Effects of Resisted Sprint Training and Traditional Power Training on Sprint, Jump, and Balance Performance in Healthy Young Adults: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Abstract

Power training programs have proved to be effective in improving components of physical fitness such as speed. According to the concept of training specificity, it was postulated that exercises must attempt to closely mimic the demands of the respective activity. When transferring this idea to speed development, the purpose of the present study was to examine the effects of resisted sprint (RST) vs. traditional power training (TPT) on physical fitness in healthy young adults. Thirty-five healthy, physically active adults were randomly assigned to a RST (n = 10, 23 ± 3 years), a TPT (n = 9, 23 ± 3 years), or a passive control group (n = 16, 23 ± 2 years). RST and TPT exercised for 6 weeks with three training sessions/week each lasting 45–60 min. RST comprised frontal and lateral sprint exercises using an expander system with increasing levels of resistance that was attached to a treadmill (h/p/cosmos). TPT included ballistic strength training at 40% of the one-repetition-maximum for the lower limbs (e.g., leg press, knee extensions). Before and after training, sprint (20-m sprint), change-of-direction speed (T-agility test), jump (drop, countermovement jump), and balance performances (Y balance test) were assessed. ANCOVA statistics revealed large main effects of group for 20-m sprint velocity and ground contact time (0.81 ≤ d ≤ 1.00). Post-hoc tests showed higher sprint velocity following RST and TPT (0.69 ≤ d ≤ 0.82) when compared to the control group, but no difference between RST and TPT. Pre-to-post changes amounted to 4.5% for RST [90%CI: (−1.1%;10.1%), d = 1.23] and 2.6% for TPT [90%CI: (0.4%;4.8%), d = 1.59]. Additionally, ground contact times during sprinting were shorter following RST and TPT (0.68 ≤ d ≤ 1.09) compared to the control group, but no difference between RST and TPT. Pre-to-post changes amounted to −6.3% for RST [90%CI: (−11.4%;−1.1%), d = 1.45) and −2.7% for TPT [90%CI: (−4.2%;−1.2%), d = 2.36]. Finally, effects for change-of-direction speed, jump, and balance performance varied from small-to-large. The present findings indicate that 6 weeks of RST and TPT produced similar effects on 20-m sprint performance compared with a passive control in healthy and physically active, young adults. However, no training-related effects were found for change-of-direction speed, jump and balance performance. We conclude that both training regimes can be applied for speed development.

Effects of Resistance Training on Change-of-Direction Speed in Youth and Young Physically Active and Athletic Adults: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis

“…This suggests that the improvement of leg muscle qualities, particularly lower limb muscle strength, can transfer directly to CoD speed. This is in line with previously conducted controlled trials showing moderate-to-large effects of RT on CoD speed in young individuals [43][44][45][46][47][48]. For instance, Christou et al [43] studied the effects of strength training on CoD speed in adolescent soccer players and observed performance improvements of approximately 3% after 8 weeks and 5% after 16 weeks of training.…”

Effect of Different Physical Training Forms on Change of Direction Ability: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

“…Unilateral lunge on flywheel device.S:4 R.7505 agility test1) 10 m2) 13) 180 °Núñez et al [70]EG, n = 13Age: 22.6 ± 2.7Team, Sport Players6/2Dom-leg turn: Pre: 2.68 ± 0.15Post: 2.66 ± 0.14N-Dom leg turn:Pre:2.65 ± 0.15Post: 2.65 ± 0.14NoneEG Dom-leg turn: 0.75%EG N-Dom leg turn: 0%EG, ES, Dom-leg turn = 0.14EG, ES, N-Dom leg turn: 0%Bilateral eccentric overload training. Bilateral half-squat on flywheel device.S:4 R.7505-agility test1) 10 m2) 13) 180 °Siddle et al [71]EG, n = 8Age: 20.5 ± 1.55CG, n = 8Team, Sport Players6/2Pre: 4.48 ± 0.12Post: 4.37 ± 0.11Pre: 4.52 ± 0.16Post: 4.62 ± 0.2EG: 2.46%CG: -2.21%EG, ES = 0.96EG, ES = -0.56Eccentric Nordic hamstringS:2–3 R:5–10Sprint with COD1) 20 m2) 13) 180°Strength training—machine exercisesPrieske et al [72]EG, n = 8Age: 23 ± 3CG, n = 16Age: 23 ± 2Men and Women, Young6/3Pre: 10.19 ± 0.56Post: 9.78 ± 0.44Pre: 10.42 ± 0.91Post: 10.2 ± 0.86EG: 4.02%CG: 2.11%EG, ES = 0.82CG, ES = 0.25Power training. Leg press, leg curl, knee extension and calf raise.S:3–5 R:10 T test1) 40 m2) 43) 2 × 90 ° and 2 × 180 °Strength training—elastic bandAloui et al [73]EG, n = 15Age: 18.3 ± 0.8CG, n = 15Age: 18.8 ± 0.8Men, Junior, Handball8/2Pre: 6.18 ± 0.18Post: 5.7 ± 0.22Pre: 6.2 ± 0.2Post: 6.03 ± 0.24EG: 7.4 %CG: 2.7%EG, ES = 2.4CG, ES = 0.8Different elastic bands with knee and hip extensions.S: 3 R:12–15Modified T test1) 20 m2) 43) 2 × 90 ° and 2 × 180 °Strength training—Olympic liftsKeller et al [42]EG, n = 12Age: 14.…”

“…Men, U-197/ 1–2Pre:8.67 ± 0.29 Post:8.74 ± 0.42NoneEG: 0.81%EG, ES = 0.198Small-sided game, 4vs4 and 2vs2. 30–45 sPlanned AFL-agility1) 8 m2) 13) 135 °Chaouachi et al [89]EG, n = 12CG, n = 12Age:14.2 ± 0.9Young Men, elite- Soccer6/3Pre: 7.40 ± 0.56Post:7.03 ± 0.47Pre:7.74 ± 0.32Post:7.54 ± 0.30EG: 2.47%CG: 2.58%EG, ES = 0.67CG, ES = 0.65Small sided game, 1vs1 (30 sec), 2vs2(1 min) and 3vs3(2 min)Zig-zag test1) 20 m2) 33) 100 °Resisted sprintsde Hoyo et al [77]EG, n = 12Age: 17 ± 1Men, Jr elite- level Soccer8/2Pre: 5.26 ± 0.16Post:5.28 ± 0.17NoneEG: -0.38%EG, ES = -0.12Resisted Sprint with 12,6% of athletes BM, 20 m sprint, S:1, R:4Zig-zag test4) 20 m5) 36) 100 °Prieske et al [72]EG, n = 10Age: 23 ± 3CG, n = 16Age: 23 ± 3Men and Women, University students6/3Pre:11.03 ± 1.23Post: 10.65 ± 0.58Pre:10.42 ± 0.91Post: 10.2 ± 0.86EG: 3.45%CG: 2.11%EG: ES = 0.42CG, ES = 0.25Resisted sprint exercises with elastic straps on motorized treadmill.S: 3–4 T test1) 40 m2) 43) 2 × 90 ° and 2 × 180 °Mathisen and Pettersen [97]EG, n = 10Age:15.5 ± 0.7CG, n = 9Age: 15.1 ± 0.5Young Women, Soccer8/1Pre:8.23 ± 0.31Post:7.80 ± 0.33Pre: 8.04 ± 0.14Post: 8.01 ± 0.15EG: 5,22%CG: 0,37%EG, ES = 1,34CG, ES = 0,21Resisted Sprint, over-speed run, sprint with change direction. Total 32 sprints, 15–20 mAgility course1) 20 m2) 43) 2 × 90 ° and 2 × 180 °Straight forward sprintYoung et al [98]EG, n = 13CG, n = 10Age: 24.0 ± 5.7Volunteer 1-year experience with COD6/2Pre: 9.51 ± 0.52Post: 9.51 ± 0.52Pre: 9.68 ± 0.67Post: 9.78 ± 0.66EG:0%CG:-1.03%EG, ES = 0CG, ES = -0.15Straight forward sprint, with varied distances (20 m – 40 m)1) 30 m2) 53) 100 °Repeated sprintChtara et al [51]EG, n = 12Age:13.6 ± 0.3CG, n = 10Men, Jr, Soccer7/1Pre:7.15 ± 0.20 Post:6.88 ± 0.14Pre:7.12 ± 0.22 Post:7.07 ± 0.21EG:3.78%CG:0.70%EG, ES = 1.59CG, ES = 0.23Repeated sprint with different distances and series, R:2, S:2–4Zig-zag test1) 20 m2) 33) 100 °Taylor et al [93]EG, n = 8Age: 24.1 ± 4.1Semi- prof. Men, Soccer2...…”

Overview of Tuberculosis Preventive Treatment Among Children in Surabaya

“…TB in children is mostly obtained from contact with smear-positive adults. This is because the symptoms of TB in children generally do not produce sputum so that it has less effect on other children (Prieske, Krüger, Aehle, Bauer, & Granacher, 2018). Effectiveness of INH for the prevention of TB has been observed.…”