Objectives: To quantify age, sex, sport and training type-specific effects of resistance training on physical performance, and to characterise dose–response relationships of resistance training parameters that could maximise gains in physical performance in youth athletes.Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis of intervention studies.Data sources: Studies were identified by systematic literature search in the databases PubMed and Web of Science (1985–2015). Weighted mean standardised mean differences (SMD_wm) were calculated using random-effects models.Eligibility criteria for selecting studies: Only studies with an active control group were included if these investigated the effects of resistance training in youth athletes (6–18 years) and tested at least one physical performance measure.Results: 43 studies met the inclusion criteria. Our analyses revealed moderate effects of resistance training on muscle strength and vertical jump performance (SMD_wm0.8–1.09), and small effects on linear sprint, agility and sport-specific performance (SMD_wm0.58–0.75). Effects were moderated by sex and resistance training type. Independently computed dose–response relationships for resistance training parameters revealed that a training period of >23 weeks, 5 sets/exercise, 6–8 repetitions/set, a training intensity of 80–89% of 1 repetition maximum (RM), and 3–4 min rest between sets were most effective to improve muscle strength (SMD_wm2.09–3.40).Summary/conclusions: Resistance training is an effective method to enhance muscle strength and jump performance in youth athletes, moderated by sex and resistance training type. Dose–response relationships for key training parameters indicate that youth coaches should primarily implement resistance training programmes with fewer repetitions and higher intensities to improve physical performance measures of youth athletes.

During the stages of long-term athlete development (LTAD), resistance training (RT) is an important means for (i) stimulating athletic development, (ii) tolerating the demands of long-term training and competition, and (iii) inducing long-term health promoting effects that are robust over time and track into adulthood. However, there is a gap in the literature with regards to optimal RT methods during LTAD and how RT is linked to biological age. Thus, the aims of this scoping review were (i) to describe and discuss the effects of RT on muscular fitness and athletic performance in youth athletes, (ii) to introduce a conceptual model on how to appropriately implement different types of RT within LTAD stages, and (iii) to identify research gaps from the existing literature by deducing implications for future research. In general, RT produced small-to-moderate effects on muscular fitness and athletic performance in youth athletes with muscular strength showing the largest improvement. Free weight, complex, and plyometric training appear to be well-suited to improve muscular fitness and athletic performance. In addition, balance training appears to be an important preparatory (facilitating) training program during all stages of LTAD but particularly during the early stages. As youth athletes become more mature, specificity and intensity of RT methods increase. This scoping review identified research gaps that are summarized in the following and that should be addressed in future studies: (i) to elucidate the influence of gender and biological age on the adaptive potential following RT in youth athletes (especially in females), (ii) to describe RT protocols in more detail (i.e., always report stress and strain-based parameters), and (iii) to examine neuromuscular and tendomuscular adaptations following RT in youth athletes.

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, 128 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.

Coaches and athletes in elite sports are constantly seeking to use innovative and advanced training strategies to efficiently improve strength/power performance in already highly-trained individuals. In this regard, high-intensity conditioning contractions have become a popular means to induce acute improvements primarily in muscle contractile properties, which are supposed to translate to subsequent power performances. This performance-enhancing physiological mechanism has previously been called postactivation potentiation (PAP). However, in contrast to the traditional mechanistic understanding of PAP that is based on electrically-evoked twitch properties, an increasing number of studies used the term PAP while referring to acute performance enhancements, even if physiological measures of PAP were not directly assessed. In this current opinion article, we compare the two main approaches (i.e., mechanistic vs. performance) used in the literature to describe PAP effects. We additionally discuss potential misconceptions in the general use of the term PAP. Studies showed that mechanistic and performance-related PAP approaches have different characteristics in terms of the applied research field (basic vs. applied), effective conditioning contractions (e.g., stimulated vs. voluntary), verification (lab-based vs. field tests), effects (twitch peak force vs. maximal voluntary strength), occurrence (consistent vs. inconsistent), and time course (largest effect immediately after vs. ~ 7 min after the conditioning contraction). Moreover, cross-sectional studies revealed inconsistent and trivial-to-large-sized associations between selected measures of mechanistic (e.g., twitch peak force) vs. performance-related PAP approaches (e.g., jump height). In an attempt to avoid misconceptions related to the two different PAP approaches, we propose to use two different terms. Postactivation potentiation should only be used to indicate the increase in muscular force/torque production during an electrically-evoked twitch. In contrast, postactivation performance enhancement (PAPE) should be used to refer to the enhancement of measures of maximal strength, power, and speed following conditioning contractions. The implementation of this terminology would help to better differentiate between mechanistic and performance-related PAP approaches. This is important from a physiological point of view, but also when it comes to aggregating findings from PAP studies, e.g., in the form of meta-analyses, and translating these findings to the field of strength and conditioning.