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.

Objective: The purpose of this study was to compare the impact of unilateral (U) and bilateral (B) contrast training on lower limb explosiveness, agility, and balance in college basketball athletes.Methods: Twenty male college basketball players were randomly assigned to either a unilateral group (U, n = 10) or a bilateral group (B, n = 10). Both groups underwent an 8week strength training program, with sessions held twice a week. The unilateral group performed six Bulgarian split squats and ten reverse lunge jump squats, while the bilateral group performed six barbell rear squats and ten double-leg vertical jumps. To comprehensively assess the training effects, the study utilized one-repetition maximum (1RM), countermovement jump (CMJ), 20m sprint, and single-leg hop tests to evaluate explosive power; the 505 and t-test to assess change-of-direction ability; and the Y-balance test (YBT) to evaluate dynamic balance. Paired sample t-tests were used to evaluate within-group changes, and a 2 (pre- and post-) × 2 (experimental and control groups) repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to assess between-group differences.Results: Within-group comparisons indicated that both unilateral and bilateral contrast training significantly improved all performance metrics. Between-group comparisons revealed that bilateral training was superior to unilateral training in improvements in 1RM and CMJ (p > 0.05) (growth rate of 1RM: B: 8.4%, U: 5.15%; growth rate of CMJ: B: 15.63%, U: 6.74%). Unilateral training showed greater improvements in the 20m sprint, dominant leg single-leg hop, YBT left, and YBT right (p > 0.05) (growth rate of 20m sprint: B: 5.43%, U: 10.41%; growth rate of advantage foot touch high: B: 4.56%, U: 9.35%; growth rate of YBT left: B: 3.77%, U: 8.53%; growth rate of YBT right: B: 4.72%, U: 13.8%). Unilateral training also significantly outperformed bilateral training in non-dominant leg single-leg hop, t-test, 505 left, and 505 right improvements (p < 0.05).Conclusion: Unilateral contrast training may offer advantages for enhancing change-of-direction ability and explosive power in the non-dominant leg, and it may also provide benefits for improving short-distance sprinting ability, explosive power in the dominant leg, and dynamic balance. In contrast, bilateral contrast training appears to be more effective for enhancing bilateral explosive power and may be more advantageous for increasing maximal strength.

Due to the character of the taekwondo, the adenosine triphosphate–phosphocreatine system provides the energy for each kick, the glycolytic system supports the repeated execution of kicks, and the aerobic system promotes recovery between these movements and the bout. Therefore, taekwondo athletes require high explosive power and anaerobic capacity in order to carry out sustained and powerful attacks. So, the purpose of this study is to compare the effects of APRE and VBRT on lower-limb explosive power and anaerobic capacity in college taekwondo players. A total of 30 taekwondo players completed an 8-week training intervention with autoregulatory progressive resistance exercise (APRE; n = 15) and velocity-based resistance training (VBRT; n = 15). Testing included the one-repetition maximum squat, countermovement jump (CMJ), taekwondo anaerobic intermittent kick test (TAIKT), and 30-s Wingate anaerobic test (WAnT). (1) Intragroup comparisons revealed significant effects for one-repetition maximum squat, peak power of CMJ (CMJ_PP), relative peak power of CMJ (CMJ_RPP), and total number of TAIKT (TAIKT_TN) in both the APRE and VBRT groups. The VBRT group exhibited small effect sizes for time at peak power of WAnT (WAnT_PPT) and moderate effect sizes for peak power of WAnT (WAnT_PP), relative peak power of WAnT (WAnT_RPP), and fatigue index of TAIKT (TAIKT_FI), whereas the APRE group exhibited small effect sizes for TAIKT_FI. (2) Intergroup comparisons revealed no significant effects in any of the results. However, VBRT demonstrated a moderate advantage in WAnT_PP and WAnT_RPP, whereas APRE had a small advantage in CMJ_PP and CMJ_RPP. These findings suggest that APRE improved explosive power (CMJ_PP and CMJ_RPP) more, whereas VBRT improved anaerobic power output (WAnT_PP and WAnT_RPP) more. Both methods were found to have similar effects in improving the anaerobic endurance (WAnT_PPT and TAIKT_TN) and fatigue index (power drop of WAnT and TAIKT_FI).

Dietary supplements are often used during training to support energy provision, recovery, and adaptation, yet effects on peak and mean anaerobic power, VO ₂ max, and endurance performance remain inconsistent. Unlike prior syntheses centred on neuromuscular outcomes (strength and hypertrophy), this study compared six common supplements—protein, creatine, β‐alanine, HMB, vitamin D, and nitrate—on energy‐system performance (peak anaerobic power, mean anaerobic power, VO ₂ max, and endurance performance) using network meta‐analysis. PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Embase, and SPORTDiscus were searched from inception to 15 March 2025 for RCTs examining dietary supplements and athletic performance. Risk of bias was assessed with the revised Cochrane tool. Random‐effects network meta‐analyses were conducted in R 4.3.1 and Stata 18. Thirty RCTs involving 693 athletes undergoing training programmes combined with supplements or placebo met the inclusion criteria. For peak anaerobic power, protein (SMD 0.85; 95% CI 0.27–1.44; SUCRA 82.9%; moderate certainty), creatine (0.62; 0.20–1.03; 62.5%; moderate), HMB (0.60; 0.28–0.94; 60.7%; moderate), and β‐alanine (0.58; 0.09–1.07; 57.4%; very low) were superior to placebo. In mean power, β‐alanine (0.75; 0.20–1.31; 74.1%; very low), protein (0.74; 0.27–1.20; 73.9%; very low), and creatine (0.74; 0.08–1.39; 71.0%; very low) showed consistent benefits, while HMB provided a moderate improvement (0.45; 0.05–0.86; 45.8%; very low). Endurance performance improved only with protein (0.99; 0.16–1.83; 94.3%; very low). No supplement affected VO ₂ max. Protein most effectively enhances peak power and endurance performance; β‐alanine and creatine excel in mean power; creatine and HMB also aid peak power; none improve VO ₂ max. Trial Registration: PROSPERO identifier: CRD420251106522

Objective: Flywheel resistance training (FRT) is a training modality for developing lower limb athletic performance. The relationship between FRT load parameters and barbell squat loading remains ambiguous in practice, resulting in experience-driven load selection during training. Therefore, this study investigates optimal FRT loading for specific training goals (maximal strength, power, muscular endurance) by analyzing concentric velocity at varying barbell 1RM percentages (%1RM), establishes correlations between flywheel load, velocity, and %1RM, and integrates force-velocity profiling to develop evidence-based guidelines for individualized load prescription.Methods: Thirty-nine participants completed 1RM barbell squats to establish submaximal loads (20–90%1RM). Concentric velocities were monitored via linear-position transducer (Gymaware) for FRT inertial load quantification, with test–retest measurements confirming protocol reliability. Simple and multiple linear regression modeled load-velocity interactions and multivariable relationships, while Pearson’s r and R² quantified correlations and model fit. Predictive equations estimated inertial loads (kg·m²), supported by ICC (2, 1) and CV assessments of relative/absolute reliability.Results: A strong inverse correlation (r = −0.88) and high linearity (R² = 0.78) emerged between rotational inertia and velocity. The multivariate model demonstrated excellent fit (R² = 0.81) and robust correlation (r = 0.90), yielding the predictive equation: y = 0.769–0.846v + 0.002 kg.Conclusion: The strong linear inertial load-velocity relationship enables individualized load prescription through regression equations incorporating velocity and strength parameters. While FRT demonstrates limited efficacy for developing speed-strength, its longitudinal periodization effects require further investigation. Optimal FRT loading ranges were identified: 40–60%1RM for strength-speed, 60–80%1RM for power development, and 80–100% + 1RM for maximal strength adaptations.

Objective: This study centers on populations with mild-to-moderate and subthreshold depression, excluding pharmacological interference, to systematically evaluate the comparative efficacy of various exercise modalities. Methods: Adhering to PRISMA guidelines, a systematic search was conducted across PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, and PsycINFO databases up to January 25, 2026. Inclusion criteria encompassed randomized controlled trials (RCTs) implementing structured exercise interventions for mild-to-moderate and subthreshold depression. A random-effects model was utilized to calculate the pooled effect size (Hedges’ g ). Subgroup analyses were performed to explore the moderating effects of exercise type. Methodological quality was evaluated using the Cochrane RoB 2.0 tool. Results: A total of 37 RCTs (3,110 unique participants) were included, contributing 3,922 observations across multiple comparisons. The analysis revealed that exercise interventions significantly ameliorated symptoms of non-severe depression compared to control groups, yielding a large pooled effect size (Hedges’ g = −0.86, 95% CI [−1.06, −0.68], p < 0.001). High overall heterogeneity was observed ( I ² = 82.0%). Subgroup analysis indicated differences in efficacy across exercise types: aerobic exercises ( g = −0.91) and mind–body exercises ( g = −0.88) demonstrated the strongest improvement effects; resistance training ( g = −0.84) followed; and mixed/other exercises showed a moderate effect size ( g = −0.64). Notably, mind–body exercises exhibited the lowest relative heterogeneity ( I ² = 54%), suggesting superior therapeutic stability. Egger’s test indicated potential publication bias ( p < 0.05). Conclusion: Physical exercise serves as an effective intervention for ameliorating non-severe depression. Among exercise modalities, aerobic exercise demonstrated the most substantial symptom alleviation effects, while mind–body exercises exhibited optimal therapeutic stability. However, the overall certainty of evidence is rated as ‘Low’ (GRADE), and the presence of potential publication bias necessitates a cautious interpretation of the exact effect size magnitude. Clinicians are encouraged to integrate structured exercise as a valuable adjunctive strategy for non-severe depression management.