Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29641589›Full record

ArticlePloS one2018

Training at maximal power in resisted sprinting: Optimal load determination methodology and pilot results in team sport athletes.

Matt R Cross, Johan Lahti, Scott R Brown, Mehdi Chedati, Pedro Jimenez-Reyes, Pierre Samozino, Ola Eriksrud, Jean-Benoit Morin

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 44 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
44citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

44 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

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

8 authors.

Matt R CrossUniversité Savoie Mont Blanc, Laboratoire Interuniversitaire de Biologie de la Motricité, EA, Chambéry, France.
Johan LahtiUniversité Côte d'Azur, LAMHESS, Nice, France.
Scott R BrownSports Performance Research Institute New Zealand, Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand.
Mehdi ChedatiUniversité Côte d'Azur, LAMHESS, Nice, France.
Pedro Jimenez-ReyesFaculty of Physical Sciences and Sport, Catholic University of San Antonio, Murcia, Spain.
Pierre SamozinoUniversité Savoie Mont Blanc, Laboratoire Interuniversitaire de Biologie de la Motricité, EA, Chambéry, France.
Ola EriksrudDepartment of Physical Performance, Norwegian School of Sports Science, Oslo, Norway.
Jean-Benoit MorinSports Performance Research Institute New Zealand, Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand.ORCID 0000-0003-3808-6762

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsIn the current study we investigated the effects of resisted sprint training on sprinting performance and underlying mechanical parameters (force-velocity-power profile) based on two different training protocols: (i) loads that represented maximum power output (Lopt) and a 50% decrease in maximum unresisted sprinting velocity and (ii) lighter loads that represented a 10% decrease in maximum unresisted sprinting velocity, as drawn from previous research (L10).

methodsSoccer [n = 15 male] and rugby [n = 21; 9 male and 12 female] club-level athletes were individually assessed for horizontal force-velocity and load-velocity profiles using a battery of resisted sprints, sled or robotic resistance respectively. Athletes then performed a 12-session resisted (10 × 20-m; and pre- post-profiling) sprint training intervention following the L10 or Lopt protocol.

resultsBoth L10 and Lopt training protocols had minor effects on sprinting performance (average of -1.4 to -2.3% split-times respectively), and provided trivial, small and unclear changes in mechanical sprinting parameters. Unexpectedly, Lopt impacted velocity dominant variables to a greater degree than L10 (trivial benefit in maximum velocity; small increase in slope of the force-velocity relationship), while L10 improved force and power dominant metrics (trivial benefit in maximal power; small benefit in maximal effectiveness of ground force orientation).

conclusionsBoth resisted-sprint training protocols were likely to improve performance after a short training intervention in already sprint trained athletes. However, widely varied individualised results indicated that adaptations may be dependent on pre-training force-velocity characteristics.

Indexed as

AthletesResistance TrainingAdultAthletic PerformanceFemaleHumansMalePilot ProjectsRunningWeight-Bearing

Identifiers

PMID29641589
PMCPMC5895020

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.