Acute effects of variable resistance training on force, velocity, and power measures: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract

Objective Acute effects of variable resistance training (VRT) and constant resistance training (CRT) on neuromuscular performance are still equivocal. We aimed to determine the differences between VRT and CRT in terms of force, velocity, and power outcomes. Methods We searched PubMed, Web of Science, and SPORTDiscus electronic databases for articles until June 2021. Crossover design studies comparing force, velocity, and power outcomes while performing VRT and CRT were included. Two reviewers independently applied the modified version of the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool to assess the risk of bias. A three-level random effects meta-analyses and meta-regressions were used to compute standardized mean differences (SMDs) and 95% confidence intervals. Results We included 16 studies with 207 participants in the quantitative synthesis. Based on the pooled results, VRT generated greater mean velocity (SMD = 0.675; moderate Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) quality evidence) and mean power (SMD = 1.022; low) than CRT. Subgroup analyses revealed that VRT considerably increased the mean velocity (SMD = 0.903; moderate) and mean power (SMD = 1.456; moderate) in the equated loading scheme and the mean velocity (SMD = 0.712; low) in the CRT higher loading scheme. However, VRT marginally significantly reduced peak velocity (SMD = −0.481; low) in the VRT higher loading scheme. Based on the meta-regression analysis, it was found that mean power (p = 0.014–0.043) was positively moderated by the contribution of variable resistance and peak velocity (p = 0.018) and peak power (p = 0.001–0.004) and RFD (p = 0.003) were positively moderated by variable resistance equipment, favoring elastic bands. Conclusions VRT provides practitioners with the means of emphasizing specific force, velocity, and power outcomes. Different strategies should be considered in context of an individual’s needs. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO CRD42021259205.