SynthesisFrontiers in physiology2025
The effectiveness of metabolic resistance training versus traditional cardio on athletic performance: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in physiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The "no pain, no gain" philosophy has long influenced athletic training approaches, particularly in high-intensity workouts like metabolic resistance training (MRT). However, the necessity of discomfort-inducing training for optimal athletic performance remains debatable. This systematic review and meta-analysis examined whether MRT provided comparable or better results than traditional training methods in trained athletes. Methods: A systematic search of PubMed/MEDLINE, Web of Science, Scopus, and SPORTDiscus (January 2004 - December 2024) identified RCTs comparing MRT with traditional training in athletes. Two reviewers screened studies and assessed bias risk using Cochrane RoB 2. Random - effects meta - analyses were conducted for outcomes like VO2max, peak power, sprint performance, blood lactate, time to exhaustion, and jump height. GRADE was used to evaluate evidence certainty. Results: Eleven studies (n = 276 participants) met inclusion criteria. MRT demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in sprint performance (SMD = 1.18, 95% CI: 0.00 to 2.36, p < 0.0001) and countermovement jump height (SMD = 0.80, 95% CI: -0.04 to 1.64, p = 0.0007), indicating notable gains in explosive power. VO2max improvements were observed (SMD = 0.30, 95% CI: -0.19 to 0.79, p = 0.10) but did not reach statistical significance. Peak power output showed a moderate but non-significant positive effect (SMD = 0.54, 95% CI: -2.05 to 3.13, p = 0.55), while blood lactate changes varied widely (SMD = -1.68, 95% CI: -8.58 to 5.22, p = 0.29), reflecting high heterogeneity across studies. Time to exhaustion presented a small positive effect (SMD = 0.23, 95% CI: 0.00 to 0.46, p = 0.18), but without statistical significance. Subgroup analyses revealed that younger adults (19-25 years) and experienced athletes benefited the most from MRT, with low-frequency training (≤2 sessions/week) yielding the most favorable adaptations. Moderator analysis confirmed that sprint performance had the strongest response to MRT, while aerobic measures exhibited more variability. Conclusion: The evidence demonstrates the capacity of MRT to enhance athletic performance comparable to or exceeding traditional training methods while requiring reduced time commitment. These findings suggest that optimal performance adaptations can be achieved through well-designed MRT protocols without necessitating excessive training volumes. Systematic Review Registration: https://inplasy.com/inplasy-2024-11-0024, identifier: 36 INPLASY2024110024.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.