Exercise Order Barely Matters: Squats-First or Jumps-First Yields Similar Gains

A new randomized controlled trial puts that debate in sharper perspective: when the workload is identical, the order in which you perform the two barely matters. In an eight-week training study of resistance-trained men, both a resistance-to-plyometric sequence and its reverse produced nearly identical improvements in strength, jumping, sprinting, and change-of-direction performance.

The study, conducted by researchers at Guangdong Ocean University, Beijing Sport University, and Wenzhou Central Hospital in China, recruited 24 resistance-trained men and randomly assigned them to two groups of 12. One group performed back squats first, followed by maximal countermovement jumps; the other performed the same exercises in the reverse order. Each participant completed two supervised sessions per week for eight weeks, performing three rounds of back squats at three repetitions of 85 percent of their one-repetition maximum, interspersed with four maximal countermovement jumps per round, with three minutes of recovery between exercises.

The critical design feature was that training volume, relative intensity, and recovery intervals were fully matched between groups. This means the only meaningful difference was exercise order—precisely the variable the researchers wanted to isolate. Before and after the intervention, the team measured vertical jump height, relative peak power, standing long jump distance, back-squat one-repetition maximum, 20-meter sprint time, and T-test change-of-direction time.

The results were strikingly symmetrical. Both groups improved significantly on every outcome measured, with significant gains over time across all six performance markers (all p < 0.001). But when the researchers tested whether the two sequences produced different adaptations—the group-by-time interaction—no significant differences emerged for vertical jump height, relative peak power, standing long jump, sprint time, or T-test time (all p ≥ 0.501). In plain terms, jumping before squatting conferred no measurable advantage over squatting before jumping, or vice versa, for any of these outcomes.

There was one apparent exception. Back-squat one-repetition maximum increased by 10.2 kilograms (95% CI: 7.5 to 13.0 kg) in the resistance-first group and by 13.1 kilograms (95% CI: 12.1 to 14.1 kg) in the plyometric-first group. In the primary analysis, this difference reached statistical significance (p = 0.039, ηp² = 0.180), with an effect size of Hedges’ g = 0.87 (95% CI: 0.01 to 1.73)—a moderate-to-large effect suggesting that performing explosive jumps before heavy squats might enhance maximal strength gains.

However, the authors themselves urge caution. When they re-analyzed the strength data using a baseline-adjusted ANCOVA—a statistical approach that controls for participants’ starting strength levels—the sequence effect was no longer statistically significant (p = 0.072). Because the two analyses disagree, the researchers conclude that this sequence-related difference in maximal strength “was not consistently supported across analyses and should therefore be interpreted cautiously.” The finding is a hypothesis worth testing, not a settled result.

The study’s conclusion is refreshingly restrained: both training sequences improved lower-body strength, jump, sprint, and change-of-direction performance, and exercise sequence had limited influence on long-term adaptations when volume, intensity, and recovery were matched. For athletes and coaches, this suggests that the practical flexibility to order squats and jumps according to convenience, session goals, or personal preference comes at little apparent cost to adaptation—at least over an eight-week window in already-trained men.

Several limitations frame these findings appropriately. The sample was small—12 participants per group—which limits statistical power to detect modest sequence effects and may explain why the strength difference vanished under a more conservative analysis. The population consisted of resistance-trained men, so the results may not generalize to women, untrained individuals, or elite athletes with different training histories. The intervention lasted eight weeks, leaving open the question of whether sequence effects might emerge over longer training periods. And the plyometric component was limited to countermovement jumps, so sequences involving other explosive modalities remain untested.

Within those boundaries, the study delivers a clear and useful message. Both groups got stronger, more explosive, faster, and more agile. The order of the exercises, it turns out, was largely beside the point.

Subject of Research: Effects of resistance-to-plyometric versus plyometric-to-resistance training sequence on lower-body performance

Article Title: Effects of an 8-week resistance-to-CMJ training sequence on lower-body strength and countermovement-jump performance in resistance-trained men

Article References: Fu, T., Zhang, Z., Zhao, J., & Li, F. (2026). Effects of an 8-week resistance-to-CMJ training sequence on lower-body strength and countermovement-jump performance in resistance-trained men. Frontiers in Physiology, 17, Article 1982010. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2026.1982010

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.3389/fphys.2026.1982010

Keywords: resistance training, plyometric training, exercise sequencing, complex training, maximal strength, countermovement jump, sprint performance, change of direction, strength training, sports science, Effects, week