Refine
Has Fulltext
- no (4)
Year of publication
- 2018 (4) (remove)
Document Type
- Review (4) (remove)
Language
- English (4) (remove)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (4)
Keywords
- adolescent (1)
- cardiorespiratory fitness (1)
- child (1)
- muscle strength (1)
- physical conditioning human (1)
- resistance training (1)
- youth sports (1)
Institute
Recently, there has been a proliferation of published articles on the effect of plyometric jump training, including several review articles and meta-analyses. However, these types of research articles are generally of narrow scope. Furthermore, methodological limitations among studies (e.g., a lack of active/passive control groups) prevent the generalization of results, and these factors need to be addressed by researchers. On that basis, the aims of this scoping review were to (1) characterize the main elements of plyometric jump training studies (e.g., training protocols) and (2) provide future directions for research. From 648 potentially relevant articles, 242 were eligible for inclusion in this review. The main issues identified related to an insufficient number of studies conducted in females, youths, and individual sports (~ 24.0, ~ 37.0, and ~ 12.0% of overall studies, respectively); insufficient reporting of effect size values and training prescription (~ 34.0 and ~ 55.0% of overall studies, respectively); and studies missing an active/passive control group and randomization (~ 40.0 and ~ 20.0% of overall studies, respectively). Furthermore, plyometric jump training was often combined with other training methods and added to participants’ daily training routines (~ 47.0 and ~ 39.0% of overall studies, respectively), thus distorting conclusions on its independent effects. Additionally, most studies lasted no longer than 7 weeks. In future, researchers are advised to conduct plyometric training studies of high methodological quality (e.g., randomized controlled trials). More research is needed in females, youth, and individual sports. Finally, the identification of specific dose-response relationships following plyometric training is needed to specifically tailor intervention programs, particularly in the long term.
Combining training of muscle strength and cardiorespiratory fitness within a training cycle could increase athletic performance more than single-mode training. However, the physiological effects produced by each training modality could also interfere with each other, improving athletic performance less than single-mode training. Because anthropometric, physiological, and biomechanical differences between young and adult athletes can affect the responses to exercise training, young athletes might respond differently to concurrent training (CT) compared with adults. Thus, the aim of the present systematic review with meta-analysis was to determine the effects of concurrent strength and endurance training on selected physical fitness components and athletic performance in youth. A systematic literature search of PubMed and Web of Science identified 886 records. The studies included in the analyses examined children (girls age 6-11 years, boys age 6-13 years) or adolescents (girls age 12-18 years, boys age 14-18 years), compared CT with single-mode endurance (ET) or strength training (ST), and reported at least one strength/power-(e.g., jump height), endurance-(e.g., peak. VO2, exercise economy), or performance-related (e.g., time trial) outcome. We calculated weighted standardized mean differences (SMDs). CT compared to ET produced small effects in favor of CT on athletic performance (n = 11 studies, SMD = 0.41, p = 0.04) and trivial effects on cardiorespiratory endurance (n = 4 studies, SMD = 0.04, p = 0.86) and exercise economy (n = 5 studies, SMD = 0.16, p = 0.49) in young athletes. A sub-analysis of chronological age revealed a trend toward larger effects of CT vs. ET on athletic performance in adolescents (SMD = 0.52) compared with children (SMD = 0.17). CT compared with ST had small effects in favor of CT on muscle power (n = 4 studies, SMD = 0.23, p = 0.04). In conclusion, CT is more effective than single-mode ET or ST in improving selected measures of physical fitness and athletic performance in youth. Specifically, CT compared with ET improved athletic performance in children and particularly adolescents. Finally, CT was more effective than ST in improving muscle power in youth.
Background Effects and dose-response relationships of balance training on measures of balance are well-documented for healthy young and old adults. However, this has not been systematically studied in youth. Objectives The objectives of this systematic review and meta-analysis were to quantify effects of balance training (BT) on measures of static and dynamic balance in healthy children and adolescents. Additionally, dose-response relations for BT modalities (e.g. training period, frequency, volume) were quantified through the analysis of controlled trials. Data Sources A computerized systematic literature search was conducted in the electronic databases PubMed and Web of Science from January 1986 until June 2017 to identify articles related to BT in healthy trained and untrained children and adolescents. Study Eligibility Criteria A systematic approach was used to evaluate articles that examined the effects of BT on balance outcomes in youth. Controlled trials with pre- and post-measures were included if they examined healthy youth with a mean age of 6-19 years and assessed at least one measure of balance (i.e. static/dynamic steady-state balance, reactive balance, proactive balance) with behavioural (e.g. time during single-leg stance) or biomechanical (e.g. centre of pressure displacements during single-leg stance) test methods. Study Appraisal and Synthesis Methods The included studies were coded for the following criteria: training modalities (i.e. training period, frequency, volume), balance outcomes (i.e. static and dynamic balance) as well as chronological age, sex (male vs. female), training status (trained vs. untrained), setting (school vs. club), and testing method (biomechanical vs. physical fitness test). Weighted mean standardized mean differences (SMDwm) were calculated using a random-effects model to compute overall intervention effects relative to active and passive control groups. Between-study heterogeneity was assessed using I 2 and chi(2) statistics. A multivariate random effects meta-regression was computed to explain the influence of key training modalities (i.e. training period, training frequency, total number of training sessions, duration of training sessions, and total duration of training per week) on the effectiveness of BT on measures of balance performance. Further, subgroup univariate analyses were computed for each training modality. Additionally, dose-response relationships were characterized independently by interpreting the modality specific magnitude of effect sizes. Methodological quality of the included studies was rated with the help of the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) Scale. Results Overall, our literature search revealed 198 hits of which 17 studies were eligible for inclusion in this systematic review and meta-analysis. Irrespective of age, sex, training status, sport discipline and training method, moderate to large BT-related effects were found for measures of static (SMDwm = 0.71) and dynamic (SMDwm = 1.03) balance in youth. However, our subgroup analyses did not reveal any statistically significant effects of the moderator variables age, sex, training status, setting and testing method on overall balance (i.e. aggregation of static and dynamic balance). BT-related effects in adolescents were moderate to large for measures of static (SMDwm = 0.61) and dynamic (SMDwm = 0.86) balance. With regard to the dose-response relationships, findings from the multivariate random effects meta-regression revealed that none of the examined training modalities predicted the effects of BT on balance performance in adolescents (R-2 = 0.00). In addition, results from univariate analysis have to be interpreted with caution because training modalities were computed as single factors irrespective of potential between-modality interactions. For training period, 12 weeks of training achieved the largest effect (SMDwm = 1.40). For training frequency, the largest effect was found for two sessions per week (SMDwm = 1.29). For total number of training sessions, the largest effect was observed for 24-36 sessions (SMDwm = 1.58). For the modality duration of a single training session, 4-15 min reached the largest effect (SMDwm = 1.03). Finally, for the modality training per week, a total duration of 31-60 min per week (SMDwm = 1.33) provided the largest effects on overall balance in adolescents. Methodological quality of the studies was rated as moderate with a median PEDro score of 6.0. Limitations Dose-response relationships were calculated independently for training modalities (i.e. modality specific) and not interdependently. Training intensity was not considered for the calculation of dose-response relationships because the included studies did not report this training modality. Further, the number of included studies allowed the characterization of dose-response relationships in adolescents for overall balance only. In addition, our analyses revealed a considerable between-study heterogeneity (I-2 = 66-83%). The results of this meta-analysis have to be interpreted with caution due to their preliminary status. Conclusions BT is a highly effective means to improve balance performance with moderate to large effects on static and dynamic balance in healthy youth irrespective of age, sex, training status, setting and testing method. The examined training modalities did not have a moderating effect on balance performance in healthy adolescents. Thus, we conclude that an additional but so far unidentified training modality may have a major effect on balance performance that was not assessed in our analysis. Training intensity could be a promising candidate. However, future studies are needed to find appropriate methods to assess BT intensity.
Background
Jump training (JT) can be used to enhance the ability of skeletal muscle to exert maximal force in as short a time as possible. Despite its usefulness as a method of performance enhancement in athletes, only a small number of studies have investigated its effects on muscle power in older adults.
Objectives
The aims of this meta-analysis were to measure the effect of JT on muscular power in older adults (≥ 50 years), and to establish appropriate programming guidelines for this population.
Data Sources
The data sources utilised were Google Scholar, PubMed, and Microsoft Academic.
Study Eligibility Criteria
Studies were eligible for inclusion if they comprised JT interventions in healthy adults (≥ 50 years) who were free of any medical condition that could impair movement.
Study Appraisal and Synthesis Methods
The inverse variance random-effects model for meta-analyses was used because it allocates a proportionate weight to trials based on the size of their individual standard errors and facilitates analysis while accounting for heterogeneity across studies. Effect sizes (ESs), calculated from a measure of muscular power, were represented by the standardised mean difference and were presented alongside 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
Results
Thirteen training groups across nine studies were included in this meta-analysis. The magnitude of the main effect was ‘moderate’ (0.66, 95% CI 0.33, 0.98). ESs were larger in non-obese participants (body mass index [BMI] < 30 vs. ≥ 30 kg/m2; 1.03 [95% CI 0.34, 1.73] vs. 0.53 [95% CI − 0.03, 1.09]). Among the studies included in this review, just one reported an acute injury, which did not result in the participant ceasing their involvement. JT was more effective in programmes with more than one exercise (range 1–4 exercises; ES = 0.74 [95% CI − 0.49, 1.96] vs. 0.53 [95% CI 0.29, 0.78]), more than two sets per exercise (range 1–4 sets; ES = 0.91 [95% CI 0.04, 1.77] vs. 0.68 [95% CI 0.15, 1.21]), more than three jumps per set (range 1–14 jumps; ES = 1.02 [95% CI 0.16, 1.87] vs. 0.53 [95% CI − 0.03, 1.09]) and more than 25 jumps per session (range 6–200 jumps; ES = 0.88 [95% CI 0.05, 1.70] vs. 0.49 [95% CI 0.14, 0.83]).
Conclusions
JT is safe and effective in older adults. Practitioners should construct varied JT programmes that include more than one exercise and comprise more than two sets per exercise, more than three jumps per set, and 60 s of recovery between sets. An upper limit of three sets per exercise and ten jumps per set is recommended. Up to three training sessions per week can be performed.