Dataset Information

Comparison of Weightlifting, Traditional Resistance Training and Plyometrics on Strength, Power and Speed: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Weightlifting training (WLT) is commonly used to improve strength, power and speed in athletes. However, to date, WLT studies have either not compared training effects against those of other training methods, or been limited by small sample sizes, which are issues that can be resolved by pooling studies in a meta-analysis. Therefore, the objective of this systematic review with meta-analysis was to evaluate the effects of WLT compared with traditional resistance training (TRT), plyometric training (PLYO) and/or control (CON) on strength, power and speed.

Methods

The systematic review included peer-reviewed articles that employed a WLT intervention, a comparison group (i.e. TRT, PLYO, CON), and a measure of strength, power and/or speed. Means and standard deviations of outcomes were converted to Hedges' g effect sizes using an inverse variance random-effects model to generate a weighted mean effect size (ES).

Results

Sixteen studies were included in the analysis, comprising 427 participants. Data indicated that when compared with TRT, WLT resulted in greater improvements in weightlifting load lifted (4 studies, p = 0.02, g = 1.35; 95% CI 0.20-2.51) and countermovement jump (CMJ) height (9 studies, p = 0.00, g = 0.95; 95% CI 0.04-1.87). There was also a large effect in terms of linear sprint speed (4 studies, p = 0.13, g = 1.04; 95% CI - 0.03 to 2.39) and change of direction speed (CODS) (2 studies, p = 0.36, g = 1.21; 95% CI - 1.41 to 3.83); however, this was not significant. Interpretation of these findings should acknowledge the high heterogeneity across the included studies and potential risk of bias. WLT and PLYO resulted in similar improvements in speed, power and strength as demonstrated by negligible to moderate, non-significant effects in favour of WLT for improvements in linear sprint speed (4 studies, p = 0.35, g = 0.20; 95% CI - 0.23 to 0.63), CODS (3 studies, p = 0.52, g = 0.17; 95% CI - 0.35 to 0.68), CMJ (6 studies, p = 0.09, g = 0.31; 95% CI - 0.05 to 0.67), squat jump performance (5 studies, p = 0.08, g = 0.34; 95% CI - 0.04 to 0.73) and strength (4 studies, p = 0.20, g = 0.69; 95% CI - 0.37 to 1.75).

Conclusion

Overall, these findings support the notion that if the training goal is to improve strength, power and speed, supplementary weightlifting training may be advantageous for athletic development. Whilst WLT and PLYO may result in similar improvements, WLT can elicit additional benefits above that of TRT, resulting in greater improvements in weightlifting and jumping performance.

SUBMITTER: Morris SJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9213388 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparison of Weightlifting, Traditional Resistance Training and Plyometrics on Strength, Power and Speed: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis.

Morris Stephanie J SJ Oliver Jon L JL Pedley Jason S JS Haff G Gregory GG Lloyd Rhodri S RS

Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.) 20220113 7

<h4>Background</h4>Weightlifting training (WLT) is commonly used to improve strength, power and speed in athletes. However, to date, WLT studies have either not compared training effects against those of other training methods, or been limited by small sample sizes, which are issues that can be resolved by pooling studies in a meta-analysis. Therefore, the objective of this systematic review with meta-analysis was to evaluate the effects of WLT compared with traditional resistance training (TRT) ...[more]

PMID: 35025093

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceStrength training exercise is recommended for improving physical function in older adults. However, whether strength training (lifting and lowering weights under control) and power training (PT) (lifting weights fast and lowering under control) are associated with improved physical function in older adults is not clear.ObjectiveTo evaluate whether PT vs traditional strength training is associated with physical function improvement in older adults.Data sourcesSystematic searches of MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central, CINAHL, PsycInfo, PEDro, and SPORTDiscus were conducted from database inception to October 20, 2021.Study selectionRandomized clinical trials (RCTs) that compared strength training with instructions to move the weight as fast as possible in the lifting phase with traditional strength training in healthy, community-living older adults (age ≥60 years).Data extraction and synthesisTwo authors independently selected trials, extracted data, assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool 2, and assessed the certainty of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. Summary effect size measures were calculated using a multilevel random-effects model with cluster robust variance estimation and are reported as standardized mean differences (SMDs). Reporting followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guideline.Main outcomes and measuresPrimary outcomes included physical function and self-reported physical function. Secondary outcomes included power, strength, muscle mass, walk speed, balance, and adverse effects.ResultsA total of 20 RCTs enrolling 566 community-living older adults (mean [SD] age, 70.1 [4.8] years; 368 [65%] women) were included. For the primary outcomes, PT was associated with an improvement in physical function with low-certainty evidence in 13 RCTs (n = 383) (SMD, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.05-0.54) and self-reported function with low-certainty evidence in 3 RCTs (n = 85) (SMD, 0.38; 95% CI, -0.62 to 1.37). The evidence was downgraded by 2 levels for high risk of bias and imprecision for physical function and very serious imprecision for self-reported physical function.Conclusions and relevanceIn this systematic review and meta-analysis, PT was associated with a modest improvement in physical function compared with traditional strength training in healthy, community-living older adults. However, high-quality, larger RCTs are required to draw more definitive conclusions.

Project description:BackgroundMale youth soccer players competing at a high level will typically engage in large volumes of soccer training from a young age. However, it is not known whether the high levels of habitual training that these high-performing players are exposed to limit their ability to respond to strength, plyometric or combined training interventions.ObjectiveThe primary aim of our systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the specific effects of strength, plyometric and combined training with active controls (standard soccer training) on the strength, power and speed characteristics of high-level, highly trained young male soccer players.MethodsWe performed a literature search across PubMed, Scopus, CINAHL, Web of Science and SPORTDiscus to identify controlled studies that implemented strength, plyometric or combined training in high-level male youth soccer players. Participants were defined as high level or highly trained based on established guidelines related to either competition level or age-related weekly hours spent in soccer training. Studies needed to report at least one outcome of lower body strength, squat jump, countermovement jump, horizontal power, acceleration (0-10 m), speed (15-40 m) or change of direction speed. A meta-analysis was then performed using a random-effects model to determine the magnitude (Hedge's g) of training responses and whether effects differed across modes of training.ResultsFrom an initial return of 5464 papers, n = 34 studies met the inclusion criteria and provided a total sample of n = 1396 high-level male youth soccer players. Strength, plyometric and combined training resulted in improvements in strength, squat and countermovement jump, horizontal power, acceleration, change of direction speed (all p < 0.05; g = 0.73-1.08, moderate) and speed (p < 0.05; g = 0.40-0.59, small). Lower body strength was the only outcome where training mode had a significant effect (p < 0.05), with plyometric training producing small effects (g = 0.27, p < 0.05) compared with moderate effects for strength (g = 1.07, p < 0.05) and combined (g = 0.75, p < 0.05) training. Prediction intervals for overall effects (all training modes combined) showed that the greatest confidence that future training will lead to positive effects was in the squat and countermovement jump, horizontal power and acceleration (prediction intervals = 0.03-1.81).ConclusionsHigh-level, highly trained male youth soccer players can experience positive gains in indices of strength, power and speed from strength, plyometric and combined training, and the magnitude of gains are mostly similar across modes of training. Based on prediction intervals, there is a good level of certainty that future strength, plyometric and combined training in this population would lead to positive improvements in vertical and horizontal power and sprint acceleration.

Project description:Greater muscular strength is generally associated with superior sports performance, for example, in jumping, sprinting, and throwing. This meta-analysis aims to compare the effects of variable-resistance training (VRT) and constant-resistance training (CRT) on the maximum strength of trained and untrained subjects. PubMed, Web of Science, and Google Scholar were comprehensively searched to identify relevant studies published up to January 2022. Fourteen studies that met the inclusion criteria were used for the systematic review and meta-analysis. Data regarding training status, training modality, and type of outcome measure were extracted for the analyses. The Cochrane Collaboration tool was used to assess the risk of bias. The pooled outcome showed improved maximum strength with VRT, which was significantly higher than that with CRT (ES = 0.80; 95% CI: 0.42-1.19) for all the subjects. In addition, trained subjects experienced greater maximum-strength improvements with VRT than with CRT (ES = 0.57; 95% CI: 0.22-0.93). Based on subgroup analyses, maximum-strength improvement with a VRT load of ≥80% of 1 repetition maximum (1RM) was significantly higher than that with CRT (ES = 0.76; 95% CI: 0.37-1.16) in trained subjects, while no significant differences were found between VRT and CRT for maximum-strength improvement when the load was <80% (ES = 0.00; 95% CI: -0.55-0.55). The untrained subjects also achieved greater maximum strength with VRT than with CRT (ES = 1.34; 95% CI: 0.28-2.40). Interestingly, the improved maximum strength of untrained subjects with a VRT load of <80% of 1RM was significantly higher than that with CRT (ES = 2.38; 95% CI: 1.39-3.36); however, no significant differences were noted between VRT and CRT when the load was ≥80% of 1RM (ES = -0.04; 95% CI: -0.89-0.81). Our findings show that subjects with resistance training experience could use a load of ≥80% of 1RM and subjects without resistance training experience could use a load of <80% of 1RM to obtain greater VRT benefits.

Dataset Information

Comparison of Weightlifting, Traditional Resistance Training and Plyometrics on Strength, Power and Speed: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Comparison of Weightlifting, Traditional Resistance Training and Plyometrics on Strength, Power and Speed: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets