Adding 10–20 minutes a week of jump rope to the warm-up improved 3 km time in one trial of amateur runners, but plyometric effects on running economy are small and nothing has been tested in triathletes
Interpretation
García-Pinillos et al. 2020 randomised 96 amateur endurance runners: 10 weeks of jump rope (2–4 sessions, 10–20 min a week, replacing about 5 min of warm-up) improved 3 km time, jump height, reactive strength and arch stiffness while controls didn't change; the size of the time gain and the sex split aren't reported in the abstract. Other skipping trials are in young athletes (Trecroci et al. 2015, 24 youth soccer players). Plyometric meta-analyses in runners show trivial to small effects on economy (Eihara et al. 2022: g = −0.13; Llanos-Lagos et al. 2024: ES −0.307 at ≤12 km/h), smaller than or similar to heavy resistance training. One trial plus indirect evidence.
Practical implication
Jump rope is a reasonable, low-cost warm-up addition for triathletes, built up gradually because of Achilles and calf loading, but it shouldn't replace running or heavy strength training. Benefits for triathlon running are extrapolated from one trial in amateur runners.
Sources
5 sources, independently verified.
Jump rope in the warm-up, 2–4 sessions/week totalling 10–20 min/week, replacing about 5 min of usual warm-up, for 10 weeks: 3 km time trial, jump height, reactive strength index and foot-arch stiffness all improved (p < .001); controls unchanged. Change in 3 km time correlated with change in RSI (r = −0.481) and stiffness (r = −0.336); together R² = 0.394. Size of time-trial improvement not reported in abstract.
8 weeks of jump rope at the start of soccer training: Harre coordination circuit time improved 9% (p < 0.01) vs no significant change with soccer drills; significant group-by-time interaction for Y-balance composite in both legs. Young, non-runner population. No DOI; cited by stable journal URL.
In long-distance runners, heavy resistance training improved running economy more (g = −0.32, 95% CI −0.55 to −0.10, small) than plyometric training (g = −0.13, 95% CI −0.47 to 0.21, trivial); time-trial effects were g = −0.24 (heavy, small) and g = −0.17 (plyometric, trivial). Loads ≥90% 1RM had larger effects (g = −0.31) than lighter loads (g = −0.17). Abstract has internal inconsistencies in some reported CIs.
Plyometric training improved running economy at speeds ≤12 km/h (ES −0.307, small); high-load training ES −0.266 (small) and combined methods −0.426 (moderate); submaximal and isometric training no improvement. High-load effect moderated by speed and VO2max. Certainty moderate for most methods, low for combined. Sample size is the sum of reported groups (inference).
Testing 0, 2, 4, or 7 days per week of unilateral hopping (50 multidirectional hops, generating 2.5-2.8 bodyweights of peak ground-reaction force): femoral-neck bone density changed by -0.3%, 0.0%, +0.9% and +1.8% respectively — only the daily condition produced a significant gain (95% CI 0.8-2.8%). Direct dose-response evidence that impact loading for bone needs to be close to daily, not just regular, to produce a measurable effect.