Sprinting performance has captivated audiences across the world since the ancient Olympic games in the eighth Century BC. Numerous studies have been conducted using sprinters as a population. The majority of these are acute studies and investigate a wide variety of topics such as physiological changes (14,15,29), alteration in stride length and frequency (1,7,16,19), and acute biomechanical changes (10,32,39,42,43,53). There are concerns that resistance training will result in muscle hypertrophy, increasing athlete mass thus impacting on speed (47,62). Ross and Leveritt (47) have shown an increase (5–10%) in type I and type II fiber cross-sectional area, in sprinters after prolonged training ranging from 8 weeks to 8 months, which accounts for top-level sprinters' muscular physiques. Ross and Leveritt also note that as a physique becomes more muscular, as in the case of a bodybuilder, contractile characteristics (concentric/eccentric) become slower. For clarity, this article refers to exercises, which involve bounding, sled towing, prowler pushing, or any other form of resisted sprint training as locomotor resistance. Exercises such as back squats, squat jumps, leg extensions, or exercises, which are performed on the spot, or in a fixed plane, are referred to as fixed plane resistance.
To date, a large number of studies have examined the effects of resistance-based interventions on sprinting performance in team sports athletes, with the greatest volume of research conducted on American football, Rugby, and soccer teams. American football studies have focused on various training methods over a season, yet report inconsistent findings about which method can best improve speed development (22,31). Many of the studies have demonstrated improvements in running performance outcome measures after a season of resistance training (13,22,23,55,60). However, various methods have been used to elicit improved speed development of these athletes. Many have used fixed plane resistances such as jump squats (21), power cleans (13,20–23,34,48,60), medicine ball throws (38), and Olympic weightlifting variations (13,20–23,48,60) supplementing their programs with more locomotor-oriented resistance training such as plyometrics (13,20,34,38,55) and maximal treadmill running (48).
The available studies on Rugby and sprinting performance suggest similar findings as American football. For example, Baker's (3) study report a shorter intervention time of 6–8 weeks, unlike the American football studies that lasted as long as an entire season. These studies have used similar training methods to American football, including many locomotor resistance exercises such as over-speed training (9), resisted sprint training (18,59), plyometric training (34,54), and fixed plane resistance exercises such as jump squats (3,9,17,44) and Olympic weightlifting variations (3).
The body of research on soccer has also presented similar findings with interventions lasting from 3 to 10 weeks (8,12,27,28,35,36,41,46,56–58,61) involving fixed plane resistance training interventions of back squats (27,35,36), half squats (35,41,46,61), and countermovement jumps (35,46,56). They also use many locomotor training exercises, including repeated sprint training (12,28,57,61), plyometrics (8,35,36,41,46,56), speed, agility, quickness (27), and assisted and resisted sprint training (58). Many of these studies have used both locomotor and fixed plane resistance programs concurrently, some even using complex training methods (36).
Several key recommendations have arisen from these studies, primarily a necessity for further research examining the validity, transfer, and periodization method of these programs. The overall theme suggests that longer (>8 weeks) studies yield improved speed development (8,12,13,20–23,27,31,35,51,54,55,57,59–61), and that a combined approach of resistance training, and locomotor training improves speed (3,11,13,22,27,31,48,54,55,58,61,62). Both American football and rugby have position-specific considerations, which may influence overall study results (2,13,25,31,44). The soccer studies showed significant improvements with interventions lasting longer than 8 weeks, again with a combined approach of resistance training and locomotor training (8,12,27,57,58,61). There was little focus on running technique development in these studies, and none of the studies tested speed beyond 60 m.
From a broader perspective, the performance outcome measures of the studies are not easily comparable with competitive sprint performance, as it is harder to control subject variability in running mechanics and body mass. This is partly due to an overall difference in focus on body composition, as sprinting strength to weight ratio is important for the expression of force. A greater body mass to strength ratio will aid overall speed production (47), whereas both American football (25,45) and rugby (2) place greater emphasis on heavier body mass in conjunction with strength, speed, and power due to the collision-based nature of their sports. The absence of resistance training trials within the sprinting population is apparent, yet most are performing resistance training as part of their overall training program. Longitudinal controlled trials involving track athletes, in particular sprinters, are not abundant in the literature (62). This illustrates a gap in the literature on resistance modality and programming for competitive sprinters.
Numerous review articles have aimed to clarify the effects of different modalities of training on sprinting performance (6,11,24,26,49). The representation of sprinters among their population samples, however, is sparse. To date, strength and conditioning professionals and athletics coaches only have a small number of sport-specific studies to draw from to validate their training program selection for the modern sprinter. This systematic review focuses specifically on the prevalence and effects of various resistance training modalities on sprinters' performance. There is a lack of evidence-based research to support the apparent beneficial effects of various resistance training modalities on performance in competitive sprinters. A key consideration, however, is whether resistance training improves sprinting performance specifically. If so, what type of resistance training modalities or exercises are best suited for increased sprint performance? The purpose of this systematic review was to search the body of scientific literature for original research, addressing the effects of different forms of resistance training on sprinting performance in competitive sprinters.
Experimental Approach to the Problem
The Cochrane Collaboration Prisma protocol (33) was used to complete the review. Electronic databases from 1946 to November 2013 were searched, including Pub Med, CINAHL, Science Direct, MEDLINE, Sports Discus, Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, and the Strength and Conditioning Journal. Key words used were Sprinters OR Sprint NOT Rugby, Soccer, Cycling, Swimming, Paralympic, and Nutrition. Search terms were modified accordingly to fit the requirements or nuances of the database used.
Studies were eligible if they met the following inclusion criteria: competitive adult male sprinters who participated in a resistance-based intervention (>4 weeks), with outcome measures of sprinting performance (10- to 100-m sprint times). Sprinters were defined as those who are currently competitive in 100- to 400-m event distances. Interventions included any resistance training, including plyometrics, weight training, calisthenics, and resisted running, but not excluding any other novel approaches where resistance is applied to the body. Studies were excluded if they were acute in nature postactivation potentiation studies or biomechanical studies without a training intervention. Studies involving untrained subjects, team sport athletes, or nonsprinters were also excluded. Subjects needed to be 16- to 35-year-old healthy adults with no musculoskeletal injuries.
Original research was reviewed using the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale (33). The PEDro scale consists of 11 items related to scientific rigor, including eligibility criteria, random allocation strategy, concealed allocation, follow-up comparison, baseline comparison, blinding of subjects, therapists (i.e., trainers) and assessors, intention to treat, between-group analysis, and both point and variability measures. Five studies met the inclusion criteria (4,5,30,31,50), a similar number of studies used in a investigation by Yamamoto et al. (62) on elite endurance runners, which were then independently evaluated by 2 reviewers using the PEDro scale. Consensus was achieved on scores given to the 5 articles. A third reviewer was not needed in this case to resolve scoring issues. The Kappa value (measure of observed agreement) for all 5 articles was 1.0 (perfect agreement).
Data were extracted using a standardized form created in Visual Basic to filter the required information into a continuous string in Microsoft Excel. The form included a hierarchy for assessment including the study citation and the inclusion/exclusion criteria. Studies were assessed first by journal title, second by abstract, and third by full article review, when the journal article was either included or excluded based on the criteria illustrated in Figure 1.
Physiotherapy Evidence Database scores for the 5 selected articles ranged from 6 to 7 out of a maximum of 11 (Table 1). Concealment of allocation is not entirely relevant in studies of this nature because, given the nature of resistance training and sample selection methods used, it is difficult for researchers to keep themselves and participants unaware of the treatment and groups involved in these types of studies. Blinding of subjects and therapists (i.e., trainers) was also not applicable in this case.
Three of the 5 studies reported increased running performance after training intervention. These studies reported that the increase was statistically significant. A fourth, Blazevich and Jenkins (5), reported that the increase was not statistically significant. The fifth, Satkunskienė et al. (50), showed a decrease in running performance after intervention. Three of the 5 studies (30,37,50) used locomotor-oriented resistance training involving unilateral exercises, from plyometrics to parachute resisted running, whereas the remaining 2 studies (4,5) used more traditional bilateral movements or fixed plane resistance such as leg extensions and squats. Notably, all groups used exercises of a dynamic or explosive nature with the exception of the Blazevich and Jenkins' (5) study. All 5 studies are summarized in Tables 2 and 3.
The study by Kamandulis et al. (30) scored 6/11 on the PEDro scale. Random allocation was not used, and blinding of subjects and therapists (i.e., trainers) was not possible in this case. Kamandulis et al. (30) examined contractile properties of the quadriceps as well as running performance after 3 weeks of power endurance training. The training intervention consisted of maximal-intensity sprint repetitions with short recovery periods, followed by 1-week recovery and 4 weeks of high-intensity power training. The high-intensity power training involved running with weight attached through a belt, jumps from 1 step followed by a vertical jump, forward jumps, and crouch-start running. Athletes used intensities of 95–100% of maximum for 5–10 seconds, repeated 5–10 times, with 5-minute recovery between exercises. The power endurance training involved vertical jumps, multiple forward jumps, running exercises (hurdles, upstairs, uphill, and on the spot), and sprints alternating with slow jogging. The athletes performed each exercise at 60–90% of maximum for 20 seconds, which they repeated 5–10 times with 30-second rest intervals between exercises. This combination of power endurance training followed by high-intensity power training resulted in improved 60-m sprint times by 1.83% (SD = 0.96; p ≤ 0.05, effect size [ES] = 1.7). The authors suggested that sprint performance is poorly predicted by muscle intrinsic properties, and that neural adaptation provides for the improved adaptation.
Balsalobre-Fernandez et al. (4) recorded a score of 6/11 on the PEDro scale due to the small sample size (n = 7), the absence of a control group, and blinding within the study. Balsalobre-Fernandez et al. (4) evaluated the effect of maximal power training on performance in sprinters over a 10-week intervention. They used squat jumps as the primary exercise, starting at 40% of squat jump, 1 repetition maximum (1RM) with subsequent increments of 5% until maximum power output was attained (measured using a Myotest Pro; Myotest Inc., Durango, CO, USA). This was performed twice a week for a 10-week period. Their study suggests that neural adaptation is again the primary mechanism underlying performance gain, although this was not quantified or measured. Balsalobre-Fernandez et al. (4) observed improvements in squat jump 1RM of 7.9% with a mean difference pre-post of 13.7 kg (p = 0.021), a 2.3% increase in flight time for the squat jump with a mean pre-post difference of 13.9 milliseconds (p = 0.045), and a 1.43% improvement in 30-m sprint time with a mean pre-post difference of −0.06 seconds (p = 0.044).
Martinopoulou et al. (37) scored highest with 7/11 on the PEDro scale as a result of using random allocation of groups. Martinopoulou et al. (37) studied the effects of resisted sprint training on sprint performance in competitive sprinters (n = 16). The study was conducted during the precompetitive phase, lasting 4 weeks. The subjects were divided into a resisted training group (using the parachute), and an unresisted group. The groups both trained 3 times per week. This included 4 × 30-m and 4 × 50-m maximum effort sprints, with a recovery time of 4–6 minutes, respectively. There was a 10-minute recovery time between the last 30-m sprint and the first 50-m sprint. The resistance applied in this study was a large parachute and was adjusted accordingly so that running velocity per 30- to 50-m set was not allowed to exceed a 10% reduction in the subjects' unresisted sprint time for that distance. The resisted group improved significantly over various sprint distances, both in the acceleration phase and in the maximum speed phase; 0–10 m (p = 0.043), 10–20 m (p = 0.017), 0–20 m (p = 0.009), and 40–50 m (p = 0.023). The unresisted control group showed no significant improvements over the same distances with the exception of the acceleration phase 0–20 m (p = 0.012). The findings suggest that the parachute seems to be a suitable training method for performance improvement in the acceleration phase and maximum speed phase in sprinting.
Blazevich and Jenkins (5) also scored a 7/11 on the PEDro scale as a result of using random group allocation. Blazevich and Jenkins (5) considered the effect of speed of resistance training exercises on competitive nationally ranked sprinters (n = 10). The intervention consisted of 4-week standardization training to ensure homogeneity between groups by controlling the velocity of the movements before the trial. Movement velocities for this period were noted as being slow, with eccentric and concentric phases lasting 1–2 seconds. This was followed by 7 weeks of resistance training with high- and low-velocity groups. The results did not demonstrate any significant difference between groups. There was a 1.9% improvement in sprinting performance (p = 0.08; ES = 0.71) in the high-velocity group with respect to the flying 20-m sprint. The authors suggested resistance training movement speed does not have a significant effect on sprint performance when the resistance training is combined with sprint training in nationally ranked athletes. Blazevich and Jenkins (5) also suggest that its effects would only be significant after longer training periods, due to the level of the athlete's current adaptation to resistance, the emphasis placed on specific sprint training on the track, and the short period of time spent resistance training.
Satkunskienė et al. (50) scored a 6/11 on the PEDro scale due to the lack of random allocation concealment and blinding. Satkunskienė et al. (50) studied the effect of a power training program on running kinematics. Seven elite sprinters participated in the study 3 times per week over an 8-week period. The program comprised initial 4 weeks of power endurance training at 60–90% of 1RM with 30- to 60-second rest between exercises, followed by 4 weeks of power training at 100% of 1RM with 3- to 5-minute rest between exercises.
The power endurance training consisted of standing jumps, multiple hops and jumps, barrier hops, stair runs, uphill runs, and runs on the spot. The intensity was set at 60–90% intensity, and the training comprised of 20 seconds bouts of activity with 30- to 60-second passive rest in between exercises. The power training consisted of resisted sled-pulling sprints, depth jumps, multiple hops and jumps, block starts, and a selection of other assistance exercises (lever-seated calf raise, barbell back extension, machine fly, butterfly, and lever-lying leg curl). The intensity was set at 100% of 1RM with 10-second activity bouts and 3- to 5-minute recovery between exercises. The results indicated some improvement but no significant increase in maximal running speed (pre = 9.62 ± 0.35 seconds, post = 10.0 ± 0.57 seconds, p = 0.08), ground contact (pre = 119 ± 15.39 seconds, post = 115 ± 10.41 seconds, p = 0.50), step length (pre = 2.24 ± 0.16 m, post = 2.28 ± 0.19 m, p = 0.69), and step frequency (pre = 4.31 ± 0.39 seconds, post = 4.42 ± 0.37 seconds, p = 0.19). There were no significant differences in many of the other parameters, including joint angles, hip flexion, and foot trajectory.
The current review addresses the question of resistance training modalities and performance outcome for sprint athletes. This review is unique because of its narrow focus on competitive sprinters, similar to an investigation by Yamamoto et al. (62) on the effects of resistance training on high-level endurance athletes. It comprehensively reviews the literature in the area and includes a systematic review with, PEDro scaling, and protocols used. This systematic review of 5 resistance training studies suggests that a varied input in the form of locomotor resistance (involving unilateral movement, 2–4 times per week, ranging from 60 to 100% intensities) and fixed plane resistance (involving bilateral movement, 2–4 times per week, ranging from 30 to 90% 1RM) can provide for improved sprinting performance. Theses ranges do not provide specific direction for a sprint coach, but the variety of movements emphasizes that a varied input can produce similar performance outcomes. The moderate PEDro scale scores (6–7) should not diminish the quality of the reviewed studies, considering the constraints that training studies have in blinding subjects, therapists (i.e., trainers), and assessors to the treatment received.
Despite the volume of sprint studies available, few have focused specifically on competitive sprinters. One limitation of this review was the small number of studies that met the inclusion criteria, but this further emphasizes that competitive sprint coaches are using various methods of resistance training with unpublished empirical evidence to substantiate the type, frequency, and programming of these activities. Furthermore, the ceiling effect is relevant here as subjects reviewed may have reached a maximal level of strength and power, thus demonstrated smaller improvements in performance. Although the studies included provide evidence that resistance training improves sprinting performance, further research is needed to elucidate the most effective combinations of training methods for optimal transference and the most effective programming models to elicit improved performance. It is noteworthy that the reviewed studies show a varied input of resistance from that of a locomotor resistance to that of a fixed plane resistance with similar performance outcome improvements. It is also worth nothing that all groups used exercises of a dynamic or explosive nature, with the exception of the study by Blazevich and Jenkins (5). Sprint performance therefore may be optimized by a variety of resistance training modalities.
Despite the link between resistance training and sprinting performance in these studies, 3 of the studies (30,37,50) used predominantly locomotor type resistance training such as plyometrics, horizontal jumping patterns, antiphase movement (unilateral), and stair climbs, whereas the remaining 2 studies (4,5) used fixed plane resistance movements like squat jumps and leg extensions. Two of the studies (30,50) used a combination of locomotor training and fixed plane resistance, which is mentioned by de Villarreal et al. (11), with similarly successful findings. Additionally, while all of the studies in this review consisted of relatively short training periods (average = 7.4 weeks), it is unknown how chronic adaptations to these training methods will affect sprinting performance. Acute improvements in running with resistance training are posited to be associated with neuromuscular adaptations (11,26,62), but the effects of chronic resistance training on muscle mass, muscle metabolic activity, or the risk benefit is still unknown. Because the studies in this review assessed competitive sprinters, it was probably difficult to control training for a longer period of time because of the competitive season (62).
To disseminate the results of resistance-based training for sprinters, researchers must consider the different modalities of training available. First, general physical preparation, which involves general conditioning to improve strength, speed, endurance, flexibility, and skill followed by more specific training, which aims to improve the individual athlete's performance (52). Second, the modality of resistance training, fixed plane resistance training (e.g., squat, deadlift, and bench press) with the option of open and closed chain movements, which has been studied extensively in the broader literature (5,11,25,26,45,49,62), or locomotor resistance training. Locomotor resistance training has been the most frequently studied among competitive sprinters. The population sample remains too small to form conclusive opinion on locomotor resistance training benefit over traditional sprint training on a track (4,5,30,37,50). It is unclear which forms show the optimal transference to sprinting performance. There are many ways of developing relative strength (52), but it remains unclear whether locomotor resistance or fixed plane resistance show greater transference to sprinting performance. The muscle activation of these movements will reveal more about which exercise mimics the muscle activation, neural adaptations, and neural sequencing required to facilitate maximum speed performance outcomes in competitive sprinters. Future research here is certainly warranted.
This research supports increased sprinting performance with resistance-based training programs involving unilateral movement, 2–4 times per week at 60–100% of 1RM. The importance of a general strength base in conjunction with dynamically oriented strength programming forms the basis for training competitive sprinters. This review illustrates how different modalities of resistance training result in similar performance improvements yet there is no clear modality, which stands out as being optimal for speed development.
Coaches should use structured, periodized resistance training regimens based on the health and ability of individual athletes during each training phase. The positive benefits of resistance-based training in sprinters cannot be overlooked despite the limited body of empirical evidence. However, it is evident that there is a need for further research with highly trained competitive sprinters on the potential benefits of various forms of resistance-based training on sprinting performance. This article illustrates the need for further research within the sprinting population regarding the specificity of different resistance training modalities to sprinting performance. Research needs to determine whether there is true transference between many of the resistance-based exercises used in sprint training, from both a neural activation and overall adaptation point of view.
1. Aerenhouts D, Delecluse C, Hagman F, Taeymans J, Debaere S, Van Gheluwe B, Clarys P. Comparison of anthropometric characteristics and sprint start performance between elite adolescent and adult sprint athletes. Eur J Sports Sci 12: 9–15, 2012.
2. Alaphilippe A, Mandigout S, Ratel S, Bonis J, Courteix D, Duclos M. Longitudinal follow-up of biochemical markers of fatigue throughout a sporting season in young elite rugby players. J Strength Cond Res 26: 3376–3384, 2012.
3. Baker D. A series of studies on the training of high-intensity muscle power in rugby league football players. J Strength Cond Res 15: 198–209, 2001.
4. Balsalobre-Ferna[Combining Acute Accent]ndez C, Tejero-Gonzalez CM, del Campo-Vecino J, Alonso-Curiel D. The effects of a maximal power training cycle on the strength, maximum power, vertical jump height and acceleration of high-level 400-meter hurdlers. J Hum Kinet 36: 119–126, 2013.
5. Blazevich AJ, Jenkins DG. Effect of the movement speed of resistance training exercises on sprint and strength performance in concurrently training elite junior sprinters. J Sports Sci 20: 981–990, 2002.
6. Brughelli M, Cronin J. A review of research on the mechanical stiffness in running and jumping: Methodology and implications. Scand J Med Sci Sports 18: 417–426, 2008.
7. Bushnell T, Hunter I. Differences in technique between sprinters and distance runners at equal and maximal speeds. Sports Biomech 6: 261–268, 2007.
8. Chelly MS, Ghenem MA, Abid K, Hermassi S, Tabka Z, Shephard RJ. Effects of in-season short-term plyometric training program on leg power, jump- and sprint performance of soccer players. J Strength Cond Res 24: 2670–2676, 2010.
9. Cook CJ, Beaven CM, Kilduff LP. Three weeks of eccentric training combined with overspeed exercises enhances power and running speed performance gains in trained athletes. J Strength Cond Res 27: 1280–1286, 2013.
10. Cronin J, Hansen K, Kawamori N, McNair P. Effects of weighted vests and sled towing on sprint kinematics. Sports Biomech 7: 160–172, 2008.
11. de Villarreal ES, Requena B, Cronin JB. The effects of plyometric training on sprint performance: A meta-analysis. J Strength Cond Res 26: 575–584, 2012.
12. Dupont G, Akakpo K, Berthoin S. The effect of in-season, high-intensity interval training in soccer players. J Strength Cond Res 18: 584–589, 2004.
13. Ebben WP, Blackard DO. Strength and conditioning practices of National Football League strength and conditioning coaches. J Strength Cond Res 15: 48–58, 2001.
14. Gorostiaga EM, Asiain X, Izquierdo M, Postigo A, Aguado R, Alonso JM, Ibanez J. Vertical jump performance and blood ammonia and lactate levels during typical training sessions in elite 400-m runners. J Strength Cond Res 24: 1138–1149, 2010.
15. Grandys M, Majerczak J, Zapart-Bukowska J, Kulpa J, Zoladz JA. Gonadal hormone status in highly trained sprinters and in untrained men. J Strength Cond Res 25: 1079–1084, 2011.
16. Hanon C, Gajer B. Velocity and stride parameters of world-class 400-meter athletes compared with less experienced runners. J Strength Cond Res 23: 524–531, 2009.
17. Harris N, Cronin J, Hopkins W, Hansen K. Squat jump training at maximal power loads vs. heavy loads: Effect on sprint ability. J Strength Cond Res 22: 1742–1749, 2008.
18. Harrison A, Bourke G. The effect of resisted sprint training on speed and strength performance in male Rugby players. J Strength Cond Res 10: 275–283, 2008.
19. Hobara H, Inoue K, Gomi K, Sakamoto M, Muraoka T, Iso S, Kanosue K. Continuous change in spring-mass characteristics during a 400 m sprint. J Sci Med Sport 13: 256–261, 2010.
20. Hoffman JR, Cooper J, Wendell M, Kang J. Comparison of Olympic vs. traditional power lifting training programs in football players. J Strength Cond Res 18: 129–135, 2004.
21. Hoffman JR, Ratamess NA, Cooper JJ, Kang J, Chilakos A, Faigenbaum AD. Comparison of loaded and unloaded jump squat training on strength/power performance in college football players. J Strength Cond Res 19: 810–815, 2005.
22. Hoffman JR, Ratamess N, Klatt M, Faigenbaum A, Ross RE, Tranchina N, McCurley R, Kang J, Kraemer W. Comparison between different off-season resistance training programs in division III American college football players. J Strength Cond Res 23: 11–19, 2009.
23. Hoffman JR, Wendell M, Cooper J, Kang J. Comparison between linear and nonlinear in-season training programs in freshman football players. J Strength Cond Res 17: 561–565, 2003.
24. Hrysomallis C. The effectiveness of resisted movement training on sprinting and jumping performance. J Strength Cond Res 26: 299–306, 2012.
25. Jacobson BH, Conchola EG, Glass RG, Thompson BJ. Longitudinal morphological and performance profiles for American, NCAA division I football players. J Strength Cond Res 27: 2347–2354, 2013.
26. Johnson BA, Salzberg CL, Stevenson DA. A systematic review: Plyometric training programs for young children. J Strength Cond Res 25: 2623–2633, 2011.
27. Jovanovic M, Sporis G, Omrcen D, Fiorentini F. Effects of speed, agility, quickness training method on power performance in elite soccer players. J Strength Cond Res 25: 1285–1292, 2011.
28. Jullien H, Bisch C, Largouët N, Manouvrier C, Carling CJ, Amiard V. Does a short period of lower limb strength training improve performance in field-based tests of running and agility in young professional soccer players? J Strength Cond Res 22: 404–411, 2008.
29. Jürimäe T, Utsal L, Mäestu J, Purge P, Jürimäe J. Hormone response to jumping tests in adolescent sprinters. Kinesiology 43: 137–144, 2011.
30. Kamandulis S, Brazaitis M, Stanislovaitis A, Duchateau J, Stanislovaitiene J. Effect of a periodized power training program on the functional performances and contractile properties of the quadriceps in sprinters. Res Q Exerc Sport 83: 540–545, 2013.
31. Kraemer W. A series of studies-the physiological basis for strength training in American football: Fact over philosophy. J Strength Cond Res 11: 131–142, 1997.
32. Krzysztof M, Mero A. A kinematics analysis of three best 100 m performances ever. J Hum Kinet 36: 149–160, 2013.
33. Liberati A, Altman D, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gøtzsche PC, Ioannidis JP, Clarke M, Devereaux PJ, Kleijnen J, Moher D. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: Explanation and elaboration. J Clin Epidemiol 69: e1–e38, 2009.
34. Lockie RG, Murphy AJ, Schultz AB, Knight TJ, Janse de Jonge XA. The effects of different speed training protocols on sprint acceleration kinematics and muscle strength and power in field sport athletes. J Strength Cond Res 26: 1539–1550, 2012.
35. Lopez-Segovia M, Palao Andres JM, Gonzalez-Badillo JJ. Effect of 4 months of training on aerobic power, strength, and acceleration in two under-19 soccer teams. J Strength Cond Res 24: 2705–2714, 2010.
36. Maio Alves JM, Rebelo AN, Abrantes C, Sampaio J. Short-term effects of complex and contrast training in soccer players' vertical jump, sprint, and agility abilities. J Strength Cond Res 24: 936–941, 2010.
37. Martinopoulou K, Paradisis G, Katsikas C, Smirniotou A. The effects of resisted training using parachute on sprint performance. J Biol Exer 7: 7–23, 2011.
38. Mayhew JL, Bird M, Cole ML, Koch AJ, Jacques JA, Ware JS, Buford BN, Fletcher KM. Comparison of the backward overhead medicine ball throw to power production in college football players. J Strength Cond Res 19: 514–518, 2005.
39. Milan C, Krzysztof M. Differences between the elite and sub-elite sprinters in kinematic and dynamic determinations of countermovement jump and drop jump. J Strength Cond Res 27: 3021–3027, 2013.
40. Moseley AM, Herbert RD, Sherrington C, Maher CG. Evidence for physiotherapy practice: A survey of the physiotherapy evidence database (PEDro). Aust J Physiother 48: 43–49, 2002.
41. Mujika I, Santisteban J, Castagna C. In-season effect of short-term sprint and power training programs on elite junior soccer players. J Strength Cond Res 23: 2581–2587, 2009.
42. Okkonen O, Hakkinen K. Biomechanical comparison between sprint start, sled pulling, and selected squat-type exercises. J Strength Cond Res 27: 2662–2673, 2013.
43. Paulson S, Braun WA. The influence of parachute-resisted sprinting on running mechanics in collegiate track athletes. J Strength Cond Res 25: 1680–1685, 2011.
44. Randell AD, Cronin JB, Keogh JW, Gill ND, Pedersen MC. Effect of instantaneous performance feedback during 6 weeks of velocity-based resistance training on sport-specific performance tests. J Strength Cond Res 25: 87–93, 2011.
45. Robbins DW, Goodale TL, Kuzmits FE, Adams AJ. Changes in the athletic profile of elite college American football players. J Strength Cond Res 27: 861–874, 2013.
46. Ronnestad BR, Kvamme NH, Sunde A, Raastad T. Short-term effects of strength and plyometric training on sprint and jump performance in professional soccer players. J Strength Cond Res 22: 773–780, 2008.
47. Ross A, Leveritt M. Long-term metabolic and skeletal muscle adaptations to short-sprint training: Implications for sprint training and tapering. Sports Med 31: 1063–1082, 2001.
48. Ross RE, Ratamess NA, Hoffman JR, Faigenbaum AD, Kang J, Chilakos A. The effects of treadmill sprint training and resistance training on maximal running velocity and power. J Strength Cond Res 23: 385–394, 2009.
49. Rumpf MC, Cronin JB, Pinder SD, Oliver J, Hughes M. Effect of different training methods on running sprint times in male youth. Pediatr Exerc Sci 24: 170–186, 2012.
50. Satkunskienė D, Rauktys D, Stanislovaitis A. The effect of power training on sprint running kinematics. Educ Phys Train Sport 72: 116–122, 2009.
51. Seitz LB, Rivière M, Sáez de Villarreal E, Haff GG. The athletic performance of elite rugby league players is improved after an 8-week small-sided game training intervention. J Strength Cond Res 28: 971–975, 2013.
52. Sif M, Verkhoshansky Y. Supertraining. Denver, CO: Supertraining Institute, 2003.
53. Slawinski J, Bonnefoy A, Ontanon G, Leveque JM, Miller C, Riquet A, Cheze L, Dumas R. Segment-interaction in sprint start: Analysis of 3D angular velocity and kinetic energy in elite sprinters. J Biomech 43: 1494–1502, 2010.
54. Smart DJ, Gill ND. Effects of an off-season conditioning program on the physical characteristics of adolescent rugby union players. J Strength Cond Res 27: 708–717, 2013.
55. Stodden DF, Galitski HM. Longitudinal effects of a collegiate strength and conditioning program in American football. J Strength Cond Res 24: 2300–2308, 2010.
56. Thomas K, French D, Hayes PR. The effect of two plyometric training techniques on muscular power and agility in youth soccer players. J Strength Cond Res 23: 332–335, 2009.
57. Tonnessen E, Shalfawi SA, Haugen T, Enoksen E. The effect of 40-m repeated sprint training on maximum sprinting speed, repeated sprint speed endurance, vertical jump, and aerobic capacity in young elite male soccer players. J Strength Cond Res 25: 2364–2370, 2011.
58. Upton DE. The effect of assisted and resisted sprint training on acceleration and velocity in Division IA female soccer athletes. J Strength Cond Res 25: 2645–2652, 2011.
59. West DJ, Cunningham DJ, Bracken RM, Bevan HR, Crewther BT, Cook CJ, Kilduff LP. Effects of resisted sprint training on acceleration in professional rugby union players. J Strength Cond Res 27: 1014–1018, 2013.
60. Wilder N, Gilders R, Hagerman F, Deivert RG. The effects of a 10-week, periodized, off-season resistance-training program and creatine supplementation among collegiate football players. J Strength Cond Res 16: 343–351, 2002.
61. Wong PL, Chaouachi A, Chamari K, Dellal A, Wisloff U. Effect of preseason concurrent muscular strength and high-intensity interval training in professional soccer players. J Strength Cond Res 24: 653–660, 2010.
62. Yamamoto LM, Lopez RM, Klau JF, Casa DJ, Kraemer WJ, Maresh CM. The effects of resistance training on endurance distance running performance among highly trained runners: A systematic review. J Strength Cond Res 22: 2036–2044, 2008.