Background: Plyometric training is an effective training method to improve explosive strength. However, the ability to perform plyometric training in the adolescent population is still controversial, with insufficient meta-analyses about plyometric training on lower limb explosive strength in adolescent athletes. Objective: To investigate the influence of plyometric training on the explosive strength of lower limbs in adolescent athletes. Methods: We performed a search of six databases (Web of Science, PubMed, Scopus, ProQuest databases, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and Wan-fang database) from the starting year of inclusion in each database to April 4, 2022. The quality of the included literature was assessed using the Cochrane risk assessment tool, and data were analyzed using the Review Manager 5.4 software. Result: Plyometric training had significant effects on the performance of adolescent athletes in countermovement jump (MD = 2.74, 95% CI: 1.62, 3.85, p < 0.01), squat jump (MD = 4.37, 95% CI: 2.85, 5.90, p < 0.01), standing long jump (MD = 6.50, 95% CI: 4.62, 8.38, p < 0.01), 10-m sprint (MD = −0.04, 95% CI: −0.08, −0.00, p = 0.03), and 20-m sprint (MD = −0.12, 95% CI: −0.20, −0.04, p = 0.03); all had positive and statistically significant effects (p < 0.05). Conclusion: Plyometric training can significantly enhance the explosive strength of lower limbs in adolescent athletes.

Introduction: The study compared the effects of 6-week (2 sessions/week) velocity-based resistance training (VBRT) and percentage-based resistance training (PBRT) on athletic performance in Sport-College female basketball players.Methods: Fifteen participants were assigned to the VBRT (n = 8) or PBRT (n = 7) groups. The load in VBRT group were determined through the sessional target velocity and velocity loss monitoring, whereas PBRT group used a fixed-load based on percentage of 1-repetition maximum (1RM). Both groups completed intervention that involved the free weight back squat and bench press using the same relative load (linear periodization from 65% to 95% 1RM). Training loads data was continuously recorded. Measurements at baseline (T0) and post-training (T2) included 1RM, countermovement-jump (CMJ), squat-jump (SJ), eccentric-utilization-ratio (EUR), drop-jump height and reactive-strength-index (DJ, DJ-RSI), plyometric-push-up (PPU), 505 change-of-direction (COD), 10-m、20-m sprint (T-10、T-20), 17 × 15 m drill-lines (17-drill), Hexagon agility, and functional movement screen (FMS). A mid-term (T1) assessment was included to investigate the short-term effects of both methods and the fluctuation of personalized 1RM.Results: No between-group differences were observed at T0 for descriptive variables (p &gt; 0.05). Both groups showed significant improvement in strength gains for back squat and bench press, but VBRT showed likely to very likely favorable improvements in CMJ, SJ, EUR, DJ-RSI, Hexagon and COD among athletic performance. The VBRT showed likely to very likely improvements in 17-drill and DJ, while PBRT showed unclear effects. The lifted weights adjusted by VBRT method were higher than prescribed by PBRT (p &lt; 0.05) for the same subjects.Conclusion: Compared with fixed-load PBRT, VBRT enhanced power and athletic performance despite similar strength gains. VBRT can be regarded as a more functional resistance-training method under linear periodization.

The purpose was to analyze the comparison of velocity-based resistance training and one-repetition maximum (%1RM) percentage-based training in maximal strength improvement by meta-analyzing and to find the reasons for the controversial findings of different studies. Ten studies were included in the systematic review and seven were subjected to meta-analysis. A total of 139 subjects were selected from the included articles after exclusion, including athletes of different specialties (N=93) and non-athletes mainly from fitness groups (N=46). The overall effect size was SMD=0.26 (95%CL 0.03 to 0.49, P=0.03, I²=0). As for the comparison of the analysis of different intervention objects as subgroups, the effect size of athletes as the subgroup was 0.35 (95%CI 0.06 to 0.64, p=0.02, I²=0), indicating that in the RCT with athletes as the intervention target, the effect of VBRT in improving the maximal strength was significantly different from that of PBT. Velocity-based resistance training might be more effective than percentage-based training in maximal strength improvement, in which velocity-based resistance training is more suitable for athletes in season, while percentage-based training is more suitable for the general sports population. More high-quality researches should deal with the effect of other athletic performance with velocity-based resistance training in the future.

Objectives Jumping ability has been identified as a key factor that influences the performance of badminton athletes. Autoregulatory progressive resistance exercise (APRE) and velocity-based resistance training (VBRT) are commonly used approaches to enhance muscle strength and have been shown to accurately monitor the development of explosive power to improve jumping ability. This study aims to investigate the effects of APRE and VBRT on badminton athletes’ jumping ability and to provide practical insights into improving their jumping performance during competitions. Methods Upon completing familiarization and pretesting, 18 badminton athletes were included and completed the training intervention (age, 21.4 ± 1.4 years; stature, 170.1 ± 7.3 cm; body mass, 65.9 ± 12 kg); they were randomly divided into the APRE group (n = 9) and VBRT group (n = 9). Jumping performance was assessed during the countermovement jump (CMJ), squat jump (SJ), and drop jump (DJ) via SmartJump, with CMJ ’s and SJ’s jump height, eccentric utilization ratio (EUR), and reactive strength index (RSI). All participants then completed a 4-week in-season resistance training intervention. Results (1) The results of the within-group indicated that only the CMJ (pre: 41.56 ± 7.84 vs post: 43.57 ± 7.85, p < 0.05) of the APRE group had significant differences, whereas the SJ, EUR, and RSI were not significantly different (p > 0.05). (2) The results of the intergroups revealed that all indicators had no significant differences (p > 0.05), but APRE had a moderate effect size on the improvement of the CMJ (η2 = 0.244) and EUR (η2 = 0.068) when compared with VBRT. Conclusions The results showed that, compared to VBRT, APRE can effectively improve the performance of the reactive athletes’ lower limb explosive power in the CMJ in a shorter period of time. The findings indicate that APRE may be useful for coaches seeking to improve the CMJ performance of athletes in the short term.

This study aimed to compare the effects of high-intensity interval training (HIIT) and small-sided games (SSGs) on sprint performance in adolescent athletes in team sports and to provide reference data for training adolescent team-sport athletes. The literature search was performed in PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Embase, and SPORTDiscus. Seven eligible articles were selected according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. HIIT was significantly better than SSGs in the improvement of linear sprint ability (LSA) (standardized mean difference [SMD] 5 0.35; p 5 0.007). Withingroup comparisons showed that both HIIT (SMD 5 0.45; p 5 0.0007) and SSGs (SMD 5 0.27; p 5 0.04

No abstract

No abstract

The purpose of this study was to compare the impact of velocity-based resistance training (VBRT) and percentage-based resistance training (PBRT) on anaerobic ability, sprint performance, and jumping ability. Eighteen female basketball players from a Sport College were randomly divided into two groups: VBRT (n = 10) and PBRT (n = 8). The six-week intervention consisted of two sessions per week of free-weight back squats with linear periodization from 65% to 95%1RM. In PBRT, the weights lifted were fixed based on 1RM percentage, while in VBRT, the weights were adjusted based on individualized velocity profiles. The T-30m sprint time, relative power of countermovement jump (RP-CMJ), and Wingate test were evaluated. The Wingate test assessed peak power (PP), mean power (MP), fatigue index (FI), maximal velocity (Vmax), and total work (TW). Results showed that VBRT produced a very likely improvement in RP-CMJ, Vmax, PP, and FI (Hedges’ g = 0.55, 0.93, 0.68, 0.53, respectively, p < 0.01). On the other hand, PBRT produced a very likely improvement in MP (Hedges’ g = 0.38) and TW (Hedges’ g = 0.45). Although VBRT showed likely favorable effects in RP-CMJ, PP, and Vmax compared to PBRT (p < 0.05 for interaction effect), PBRT produced greater improvements in MP and TW (p < 0.05 for interaction effect). In conclusion, PBRT may be more effective in maintaining high-power velocity endurance, while VBRT has a greater impact on explosive power adaptations.