The effects of velocity loss thresholds during resistance training on lower-limb performance enhancement: A systematic review with meta-analysis

IF 1.5 4区教育学 Q3 HOSPITALITY, LEISURE, SPORT & TOURISM

International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching Pub Date : 2024-04-18 DOI:10.1177/17479541241244581

Bo-Ying Chen, Wei-Han Chen, Yu Liu, Nicholas J Fiolo, Philip X Fuchs, Chen-Fu Huang, Tzyy-Yuang Shiang

{"title":"The effects of velocity loss thresholds during resistance training on lower-limb performance enhancement: A systematic review with meta-analysis","authors":"Bo-Ying Chen, Wei-Han Chen, Yu Liu, Nicholas J Fiolo, Philip X Fuchs, Chen-Fu Huang, Tzyy-Yuang Shiang","doi":"10.1177/17479541241244581","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This study assessed the effects of squat training with different velocity loss (VL) thresholds on squat strength, heavy-load squat velocity (HLSV), light-load squat velocity (LLSV), countermovement jump (CMJ) height, and sprint time (ST). A systematic search of electronic databases was conducted. Meta-analysis was used to examine effects of trainings with different VL thresholds and used meta-regression to examine the interaction effects (correlation) between training effects and VL in different performance-based outcomes. Our systematic search yielded 1017 articles, 13 of which were included in the present study. Meta-analysis revealed that resistance training with both low (0%–20%) and high (30%–45%) VL thresholds improved squat strength, HLSV, LLSV, and CMJ height, but only low VL improved ST ( p < 0.05). Training gains for HLSV, LLSV, CMJ ( p = 0.088), and ST with low VL were superior to those with high VL ( p < 0.05). Meta-regression revealed that CMJ ( p = 0.076) and ST ( p = 0.010) demonstrated improvements as VL decreased in the range of 0% to 45%. In conclusion, squat resistance training with low (≤20%) VL provides relatively more effective training stimuli, improving performance in power and speed tasks. Optimal VL ranges may be in the range 10% to 20%, ≤20%, and ≤10% for the HLSV and LLSV, CMJ, and ST, respectively.","PeriodicalId":47767,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17479541241244581","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HOSPITALITY, LEISURE, SPORT & TOURISM","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

This study assessed the effects of squat training with different velocity loss (VL) thresholds on squat strength, heavy-load squat velocity (HLSV), light-load squat velocity (LLSV), countermovement jump (CMJ) height, and sprint time (ST). A systematic search of electronic databases was conducted. Meta-analysis was used to examine effects of trainings with different VL thresholds and used meta-regression to examine the interaction effects (correlation) between training effects and VL in different performance-based outcomes. Our systematic search yielded 1017 articles, 13 of which were included in the present study. Meta-analysis revealed that resistance training with both low (0%–20%) and high (30%–45%) VL thresholds improved squat strength, HLSV, LLSV, and CMJ height, but only low VL improved ST ( p < 0.05). Training gains for HLSV, LLSV, CMJ ( p = 0.088), and ST with low VL were superior to those with high VL ( p < 0.05). Meta-regression revealed that CMJ ( p = 0.076) and ST ( p = 0.010) demonstrated improvements as VL decreased in the range of 0% to 45%. In conclusion, squat resistance training with low (≤20%) VL provides relatively more effective training stimuli, improving performance in power and speed tasks. Optimal VL ranges may be in the range 10% to 20%, ≤20%, and ≤10% for the HLSV and LLSV, CMJ, and ST, respectively.

查看原文本刊更多论文

阻力训练中速度损失阈值对提高下肢表现的影响：系统回顾与荟萃分析

本研究评估了不同速度损失（VL）阈值的深蹲训练对深蹲力量、重负荷深蹲速度（HLSV）、轻负荷深蹲速度（LLSV）、反运动跳跃（CMJ）高度和冲刺时间（ST）的影响。对电子数据库进行了系统性检索。使用元分析来研究不同VL阈值的训练效果，并使用元回归来研究训练效果与VL在不同成绩结果中的交互作用（相关性）。我们的系统性搜索共获得 1017 篇文章，其中 13 篇被纳入本研究。元分析表明，采用低（0%-20%）和高（30%-45%）VL阈值进行阻力训练可提高深蹲力量、HLSV、LLSV和CMJ高度，但只有低VL可提高ST（p <0.05）。低 VL 在 HLSV、LLSV、CMJ ( p = 0.088) 和 ST 方面的训练收益优于高 VL ( p < 0.05)。元回归显示，随着 VL 在 0% 至 45% 的范围内下降，CMJ ( p = 0.076) 和 ST ( p = 0.010) 均有改善。总之，低（≤20%）VL 深蹲阻力训练能提供相对更有效的训练刺激，提高力量和速度任务的表现。最佳VL范围可能在10%到20%之间，≤20%和≤10%，分别用于HLSV和LLSV、CMJ和ST。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching Multiple-

CiteScore

3.50

自引率

15.80%

发文量

208

期刊介绍： The International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching is a peer-reviewed, international, academic/professional journal, which aims to bridge the gap between coaching and sports science. The journal will integrate theory and practice in sports science, promote critical reflection of coaching practice, and evaluate commonly accepted beliefs about coaching effectiveness and performance enhancement. Open learning systems will be promoted in which: (a) sports science is made accessible to coaches, translating knowledge into working practice; and (b) the challenges faced by coaches are communicated to sports scientists. The vision of the journal is to support the development of a community in which: (i) sports scientists and coaches respect and learn from each other as they assist athletes to acquire skills by training safely and effectively, thereby enhancing their performance, maximizing their enjoyment of the sporting experience and facilitating character development; and (ii) scientific research is embraced in the quest to uncover, understand and develop the processes involved in sports coaching and elite performance.