TY - JOUR
T1 - Effects of velocity based training vs. traditional 1RM percentage-based training on improving strength, jump, linear sprint and change of direction speed performance
T2 - A Systematic review with meta-analysis
AU - Liao, Kai Fang
AU - Wang, Xin Xin
AU - Han, Meng Yuan
AU - Li, Lin Long
AU - Nassis, George P.
AU - Li, Yong Ming
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2021 Liao et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
PY - 2021/11
Y1 - 2021/11
N2 - Background There has been a surge of interest on velocity-based training (VBT) in recent years. However, it remains unclear whether VBT is more effective in improving strength, jump, linear sprint and change of direction speed (CODs) than the traditional 1RM percentage-based training (PBT). Objectives To compare the training effects in VBT vs. PBT upon strength, jump, linear sprint and CODs performance. Data sources Web of science, PubMed and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI). Study eligibility criteria The qualified studies for inclusion in the meta-analysis must have included a resistance training intervention that compared the effects of VBT and PBT on at least one measure of strength, jump, linear sprint and CODs with participants aged ≥16 yrs. and be written in English or Chinese. Methods The modified Pedro Scale was used to assess the risk of bias. Random-effects model was used to calculate the effects via the mean change and pre-SD (standard deviation). Mean difference (MD) or Standardized mean difference (SMD) was presented correspondently with 95% confidence interval (CI). Results Six studies met the inclusion criteria including a total of 124 participants aged 16 to 30 yrs. The differences of training effects between VBT and PBT were not significant in back squat 1RM (MD = 3.03kg; 95%CI: -3.55, 9.61; I2 = 0%) and load velocity 60%1RM (MD = 0.02m/s; 95%CI: -0.01,0.06; I2 = 0%), jump (SMD = 0.27; 95%CI: -0.15,0.7; I2 = 0%), linear sprint (MD = 0.01s; 95%CI: -0.06, 0.07; I2 = 0%), and CODs (SMD = 0.49; 95%CI: -0.14, 1.07; I2 = 0%). Conclusion Both VBT and PBT can enhance strength, jump, linear sprint and CODs performance effectively without significant group difference.
AB - Background There has been a surge of interest on velocity-based training (VBT) in recent years. However, it remains unclear whether VBT is more effective in improving strength, jump, linear sprint and change of direction speed (CODs) than the traditional 1RM percentage-based training (PBT). Objectives To compare the training effects in VBT vs. PBT upon strength, jump, linear sprint and CODs performance. Data sources Web of science, PubMed and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI). Study eligibility criteria The qualified studies for inclusion in the meta-analysis must have included a resistance training intervention that compared the effects of VBT and PBT on at least one measure of strength, jump, linear sprint and CODs with participants aged ≥16 yrs. and be written in English or Chinese. Methods The modified Pedro Scale was used to assess the risk of bias. Random-effects model was used to calculate the effects via the mean change and pre-SD (standard deviation). Mean difference (MD) or Standardized mean difference (SMD) was presented correspondently with 95% confidence interval (CI). Results Six studies met the inclusion criteria including a total of 124 participants aged 16 to 30 yrs. The differences of training effects between VBT and PBT were not significant in back squat 1RM (MD = 3.03kg; 95%CI: -3.55, 9.61; I2 = 0%) and load velocity 60%1RM (MD = 0.02m/s; 95%CI: -0.01,0.06; I2 = 0%), jump (SMD = 0.27; 95%CI: -0.15,0.7; I2 = 0%), linear sprint (MD = 0.01s; 95%CI: -0.06, 0.07; I2 = 0%), and CODs (SMD = 0.49; 95%CI: -0.14, 1.07; I2 = 0%). Conclusion Both VBT and PBT can enhance strength, jump, linear sprint and CODs performance effectively without significant group difference.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85119479044&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85119479044&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1371/journal.pone.0259790
DO - 10.1371/journal.pone.0259790
M3 - Review article
C2 - 34793506
AN - SCOPUS:85119479044
SN - 1932-6203
VL - 16
JO - PLoS ONE
JF - PLoS ONE
IS - 11 November
M1 - e0259790
ER -