Effects on strength, power, and flexibility in adolescents of nonperiodized vs. daily nonlinear periodized weight training

Reporting of Adverse Events in Muscle Strengthening Interventions in Youth: A Systematic Review

Clear definition, identification, and reporting of adverse event (AE) monitoring during training interventions are essential for decision making regarding the safety of training and testing in youths.

PURPOSE

To document the extent to which AEs, resulting from intervention studies targeting muscle strengthening training (MST) in youth, are reported by researchers.

METHODS

Electronic databases (CINAHL, PubMed, SPORTDiscus, and Web of Science) were searched for English peer-reviewed articles published before April 2018. Inclusion criteria were: (1) average age <16 years, (2) use of MST, (3) statement(s) linked to the presence/absence of AEs, and (4) randomized controlled trials or quasi-experimental designs. Risk of reporting bias for AEs followed recommendations by the Cochrane Collaboration group.

RESULTS

One hundred and ninety-one full-text articles were screened. One hundred and thirty met all MST criteria, out of which only 44 (33.8%; n = 1278, age = 12.1 [1.1] y) included a statement as to the presence/absence of adverse events. The 86 other studies (66.2%) included no such statement. Of the reporting 44 studies, 18 (40.1%) indicated one or more adverse events. Of the 93 reported adverse events, 55 (59.1%) were linked to training or testing.

CONCLUSIONS

Most MST studies in youth do not report presence/absence of adverse events, and when reported, adverse events are not well defined.

Resistance Training Induces Improvements in Range of Motion: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Although it is known that resistance training can be as effective as stretch training to increase joint range of motion, to date no comprehensive meta-analysis has investigated the effects of resistance training on range of motion with all its potential affecting variables.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this systematic review with meta-analysis was to evaluate the effect of chronic resistance training on range of motion compared either to a control condition or stretch training or to a combination of resistance training and stretch training to stretch training, while assessing moderating variables.

DESIGN

For the main analysis, a random-effect meta-analysis was used and for the subgroup analysis a mixed-effect model was implemented. Whilst subgroup analyses included sex and participants' activity levels, meta-regression included age, frequency, and duration of resistance training.

DATA SOURCES

Following the systematic search in four databases (PubMed, Scopus, SPORTDiscus, and Web of Science) and reference lists, 55 studies were found to be eligible.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Controlled or randomized controlled trials that separately compared the training effects of resistance training exercises with either a control group, stretching group, or combined stretch and resistance training group on range of motion in healthy participants.

RESULTS

Resistance training increased range of motion (effect size [ES] = 0.73; p < 0.001) with the exception of no significant range of motion improvement with resistance training using only body mass. There were no significant differences between resistance training versus stretch training (ES = 0.08; p = 0.79) or between resistance training and stretch training versus stretch training alone (ES = - 0.001; p = 0.99). Although "trained or active people" increased range of motion (ES = 0.43; p < 0.001) "untrained and sedentary" individuals had significantly (p = 0.005) higher magnitude range of motion changes (ES = 1.042; p < 0.001). There were no detected differences between sex and contraction type. Meta-regression showed no effect of age, training duration, or frequency.

CONCLUSIONS

As resistance training with external loads can improve range of motion, stretching prior to or after resistance training may not be necessary to enhance flexibility.

Toward a New Paradigm in Resistance Training by Means of Velocity Monitoring: A Critical and Challenging Narrative

For more than a century, many concepts and several theories and principles pertaining to the goals, organization, methodology and evaluation of the effects of resistance training (RT) have been developed and discussed between coaches and scientists. This cumulative body of knowledge and practices has contributed substantially to the evolution of RT methodology. However, a detailed and rigorous examination of the existing literature reveals many inconsistencies that, unless resolved, could seriously hinder further progress in our field. The purpose of this review is to constructively expose, analyze and discuss a set of anomalies present in the current RT methodology, including: (a) the often inappropriate and misleading terminology used, (b) the need to clarify the aims of RT, (c) the very concept of maximal strength, (d) the control and monitoring of the resistance exercise dose, (e) the existing programming models and (f) the evaluation of training effects. A thorough and unbiased examination of these deficiencies could well lead to the adoption of a revised paradigm for RT. This new paradigm must guarantee a precise knowledge of the loads being applied, the effort they involve and their effects. To the best of our knowledge, currently this can only be achieved by monitoring repetition velocity during training. The main contribution of a velocity-based RT approach is that it provides the necessary information to know the actual training loads that induce a specific effect in each athlete. The correct adoption of this revised paradigm will provide coaches and strength and conditioning professionals with accurate and objective information concerning the applied load (relative load, level of effort and training effect). This knowledge is essential to make rational and informed decisions and to improve the training methodology itself.

Effects of Periodization on Strength and Muscle Hypertrophy in Volume-Equated Resistance Training Programs: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

In resistance training, periodization is often used in an attempt to promote development of strength and muscle hypertrophy. However, it remains unclear how resistance training variables are most effectively periodized to maximize gains in strength and muscle hypertrophy.

OBJECTIVE

The aims of this study were to examine the current body of literature to determine whether there is an effect of periodization of training volume and intensity on maximal strength and muscle hypertrophy, and, if so, to determine how these variables are more effectively periodized to promote increases in strength and muscle hypertrophy, when volume is equated between conditions from pre to post intervention.

METHODS

Systematic searches were conducted in PubMed, Scopus and SPORTDiscus databases. Data from the individual studies were extracted and coded. Meta-analyses using the inverse-variance random effects model were performed to compare 1-repetition maximum (1RM) and muscle hypertrophy outcomes in (a) non-periodized (NP) versus periodized training and (b) in linear periodization (LP) versus undulating periodization (UP). Subgroup analyses examining whether results were affected by training status were performed. Meta-analyses of other periodization model comparisons were not performed, due to a low number of studies.

RESULTS

Thirty-five studies met the inclusion criteria. Results of the meta-analyses comparing NP and periodized training demonstrated an overall effect on 1RM strength favoring periodized training (ES 0.31, 95% confidence interval (CI) [0.04, 0.57]; Z = 2.28, P = 0.02). In contrast, muscle hypertrophy did not differ between NP and periodized training (ES 0.13, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.36]; Z = 1.10, P = 0.27). Results of the meta-analyses comparing LP and UP indicated an overall effect on 1RM favoring UP (ES 0.31, 95% CI [0.02, 0.61]; Z = 2.06, P = 0.04). Subgroup analyses indicated an effect on 1RM favoring UP in trained participants (ES 0.61, 95% CI [0.00, 1.22]; Z = 1.97 (P = 0.05)), whereas changes in 1RM did not differ between LP and UP in untrained participants (ES 0.06, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.31]; Z = 0.43 (P = 0.67)). The meta-analyses showed that muscle hypertrophy did not differ between LP and UP (ES 0.05, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.29]; Z = 0.36 (P = 0.72)).

CONCLUSION

The results suggest that when volume is equated between conditions, periodized resistance training has a greater effect on 1RM strength compared to NP resistance training. Also, UP resulted in greater increases in 1RM compared to LP. However, subgroup analyses revealed that this was only the case for trained and not previously untrained individuals, indicating that trained individuals benefit from daily or weekly undulations in volume and intensity, when the aim is maximal strength. Periodization of volume and intensity does not seem to affect muscle hypertrophy in volume-equated pre-post designs. Based on this, we propose that the effects of periodization on maximal strength may instead be related to the neurophysiological adaptations accompanying resistance training.

The Effect of Intensity, Frequency, Duration and Volume of Physical Activity in Children and Adolescents on Skeletal Muscle Fitness: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Physical activity could improve the muscle fitness of youth, but the systematic analysis of physical activity elements and muscle fitness was limited. This systematic review and meta-analysis aim to explore the influence of physical activity elements on muscle fitness in children and adolescents. We analyzed literature in Embase, EBSCO, Web of Science, and PubMed databases from January 2000 to September 2020. Only randomized controlled studies with an active control group, which examined at least 1 muscle fitness evaluation index in individuals aged 5–18 years were included. Articles were evaluated using the Jaded scale. Weighted-mean standardized mean differences (SMDs) were calculated using random-effects models. Twenty-one studies and 2267 subjects were included. Physical activity had moderate effects on improving muscle fitness (SMD: 0.58–0.96, p < 0.05). Physical activity element subgroup analysis showed that high-intensity (SMD 0.68–0.99, p < 0.05) physical activity <3 times/week (SMD 0.68–0.99, p < 0.05), and <60 min/session (SMD 0.66–0.76, p < 0.01) effectively improved muscle fitness. Resistance training of ≥3 sets/session (SMD 0.93–2.90, p < 0.01) and <10 repetitions/set (SMD 0.93–1.29, p < 0.05) significantly improved muscle fitness. Low-frequency, high-intensity, and short-duration physical activity more effectively improves muscle fitness in children and adolescents. The major limitation of this meta-analysis was the low quality of included studies. The study was registered in PROSPERO with the registration number CRD42020206963 and was funded mainly by the Ministry of Education of Humanities and Social Science project, China.

The Case for Retiring Flexibility as a Major Component of Physical Fitness

Flexibility refers to the intrinsic properties of body tissues that determine maximal joint range of motion without causing injury. For many years, flexibility has been classified by the American College of Sports Medicine as a major component of physical fitness. The notion flexibility is important for fitness has also led to the idea static stretching should be prescribed to improve flexibility. The current paper proposes flexibility be retired as a major component of physical fitness, and consequently, stretching be de-emphasized as a standard component of exercise prescriptions for most populations. First, I show flexibility has little predictive or concurrent validity with health and performance outcomes (e.g., mortality, falls, occupational performance) in apparently healthy individuals, particularly when viewed in light of the other major components of fitness (i.e., body composition, cardiovascular endurance, muscle endurance, muscle strength). Second, I explain that if flexibility requires improvement, this does not necessitate a prescription of stretching in most populations. Flexibility can be maintained or improved by exercise modalities that cause more robust health benefits than stretching (e.g., resistance training). Retirement of flexibility as a major component of physical fitness will simplify fitness batteries; save time and resources dedicated to flexibility instruction, measurement, and evaluation; and prevent erroneous conclusions about fitness status when interpreting flexibility scores. De-emphasis of stretching in exercise prescriptions will ensure stretching does not negatively impact other exercise and does not take away from time that could be allocated to training activities that have more robust health and performance benefits.

Periodization: Variation in the Definition and Discrepancies in Study Design

Over the past several decades, periodization has been widely accepted as the gold standard of training theory. Within the literature, there are numerous definitions for periodization, which makes it difficult to study. When examining the proposed definitions and related studies on periodization, problems arise in the following domains: (1) periodization has been proposed to serve as the macro-management of the training process concerning the annual plan, yet research on long-term effects is scarce; (2) periodization and programming are being used interchangeably in research; and (3) training is not periodized alongside other stressors such as sport (i.e., only resistance training is being performed without the inclusion of sport). Overall, the state of the literature suggests that the inability to define periodization makes the statement of its superiority difficult to experimentally test. This paper discusses the proposed definitions of periodization and the study designs which have been employed to examine the concept.

A Review of Countermovement and Squat Jump Testing Methods in the Context of Public Health Examination in Adolescence: Reliability and Feasibility of Current Testing Procedures

BACKGROUND

In the context of a public health physical fitness (PF) examination in adolescence, a countermovement jump (CMJ) and a squat jump (SJ) are two vertical jump (VJ) tests widely used to evaluate lower limb muscle strength and power, respectively. The main criticism of both the CMJ and SJ test is the lack of test standardization. Therefore, the objectives of this review are: (a) to gather information about both jumps; (b) to investigate whether it is possible to identify common procedures referred to in the CMJ and SJ technical execution, and (c) to design standard operating procedures (SOPs) to promote CMJ and SJ standardization in an adolescent population aged 12-18 years.

METHODS

The review partially adopted the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Statement (PRISMA). Due to growing attention in monitoring physical health through field tests in recent years, articles were collected using the PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus databases from January 2009 to July 2019. Original articles in which CMJ or SJ were used to assess the muscular strength in adolescents were eligible for further analysis. Articles written in English was imposed as a limit.

RESULTS

A total of 117 studies met the inclusion criteria. The description of the CMJ and SJ test procedures was different within the literature, with discrepancies in the jump technique, number of jumps, and measurement devices used.

CONCLUSIONS

A lack of method standardization for both the CMJ and the SJ test was identified. Based on the literature, SOPs for both VJs were proposed. These are useful in the context of public health PF examination in adolescents, as they facilitate an unbiased comparison of jump performance data between published studies.

A Systematic Review of Meta-Analyses Comparing Periodized and Non-periodized Exercise Programs: Why We Should Go Back to Original Research

Periodization schedules training periods according to predicted timings of cumulative adaptations and has been at the foundation of exercise prescription. Recently, a selected body of work has highlighted that original research may be providing support for variation, but not for periodized variation. Furthermore, it has been suggested that the timings of expected adaptations have not been tested. However, it is not clear if these problems are present in meta-analyses on the subject, since they might have selected a distinct body or work. Therefore, our goal was to systematically review meta-analyses on exercise periodization, to verify whether the included periodized programs have been contrasted to two types of non-periodized programs (i.e., constant or varied) and also if the predictions concerning cumulative adaptations were tested. Data sources: Cochrane, EBSCO (Academic Search Complete, CINAHL Plus, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, SportDISCUS), ISI Web of Knowledge, PEDro, PubMed, Scielo, Scopus. Study eligibility criteria: Meta-analyses comparing periodized exercise programs with non-periodized programs. Participants and interventions: Humans following any form of training periodization. Study appraisal and synthesis methods: A checklist was used to verify whether studies included in the meta-analyses compared periodized to constant or varied, non-periodized programs, as well as whether predictions concerning the timing of adaptations were tested. None of the 21 studies included in the two meta-analyses compared periodized programs with varied, non-periodized programs. The accuracy of the predictions concerning the proposed timings of adaptations was not scrutinized by any of the 21 studies. The studies in question have focused only on strength training, meaning they are limited in scope. The limitations found in these meta-analyses suggest that consultation of original research on the subject is advisable. Systematic review registration number (PROSPERO): CRD42018111338.

Short-Term Effects of Resistance Training Modalities on Performance Measures in Male Adolescents

Winwood, PW and Buckley, JJ. Short-term effects of resistance training modalities on performance measures in male adolescents. J Strength Cond Res 33(3): 641-650, 2019-This study compared the effects of 7 weeks of bodyweight, mobility, and resistance training programs on strength, power, and sprint times. Thirty-nine male adolescents (aged 14-15 years) were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 groups: bodyweight and mobility training (BMT) (n = 25) or combined bodyweight, mobility, and free-weights training (CBT) (n = 14). A physical education class (n = 23) of similar age constituted a control group (CON). Both training groups performed 2 BMT sessions per week, and the CBT group performed 2 additional free-weight resistance exercise training sessions. Pretesting and posttesting consisted of vertical and horizontal jump tests, 5- and 20-m sprint tests, 2-kg medicine ball throw test, and maximal number of press ups. Small significant improvements (p ≤ 0.01) between pre-post measures were observed in the CBT group for 20 m (↑2.4%; effect size [ES] = -0.45) sprint time and horizontal jump distance (↑4.2%; ES = 0.43). No significant differences existed between the groups when the mean changes were compared. Effect sizes demonstrated training improvements were in favor of the CBT group (for sprint times, horizontal jump distance, and maximal press ups; ES = 0.35 to -1.35) compared with the BMT and CON groups and in favor of the BMT group (for sprint times and horizontal jump distance; ES = -0.33 to 0.34) compared with the CON group. Seven weeks of BMT and CBT can be beneficial for the development of physical performance capacities in untrained male adolescents. Increased training frequency with the addition of free weights provided the greatest training effects.

The Effect of Block Versus Daily Undulating Periodization on Strength and Performance in Adolescent Football Players

Purpose: Muscle mass, strength, and power are important factors for performance. To improve these characteristics, periodized resistance training is used. However, there is no consensus regarding the most effective periodization model. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to compare the effects of block (BLOCK) vs daily undulating periodization (DUP) on body composition, hypertrophy, strength, performance, and power in adolescent American football players. Methods: A total of 47 subjects participated in this study (mean [SD] age = 17 [0.8] y, strength training experience = 0.93 [0.99] y). Premeasurements and postmeasurements consisted of body mass (BM); fat mass; relative fat mass; fat-free mass (FFM); muscle mass (MM); muscle thickness of the vastus lateralis (VL), rectus femoris (RF), and triceps brachii (TB); 1-repetition-maximum back squat (BS) and bench press (BP); countermovement jump (CMJ); estimated peak power (Wpeak) from vertical jump performance; medicine-ball put (MBP); and 40-yd sprint. Subjects were randomly assigned in either the BLOCK or DUP group prior to the 12-wk intervention period consisting of 3 full-body sessions per week. Results: Both groups displayed significantly higher BM (P < .001), FFM (P < .001), MM (P < .001), RF (P < .001), VL (P < .001), TB (P < .001), BS (P < .001), BP (P < .001), CMJ (P < .001), Wpeak (P < .001), and MBP (P < .001) and significantly lower sprint times (P < .001) after 12 wk of resistance training, with no difference between groups. Conclusions: Resistance training was effective to increase muscle mass, strength, power, and performance in adolescent athletes. BLOCK and DUP affect anthropometric measures and physical performance equally.

The effect of resistance training interventions on fundamental movement skills in youth: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Fundamental movement skills (FMS) are strongly related to physical activity (PA) in childhood and beyond. To develop FMS, resistance training (RT) may be a favourable intervention strategy. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to systematically examine the effect of RT interventions on FMS in youth.

METHODS

Meta-analysis followed the PRISMA guidelines (Prospero registration number CRD42016038365). Electronic literature databases were searched from the year of their inception up to and including June 2017. The search strategy aimed to return studies that included product and process-oriented measures as a means of assessing FMS. Studies from English language peer-reviewed published articles that examined the effect of RT on indicators of FMS in youth, with participants of school age (5-18 years) were included.

RESULTS

Thirty-three data sets were included exploring five outcomes related to FMS. Studies included only reported product-oriented outcomes. Significant intervention effects were identified for: sprint (Hedges' g = 0.292, 95% CI 0.017 to 0.567, P = 0.038), squat jump (Hedges' g = 0.730, 95% CI 0.374 to 1.085, P = < 0.001), standing long jump (Hedges' g = 0.298, 95% CI 0.096 to 0.499, P = 0.004), throw (Hedges' g = 0.405, 95% CI 0.094 to 0.717, P = 0.011) and vertical jump (Hedges' g = 0.407, 95% CI 0.251 to 0.564, P = < 0.001). There was variable quality of studies, with 33.3% being classified as 'strong'.

CONCLUSION

RT has a positive impact on indicators of FMS in youth but more high-quality studies should be conducted to further investigate the role RT may play in the development of FMS. Additionally, to more comprehensively evaluate the impact of RT on FMS, there is a need for FMS assessments that measure both process- and product-oriented outcomes.

Effects of linear versus nonperiodized resistance training on isometric force and skeletal muscle mass adaptations in sarcopenic older adults

The aim of this study was to compare the effects of linear periodization (LP) versus nonperiodized (NP) resistance training on upper-body isometric force and skeletal muscle mass (SMM) in sarcopenic older adults. Twenty sarcopenic older adults were randomly assigned into the LP and NP groups and performed 16 weeks of resistance training. The SMM was measured by octopolar bioelectrical impedance. The isometric force for handgrip and trunk were assessed by dynamometer. Evaluations were performed at baseline, after 4, 8, 12, and 16 weeks of resistance training. For total weight lifted, there was a main effect for time (F=126.986, P<0.001), statistically significant difference between condition (F=13.867, P=0.001) and interaction (F=8.778, P<0.001), whereby total weight lifted was greater for NP after 4 months of training. Isometric force for handgrip and trunk increased across time (P<0.001) but no significant differences between groups or interaction were observed (P>0.05). The SMM increased across time (P<0.05), however no significant difference between groups or interaction were observed (P>0.05). There were strong and significant correlations between handgrip maximum force and SMM (LP: rho=0.79, P=0.004 vs. NP: rho=−0.43, P=0.244) and handgrip mean force and SMM (LP: rho=0.68, P=0.021 vs. NP: rho=−0.37, P=0.332) only for the LP group. In conclusion, LP and NP resistance training induced similar benefits on upper-body isometric force and SMM in sarcopenic older adults. However, LP presented lower total weight lifted, suggesting that it is possible to obtain similar gains in isometric force and SMM with less total work.

Comparison of Periodized and Non-Periodized Resistance Training on Maximal Strength: A Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Periodization is a logical method of organizing training into sequential phases and cyclical time periods in order to increase the potential for achieving specific performance goals while minimizing the potential for overtraining. Periodized resistance training plans are proposed to be superior to non-periodized training plans for enhancing maximal strength.

OBJECTIVE

The primary aim of this study was to examine the previous literature comparing periodized resistance training plans to non-periodized resistance training plans and determine a quantitative estimate of effect on maximal strength.

METHODS

All studies included in the meta-analysis met the following inclusion criteria: (1) peer-reviewed publication; (2) published in English; (3) comparison of a periodized resistance training group to a non-periodized resistance training group; (4) maximal strength measured by 1-repetition maximum (1RM) squat, bench press, or leg press. Data were extracted and independently coded by two authors. Random-effects models were used to aggregate a mean effect size (ES), 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and potential moderators.

RESULTS

The cumulative results of 81 effects gathered from 18 studies published between 1988 and 2015 indicated that the magnitude of improvement in 1RM following periodized resistance training was greater than non-periodized resistance training (ES = 0.43, 95% CI 0.27-0.58; P < 0.001). Periodization model (β = 0.51; P = 0.0010), training status (β = -0.59; P = 0.0305), study length (β = 0.03; P = 0.0067), and training frequency (β = 0.46; P = 0.0123) were associated with a change in 1RM. These results indicate that undulating programs were more favorable for strength gains. Improvements in 1RM were greater among untrained participants. Additionally, higher training frequency and longer study length were associated with larger improvements in 1RM.

CONCLUSION

These results suggest that periodized resistance training plans have a moderate effect on 1RM compared to non-periodized training plans. Variation in training stimuli appears to be vital for increasing maximal strength, and longer periods of higher training frequency may be preferred.

A systematic review on the effects of resistance and plyometric training on physical fitness in youth- What do comparative studies tell us?

INTRODUCTION

To date, several meta-analyses clearly demonstrated that resistance and plyometric training are effective to improve physical fitness in children and adolescents. However, a methodological limitation of meta-analyses is that they synthesize results from different studies and hence ignore important differences across studies (i.e., mixing apples and oranges). Therefore, we aimed at examining comparative intervention studies that assessed the effects of age, sex, maturation, and resistance or plyometric training descriptors (e.g., training intensity, volume etc.) on measures of physical fitness while holding other variables constant.

METHODS

To identify relevant studies, we systematically searched multiple electronic databases (e.g., PubMed) from inception to March 2018. We included resistance and plyometric training studies in healthy young athletes and non-athletes aged 6 to 18 years that investigated the effects of moderator variables (e.g., age, maturity, sex, etc.) on components of physical fitness (i.e., muscle strength and power).

RESULTS

Our systematic literature search revealed a total of 75 eligible resistance and plyometric training studies, including 5,138 participants. Mean duration of resistance and plyometric training programs amounted to 8.9 ± 3.6 weeks and 7.1±1.4 weeks, respectively. Our findings showed that maturation affects plyometric and resistance training outcomes differently, with the former eliciting greater adaptations pre-peak height velocity (PHV) and the latter around- and post-PHV. Sex has no major impact on resistance training related outcomes (e.g., maximal strength, 10 repetition maximum). In terms of plyometric training, around-PHV boys appear to respond with larger performance improvements (e.g., jump height, jump distance) compared with girls. Different types of resistance training (e.g., body weight, free weights) are effective in improving measures of muscle strength (e.g., maximum voluntary contraction) in untrained children and adolescents. Effects of plyometric training in untrained youth primarily follow the principle of training specificity. Despite the fact that only 6 out of 75 comparative studies investigated resistance or plyometric training in trained individuals, positive effects were reported in all 6 studies (e.g., maximum strength and vertical jump height, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

The present review article identified research gaps (e.g., training descriptors, modern alternative training modalities) that should be addressed in future comparative studies.

A Meta-Analysis to Determine Strength Training Related Dose-Response Relationships for Lower-Limb Muscle Power Development in Young Athletes

It is well-documented that strength training (ST) improves measures of muscle strength in young athletes. Less is known on transfer effects of ST on proxies of muscle power and the underlying dose-response relationships. The objectives of this meta-analysis were to quantify the effects of ST on lower limb muscle power in young athletes and to provide dose-response relationships for ST modalities such as frequency, intensity, and volume. A systematic literature search of electronic databases identified 895 records. Studies were eligible for inclusion if (i) healthy trained children (girls aged 6-11 y, boys aged 6-13 y) or adolescents (girls aged 12-18 y, boys aged 14-18 y) were examined, (ii) ST was compared with an active control, and (iii) at least one proxy of muscle power [squat jump (SJ) and countermovement jump height (CMJ)] was reported. Weighted mean standardized mean differences (SMDwm) between subjects were calculated. Based on the findings from 15 statistically aggregated studies, ST produced significant but small effects on CMJ height (SMDwm = 0.65; 95% CI 0.34-0.96) and moderate effects on SJ height (SMDwm = 0.80; 95% CI 0.23-1.37). The sub-analyses revealed that the moderating variable expertise level (CMJ height: p = 0.06; SJ height: N/A) did not significantly influence ST-related effects on proxies of muscle power. "Age" and "sex" moderated ST effects on SJ (p = 0.005) and CMJ height (p = 0.03), respectively. With regard to the dose-response relationships, findings from the meta-regression showed that none of the included training modalities predicted ST effects on CMJ height. For SJ height, the meta-regression indicated that the training modality "training duration" significantly predicted the observed gains (p = 0.02), with longer training durations (>8 weeks) showing larger improvements. This meta-analysis clearly proved the general effectiveness of ST on lower-limb muscle power in young athletes, irrespective of the moderating variables. Dose-response analyses revealed that longer training durations (>8 weeks) are more effective to improve SJ height. No such training modalities were found for CMJ height. Thus, there appear to be other training modalities besides the ones that were included in our analyses that may have an effect on SJ and particularly CMJ height. ST monitoring through rating of perceived exertion, movement velocity or force-velocity profile could be promising monitoring tools for lower-limb muscle power development in young athletes.

Effects of Single Versus Multiple Bouts of Resistance Training on Maximal Strength and Anaerobic Performance

This study examined the effects of one single bout daily versus triple bouts of resistance exercise for 12 weeks on muscular strength and anaerobic performance of the upper body. Twenty young male adults (age: 22.0 ± 1.0 years, bench press: 44.0 ± 10.3 kg) were randomly assigned to a single bout (SB) or triple bouts (TB) of resistance exercise group. Maximal strength and anaerobic performance of the upper body using the bench press (one-repetition maximum) and the modified 30 s Wingate test were determined before and after the intervention. Additionally, changes in lactate levels before and after the Wingate test were measured. Although the SB and TB groups showed a significant increase in maximal strength (post-intervention, SB: 67.2 ± 9.2 and TB: 67.6 ± 7.6 kg, respectively) compared with the values at pre-intervention (SB: 44.6 ± 11.4 and TB: 43.9 ± 8.7 kg, respectively), there was no significant difference for this variable between the two groups post-intervention (p > 0.05). The anaerobic performance of the upper body in the SB and TB groups also displayed improvements without significant difference between the two groups after the completion of different training regimes. On the basis of the same training volume, multiple bouts of resistance training showed similar improvements in maximal strength and anaerobic performance to one bout of resistance training in young adult men without prior experience in resistance training.

Effectiveness of Traditional Strength vs. Power Training on Muscle Strength, Power and Speed with Youth: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Numerous national associations and multiple reviews have documented the safety and efficacy of strength training for children and adolescents. The literature highlights the significant training-induced increases in strength associated with youth strength training. However, the effectiveness of youth strength training programs to improve power measures is not as clear. This discrepancy may be related to training and testing specificity. Most prior youth strength training programs emphasized lower intensity resistance with relatively slow movements. Since power activities typically involve higher intensity, explosive-like contractions with higher angular velocities (e.g., plyometrics), there is a conflict between the training medium and testing measures. This meta-analysis compared strength (e.g., training with resistance or body mass) and power training programs (e.g., plyometric training) on proxies of muscle strength, power, and speed. A systematic literature search using a Boolean Search Strategy was conducted in the electronic databases PubMed, SPORT Discus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar and revealed 652 hits. After perusal of title, abstract, and full text, 107 studies were eligible for inclusion in this systematic review and meta-analysis. The meta-analysis showed small to moderate magnitude changes for training specificity with jump measures. In other words, power training was more effective than strength training for improving youth jump height. For sprint measures, strength training was more effective than power training with youth. Furthermore, strength training exhibited consistently large magnitude changes to lower body strength measures, which contrasted with the generally trivial, small and moderate magnitude training improvements of power training upon lower body strength, sprint and jump measures, respectively. Maturity related inadequacies in eccentric strength and balance might influence the lack of training specificity with the unilateral landings and propulsions associated with sprinting. Based on this meta-analysis, strength training should be incorporated prior to power training in order to establish an adequate foundation of strength for power training activities.

Resistance Training in Youth: Laying the Foundation for Injury Prevention and Physical Literacy

CONTEXT

The rising incidence of physical activity- and sports-related injuries has prompted the present-day investigation of resistance training as a potential means of injury prevention and physical literacy development among youth.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

Relevant studies on the topics of athlete development, physical literacy, resistance training, and injury prevention in children and adolescents were reviewed (PubMed and Sports Discus, 1982-2016). Recommendations from consensus guidelines and position statements applicable to resistance training and injury prevention in youth, in addition to young athlete development, were reviewed. Additionally, hand searches, expert requests, article reference lists, and gray literature were utilized and reviewed for pertinent content.

STUDY DESIGN

Clinical review.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level 4.

RESULTS

Youth throughout the physical activity spectrum are at risk for physical activity- and sports-related injury. Of highest priority are early specializers, physically inactive youth, and young girls, owing to increased injury rates. Resistance training among these at-risk populations has been shown to reduce injury risk by up to 68% and improve sports performance and health measures, in addition to accelerating the development of physical literacy. Recent recommendations, position statements, and national initiatives advocate for the incorporation of resistance training with qualified instruction among these groups.

CONCLUSION

Resistance training in addition to free play and other structured physical activity training can serve as a protective means against injury and a positive catalyst for the development of physical literacy to offset the impact of diminishing physical activity and early sport specialization in today's youth.

Citius, Altius, Fortius: beneficial effects of resistance training for young athletes: Narrative review

The motto of the Olympic Games is Citius, Altius, Fortius which is Latin for 'Faster, Higher, Stronger'. It is a clarion call to all competitors, including the youngest, to engage in training strategies that prepare athletes to be the best in the world. Existing research indicates that various forms of resistance training can elicit performance improvements in young athletes. Stronger young athletes will be better prepared to learn complex movements, master sport tactics, and sustain the demands of training and competition. An integrative training programme grounded in resistance training and motor skill development can optimise a young athlete's potential to maximise their athletic and sporting performance, while reducing the risk of a sports-related injury. Resistance training may be especially important for modern-day young athletes who are more likely to specialise in one sport at an early age at the expense of enhancing general physical fitness and learning diversified sport skills. Structured interventions that include qualified instruction; targeted movement practice; and strength and conditioning activities that are developmentally appropriate, progressive and technique driven are needed to attain a level of athleticism that is consistent with the Olympic motto.

Comparison of resistance training progression models on maximal strength in sub-elite adolescent rugby union players

OBJECTIVES

To determine changes in maximal strength between two different resistance training progression models, linear (LP) and daily undulating (DUP), over a 12-week resistance training programme in sub-elite adolescent rugby union players.

DESIGN

The study used a quasi-experimental study design. Following baseline assessments, participants from Squad 1 were randomised to either LP or DUP; participants from Squad 2 formed a non-randomised comparison group (CON).

METHODS

Participants were 26 sub-elite adolescent rugby union players who were assessed at baseline and after 12 weeks. Outcomes included 5 repetition maximum (RM) box squat and bench press, height, body weight, skeletal muscle mass, percentage body fat and maturation status.

RESULTS

Participants in both the LP and DUP groups significantly increased their squat and bench press strength from baseline to 12 weeks. There were no significant differences between groups for squat and bench press increases after 12 weeks (p>0.05). No significant increases in squat or bench press strength were observed after 12 weeks in the CON group. Increases in lower body strength were large in the LP group (ES: 1.64) and very large in the DUP group (ES: 2.33). Upper body strength changes were small in both groups (LP, ES: 0.57; DUP, ES: 0.31).

CONCLUSIONS

Twelve weeks of LP or DUP resistance training are both effective at increasing maximal lower and upper body strength in adolescent rugby athletes. Additionally, twice weekly frequency of resistance training in adolescent rugby athletes with greater than 6-months resistance training experience is sufficient to elicit substantial increases in maximal strength.