Abstract
Background:
Badminton is a high-intensity sport that demands lower-limb athletic performance. French Contrast Training (FCT), which combines heavy compound exercises, plyometrics, light to moderate loads, and assisted plyometric movements in one session, has been suggested to enhance neuromuscular adaptations more effectively. However, the efficacy of FCT on lower-limb explosive power, acceleration, and muscle strength compared to equal-load training (ELT) in badminton players remains unclear.
Objective:
This study aims to investigate the effects of an eight-week FCT program on lower-limb explosive power, acceleration, and muscle strength compared to ELT in college badminton players.
Methods:
Thirty male college badminton players were randomly assigned to the FCT group (n=15) or the ELT group (n=15). Both groups completed an eight-week (twice a week) training program. The FCT protocol consisted of four sequential exercises per session: 80% 1RM back squat, 30cm hurdle jump, 30% 1RM barbell squat jump, and band-assisted jump. The control group performed ELT, an isolated method that involved exercises with loads aligned to FCT. Outcomes measurement before and after training included countermovement jump (CMJ), squat jump (SJ), 10-meter sprint time, maximal velocity (Vmax), maximal acceleration (Amax), 1RM back squat, and mean concentric velocity (MCV) from 20% to 80%1RM. We used two-way repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) (time × group) with Bonferroni post hoc tests, and effect sizes were reported as partial eta squared (). p< 0.05 was statistically significant.
Results:
FCT yielded greater improvements than ELT in CMJ (p< 0.001, = 0.621), SJ (p< 0.001, = 0.849), 10-meter sprint time (p< 0.001, = 0.853), Vmax (p< 0.001, = 0.638), Amax (p< 0.001, = 0.820), and MCV from 20 to 40% 1RM (p< 0.001, = 0.615; p< 0.001, = 0.697). However, no significant differences were found between the groups for the 1RM back squat (p = 0.218, = 0.054), and MCV from 60 to 80%1RM (p = 0.579, = 0.011; p = 0.900, = 0.001).
Conclusion:
This study suggests that French Contrast Training is an effective strategy for improving lower-limb explosive power and rapid acceleration in male college badminton players, but it does not further improve muscle strength.
1 Introduction
Badminton is a high-intensity, intermittent racket sport that requires players to perform repeated bouts of explosive movements such as rapid accelerations, multidirectional sprints, jumps, and powerful smashes within short recovery intervals (Phomsoupha and Laffaye, 2015; Edel et al., 2023; Rusdiana et al., 2023). Success in competitive badminton depends mainly on the athlete’s ability to generate force quickly, change direction efficiently, and sustain high-intensity actions throughout extended rallies (Wang et al., 2025). Accordingly, lower-limb explosive power, acceleration ability, and maximal strength are recognized as fundamental physical qualities underpinning the athletic performance of badminton players (Maloney, 2018; Fernandez-Fernandez et al., 2022; Hu et al., 2025). Typically, resistance training is a common method for enhancing lower-limb strength and explosive power in badminton players (Comfort et al., 2023; Lu et al., 2025). For example, Wang et al. showed that resistance training increased strength and power for badminton athletes (Wang et al., 2025). However, this method employs isolated training strategies that provide limited stimulus across the full force-velocity (F-V) curve (Issurin, 2008; Wang et al., 2023; Riscart-López et al., 2025). For example, Cormie et al. confirmed that resistance training predominantly targets the high-force, low-velocity region of the F-V curve. It provides limited stimulus to the high-velocity region, which constitutes a methodological limitation for developing rapid production and stretch-shortening cycle (SSC) efficiency (Cormie et al., 2011a). Studies suggested that this method has limited stimulating effects on the F-V curve, potentially restricting athletes’ ability to generate rapid force (Cormie et al., 2011b; Issurin, 2016; Pagaduan and Pojskic, 2020). Samozino et al. reported that training targeting only one side of the F-V curve, which may lead to long-term imbalance, can limit the development of explosive, rapid force production skills (Samozino et al., 2014). Therefore, stimulating the full F-V curve is crucial for enhancing explosive and rapid force production.
French Contrast Training (FCT) has gained attention for its potential to enhance athletic performance by integrating heavy compound exercises, plyometric exercises, light-to-moderate load exercises, and assisted plyometric exercises in a single session, thereby stimulating adaptations across the full F-V curve (Noufal et al., 2024). Specifically, FCT combines four phases within a single session: 1) heavy compound exercises (e.g., 80 to 90%1RM back squat); 2) plyometric exercises (e.g., vertical jumps); 3) light-to-moderate load exercises (e.g., 25 to 45% 1RM barbell weighted jumps); and 4) assisted plyometric exercises (e.g., band-assisted jumps) (Hernández-Preciado et al., 2018; Salam and Sherif, 2020; Chen et al., 2025). Through these complementary stimuli across the full F-V curve to enhance neuromuscular function. Additionally, following post-activation performance enhancement (PAPE) principles, FCT may activate the central nervous system and improve force output (Cengizel and Şenel, 2025; Karabel and Makaracı, 2025). For example, Welch et al. reported that a 6-week FCT program improved vertical jump height in weight-trained male players (Welch et al., 2019). Valappil et al. reported that a 12-week FCT program enhances sprint times for male hockey players (Valappil et al., 2024), consistent with our previous systematic review and meta-analysis, which demonstrated that FCT is an effective method for improving vertical jump height and sprint performance (Zhao et al., 2025). Although FCT has shown potential to enhance lower-limb athletic performance, there is still no empirical evidence confirming its effectiveness for badminton players. Prior studies on FCT mainly compare it with resistance training, complex training, or routine tactic training. However, the improvements in lower-limb athletic performance may be attributed either to the unique structure of FCT or simply to a higher overall training volume.
This study aims to address this gap by evaluating the effects of an eight-week FCT on lower-limb athletic performance compared to equal-load training (ELT) in college badminton players. To assess these effects, we measured countermovement jump (CMJ), squat jump (SJ), 10-metre sprint time, maximal velocity (Vmax), maximal acceleration (Amax), 1RM back squat and mean concentric velocity (MCV) at 20-80% 1RM. We hypothesized that FCT would produce significantly greater improvements in CMJ, SJ, sprint time, Vmax, Amax, 1RM back squat, and MCV at 20-80% 1RM.
2 Materials and methods
2.1 Participants
Sample size estimation was informed by a previous study conducted by Rebelo et al, which found a between-group effect size of 0.81 for CMJ (Rebelo et al., 2023). We calculated, using G*Power (ANOVA, f = 0.40, α = 0.05, power = 0.95), that this study requires 24 participants. We recruited thirty badminton players and randomly allocated to the FCT group (n = 15) or the ELT group (n = 15). All participants were members of the university badminton team with at least six years of training experience; they engaged in specialized badminton technique training three times per week; and had no history of lower limb injuries within the past three months. The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the College of Physical Education and Health Science, Chongqing Normal University (CNU-PSY-202509-006), and all procedures were conducted by the Declaration of Helsinki. Before the experiment, participants were informed of the benefits and potential risks related to the study, and all signed the informed consent form.
2.2 Study design
This study adopted an eight-week, single-blind (assessor-blind) randomized controlled trial design (Figure 1). Participants were randomly assigned to either the FCT group or the ELT group using a computer-generated randomization sequence. The intervention was conducted during the preparatory phase of the competitive season. Before baseline testing, all participants completed a familiarization session to standardize training procedures and testing protocols. Both groups trained twice weekly, with at least 48 hours of rest between sessions. Certified strength and conditioning coaches supervised standardized instructions to ensure consistent training implementation and evaluation. To control potential circadian rhythm effects, all testing sessions were conducted at the same time of day for each participant. Participants were instructed to refrain from strenuous physical activity for 48 hours before each testing session and to avoid consuming alcohol and caffeine within 24 hours of testing.
Figure 1
2.2.1 Training protocol
Participants in the FCT group performed a structured, four-phase sequence. Each sequence comprises: 1) heavy compound exercise (80% 1RM squat); 2) plyometric exercise (30cm hurdle jumps); 3) light-to-moderate load exercise (25% 1RM squat jumps); 4) assisted plyometric exercise (band-assisted jumps). Participants completed four sets of each exercise, with 6–8 repetitions per set, rest for 20 seconds within sets, and rest for 3–4 minutes between sets. The 20-second rest period within sets was aligned with previous FCT studies and FCT guidelines (Long et al., 2023; Türkarslan and Deliceoglu, 2024). Participants in the ELT group performed the same exercises, loads, sets, and repetitions as in FCT, but in a traditional blocked format (all sets of one exercise completed before moving to the next). All participants began with a standardized 10-minute warm-up and concluded with a 5-minute cool-down (Figure 1). All participants practiced badminton techniques with identical content and duration three times a week during the experiment.
2.2.2 Outcomes measurement
2.2.2.1 Countermovement jump test
We evaluated lower-limb explosive power with CMJ. Participants stood on a contact platform kit (Chronojump Boscosystem, ≥1000 Hz, Spain) with both hands on the iliac crests to minimize arm swing. After an auditory signal, participants rapidly descended into a squat position and immediately performed a vertical jump (Van Hooren and Zolotarjova, 2017). Each participant completed three maximal attempts with 1-minute rest periods, and the best jump height (cm) was recorded for analysis.
2.2.2.2 Squat jump test
We assessed lower-limb concentric explosive performance with the SJ, which minimizes the influence of the stretch-shortening cycle. Participants began in a static squat position on a contact platform kit (Chronojump Boscosystem, ≥1000 Hz, Spain) with their knees flexed at 90°, as verified by a handheld goniometer, while maintaining their hands fixed on the iliac crests to minimize arm swing. After an auditory cue, participants executed a maximal vertical jump (Van Hooren and Zolotarjova, 2017). Each participant completed three maximal attempts with 1-minute rests, and the best jump height (cm) was recorded for analysis.
2.2.2.3 10-meter sprint test
We used the 10-meter sprint test to assess initial acceleration and recorded sprint kinematics using a pull-cord linear encoder (Race Analyzer Kit, Chronojump Boscosystem, Spain). The Race Analyzer Kit has been shown to reliably measure speed (Carmona et al., 2025). Following the manufacturer’s Race Analyzer tutorial, participants completed a standardized warm-up and then stood in a split stance, starting 0.5m behind the line. After an auditory cue, participants sprinted maximally through 15m to avoid early deceleration. Each participant completed three maximal trials, with 2–3 minutes of rest between trials. The best trial times (s), Vmax (maximal velocity, m/s), and Amax (maximal instantaneous acceleration, m/s²) were recorded for analysis.
2.2.2.4 Back squat test
We used the 1RM back squat test to assess maximal dynamic lower-limb strength. We used red elastic bands on the barbell rack to mark each participant’s squat depth (the thigh was parallel to the floor). Participants performed a controlled eccentric phase (~3 seconds), then immediately executed a maximal-effort concentric phase (Keiner et al., 2025). The 1RM back squat test procedure (Shen et al., 2025) was as follows: 1) 10 repetitions at 20kg; 2) 5 repetitions at 50% of the estimated 1RM; 3) 3 repetitions at 75% of the estimated 1RM, and 4) 1 repetition at 90% of the estimated 1RM. We then increased the load by 5-10kg increments until a failed attempt occurred and determined the final 1RM within six attempts.
After establishing 1RM, participants rested for 10 minutes and performed 2–3 repetitions at 20%, 40%, 60%, and 80% of their individual 1RM with maximal concentric intent. We recorded barbell MCV velocity (MCV, m/s) using a linear encoder kit (Chronojump Boscosystem, ≥1000 Hz, Barcelona, Spain) to evaluate the load-velocity relationship. We followed the manufacturer’s Encoder tutorial and user manual. The encoder was fixed to the rack, the tether was clipped to the barbell, and the slack was removed before each set. We sampled the data using the manufacturer’s software, providing 2–3 minutes of rest between each attempt. Trials with depth violations, technical faults, or measurement artifacts were repeated.
2.3 Statistical analysis
We presented all data as the mean ± standard deviation (SD) and checked for normality using the Shapiro–Wilk test. We conducted an analysis of outcomes using a two-way (time × group) repeated measures ANOVA, with post hoc analyses performed using the Bonferroni test. We expressed effect size as partial eta-squared (), where effect sizes were categorized as trivial (<0.01), small (0.01≤ <0.06), moderate (0.06≤ <0.14), and large (≥0.14) effects. We evaluated test-retest reliability using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), with results in Supplementary Table S1. Descriptive statistics were now provided only for the percentage change (Δ%). p< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. All analyses were performed using the SPSS statistical package (version 27.0, IBM Statistics, Chicago, IL).
3 Results
Baseline characteristics of participants showed no significant difference (p > 0.05) (Table 1).
Table 1
| Characteristics | FCT (n=15) | ELT (n=15) | P |
|---|---|---|---|
| CMJ (cm) | 44.62 ± 5.12 | 42.75 ± 5.20 | 0.330 |
| SJ (cm) | 42.47 ± 4.22 | 40.40 ± 7.10 | 0.342 |
| 10-m sprint time (s) | 1.94 ± 0.05 | 1.93 ± 0.05 | 0.757 |
| 10-m Vmax (m/s) | 7.49 ± 0.25 | 7.26 ± 0.38 | 0.061 |
| 10-m Amax (m/s2) | 7.26 ± 0.53 | 7.12 ± 0.47 | 0.465 |
| 1RM squat (kg) | 141.00 ± 20.44 | 135.33 ± 19.11 | 0.439 |
| MCV 20% 1RM (m/s) | 0.91 ± 0.16 | 0.85 ± 0.13 | 0.326 |
| MCV 40% 1RM (m/s) | 0.73 ± 0.13 | 0.74 ± 0.10 | 0.922 |
| MCV 60% 1RM (m/s) | 0.59 ± 0.08 | 0.61 ± 0.08 | 0.513 |
| MCV 80% 1RM (m/s) | 0.46 ± 0.05 | 0.47 ± 0.07 | 0.646 |
Baseline participant characteristics by groups.
CMJ, countermovement jump; MCV, mean concentric velocity; SJ, squat jump; 1RM, one repetition maximal.
3.1 Vertical jump
3.1.1 CMJ
A significant interaction effect between time and group was observed (F = 45.93, p< 0.001, = 0.621, large effect). The main effect of time showed a significant difference (F = 97.71, p< 0.001, = 0.777, large effect). The main effect of the group showed a significant difference (F = 4.90, p = 0.035, = 0.149, large effect) (Figure 2).
Figure 2
The FCT group increased by 12.11% (from 44.62 to 49.84cm), compared to 2.31% (from 42.75 to 43.72cm) in the ELT group (Figure 3).
Figure 3
3.1.2 SJ
A significant interaction effect between time and group was observed (F = 157.69, p< 0.001, = 0.849, large effect). The main effect of time showed a significant difference (F = 433.867, p< 0.001, = 0.939, large effect). The main effect of the group showed a significant difference (F = 4.58, p = 0.041, = 0.140, large effect) (Figure 2).
The FCT group increased by 15.68% (from 42.47 to 49.04cm), compared to 4.16% (from 40.40 to 42.03cm) in the ELT group (Figure 3).
3.2 10-meter sprint
3.2.1 Time
A significant interaction effect between time and group was observed (F = 161.95, p< 0.001, = 0.853, large effect). The main effect of time showed a significant difference (F = 646.83, p< 0.001, = 0.959, large effect). The main effect of the group showed a significant difference (F = 5.07, p = 0.032, = 0.153, large effect) (Figure 4).
Figure 4
The FCT group increased by 7.11% (from 1.94 to 1.80s), compared to 2.35% (from 1.93 to 1.88s) in the ELT group (Figure 5).
Figure 5
3.2.2 Vmax
A significant interaction effect between time and group was observed (F = 49.28, p< 0.001, = 0.638, large effect). The main effect of time showed a significant difference (F = 98.04, p< 0.001, = 0.778, large effect). The main effect of the group showed a significant difference (F = 18.95, p< 0.001, = 0.404, large effect) (Figure 4).
The FCT group increased by 9.01% (from 7.49 to 8.17m/s), compared to 1.60% (from 7.26 to 7.38m/s) in the ELT group (Figure 5).
3.2.3 Amax
A significant interaction effect between time and group was observed (F = 127.31, p< 0.001, = 0.820, large effect). The main effect of time showed a significant difference (F = 189.19, p< 0.001, = 0.871, large effect). The main effect of the group showed a significant difference (F = 7.71, p = 0.010, = 0.216, large effect) (Figure 4).
The FCT group increased by 10.84% (from 7.26 to 8.03m/s2), compared to 1.12% (from 7.12 to 7.20m/s2) in the ELT group (Figure 5).
3.3 1RM back squat
A non-significant interaction effect between time and group was observed (F = 1.59, p = 0.218, = 0.054, small effect). The main effect of time showed a significant difference (F = 201.40, p< 0.001, = 0.878, large effect). The main effect of the group showed a non-significant difference (F = 0.80, p = 0.379, = 0.028, small effect) (Figure 6).
Figure 6
The FCT group increased by 6.67% (from 141.00 to 150.20kg), compared to 5.89% (from 135.33 to 143.03kg) in the ELT group (Figure 6).
3.4 Load-velocity
3.4.1 20% 1RM
A significant interaction effect between time and group was observed (F = 44.72, p< 0.001, = 0.615, large effect). The main effect of time showed a significant difference (F = 112.22, p< 0.001, = 0.800, large effect). The main effect of the group showed a significant difference (F = 9.05, p = 0.005, = 0.244, large effect) (Figure 7).
Figure 7
The FCT group increased by 30.12% (from 0.91 to 1.16m/s), compared to 6.99% (from 0.85 to 0.91m/s) in the ELT group (Figure 8).
Figure 8
3.4.2 40% 1RM
A significant interaction effect between time and group was observed (F = 64.56, p< 0.001, = 0.697, large effect). The main effect of time showed a significant difference (F = 123.71, p< 0.001, = 0.815, large effect). The main effect of the group showed a significant difference (F = 4.69, p = 0.039, = 0.143, large effect) (Figure 7).
The FCT group increased by 33.40% (from 0.73 to 0.97m/s), compared to 5.19% (from 0.74 to 0.78m/s) in the ELT group (Figure 8).
3.4.3 60 %1RM
A non-significant interaction effect between time and group was observed (F = 0.32, p = 0.579, = 0.011, small effect). The main effect of time showed a significant difference (F = 56.10, p< 0.001, = 0.667, large effect). The main effect of the group showed a non-significant difference (F = 0.20, p = 0.655, = 0.007, trivial effect) (Figure 7).
The FCT group increased by 19.86% (from 0.59 to 0.70m/s), compared to 17.54% (from 0.61 to 0.70m/s) in the ELT group (Figure 8).
3.4.4 80 %1RM
A non-significant interaction effect between time and group was observed (F = 0.02, p = 0.900, = 0.001, trivial effect). The main effect of time showed a significant difference (F = 58.19, p< 0.001, = 0.675, large effect). The main effect of the group showed a non-significant difference (F = 0.11, p = 0.738, = 0.004, trivial effect) (Figure 7).
The FCT group increased by 18.72% (from 0.46 to 0.55m/s), compared to 18.24% (from 0.47 to 0.56m/s) in the ELT group (Figure 8, Table 2).
Table 2
| Variable | Group | Pre | Post | Δ% (mean) | p | Bonferroni p | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Time | Group | Interaction | FCT vs ELT at post | |||||
| Vertical jump | CMJ (cm) | |||||||
| FCT | 44.62 ± 5.12 | 49.84 ± 4.48 | 12.11 | <0.001 | 0.035 | <0.001 | 0.002 | |
| ELT | 42.75 ± 5.20 | 43.72 ± 5.23 | 2.31 | |||||
| SJ (cm) | ||||||||
| FCT | 42.47 ± 4.22 | 49.04 ± 4.20 | 15.68 | <0.001 | 0.041 | <0.001 | 0.003 | |
| ELT | 40.40 ± 7.10 | 42.03 ± 7.08 | 4.16 | |||||
| 10-meter sprint | Time (s) | |||||||
| FCT | 1.94 ± 0.05 | 1.80 ± 0.05 | 7.11 | <0.001 | 0.032 | <0.001 | <0.001 | |
| ELT | 1.93 ± 0.05 | 1.88 ± 0.05 | 2.35 | |||||
| Vmax (m/s) | ||||||||
| FCT | 7.49 ± 0.25 | 8.17 ± 0.35 | 9.01 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | |
| ELT | 7.26 ± 0.38 | 7.38 ± 0.35 | 1.60 | |||||
| Amax (m/s2) | ||||||||
| FCT | 7.26 ± 0.53 | 8.03 ± 0.51 | 10.84 | <0.001 | 0.010 | <0.001 | <0.001 | |
| ELT | 7.12 ± 0.47 | 7.20 ± 0.43 | 1.12 | |||||
| 1RM squat | FCT | 141.00 ± 20.44 | 150.20 ± 20.36 | 6.67 | <0.001 | 0.379 | 0.218 | 0.328 |
| ELT | 135.33 ± 19.11 | 143.03 ± 19.04 | 5.89 | |||||
| MCV | 20% 1RM (m/s) | |||||||
| FCT | 0.91 ± 0.16 | 1.16 ± 0.15 | 30.12 | <0.001 | 0.005 | <0.001 | <0.001 | |
| ELT | 0.85 ± 0.13 | 0.91 ± 0.13 | 6.99 | |||||
| 40% 1RM (m/s) | ||||||||
| FCT | 0.73 ± 0.13 | 0.97 ± 0.16 | 33.40 | <0.001 | 0.039 | <0.001 | <0.001 | |
| ELT | 0.74 ± 0.10 | 0.78 ± 0.10 | 5.19 | |||||
| 60% 1RM (m/s) | ||||||||
| FCT | 0.59 ± 0.08 | 0.70 ± 0.10 | 19.86 | <0.001 | 0.655 | 0.579 | 0.892 | |
| ELT | 0.61 ± 0.08 | 0.70 ± 0.06 | 17.54 | |||||
| 80% 1RM (m/s) | ||||||||
| FCT | 0.46 ± 0.05 | 0.55 ± 0.10 | 18.72 | <0.001 | 0.738 | 0.900 | 0.827 | |
| ELT | 0.47 ± 0.07 | 0.56 ± 0.09 | 18.24 | |||||
The effects of the FCT group and ELT group on the athletic performance of participants.
CMJ, countermovement jump; MCV, mean concentric velocity; SJ, squat jump; 1RM, one repetition maximal.
4 Discussion
This is the first study to investigate the effects of FCT on lower-limb athletic performance in male college badminton players. The main findings showed that, compared to ELT, FCT effectively improved vertical jump, 10-meter sprint, and MCV from 20 to 40% of 1RM, but not superior to enhance 1RM back squat or MCV from 60 to 80% of 1RM in male college badminton players. These findings suggested that FCT enhances lower-limb explosive power, acceleration, and rapid strength at low loads, but it does not further optimize maximum strength.
This also aligns with our earlier observations, which demonstrated that FCT is beneficial for enhancing lower-limb explosive power in martial athletes (Chen et al., 2025). Elbadry et al. demonstrated that an eight-week FCT program significantly enhanced CMJ performance among female college athletes (Elbadry et al., 2019). Furthermore, Turkarslan et al. showed that a six-week FCT program significantly improved 30-meter sprint times for male soccer players (Türkarslan and Deliceoglu, 2024). The observed increase in lower-limb explosive power could be attributed to the FCT providing comprehensive neuromuscular stimulation across the entire range of the F-V curve (Cormier et al., 2022). Heavy compound exercises could serve as a high-threshold primer by increasing corticospinal excitability, recruiting high-threshold motor units, enhancing light-chain phosphorylation, and raising muscle temperature, creating a short window for PAPE (Bishop, 2003; Davies et al., 2015; Blazevich and Babault, 2019; Zimmermann et al., 2020; Gordon et al., 2024). These mechanical adaptations enable eccentric energy to be more fully converted into concentric impulse, directly increasing take-off speed (Hirayama et al., 2017; Kubo et al., 2021). The light-to-moderate load exercises (20 to 40% of 1RM) shift the F-V curve to the right, increase the rate of force development (RFD) within 0–100ms, and decrease tendon slack time (Tsoukos et al., 2018; Kim et al., 2021). These effects facilitate a better transfer of contractile shortening into movement speed, from the hip to the ankle (Arnold et al., 2013; Van Hooren and Bosch, 2016; Kubo et al., 2021). The assisted plyometric exercises expose the neuromuscular system to higher speeds, improving feed-forward timing and reducing co-contraction during brief propulsion events (Tufano and Amonette, 2018; Peng et al., 2023; Koźlenia and Domaradzki, 2024). Collectively, these underlying mechanisms enhance maximum velocity, resulting in faster and more efficient unassisted takeoffs (Aagaard et al., 2002; Argus et al., 2011; Maffiuletti et al., 2016; Sanpasitt and Apanukul, 2023; Behm et al., 2024). Notably, improvements in low-load MCV (20 to 40%1RM), early acceleration metrics (10-meter time, Vmax, Amax), and vertical jump (CMJ, SJ) also support these underlying mechanisms. Additionally, FCT may promote efficient excitation-contraction coupling in skeletal muscle and tendon stiffness (Lichtwark and Wilson, 2006; Raiteri et al., 2018; Holzer et al., 2024); studies showed that the enhanced intermuscular coordination from complex training reduces synergistic activation of antagonist muscles (Heald et al., 2018; Santos et al., 2021; Ramirez-Campillo et al., 2023). These potential benefits may enhance acceleration and impulse during concentric contractions, thereby improving jump height and acceleration.
Contrary to expectations, this study did not find a significant difference between groups in 1RM and MCV from 60 to 80% 1RM. This outcome is contrary to that of Rebelo et al. who found that a six-week FCT program significantly enhanced 1RM squat but did not significantly improve MCV velocity from 60 to 80% 1RM compared to conventional complex training in young female artistic roller-skating athletes (Rebelo et al., 2023). A possible explanation for this might be maximal strength benefits from regular exposure to high intensities (>85% 1RM) combined with adequate set volume and increased time under tension (TUT) (Burd et al., 2012; Bernárdez-Vázquez et al., 2022). The control group in this study employed an ELT design to ensure consistency in the high-intensity exercise regimen throughout the eight-week intervention. These findings align with the concept that neuromuscular adaptation is specific to both the dose and the task (Rhea et al., 2003; Škarabot et al., 2021). Schoenfeld et al. reported that lifting at intensities above 85% 1RM for multiple sets is crucial for optimizing muscle strength adaptations (Schoenfeld et al., 2021). The FCT protocol focused on movement velocity and neural activation rather than sustained load, resulting in reduced overall mechanical strain. Additionally, high-frequency plyometric training in the FCT may lead to neuromuscular fatigue, reducing motor unit recruitment efficiency and impairing the expression of maximum strength (Hung et al., 2025).
In summary, these findings suggest that FCT effectively enhances vertical jump and early acceleration rather than maximum strength. The findings have important implications for sport-specific performance, especially in badminton, where athletes need to generate propulsive velocity and impulse. Practically, coaches can use FCT to improve vertical jump and early acceleration, scheduling two weekly sessions with at least 48 hours of recovery.
4.1 Limitations
This study has limitations, including a small sample of male college badminton players, which limits its applicability to females. No long-term follow-up. The lack of physiological and neuromuscular biomarker assessments also restricts insights into training mechanisms. Future research should consider gender differences and use biomarkers to evaluate FCT effects on badminton players.
5 Conclusion
This study provides evidence that French Contrast Training (FCT) may be more effective than equal-load training (ELT) for enhancing vertical jump and early acceleration, but it was not superior to ELT for maximal strength development among male college badminton players. These findings suggest a potential role for FCT in periodized training programs. The sample size was limited to male college badminton athletes, so the findings should be interpreted cautiously. Future research should confirm these conclusions across various genders and training levels and investigate the long-term effects of FCT using biomechanical and physiological indicators.
Statements
Data availability statement
The original contributions presented in the study are publicly available. This data can be found here: Science Data Bank (Science DB) https://doi.org/10.57760/sciencedb.28819.
Ethics statement
The studies involving humans were approved by Ethics Committee of the College of Physical Education and Health Science, Chongqing Normal University. The studies were conducted in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. The participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.
Author contributions
KZ: Resources, Data curation, Project administration, Writing – original draft, Visualization, Investigation, Writing – review & editing, Conceptualization, Validation, Software, Methodology, Formal analysis, Supervision. RL: Resources, Visualization, Project administration, Investigation, Validation, Conceptualization, Writing – original draft, Methodology, Formal analysis, Supervision, Writing – review & editing, Software, Data curation. ZZ: Data curation, Writing – review & editing, Supervision, Methodology. NY: Writing – review & editing, Methodology, Data curation, Supervision. XZ: Methodology, Data curation, Supervision, Investigation, Writing – review & editing. JL: Methodology, Writing – review & editing, Data curation. ND: Writing – review & editing, Supervision. YS: Supervision, Writing – review & editing.
Funding
The author(s) declared that financial support was received for this work and/or its publication. KZ declares that financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. This research was funded by the Foundation Program of Chongqing Normal University, grant number 24XWB003.
Conflict of interest
The author(s) declared that this work was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Generative AI statement
The author(s) declared that generative AI was not used in the creation of this manuscript.
Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Supplementary material
The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fphys.2026.1777883/full#supplementary-material
References
1
AagaardP.SimonsenE. B.AndersenJ. L.MagnussonP.Dyhre-PoulsenP. (2002). Increased rate of force development and neural drive of human skeletal muscle following resistance training. J. Appl. Physiol. 93 (4), 1318–1326. doi: 10.1152/japplphysiol.00283.2002. PMID:
2
ArgusC. K.GillN. D.KeoghJ. W.BlazevichA. J.HopkinsW. G. (2011). Kinetic and training comparisons between assisted, resisted, and free countermovement jumps. J. Strength Conditioning Res.25, 2219–2227. doi: 10.1519/jsc.0b013e3181f6b0f4. PMID:
3
ArnoldE. M.HamnerS. R.SethA.MillardM.DelpS. L. (2013). How muscle fiber lengths and velocities affect muscle force generation as humans walk and run at different speeds. J. Exp. Biol.216, 2150–2160. doi: 10.1242/jeb.075697. PMID:
4
BehmD. G.KonradA.NakamuraM.AlizadehS.CulletonR.Hadjizadeh AnvarS.et al. (2024). A narrative review of velocity-based training best practice: the importance of contraction intent versus movement speed. Appl. Physiology Nutrition Metab.50, 1–9. doi: 10.1139/apnm-2024-0136. PMID:
5
Bernárdez-VázquezR.Raya-GonzálezJ.CastilloD.BeatoM. (2022). Resistance training variables for optimization of muscle hypertrophy: An umbrella review. Front. Sports Active Living4, 949021. doi: 10.3389/fspor.2022.949021
6
BishopD. (2003). Warm up I: potential mechanisms and the effects of passive warm up on exercise performance. Sports Med.33, 439–454. doi: 10.2165/00007256-200333060-00005. PMID:
7
BlazevichA. J.BabaultN. (2019). Post-activation potentiation versus post-activation performance enhancement in humans: historical perspective, underlying mechanisms, and current issues. Front. Physiol.10. doi: 10.3389/fphys.2019.01359. PMID:
8
BurdN. A.AndrewsR. J.WestD. W.LittleJ. P.CochranA. J.HectorA. J.et al. (2012). Muscle time under tension during resistance exercise stimulates differential muscle protein sub‐fractional synthetic responses in men. J. Physiol.590, 351–362. doi: 10.1113/jphysiol.2011.221200. PMID:
9
CarmonaG.Moreno-SimonetL.CosioP. L.AstrellaA.FernándezD.PadullésX.et al. (2025). Acute changes in hamstring injury risk factors after a session of high-volume maximal sprinting speed efforts in soccer players. Sports Health17, 15–26. doi: 10.1177/19417381241283814. PMID:
10
CengizelÇ.Ö.ŞenelÖ. (2025). Acute effects of the French contrast method and post activation potentiation on 3× 3 basketball game demands and thermal asymmetry responses. Appl. Sci.15, 678. doi: 10.3390/app15020678. PMID:
11
ChenH.ZhaoZ.ZhengX.CaoL.DuJ.YuZ. (2025). The effects of an 8-week French contrast training program on lower limb strength and power in elite martial arts athletes. Front. Sports Active Living7. doi: 10.3389/fspor.2025.1686891. PMID:
12
ComfortP.HaffG. G.SuchomelT. J.SorianoM. A.PierceK. C.HornsbyW. G.et al. (2023). National Strength and Conditioning Association position statement on weightlifting for sports performance. J. Strength Conditioning Res.37, 1163–1190. doi: 10.1519/jsc.0000000000004476. PMID:
13
CormieP.McGuiganM. R.NewtonR. U. (2011a). Developing maximal neuromuscular power: part 2—training considerations for improving maximal power production. Sports Med.41, 125–146. doi: 10.2165/11538500-000000000-00000. PMID:
14
CormieP.McGuiganM. R.NewtonR. U. (2011b). Developing maximal neuromuscular power: part 1—biological basis of maximal power production. Sports Med.41, 17–38. doi: 10.2165/11538500-000000000-00000. PMID:
15
CormierP.FreitasT. T.LoturcoI.TurnerA.VirgileA.HaffG. G.et al. (2022). Within session exercise sequencing during programming for complex training: historical perspectives, terminology, and training considerations. Sports Med. (Auckland NZ)52, 2371–2389. doi: 10.1007/s40279-022-01715-x. PMID:
16
DaviesG.RiemannB. L.ManskeR. (2015). Current concepts of plyometric exercise. Int. J. Sports Phys. Ther.10, 760. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198201533.003.0002. PMID:
17
EdelA.WeisJ.-L.FerrautiA.WiewelhoveT. (2023). Training drills in high performance badminton—effects of interval duration on internal and external loads. Front. Physiol.14. doi: 10.3389/fphys.2023.1189688. PMID:
18
ElbadryN.HamzaA.PietraszewskiP.AlexeD. I.LupuG. (2019). Effect of the French contrast method on explosive strength and kinematic parameters of the triple jump among female college athletes. J. Hum. Kinetics69, 225–230. doi: 10.2478/hukin-2019-0047. PMID:
19
Fernandez-FernandezJ.LoturcoI.Hernández-DavóJ. L.NakamuraF. Y.García-TormoV.Álvarez-DacalF.et al. (2022). On-court change of direction test: an effective approach to assess COD performance in badminton players. J. Hum. Kinetics82, 155. doi: 10.2478/hukin-2022-0042. PMID:
20
GordonT.JeanfavreM.LeffG. (2024). Effects of tempo-controlled resistance training on corticospinal tract plasticity in healthy controls: a systematic review. Healthcare. 12 (13), 1325. doi: 10.3390/healthcare12131325
21
HealdJ. B.FranklinD. W.WolpertD. M. (2018). Increasing muscle co-contraction speeds up internal model acquisition during dynamic motor learning. Sci. Rep.8, 16355. doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-34737-5. PMID:
22
Hernández-PreciadoJ. A.BazE.Balsalobre-FernándezC.MarchanteD.Santos-ConcejeroJ. (2018). Potentiation effects of the French contrast method on vertical jumping ability. J. Strength Conditioning Res.32, 1909–1914. doi: 10.1519/jsc.0000000000002437. PMID:
23
HirayamaK.IwanumaS.IkedaN.YoshikawaA.EmaR.KawakamiY. (2017). Plyometric training favors optimizing muscle–tendon behavior during depth jumping. Front. Physiol.8. doi: 10.3389/fphys.2017.00016. PMID:
24
HolzerD.HahnD.SchwirtzA.SiebertT.SeiberlW. (2024). Decoupling of muscle-tendon unit and fascicle velocity contributes to the in vivo stretch-shortening cycle effect in the male human triceps surae muscle. Physiol. Rep.12, e70131. doi: 10.14814/phy2.70131. PMID:
25
HuR.ZhaoM.ShenX.WangZ. (2025). The effects of an 8-week complex training program on lower limb explosive power and movement agility in adolescent female badminton players. Front. Physiol.16. doi: 10.3389/fphys.2025.1678866. PMID:
26
HungC.-H.SuC.-H.WangD. (2025). The role of high-intensity interval training (HIIT) in neuromuscular adaptations: implications for strength and power development—a review. Life.15, 657. doi: 10.3390/life15040657. PMID:
27
IssurinV. (2008). Block periodization versus traditional training theory: a review. J. Sports Medicinephysical Fitness48, 65.
28
IssurinV. B. (2016). Benefits and limitations of block periodized training approaches to athletes’ preparation: a review. Sports Med.46, 329–338. doi: 10.1007/s40279-015-0425-5. PMID:
29
KarabelF.MakaracıY. (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. Appl. Sci.15, 4079. doi: 10.3390/app15084079. PMID:
30
KeinerM.WarnekeK.WagnerC.-M.LohmannL.SiegelS.BraunerT. (2025). Reliability challenges in 1RM parallel back squat testing: the critical role of squat depth. J. Sci. Sport Exercise7, 1–8. doi: 10.1007/s42978-025-00346-8. PMID:
31
KimM.-S.LeeS.-H.KimT.-Y. (2021). Effects of plyometric training on electromechanical delay of college women. Iranian J. Public Health50, 1907. doi: 10.18502/ijph.v50i9.7074. PMID:
32
KoźleniaD.DomaradzkiJ. (2024). Potentiation with overspeed for jump height enhancement: an analysis of factors distinguishing responders from non-responders. Appl. Sci.14, 6618. doi: 10.3390/app14156618
33
KuboK.IkebukuroT.YataH. (2021). Effects of plyometric training on muscle–tendon mechanical properties and behavior of fascicles during jumping. Physiol. Rep.9, e15073. doi: 10.14814/phy2.15073. PMID:
34
LichtwarkG. A.WilsonA. (2006). Interactions between the human gastrocnemius muscle and the Achilles tendon during incline, level and decline locomotion. J. Exp. Biol.209, 4379–4388. doi: 10.1242/jeb.02434. PMID:
35
LongM.FeeC.TaberC. (2023). The French contrast method—theory and application. Natl. Strength Cond Assoc.9, 18–25.
36
LuT.PengW.YiM.ChenN.HanY.HuangJ.et al. (2025). The effects of velocity-versus percentage-based resistance training on lower limb explosive power and footwork movement speed in elite university badminton players. Appl. Sci.15, 2434. doi: 10.3390/app15052434. PMID:
37
MaffiulettiN. A.AagaardP.BlazevichA. J.FollandJ.TillinN.DuchateauJ. (2016). Rate of force development: physiological and methodological considerations. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol.116, 1091–1116. doi: 10.1007/s00421-016-3346-6. PMID:
38
MaloneyS. (2018). A review of the badminton lunge and specific training considerations, strength cond. Strength Conditioning J.1, 7–17. doi: 10.1519/ssc.0000000000000378
39
NoufalK. V. I.VasanthiG.ElayarajaM.MurugesanR.RajpootY. S.GovindasamyK.et al. (2024). Impact of French contrast training on field hockey player's biomotor and physiological parameters: a pretest-posttest study. Retos-Nuevas Tendencias En Educacion Fisica Deporte Y. Recreacion. 58, 1097–1105. doi: 10.47197/retos.v58.106974
40
PagaduanJ.PojskicH. (2020). A meta-analysis on the effect of complex training on vertical jump performance. J. Hum. Kinetics71, 255. doi: 10.2478/hukin-2019-0087. PMID:
41
PengH.-T.ChangH.-K.ChenH.-W.HuangT.-I.ChenH. (2023). Neuromuscular changes in drop jumps on different common material surfaces with incremental drop heights. Appl. Sci.13, 5123. doi: 10.3390/app13085123. PMID:
42
PhomsouphaM.LaffayeG. (2015). The science of badminton: game characteristics, anthropometry, physiology, visual fitness and biomechanics. Sports Med.45, 473–495. doi: 10.1007/s40279-014-0287-2. PMID:
43
RaiteriB. J.CresswellA. G.LichtwarkG. A. (2018). Muscle-tendon length and force affect human tibialis anterior central aponeurosis stiffness in vivo. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.115, E3097–EE105. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1712697115. PMID:
44
Ramirez-CampilloR.ThapaR. K.AfonsoJ.Perez-CastillaA.BishopC.ByrneP. J.et al. (2023). Effects of plyometric jump training on the reactive strength index in healthy individuals across the lifespan: A systematic review with meta-analysis. Sports Med.53, 1029–1053. doi: 10.1007/s40279-023-01825-0. PMID:
45
RebeloA.PereiraJ. R.MartinhoD. V.Valente-Dos-SantosJ. (2023). Effects of a velocity-based complex training program in young female artistic roller skating athletes. J. Hum. Kinetics86, 217–234. doi: 10.5114/jhk/159654. PMID:
46
RheaM. R.AlvarB. A.BurkettL. N.BallS. D. (2003). A meta-analysis to determine the dose response for strength development. Med. Sci. Sports Exercise35, 456–464. doi: 10.1249/01.mss.0000053727.63505.d4. PMID:
47
Riscart-LópezJ.Sánchez-ValdepeñasJ.Colomina-ClemensF.Crespo-GarcíaE.de Castro-MaquedaG.Rosety-RodríguezM.Á.et al. (2025). Effects of different ranges of loads on physical performance using velocity-based resistance training. Sports13, 121. doi: 10.3390/sports13040121. PMID:
48
RusdianaA.KomainiA.NugrahaS. (2023). Impact of cardiovascular fatigue on kinematic changes in badminton overhead jump smash: a descriptive analysis. J. Phys. Educ. Sport23, 2786–2793. doi: 10.7752/jpes.2023.10318
49
SalamM. B.SherifS. (2020). Effect of French contrast training on bone mineral density and complex skills performance for soccer players. Ovidius Univ. Annals Ser. Phys. Educ. Sport/Science Movement Health20, 142–148.
50
SamozinoP.EdouardP.SangnierS.BrughelliM.GimenezP.MorinJ.-B. (2014). Force-velocity profile: imbalance determination and effect on lower limb ballistic performance. Int. J. Sports Med.35, 505–510. doi: 10.1055/s-0033-1354382. PMID:
51
SanpasittC.ApanukulS. (2023). Examining the impact of contrast training protocols on vertical jump ability in varsity basketball players by inducing post-activation performance enhancement. J. Phys. Educ. Sport23, 3024–3031. doi: 10.7752/jpes.2023.11
52
SantosP. D.VazJ. R.CorreiaP. F.ValamatosM. J.VelosoA. P.Pezarat-CorreiaP. (2021). Intermuscular coordination in the power clean exercise: Comparison between Olympic weightlifters and untrained individuals—A preliminary study. Sensors21, 1904. doi: 10.3390/s21051904. PMID:
53
SchoenfeldB. J.GrgicJ.Van EveryD. W.PlotkinD. L. (2021). Loading recommendations for muscle strength, hypertrophy, and local endurance: a re-examination of the repetition continuum. Sports9, 32. doi: 10.3390/sports9020032. PMID:
54
ShenX.LiH.YanK.ZhangS.LiL. (2025). Effects of 8-week complex and resistance training on strength and power in adolescent long jumpers. Sci. Rep.15, 21329. doi: 10.1038/s41598-025-05800-9. PMID:
55
ŠkarabotJ.BrownsteinC. G.CasoloA.Del VecchioA.AnsdellP. (2021). The knowns and unknowns of neural adaptations to resistance training. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol.121, 675–685. doi: 10.1007/s00421-020-04567-3
56
TsoukosA.VeligekasP.BrownL. E.TerzisG.BogdanisG. C. (2018). Delayed effects of a low-volume, power-type resistance exercise session on explosive performance. J. Strength Conditioning Res.32, 643–650. doi: 10.1519/jsc.0000000000001812. PMID:
57
TufanoJ. J.AmonetteW. E. (2018). Assisted versus resisted training: which is better for increasing jumping and sprinting? Strength Conditioning J.40, 106–110. doi: 10.1519/ssc.0000000000000362
58
TürkarslanB.DeliceogluG. (2024). The effects of the French contrast method on soccer player's jumping, sprinting and balance performance. J. Musculoskeletal Neuronal Interact.24, 209–215.
59
ValappilI. N. K.VasanthiG.ElayarajaM.OrhanB. E.AstutiY.KatanicB.et al. (2024). Impact of three weekly sessions of complex versus French contrast training on physical and physiological responses in field hockey players: a randomized control trial. Montenegrin J. Sports Sci. Med. doi: 10.26773/mjssm.250308
60
Van HoorenB.BoschF. (2016). Influence of muscle slack on high-intensity sport performance: a review. Strength Conditioning J.38, 75–87. doi: 10.1519/ssc.0000000000000251
61
Van HoorenB.ZolotarjovaJ. (2017). The difference between countermovement and squat jump performances: a review of underlying mechanisms with practical applications. J. Strength Conditioning Res.31, 2011–2020. doi: 10.1519/jsc.0000000000001913. PMID:
62
WangX.LvC.QinX.JiS.DongD. (2023). Effectiveness of plyometric training vs. complex training on the explosive power of lower limbs: a systematic review. Front. Physiol.13. doi: 10.3389/fphys.2022.1061110. PMID:
63
WangT.Yee GuanN.AmriS.KamaldenT. F.GaoZ. (2025). Effects of resistance training on performance in competitive badminton players: a systematic review. Front. Physiol.16. doi: 10.3389/fphys.2025.1548869. PMID:
64
WelchM. L.LopatofskyE. T.MorrisJ. R.TaberC. B.. (2019). Effects of the French Contrast Method on maximum strength and vertical jumping performance. 14th Annual Coaching and Sport Science College. December 2019. Johnson City, TN.
65
ZhaoZ.MaZ.WuC.ZhengX.LiuT.DengN.et al. (2025). The effects of French contrast training on lower limb athletic performance in healthy adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Front. Physiol.16. doi: 10.3389/fphys.2025.1672353. PMID:
66
ZimmermannH. B.MacIntoshB. R.Dal PupoJ. (2020). Does postactivation potentiation (PAP) increase voluntary performance? Appl. Physiology Nutrition Metab.45, 349–356. doi: 10.1139/apnm-2019-0406. PMID:
Summary
Keywords
acceleration, French contrast training, maximal strength, mean concentric velocity, sprint, vertical jump
Citation
Zhou K, Lin R, Zhao Z, Yu N, Zheng X, Li J, Deng N and Sun Y (2026) Effects of an eight-week French contrast training program on lower-limb explosive power, acceleration, and muscle strength in male college badminton players. Front. Physiol. 17:1777883. doi: 10.3389/fphys.2026.1777883
Received
30 December 2025
Revised
12 March 2026
Accepted
16 March 2026
Published
02 April 2026
Volume
17 - 2026
Edited by
Eduardo Piedrafita, Universidad San Jorge, Spain
Reviewed by
Dominik Kolinger, Charles University, Czechia
Yücel Makaracı, Karamanoğlu Mehmetbey University, Türkiye
Updates
Copyright
© 2026 Zhou, Lin, Zhao, Yu, Zheng, Li, Deng and Sun.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Yu’an Sun, ssssyyyyaaaa@163.com
†These authors have contributed equally to this work and share first authorship
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.