurement sessions for unilateral CMJ and postural sway. The entire measurement process was completed over two weeks, with at least 48 h between each measurement day. The experimental design is presented in Figure 1.
Unilateral CMJ and postural sway performances were measured using a force plate (Kistler, Winterthur, Switzerland, model: 9260AA6, sampling rate: ≈400 Hz, size: 600 × 500 × 50 mm) positioned on a flat, hard surface. During the measurements, signals from the force plate were transmitted to a personal laptop via a data acquisition system (model 5691A; Winterthur, Switzerland; USB 2.0). The data for unilateral CMJ and postural sway performances were then processed using commercial software (Kistler’s Measurement, Analysis, and Reporting Software, Kistler MARS, v4.0.2.99, S2P Ltd., Ljubljana, Slovenia), integrated with the force plate, and the results were exported to an Excel file [38].
Environmental factors, including light, temperature, and ground conditions for the force plate, were standardized to ensure consistency in the assessments. All measurements were conducted within the same time window (2–4 p.m.) to minimize potential physiological changes related to circadian rhythms. Athletes were instructed to follow their usual nutrition programs on measurement days and were also advised to avoid heavy exercise in the 24 h preceding the measurement.

2.3. Post-Activation Performance Enhancement (PAPE) Protocol

The RCMJ-30, an anaerobic-based performance indicator [39], was used as the PAPE protocol in this study. This protocol was chosen because it requires no equipment, can be completed in a short time, and was suitable for the participant population (e.g., national-level volleyball players). The RCMJ-30 was performed following a standardized 10 min warm-up, which included jogging, stretching, and jumping movements. Athletes were positioned at the center of the force plate with their bodies upright and heads facing forward. They then performed repeated vertical jumps for 30 s, with hands on their hips and knees bent at 60°, following the traditional CMJ protocol. The researchers on the study team ensured that the jumps were performed with consistent form throughout the 30 s exercise period, providing verbal motivation to support performance.
During the conditioning activity to induce PAPE, the RCMJ-30 test protocol was run using the MARS, and the following values were recorded for subsequent reliability analyses: maximum jump height (m), mean jump height (m), fatigue index (%), and endurance index (%).

2.4. Measures

Unilateral Countermovement Jump Test: The participants completed the unilateral CMJ test for both the dominant and non-dominant legs following the protocol outlined by Meylan et al. [40]. The test began with the preferred leg fully extended at the center of the force plate, while the opposite leg was positioned at hip level with the knee joint in 90° flexion, and the hands placed on the hips. After reaching a self-determined depth, the participant performed a countermovement, and jumped as high as possible during the flight phase. Following the jump, the measurement was completed by landing on the force plate with the same leg (landing phase) [41]. During the unilateral CMJ, movement of the opposite leg, or any contact with the test leg, was restricted, as such actions could directly affect the test results. A repetition performed in accordance with the specified procedure was recognized as valid by the force plate software. Following the unilateral CMJ performances, force–time-derived parameters, including jump height, flight time, mean power, and mean velocity, were obtained from the MARS and used for statistical analysis [42].
Unilateral Postural Sway Assessment: Postural sway measurements were conducted based on center of pressure (CoP) assessments. During the measurements, the participant stood on one leg (the tested leg) at the center of the force plate. The leg was oriented in the anteroposterior direction (along the Y-axis of the force plate) with the toes pointing forward. The measurements were taken with eyes closed for 10 s [43]. Participants were instructed to keep their hands at hip level (iliac crest) with the opposite leg flexed at 90° [44], while remaining as still as possible. In cases where postural stability could not be maintained, participants were asked to gently tap the force plate with the opposite leg (which remained passive during the test) to complete the test period. The postural sway measurements provided the following parameters: anteroposterior sway velocity, mediolateral sway velocity, anteroposterior sway area, mediolateral sway area, and ellipse area (% 100), which were extracted from the MARS and used for statistical analysis [43].

2.5. Statistical Analyses

Descriptive statistics are presented as mean ( X ¯ ) and standard deviation (SD). The Shapiro–Wilk test was used to assess the normality of the data distribution, confirming that the data followed a normal distribution and that the conditions for parametric tests were met. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), using a two-way random effects model with absolute agreement for a single measure (ICC(2,1)), and standard error of measurement (SEM) were calculated to evaluate the test–retest reliability of the RCMJ-30 performances used in the PAPE protocol. A one-way repeated measures ANOVA was conducted to determine differences in unilateral CMJ and postural sway values at baseline, and at varying recovery intervals following the PAPE protocol. Generalized eta-squared was used to measure the standardized effect size, with values interpreted as small (0.01–0.059), medium (0.06–0.139), or large (≥0.14). If a significant main effect (time) was found, a Bonferroni post hoc test was applied to perform pairwise comparisons between the five conditions (i.e., baseline, R2, R4, R6, and R8), and a power analysis (1 − β) was also conducted. Cohen’s d calculation of the effect size was used for pairwise comparisons and interpreted as small (0.20–0.49), medium (0.50–0.79), or large (≥0.80) [45]. Additionally, statistical differences between recovery intervals were illustrated using line charts. All analyses were performed separately for the dominant and non-dominant legs. The level of statistical significance was set at p ≤ 0.05. All statistical analyses were performed using SPSS statistical software (SPSS for Windows, version 21.0, SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA).

3. Results

Descriptive statistics and interday reliability of RCMJ-30 parameters obtained from the MARS are presented in Table 1. The fatigue and endurance index demonstrated poor interday reliability (ICC = 0.32–0.42). Maximum jump height showed moderate reliability (ICC = 0.62), while mean jump height, representing the average jump height over 30 s, exhibited good interday reliability (ICC = 0.83). No parameters showed evidence of learning effects across the four days (p > 0.05).
Dominant and non-dominant leg CMJ performances with different recovery intervals following PAPE protocol are presented in Table 2.
A one-way repeated measures analysis of variance revealed significant differences among the five experimental conditions for both jump height and flight time in the dominant leg. For jump height, the analysis yielded a significant effect: F(4, 96) = 9.955, p < 0.00, 1 − β = 0.95, and η2 = 0.30 (large effect). Similarly, flight time differed significantly across conditions (F(4, 96) = 7.82, p = 0.01, 1 − β = 0.88, and η2 = 0.25, large effect). Bonferroni-corrected post hoc pairwise comparisons showed that the R8 condition resulted in significantly greater jump height compared with baseline (p < 0.00, d = 1.96), R2 (p < 0.00, d = 1.57), and R6 (p = 0.01, d = 0.95). Additionally, flight time in the R8 condition was significantly higher than both the baseline (p = 0.01, d = 0.88) and R2 (p = 0.01, d = 0.66). Furthermore, the R6 condition was significantly higher than the baseline (p = 0.01, d = 0.50).
In the non-dominant leg, a similar one-way repeated measures revealed statistically significant differences for both jump height (F(4, 96) = 7.583, p < 0.00, 1 − β = 0.88, and η2 = 0.24, large effect) and flight time (F(4, 96) = 8.661, p = 0.00, 1 − β = 0.86, and η2 = 0.27, large effect). Post hoc analyses revealed that in the R8 condition, jump height was significantly higher compared with both baseline (p < 0.00, d = 2.00) and R2 (p = 0.01, d = 0.95). Furthermore, the R4 condition resulted in a significantly higher jump height compared with baseline (p = 0.01, d = 0.79). The flight time in the R8 condition was significantly greater than that in both baseline (p < 0.00, d = 1.33) and R4 (p = 0.03, d = 0.67). The R4 condition also showed significantly greater flight time compared with baseline (p = 0.05, d = 0.65). No significant differences were observed across the five conditions for mean power or velocity, in either or non-dominant leg (p > 0.05). The line chart illustrates significant differences in R8 compared with baseline and the other recovery intervals (Figure 2).
Dominant and non-dominant leg postural sway performances with different recovery intervals following PAPE protocol are presented in Table 3.
In the dominant leg, a one-way repeated measures analysis of variance revealed significant differences among the five conditions for anteroposterior sway velocity (F(4, 96) = 2.882, p = 0.03, 1 − β = 0.80, and η2 = 0.11, medium effect) and mediolateral sway area (F(4, 96) = 2.867, p = 0.03, 1 − β = 0.80, and η2 = 0.11, medium effect). Post hoc Bonferroni-corrected pairwise comparisons indicated that both the R6 and R2 conditions resulted in significantly lower anteroposterior sway velocity compared with baseline (p = 0.02 for both conditions, d = 0.73 and d = 0.57, respectively). Additionally, mediolateral sway area in the R6 condition was significantly lower than baseline (p = 0.02, d = 0.87). No significant differences were observed across the five conditions for mediolateral sway velocity, anteroposterior sway area, or ellipse area in the dominant leg (p > 0.05).
In the non-dominant leg, similar analyses revealed statistically significant differences in several sway metrics: mediolateral sway velocity (F(4, 96) = 3.830, p = 0.02, 1 − β = 0.85, and η2 = 0.14), anteroposterior sway area (F(4, 96) = 4.171, p = 0.02, 1 − β = 0.85, and η2 = 0.15), mediolateral sway area (F(4, 96) = 12.707, p < 0.00, 1 − β = 0.89, and η2 = 0.36), and ellipse area (F(4, 96) = 5.992, p = 0.01, 1 − β = 0.87, and η2 = 0.21). All effects were of large magnitude. Post hoc comparisons indicated that mediolateral sway velocity was significantly lower than baseline, in the R6 condition (p = 0.05, d = 0.91). Additionally, the R6 condition demonstrated significantly lower mediolateral sway area compared with baseline (p = 0.01, d = 1.22), R2 (p = 0.01, d = 1.09), and R8 (p < 0.00, d = 1.31). The R4 condition also showed significantly lower mediolateral sway area compared with baseline (p = 0.01, d = 0.90), R2 (p = 0.01, d = 0.81), and R8 (p < 0.00, d = 0.91). Regarding ellipse area, the R6 condition was significantly lower than both baseline (p = 0.01, d = 1.22) and R2 (p = 0.03, d = 1.07), while the R4 condition was significantly lower than both baseline (p = 0.01, d = 0.84) and R2 (p = 0.01, d = 0.72). No significant differences were observed for anteroposterior sway velocity across conditions in the non-dominant leg (p > 0.05). The line chart illustrates significant differences in R6 compared with baseline and other recovery intervals (Figure 3).

4. Discussion

To date, the effects of PAPE on explosive movements such as jumping, sprinting, and agility have been frequently investigated. However, research exploring its potential impact on postural performance, especially in female volleyball players, remains scarce. To address this gap, the present study explored the effects of acute plyometric conditioning activity on unilateral CMJ performance and postural sway in national-level female volleyball players, focusing on different recovery intervals.
As mentioned earlier, while moderate-to-high intensity loads are crucial for optimizing the PAPE effect [8], a conditioning activity that induces less fatigue could also be a viable strategy, considering individual responses to conditioning stimuli. However, identifying the optimal PAPE protocol remains challenging, emphasizing the significance of the study sample and the fatigue–potentiation interaction [46]. In light of these considerations, this study used an acute plyometric exercise (i.e., RCMJ-30) as the PAPE protocol [47]. The test–retest reliability results for RCMJ-30 parameters, such as maximum and mean jump height, ranged from moderate-to-good under certain conditions, suggesting that the RCMJ-30 test can be a reliable and effective conditioning activity for inducing PAPE when specific parameters are met. Research on PAP/PAPE generally indicates that a recovery period of 0–15 min may be sufficient for optimizing explosive movement performance [14,48,49,50,51], though the optimal recovery interval remains inconsistent. Our findings suggest that R8 was more effective in enhancing unilateral CMJ performance (i.e., jump height and flight time) following the PAPE protocol (Table 2). These findings suggest that the changes observed in both the dominant and non-dominant legs were consistent, demonstrating symmetry along the lower-extremity axis. Additionally, this improvement in unilateral CMJ, which reflects lower-extremity explosive power, may be explained by the impact of the conditioning activity mechanism, including the phosphorylation of myosin light chains and the acceleration of force development interactions [2].
Studies utilizing plyometric stimuli as a conditioning activity within the PAPE framework have shown that CMJ measurements at 1, 3, and 5 min recovery intervals result in greater jump height and peak power compared with baseline [19]. Similarly, Iacona et al. [52] reported that an 8 min recovery interval was the most effective for enhancing CMJ performance. In contrast, a resistance-based stimulus (3 × 3 squat at 87% 1RM) has also been shown to optimize CMJ performance with an 8 min recovery interval [53]. Regarding physiological recovery, 2 min of recovery allows for approximately 67% replenishment of phosphocreatine stores, while 4 min enables about 84% recovery [54], and even close to 100% after 10 min of rest [55]. Thus, the R8 interval in our study was consistent with expected outcomes, considering the restoration of energy systems. Despite the overall consistency in performance responses among participants, some individual variation is evident. However, our data indicate that single-leg CMJ values tended to increase for most participants (Figure 2), further supporting the statistical significance observed in the R8 condition. Downey et al. [56] found that an isometric stimulus yielded greater improvements in vertical jump performance when athletes were allowed to select their own recovery interval, compared with other protocols that fixed recovery intervals. This approach is grounded in the belief that self-determined recovery intervals may enhance performance outcomes [57]. Although both the existing literature and our findings mostly focus on specific recovery intervals (up to 15 min) in relation to jump performance, the choice of PAPE protocol and recovery period can significantly influence jump performance outcomes.
While different exercise modalities, including isometric resistance, strength training, and unilateral exercises, have been shown to improve various performance metrics [33,58,59], this study was the first to investigate the effects of an acute plyometric stimulus as a conditioning activity on unilateral postural sway. Our findings revealed that the greatest improvement in unilateral postural performance occurred at R6 (Table 3), with more pronounced enhancements observed in the non-dominant leg (Figure 3). Similar to other sport-specific actions, such as kicking a ball in soccer [60], the non-dominant leg plays a crucial role in volleyball, particularly in initiating the three-step spike and synchronizing the movement during the approach [61]. Our study sample consisted of national-level volleyball players who have been exposed to similar training stimuli for an extended period. In this context, the significant improvements observed in postural control in the non-dominant leg following an acute plyometric stimulus can be interpreted as a result of this long-term exposure and the specific demands of volleyball [62]. Overall, this study highlights the effects of a plyometric-based PAPE protocol on postural performance. However, further research is needed to explore the underlying mechanisms and assess the long-term impact of such protocols on postural stability in athletes.

Strength and Limitations

One of the strengths of this study was the inclusion of female volleyball players with similar physical characteristics who competed at the national level. Additionally, to minimize the learning effect, each recovery interval measurement was conducted on separate days, with at least 48 h between them, and the measurements were taken in a randomized order. The use of a force plate, considered the gold standard in athletic performance assessments, also enhanced the reliability of the findings. However, there were some limitations to the study. The lack of electromyography evaluation during the performance tests hindered a more detailed analysis of muscle activation, which is a key aspect for understanding the PAPE effect. Furthermore, while the RCMJ-30 used for the PAPE protocol showed reliable results in repeated measurements, it is important to note that the effects of exercises involving different sets and intensities, on the optimal recovery interval, may vary.

5. Conclusions

Our study demonstrated that the RCMJ-30 plyometric stimulus effectively improved both unilateral CMJ performance and postural sway in national-level female volleyball players when specific rest intervals were provided. The results indicated that the optimal recovery interval for jump height and flight time in single-leg CMJ performance was 8 min (R8) for both the dominant and non-dominant legs. In contrast, the best postural sway performance was observed at 6 min (R6), with significant improvements in both the anteroposterior and mediolateral axes, particularly in the non-dominant leg. Moreover, the RCMJ-30 protocol demonstrated reliable test parameters, confirming its effectiveness as an acute plyometric conditioning activity within the PAPE framework. Given these findings, practitioners should strategically adjust recovery intervals based on specific performance goals to optimize PAPE.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, F.K. and Y.M.; methodology, F.K. and Y.M.; software, F.K.; formal analysis, Y.M.; investigation, F.K. and Y.M.; data curation, F.K. and Y.M.; writing—original draft preparation, F.K.; writing—review and editing, Y.M.; supervision, Y.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding. The APC was funded by the researchers themselves.

Institutional Review Board Statement

This study was approved by the Clinical Research Ethical Review Board of Karamanoğlu Mehmetbey University, in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki (Approval ID: 08-2023/10, dated 13 September 2023).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in this study are included in the article. The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors on request.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank all athletes for their time and dedication to the study. This study was extracted from the MSc dissertation of the first author, which was approved by the Department of Sports Sciences at the Institute of Health Sciences, Karamanoğlu Mehmetbey University.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
PAPPost-activation potentiation
PAPEPost-activation performance enhancement
CMJCountermovement jump
RCMJ-3030 s repetitive countermovement jump
MMean
ICCIntraclass correlation coefficient
1RMOne-repetition maximum
MARSMeasurement, analysis, and reporting software
CoPCenter of pressure

References

  1. Evetovich, T.K.; Conley, D.S.; McCawley, P.F. Postactivation potentiation enhances upper- and lower-body athletic performance in collegiate male and female athletes. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2015, 29, 336–342. [Google Scholar]
  2. Tillin, N.A.; Bishop, D. Factors modulating post-activation potentiation and its effect on performance of subsequent explosive activities. Sports Med. 2009, 39, 147–166. [Google Scholar]
  3. Liu, H.; Jiang, L.; Wang, J. The effects of blood flow restriction training on post-activation potentiation and upper limb muscle activation: A meta-analysis. Front. Physiol. 2024, 15, 1395283. [Google Scholar]
  4. Turner, A.P.; Bellhouse, S.; Kilduff, L.P.; Russell, M. Postactivation potentiation of sprint acceleration performance using plyometric exercise. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2015, 29, 343–350. [Google Scholar]
  5. Kobal, R.; Loturco, I.; Barroso, R.; Gil, S.; Cuniyochi, R.; Ugrinowitsch, C.; Roschel, H.; Tricoli, V. Effects of different combinations of strength, power, and plyometric training on the physical performance of elite young soccer players. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2017, 31, 1468–1476. [Google Scholar]
  6. Sharma, S.K.; Raza, S.; Moiz, J.A.; Verma, S.; Naqvi, I.H.; Anwer, S.; Alghadir, A.H. Postactivation potentiation following acute bouts of plyometric versus heavy-resistance exercise in collegiate soccer players. BioMed Res. Int. 2018, 2018, 3719039. [Google Scholar]
  7. De Freitas, M.C.; Rossi, F.E.; Colognesi, L.A.; De Oliveira, J.V.N.; Zanchi, N.E.; Lira, F.S.; Cholewa, J.M.; Gobbo, L.A. Postactivation potentiation improves acute resistance exercise performance and muscular force in trained men. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2021, 35, 1357–1363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Gautam, A.; Singh, P.; Varghese, V. Effects of Postactivation potentiation enhancement on sprint and change-of-direction performance in athletes: A systematic review. J. Bodyw. Mov. Ther. 2024, 39, 243–250. [Google Scholar]
  9. Blazevich, A.J.; Babault, N. Post-activation potentiation versus post-activation performance enhancement in humans: Historical perspective, underlying mechanisms, and current issues. Front. Physiol. 2019, 10, 1359. [Google Scholar]
  10. Cuenca-Fernández, F.; Smith, I.C.; Jordan, M.J.; MacIntosh, B.R.; López-Contreras, G.; Arellano, R.; Herzog, W. Nonlocalized postactivation performance enhancement (PAPE) effects in trained athletes: A pilot study. Appl. Physiol. Nutr. Metab. 2017, 42, 1122–1125. [Google Scholar]
  11. Prieske, O.; Behrens, M.; Chaabene, H.; Granacher, U.; Maffiuletti, N.A. Time to differentiate postactivation “potentiation” from “performance enhancement” in the strength and conditioning community. Sports Med. 2020, 50, 1559–1565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Bauer, P.; Sansone, P.; Mitter, B.; Makivic, B.; Seitz, L.B.; Tschan, H. Acute effects of back squats on countermovement jump performance across multiple sets of a contrast training protocol in resistance-trained men. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2019, 33, 995–1000. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Golas, A.; Wilk, M.; Stastny, P.; Maszczyk, A.; Pajerska, K.; Zajac, A. Optimizing half squat postactivation potential load in squat jump training for eliciting relative maximal power in ski jumpers. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2017, 31, 3010–3017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Köklü, Y.; Köklü, Ö.; Işıkdemir, E.; Alemdaroğlu, U. Effect of varying recovery duration on postactivation potentiation of explosive jump and short sprint in elite young soccer players. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2022, 36, 534–539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Titton, A.; Franchini, E. Postactivation potentiation in elite young soccer players. J. Exerc. Rehabil. 2017, 13, 153–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Iacono, A.D.; Beato, M.; Halperin, I. The effects of cluster-set and traditional-set postactivation potentiation protocols on vertical jump performance. Int. J. Sports Physiol. Perform. 2019, 15, 464–469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Ulloa-Sánchez, P.; Hernández-Elizondo, J.; Thapa, R.K.; Sortwell, A.; Ramirez-Campillo, R. Post-activation performance enhancement methods in team sport athletes: A systematic review with meta-analysis. Ger. J. Exerc. Sport Res. 2024, 1–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Ciocca, G.; Tschan, H.; Tessitore, A. Effects of post-activation performance enhancement (PAPE) induced by a plyometric protocol on deceleration performance. J. Hum. Kinet. 2021, 80, 5–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Tobin, D.P.; Delahunt, E. The acute effect of a plyometric stimulus on jump performance in professional rugby players. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2014, 28, 367–372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Berriel, G.P.; Cardoso, A.S.; Costa, R.R.; Rosa, R.G.; Oliveira, H.B.; Kruel, L.F.M.; Peyré-Tartaruga, L.A. Effects of postactivation performance enhancement on the vertical jump in high-level volleyball athletes. J. Hum. Kinet. 2022, 82, 145–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Bogdanis, G.C.; Tsoukos, A.; Veligekas, P. Improvement of long-jump performance during competition using a plyometric exercise. Int. J. Sports Physiol. Perform. 2017, 12, 235–240. [Google Scholar]
  22. Tomlinson, K.A.; Hansen, K.; Helzer, D.; Lewis, Z.H.; Leyva, W.D.; McCauley, M.; Jo, E. The effects of loaded plyometric exercise during warm-up on subsequent sprint performance in collegiate track athletes: A randomized trial. Sports 2020, 8, 101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Souza, V.A.; Barreto, R.V.; Mantovani, G.B.; Greco, C.C.; Denadai, B.S.; Nosaka, K.; Lima, L.C.R. Effects of loaded plyometric exercise on post-activation performance enhancement of countermovement jump in sedentary men. Res. Q. Exerc. Sport 2023, 94, 194–201. [Google Scholar]
  24. Guerra, M.A., Jr.; Caldas, L.C.; Souza, H.L.; Tallis, J.; Duncan, M.J.; Guimarães-Ferreira, L. The effects of physical fitness on postactivation potentiation in professional soccer athletes. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2022, 36, 1643–1647. [Google Scholar]
  25. Villalon-Gasch, L.; Penichet-Tomas, A.; Sebastia-Amat, S.; Pueo, B.; Jimenez-Olmedo, J.M. Postactivation performance enhancement (PAPE) increases vertical jump in elite female volleyball players. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Ah Sue, R.; Adams, K.J.; DeBeliso, M. Optimal timing for post-activation potentiation in women collegiate volleyball players. Sports 2016, 4, 27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Tseng, K.W.; Chen, J.R.; Chow, J.J.; Tseng, W.C.; Condello, G.; Tai, H.L.; Fu, S.K. Post-activation performance enhancement after a bout of accentuated eccentric loading in collegiate male volleyball players. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 13110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Heynen, R.; Gross, M.; Betschen, T.; Hübner, K. Post-activation performance enhancement (PAPE) increases jumping power in elite female volleyball athletes. Sports 2024, 12, 22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Wilson, J.M.; Duncan, N.M.; Marin, P.J.; Brown, L.E.; Loenneke, J.P.; Wilson, S.M.; Edward, J.; Lowery, R.P.; Ugrinowitsch, C. Meta-analysis of postactivation potentiation and power: Effects of conditioning activity, volume, gender, rest periods, and training status. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2013, 27, 854–859. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  30. Till, K.A.; Cooke, C. The effects of postactivation potentiation on sprint and jump performance of male academy soccer players. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2009, 23, 1960–1967. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  31. Pau, M.; Loi, A.; Pezzotta, M.C. Does sensorimotor training improve the static balance of young volleyball players? Sports Biomech. 2012, 11, 97–107. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  32. Borzucka, D.; Kręcisz, K.; Rektor, Z.; Kuczyński, M. Differences in static postural control between top-level male athletes and non-athletes. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 19334. [Google Scholar]
  33. Riemann, B.L.; Schmitz, R. The relationship between various modes of single-leg postural control assessment. Int. J. Sports Phys. Ther. 2012, 7, 257–266. [Google Scholar]
  34. de Oliveira, J.J.; Crisp, A.H.; Barbosa, C.G.R.; e Silva, A.D.S.; Baganha, R.J.; Verlengia, R. Effect of postactivation potentiation on short sprint performance: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Asian J. Sports Med. 2017, 8, e14566. [Google Scholar]
  35. Baudry, S.; Klass, M.; Duchateau, J. Postactivation potentiation of short tetanic contractions is differently influenced by stimulation frequency in young and elderly adults. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. 2008, 103, 449–459. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  36. Fernandes, I.G.; Souza, M.A.; Oliveira, M.L.; Miarka, B.; Barbosa, M.A.; Queiroz, A.C.; Barbosa, A.C. Acute effects of single- versus double-leg postactivation potentiation on postural balance of older women: An age-matched controlled study. J. Aging Phys. Act. 2020, 29, 200–206. [Google Scholar]
  37. Makaracı, Y.; Nas, K.; Ruiz-Cárdenas, J.D.; Gündüz, K.; Aydemir, M.; Orange, S.T. Test-retest reliability and convergent validity of piezoelectric force plate measures of single-leg sit-to-stand performance in trained adults. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2023, 37, 2373–2380. [Google Scholar]
  38. Šarabon, N. Development of software for comprehensive analyses of force plate measurements. Kinesiology 2011, 43, 204–212. [Google Scholar]
  39. Dal Pupo, J.; Gheller, R.G.; Dias, J.A.; Rodacki, A.L.; Moro, A.R.; Santos, S.G. Reliability and validity of the 30-s continuous jump test for anaerobic fitness evaluation. J. Sci. Med. Sport 2014, 17, 650–655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Meylan, C.; McMaster, T.; Cronin, J.; Mohammad, N.I.; Rogers, C.; DeKlerk, M. Single-leg lateral, horizontal, and vertical jump assessment: Reliability, interrelationships, and ability to predict sprint and change-of-direction performance. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2009, 23, 1140–1147. [Google Scholar]
  41. Pérez-Castilla, A.; García-Ramos, A.; Janicijevic, D.; Delgado-García, G.; De la Cruz, J.C.; Rojas, F.J.; Cepero, M. Between-session reliability of performance and asymmetry variables obtained during unilateral and bilateral countermovement jumps in basketball players. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0255458. [Google Scholar]
  42. Pamuk, Ö.; Makaracı, Y.; Ceylan, L.; Küçük, H.; Kızılet, T.; Ceylan, T.; Kaya, E. Associations between force-time related single-leg countermovement jump variables, agility, and linear sprint in competitive youth male basketball players. Children 2023, 10, 427. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  43. Makaracı, Y.; Nas, K.; Gündüz, K.; İleri, M. Relationship between functional movement screen scores and postural stability in football players: An asymmetrical approach. Balt. J. Health Phys. Act. 2024, 16, 6. [Google Scholar]
  44. Trajković, N.; Smajla, D.; Kozinc, Ž.; Šarabon, N. Postural Stability in Single-Leg Quiet Stance in Highly Trained Athletes: Sex and Sport Differences. J. Clin. Med. 2022, 11, 1009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Lakens, D. Calculating and reporting effect sizes to facilitate cumulative science: A practical primer for t-tests and ANOVAs. Front. Psychol. 2013, 4, 863. [Google Scholar]
  46. Boullosa, D.A.; Abreu, L.; Beltrame, L.G.; Behm, D.G. The acute effect of different half squat set configurations on jump potentiation. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2013, 27, 2059–2066. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  47. Makaracı, Y.; Ruiz-Cárdenas, J.D.; Pamuk, Ö.; Nas, K.; Demiray, Z.; Duysak, H.; Gruet, M. Kinesio taping does not enhance jump performance and muscle activity in female athletes. Int. J. Sports Med. 2025, 46, 271–280. [Google Scholar]
  48. Beven, H.W.; Owen, N.J.; Cunningham, D.J.; Kingsley, M.I.C.; Kilduff, L.P. Complex training in professional rugby players: Influence of recovery time on peak power output. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2009, 23, 1780–1785. [Google Scholar]
  49. Batista, M.A.B.; Roschel, H.; Barroso, R.; Ugrinowitsch, C.; Tricoli, V. Influence of strength training background on postactivation potentiation response. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2011, 25, 2496–2502. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  50. Mola, J.N.; Bruce-Low, S.S.; Burnet, S.J. Optimal recovery time for postactivation potentiation in professional soccer players. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2014, 28, 1529–1537. [Google Scholar]
  51. Trybulski, R.; Makar, P.; Alexe, D.I.; Stanciu, S.; Piwowar, R.; Wilk, M.; Krzysztofik, M. Post-activation performance enhancement: Save time with active intra-complex recovery intervals. Front. Physiol. 2022, 13, 840722. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Iacono, A.D.; Martone, D.; Padulo, J. Acute effects of drop-jump protocols on explosive performances of elite handball players. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2016, 30, 3122–3133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Kilduff, L.P.; Owen, N.; Bevan, H.; Bennett, M.; Kingsley, M.I.; Cunningham, D. Influence of recovery time on post-activation potentiation in professional rugby players. J. Sports Sci. 2008, 26, 795–802. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Kataoka, R.; Vasenina, E.; Hammert, W.B.; Ibrahim, A.H.; Dankel, S.J.; Buckner, S.L. Is there evidence for the suggestion that fatigue accumulates following resistance exercise? Sports Med. 2022, 52, 25–36. [Google Scholar]
  55. Kappenstein, J.; Ferrauti, A.; Runkel, B.; Fernandez-Fernandez, J.; Müller, K.; Zange, J. Changes in phosphocreatine concentration of skeletal muscle during high-intensity intermittent exercise in children and adults. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. 2013, 113, 2769–2779. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  56. Downey, R.J.; Deprez, D.A.; Chilibeck, P.D. Effects of postactivation potentiation on maximal vertical jump performance after a conditioning contraction in upper-body and lower-body muscle groups. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2022, 36, 259–261. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  57. do Carmo, E.C.; De Souza, E.O.; Roschel, H.; Kobal, R.; Ramos, H.; Gil, S.; Tricoli, V. Self-selected rest interval improves vertical jump postactivation potentiation. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2021, 35, 91–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Twist, C.; Gleeson, N.; Eston, R. The effects of plyometric exercise on unilateral balance performance. J. Sports Sci. 2008, 26, 1073–1080. [Google Scholar]
  59. Werfelli, H.; Hammami, R.; Selmi, M.A.; Selmi, W.; Gabrilo, G.; Clark, C.C.; Rebai, H. Acute effects of different plyometric and strength exercises on balance performance in youth weightlifters. Front. Physiol. 2021, 12, 716981. [Google Scholar]
  60. Bigoni, M.; Turati, M.; Gandolla, M. Balance in young male soccer players: Dominant versus non-dominant leg. Sport Sci. Health 2017, 13, 253–258. [Google Scholar]
  61. Mercado-Palomino, E.; Aragón-Royón, F.; Richards, J.; Benítez, J.M.; Ureña Espa, A. The influence of limb role, direction of movement and limb dominance on movement strategies during block jump-landings in volleyball. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 23668. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Güney, Ş.; Şahin, F.N.; Arslanoğlu, C.; Güler, Ö.; Aydoğmuş, M.; Doğan, A.; Ayyıldız Durhan, T.; Arıkan, G.; Yaşar, O.M.; Küçük, H. Investigation of the playing digital games on shoulder flexibility, muscle strength and reaction speed in volleyball players. Front. Public Health 2024, 12, 1493900. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Applsci 15 04079 g001
Figure 1. Experimental design.
Figure 1. Experimental design.
Applsci 15 04079 g001
Applsci 15 04079 g002
Figure 2. Significant differences in R8 compared with baseline and other recovery intervals in dominant and non-dominant leg CMJ performances.
Figure 2. Significant differences in R8 compared with baseline and other recovery intervals in dominant and non-dominant leg CMJ performances.
Applsci 15 04079 g002
Applsci 15 04079 g003
Figure 3. Significant differences in R6 compared with baseline and other recovery intervals in dominant and non-dominant leg postural sway performances.
Figure 3. Significant differences in R6 compared with baseline and other recovery intervals in dominant and non-dominant leg postural sway performances.
Applsci 15 04079 g003
Table 1. Descriptive statistics and interday reliability of 30 s repetitive countermovement jump (RCMJ-30) parameters.
Table 1. Descriptive statistics and interday reliability of 30 s repetitive countermovement jump (RCMJ-30) parameters.
ParametersSession 1Session 2Session 3Session 4Fpη2ICC(2,1)
(95% CI)		SEM
Maximum jump height
(m)		0.23
(0.05)		0.22
(0.05)		0.22
(0.05)		0.22
(0.05)		0.6930.560.0230.62 (0.43–0.79)0.03
Mean jump height
(m)		0.16
(0.05)		0.15
(0.04)		0.154
(0.03)		0.16
(0.04)		2.3720.090.090.83 (0.71–0.91)0.02
Fatigue index
(%)		65.33 (14.75)66.35
(12.34)		60.56 (16.98)63.47 (13.31)1.1900.320.050.42 (0.21–0.44)10.18
Endurance index
(%)		86.60 (18.35)89.01
(17.35)		82.44 (13.70)77.43 (10.98)3.0770.060.120.32 (0.12–0.56)10.88
Notes. Data are reported as mean (standard deviation). ICC = intraclass correlation coefficient; 95% CI = 95% confidence interval; SEM = standard error of measurement.
Table 2. Dominant and non-dominant leg CMJ performances with different rest intervals following PAPE protocol.
Table 2. Dominant and non-dominant leg CMJ performances with different rest intervals following PAPE protocol.
Parameters BaselineR2R4R6R8Fpη2
Jump height
(m)		DL0.09
(0.03)		0.10
(0.03)		0.13
(0.06)		0.11
(0.04)		0.14 a
(0.02)		9.955<0.0010.302
NDL0.09
(0.02)		0.10
(0.04)		0.12 c
(0.05)		0.11
(0.05)		0.13 b
(0.02)		7.583<0.0010.248
Flight time
(s)		DL0.28
(0.04)		0.29
(0.04)		0.28
(0.06)		0.30 e
(0.04)		0.32 d
(0.05)		3.2440.0150.124
NDL0.27
(0.03)		0.29
(0.04)		0.29 g
(0.03)		0.29
(0.04)		0.31 f
(0.03)		8.661<0.0010.274
Mean power
(W)		DL738.33
(194.55)		760.36 (213.17)771.60 (95.91)748.71
(214.50)		802.59
(248.66)		1.0970.3470.046
NDL701.45 (171.85)705.14 (171.52)725.65 (188.62)702.34 (166.99)749.70 (209.50)1.1940.3150.049
Mean velocity (m/s)DL0.93
(0.14)		0.93
(0.12)		0.94
(0.14)		0.91
(0.15)		0.98
(0.21)		1.1760.3240.049
NDL0.89
(0.15)		0.90
(0.15)		0.91
(0.16)		0.89
(0.14)		0.94
(0.18)		1.3580.2660.056
Notes. Data are reported as mean (standard deviation). DL = dominant leg; NDL = non-dominant leg; R2 = 2 min recovery; R4 = 4 min recovery; R6 = 6 min recovery; R8 = 8 min recovery. a Significantly different from baseline, R2 and R6; b significantly different from baseline and R2; c significantly different from baseline; d significantly different from baseline and R2; e significantly different from baseline; f significantly different from baseline and R4; g significantly different from baseline.
Table 3. Dominant and non-dominant leg postural sway performances with different rest intervals following PAPE protocol.
Table 3. Dominant and non-dominant leg postural sway performances with different rest intervals following PAPE protocol.
Parameters BaselineR2R4R6R8Fpη2
Sway velocity—AP
(m/s)		DL57.51 (12.95)49.40 b (15.19)52.31 (17.21)48.37 a (11.95)51.08 (13.32)2.8820.0270.111
NDL49.45 (13.98)48.20
(13.42)		48.70 (16.28)43.69 (9.10)49.05
(13.84)		1.4040.2540.058
Sway velocity—ML
(m/s)		DL55.55 (18.51)55.32
(20.63)		55.23
(25.74)		50.55 (11.16)53.96
(19.48)		0.4590.7100.020
NDL55.06 (15.79)52.15
(17.37)		45.95 (13.45)43.90 c (7.35)48.60
(14.69)		3.8300.0200.143
Sway area—AP
(mm*s)		DL91.87 (19.94)93.46
(25.63)		84.08 (24.06)81.57 (11.29)92.36
(31.05)		1.9820.1250.079
NDL126.55
(82.93)		88.05
(20.26)		76.26 (16.71)72.48 d (11.06)80.17
(25.01)		4.1710.0170.154
Sway area—ML
(mm*s)		DL116.76 (34.03)106.14 (30.16)102.48 (32.50)92.58 e (19.85)100.90
(29.75)		2.8670.0180.121
NDL111.39 (33.80)108.89
(34.68)		84.63 g (24.60)80.90 f
(10.69)		108.42
(27.63)		12.707<0.0010.356
Ellipse area %100 (mm2)DL471.19 (224.12)471.19 (264.13)471.19 (306.12)471.19 (149.02)471.19 (233.39)0.9050.4380.038
NDL465.05 (160.26)452.55 (170.78)340.30 i
(137.32)		311.69 h (75.00)407.58 (207.51)5.9920.0030.207
Notes. Data are reported as mean (standard deviation). AP = anteroposterior; ML = mediolateral; DL = dominant leg; NDL = non-dominant leg; R2 = 2 min recovery; R4 = 4 min recovery; R6 = 6 min recovery; R8 = 8 min recovery. a Significantly different from baseline; b significantly different from baseline; c significantly different from baseline; d significantly different from R2; e significantly different from baseline; f significantly different from baseline, R2, and R8; g significantly different from baseline, R2, and R8; h significantly different from baseline and R2; i significantly different from baseline and R2.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Karabel, F.; Makaracı, Y. Optimal Recovery Time for Post-Activation Performance Enhancement After an Acute Bout of Plyometric Exercise on Unilateral Countermovement Jump and Postural Sway in National-Level Female Volleyball Players. Appl. Sci. 2025, 15, 4079. https://doi.org/10.3390/app15084079

AMA Style

Karabel F, Makaracı Y. Optimal Recovery Time for Post-Activation Performance Enhancement After an Acute Bout of Plyometric Exercise on Unilateral Countermovement Jump and Postural Sway in National-Level Female Volleyball Players. Applied Sciences. 2025; 15(8):4079. https://doi.org/10.3390/app15084079

Chicago/Turabian Style

Karabel, Fatih, and Yücel Makaracı. 2025. "Optimal Recovery Time for Post-Activation Performance Enhancement After an Acute Bout of Plyometric Exercise on Unilateral Countermovement Jump and Postural Sway in National-Level Female Volleyball Players" Applied Sciences 15, no. 8: 4079. https://doi.org/10.3390/app15084079

APA Style

Karabel, F., & Makaracı, Y. (2025). Optimal Recovery Time for Post-Activation Performance Enhancement After an Acute Bout of Plyometric Exercise on Unilateral Countermovement Jump and Postural Sway in National-Level Female Volleyball Players. Applied Sciences, 15(8), 4079. https://doi.org/10.3390/app15084079

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop