Introduction

Basketball is a complex sport that demands exceptional neuromuscular coordination, speed, agility, and explosive strength for executing repeated high-intensity actions including jumping, sprinting, and rapid directional changes1,2. Recent time-motion analyses demonstrate that elite basketball players perform approximately 22.8% of playing time in major accelerations, with intensity demands decreasing from first to fourth quarter3. The capacity to swiftly produce and use power is fundamental to several actions, highlighting the significance of plyometric and sprint-oriented training in the physical conditioning of young athletes4. Systematic reviews confirm that plyometric training produces significant improvements across sprint, power, and agility measures in youth athletes5, with combined plyometric-sprint protocols showing superior effects compared to single-mode training6. Plyometric training, which utilizes the stretch-shortening cycle (SSC) to augment muscular power production, is widely acknowledged as fundamental to athletic conditioning in sports that require explosive lower-limb movements7,8. The incorporation of linear sprint training with plyometrics is widely recognized as an effective method to enhance sport-specific performance, especially in basketball, characterized by repeated short sprints and explosive take-offs9,10.

Bilateral and unilateral plyometric exercises represent two distinct training modalities that elicit different mechanical and neuromuscular adaptations11. Recent meta-analyses reveal that unilateral training significantly enhances single-leg jumping (SMD = 1.14) and sprint acceleration (SMD = −0.52), while bilateral training optimizes bilateral jump performance (SMD = 0.91)12. Unilateral training induces enhanced motor unit synchronization and stabilizer activation, whereas bilateral training enables higher absolute loading and force summation13. While unilateral training improves inter-limb coordination, balance, and the correction of functional asymmetry, crucial for basketball maneuvers commonly executed from single-leg take-offs or landings, bilateral training concentrates on symmetrical force output and optimal power generation14,15. Particularly for developing athletes, research indicates that unilateral plyometrics may produce larger improvements in acceleration, change-of-direction speed, and sport-specific functional performance than bilateral approaches16. Due to improved motor unit synchronization, bilateral protocols have been shown to more successfully encourage maximal leaping ability and overall power generation8. Comparative research examining the differential effects of unilateral versus bilateral plyometric programs combined with linear sprint training in adolescent basketball players is therefore essential17.

Structured training can produce long-term performance improvements during adolescence, a time when neuromuscular development is particularly sensitive1. Research explicitly comparing unilateral versus bilateral plyometric training paired with sprint development in juvenile populations is still lacking, despite the overwhelming evidence in favor of plyometric therapies. Current understanding of how these modalities specifically influence performance during adolescent development remains limited. Most existing research has either examined unilateral and bilateral training separately or focused on adult populations18,19. Furthermore, assessing the role of unilateral plyometric integration becomes especially pertinent to improve performance transfer and injury resilience given the unilateral nature of basketball plays, including single-leg drives, lay-ups, and defensive slides20. Basketball players perform approximately 44 jumps per game with frequent single-leg landings, single-leg drive phases during lay-ups, and cutting maneuvers requiring rapid single-leg deceleration and push-offs17,20, making unilateral training particularly relevant for sport-specific transfer.

The current study, therefore, intends to examine the effects of linear sprinting combined with unilateral and bilateral plyometric training on physical performance measures, such as explosive power, sprint acceleration, agility, and repeated sprint ability, in young male basketball players. Despite established benefits of these training modalities, no previous studies have directly compared unilateral plyometric plus sprint training versus bilateral plyometric plus sprint training in youth basketball players within a controlled design, limiting evidence-based program development for this population. This study uses a controlled experimental design to find out which medium improves neuromuscular and functional performance markers the most. The results of this study could give strength and conditioning professionals evidence-based recommendations for optimizing athletic development programs that are customized to meet the particular physiological and biomechanical needs of youth basketball players.

Materials and methods

Participants

Voluntary participation of 52 competitive male youth basketball players from three regional academies was studied. All players had at least three years of competitive basketball experience and trained at least four times a week Table 1. Each participant was screened and cleared by a sports physician for high-intensity training before participating. Eligibility criteria included: (a) minimum three years of competitive basketball experience, (b) absence of musculoskeletal injuries in the six months preceding the study, (c) no systematic plyometric training exposure in the previous year, and (d) current participation in organized basketball training programs. Player and parental consent were acquired before enrolling. The Institutional Ethics Committee accepted the study protocol, which followed the Declaration of Helsinki21. After baseline testing and eligibility confirmation, individuals were randomly assigned to four groups (n = 13 each): Group A: Unilateral Plyometric Training with Linear Sprinting (UPT + LST); Group B: Bilateral Plyometric Training with Linear Sprinting (BPT + LST); Group C: Linear Sprint Training only (LST); and Group D: Active Control Group. All participants from three regional academies followed a standardized basketball program coordinated by the regional federation, ensuring homogeneity in baseline training exposure. Communication between academy staff and researchers ensured no additional plyometric or sprint training occurred beyond the experimental protocols.

Table 1 Demographic and baseline characteristics of youth male basketball players participating in the study.
Full size table

Sample size determination

For this randomized controlled trial, GPower (version 3.1.9.7) was used to estimate the necessary sample size. Four training groups (UPT + LST, BPT + LST, LST solo, and Active Control) were accommodated using a one-way ANOVA (fixed effects, omnibus, four groups) design. An alpha level of 0.05 and a desired statistical power (1-β) of 0.80 were used to minimize the possibility of Type II errors, and a medium effect size (f = 0.25) was assumed based on prior research examining the effects of plyometric and sprint training in young athletes1,15. The GPower analysis suggested that a total of 52 participants (n = 13 per group) would be sufficient to detect significant group differences (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Full size image

Inclusion and exclusion criteria.

Study design

This study employed a randomized controlled pre-test-post-test experimental design comparing training responses across four groups over eight weeks. The Active Control group, Group D, continued their basketball training while Group A performed Unilateral Plyometric Training (UPT + LST), Group B performed Bilateral Plyometric Training (BPT + LST), and Group C performed Linear Sprint Training only (LST). Certified strength and conditioning coaches supervised all intervention sessions (twice weekly, 45–55 min per session) to ensure proper exercise technique and protocol adherence. Pre- and post-intervention examinations assessed physical performance and physiological indicators, allowing within-group and between-group comparisons of training intervention effectiveness. All participants maintained regular basketball training throughout the intervention: four technical-tactical sessions per week (Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, Friday; 90 min each), one competitive match (Saturday/Sunday), and two intervention sessions (Wednesday and Friday evenings, 48–72 h apart). The study was conducted during the competitive season (third month post-preseason). Participants attended standard physical education classes at school (two 45-minute sessions/week) involving low-to-moderate intensity recreational activities without systematic strength or plyometric training (Table 2).

Table 2 Eight-week training protocol for the four training groups (UPT + LST, BPT + LST, LST, and active control group).
Full size table

Exercise selection rationale

Unilateral exercises (single-leg hops, bounds, drops) were selected to address basketball’s single-leg movement patterns and improve inter-limb balance13,17. Bilateral exercises (squat jumps, drop jumps, depth jumps) were chosen to maximize force production and vertical displacement for rebounding and shot-blocking22,23. Linear sprint exercises emphasized acceleration and maximal velocity aligned with basketball court dimensions24. Progression followed established guidelines with systematic increases in intensity: low-to-moderate (weeks 1–2), moderate-to-high (weeks 3–4), and high intensity (weeks 5–8)25.

Variables and outcome assessment

Explosive power (Vertical jump Performance): Explosive lower-limb power, which affects basketball jumping, rebounding, and sprinting, was tested with the Countermovement Jump (CMJ). Strength asymmetry and power balance were assessed with bilateral and unilateral CMJs (right and left leg). Standing upright with hands on their hips, participants conducted a quick downward countermovement and a maximal vertical jump to minimize knee tuck. A certified jump mat system (or force plate) accurately recorded flight time to estimate jump height. Participants made three maximal efforts after two familiarization trials, using the best height for analysis. High test-retest reliability (ICC = 0.93–0.99, CV = 2–5%) and validity as a predictor of lower-body explosive strength have been shown for the CMJ26,27.

Sprint Acceleration and Speed: 10 m and 20 m Sprint Test: Basketball rapid transitions and defensive recovery require linear acceleration and maximal sprint speed, which were measured in the 10 m and 20 m sprint tests. Players started from a split-stance position and ran maximally through 0 m, 10 m, and 20 m timing gates. For complete recovery, each athlete conducted three maximal trials with three-minute rest intervals. The fastest time was analyzed. Electronic timing gates accurately assess sprint performance. These tests measure short-distance acceleration in team-sport athletes with high reliability (ICC = 0.91–0.98, CV = 1–3%)28,29.

Change of Direction Ability: 505 Test: The 505 Agility Test, which gauges the capacity to quickly decelerate, pivot, and re-accelerate movements essential to cutting and basketball defense, was used to assess change-of-direction (COD) performance. After running 10 m to the turning line and turning 180 degrees on one foot, the competitors ran 5 m back through the timing gates. To evaluate any asymmetry, trials were conducted for both left and right turning orientations. For each side, the best time was noted. Athletes with varying performance levels can be distinguished using the 505 test’s strong construct validity and great reliability (ICC = 0.90–0.96, CV = 2–3%)16.

Reactive agility: A Y-shaped agility test that combines reactive movement and perceptual decision-making to replicate the unpredictable demands of basketball was used to evaluate reactive agility. Before responding to a visual stimulus (a light or tester signal) that instructed them to run left or right toward a finish gate 45° from the center line, participants ran 5 m forward toward a central cone. Timing gates were used to record the total response time. Four to six randomized trials were completed by participants, and the best time was kept for analysis. The exam measures an athlete’s capacity to digest information and react quickly with their muscles in a game-like setting. For basketball-specific agility, the Y-Agility test has shown strong ecological validity and good reliability (ICC = 0.80–0.90, CV = 2.5–4.5%)18.

Horizontal explosive power: The horizontal power, which is crucial for first-step acceleration and take-off, was measured using the Standing Long Jump (SLJ) and Single-Leg Hop for Distance (SLHD) tests. These tests assess the ability to create horizontal force and maintain inter-limb symmetry. Starting from a standing position, athletes swung their arms to complete the SLJ maximal bilateral leap. They landed with their feet together. Jumping to their maximum vertical height on either the left or right leg while maintaining their balance was the standard for the SLHD. Between take-off and landing, the horizontal distance (heel mark) was measured using a measuring tape. The optimal distance was recorded after each leg went through three valid trials. These tests have a high degree of validity and reliability for predicting lower-body power and sprint acceleration (ICC = 0.90–0.98, CV = 2–5%)14.

Repeated sprint ability (RSA): The Repeated Sprint Ability (RSA) test takes into account the repeated explosive demands of basketball action and measures an athlete’s ability to maintain high-intensity sprint performance with minimal recovery. After each set of six maximal 20-meter shuttle sprints (10 m out and 10 m back), the participants rested for 20 s. Using timing gates, we were able to capture the times of each sprint and then compute the tiredness index (%), best sprint time, and mean sprint time. Significant correlations with VO₂max and lactate threshold demonstrate criterion validity, and the RSA test demonstrates strong reliability (ICC = 0.90–0.97, CV = 1.5–5.5%)10,30 (Table 3).

Table 3 Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) for performance measures assessing reliability of physical performance tests.
Full size table

Ethical approval and consent

The study was approved by the Institutional Ethical Committee of Jilin University, China (Approval No. IEC/JU/SPE/081/2025-26) and conducted in accordance with the ethical principles outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki21. These guidelines emphasize respect for human participants, confidentiality, voluntary participation, and the right to withdraw at any stage without penalty. Before the initiation of the study, youth athletes and their guardians were fully briefed on the objectives, procedures, potential risks, and expected benefits of participation. A detailed information sheet outlining the nature of the interventions and assessments was provided to ensure complete transparency. To obtain informed consent, both athletes and their guardians were encouraged to ask questions and seek clarifications from the research team. Written consent was voluntarily provided by all participants and their legal guardians after being assured of their right to withdraw from the study at any time without affecting their training or athletic progress. All personal information and performance data were handled with strict confidentiality, and each participant was assigned a unique identification code for data management and analysis.

Statistical analysis

Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences) (Version 29.0, IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA)31 with significance set at p <.05. For every dependent variable, descriptive statistics (mean ± SD) were computed. The Shapiro-Wilk test was used to confirm the normal distribution, and Levene’s test was used to evaluate variance homogeneity32. When assumptions of normality or homogeneity of variance were violated, appropriate data transformations (logarithmic or square root) were applied. A 2 × 4 mixed-design ANOVA examined the effects of time (pre-test vs. post-test), group (UPT + LST, BPT + LST, LST, ACG), and the time × group interaction on all performance measures such as CMJ height, sprint times, agility tests, and RSA indices were investigated using a 2 × 4 mixed-design ANOVA (time × group). When significant interactions occurred, specific between-group changes were found using Bonferroni-adjusted post-hoc tests33. Within-group improvements were evaluated using paired-sample t-tests34. The effect sizes were calculated using Cohen’s d with thresholds of 0.2 (small), 0.5 (moderate), and 0.8 (large), as well as partial eta squared (η2p): small (0.01), medium (0.06), or large (0.14)35. Interpretability was improved with % change ratings. ICCs from pre-test repeated measures were used to establish measurement reliability, and the results showed high reliability (ICC = 0.90–0.99)36.

Results

Table 4 presents the pre- and post-training comparisons of physical performance variables across the four groups: Unilateral Plyometric Training combined with Linear Sprinting (UPT + LST), Bilateral Plyometric Training combined with Linear Sprinting (BPT + LST), Linear Sprint Training only (LST), and the Active Control Group (ACG). Following the eight-week intervention, significant improvements were observed in several key performance measures, with the UPT + LST and BPT + LST groups demonstrating the most pronounced gains. Explosive power increased notably in all training groups, with % improvements ranging from 4.96% to 5.76%, while the control group showed a decline (−3.56%). Agility and reactive agility exhibited significant enhancements (p =.001 and p =.003, respectively), with partial eta squared (η2p) values of 0.28 and 0.24, indicating large effect sizes. Similarly, horizontal explosive power improved significantly across the experimental conditions (p =.029, η2p =.17), with % changes between 5.84% and 6.82%, whereas the control group showed only a marginal improvement (2.19%). Repeated sprint ability also showed meaningful gains (p =.034, η2p =.16), reflecting enhanced fatigue resistance following both unilateral and bilateral plyometric training protocols. Sprint times improved across training groups for both 10 m (−1.66% to −4.61%) and 20 m distances (−0.98% to −3.78%). However, the time × group interaction was not statistically significant for 10 m sprint (F = 0.94, p =.427, η2p =.05) or 20 m sprint (F = 2.70, p =.055, η2p =.14). Despite the non-significant overall interaction, post-hoc analyses revealed that specific training groups demonstrated significant improvements compared to the control group. Overall, the results highlight that both unilateral and bilateral plyometric training integrated with sprinting effectively enhanced lower-limb power, agility, and repeated sprint performance in youth basketball players, with unilateral training exhibiting slightly superior neuromuscular adaptations. For agility, the significant time × group interaction (p =.001, η2p =.28) indicated differential training responses across groups. While all training groups improved from baseline, post-hoc comparisons at post-test showed no statistically significant between-group differences (Table 5), though BPT + LST demonstrated the largest effect size compared to control (mean difference = −0.11 s, p =.068). Similarly, reactive agility showed a significant interaction effect (p =.003, η2p =.24) with improvements across all training conditions, but between-group comparisons revealed non-significant differences (all p >.05).

Table 4 Pre- and post-Training comparison of physical performance variables among experimental and control Groups.
Full size table

Table 5 presents the post-hoc pairwise comparisons between the experimental and control groups for all performance variables following the eight-week intervention. No significant between-group differences were observed for explosive power, although the Linear Sprint Training (LST) group demonstrated a marginally higher mean difference compared to the Active Control Group (ACG) (p =.055). For the 10 m sprint, significant improvements were evident when comparing both UPT + LST and LST groups against the control group (p =.000), as well as between the Bilateral Plyometric Training (BPT + LST) and LST groups (p =.038), suggesting that integrated sprint-based interventions were effective in enhancing short-distance acceleration. The 20 m sprint also showed a small but significant difference between the LST and control groups (p =.037), highlighting the efficacy of sprint-specific training in improving maximal sprint performance. Agility and reactive agility did not exhibit statistically significant differences between groups (p >.05), though the UPT + LST group consistently showed lower mean times than the control, reflecting superior directional control and responsiveness. In contrast, a significant between-group effect emerged for horizontal power, where the BPT + LST group outperformed the control (mean difference = 8.51, p =.007), emphasizing the effectiveness of bilateral plyometric integration in improving horizontal force production. No significant inter-group differences were found for repeated sprint ability (p >.05), though all training groups displayed lower sprint times compared to the control. Collectively, these results indicate that while both unilateral and bilateral plyometric training, when integrated with sprinting, improved multiple aspects of neuromuscular performance, the unilateral approach offered slightly broader functional benefits, whereas the bilateral approach was particularly advantageous for horizontal power output.

Table 5 Post-hoc pairwise comparisons between groups for physical performance variables (post-test values).
Full size table

Discussions

The present study investigated the effects of an eight-week unilateral plyometric training integrated with linear sprinting (UPT + LST), bilateral plyometric training integrated with linear sprinting (BPT + LST), and linear sprint training only (LST) on multiple physical performance variables in youth male basketball players. The findings revealed that both unilateral and bilateral plyometric training approaches, when combined with sprint work, elicited significant improvements in explosive power, agility, reactive agility, horizontal power, and repeated sprint ability compared to the active control group. These results support the efficacy of integrated neuromuscular training protocols for enhancing sport-specific performance in youth basketball athletes. The following discussion examines each performance variable in relation to existing literature and provides mechanistic explanations for the observed adaptations.

The results demonstrated significant improvements in explosive power across all three training groups, with % gains ranging from 4.96% to 5.76%, while the control group experienced a decline of 3.56%. The UPT + LST, BPT + LST, and LST groups all showed meaningful enhancements in countermovement jump performance, indicating that both unilateral and bilateral plyometric protocols effectively augmented lower-limb power production. These findings align with previous research demonstrating that plyometric training enhances vertical jump performance through improvements in the stretch-shortening cycle (SSC) efficiency, neural adaptations, and increased rate of force development37,38. Several studies have reported similar improvements in vertical jump height following plyometric interventions in youth athletes. Meylan and Malatesta (2009) conducted a meta-analysis examining plyometric training effects in children and youth, reporting moderate to large effect sizes (ES = 0.73) for vertical jump improvements, with training durations of 4–16 weeks producing optimal adaptations23. Their findings support the notion that systematic plyometric exposure during developmental years enhances neuromuscular function and power output. Similarly, Markovic (2007) demonstrated that plyometric training programs lasting 6–12 weeks resulted in vertical jump improvements ranging from 4.7% to 8.7% in athletes, with bilateral exercises showing slightly greater gains in untrained populations22. Furthermore, Ramírez-Campillo et al. (2013) conducted a systematic review indicating that plyometric training in youth soccer players improved vertical jump performance by approximately 4–8%, with training frequency of 2–3 sessions per week being optimal for neuromuscular adaptation39.

The mechanisms underlying these improvements involve both neural and morphological adaptations. Plyometric exercises enhance motor unit recruitment, firing frequency, and intermuscular coordination, allowing for more forceful and rapid muscle contractions40,41. Additionally, adaptations in muscle-tendon stiffness and improved SSC function enable athletes to store and release elastic energy more efficiently during jumping movements42,43. The decline observed in the control group may reflect the insufficient stimulus provided by standard basketball training alone to maintain or improve explosive power during periods of rapid growth and development in youth athletes44. Although the total sample size satisfied the a priori power calculation, the per-group sample (n = 13) may have limited the ability to detect subtle between-group differences, particularly for sprint acceleration and reactive agility. Small group sizes can reduce statistical sensitivity and restrict generalizability to larger basketball populations. Future multi-center trials with greater samples are warranted to improve statistical power and external validity.

Although sprint times improved across all training groups for both 10 m (−1.66% to −4.61%) and 20 m distances (−0.98% to −3.78%), these changes did not reach statistical significance for overall group effects. However, post-hoc analyses revealed significant differences when comparing specific groups to the control, particularly for the LST group in the 10 m sprint (p =.000) and 20 m sprint (p =.037). The UPT + LST group also demonstrated significant improvements in 10 m sprint compared to the control (p =.000), suggesting that integrated training approaches effectively enhance acceleration capacity. These findings are consistent with research indicating that sprint training, particularly when combined with plyometric exercises, improves acceleration and maximal sprint speed through neuromuscular adaptations45,46. Chaouachi et al. (2014) examined the effects of unilateral strength training on sprint performance in male youth soccer players and found significant improvements in 10 m (−3.6%) and 20 m (−2.1%) sprint times, attributing these gains to enhanced hip extensor strength and improved force application during ground contact47. Similarly, Lockie et al. (2012) reported that 6 weeks of combined plyometric and sprint training resulted in improvements of 2–5% in short-distance sprint performance among team-sport athletes, with the greatest adaptations occurring in the acceleration phase48. Moreover, Rumpf et al. (2012) demonstrated in their review that sprint training in youth athletes produces moderate effect sizes for sprint performance (ES = 0.54–0.68), with programs incorporating technical sprint drills and resistance methods showing superior outcomes24. The neurophysiological basis for sprint improvements following plyometric and sprint training involves enhanced rate of force development, improved ground contact mechanics, and increased horizontal force production. Sprint performance is heavily influenced by the ability to generate high forces during brief ground contact times49,50, and plyometric exercises develop this capacity through repeated exposure to rapid SSC actions51. Additionally, sprint-specific training improves stride mechanics, frequency, and length while reducing braking forces during ground contact52. The modest but meaningful improvements observed across groups suggest that eight weeks represents an adequate timeframe for initial neuromuscular adaptations, though longer training durations may be necessary for more pronounced sprint performance gains in youth athletes. A further consideration is the eight-week training duration, which is adequate for early neuromuscular adaptation but may not fully reflect long-term physiological and biomechanical changes. Extended interventions (12–16 weeks) may produce more pronounced sprint improvements and provide clearer insight into how neuromuscular adaptations transfer to basketball-specific performance. Although all training groups demonstrated small improvements in 10 m and 20 m sprint times, these changes did not reach statistical significance. This may indicate that the sprint-specific stimulus, volume, intensity, or resisted loading, was insufficient to induce substantial acceleration gains within eight weeks. Future studies could incorporate higher sprint volumes, resisted or assisted sprinting, or complex sprint-plyometric pairings to increase the specificity of acceleration training.

Agility performance showed significant improvements following the intervention period (p =.001, η2p =.28), with the BPT + LST group demonstrating the most substantial enhancement (−8.92%), followed by UPT + LST (−4.90%) and LST (−2.45%). The control group remained essentially unchanged (−0.48%). These results indicate that plyometric training, particularly bilateral approaches, effectively enhances the capacity to decelerate, change direction, and re-accelerate, fundamental movement patterns in basketball. Previous research supports the effectiveness of plyometric training for improving change of direction ability in youth athletes. Asadi et al. (2016) investigated the effects of six weeks of depth jump training on agility performance in young soccer players and reported significant improvements of 5–7% in the 505 tests, concluding that plyometric exercises enhance eccentric strength and reactive capabilities necessary for rapid directional changes53. Similarly, Sporiš et al. (2010) demonstrated that combined plyometric and sprint training programs improved agility performance by 4–6% in youth basketball players, attributing these gains to enhanced neuromuscular coordination and force production during deceleration and re-acceleration phases54. Furthermore, Meylan and Malatesta (2009) reported moderate to large effect sizes for agility improvements following plyometric interventions in youth athletes, particularly when training incorporated directional changes and reactive components23. The superior agility gains observed in the BPT + LST group may be explained by the bilateral nature of the directional change task in the 505 tests, which requires forceful bilateral deceleration followed by explosive bilateral push-off during the 180-degree turn55. Bilateral plyometric exercises specifically target these movement patterns through exercises such as drop jumps and bilateral bounds, which develop the eccentric strength and reactive capabilities essential for rapid directional changes56. Additionally, improvements in agility performance may reflect enhanced intermuscular coordination, improved neuromuscular efficiency, and greater force production capacity during the eccentric-concentric transition phases of the movement. Enhanced stiffness regulation of the muscle-tendon complex enables effective elastic energy storage during directional changes57. These biomechanical adaptations collectively improve deceleration-acceleration efficiency during rapid turning movements.

Reactive agility exhibited significant improvements across all training groups (p =.003, η2p =.24), with % changes ranging from − 2.92% to −5.11%, while the control group showed minimal change (−0.57%). The LST group demonstrated the greatest improvement (−5.11%), followed by UPT + LST (−3.52%) and BPT + LST (−2.92%). These findings suggest that sprint and plyometric training enhance not only physical capabilities but also the neurocognitive processes underlying reactive movement performance. Research examining reactive agility has consistently demonstrated that training interventions incorporating decision-making components and high-velocity movements improve reactive performance in team-sport athletes. Serpell et al. (2011) investigated the relationship between various physical qualities and reactive agility performance58, finding that sprint speed and change of direction ability were significant predictors of reactive agility performance, with correlation coefficients ranging from r =.61 to 0.78. Young et al. (2015) examined the effects of 6 weeks of agility training with and without reactive components in team-sport athletes59, reporting improvements of 3–6% in reactive agility performance, with the greatest gains occurring when training included perceptual-cognitive challenges. Additionally, Paul et al. (2016) demonstrated that reactive agility training in basketball players improved decision-making speed and movement efficiency by 4–7%, emphasizing the importance of sport-specific training contexts that replicate game demands18. The improvements in reactive agility observed in this study likely reflect both physical and cognitive adaptations. Sprint training enhances the physical capacity to accelerate rapidly in response to stimuli, while plyometric training develops the neuromuscular qualities necessary for explosive directional changes. Furthermore, repeated exposure to reactive training scenarios may enhance perceptual-cognitive processing speed, allowing athletes to detect, process, and respond to environmental cues more efficiently. The substantial improvements across all training groups suggest that youth athletes possess high trainability for reactive movement capabilities, which are critical for defensive and offensive effectiveness in basketball. This study relied on field-based performance assessments, which provide high ecological validity but do not allow investigation of underlying neuromuscular mechanisms. The inclusion of electromyography, motion capture, or force-plate analysis in future research would help elucidate how plyometric–sprint training affects motor unit recruitment, muscle-tendon behavior, and ground-reaction force strategies.

Horizontal power, assessed through standing long jump and single-leg hop for distance tests, showed significant improvements following the intervention (p =.029, η2p =.17). The BPT + LST group demonstrated the greatest enhancement (6.82%), followed by LST (5.92%) and UPT + LST (5.84%), while the control group showed only modest improvement (2.19%). Post-hoc analyses revealed significant differences between BPT + LST and the control group (p =.007), highlighting the efficacy of bilateral plyometric training for developing horizontal force production capabilities49. Previous research has consistently demonstrated the effectiveness of plyometric training for enhancing horizontal power in youth athletes. Moran et al. (2019) conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis examining the effects of plyometric training on horizontal jump performance in youth, reporting moderate to large effect sizes (ES = 0.58–1.12) with improvements ranging from 5 to 10% following 6–12-week interventions60. They emphasized that horizontal plyometric exercises, such as bounds and broad jumps, are particularly effective for developing anterior-posterior force production capabilities essential for sprint acceleration and first-step quickness. Similarly, Ramírez-Campillo et al. (2022) demonstrated that plyometric training in youth basketball players improved standing long jump performance by 6–9%, with bilateral exercises producing greater absolute distance gains compared to unilateral approaches25. Furthermore, Bouguezzi et al. (2020) reported that 8 weeks of combined plyometric and sprint training improved horizontal jump performance by 5.8–7.4% in youth team-sport athletes, attributing these adaptations to enhanced hip and knee extensor strength and improved triple extension mechanics61. The mechanisms underlying horizontal power improvements involve neuromuscular adaptations that enhance the capacity to generate and apply force in the horizontal plane. Horizontal plyometric exercises specifically target the hip extensors, knee extensors, and ankle plantar flexors in movement patterns that closely mimic sprint acceleration and propulsive actions62. Bilateral plyometric training may provide superior stimulus for horizontal power development through greater absolute loading and more symmetrical force application during exercises such as broad jumps and bilateral bounds63. Additionally, improvements in tendon stiffness, muscle architecture, and neural drive contribute to enhanced force transmission and power output during horizontal propulsive movements40,43. Participants were 14–17 years old, an age range characterized by variability in biological maturation that can influence neuromuscular adaptation. Although baseline characteristics were comparable across groups, maturity offset was not assessed. This may have introduced developmental variability in training responses. Future studies should include maturity markers (e.g., peak height velocity offset) to control for maturation effects. Cognitive adaptations include enhanced visual scanning efficiency, pattern recognition speed, and motor response selection64. These enable earlier cue detection and faster execution of directional changes65.

Repeated sprint ability showed significant improvements following the intervention (p =.034, η2p =.16), with % gains ranging from − 3.00% to −4.46% across the training groups, while the control group showed essentially no change (0.46%). The LST group demonstrated the greatest improvement (−4.46%), followed closely by UPT + LST (−4.20%) and BPT + LST (−3.00%). These results indicate that both plyometric and sprint training effectively enhance the capacity to maintain high-intensity performance across repeated efforts with minimal recovery. Previous literature supports the effectiveness of plyometric and sprint training for improving repeated sprint ability in youth team-sport athletes. Bromley et al. (2021) investigated the effects of sprint and plyometric training on RSA in youth soccer players, reporting improvements of 3–5% in mean sprint time and 15–25% reductions in fatigue index following 8-week interventions, suggesting that neuromuscular training enhances both phosphocreatine resynthesis and buffering capacity66. Similarly, Buchheit et al. (2010) demonstrated that combined plyometric and high-intensity interval training improved RSA performance by 4–6% in youth basketball players, attributing these gains to enhanced anaerobic capacity, improved running economy, and greater fatigue resistance67. Furthermore, Dello Iacono et al. (2017) reported that 6 weeks of vertical and horizontal plyometric training improved RSA performance by 3.8–5.2% in youth team-sport athletes, emphasizing that plyometric exercises enhance metabolic efficiency and neuromuscular function during repeated high-intensity efforts68. The physiological mechanisms underlying RSA improvements involve both metabolic and neuromuscular adaptations. Plyometric and sprint training enhance phosphocreatine resynthesis rates, improve buffering capacity to tolerate lactate accumulation, and increase oxidative enzyme activity, all of which contribute to maintained power output during repeated efforts69,70. Additionally, neuromuscular adaptations such as improved motor unit recruitment patterns, enhanced muscle coordination, and more efficient movement mechanics reduce the metabolic cost of sprinting, thereby delaying fatigue onset71. The substantial improvements observed across all training groups underscore the importance of high-intensity neuromuscular training for developing the metabolic and mechanical qualities necessary for basketball-specific repeated sprint performance. While the training interventions improved several neuromuscular qualities, the study did not evaluate transfer to basketball-specific skills such as shooting accuracy, rebounding, defensive movement efficiency, or match statistics. Including technical-tactical metrics in future research would strengthen understanding of how physical adaptations translate to competitive performance.

The findings of this study have several important practical applications for strength and conditioning professionals working with youth basketball players. First, the integration of plyometric training with sprint work appears to be a highly effective strategy for developing multiple physical performance qualities simultaneously, making it an efficient approach for time-constrained training environments. Both unilateral and bilateral plyometric protocols produced meaningful improvements, suggesting that coaches can select exercises based on specific training goals and individual athlete needs. Second, the superior agility and horizontal power gains observed with bilateral plyometric training suggest that this approach may be particularly beneficial for enhancing multidirectional movement capabilities and first-step quickness. Conversely, unilateral plyometric training may offer advantages for addressing asymmetries and developing single-leg stability and strength, which are important for injury prevention and sport-specific movements such as jump landing and cutting on one leg. Third, the significant improvements in repeated sprint ability across all training groups highlight the importance of incorporating high-intensity neuromuscular training into youth basketball development programs. The capacity to perform repeated high-intensity efforts with minimal performance decrement is a critical determinant of basketball-specific performance, and the training protocols examined in this study effectively developed this quality. Finally, the decline in explosive power observed in the control group emphasizes that standard basketball training alone may not provide sufficient stimulus to maintain or improve physical performance qualities during adolescence. Structured strength and conditioning programs that include plyometric and sprint training components are therefore essential for optimizing athletic development in youth basketball players. Future investigations employing advanced assessment techniques such as electromyography, ultrasonography, and motion analysis would provide valuable insights into the specific physiological and biomechanical mechanisms driving performance improvements. Coaches should implement 2 sessions per week for 8 + weeks to optimize adaptations. Exercise selection should match specific training goals: bilateral training for maximal power and agility, unilateral training for asymmetry correction and single-leg stability. Progressive overload should follow established plyometric guidelines with systematic intensity increases. Finally, the study did not examine the long-term retention of training adaptations following the cessation of the intervention. Understanding the detraining effects and the minimal training dose required to maintain performance gains would have important practical implications for periodization and training program design throughout the competitive season. Future research should include longer interventions (12–16 weeks) to examine sustained adaptations and detraining effects. Studies should incorporate advanced assessment techniques (EMG, motion capture, force plates) to elucidate neuromuscular mechanisms. Investigations should assess transfer to game performance through match statistics and injury incidence rates. Research in female athletes and different competitive levels would enhance generalizability.

Conclusions

This study demonstrated that eight weeks of unilateral or bilateral plyometric training integrated with linear sprinting effectively improved multiple physical performance variables in youth male basketball players, including explosive power, agility, reactive agility, horizontal power, and repeated sprint ability. Both training approaches produced meaningful adaptations, with bilateral plyometric training showing particular efficacy for agility and horizontal power development, while unilateral training demonstrated broader improvements across performance measures. Linear sprint training alone also produced significant improvements in several variables, though the integration of plyometric exercises appeared to enhance overall training effectiveness. These findings support the inclusion of structured plyometric and sprint training protocols in youth basketball development programs and provide evidence-based guidance for strength and conditioning professionals working with youth athletes. Future research should examine long-term training effects, transfer to game performance, and underlying mechanistic adaptations to further optimize training prescription for youth basketball players.

The superior performance of integrated plyometric-sprint protocols over sprint training alone highlights the importance of multi-modal neuromuscular training. The time × group interactions observed across multiple performance domains demonstrate that training specificity extends beyond simple movement replication; rather, optimal adaptations require systematic manipulation of force-velocity characteristics through varied loading strategies. From a developmental perspective, the significant improvements across all training groups underscore the high trainability of youth athletes during adolescence. The control group’s decline in explosive power emphasizes that standard basketball training alone provides insufficient stimulus for maintaining neuromuscular qualities during growth periods characterized by rapid biomechanical changes.

Limitations of the study

This study has several limitations. First, although the total sample size met the requirements of a priori power analysis, the per-group sample (n = 13) may have limited the ability to detect small between-group differences and may restrict generalizability. Second, the eight-week training duration reflects early neuromuscular adaptation but may not capture longer-term changes, particularly in sprint performance and transfer to sport-specific skills. Third, the age range of 14–17 years introduces variability in biological maturity, and the absence of maturity offset assessment limits the control of developmental influences on training responsiveness. Fourth, the study relied on field-based assessments without mechanistic measurements (e.g., EMG, force-plate analysis, 3D motions capture), which constrains interpretation of the physiological mechanisms underlying the observed adaptations. Finally, basketball-specific performance metrics were not evaluated, and future studies should assess how neuromuscular improvements translate to competitive performance outcomes.