Kristen Crenshaw, Giorgio Zeppieri, Cheng-Ju Hung, Tania Schmitfranz, Patti McCall, Greta Castellini, Silvia Gianola, Federico Pozzi
{"title":"Olympic Weightlifting Training for Sprint Performance in Athletes: A Systematic Review with Meta-analysis.","authors":"Kristen Crenshaw, Giorgio Zeppieri, Cheng-Ju Hung, Tania Schmitfranz, Patti McCall, Greta Castellini, Silvia Gianola, Federico Pozzi","doi":"10.1055/a-2161-4867","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine whether Olympic weightlifting (OW) exercises would improve sprint performance when compared to a control intervention, (no training, standard sport-specific training, traditional resistance training, or plyometric training). Medline, Web of Science, SportDiscus, CINAHL, and Biological Science from inception to September 2022 was searched. Two authors independently selected the included studies, extracted data, and appraised the risk of bias. Certainty of the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology. The primary meta-analysis combined the results of the sprint performance over the full length of each sprint test. The secondary meta-analyses combined the results of the sprint performance at 5, 10, and 20 m distance to capture information about the acceleration phase of the sprint tests. Eight studies with 206 athletes (female n=10, age range: 18.9-24.2 years) were identified. Sprint performance did not differ significantly comparing OW to the control intervention, nor at the full length (standardized mean difference=-0.07, 95% CI=-0.47 to 0.34, <i>p</i>=0.75, I<sup>2</sup>=46%) or during the acceleration phase (<i>p</i>≥0.26) of the sprint test. OW training does not improve sprint performance to a greater extent than comparator interventions.</p>","PeriodicalId":2,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11153037/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2161-4867","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/8/28 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine whether Olympic weightlifting (OW) exercises would improve sprint performance when compared to a control intervention, (no training, standard sport-specific training, traditional resistance training, or plyometric training). Medline, Web of Science, SportDiscus, CINAHL, and Biological Science from inception to September 2022 was searched. Two authors independently selected the included studies, extracted data, and appraised the risk of bias. Certainty of the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology. The primary meta-analysis combined the results of the sprint performance over the full length of each sprint test. The secondary meta-analyses combined the results of the sprint performance at 5, 10, and 20 m distance to capture information about the acceleration phase of the sprint tests. Eight studies with 206 athletes (female n=10, age range: 18.9-24.2 years) were identified. Sprint performance did not differ significantly comparing OW to the control intervention, nor at the full length (standardized mean difference=-0.07, 95% CI=-0.47 to 0.34, p=0.75, I2=46%) or during the acceleration phase (p≥0.26) of the sprint test. OW training does not improve sprint performance to a greater extent than comparator interventions.
这项系统综述和荟萃分析旨在确定与对照干预(无训练、运动专项训练、传统阻力训练或增强型训练)相比,奥运举重运动是否会提高短跑成绩。搜索了从成立到2022年9月的Medline、Web of Science、SportDiscus、CINAHL和Biological Science。两位作者在纳入的研究中独立选择、提取数据并评估偏倚风险。证据的确定性使用建议分级评估、发展和评估方法进行评估。主要的荟萃分析结合了每次冲刺测试的全程冲刺表现结果。二次荟萃分析结合了5米、10米和20米距离的短跑成绩,以获取有关短跑测试加速阶段的信息。对206名运动员(女性n=10,年龄范围:18.9-24.2岁)进行了8项研究。与奥运会举重和对照干预相比,短跑成绩没有显著差异,短跑测试的全程(标准化平均差异=0.07,95%CI=0.47-0.34,p=0.75,I2=46%)或加速阶段(p≥0.26)也没有显著差异。奥运举重训练并没有比对照干预措施在更大程度上提高短跑成绩。