Anthony J Blazevich1, Cody J Wilson2, Pedro E Alcaraz3, Jacobo A Rubio-Arias3,4. 1. Centre for Exercise and Sports Science Research (CESSR), School of Medical and Health Sciences, Edith Cowan University, Joondalup, Australia. a.blazevich@ecu.edu.au. 2. Centre for Exercise and Sports Science Research (CESSR), School of Medical and Health Sciences, Edith Cowan University, Joondalup, Australia. 3. UCAM Research Center for High Performance Sport, Faculty of Sport Sciences, Catholic University San Antonio, Murcia, Spain. 4. LFE Research Group, Department of Health and Human Performance, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Madrid, Spain.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Muscular rate of force development (RFD) is positively influenced by resistance training. However, the effects of movement patterns and velocities of training exercises are unknown. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effects of velocity, the intent for fast force production, and movement pattern of training exercises on the improvement in isometric RFD from chronic resistance training. METHODS: A systematic search of electronic databases was conducted to 18 September, 2018. Meta-regression and meta-analytic methods were used to compute standardized mean differences (SMD ± 95% confidence intervals) to examine effects of movement pattern similarity (between training and test exercises; specific vs. non-specific) and movement speed (fast vs. slow vs. slow with intent for fast force production) for RFD calculated within different time intervals. RESULTS: The search yielded 1443 articles, of which 54 met the inclusion criteria (59 intervention groups). Resistance training increased RFD measured to both early (e.g., 50 ms; standardized mean difference [95% CI] 0.58 [0.40, 0.75]) and later (e.g., 200 ms; 0.39 [0.25, 0.52]) times from contraction onset, as well as maximum RFD (RFDmax; 0.35 [0.21, 0.48]). However, sufficient data for sub-analyses were only available for RFDmax. Significant increases relative to control groups were observed after training with high-speed (0.54 [0.05, 1.03]), slow-speed with intent for fast force production (0.41 [0.20, 0.63), and movement pattern-specific (0.38 [0.17, 0.59]) exercises only. No clear effect was observed for slow-speed without intent for fast force production (0.21 [0.00, 0.42], p = 0.05) or non-movement-specific (0.27 [- 0.32, 0.85], p = 0.37) exercises. Meta-regression did not reveal a significant difference between sexes (p = 0.09); however, a negative trend was found in women (- 0.57 [- 1.51, 0.37], p = 0.23), while a favorable effect was found in men (0.40 [0.22, 0.58], p < 0.001). Study duration did not statistically influence the meta-analytic results, although the greatest RFD increases tended to occur within the first weeks of the commencement of training. CONCLUSIONS: Resistance training can evoke significant increases in RFD. For maximum (peak) RFD, the use of faster movement speeds, the intention to produce rapid force irrespective of actual movement speed, and similarity between training and testing movement patterns evoke the greatest improvements. In contrast to expectation, current evidence indicates a between-sex difference in response to training; however, a lack of data in women prevents robust analysis, and this should be a target of future research. Of interest from a training program design perspective was that RFD improvements were greatest within the first weeks of training, with less ongoing improvement (or a reduction in RFD) with longer training, particularly when training velocity was slow or there was a lack of intent for fast force production.
BACKGROUND: Muscular rate of force development (RFD) is positively influenced by resistance training. However, the effects of movement patterns and velocities of training exercises are unknown. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effects of velocity, the intent for fast force production, and movement pattern of training exercises on the improvement in isometric RFD from chronic resistance training. METHODS: A systematic search of electronic databases was conducted to 18 September, 2018. Meta-regression and meta-analytic methods were used to compute standardized mean differences (SMD ± 95% confidence intervals) to examine effects of movement pattern similarity (between training and test exercises; specific vs. non-specific) and movement speed (fast vs. slow vs. slow with intent for fast force production) for RFD calculated within different time intervals. RESULTS: The search yielded 1443 articles, of which 54 met the inclusion criteria (59 intervention groups). Resistance training increased RFD measured to both early (e.g., 50 ms; standardized mean difference [95% CI] 0.58 [0.40, 0.75]) and later (e.g., 200 ms; 0.39 [0.25, 0.52]) times from contraction onset, as well as maximum RFD (RFDmax; 0.35 [0.21, 0.48]). However, sufficient data for sub-analyses were only available for RFDmax. Significant increases relative to control groups were observed after training with high-speed (0.54 [0.05, 1.03]), slow-speed with intent for fast force production (0.41 [0.20, 0.63), and movement pattern-specific (0.38 [0.17, 0.59]) exercises only. No clear effect was observed for slow-speed without intent for fast force production (0.21 [0.00, 0.42], p = 0.05) or non-movement-specific (0.27 [- 0.32, 0.85], p = 0.37) exercises. Meta-regression did not reveal a significant difference between sexes (p = 0.09); however, a negative trend was found in women (- 0.57 [- 1.51, 0.37], p = 0.23), while a favorable effect was found in men (0.40 [0.22, 0.58], p < 0.001). Study duration did not statistically influence the meta-analytic results, although the greatest RFD increases tended to occur within the first weeks of the commencement of training. CONCLUSIONS: Resistance training can evoke significant increases in RFD. For maximum (peak) RFD, the use of faster movement speeds, the intention to produce rapid force irrespective of actual movement speed, and similarity between training and testing movement patterns evoke the greatest improvements. In contrast to expectation, current evidence indicates a between-sex difference in response to training; however, a lack of data in women prevents robust analysis, and this should be a target of future research. Of interest from a training program design perspective was that RFD improvements were greatest within the first weeks of training, with less ongoing improvement (or a reduction in RFD) with longer training, particularly when training velocity was slow or there was a lack of intent for fast force production.
Authors: Cornelis J de Ruiter; Daniel Van Leeuwen; Arjan Heijblom; Maarten F Bobbert; Arnold de Haan Journal: Med Sci Sports Exerc Date: 2006-10 Impact factor: 5.411
Authors: Helena Gapeyeva; Nele Buht; Katrin Peterson; Jaan Ereline; Tiit Haviko; Mati Pääsuke Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2006-09-28 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: Luis Andreu-Caravaca; Domingo J Ramos-Campo; Pedro Manonelles; Linda H Chung; Salvador Ramallo; Jacobo Á Rubio-Arias Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2022-04-25 Impact factor: 4.964
Authors: Hugo Sarmento; Filipe Manuel Clemente; José Afonso; Duarte Araújo; Miguel Fachada; Paulo Nobre; Keith Davids Journal: Sports Med Open Date: 2022-05-13
Authors: Francisco Pradas; Ignacio Ara; Víctor Toro; Javier Courel-Ibáñez Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-03-11 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Heikki Peltonen; Ritva Mikkonen-Taipale; Teemu Uimonen; Simon Walker; Anthony C Hackney; Maarit Valtonen; Heikki Kyröläinen; Johanna K Ihalainen Journal: Med Sci Sports Exerc Date: 2022-03-18
Authors: Mateo Baena-Marín; Andrés Rojas-Jaramillo; Jhonatan González-Santamaría; David Rodríguez-Rosell; Jorge L Petro; Richard B Kreider; Diego A Bonilla Journal: Sports (Basel) Date: 2022-01-04