Resistance training for change of direction performance: A systematic narrative review
Authors
Thomasen, Martin Alexander ; Hansen, Jan
Term
4. semester
Education
Publication year
2021
Submitted on
2021-06-01
Pages
27
Abstract
Baggrund: Denne systematiske narrative gennemgang undersøger, om isoton modstandstræning (RT) – typisk vægttræning med konstant belastning – forbedrer evnen til at skifte retning (change of direction, COD), og om forskellige RT-tilgange påvirker kraft- vs. hastighedsorienterede COD-tests forskelligt. Metode: Vi søgte i Scopus, PubMed og SPORTDiscus. Studier blev inkluderet, hvis de anvendte isoton RT og rapporterede specifikke mål for både RT og COD. Studier uden kontrolgrupper, uden relevante effektmål eller uden isoton belastning blev ekskluderet. Resultater: 23 studier opfyldte kriterierne: 7 kombinerede plyometrisk træning (PT) med RT, 9 anvendte konventionel RT, og 7 brugte blandede RT-varianter. I alt rapporterede 12 studier statistisk signifikante forbedringer i COD efter RT. Fordelt på grupper fandt 42,8 % af de kombinerede studier, 77 % af de konventionelle RT-studier og 28,5 % af de blandede studier signifikante forbedringer. Rapporteringen af deltagernes forudgående RT-erfaring var begrænset: kun ét konventionelt RT-studie, fem blandede studier (med RT-erfarne deltagere) og ét kombineret studie rapporterede dette. Diskussion: Konventionel isoton RT viste de mest konsistente forbedringer i COD på tværs af de inkluderede studier. Deltagernes træningserfaring kan påvirke resultaterne, men den blev ofte rapporteret utilstrækkeligt. Derfor er det vanskeligt at drage sikre konklusioner om, hvordan RT-type og erfaring hænger sammen med kraft- og hastighedsbaserede COD-præstationer.
Background: This systematic narrative review examined whether isotonic resistance training (RT)—typical weight training with a constant load—improves change-of-direction (COD) ability, and whether different RT approaches affect force- versus velocity-oriented COD tests differently. Methods: We searched Scopus, PubMed, and SPORTDiscus. Studies were included if they used isotonic RT and reported specific outcomes for both RT and COD. Studies without control groups, without relevant outcome measures, or without isotonic loading were excluded. Results: Twenty-three studies met the criteria: 7 combined plyometric training (PT) with RT, 9 used conventional RT, and 7 used mixed RT variations. Overall, 12 studies reported statistically significant improvements in COD after RT. By group, significant improvements were found in 42.8% of combined studies, 77% of conventional RT studies, and 28.5% of mixed RT studies. Reporting of participants’ prior RT experience was limited: only one conventional RT study, five mixed studies (with RT-experienced participants), and one combined study reported this. Discussion: Conventional isotonic RT showed the most consistent improvements in COD across the included studies. Participants’ training experience may influence outcomes, but it was often reported inconsistently. As a result, it is difficult to draw firm conclusions about how RT type and experience relate to force- and velocity-based COD performance.
[This summary has been rewritten with the help of AI based on the project's original abstract]
Keywords
Documents