Journals

Books

Sign in

JournalofScienceandMedicineinSport
Volume15,Issue6,November2012,Pages532540

Review

Resistancetrainingtoimprovepowerandsportsperformance
inadolescentathletes:Asystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
SimonK.Harries a,

,DavidR.Lubans b,RobinCallistera

Showmore
doi:10.1016/j.jsams.2012.02.005

Getrightsandcontent

Abstract
Objectives
Resistancetraininginuntrainedadolescentscanpositivelyeffecthealthrelatedfitness
aswellasimprovemuscularpowerandsportsperformance.Theimpactofresistance
trainingonadolescentathletesislessclear.Thepurposeofthisreviewistodetermine
theeffectivenessofresistancetrainingprogramsonmuscularpowerandsports
performanceinadolescentathletes.
Design
Systematicreviewandmetaanalysisofpreviouslypublishedstudiesinvestigating
resistancetraininginadolescentathletepopulations.
Methods
AsystematicsearchofMedline,Embase,andSPORTDiscusdatabaseswasconducted
on21stMarch2011toidentifystudiesevaluatingresistancetrainingprogramsonpower
andsportsperformanceinadolescentathletes.
Results
Thirtyfourstudieswereidentified.Allbuttwoofthestudiesreportedatleastone
statisticallysignificantimprovementinanalacticmuscularpoweroutcome.Themost
commonindicatorsofalacticpowerwereverticaljump(25studies)andsprintrunning(13
studies)performance.Fourteenstudiesprovideddatatoallowforpoolingofresultsina
metaanalysis.Apositiveeffectwasdetectedforresistancetrainingprogramsonvertical
jumpperformance(meandifference3.08[95%CI1.65,4.51],Z=4.23[P<0.0001]).
Conclusions
Thereissufficientevidencetoconcludethatresistancetraininginterventionscan
improvemuscularpowerinadolescentathletes.Apositiveeffectonsportsperformance
attributabletoparticipationinresistancetrainingwasreportedbyalmosthalftheincluded
studies,howeverlimitedobjectiveevidencetosupporttheseclaimswasfound.
Improvementsinmotorperformanceskills,suchasjumping,arewidelystatedas
indicatorsofimprovementsinsportingperformance.

Keywords
AdolescentsAthleticperformanceWeightliftingMuscularpowerVerticaljump

Help

1.Introduction
Theuseofresistancetraining(RT)bychildrenandadolescentshasattractedincreased
interestasameanstoimprovehealthandperformancerelatedfitnesscomponents.
TheNationalStrengthandConditioningAssociation(NSCA)definesRTasaspecialised
formofconditioninginvolvingtheprogressiveuseofawiderangeofresistiveloadsanda
varietyoftrainingmodalitiesdesignedtoenhancehealth,fitness,andsports
performance.1Numerousreviewsandpositionpaperspublishedbyadvisorybodies
havedispelledpreviousconcernsregardingthesafetyandefficacyofRTforchildrenand
adolescents.1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11and12
RTinchildrenandadolescentsisreportedtohavebeneficialeffectson:muscular
strengthandpower1,5,6,9,10and12preventionandrehabilitationofinjuries1,5,9and10
longtermhealth1,5and11cardiovascularfitness1,5and11bodycomposition1,5and11
bonemineraldensity1,5and11bloodlipidprofiles1,5and11andselfesteem,depression
andmentalhealth.1and5TheNSCAreportsstrengthgainsofapproximately30%are
typicallyobservedafterappropriatelydesignedandsupervisedshorttermRTprograms
undertakenbychildrenandadolescents.1
RTmayalsobenefitsportsperformance.1,5,10and11Explosivemuscularpowerandrate
offorceproductionarethebasisformostsportingactions.13and14Speedandpowerare
essentialcharacteristicsneededforsuccessfulperformanceinalargerangeofsports.15
Ithasbeentheorisedthatincreasesinthemuscularstrengthandpowerlevelsof
adolescentsafterparticipationinRTmayimprovesportingperformance,1,5and11but
thereislittledirectevidencetoconcludethatincreasesinmuscularstrengthandpower
alonewillimproveadolescentsportingperformance.5and10Increasesinstrengthand
powerafterRTinbothpreadolescentsandadolescentsareusuallyattributedto
increasedneuromuscularactivationandcoordinationratherthanmusclehypertrophy.1,
5,10,11,12and16Improvementsinmotorperformanceskillsarealsoreportedtocontribute
toincreasesinstrength.1,10and11Researcherscommonlyusemotorperformanceskill
testssuchashorizontalandverticaljumpsandsprinttimestoassesschangesin
muscularstrengthandpower.1Thesetestsarepractical,costeffectivetoolstoassess
muscularpower.14,17,18,19and20Arecentinvestigationoftheintrasessionandinter
sessionreliabilityofthreedevicescommonlyusedtomeasureverticaljumpheight
revealedanadequatelevelofreliability(intrasessionreliability:ICC0.920.95andCV%
3.35.5%intersessionreliability:ICC0.840.90andCV%5.36.3%).21Theauthors
highlightedtheimportanceoftestfamiliarisationproceduresandprotocolsincluding
multiplejumpattempts,toattainreliableresults.21Despitealackofclearevidence
supportingtheassociationbetweenmeasuresofmotorperformanceandimproved
adolescentsportsperformance,theresultsofmotorperformancetestsareoftenusedto
infersubsequentimprovementsinsportsperformance.17
ArecentreviewbyBehringeretal.[55]concludedthatRTiseffectiveforimprovingmotor
performanceinchildrenandadolescents.Mostoftheseparticipantshadnoathletic
background(66%)andmanystudiesincludedbothchildrenandadolescents.No
previousreviewhassummarisedthepotentialofRTtoimprovemuscularpowerand
sportsperformanceinadolescentathletes.Consequently,theprimaryaimofthis
systematicreviewandmetaanalysisistodeterminetheeffectivenessofRTprograms
onmuscularpowerinadolescentathletepopulations.Asecondaryaimistodetermine
theeffectivenessofRTprogramsonadolescentsportsperformance.

2.Methods
ThePreferredReportingItemsforSystematicreviewsandMetaAnalyses(PRISMA)
statement22guidedtheconductandreportingofthisreview.Asystematicsearchofthree
electronicdatabases(Medline,Embase,andSPORTDiscus)wasconductedonthe21st
March2011.Inconsultationwithalibrarian,searchstrategiesweredevelopedforthe
differentdatabases.ArticlespublishedinEnglishandinpeerreviewedjournalswere
consideredforthereview.Noyearrestrictionwasplacedonthesearch.Inthefirststage
ofscreening,titlesandabstractsofidentifiedarticleswerecheckedforrelevance.Inthe

secondstage,fulltextarticleswereretrievedandconsideredforinclusion.Inthefinal
stage,thereferencelistsofretrievedfulltextarticlesweresearchedforadditional
articles.
Twoauthorsindependentlyassessedtheeligibilityofthestudiesforinclusionusingthe
followingcriteria:(i)participantswereaged1318yearsandselectedfromasportsor
athleticpopulation(definedasparticipantswhoengagedinorganisedsportstraining)(ii)
studyinvolvedtheevaluationofaresistancetrainingprogram(freeweights,bodyweight
resistance[includingplyometrics],elastictubing,machineweights,isokineticdevices)
withanaimtoimprovesportsperformancewhereexplosivepowerisnecessaryfor
success(iii)studywasarandomisedcontrolledtrial(RCT),quasiexperimentalorsingle
grouppretestposttestdesign(iv)includedaquantitativeobjectivemeasureofalactic
poweroutput(squatjump,verticaljumpwithdoublearmswing,standinglongjump,
sprinttimes,forceplatepowerrecordings)(v)publishedinEnglish.Conference
abstracts,dissertations,thesesandarticlespublishedinnonpeerreviewedjournals
werenotincluded.
Tobeincludedinthemetaanalysis,studieshadtomeetthefollowingadditionalcriteria:
(i)thestudymusthaveincludedacomparisongroup(ii)musthaveassessedvertical
jump(averticaljumpwithdoublearmswing)and(iii)datawerereportedinmeansand
standarddeviationsfortheinterventionandcontrolgroupsatposttest.Attemptswere
madetocontactauthorsinanefforttoobtainfurtherdetailswhenrequired.
AllmetaanalyseswereperformedinRevMan.23Themetaanalysissoughttodetermine
interventioneffectsonverticaljumpheight.Verticaljumpwasconsideredacontinuous
datavariablethereforethemeandifference(MD)with95%confidenceintervalswas
usedtodetermineeffectmeasures.Theinversevariancerandomeffectsmodelwas
usedforthemetaanalysisprocedureduetostudiesbeingperformedwithvaried
populationsandmethods.Statisticalheterogeneitywasexaminedviachisquaredand
theI2Indextests.AguidetotheinterpretationofheterogeneitybasedontheI2Indexis
asfollows:040%mightnotbeimportant3060%mayrepresentmoderate
heterogeneity5090%mayrepresentsubstantialheterogeneityand75100%
considerableheterogeneity.24Theassessmentofmethodologicalheterogeneitywas
examinedbyundertakingsubgroupmetaanalyses.Subgroupedmetaanalyseswere
performedbygroupingstudiesaccordingtotheirinterventiontype(RTplyometric
trainingcombinedRTandplyometricand/orsprinttraining)andbytheirriskofbiasscore
(high,mediumorlowbias).Wherestudiesusedmultipleinterventiongroupsandasingle
comparisongroup,thecomparisongroupparticipantnumberwasdividedequallyamong
interventiongroupstoallowforinclusionofbothinterventiongroupsinthemetaanalysis.
StudieswereassessedforriskofbiasusingcriteriaadaptedfromtheConsolidated
StandardsofReportingTrials(CONSORT)statementbytwoauthorsindependentlyand
inthecaseofdisagreement,furtherdiscussionwasundertakentoachieveconsensus.A
riskofbiasscoreforeachstudywascompletedonan8pointscalebyassigningavalue
of0(absentorinadequatelydescribed)or1(explicitlydescribedandpresent)toeach
methodologicalitemlistedinSupplementaryTable1.Studiesthatscored02were
regardedashavingahighriskofbias,studiesthatscored35wereclassifiedashavinga
mediumriskofbiasandthosethatscored68wereclassifiedashavingalowriskofbias.

3.Results
TheflowofstudiesthroughthereviewprocessisreportedinFig.1.Sixtytwofulltext
articleswereassessed34mettheinclusioncriteria(SupplementaryTable2)and14
studieswereincludedinthemetaanalysis.

Fig.1.
Flowofstudiesthroughthereviewprocess.
Figureoptions

Thetotalnumberofparticipantsintheincludedstudieswas1070.Intervention
participantnumberswere862andcontrolparticipantnumberswere208.Oftheincluded
studies:21assessedonlymales17,18,19,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,
41and42sevenassessedonlyfemales43,44,45,46,47,48and49twostudiesassessedboth
sexes50and51andthesexofparticipantsinfourofthestudieswasnotclearly
described.20,52,53and54Theagerangeofparticipantswas1218years,withthe
estimatedmeanagebeing15.7years(SD:1.6).Participantswererecruitedfromhigh
schoolathletic(67.5%)orsemieliteandelite(32.4%)adolescentsportingpopulations.
Sportstraininghistorywasreportedin17studies,rangingfrom0to7years,withan
averageof3.81.6years.RThistorywasreportedin14studies,rangingfrom0to
3years,withanaverageof0.61.1years.Overhalfthestudies(52.9%)wereconducted
withparticipantsfrominvasionbasedteamsportbackgrounds.
Thetrainingprogramsvariedindurationfromsixto16weeks(mean9.56weeks)with
ameantrainingfrequencyof2.61.0sessionsperweek.Sessiondurationwasreported
inonly12studies,whereitrangedfrom15to90min.Fourteenofthestudieswere
performedinseason,sevenduringthepreseason,fourduringtheoffseason,andeight
studiesdidnotreportthesportingseasoninwhichthestudywasconducted.Twenty
seven(50%)of54traininggroupsparticipatedinaRTonlyprogramand10(18.5%)
performedaplyometriconlytrainingprogram.Combinedresistanceandplyometric
trainingprogramswereusedinsix(11.1%)traininggroupsandfive(9.3%)training
groupsexperiencedcombinedresistance,plyometricandsprinttrainingprograms.
Three(5.6%)traininggroupinterventionsconsistedofresistanceandsprinttraining
programs,one(1.8%)combinedresistanceandaerobictraining,andtwo(3.7%)
performedsportsspecifictrainingonly.Ofnote,30ofthe54(55.6%)traininggroupsin
additiontotheirdesignatedinterventionalsoundertookregularsporttrainingactivities.
Comparisongroupswereeitherprescribednointervention(33.3%)orcontinuedwith
habitualsportpracticeactivitiesasdesignatedbytheirregularsportcoach(66.7%).Of
thetotalinterventionandcomparisongroups,14groupsperformedsportsspecific

trainingonlywithfiveofthesegroupsshowingasignificantimprovementinatleastone
strengthorpowermeasure.Verticaljumpwasmeasuredin25(73.5%),sprintrunning
performancein13(38.2%),andmedicineballthrowingperformanceinfour(11.8%)
studies.Sixteenstudiesassessedmaximalmuscularstrengthandallreportedsignificant
improvementsinmaximalmuscularstrength.

Search ScienceDirect

Aftertheinitialriskofbiasassessmenttherewas97%agreementbetweenauthorsand
fullconsensuswasachievedafterdiscussion(Table1).Theriskofbiaswashighin18
Download PDF
(52.9%)andmediumin16(47.1%)studies.Nostudieshadalowriskofbias.Onlysix
Export
studiesincludedatruecontrolgroupandonlyoneoftheseadequatelydescribedthe
27
30
Advanced
searchoutline
processofrandomisation.
Onlyonestudyreportedapowercalculation
todetermine
Article
Show
full outline
whethertheirstudywasadequatelypoweredtodetecttheirhypothesisedeffects
Abstract
17,26,30,32,33,36,37,50and51
whereasninestudiesreportedeffectsizes.
Analysesin20of
Keywords
1. Introduction
thestudiesaccountedforpotentialbaselinedifferences.Ofnote,participantswere
2. Methods
reportedlyrandomlyassignedtogroupsin15studiesandin15studiesnoattemptto
3. Results
randomlyassignparticipantstogroupswasmade.
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Table1.
Practical implications
Biasassessmentofincludedstudies.
Acknowledgements
Appendix A. Supplementary data
References

Figures and tables

Werethe
groups
comparableat
baselineonkey
characteristics?

Studies
Table 1
Siegleret
0
al.[43]

Didthe
study
includea
truecontrol
group
(randomised
participants
nota
comparison
group)

Wasthe
randomisation
procedure
adequately
describedand
carriedout?

Didthe
study
reporta
power
calculation
andwas
thestudy
adequately
poweredto
detect
intervention
effects?

Werethe
assessors
blindedto
treatment
allocation
at
baseline
and
posttest?

Didatleast
80%of
participants
complete
followup
assessments?

Gorostiaga
etal.[27]

Christouet
al.[26]

Chellyet
1
al.[25]
upi0005
Mujikaet
1
upi0010
al.[28]

Meylan
and
Malatesta
[53]

ADVERTISEMENT

Wongetal.
[11]

Buchheitet
al.[30]

Alvesetal.
[29]

Rubleyet
al.[45]

Wrobleand
Moxley
[34]

Couttset
al.[31]

Gabbettet
al.[32]

Channell
and
Barfield[4]

Brownet

al.[18]
Matavuljet
al.[19]

Sohetal.
[47]

Santosand 1
Janeira
[39]

Kingand
Cipriani
[20]

Tsimahidis
etal.[54]

Milietal.
[46]

Lehnertet
al.[44]

Vladu[49]

Szymanski
etal.[40]

Szymanski
etal.[41]

Szymanski
etal.[42]

Gonzalez
Badilloet
al.[36]

Gonzalez
Badilloet
al.[37]

Gorostiaga
etal.[38]

Drinkwater
etal.[35]

Myeretal.
[48]

Rheaetal.
[51]

Bishopet
al.[52]

Barber
Westinet
al.[50]

1=yes0=no.
Scoreof02=highriskofbiasscoreof35=mediumriskofbiasscoreof68=lowriskofbias.
Tableoptions

Sprintrunningperformance.Thirteen(38.2%)studiesassessedsprintrunning
performanceoverdistancesrangingfrom5to40m.25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,43,48,
53and54Elevenofthesestudiesreportedstatisticallysignificantimprovementsinsprint
performancerangingfrom1.1to6.2%whereastwostudiesfoundnochangeinsprint
performance.27and32EightofthesestudiesinvolvedparticipantswithnopreviousRT
experience25,26,27,30,32,33,43and54andtheremainingfivestudiesdidnotreport
participantRTexperience.28,29,31,48and53
Verticaljump.Twentyfivestudies(73.5%)assessedverticaljumpheightviaavertical
jumpwithdoublearmswingtest.17,18,19,20,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,38,39,42,43,44,45,
47,48,51,53and54Nineteenofthesestudiesreportedstatisticallysignificantincreases
rangingfrom5.1to24.6%sixfoundnochange.28,29,32,38,43and47Thetwostudieswith
thesmallestsignificantincreasesinverticaljump27and33implementedtrainingprograms
wheretheexerciseloadusedwasnotindividualisedtoparticipantsrepetitionmaximum

levelsandthereforeevidenceofappropriateprogressiveoverloadwasnotshown.The
study26withthelargestreportedchange(24.6%)inverticaljumpadjustedexercise
loadstoindividualparticipantrepetitionmaximumlevelsandimplementedaclear
progressionofexerciseloadingthroughoutthestudy.
Metaanalyses.Fourteenstudiescorrespondingto19interventiongroupsand14
comparisongroupswereevaluatedinametaanalysiscomparingverticaljumpheightat
postintervention(Fig.2a).Overall,thestudieswerefoundtobesignificantly
heterogeneous(2=56.97,d.f.=18[P=0.00001],I2=68%).Themetaanalysisshowed
aneffectfavouringtheinterventiongroups(MD3.08[1.65,4.51],Z=4.23[P<0.0001]).

Fig.2.
(a)Forestplotcomparisonofresistancetraininginterventiongroupsvscomparisongroupsoutcome
verticaljumpheightincm.(b)Forestplotcomparisonofresistancetraininginterventiongroupsvs
comparisongroupssubgroupedbyriskofbiasassessmentoutcomeverticaljumpheightincm.Chi2=chi
squaretestdf=degreesoffreedomI2=IsquaredstatisticIV=inversevarianceZ=Ztest.
Figureoptions

Fivestudies,consistingofeightinterventionandfivecomparisongroups,wherethe
interventiongroupsundertookaRTonlyprogramwerecombinedinasubgroupmeta
analysis.Thesestudieshadlowmoderateheterogeneity(2=11.21,d.f.=7[P=0.13],
I2=38%).Adifferenceineffectsbetweeninterventionandcomparisongroupswasfound
(MD2.09[0.01,4.20],Z=1.95[P=0.05]).
Threestudieswheretheinterventiongroupsparticipatedinaplyometriconlytraining

program,consistingoffourinterventionandthreecomparisongroups,werecombinedin
asubgroupmetaanalysis.Thesestudieswerefoundtobemoderatelyheterogeneous
(2=5.72,d.f.=3[P=0.13],I2=48%).Thismetaanalysisshowedaneffectfavouring
theinterventiongroups(MD5.47[1.95,9.00],Z=3.04[P=0.002]).
SixstudieswheretheinterventionsconsistedofaRTprogramcombinedwitheithera
plyometricand/oraspeedtrainingcomponent,consistingofseveninterventionandsix
comparisongroups,werepooledinasubgroupmetaanalysis.Considerable
heterogeneitywasfound(2=29.41,d.f.=6[P<0.0001],I2=80%).Apositiveeffectfor
theinterventiongroupswasshown(MD3.03[0.83,5.24],Z=2.69[P=0.007]).
Ofthe14studiesincludedinthemetaanalysis,aftertheriskofbiasassessmentsix
studieswereclassifiedashavingamediumriskofbiasandeightstudiesashavingahigh
riskofbias.Asubgroupmetaanalysisforeachlevelofriskofbiaswasundertaken(Fig.
2b).Boththemediumandhighriskofbiasstudieswerefoundtohavesubstantial
heterogeneity(Mediumrisk:2=16.48,d.f.=10[P=0.09],I2=39%highrisk:
2=11.38,d.f.=7[P=0.12],I2=38%).Themediumriskofbiasstudieswerefoundto
havealargepositiveeffectfortheinterventiongroupscomparedtoaveryloweffectfor
thehighriskofbiasstudies(Mediumrisk:MD4.29[2.91,5.66],Z=6.12[P<0.00001]
highrisk:MD1.58[0.29,3.45],Z=1.65[P=0.10]).

4.Discussion
TheprimaryaimofthissystematicreviewwastodeterminetheeffectivenessofRT
interventionsonmuscularpowerinadolescentathleticpopulations.Despite
considerableheterogeneityintermsofstudydesignandtypesoftraining,thereis
sufficientevidencetoconcludethatRTinterventionshavethepotentialtoimprove
muscularpowerinadolescentathletes.Allbuttwoofthestudiesreportedatleastone
statisticallysignificantimprovementinanalacticmuscularpoweroutcome.Themost
commonindicatorsofalacticpowerwereverticaljumpandsprintrunningperformance.A
secondaryaimofthereviewwastoinvestigatetheeffectsofRTonsporting
performance.Almosthalfofthestudiesexplicitlystatedthattheirinterventionhada
positiveeffectonsportsperformance.However,fewofthesestudieswereableto
supporttheirclaimswithanobjectivemeasureofsportsperformance.
RTinterventionswerefoundtoimprovemuscularpowerinadolescentathletes.Ofthe34
studiesincludedinthisreview,32reportedatleastonestatisticallysignificant
improvementinalacticmuscularpoweroutcomes.Itisnotentirelyclearwhichaspectsof
RTinterventionsareresponsibleforinducingimprovementsinmuscularpoweras
studiesoftenincludedcombinedtrainingmodalitiesinadditiontohabitualsporting
practice.Itdoesappearthatimprovementsarespecifictothetypeoftrainingemployed
andareinfluencedbymovementpattern,movementvelocity,contractiontype,and
contractionforce.1Plyometriconlytraininghadalargeroveralleffect(Z=3.04)on
verticaljumpheightthanstudieswithRTcombinedwithplyometricand/orspeedtraining
(Z=2.69)orstudiesthatconsistedofRTonly(Z=1.95).StudiesthatcomparedRTto
combinedRTandplyometrictrainingallfoundlargerimprovementsinmeasuresof
muscularpowerforthegroupwhoperformedplyometrictraininginadditiontoRT.17,40,
41,42and51
However,theselargerimprovementsmaybeinpartattributabletoan
increasedvolumeofworkperformed,asnoneofthesestudiesequatedtheamountof
workperformedbetweengroups.

Recommended articles

Resistance Training in the Young Athlete

2006, Operative Techniques in Sports Medicine

more

Enhancing sprint and strength performance: Combi

2013, Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport

more

Does plyometric training improve strength performa

2010, Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport

View more articles

more

Citing articles (18)

Related book content