↓ Skip to main content

Effects of Resisted Sprint Training and Traditional Power Training on Sprint, Jump, and Balance Performance in Healthy Young Adults: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Physiology, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (61st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (73rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
149 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Effects of Resisted Sprint Training and Traditional Power Training on Sprint, Jump, and Balance Performance in Healthy Young Adults: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Published in
Frontiers in Physiology, March 2018
DOI 10.3389/fphys.2018.00156
Pubmed ID
Authors

Olaf Prieske, Tom Krüger, Markus Aehle, Erik Bauer, Urs Granacher

Abstract

Power training programs have proved to be effective in improving components of physical fitness such as speed. According to the concept of training specificity, it was postulated that exercises must attempt to closely mimic the demands of the respective activity. When transferring this idea to speed development, the purpose of the present study was to examine the effects of resisted sprint (RST) vs. traditional power training (TPT) on physical fitness in healthy young adults. Thirty-five healthy, physically active adults were randomly assigned to a RST (n = 10, 23 ± 3 years), a TPT (n = 9, 23 ± 3 years), or a passive control group (n = 16, 23 ± 2 years). RST and TPT exercised for 6 weeks with three training sessions/week each lasting 45-60 min. RST comprised frontal and lateral sprint exercises using an expander system with increasing levels of resistance that was attached to a treadmill (h/p/cosmos). TPT included ballistic strength training at 40% of the one-repetition-maximum for the lower limbs (e.g., leg press, knee extensions). Before and after training, sprint (20-m sprint), change-of-direction speed (T-agility test), jump (drop, countermovement jump), and balance performances (Y balance test) were assessed. ANCOVA statistics revealed large main effects of group for 20-m sprint velocity and ground contact time (0.81 ≤ d ≤ 1.00). Post-hoc tests showed higher sprint velocity following RST and TPT (0.69 ≤ d ≤ 0.82) when compared to the control group, but no difference between RST and TPT. Pre-to-post changes amounted to 4.5% for RST [90%CI: (-1.1%;10.1%), d = 1.23] and 2.6% for TPT [90%CI: (0.4%;4.8%), d = 1.59]. Additionally, ground contact times during sprinting were shorter following RST and TPT (0.68 ≤ d ≤ 1.09) compared to the control group, but no difference between RST and TPT. Pre-to-post changes amounted to -6.3% for RST [90%CI: (-11.4%;-1.1%), d = 1.45) and -2.7% for TPT [90%CI: (-4.2%;-1.2%), d = 2.36]. Finally, effects for change-of-direction speed, jump, and balance performance varied from small-to-large. The present findings indicate that 6 weeks of RST and TPT produced similar effects on 20-m sprint performance compared with a passive control in healthy and physically active, young adults. However, no training-related effects were found for change-of-direction speed, jump and balance performance. We conclude that both training regimes can be applied for speed development.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 149 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 149 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 25 17%
Student > Bachelor 18 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 5%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 5%
Professor 6 4%
Other 25 17%
Unknown 60 40%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 49 33%
Nursing and Health Professions 17 11%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 5%
Engineering 4 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 1%
Other 5 3%
Unknown 64 43%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 March 2018.
All research outputs
#7,034,523
of 23,023,224 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Physiology
#3,388
of 13,773 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#123,724
of 331,398 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Physiology
#99
of 382 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,023,224 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,773 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 331,398 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 382 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.