Explosive movements requiring high force and power outputs are integral to many sports, posing distinct challenges for the neuromuscular system. Traditional resistance training can improve muscle strength, power, endurance, and range of motion; however, evidence regarding its effects on athletic performance, such as sprint speed, agility, and jump height, remains conflicting. The specificity of resistance training movements, including velocity, contraction type, and joint angles affects performance outcomes, demonstrates advantages when matching training modalities with targeted sports activities. However, independent of movement speed, the intent to contract explosively (ballistic) has also demonstrated high velocity-specific training adaptations. The purpose of this narrative review was to assess the impact of explosive or ballistic contraction intent on velocity-specific training adaptations. Such movement intent may predominantly elicit motor efferent neural adaptations, including motor unit recruitment and rate coding enhancements. Plyometrics, which utilize rapid stretch-shortening cycle movements, may augment high-speed movement efficiency and muscle activation, possibly leading to improved motor control through adaptations like faster eccentric force absorption, reduced amortization periods, and quicker transitions to explosive concentric contractions. An optimal training paradigm for power and performance enhancement might involve a combination of maximal explosive intent training with heavier loads and plyometric exercises with lighter loads at high velocities. This narrative review synthesizes key literature to answer whether contraction intent or movement speed is more critical for athletic performance enhancement, ultimately advocating for an integrative approach to resistance training tailored for sports-specific explosive action.

Over the last decade, acute increases in range of motion (ROM) in response to foam rolling (FR) have been frequently reported. Compared to stretching, FR-induced ROM increases were not typically accompanied by a performance (e.g., force, power, endurance) deficit. Consequently, the inclusion of FR in warm-up routines was frequently recommended, especially since literature pointed out non-local ROM increases after FR. However, to attribute ROM increases to FR it must be ensured that such adaptations do not occur as a result of simple warm-up effects, as significant increases in ROM can also be assumed as a result of active warm-up routines. To answer this research question, 20 participants were recruited using a cross-over design. They performed 4x45 seconds hamstrings rolling under two conditions; FR, and sham rolling (SR) using a roller board to imitate the foam rolling movement without the pressure of the foam rolling. They were also tested in a control condition. Effects on ROM were tested under passive, active dynamic as well as ballistic conditions. Moreover, to examine non-local effects the knee to wall test (KtW) was used. Results showed that both interventions provided significant, moderate to large magnitude increases in passive hamstrings ROM and KtW respectively, compared to the control condition (p = 0.007-0.041, d = 0.62-0.77 and p = 0.002-0.006, d = 0.79-0.88, respectively). However, the ROM increases were not significantly different between the FR and the SR condition (p = 0.801, d = 0.156 and p = 0.933, d = 0.09, respectively). No significant changes could be obtained under the active dynamic (p = 0.65) while there was a significant decrease in the ballistic testing condition with a time effect (p < 0.001). Thus, it can be assumed that potential acute increases in ROM cannot be exclusively attributed to FR. It is therefore speculated that warm up effects could be responsible independent of FR or imitating the rolling movement, which indicates there is no additive effect of FR or SR to the dynamic or ballistic range of motion.