The effectiveness of traditional vs. velocity-based strength training on explosive and maximal strength performance: A network meta-analysis.

Steffen Held, Kevin Speer, Ludwig Rappelt, Pamela Wicker, Lars Donath
Author Information
  1. Steffen Held: Department of Intervention Research in Exercise Training, German Sport University Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
  2. Kevin Speer: Department of Intervention Research in Exercise Training, German Sport University Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
  3. Ludwig Rappelt: Department of Intervention Research in Exercise Training, German Sport University Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
  4. Pamela Wicker: Department of Sports Science, Bielefeld University, Bielefeld, Germany.
  5. Lars Donath: Department of Intervention Research in Exercise Training, German Sport University Cologne, Cologne, Germany.

Abstract

This network meta-analysis aimed at evaluating the effectiveness of different velocity-based (VBT) and traditional 1RM-based resistance training (TRT) interventions on strength and power indices in healthy participants. The research was conducted until December 2021 using the online electronic databases PubMed, Web of Science, PsycNet, and SPORTDiscus for studies with the following inclusion criteria: 1) controlled VBT trials, 2) strength and/or jump and/or sprint parameters as outcomes (c), participants aged between 18 and 40 years, and 4) peer-reviewed and published in English. Standardized mean differences (SMD) using a random effects models were calculated. Fourteen studies with 311 healthy participants were selected and 3 networks (strength, jump, and sprint) were achieved. VBT, TRT, repetitions in reserve (RIR), low velocity loss (lowVL), and high velocity loss (highVL) were ranked for each network. Based on P-score rankings, lowVL (P-score ��� 0.59; SMD ��� 0.33) and highVL (P-score ��� 0.50; SMD ��� 0.12) revealed favorable effects on strength, jump, and sprint performance compared to VBT (P-score ��� 0.47; SMD ���0.01), TRT (P-score ���0.46; SMD ��� 0.00), and RIR (P-score ��� 0.46; SMD ��� 0.12). In conclusion, lowVL and highVL showed notable effects on strength, jump, and sprint performance. In particular for jump performance, lowVL induced favorable improvements compared to all other resistance training approaches.

Keywords

References

  1. Stat Med. 2002 Jun 15;21(11):1539-58 [PMID: 12111919]
  2. J Strength Cond Res. 2022 Mar 1;36(3):641-648 [PMID: 32058357]
  3. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2010 Feb;20(1):e162-9 [PMID: 19793220]
  4. J Strength Cond Res. 2011 Feb;25(2):379-85 [PMID: 20093963]
  5. J Strength Cond Res. 2020 Jan;34(1):46-53 [PMID: 30946276]
  6. BMJ. 2005 Oct 15;331(7521):897-900 [PMID: 16223826]
  7. BMJ. 1997 Sep 13;315(7109):629-34 [PMID: 9310563]
  8. Sci Med Footb. 2022 Aug;6(3):389-397 [PMID: 35862155]
  9. Front Sports Act Living. 2022 Mar 17;4:793603 [PMID: 35368412]
  10. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2010 Jun;42(6):1191-9 [PMID: 19997025]
  11. Int J Sports Med. 2012 May;33(5):376-80 [PMID: 22318559]
  12. J Strength Cond Res. 2020 Oct;34(10):2709-2714 [PMID: 32740288]
  13. J Strength Cond Res. 2024 Mar 1;38(3):e135-e142 [PMID: 34100789]
  14. J Sport Health Sci. 2022 Mar;11(2):202-211 [PMID: 33497853]
  15. Front Physiol. 2021 Feb 25;12:586113 [PMID: 33716761]
  16. J Appl Physiol (1985). 2018 Jun 1;124(6):1567-1579 [PMID: 29357481]
  17. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2021 Aug;31(8):1621-1635 [PMID: 33829679]
  18. PeerJ. 2021 Mar 23;9:e10942 [PMID: 33828909]
  19. J Strength Cond Res. 2021 Jul 1;35(7):1939-1948 [PMID: 30747902]
  20. J Strength Cond Res. 2020 Sep;34(9):2537-2547 [PMID: 31045753]
  21. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2021 Jan;31(1):91-103 [PMID: 32949027]
  22. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2012 Sep;7(3):242-50 [PMID: 22356774]
  23. J Strength Cond Res. 2022 Feb 1;36(2):340-345 [PMID: 31904715]
  24. Sports (Basel). 2019 Mar 04;7(3): [PMID: 30836680]
  25. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2020 Aug;52(8):1752-1762 [PMID: 32049887]
  26. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021 May 14;18(10): [PMID: 34069249]
  27. J Physiol. 2011 Nov 1;589(Pt 21):5021-31 [PMID: 21911615]
  28. Am J Physiol Cell Physiol. 2012 Jan 1;302(1):C88-99 [PMID: 21918181]
  29. Stat Med. 2007 Mar 30;26(7):1417-30 [PMID: 16906552]
  30. Sports (Basel). 2022 Jan 04;10(1): [PMID: 35050973]
  31. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2020 Sep 01;16(2):232-242 [PMID: 32871553]
  32. PLoS One. 2021 Nov 18;16(11):e0259790 [PMID: 34793506]
  33. Syst Rev. 2017 Apr 12;6(1):79 [PMID: 28403893]
  34. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2017 Apr;12(4):512-519 [PMID: 27618386]
  35. Int J Mol Sci. 2015 Jan 05;16(1):1066-95 [PMID: 25569087]
  36. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2017 Jul;27(7):724-735 [PMID: 27038416]
  37. Behav Res Methods. 2007 May;39(2):175-91 [PMID: 17695343]
  38. Phys Ther. 2003 Aug;83(8):713-21 [PMID: 12882612]
  39. J Strength Cond Res. 2016 Jan;30(1):267-75 [PMID: 26049792]
  40. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2018 Apr 1;13(4):474-481 [PMID: 28872384]
  41. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2021 Feb 4;16(8):1185���1193 [PMID: 33547265]
  42. J Funct Morphol Kinesiol. 2021 Feb 18;6(1): [PMID: 33670687]
  43. J Strength Cond Res. 2014 Apr;28(4):1096-105 [PMID: 23838969]
  44. J Sports Sci. 2018 Jun;36(12):1331-1339 [PMID: 28892463]
  45. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2016 Jun;116(6):1091-116 [PMID: 26941023]
  46. Int J Sports Med. 2010 May;31(5):347-52 [PMID: 20180176]
  47. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2015 Jul 31;15:58 [PMID: 26227148]
  48. J Sports Sci. 2022 Jun;40(11):1220-1234 [PMID: 35380511]
  49. J Appl Physiol (1985). 2015 Jun 15;118(12):1450-9 [PMID: 25663672]
  50. Sports Med. 2016 Oct;46(10):1419-49 [PMID: 26838985]
  51. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021 Aug 31;18(17): [PMID: 34501761]
  52. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2011 Sep;43(9):1725-34 [PMID: 21311352]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0strength���0jumpSMDP-scoreVBTtrainingsprintlowVLnetworkTRTparticipantseffectsvelocityhighVLperformancemeta-analysiseffectivenessvelocity-basedtraditionalresistancehealthyusingstudiesand/ormeanRIRloss12favorablecompared���046aimedevaluatingdifferent1RM-basedinterventionspowerindicesresearchconductedDecember2021onlineelectronicdatabasesPubMedWebSciencePsycNetSPORTDiscusfollowinginclusioncriteria:1controlledtrials2parametersoutcomescaged1840 years4peer-reviewedpublishedEnglishStandardizeddifferencesrandommodelscalculatedFourteen311selected3networksachievedrepetitionsreservelowhighrankedBasedrankings593350revealed470100conclusionshowednotableparticularinducedimprovementsapproachesvsexplosivemaximalperformance:countermovementmaximumconcentricpower-basedsquat

Similar Articles

Cited By