Background: Plyometric training is an effective training method to improve explosive strength. However, the ability to perform plyometric training in the adolescent population is still controversial, with insufficient meta-analyses about plyometric training on lower limb explosive strength in adolescent athletes. Objective: To investigate the influence of plyometric training on the explosive strength of lower limbs in adolescent athletes. Methods: We performed a search of six databases (Web of Science, PubMed, Scopus, ProQuest databases, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and Wan-fang database) from the starting year of inclusion in each database to April 4, 2022. The quality of the included literature was assessed using the Cochrane risk assessment tool, and data were analyzed using the Review Manager 5.4 software. Result: Plyometric training had significant effects on the performance of adolescent athletes in countermovement jump (MD = 2.74, 95% CI: 1.62, 3.85, p < 0.01), squat jump (MD = 4.37, 95% CI: 2.85, 5.90, p < 0.01), standing long jump (MD = 6.50, 95% CI: 4.62, 8.38, p < 0.01), 10-m sprint (MD = −0.04, 95% CI: −0.08, −0.00, p = 0.03), and 20-m sprint (MD = −0.12, 95% CI: −0.20, −0.04, p = 0.03); all had positive and statistically significant effects (p < 0.05). Conclusion: Plyometric training can significantly enhance the explosive strength of lower limbs in adolescent athletes.

Background:In Unilateral (UNI) exercises are more effective than bilateral (BI) exercises in improving athletic performance is debatable.Objectives:this meta-analysis investigated the effects of UNI and BI exercises on different effect indicators of jump ability, sprint ability, maximal force, change of direction ability, and balance ability.Data Sources:PubMed, Google Scholar, Web of science, CNKI, Proquest, Wan Fang Data.Study Eligibility Criteria:To be eligible for inclusion in the meta-analysis, the study had to be: 1) athletes; 2) UNI training and BI training; 3) the intervention period had to be more than 6 weeks and the intervention frequency had to be more than 2 times/week; 4) the outcome indicators were jumping ability, sprinting ability, maximum strength, and change of direction and balance.Study Appraisal and Synthesis Method:We used the random-effects model for meta-analyses. Effect sizes (standardized mean difference), calculated from measures of horizontally oriented performance, were represented by the standardized mean difference and presented alongside 95% confidence intervals (CI).Results:A total of 28 papers met the inclusion criteria, and Meta-analysis showed that UNI training was more effective than BI training in improving jumping ability (ES = 0.61.0.23 to 0.09; Z = 3.12,p= 0.002 < 0.01), sprinting ability (ES = −0.02, −0.03 to −0.01; Z = 2.73,p= 0.006 < 0.01), maximum strength (ES = 8.95,2.30 to 15.61; Z = 2.64,p= 0.008 > 0.05), change of direction ability (ES = −0.03, −0.06 to 0.00; Z = 1.90,p= 0.06 > 0.01) and balance ability (ES = 1.41,-0.62 to 3.44; Z = 1.36,p= 0.17 > 0.01). The results of the analysis of moderating variables showed that intervention period, intervention frequency and intervention types all had different indicators of effect on exercise performance.Conclusion:UNI training has a more significant effect on jumping and strength quality for unilateral power patterns, and BI training has a more significant effect on jumping and strength quality for bilateral power patterns.

Introduction:The study compared the effects of 6-week (2 sessions/week) velocity-based resistance training (VBRT) and percentage-based resistance training (PBRT) on athletic performance in Sport-College female basketball players.Methods:Fifteen participants were assigned to the VBRT (n= 8) or PBRT (n= 7) groups. The load in VBRT group were determined through the sessional target velocity and velocity loss monitoring, whereas PBRT group used a fixed-load based on percentage of 1-repetition maximum (1RM). Both groups completed intervention that involved the free weight back squat and bench press using the same relative load (linear periodization from 65% to 95% 1RM). Training loads data was continuously recorded. Measurements at baseline (T0) and post-training (T2) included 1RM, countermovement-jump (CMJ), squat-jump (SJ), eccentric-utilization-ratio (EUR), drop-jump height and reactive-strength-index (DJ, DJ-RSI), plyometric-push-up (PPU), 505 change-of-direction (COD), 10-m、20-m sprint (T-10、T-20), 17 × 15 m drill-lines (17-drill), Hexagon agility, and functional movement screen (FMS). A mid-term (T1) assessment was included to investigate the short-term effects of both methods and the fluctuation of personalized 1RM.Results:No between-group differences were observed at T0 for descriptive variables (p&gt; 0.05). Both groups showed significant improvement in strength gains for back squat and bench press, but VBRT showedlikelyto very likelyfavorable improvements in CMJ, SJ, EUR, DJ-RSI, Hexagon and COD among athletic performance. The VBRT showedlikelytovery likelyimprovements in 17-drill and DJ, while PBRT showeduncleareffects. The lifted weights adjusted by VBRT method were higher than prescribed by PBRT (p&lt; 0.05) for the same subjects.Conclusion:Compared with fixed-load PBRT, VBRT enhanced power and athletic performance despite similar strength gains. VBRT can be regarded as a more functional resistance-training method under linear periodization.

Objective: This study compared the post-activation performance enhancement (PAPE) effects of a flywheel eccentric overload (FEOL) exercise and barbell half squats (BHS) on countermovement jump (CMJ) and 30 m sprint performance.Methods: Twelve male collegiate competitive basketball players were enrolled in this study and they implemented two training protocols: barbell half squat (BHS) and flywheel eccentric overload (FEOL) training. The BHS protocol included three intensities of load: low (40% 1RM), medium (60% 1RM), and high (80% 1RM), with each intensity consisting of 5 sets of 3 repetitions. The FEOL protocol included three inertia intensities: low (0. 015 kg∙m²), medium (0.035 kg∙m²), and high (0.075 kg∙m²), with each intensity consisting of 3 sets of 6 repetitions. The measurement time points were before training (baseline) and at 3, 6, 9, and 12 minutes after training. A two-stage (stage-I and stage-II) randomized crossover design was used to determine the acute effects of both protocols on CMJ and sprint performance.Results: At each training intensity, the jump height, jump peak power output (PPO), jump impulse and 30m sprint speed at 3, 6, 9, and 12 minutes after BHS and FEOL training did not change significantly compared to the baseline. A 2-way ANOVA analysis indicated significant main effects of rest intervals on jump height, jump PPO, and jump impulse, as well as 30m sprint speed. The interaction of the Time × protocol showed a significant effect on jump height between BHS and FEOL groups at high intensity in stage-I (F = 3.809, p = 0.016, df = 4) and stage-II (F = 3.044, p = 0.037, df = 4). And in high training intensity, the jump height at 3 (7.78 ± 9.90% increase, ES = 0.561), 6 (8.96 ± 12.15% increase, ES = 0.579), and 9 min (8.78 ± 11.23% increase, ES = 0.608) were enhanced in I-FEOL group compared with I-BHS group (F = 3.044, p = 0.037, df = 4). In stage-II, the impulse and sprint speed of the FEOL group were significantly higher than those of the BHS group at 6, 9, and 12 min under low (FEOL = 0.015kg∙m², BHS = 40%1RM), medium(FEOL = 0.035kg∙m², BHS = 60%1RM), and high (FEOL = 0.075kg∙m², BHS = 80%1RM) intensities. Furthermore, the sprint speed of the two training protocols did not change at different time points. The interaction of Time × training intensity showed lower sprint speeds in the II-BHS group at a high intensity (BHS = 80%1RM) compared to low (BHS = 40%1RM) and medium (BHS = 60%1RM) training intensities, especially at 9 min and 12 min rest intervals.Conclusion: Although barbell half squat training and flywheel eccentric overload training did not provide a significant PAPE effect on explosive power (CMJ and sprint) in male basketball players, FEOL training showed a better potential effect on enhanced CMJ jump performance at the high training intensity.

Plyometric training boosts adolescents' jumping ability, crucial for athletic success and health. However, the best total ground contact frequency (TGCF) and overall intervention time (OIT) for these exercises remain unclear. This meta-analysis aims to identify optimal TGCF and OIT in plyometric training for adolescents, focusing on countermovement jump (CMJ) and squat jump (SJ) outcomes. This systematic review encompassed five databases and included 38 studies with 50 randomized controlled experiments and 3347 participants. We used the Cochrane risk assessment tool for study quality and Review Manager 5.4 for data analysis. The current meta-analysis incorporated a total of 38 studies, comprising 50 sets of randomized controlled trials, to investigate the influence of different TGCFs and OITs on plyometric training. The Cochrane risk assessment tool indicated that all the included studies were classified as low risk. Various TGCFs in plyometric training positively affected CMJ and SJ heights in adolescents. The TGCF of less than 900 was ideal for enhancing CMJ, whereas more than 1400 was effective for SJ. The optimal OIT was 400–600 min, specifically, 500–600 min for CMJ and 400–500 min for SJ. Plyometric training improves jumping ability in adolescents. Lower ground contact frequency (< 900 contacts) enhances CMJ, while higher ground contact frequency (> 1400 contacts) is more effective for SJ. Optimal intervention time ranges from 400 to 600 min, with 500 to 600 min benefiting CMJ and 400 to 500 min improving SJ.

Exercise, protein supplementation, and their combination are guideline-recommended strategies for managing sarcopenia. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of various types of voluntary and simulated exercise on the outcomes of muscle strength, physical function, and muscle mass in individuals with sarcopenia. We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials through December 2024 and conducted a frequentist random-effects network meta-analysis. The certainty of evidence was assessed using the GRADE framework, and interventions were categorized according to their relative effectiveness and certainty ratings. A total of 96 eligible studies involving 7,596 participants were included. Resistance and balance training combined with protein-based nutritional supplementation (RBT + Nu) was the most effective intervention for improving grip strength (MD = 5.45 kg, 95% CI: 3.58-7.33), gait speed (MD = 0.20 m/s, 95% CI: 0.11 to 0.29), SPPB (MD = 3.59 points, 95% CI: 1.91-5.27), and skeletal muscle index (MD = 0.95 kg/m², 95% CI: 0.16-1.74). Improvements in gait speed and SPPB exceeded the minimal clinically important difference, while gains in grip strength were potentially clinically meaningful. Resistance and balance training (RBT) achieved the most significant improvement in the timed up and go test (MD = -2.29 s, 95% CI: -3.16 to -1.41), whereas aerobic and resistance training combined with nutrition was most effective in the five-times sit-to-stand test (MD = -2.86 s, 95% CI: -4.55 to -1.17); both improvements are potentially clinically meaningful. Resistance training with nutrition showed the largest improvements in knee extension strength (SMD = 0.98, 95% CI: 0.63-1.33) and appendicular skeletal muscle mass (MD = 0.33 kg/m², 95% CI: 0.27 to 0.38). Aerobic, resistance, and balance training produced the greatest benefit for balance performance (SMD = 0.73, 95% CI: 0.13-1.34). High-certainty evidence supports RBT + Nu as the most effective intervention for improving muscle strength, muscle mass, and physical function in individuals with sarcopenia. We recommend combining RBT with protein and amino acid supplementation as an optimal strategy when feasible.