Tingting Wang
Haiting Zhai
Hao Yan2
Hongwen Wei
Qian Geng- 1Beijing Sport Science Institute, Beijing, China
- 2Key Laboratory for Performance Training and Recovery of General Administration of Sport, Beijing Sport University, Beijing, China
- 3Naval Aviation University, Yantai, China
- 4Zhejiang College of Construction, Beijing, China
- 5University of Macau, Macao, China
- 6School of Continuous Education, Beijing Sport University, Beijing, China
Objective: Change of direction (COD) and jump performance are critical for success in many sports. Sand training, utilizing an unstable surface, is believed to improve these abilities, but its effectiveness compared to hard-surface training remains unclear. This study aims to compare the effects of sand training versus hard-surface training on COD and jump performance.
Methods: A systematic search was conducted across PubMed, MEDLINE, CENTRAL, Scopus, and Web of Science databases. Data were analyzed using Stata 15 and RevMan. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the PEDro scale.
Results: Fourteen studies met the inclusion criteria. No publication bias was detected (p > 0.05). Sand training showed greater effectiveness than hard-surface training in the T-test (SMD = −0.80, p = 0.04) and standing long jump (SLJ) (SMD = 0.85, p = 0.004). For the T-test, training programs longer than 6 weeks (SMD = −1.19, p = 0.007), with 3 sessions per week (SMD = −1.15, p = 0.01), and sessions lasting less than 40 min (SMD = −1.10, p = 0.01) yielded better results. For SLJ, programs lasting over 6 weeks (SMD = 1.42, p = 0.05) with more than 3 sessions per week (SMD = 1.04, p = 0.003) were more effective. Trained individuals showed greater improvements in the T-test (SMD = −1.44, p = 0.002), while untrained individuals demonstrated more significant improvements in the SLJ (SMD = 0.68, p = 0.005).
Conclusion: Sand training enhances COD ability and horizontal jump performance more effectively than training on hard surfaces. No significant differences were found between surfaces for countermovement jump or squat jump. For COD, training programs exceeding 6 weeks, with 3 weekly sessions lasting under 40 min, yielded better outcomes. For horizontal jump performance, training with at least 3 sessions per week for over 6 weeks proved most effective. Trained individuals benefitted more in COD ability, whereas untrained individuals saw greater improvement in horizontal jump performance.
Systematic Review Registration: Identifier CRD420251160919.
Introduction
Change of direction (COD) and jumping ability are fundamental for performance in high-intensity team sports like soccer, basketball, and rugby (Sheppard and Young, 2006). These sports require the repeated execution of rapid movements, such as abrupt stops, explosive accelerations, turns, and jumps (Makaruk et al., 2020).
COD ability is defined as a change in movement direction performed in the absence of a reaction to an external stimulus, representing a predetermined movement pattern (Sheppard and Young, 2006). According to the universal agility model, this ability is collectively influenced by leg muscle qualities, straight sprinting speed and movement technique (Young et al., 2002). Specifically, superior concentric strength and power are required to facilitate explosive reacceleration (Young et al., 2002). Simultaneously, reactive strength is heavily relied upon to optimize the efficiency of the stretch-shortening cycle (SSC) during the braking phase (Young et al., 2002). Furthermore, from a technical perspective, eccentric braking is utilized to actively lower the center of gravity and adjust stride patterns, thereby effectively controlling body inertia to execute the directional change (Sayers, 2000).
Jump performance serve as a key indicator of SSC function. Based on ground contact time, SSC is classified into slow (>250 mm) and fast (<250 mm) types (Schmidtbleicher, 1992). Typically, fast SSC is assessed using the drop jump, whereas typical assessments for slow SSC include the countermovement jump (CMJ), squat jump (SJ) and standing long jump (SLJ) (Sc and hmidtbleicher, 1987; Schmidtbleicher, 1992). Characterized by long ground contact time and large joint angular displacements, slow SSC relies primarily on active muscle contraction and adequate cross bridge formation to maximize force (Bobbert et al., 1996; Turner and Jeffreys, 2010). In contrast, fast SSC performance is predominantly determined by tendon stiffness and the recoil of elastic potential energy (Aeles and Vanwanseele, 2019; Walshe et al., 1998). Furthermore, this mechanism relies heavily on neuromuscular pre-activation and co-contraction strategies to optimize movement efficiency (Aeles and Vanwanseele, 2019).
Plyometric, strength, sprint, and sport-specific agility training are established methods for improving COD ability and jump performance (Asadi et al., 2016; Nygaard Falch et al., 2019; Sun et al., 2025). Nygaard Falch et al. demonstrated correlations ranging from moderate to large (r = 0.3–0.9) between these training modalities and COD outcomes, confirming their effectiveness (Nygaard Falch et al., 2019). In particular, plyometric and strength training yielded the most pronounced improvements in drop jump and CMJ (Nygaard Falch et al., 2019; Peterson et al., 2006). Specifically, plyometric training has been shown to enhance COD capabilities dominated by both force and velocity (Nygaard Falch et al., 2019). Moreover, these interventions optimize performance by inducing increased muscle strength, enhanced motor unit recruitment, improved intermuscular coordination, and augmented efficiency of the SSC (Nim et al., 2010; Young and Farrow, 2006). However, despite being a critical factor, the potential moderating role of the training surface on training efficacy has been largely overlooked in current literature.
Then distinct physiological and biomechanical differences exit during exercise on different training surfaces (Lejeune et al., 1998; Pinnington and Dawson, 2001; Strydom et al., 1966; Zamparo et al., 1992). These differences alter energy expenditure and neuromuscular recruitment patterns in athletes (Binnie et al., 2013; Pinnington et al., 2005; Strydom et al., 1966), thereby eliciting unique stimuli and adaptive changes.
For instance, compared to stable ground, the instability and compliance of sand surfaces result in reduced elastic energy utilization, decreased efficiency of the muscle tendon unit, and increased mechanical work (Zamparo et al., 1992). This leads to greater energy expenditure (Pinnington and Dawson, 2001). Pereira et al. proposed that sand training increases the activation magnitude of target muscles during movement, thereby enhancing neuromuscular performance (Pereira et al., 2021). Concurrently, Hammami et al. demonstrated that plyometric training on sand enhances nerve conduction velocity, motor unit recruitment, and Hoffmann reflex excitability (Hammami et al., 2020). These adaptations effectively improve neuromuscular function (Hammami et al., 2020). Furthermore, studies indicate that shock absorptive capacity of sand attenuates impact forces on soft tissues and bones compared to rigid surfaces, such as wooden floors or grass (Mirzaei et al., 2014; Miyama and Nosaka, 2004). This attenuation decreases muscle soreness and injury risk, offering potential value during preseason and rehabilitation periods (Mirzaei et al., 2014; Miyama and Nosaka, 2004).
However, evidence regarding the superiority of sand training over other surfaces remains inconsistent. Impellizzeri et al. observed that plyometric training on both sand and grass improved sprint performance. For jump performance, grass training significantly enhanced CMJ height, whereas sand training elicited greater improvements in SJ (Impellizzeri et al., 2008). Conversely, a meta-analysis by Pereira er al. Reported that while sand training effectively improved jump and sprint abilities, its efficacy was similar to that of rigid surfaces (Pereira et al., 2021). In fact, researches indicate that compliant sand surfaces significantly reduce the efficiency of the SSC, thereby limiting speed and power performance (Binnie et al., 2014; Pereira et al., 2021). This limitation occurs because sand dissipates more energy upon landing compared to rigid surfaces, resulting in reduced stride length and horizontal velocity (Alcaraz et al., 2011). Concurrently, surface instability attenuates the myotatic reflex upon landing, reduces the storage and reuse of elastic energy, and prolongs the amortization phase, diminishing the potentiation effect of the SSC (de Villarreal et al., 2024; Impellizzeri et al., 2008; Singh et al., 2014). Collectively, conclusions regarding the impact of different training surfaces on athletic performance remain inconclusive. These discrepancies likely stem from multifactorial differences in training protocols, including load, frequency and duration. Variables that require systematic quantification and comparison. Furthermore, the inclusion of non-randomized studies in previous reviews may have compromised the reliability of their conclusions.
The dose-response relationship between sand training and athletic performance requires further investigation. Therefore, this study aims to: (a) systematically evaluate the effects of sand versus firm-ground training on COD ability and jump performance via meta-analysis; (b) assess dose-response relationships through subgroup analysis of training volume; and (c) develop evidence-based guidelines for sand training prescription.
Methods
This systematic review and meta-analysis followed the 2020 PRISMA guidelines (Table 1). The protocol was prospectively registered in the PROSPERO database (ID: CRD420251160919).
Table 1. PRISMA 2020 checklist.
Search strategy
Literature searches were conducted in five databases—PubMed, MEDLINE, CENTRAL, Scopus, and Web of Science—up to 31 October 2025. Search terms were derived from existing literature and the study’s objectives, combined using Boolean operators (AND/OR) across four conceptual categories: (“Training” OR “Sprint Training” OR “Plyometric Training” OR “Physical Training” OR “Sand Exercise”) AND (“Sand” OR “Beach”) AND (“Jump Height” OR “Jump Distance” OR “Countermovement Jump” OR “CMJ” OR “Squat Jump” OR “SJ” OR “Standing Long Jump” OR “SLJ” OR “Change Of Direction” OR “Agility” OR “T-Test” OR “Illinois Agility Test”) AND (“Healthy People” OR “Adults” OR “Athletes” OR “Adolescents” OR “Children” OR “Young People”).
Data extraction
Two independent reviewers (T.T.W. and H.T.Z.) extracted data using a standardized form. The extracted data included post-intervention means and standard deviations, as well as study characteristics such as basic information (authors, publication year, sample size), intervention parameters (type, weekly frequency, total duration), participant demographics (sex, age, training background), and outcome measures (jump tests: CMJ, SJ, SLJ; COD: T-Test). Any discrepancies in data extraction were resolved through consultation with a third reviewer (H.Y.).
Inclusion and exclusion criteria
Study eligibility was determined based on the PICOS framework. The specific inclusion and exclusion criteria are outlined in Table 2.
Table 2. Study inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Risk of bias assessment
Methodological quality and risk of bias were assessed using the PEDro scale (Nakagawa et al., 2017). Two reviewers independently rated each study, and disagreements were resolved by consensus with a third reviewer. The first item of the PEDro scale was excluded from the total score. A total score of six or higher was considered to indicate high methodological quality.
Statistical analysis
Data were presented as mean ± standard deviation and analyzed using Stata (version 15, Stata Corp LLC, College Station, TX, USA) and RevMan (version 5.4, Cochrane Collaboration, Oxford, United Kingdom). Effect sizes were calculated using standardized mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals. Statistical consistency was ensured by defining effect size directionality: A negative SMD indicates performance improvement for COD time, and a positive SMD indicates improvement for jump distance. SMDs were interpreted as: trivial (SMD <0.20), small (SMD 0.20–0.60), moderate (SMD 0.61–1.20), large (SMD 1.21–2.00), and very large (SMD >2.00) (Hedges, 1985). Between-study heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 statistic, with values interpreted as: low (<25%), moderate (25%–75%), and high (>75%) (Nakagawa et al., 2017). Publication bias was evaluated using funnel plots (Peters et al., 2008) and Egger’s regression test (Egger et al., 1997). If Egger’s test indicated potential bias (p < 0.05), the trim-and-fill method was used to adjust effect sizes (Peters et al., 2007). Sensitivity analyses were conducted to test the robustness of the results, and subgroup analyses were performed on the reported outcomes.
Results
Study selection
The study selection process is shown in the PRISMA flow diagram (Figure 1). The initial search identified 445 records, of which 356 duplicates were removed. After the removal of duplicates, 89 records were screened. Title and abstract screening excluded 23 reviews and meta-analyses, and 47 irrelevant studies. Seventeen articles underwent full-text review. Two studies were excluded due to unretrievable data, leaving 14 studies for the final quantitative synthesis.
Figure 1. PRISMA flowchart of study selection.
Study characteristics
The analysis included 14 studies comprising 337 participants (47 females vs. 290 males) aged 12–32 years (Table 3). Participant populations consisted of soccer players (5 studies) (Impellizzeri et al., 2008; Pereira et al., 2023a; Pereira et al., 2023b; Ramirez-Campillo et al., 2020; Zhang et al., 2024), volleyball players (3 studies) (Ahmadi et al., 2021; Sharma and Chaubey, 2013; Yu et al., 2025), and individual studies of basketball (Ozen et al., 2020), tennis (Fernandez-Fernandez et al., 2024), handball (Hammami et al., 2020), and taekwondo (Xie et al., 2025) athletes. Two additional studies examined university students (Meena and Mathur, 2024) and healthy male participants (Arazi et al., 2014), respectively. Experimental groups completed plyometric, sprint, or combined training on sand surfaces, while control groups performed matching training on alternative surfaces. Session durations ranged from 10 to 120 min. Training was typically conducted 3 times per week (range: 1–3 sessions) over 4–12 weeks, with 6–8 weeks representing the most common intervention period.
Table 3. Characteristics of the studies included in this meta-analysis.
Overall effects on COD and jump performance
Sand training demonstrated superior T-test performance compared to other surfaces (SMD: 0.80; 95% CI: 1.55, −0.06; p = 0.04; I2 = 80%; Figure 2). Similarly, sand training produced better SLJ results (SMD: 0.85; 95% CI: 0.27, 1.43; p = 0.004; I2 = 68%; Figure 3). In contrast, surface type showed no significant effect on CMJ (SMD: 0.10; 95% CI: 0.25, 0.46; p = 0.57; I2 = 35%; Figure 3) or SJ (SMD: 0.16; 95% CI: 0.21, 0.53; p = 0.39; I2 = 0%; Figure 3) performance.
Figure 2. Comparison of training surface on COD performance.
![Forest plot comparing sand and other surfaces for three subgroups: CMJ, SJ, and SLJ. Each subgroup shows study details with mean differences. The overall effect favors sand with a standardized mean difference of 0.36 [0.07, 0.66]. Heterogeneity is noted in SLJ. Individual studies are plotted with confidence intervals, and combined results are displayed with diamonds.](https://www.frontiersin.org/files/Articles/1737074/fphys-16-1737074-HTML/image_m/fphys-16-1737074-g003.jpg)
Figure 3. Comparison of training surface on Jump performance.
Subgroup analysis of COD ability
For intervention duration (Figure 4), sand training lasting over >6 weeks showed better T-test results than other surfaces (SMD: 1.19; 95% CI: 2.05, −0.07; p = 0.007; I2 = 79%). No difference was observed for programs lasting 6 weeks or less (SMD: 0.05; 95% CI: 0.63, 0.74; p = 0.88; I2 = 20%). For training frequency (Figure 5), sand training with three sessions per week improved T-test performance more than other surfaces (SMD: 1.15; 95% CI: 2.02, −0.28; p = 0.01; I2 = 81%). No benefit was found with two weekly sessions (SMD: 0.12; 95% CI: 0.71, 0.95; p = 0.77; I2 = 23%). For session duration (Figure 6), sand training lasting ≤40 min produced better T-test results (SMD: 1.10; 95% CI: 1.95, −0.25; p = 0.01; I2 = 55%). Longer sessions showed no significant advantage. For training background (Figure 7), experienced participants benefited more from sand training (SMD: 1.44; 95% CI: 2.34, −0.55; p = 0.002; I2 = 72%). No benefit was seen in participants without training experience (SMD: 0.09; 95% CI: 0.55, 0.37; p = 0.71; I2 = 0%).
Figure 4. Effect of intervention duration on COD performance with different training surface.
Figure 5. Effect of intervention frequency on COD performance with different training surface.
Figure 6. Effect of intervention session on COD performance with different training surface.
Figure 7. Effect of training background on COD performance with different training surface.
Subgroup analysis of SLJ ability
Regarding intervention duration (Figure 8), sand training lasting >6 weeks (SMD: 1.42; 95% CI: 0.00, 2.83; p = 0.05; I2 = 85%) and ≤6 weeks (SMD: 0.61, 95% CI: 0.04, 1.18; p = 0.04; I2 = 48%) all showed better SLJ results than other surface. However, longer training periods yield superior improvements. For training frequency (Figure 9), sand training performed ≥3 times per week improved SLJ performance more than other surfaces (SMD: 1.04; 95% CI: 0.34, 1.74; p = 0.003; I2 = 72%). No benefit was found with fewer than 3 weekly sessions. For training background (Figure 10), participants without training experience had better SLJ results with sand training (SMD: 0.68; 95% CI: 0.21, 1.15; p = 0.005; I2 = 0%). No significant difference was seen in experienced participants (SMD: 0.96; 95% CI: 0.11, 2.03; p = 0.08; I2 = 82%).
Figure 8. Effect of intervention duration on SLJ performance with different training surface.
Figure 9. Effect of intervention session on SLJ performance with different training surface.
Figure 10. Effect of training background on SLJ performance with different training surface.
Methodological quality assessment
Based on the PEDro scale evaluations (Table 4), all 14 included studies exhibited good methodological quality, with scores ranging from six to 7. Blinding of participants, instructors, or outcome assessors was generally not implemented, with one exception that employed a single-blind design (Ozen et al., 2020). This lack of blinding, which is typical in exercise intervention research, represents the primary methodological limitation of the present review.
Table 4. Methodological quality assessment PEDro.
Publication bias
No publication bias was detected for any outcome, as shown by the funnel plot (Figures 11A–D) and Egger’s test (Table 5). The results were as follows: T-test (t = 0.25, p = 0.82), CMJ (t = −0.73, p = 0.49), SJ (t = 2.10, p = 0.13) and SLJ (t = −1.09, p = 0.32).
Figure 11. Funnel Plot. (A) T-test; (B) CMJ; (C) SJ; (D) SLJ.
Table 5. Results of egger’s test for publication bias.
Sensitivity analysis
A leave-one-out sensitivity analysis was performed using Stata (Figures 12A–D). The results were consistent with the original findings for all tests. The T-test showed similar results (new SMD: 0.83; 95% CI: 1.60, −0.06 vs. original SMD: 0.76; 95% CI: 1.48, −0.12). Similar consistency in SMD was observed for CMJ (0.11 vs. 0.10), SJ (0.16 vs. 0.16), and SLJ (0.87 vs. 0.85). The effects of sand training were found to be robust across all analyses.
Figure 12. Sensitivity Analysis. (A) T-test; (B) CMJ; (C) SJ; (D) SLJ.
Discussion
This systematic review aimed to explore the impact of different training surface types on COD ability and jump performance, with a focus on identifying dose-response relationships. The findings suggest that sand training is more effective than firm surface training for improving COD and SLJ performance. However, no significant differences were observed for SJ or CMJ performance between surface types. These results contribute to the growing body of evidence on the efficacy of sand training, offering practical insights for designing sand-based training programs.
COD
Previous meta analyses indicate that training to enhance COD ability, including plyometrics, sprints and combined protocols, are conventionally performed on hard surfaces such as grass and rubber courts to maximize the utility of the stretch-shortening cycle (Nygaard Falch et al., 2019). However, owing to the unique mechanical properties of compliant surfaces, sand has been increasingly investigated as an alternative training modality (Binnie et al., 2014). The current findings align with existing literature. Gastón R (2025) reported that sand training significantly reduces COD completion times in team sport athletes (Sanchez-Ottado et al., 2025). Most interventions in this meta-analysis utilized plyometric or combined running-jumping protocols. Notably, the interventions in our research were not limited to plyometrics but also utilized combined sprints and jump protocols. (Fernandez-Fernandez et al., 2024; Meena and Mathur, 2024; Pereira et al., 2023a; Zhang et al., 2024). The training benefits associated with sand surfaces can be attributed to their mechanical properties. The unstable nature of sand limits elastic energy restitution, requiring increased muscular effort during extended ground contact period (Bauer et al., 1990). This leads to higher muscular activation and greater energy expenditure, promoting neural adaptations such as improved intermuscular coordination and enhanced rate of force development (Aagaard et al., 1985; Sheppard and Young, 2006). These adaptations are particularly beneficial for the rapid acceleration deceleration demands of COD tasks (Negrete and Brophy, 2000). Performance in tests such as the T-test critically depends on the ability to generate force quickly during stance phases (Sheppard and Young, 2006). Sand training appears to improve both eccentric braking capacity and concentric propulsion, thus enhancing COD efficiency (Young et al., 1995).
Notably, effective COD performance depends heavily on horizontal force application (Ramirez-Campillo et al., 2018). Supporting this, Dello Iacono (2017) and Moran (2021) found that horizontal jump training improves COD ability more than vertical jump training (Dello et al., 2017; Moran et al., 2021). This advantage is attributed to the greater horizontal force and shorter ground contact times seen in faster athletes during direction changes (Dos'Santos et al., 2020). Sand training may provide natural resistance for horizontal force development.
This study found that sand training for over 6 weeks, with 3weekly sessions under 40 min, produced better T-test results than other surfaces. Previous reviews have shown that 2-3 sessions per week for 6–8 weeks improve COD ability (Asadi et al., 2016). Short term plyometric training helps youth and amateur athletes, but elite athletes need longer than 6–7 weeks to improve (Slimani et al., 2016). These findings agree with our results. Longer training gives more time for neuromuscular adaptation (Slimani et al., 2016).
Training background also influences results. Individuals with prior training experience showed greater improvements in COD with sand training. The T-test involves various movements like sprinting and shuffling, and trained individuals tend to move faster during direction changes (Wheeler and Sayers, 2010). Sun (2025) confirmed that trained adults have better T–test scores (SMD = - 0.41) (Sun et al., 2025). Together, these findings suggest that longer sand training works better for improving COD ability in athletes.
Jump performance
Our study found that sand training significantly enhances SLJ performance. This finding is consistent with the meta-analysis by Gastón R et al. (2025), which confirmed that sand training improves SLJ by enhancing neuromuscular adaptations (Sanchez-Ottado et al., 2025). Training surfaces affect horizontal and vertical jumps differently due to their distinct biomechanics. The SLJ is a slow stretch-shortening cycle (SSC) movement with a low takeoff angle (<45°) (Zazulak et al., 2007). It relies more on lower body concentric power than on stored elastic energy (Harry et al., 2021). The sand surface absorbs some elastic energy during takeoff, and extra horizontal force must be produced to overcome this resistance (Lejeune et al., 1998). This overload training strengthens concentric power, thereby improving SLJ performance (Ramlan et al., 2018). Horizontal jumping requires more neuromuscular coordination than vertical jump (Brull-Muria and Beltran-Garrido, 2021; Mann et al., 2021; Rodríguez-Perea et al., 2023). Core muscle activation plays a critical role in trunk stability and force transfer (Brull-Muria and Beltran-Garrido, 2021; Rodríguez-Perea et al., 2023). This affects the speed of the center of mass at takeoff, which ultimately determines jump distance (Brull-Muria and Beltran-Garrido, 2021; Rodríguez-Perea et al., 2023). Furthermore, as an unstable and high resistance training surface, sand not only engages more stabilizing muscles but also enhances neural drive and force output by promoting an external focus of attention (Kibele et al., 2014; Meena and Mathur, 2024). This combination further optimizes performance in the SLJ task.
However, one study found that drop jump training on sand resulted in smaller improvements in SLJ compared to training on firm surfaces (Arazi et al., 2014). This contrasts with our findings, which may be explained by differences in movement types. Drop jumps emphasize rapid SSC with brief ground contacts, while horizontal jumping focuses on concentric power development in a slower SSC context (Bobbert et al., 1987; Harry et al., 2021). The added resistance of sand likely enhances concentric push-off power (Ramlan et al., 2018). Therefore, sand training should be tailored to the type of movement and specific training goals.
While this study and Pereira et al. observed similar CMJ and SJ improvements across surfaces (Pereira et al., 2021). However, the mechanisms behind these improvements are different (Pereira et al., 2021). The SJ primarily measures concentric strength, as it does not involve a pre-stretch (Hasson et al., 2004; McGuigan et al., 2006). On sand, less elastic energy is utilized, and ankle force is more limited, requiring greater concentric force. This explains why sand training is more effective for improving SJ (Giatsis et al., 2004). In contrast, CMJ performance heavily relies on the pre-stretch effect (Cavagna et al., 1968; Kubo et al., 1985). Hard surface training uses the eccentric phase better, making it more effective for CMJ (32). These different mechanisms may complement or offset each other, resulting in similar jump performance improvements (Ramlan et al., 2018). In contrast, muscle soreness is significantly reduced with sand training. This finding offers practical value for high volume training periods or recovery phases (Fernandez-Fernandez et al., 2024; Markovic and Mikulic, 2010). Nonetheless, findings are not entirely consistent. One study involving soccer players found that sand training improved SJ more effectively, while grass training enhanced CMJ performance (Impellizzeri et al., 2008). In summary, sand and hard surfaces improve jump performance through different mechanisms. With the effectiveness depending on the type of jump. Future studies should use magnetoencephalography and ultrasound techniques to explore these mechanisms further, particularly in different athletes and training contexts.
This study found that sand training with more than 3 weekly sessions for 4–6 weeks produced better SLJ results than training on other surfaces. Previous reviews have shown that two to 3 sessions per week for 4–8 weeks can improve jump ability, reaching a level similar to that of hard-surface training (Pereira et al., 2021). Notably, untrained individuals showed greater SLJ improvement on sand than on hard surfaces. In contrast, trained individuals improved similarly on both surfaces. These findings are consistent with previous research. People without training experience adapt more quickly in muscle activation. However, athletes with long term training need more time for lower limb adaptation (Gorostiaga et al., 2006). It is worth noting that only two studies in this analysis examined long-term training, with durations of 8 and 12 weeks (Meena and Mathur, 2024; Xie et al., 2025). Most studies used shorter programs, typically up to 6 weeks. Consequently, the long-term effects of sand training remain incompletely characterized.
Limitations
This meta-analysis has several limitations. 1) Only 14 studies were included, and some studies measured other abilities, such as the Illinois Agility Test, 505 test, Block jump, and Spike jump. However, these measures could not be included in the analysis due to the small number of studies available. 2) The reporting of training intensity and session timing was insufficient in most studies. Specifically, information regarding jump height, contact time or Rating of Perceived Exertion was lacking. This absence restricts the interpretation of neuromuscular adaptations induced by the training stimuli. 3) The comparison was strictly limited to sand versus hard surfaces. Variations within these categories, such as sand depth, natural grass, artificial turf, wood or rubber, were not individually analyzed due to insufficient data. 4) Only two studies had training periods longer than 6 weeks, making it difficult to assess the long-term effects of sand training. 5) Few studies included female athletes or non-athletes, which limits the generalizability of the findings to these populations.
Conclusion
Sand training is more effective than other surface training in improving COD ability and horizontal jump performance, while eliciting similar improvements in CMJ and SJ. For COD, the most effective training program involved more than 6 weeks of training, with 3 sessions per week, each lasting no more than 40 min. For horizontal jump performance, the most effective training program included at least 3 sessions per week for 4–6 weeks. Additionally, individuals with training experience showed more significant improvements in COD ability, while those without training experience demonstrated greater improvements in horizontal jump performance. Consequently, coaches are encouraged to strategically incorporate plyometrics, sprint interval training and combined training on sand into weekly training plans, tailored to specific performance goals and training background of the athletes.
Data availability statement
The data analyzed in this study is subject to the following licenses/restrictions: The datasets utilized for the meta-analysis in this study are not provided in the manuscript or supplementary material due to their derivative nature from published articles. However, all data underlying the findings are fully available from the original studies cited in the reference list. Requests to access these datasets should be directed to Tingting Wang; MjAyMzIxMDExOEBic3UuZWR1LmNu.
Author contributions
TW: Conceptualization, Writing – original draft, Data curation, Methodology. HZ: Writing – review and editing, Methodology, Investigation, Supervision. HY: Conceptualization, Writing – original draft, Supervision, Methodology. ZL: Writing – original draft, Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Supervision. YZ: Writing – original draft, Methodology, Formal analysis, Supervision. HW: Conceptualization, Supervision, Writing – review and editing, Formal analysis. QG: Conceptualization, Supervision, Writing – review and editing, Methodology.
Funding
The author(s) declared that financial support was not received for this work and/or its publication.
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.
Footnotes
Abbreviations:COD, Change of Direction; SJ, Squat Jump; SLJ, Standing Long Jump; CMJ, Countermovement Jump; SSC, Stretch-Shortening Cycle; SMD, Standardized Mean Difference; PRISMA, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses; PROSPERO, International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews.
References
Aagaard P., Simonsen E. B., Andersen J. L., Magnusson P., Dyhre-Poulsen P. (1985). 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
Aeles J., Vanwanseele B. (2019). Do stretch-shortening cycles really occur in the medial gastrocnemius? A detailed bilateral analysis of the muscle-tendon interaction during jumping. Front. Physiol., 10–2019. doi:10.3389/fphys.2019.01504
Ahmadi M., Nobari H., Ramirez-Campillo R., Pérez-Gómez J., Ribeiro A. L. A., Martínez-Rodríguez A. (2021). Effects of plyometric jump training in sand or rigid surface on jump-related biomechanical variables and physical fitness in female volleyball players. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 18 (24). doi:10.3390/ijerph182413093
Alcaraz P. E., Palao J. M., Elvira J., Linthorne N. P. (2011). Effects of a sand running surface on the kinematics of sprinting at maximum velocity. Biol. Sport 28, 95–100. doi:10.5604/942737
Arazi H., Mohammadi M., Asadi A. (2014). Muscular adaptations to depth jump plyometric training: comparison of sand vs. land surface. Interv. Med. Appl. Sci. 6 (3), 125–130. doi:10.1556/IMAS.6.2014.3.5
Asadi A., Arazi H., Young W. B., Sáez de Villarreal E. (2016). The effects of plyometric training on change-of-direction ability: a meta-analysis. Int. J. Sports Physiol. Perform. 11 (5), 563–573. doi:10.1123/ijspp.2015-0694
Bauer T., Thayer R. E., Baras G. (1990). Comparison of training modalities for power development in the lower extremity. J. Strength and Cond. Res. 4 (4), 115. doi:10.1519/1533-4287(1990)004<0115:cotmfp>2.3.co;2
Binnie M. J., Peeling P., Pinnington H., Landers G., Dawson B. (2013). Effect of surface-specific training on 20-m sprint performance on sand and grass surfaces. J. Strength and Cond. Res. 27 (12), 3515–3520. doi:10.1519/JSC.0b013e31828f043f
Binnie M. J., Dawson B., Pinnington H., Landers G., Peeling P. (2014). Sand training: a review of current research and practical applications. J. Sports Sci. 32 (1), 8–15. doi:10.1080/02640414.2013.805239
Bobbert M. F., Huijing P. A., van Ingen Schenau G. J. (1987). Drop jumping. I. The influence of jumping technique on the biomechanics of jumping. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc 19 (4), 332–338. doi:10.1249/00005768-198708000-00003
Bobbert M. F., Gerritsen K. G., Litjens M. C., Van Soest A. J. (1996). Why is countermovement jump height greater than squat jump height? Med. Sci. Sports Exerc 28, 1402–1412. doi:10.1097/00005768-199611000-00009
Brull-Muria E., Beltran-Garrido J. V. (2021). Effects of a specific core stability program on the sprint and change-of-direction maneuverability performance in youth, Male soccer players. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 18 (19), 10116. doi:10.3390/ijerph181910116
Cavagna G. A., Dusman B., Margaria R. (1968). Positive work done by a previously stretched muscle. J. Appl. Physiol. 24 (1), 21–32. doi:10.1152/jappl.1968.24.1.21
de Villarreal E. S., Rascón P. B., Becerra M. O., Calleja-González J., Alcaraz P. E., Feito-Blanco J., et al. (2024). Effects of sand surface plyometric and sprint training on physical and technical skill performance in beach handball players. J. Hum. Kinet. 90, 227–237. doi:10.5114/jhk/169519
Dello I. A., Martone D., Milic M., Padulo J. (2017). Vertical-vs. horizontal-oriented drop jump training: chronic effects on explosive performances of elite handball players. J. Strength Cond. Res. 31 (4), 921–931. doi:10.1519/JSC.0000000000001555
Dos'Santos T., McBurnie A., Thomas C., Comfort P., Jones P. A. (2020). Biomechanical determinants of the modified and traditional 505 change of direction speed test. J. Strength Cond. Res. 34 (5), 1285–1296. doi:10.1519/JSC.0000000000003439
Egger M., Davey Smith G., Schneider M., Minder C. (1997). Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. Bmj 315 (7109), 629–634. doi:10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629
Fernandez-Fernandez J., Nakamura F. Y., Boullosa D., Santos-Rosa F. J., Herrero-Molleda A., Granacher U., et al. (2024). The effects of neuromuscular training on sand versus hard surfaces on physical fitness in young male tennis players. Int. J. Sports Physiol. Perform. 19 (1), 71–79. doi:10.1123/ijspp.2023-0162
Giatsis G., Kollias I., Panoutsakopoulos V., Papaiakovou G. (2004). Biomechanical differences in elite beach-volleyball players in vertical squat jump on rigid and sand surface. Sports Biomech. 3 (1), 145–158. doi:10.1080/14763140408522835
Gorostiaga E. M., Granados C., Ibañez J., González-Badillo J. J., Izquierdo M. (2006). Effects of an entire season on physical fitness changes in elite Male handball players. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc 38 (2), 357–366. doi:10.1249/01.mss.0000184586.74398.03
Hammami M., Bragazzi N. L., Hermassi S., Gaamouri N., Aouadi R., Shephard R. J., et al. (2020). The effect of a sand surface on physical performance responses of junior male handball players to plyometric training. BMC Sports Sci. Med. Rehabil. 12 (1), 26. doi:10.1186/s13102-020-00176-x
Harry J. R., Krzyszkowski J., Chowning L. D., Kipp K. (2021). Phase-specific force and time predictors of standing long jump distance. J. Appl. Biomechanics 37 (5), 400–407. doi:10.1123/jab.2021-0093
Hasson C. J., Dugan E. L., Doyle T. L., Humphries B., Newton R. U. (2004). Neuromechanical strategies employed to increase jump height during the initiation of the squat jump. J. Electromyogr. Kinesiol 14 (4), 515–521. doi:10.1016/j.jelekin.2003.12.004
Impellizzeri F. M., Rampinini E., Castagna C., Martino F., Fiorini S., Wisloff U. (2008). Effect of plyometric training on sand versus grass on muscle soreness and jumping and sprinting ability in soccer players. Br. J. Sports Med. 42 (1), 42–46. doi:10.1136/bjsm.2007.038497
Kibele A., Classen C., Muehlbauer T., Granacher U., Behm D. G. (2014). Metastability in plyometric training on unstable surfaces: a pilot study. BMC Sports Sci. Med. Rehabil. 6, 30. doi:10.1186/2052-1847-6-30
Kubo K., Kawakami Y., Fukunaga T. (1985). Influence of elastic properties of tendon structures on jump performance in humans. J. Appl. Physiol. 87 (6), 2090–2096. doi:10.1152/jappl.1999.87.6.2090
Lejeune T. M., Willems P. A., Heglund N. C. (1998). Mechanics and energetics of human locomotion on sand. J. Exp. Biol. 201 (13), 2071–2080. doi:10.1242/jeb.201.13.2071
Makaruk H., Starzak M., Suchecki B., Czaplicki M., Stojiljković N. (2020). The effects of assisted and resisted plyometric training programs on vertical jump performance in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Sports Sci. Med. 19 (2), 347–357.
Mann J. B., Bird M., Signorile J. F., Brechue W. F., Mayhew J. L. (2021). Prediction of anaerobic power from standing long jump in NCAA division IA football players. J. Strength and Cond. Res. 35 (6), 1542–1546. doi:10.1519/JSC.0000000000004043
Markovic G., Mikulic P. (2010). Neuro-musculoskeletal and performance adaptations to lower-extremity plyometric training. Sports Med. 40 (10), 859–895. doi:10.2165/11318370-000000000-00000
Marzouki H., Ouergui I., Dridi R., Selmi O., Mbarki R., Mjadri N., et al. (2022). Effects of four weeks of plyometric training performed in different training surfaces on physical performances in school children: age and sex comparisons. Children 9 (12). doi:10.3390/children9121914
McGuigan M. R., Doyle T. L., Newton M., Edwards D. J., Nimphius S., Newton R. U. (2006). Eccentric utilization ratio: effect of sport and phase of training. J. Strength Cond. Res. 20 (4), 992–995. doi:10.1519/R-19165.1
Meena S., Mathur A. (2024). Comparative effects of physical training on sand and land surface on selected components of motor fitness. Int. J. Physiology, Exerc. Phys. Educ. 6 (2), 184–189. doi:10.33545/26647249.2024.v6.i2c.140
Mirzaei B., Norasteh A., Sáez de Villarreal E., Asadi A. (2014). Effects of 6 weeks of depth jump vs. countermovement jump training on sand on muscle soreness and performance. Kinesiology 46.
Miyama M., Nosaka K. (2004). Influence of surface on muscle damage and soreness induced by consecutive drop jumps. J. Strength Cond. Res. 18 (2), 206–211. doi:10.1519/R-13353.1
Moran J., Ramirez-Campillo R., Liew B., Chaabene H., Behm D. G., García-Hermoso A., et al. (2021). Effects of vertically and horizontally orientated plyometric training on physical performance: a meta-analytical comparison. Sports Med. 51 (1), 65–79. doi:10.1007/s40279-020-01340-6
Nakagawa S., Noble D. W., Senior A. M., Lagisz M. (2017). Meta-evaluation of meta-analysis: ten appraisal questions for biologists. BMC Biol. 15 (1), 18. doi:10.1186/s12915-017-0357-7
Negrete R., Brophy J. (2000). The relationship between isokinetic open and closed chain lower extremity strength and functional performance. J. Sport Rehabil. 9, 46–61. doi:10.1123/jsr.9.1.46
Nimphius S., McGuigan M. R., Newton R. U. (2010). Relationship between strength, power, speed, and change of direction performance of female softball players. J. Strength Cond. Res. 24 (4), 885–895. doi:10.1519/JSC.0b013e3181d4d41d
Nygaard Falch H., Guldteig Rædergård H., van den Tillaar R. (2019). Effect of different physical training forms on change of direction ability: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports Med. Open 5 (1), 53. doi:10.1186/s40798-019-0223-y
Ozen G., Atar O., Koc H. (2020). The effects of A 6-Week plyometric training programme on sand versus wooden parquet surfaces on the physical performance parameters of well-trained young basketball players. Montenegrin J. Sports Sci. Med. 9 (1), 27–32. doi:10.26773/mjssm.200304
Pereira L. A., Freitas T. T., Marín-Cascales E., Bishop C., McGuigan M. R., Loturco I. (2021). Effects of training on sand or hard surfaces on sprint and jump performance of team-sport players: a systematic review with meta-analysis. Strength and Cond. J. 43 (3), 56–66. doi:10.1519/ssc.0000000000000634
Pereira L. A., Nunes R., Freitas T., Paes C., Conde J., Novack L., et al. (2023a). Sand and grass surfaces are equally effective in promoting positive adaptations in the sprint performance of elite young soccer players. Biol. Sport 40 (4), 993–1001. doi:10.5114/biolsport.2023.123324
Pereira L. A., Freitas T. T., Zabaloy S., Ferreira R. C. A., Silva M. L., Azevedo P., et al. (2023b). Sprint and jump training on sand vs. grass surfaces: effects on the physical performance of young soccer players. J. Strength Cond. Res. 37(9), 1828–1833. doi:10.1519/JSC.0000000000004472
Peters J. L., Sutton A. J., Jones D. R., Abrams K. R., Rushton L. (2007). Performance of the trim and fill method in the presence of publication bias and between-study heterogeneity. Statistics Med. 26 (25), 4544–4562. doi:10.1002/sim.2889
Peters J. L., Sutton A. J., Jones D. R., Abrams K. R., Rushton L. (2008). Contour-enhanced meta-analysis funnel plots help distinguish publication bias from other causes of asymmetry. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 61 (10), 991–996. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.11.010
Peterson M. D., Alvar B. A., Rhea M. R. (2006). The contribution of maximal force production to explosive movement among young collegiate athletes. J. Strength Cond. Res. 20 (4), 867–873. doi:10.1519/R-18695.1
Pinnington H. C., Dawson B. (2001). The energy cost of running on grass compared to soft dry beach sand. J. Sci. Med. Sport 4 (4), 416–430. doi:10.1016/s1440-2440(01)80051-7
Pinnington H. C., Lloyd D. G., Besier T. F., Dawson B. (2005). Kinematic and electromyography analysis of submaximal differences running on a firm surface compared with soft, dry sand. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. 94 (3), 242–253. doi:10.1007/s00421-005-1323-6
Ramirez-Campillo R., Alvarez C., García-Pinillos F., Sanchez-Sanchez J., Yanci J., Castillo D., et al. (2018). Optimal reactive strength index: is it an accurate variable to optimize plyometric training effects on measures of physical fitness in young soccer players? J. Strength Cond. Res. 32 (4), 885–893. doi:10.1519/JSC.0000000000002467
Ramirez-Campillo R., Álvarez C., García-Pinillos F., García-Ramos A., Loturco I., Chaabene H., et al. (2020). Effects of combined surfaces vs. single-surface plyometric training on soccer players' physical fitness. J. Strength Cond. Res. 34 (9), 2644–2653. doi:10.1519/JSC.0000000000002929
Ramlan M., Pitil P., Wahed W. J. E. (2018). Effects of plyometric training on grass surface and concrete surface on jumping performance among volleyball athletes. Malays. J. Mov. Health and Exerc. 7, 127–134. doi:10.15282/mohe.v7i2.236
Rodríguez-Perea Á., Reyes-Ferrada W., Jerez-Mayorga D., Chirosa Ríos L., Van den Tillar R., Chirosa Ríos I., et al. (2023). Core training and performance: a systematic review with meta-analysis. Biol. Sport 40 (4), 975–992. doi:10.5114/biolsport.2023.123319
Sanchez-Ottado G. R., Spyrou K., Pereira L. A., Alcaraz P. E., Zabaloy S., Loturco I., et al. (2025). Effects of plyometric training performed on different surfaces and with different types of footwear on the neuromuscular performance of team-sport athletes: a systematic review. Biol. Sport 42 (4), 107–120. doi:10.5114/biolsport.2025.150037
Sayers M. (2000). Running techniques for field sport players. Sports Coach Aust. Coaching Magazine 23 (1), 26–27.
Schmidtbleicher D. (1987). Effects of a stretch-shortening typed training on the performance capability and innervation characteristics of leg extensor muscles. Biomechanics XI-A, 185–189. doi:10.1519/SSC.0b013e3181e928f9
Sharma R., Chaubey D. (2013). Effect of sand training on jumping abilities of junior volleyball players. J. Educ. Pract. 29 (4), 101–106.
Sheppard J. M., Young W. B. (2006). Agility literature review: classifications, training and testing. J. Sports Sci. 24 (9), 919–932. doi:10.1080/02640410500457109
Singh A., Sakshi G., Singh S. (2014). Effect of plyometric training on sand versus grass on muscle soreness and selected sport-specific performance variables in hockey players. J. Hum. Sport Exerc. 9, 59–67. doi:10.4100/jhse.2014.91.07
Slimani M., Chamari K., Miarka B., Del Vecchio F. B., Chéour F. (2016). Effects of plyometric training on physical fitness in team sport athletes: a systematic review. J. Hum. Kinet. 53, 231–247. doi:10.1515/hukin-2016-0026
Strydom N. B., Bredell G. A. G., Benade A. J. S., Morrison J. F., Viljoen J. H., van Graan C. H. (1966). The metabolic cost of marching at 3 m.p.h. over firm and sandy surfaces. Int. Z Angew Physiol. 23 (2), 166–171. doi:10.1007/BF00699304
Sun J., Sun J., Shaharudin S., Zhang Q. (2025). Effects of plyometrics training on lower limb strength, power, agility, and body composition in athletically trained adults: systematic review and meta-analysis. Sci. Rep. 15 (1), 34146. doi:10.1038/s41598-025-10652-4
Turner A. N., Jeffreys I. (2010). The stretch-shortening cycle: proposed mechanisms and methods for enhancement. Strength and Cond. J. 32 (4), 87–99. doi:10.1519/ssc.0b013e3181e928f9
Walshe A. D., Wilson G. J., Ettema G. J. (1998). Stretch-shorten cycle compared with isometric preload: contributions to enhanced muscular performance. J. Appl. Physiology 84 (1), 97–106. doi:10.1152/jappl.1998.84.1.97
Wheeler K. W., Sayers M. G. (2010). Modification of agility running technique in reaction to a defender in rugby union. J. Sports Sci. Med. 9 (3), 445–451.
Xie X., Tongdecharoen W., Tisniana N. (2025). The effects of sand surface floor training on the physical fitness and skills of novice taekwondo students. Int. J. Sociol. Anthropol. Sci. Rev. 5 (2), 749–760. doi:10.60027/ijsasr.2025.5646
Young W., Farrow D. (2006). A review of agility: practical applications for strength and conditioning. Strength and Cond. J. 28 (5), 24–29. doi:10.1519/1533-4295(2006)28[24:aroapa]2.0.co;2
Young W., McLean B., Ardagna J. (1995). Relationship between strength qualities and sprinting performance. J. Sports Med. Phys. Fit. 35 (1), 13–19.
Young W. B., James R., Montgomery I. (2002). Is muscle power related to running speed with changes of direction? J. Sports Med. Phys. Fit. 42 (3), 282–288.
Yu L., Chen L., Guo H. (2025). The influence of training surface on the effectiveness of plyometric training on physical fitness attributes of volleyball players. Sci. Rep. 15 (1), 1073. doi:10.1038/s41598-024-84243-0
Zamparo P., Perini R., Orizio C., Sacher M., Ferretti G. (1992). The energy cost of walking or running on sand. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. Occup. Physiol. 65 (2), 183–187. doi:10.1007/BF00705078
Zazulak B. T., Hewett T. E., Reeves N. P., Goldberg B., Cholewicki J. (2007). Deficits in neuromuscular control of the trunk predict knee injury risk: a prospective biomechanical-epidemiologic study. Am. J. Sports Med. 35 (7), 1123–1130. doi:10.1177/0363546507301585
Keywords: change of direction, firm, sand, standing long jump, surface training, systematic review
Citation: Wang T, Zhai H, Yan H, Zhou Y, Li Z, Wei H and Geng Q (2026) Dose-response relationships of sand training compared to other surface training in improving change of direction and jump performance: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Front. Physiol. 16:1737074. doi: 10.3389/fphys.2025.1737074
Received: 31 October 2025; Accepted: 24 December 2025;
Published: 09 February 2026.
Edited by:
Ricardo Ferraz, University of Beira Interior, PortugalReviewed by:
Ghaith Aloui, University of Manouba, TunisiaPushpendra Narvariya, Amity University, India
Copyright © 2026 Wang, Zhai, Yan, Zhou, Li, Wei and Geng. 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: Hongwen Wei, d2VpaHdAYnN1LmVkdS5jbg==; Qian Geng, MjAyMTI0MDg2OUBic3UuZWR1LmNu
†These authors have contributed equally to this work