Research Review: Elastic Band Squats Deliver Extra Explosiveness Without Strength Trade-Off

BLUF (Bottom Line Up Front)

In college basketball athletes, adding elastic bands (about 30% of total load) to barbell squats for 8 weeks produced a greater improvement in squat jump performance compared to traditional barbell squats. All other jump, sprint, and strength measures improved similarly in both groups. Max strength gains were equal, and eccentric utilization did not change.

Purpose of the Study

Test whether adding elastic bands to back squats improves lower-body explosive performance (vertical and horizontal jumps), sprint speed, and squat strength compared to traditional resistance training in college basketball athletes.

Subjects

• Recruited: 35 college basketball athletes

• Excluded before randomization: 5 (lower-limb pain = 3; joint impairment = 2)

• Randomized: 30 (VRT 15; RT 15)

• Completed: 28 (VRT 14; RT 14)

• Groups were similar at baseline (age ~20 years; height ~180 cm; mass ~72–74 kg; ~2 years training).

Methods

Design: Randomized, parallel-group, 8-week intervention (2 sessions/week).
Training: Back squat only. 5 sets × 5 reps, progressive loading: 65% to 80% 1RM across 8 weeks; 2–5 minutes rest.

• VRT Group: Barbell + elastic bands set to ~30% of the total load (barbell ~70%). Band tension measured and standardized.

• RT Group: Barbell only; identical %1RM plan.

Measurements (pre and post):

• Vertical: Countermovement jump with arm swing (CMJA), countermovement jump (CMJ), squat jump (SJ)

• Reactive ability: Reactive Strength Index (RSI) from a 40-cm drop jump

• Eccentric utilization: EUR = CMJ / SJ

• Horizontal: Standing long jump (SLJ), 10-m sprint

• Strength: Squat 1RM, Squat Index (SI = 1RM/body mass)

Results

Vertical Performance

Countermovement Jump with Arm Swing (CMJA)

• VRT: 60.89 to 64.49 cm

• RT: 60.52 to 63.34 cm

• Both improved, no group difference

Countermovement Jump (CMJ)

• VRT: 50.80 to 57.47 cm

• RT: 53.28 to 55.23 cm

• Both improved, no group difference

Squat Jump (SJ)

• VRT: 47.58 to 51.66 cm

• RT: 50.46 to 51.91 cm

• Both improved, VRT improved significantly more

Reactive / Stretch-Shortening

Reactive Strength Index (RSI)

• VRT: 1.91 to 2.90

• RT: 1.92 to 2.14

• Both improved, no group difference

Eccentric Utilization Ratio (EUR)

• VRT: 1.07 to 1.11

• RT: 1.06 to 1.06

• No meaningful change in either group

Horizontal Performance

Standing Long Jump (SLJ)

• VRT: 270.93 to 280.71 cm

• RT: 267.29 to 270.93 cm

• Both improved; only VRT showed a significant within-group increase, but no group difference

10-m Sprint

• VRT: 1.84 to 1.70 seconds

• RT: 1.81 to 1.70 seconds

• Both improved, no group difference

Strength

Squat 1RM

• VRT: 120.53 to 136.42 kg

• RT: 128.03 to 145.35 kg

• Both improved, no group difference

Squat Index (1RM/body mass)

• VRT: 1.68 to 1.90

• RT: 1.74 to 1.98

• Both improved, no group difference

Key Findings

• Explosive power improved in both groups.

• Only squat jump showed a clear advantage for the elastic band group.

• Standing long jump improved significantly within the band group, but no between-group difference.

• Strength gains were equal between groups.

• Eccentric utilization did not change.

Conclusion

Both elastic-band variable resistance training and traditional squatting improved explosive performance and strength in college basketball athletes. However, the band group showed a greater improvement in squat jump, indicating that elastic bands may be more effective for enhancing certain aspects of explosive power. Strength gains were equal between groups. Practically, this suggests that coaches can add elastic bands to squatting to provide an extra training stimulus for explosive lower-limb power without reducing strength development.