Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27497600›Full record

SynthesisSports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.)2017

Explosive Training and Heavy Weight Training are Effective for Improving Running Economy in Endurance Athletes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Benedito Sérgio Denadai, Rafael Alves de Aguiar, Leonardo Coelho Rabello de Lima, Camila Coelho Greco, Fabrizio Caputo

Open access · greenAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.), 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 41 papers, 15 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
41citing papers in PubMed, 15 pooled it
8.6field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

41 citing papers in PubMed, 15 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 104 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Benedito Sérgio DenadaiHuman Performance Laboratory, São Paulo State University, Av. 24 A, 1515, Bela Vista, Rio Claro, São Paulo, CEP 13506-900, Brazil. bdenadai@rc.unesp.br.
Rafael Alves de AguiarHuman Performance Research Group, Center for Health and Sport Sciences, UDESC, Florianópolis, Brazil.
Leonardo Coelho Rabello de LimaHuman Performance Laboratory, São Paulo State University, Av. 24 A, 1515, Bela Vista, Rio Claro, São Paulo, CEP 13506-900, Brazil.
Camila Coelho GrecoHuman Performance Laboratory, São Paulo State University, Av. 24 A, 1515, Bela Vista, Rio Claro, São Paulo, CEP 13506-900, Brazil.
Fabrizio CaputoHuman Performance Research Group, Center for Health and Sport Sciences, UDESC, Florianópolis, Brazil.
Universidade Estadual Paulista (Unesp) · BRUniversidade do Estado de Santa Catarina · BR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSeveral strategies have been used to improve running economy (RE). Defined as the oxygen uptake required at a given submaximal running velocity, it has been considered a key aerobic parameter related to endurance running performance. In this context, concurrent strength and endurance training has been considered an effective method, although conclusions on the optimal concurrent training cannot yet be drawn.

objectiveTo evaluate the effect of concurrent training on RE in endurance running athletes and identify the effects of subject characteristics and concurrent training variables on the magnitude of RE improvement.

methodsWe conducted a computerized search of the PubMed and Web of Science databases, and references of original studies were searched for further relevant studies. The analysis comprised 20 effects in 16 relevant studies published up to August 2015. The outcomes were calculated as the difference in percentage change between control and experimental groups (% change) and data were presented as mean ± 95 % confidence limit. Meta-analyses were performed using a random-effects model and, in addition, simple and multiple meta-regression analyses were used to identify effects of age, training status, number of sessions per week, training duration, type of strength training, and neuromuscular performance on % change in RE.

resultsThe concurrent training program had a small beneficial effect on RE (% change = -3.93 ± 1.19 %; p < 0.001). In addition, explosive (% change = -4.83 ± 1.53; p < 0.001) and heavy weight (% change = -3.65 ± 2.74; p = 0.009) training programs produced similar improvements in RE, while isometric training (% change = -2.20 ± 4.37; p = 0.324) in selected studies did not induce a significant effect. The multiple linear meta-regression analysis showed that all the differences between % changes could be explained by including the above-mentioned characteristics of subjects and weight training program elements. This model showed that the magnitude of the % change in RE was larger for longer training duration (β = -0.83 ± 0.72, p = 0.02).

conclusionExplosive training and heavy weight training are effective concurrent training methods aiming to improve RE within a few weeks. However, long-term training programs seem to be necessary when the largest possible improvement in RE is desired.

Indexed as

AthletesPhysical EnduranceResistance TrainingWeight LiftingHumansOxygen ConsumptionRunning

Identifiers

PMID27497600
OpenAlexW2488238059

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.