Cormier 2021

Sports Biomechanics
ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rspb20
A systematic review of resistance training

methodologies for the development of lower body
concentric mean power, peak power, and mean
propulsive power in team-sport athletes
Patrick Cormier, Tomás T. Freitas & Kenneth Seaman
To cite this article: Patrick Cormier, Tomás T. Freitas & Kenneth Seaman (2021): A systematic
review of resistance training methodologies for the development of lower body concentric mean
power, peak power, and mean propulsive power in team-sport athletes, Sports Biomechanics, DOI:
10.1080/14763141.2021.1948601
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/14763141.2021.1948601
Published online: 04 Aug 2021.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 54
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rspb20
SPORTS BIOMECHANICS
https://doi.org/10.1080/14763141.2021.1948601
A systematic review of resistance training methodologies for

the development of lower body concentric mean power, peak
power, and mean propulsive power in team-sport athletes
a b,c,d
Patrick Cormier , Tomás T. Freitas and Kenneth Seamana
a
Faculty of Kinesiology, University of New Brunswick, Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada; bUCAM Research
Center for High Performance Sport - Catholic University of Murcia, UCAM, Spain; cNAR - Nucleus of High
Performance in Sport, São Paulo, Brazil; dFaculty of Sport Sciences, Catholic University of Murcia, UCAM,
Murcia, Spain
ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

This study aimed to systematically review training methods pre Received 2 February 2021
scribed to develop lower-body power, determine their effective Accepted 22 June 2021
ness for the development of lower-body mechanical power and KEYWORDS
their implementation in an annual training cycle amongst team- Evidence-based; force
sport athletes. The absolute and relative outcome values of con measurement; impulse;
centric mean power, peak power and mean propulsive power were kinetics; performance
extracted from 19 studies. Outcomes were assessed using baseline
to post intervention percent change, effect sizes, and the level of
evidence concerning the method's effectiveness. A thorough ana
lysis of the literature indicated that, based on the high level of
evidence, traditional (e.g., strength training alone) and combination
training (e.g., complex and contrast) methods should be consid
ered. Further, optimal load and velocity-based training can be
implemented if coaches have access to the appropriate equipment
to monitor movement velocity and mechanical power in every
session. This is of particular importance in periods of the season
where high volumes of technical-tactical training and congested
fixture periods are present. Also, flywheel, eccentric overload and
weightlifting methods have been shown to be effective although
the level of evidence is low. Future research should expand on
current training practices whilst adequately reporting actual train
ing loads from sport-specific training and games alongside
strength-power training protocols.
Introduction
The ability to generate ‘power’ is essential to the successful performance of neuromus
cular and dynamic sport-specific tasks (Aagaard, 2003; Suchomel et al., 2016). Power,
defined as the rate of performing mechanical work (Kawamori & Haff, 2004), is a result of
neuromuscular actions that maximise the impulse produced (i.e., area under the force-
time curve) which, in turn, determines the resulting velocity as a consequence of the
impulse-momentum relationship (Winter et al., 2016). Based on previous work, the
CONTACT Patrick Cormier pcormie2@unb.ca Faculty of Kinesiology, University of New Brunswick, 90 MacKay
Drive, Fredericton, NB E3B 4J9, Canada
© 2021 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 P. CORMIER ET AL.
underpinning aspect leading to performance in powerful muscular actions, such as

jumping, is impulse (McBride et al., 2010). For instance, in a vertical jump, it is possible
that jump height increases while power output decreases due to changes in jumping
strategy; thus, vertical impulse (as explained by the impulse-momentum relationship)
determines jump height. Nevertheless, power is still an important determinant and
predictor of performance in sport-specific tasks (Cormie et al., 2011a), especially in team-
sports, which often require players to perform a great deal of mechanical work in short
timeframes.
To maximise performance, team-sport scientists and strength and conditioning coa
ches implement various training programs that target specific strength-power related
qualities, hence optimising athletes’ power production (McGuigan et al., 2012; Newton &
Kraemer, 1994). Accordingly, greater maximal impulse capabilities are found with
stronger individuals (Cormie et al., 2009; James et al., 2018). Along these lines, it is
evident that diverse types of strength training interventions are effective in improving
various neuromuscular qualities (e.g., rate of force development, stretch shortening cycle
function, etc.). Moreover, and importantly, developing strength and power may lead to
positive adaptations in actions that are specific to athletic performance (e.g., sprinting,
jumping, changing of direction [COD], etc.) (Cormier et al., 2020; Freitas et al., 2017),
while also enhancing the ability to tolerate weekly changes in training load (Malone et al.,
2019), reducing injury rates (Lauersen et al., 2018; Malone et al., 2019), and increasing
potentiation ability (Suchomel et al., 2016).
Although the aforementioned metrics are important, there are other power-related
measures that can offer a more direct assessment of power corresponding to neuromus
cular adaptations following athletic training (Dugan et al., 2004; Häkkinen, 1989). For
example, concentric mean power (MP), peak power (PP), and mean propulsive power
(MPP) have been extensively studied in the sport science literature (McMaster et al., 2014;
Sanchez-Medina et al., 2010; Soriano et al., 2020). PP is characterised as the maximum
instantaneous value achieved in the concentric phase of a movement (i.e., rate of doing
work at an instant time) whereas MP is the average power produced during the whole
concentric portion of an exercise (i.e., average rate of doing work over a time period
considering both the ‘propulsive’ and ‘braking’ phases) (Sanchez-Medina et al., 2010;
Sapega & Drillings, 1983). MPP is the concentric mean power output achieved in the
concentric propulsive phase of a lift where the acceleration of the load is greater than the
acceleration due to gravity (i.e., value without the decelerative ‘braking’ phase required to
stop the movement) (Cronin & Sleivert, 2005; Sanchez-Medina et al., 2010). These are
often measured with ballistic vertically oriented exercises such as unloaded or loaded jump
squats at 0–60% 1 repetition-maximum (RM) or 20–80 kg (Loturco et al., 2017; Sanchez-
Medina et al., 2010) but also with horizontal hip-dominant exercises like the hip thrust
(Freitas et al., 2018; Ribeiro et al., 2020). Although all these values are associated with
dynamic jumping tasks, relative PP and MPP may be more closely related to superior jump
squat height in top-level athletes (Loturco et al., 2017). Further, it is important to consider
that while relative values of vertical impulse are excellent predictors and determinants of
jump height (nearly perfect correlations between both variables have been reported),
relative MP, PP, and MPP values are also closely associated to jump performance, although
these power values are dependent on jumping kinematics (i.e., jump strategy) (Kirby et al.,
2011; McBride et al., 2010). This also applies to acceleration and deceleration in sprinting/
SPORTS BIOMECHANICS 3
COD actions where horizontal-vertical braking and propulsive forces, and impulses must
be applied within the constraints of short ground contact times (Dos’Santos et al., 2017;
Harper et al., 2019; Kawamori et al., 2013; Loturco et al., 2020), as most athletic actions
occur in timeframes < 300 ms (Aagaard, 2003; Turner et al., 2020). Thus, while keeping in
mind the underpinning determinants of powerful muscular actions, concentric MP, PP,
and MPP will be investigated for the purpose of this review.
Regarding training interventions, traditional resistance training alone (i.e., strength
training with free weight, resistance machines, etc.) has long been shown to improve
power (Häkkinen, 1989); however, many methods have emerged in the literature over the
last few decades. For instance, plyometric and ballistic exercises (Chaabene et al., 2019),
as well as weightlifting and its derivatives (Suchomel et al., 2015) have become popular as
they approach the velocities achieved and forces applied in powerful athletic actions.
Recent research has hypothesised that combining traditional resistance training with
lighter load variations (i.e., plyometric, ballistic, and weightlifting derivatives) (Bauer
et al., 2019; Cormier et al., 2020; Freitas et al., 2017; Marshall et al., 2021) may result in
greater improvements in power over traditional methods alone. In addition, modern
technologies have allowed a more precise prescription of exercises using autoregulation
methods like velocity-based training (Guerriero et al., 2018; Mann et al., 2015; Weakley
et al., 2021), where velocity in every repetition can be monitored (e.g., tracking barbell
velocity in various exercises). Furthermore, training approaches using loads that max
imise mechanical power can also be found and are often referred to as ‘optimal load’ or
‘optimum power zone’ training (Loturco, Nakamura et al., 2015; Soriano et al., 2015).
Interestingly, methods emphasising the eccentric only (McNeill et al., 2019; Wagle et al.,
2017) portion of a lift are also frequently implemented. Similarly, iso-inertial devices
(e.g., flywheel) (Maroto-Izquierdo et al., 2019, 2017) have been used as an alternative
approach to overload the eccentric phase of movements. Altogether, these methods used
individually or in combination can lead to neural, structural, molecular, metabolic, and/
or power performance adaptations in team-sport athletes (Cormie et al., 2011a).
Despite all the above-mentioned methods being used by practitioners for sport perfor
mance purposes, it may be challenging to know how or when to implement them during
the season due to the constraints in ‘real-world’ team-sport settings. Therefore, investigat
ing which methods can be the most effective to develop lower-body power is of interest to
practitioners. As such, the purpose of this study was to (i) systematically review the
literature on the methodologies used to develop MP, PP, and MPP in team-sports, (ii)
identify which training methods are most effective at improving MP, PP, and MPP based
on the level of evidence available in the literature, and (iii) consider the timing of the
implementation of these training methods within a season or annual training plan.
Materials and methods

Experimental approach
Data sources and searches
The electronic search followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and
Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines (Moher et al., 2009) and was conducted on the
following databases: PubMed/Medline, SPORTDiscus, and Web of Knowledge (WoS). It
4 P. CORMIER ET AL.
considered articles published in the English language before 15 October 2020. The
following keywords were combined in the selected databases: (‘resistance training’ OR
‘ballistic training’ OR ‘weightlifting’ OR ‘combination training’ OR ‘complex training’
OR ‘contrast training’ OR ‘velocity-based training’ OR ‘strength training’ OR ‘optimal
load’ OR ‘plyometric’) AND (‘mean propulsive power’ OR ‘mean power’ OR ‘peak
power’ OR ‘lower body’ OR ‘lower limb’) AND (‘performance’ OR ‘athletes’ OR ‘team-
sport’). Reference lists from relevant articles were examined to find all possible papers
that may fit the inclusion criteria.
Subjects
Eligibility criteria
Once the initial search was conducted, a reference manager software (Zotero, version
5.0.84, Corporation for Digital Scholarship, Vienna, VA, USA) was used to organise the
imported studies into libraries. After the successful upload of all the articles searched in
our databases, the duplicate items were identified and removed. Afterwards, the titles and
abstracts were screened based on our eligibility criteria. The remaining full-text studies
were assessed for inclusion.
Studies were considered for inclusion if: [1] at least one experimental group participated
in an intervention with the goal of increasing lower-body neuromuscular power; [2]
relative or absolute values of concentric MP, PP, or MPP were outcome measures; [3]
participants mean age was >16 years and <45 years; [4] participants were from a compe
titive athletic team-sport population; [5] interventions lasted at least 6 weeks of continuous
duration. Studies were excluded if: [1] they were not published in peer-reviewed journals or
no full-text was available; [2] power values were derived from portable jump mats, optical
measurement systems and/or timing gates due to their lack of emphasis on biomechanical
aspects [3] concentric MP, PP, or MPP were not outcome measures; [4] participants had
neuromuscular disorders or were taking any performance enhancing substances; and [5]
interventions used unstable surfaces or were performed in hypoxic conditions. A threshold
of >16 years of age was used due to the notion that strength-power training is often
implemented to optimise movement competency and power performance adaptations
from late puberty to adulthood (Meylan et al., 2014) in team-sports.
Procedures
Study selection and data extraction
Database searches were performed in an unblinded way, independently by one author
(PC). After the removal of duplicates, abstract/titles were screened, and studies not
related to the review’s topic were excluded. The remaining articles were read and assessed
for inclusion. Two reviewers selected the studies for inclusion (PC and KS), according to
the eligibility criteria. If there were any that were unclear, the study was either omitted or
included in the review when both authors achieved an agreement. One author (PC)
extracted the following data from the selected studies: training background, country,
sample size (n), sex, age, frequency, training duration, 1RM/BM ratio, seasonal period,
training intervention, and the types of measurement that were used. In addition, all
baseline and post intervention data (including standard deviations) were extracted for all
outcomes.
Quality assessment
The Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale was used to assess the methodolo
gical quality of each individual study included in this review (Maher et al., 2003). For
each item, a score of ‘1’ meaning the PEDro scale criteria was met, ‘0’ score criteria not
met, and ‘-’ score not applicable. PEDro scores of 0–3 are considered ‘poor’, 4–5 ‘fair’, 6–
8 ‘good’, and 9–10 ‘excellent’ (Cashin & McAuley, 2020). Details on the PEDro scoring
items are presented in Table 1.
Statistical analysis
This systematic review was carried out using Microsoft Excel 2016 (Microsoft
Corporation, Redmond, WA, USA). In an excel form, relevant effects sizes (ES),
95% confidence intervals (CI), and pre-post intervention per cent change in means
[(post mean—pre mean)/pre mean * 100)] were calculated if the data (pre-post
means, standard deviation, and sample size) were available. If data were not
available or unclear, the reported values from the individual studies were dis
played. The ES (standardised mean difference) in each trial was calculated using
Table 1. Physiotherapy evidence database (PEDro) scores of the studies included in this review.
Item Item Item Item Item Item Item Item Item Item Item
Study 1* 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Total
Cook et al. (2013) 1 1 1 1 - - - 1 1 1 1 7
Freitas et al. (2018) 1 1 1 1 - - - 1 1 1 1 7
Hermassi et al. (2019) 1 1 1 0 - - - 1 1 1 1 6
Horwath et al. (2019) 1 1 1 0 - - - 1 1 1 1 6
Helland et al. (2017) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7
Hammami et al. (2018) 1 1 1 1 - - - 1 1 1 1 7
Hansen et al. (2011) 1 1 1 1 - - - 1 1 1 1 7
Hermassi et al. (2011) 1 1 1 0 - - - 1 1 1 1 6
Ishida et al. (2020) 1 0 1 1 - - - 1 1 1 1 6
Loturco et al. (2016) 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 6
Los Arcos et al. (2014) 1 1 1 1 - - - 1 1 1 1 7
Loturco et al. (2013) 1 1 1 1 - - - 1 1 0 1 6
Nuñez et al. (2018) 1 0 1 1 - - - 1 1 1 1 6
Otero-Esquina et al. 1 0 1 1 - - - 1 1 1 1 6
(2017)
Rauch et al. (2018) 1 1 1 1 - - - 1 1 1 0 6
Ramirez et al. (2015) 1 0 1 1 - - - 1 1 0 1 5
Ronnestad et al. (2008) 1 1 1 1 - - - 1 1 1 1 7
Suarez-Arrones et al. 1 1 1 1 - - - 1 1 0 1 6
(2018)
Talpey et al. (2016) 1 1 1 1 - - - 1 1 1 1 7
Item 1, eligibility criteria were specified; item 2, subjects were randomly allocated to groups; item 3, allocation was
concealed; item 4, the groups were similar at baseline; item 5, there was blinding of all subjects; item 6, there was
blinding of all therapists; item 7, there was blinding of all assessors; item 8, measures of at least one key outcome were
obtained from more than 85% of the subjects initially allocated to groups; item 9, all subjects for whom outcome measures
were available received the treatment or control condition as allocated or, data for at least one key outcome was analysed
by ‘intention to treat’; item 10, the results of between-group statistical comparisons are reported for at least one key
outcome; item 11, the study provides both point measures and measures of variability for at least one key outcome. * Item
1 was not included as part of the study quality rating as it pertains to external validity. Total from a maximum of 10.
6 P. CORMIER ET AL.
the Cohen’s equations (Lakens, 2013). Hedges g correction was applied to Cohen’s
d to reduce small sample bias (Cohen, 1988). The following ES thresholds were
used: <0.2 = trivial; 0.2–0.6 = small; >0.6–1.2 = moderate; >1.2–2.0 = large; >2.0–
4.0 = very large; and >4 = extremely large (Cohen, 1988; Hopkins et al., 2009).
Results
Search results
A total of 1474 articles were identified after the database search and removal of dupli
cates. Following title and abstract screening, 121 articles were left and assessed for
inclusion based on our eligibility criteria. Further, after the exclusion of 102 studies
with reasons, 19 were selected for assessment (Figure 1).
Figure 1. Flow diagram of the study selection process.

Methodological quality of studies

A mean quality score of 6 or above on the PEDro scale indicates the threshold for studies
with low risk of bias. Altogether, the studies achieved the required standard for a low risk
of bias (mean quality score = 6.37 ± 0.60) and obtained a score considered of ‘good’
quality (Table 1).
Study characteristics
Participants
A total of 19 studies met the inclusion criteria for the descriptive analysis portion of this
review (Table 2). A total of 379 participants were in the experimental group, and 61 in
control groups, making a total of 440 participants assessed in this study. The mean age of
the participants ranged from 16 to 28 years and their strength levels (1RM/BM ratio)
ranged from 1.2 to 2.4 in the back squat exercise. Individual studies originated from
various countries with athletes from a variety of team-sports including soccer
(Hammami et al., 2018; Ishida et al., 2020; Los Arcos et al., 2014; Loturco, Nakamura
et al., 2016; Loturco et al., 2013; Otero-Esquina et al., 2017; Ramirez et al., 2015;
Ronnestad et al., 2008; Suarez-Arrones et al., 2018; Talpey et al., 2016), handball
(Hermassi et al., 2011, 2019), Australian rules football (Talpey et al., 2016), rugby
(Cook et al., 2013; Hansen et al., 2011; Talpey et al., 2016), basketball (Freitas et al.,
2018; Talpey et al., 2016), volleyball (Helland et al., 2017; Rauch et al., 2018), and ice
hockey (Helland et al., 2017; Horwath et al., 2019). Noteworthy, Helland et al. (2017)
randomly allocated badminton, ice hockey, and volleyball athletes into three distinct
training methods. All participants had resistance training experiences of varying time
spans. Specifically, some had several years (>1 year) of experience, and some studies only
reported that participants had a sport-specific training background or stated that they
were resistance trained (Hammami et al., 2018; Hansen et al., 2011; Hermassi et al., 2011,
2019; Ishida et al., 2020; Loturco, Nakamura et al., 2016; Loturco et al., 2013; Ramirez
et al., 2015; Rauch et al., 2018; Ronnestad et al., 2008; Suarez-Arrones et al., 2018).
Finally, participants were recruited from collegiate (Ishida et al., 2020; Rauch et al., 2018),
amateur (Hammami et al., 2018; Helland et al., 2017; Nuñez et al., 2018; Talpey et al.,
2016), semi-professional (Cook et al., 2013; Freitas et al., 2018; Horwath et al., 2019), and
professional (Hansen et al., 2011; Hermassi et al., 2011, 2019; Los Arcos et al., 2014;
Loturco, Nakamura et al., 2016; Loturco et al., 2013; Otero-Esquina et al., 2017; Ramirez
et al., 2015; Ronnestad et al., 2008; Suarez-Arrones et al., 2018) team-sports.
Interventions
After all the studies were assessed for inclusion, the relevant studies were grouped
into specific types of training (Table 3). Specifically, traditional (TDT) (Hammami
et al., 2018; Hermassi et al., 2011; Ishida et al., 2020; Loturco, Nakamura et al., 2016;
Ronnestad et al., 2008), combination (CBT) (Freitas et al., 2018; Hansen et al., 2011;
Helland et al., 2017; Horwath et al., 2019; Los Arcos et al., 2014; Ronnestad et al.,
2008; Talpey et al., 2016), velocity-based (VBT) (Ramirez et al., 2015; Rauch et al.,
2018), optimal power load (OPL) (Freitas et al., 2018; Loturco, Nakamura et al.,
2016; Loturco et al., 2013; Rauch et al., 2018), weightlifting and derivatives (WL)
8
Table 2. Participant characteristics from the studies included in this systematic review.
1RM/
Participants BM
Study (year) Level Resistance training experience Sport Country Season Group F (%) (n) Age mean (±SD) ratio
Traditional strength training
Hammami Amateur Resistance trained Soccer Tunisia In-season EG 0 19 16.2 (0.6) 1.7
et al. CG 12 15.8 (0.2)
P. CORMIER ET AL.
(2018)
Hermassi Professional Resistance trained (i.e., moderate training loads) Handball Tunisia In-season EG 0 12 22.1 (1.7) 1.9
et al. CG 12 20.2 (1.5)
(2011)
Ishida et al. Collegiate - Soccer USA Off-season EG 0 17 19.6 (1.6) -
(2020)
Loturco Professional Resistance trained (i.e., moderate-heavy training Soccer Brazil In-season EG 0 12 23.1 (3.2) -
et al. loads)
(2016)
Ronnestad Professional Resistance trained Soccer Norway Pre-season EG 0 6 22 (2.5) 2.1
et al. CG 7 24 (1.5)
(2008)
Combination training
Freitas et al. Semi- >1 year resistance training Basketball Spain In-season EG 0 9 21.3 (4.3) 1.7
(2018) professional
Horwath Semi- >2 years resistance training Ice Hockey Sweden & - EG 0 11 17.6 (0.9) 1.5
et al. professional Norway
(2019)
Helland Amateur >2 years strength-power training Badminton, volleyball, and Norway Off-season EG 26 13 20.0 (3.0) 1.4
et al. ice hockey
(2017)
Hansen et al. Professional Resistance trained Rugby Australia Pre-season EG 0 9 27.8 (4.5) 1.9
(2011) EG 9 25.7 (4.5)
Los Arcos Professional >3 years strength training Soccer Spain Pre-season EG 0 11 20.3 (1.9) -
et al. (5-weeks), In- EG 11 19.6 (1.6)
(2014) season
(3-weeks)
(Continued)
Table 2. (Continued).
1RM/
Participants BM
Ronnestad Professional Resistance trained Soccer Norway Pre-season EG 0 8 23 (2) 2.4
et al. CG 7 24 (1.5)
(2008)
Talpey et al. Amateur >1 year resistance training Australian rules football, Australia - EG 0 9 21.4 (3.5) 1.7
(2016) rugby union, basketball,
and soccer
Velocity-based training
Rauch et al. Collegiate - Volleyball USA Off-season EG 100 15 19.3 (1.4) -
(2018)
Ramirez Professional - Soccer Spain - EG 0 18 23.4 (3.7) 1.6
et al.
(2015)
Optimal power load
Freitas et al. Semi- >1 year resistance training Basketball Spain In-season EG 0 9 21.3 (4.3) 1.7
(2018) professional
Loturco Professional Resistance trained (i.e., moderate-heavy training Soccer Brazil In-season EG 0 11 23.9 (4.4)
et al. loads)
(2016)
Loturco Professional Resistance trained Soccer Brazil Pre-season EG 0 16 19.2 (0.7) 1.2
et al. EG 16 19.1 (0.7)
(2013)
Rauch et al. Collegiate - Volleyball USA Off-season EG 100 15 19.3 (1.4) -
(2018)
Weightlifting and derivatives
Hermassi Professional - Handball Tunisia In-season EG 0 11 20.7 (0.5) 1.9
et al. CG 11
(2019)
et al. ice hockey
(2017)
Eccentric overload training
Horwath Semi- >2 years resistance training Ice hockey Sweden & - EG 0 11 18.4 (0.7) 1.5
SPORTS BIOMECHANICS
et al. professional Norway

(2019)
(Continued)
9
10
P. CORMIER ET AL.
1RM/
Participants BM
Flywheel training
Nuñez et al. Amateur - Various team sport players Spain - EG (UG) 0 14 22.8 (2.9) -
(2018) EG (BG) 13 22.6 (2.7)
Mixed training
Cook et al. Semi- >2 years resistance training Rugby UK Pre-season EG 0 5 19.4 (0.5) 1.6
(2013) professional EG 5 19.8 (0.8)
et al. ice hockey
(2017)
Otero- Professional >5 years of sessions (4–5) of combined soccer & Soccer Spain In-season EG 0 12 17 (1) -
Esquina strength-power & 1 match/week over EG 12
et al. 10 months/year CG 12
(2017)
Suarez- Professional - Soccer Italy In-season EG 0 14 17.5 (0.8) -
Arrones
et al.
(2018)
Data is represented in mean (±SD), n, or range. EG = experimental group, CG = control group, UG = unilateral group, BG = Bilateral group, 1RM = 1 repetition-maximum, BM = body mass, F = female
‘-’ = data not presented in study
Table 3. Intervention characteristics and results from studies included in this systematic review.
Type of
Study Duration measurement
(year) Intervention Intensity (wks) Freq/week Instrumentation (units) Results (ES = g (95% CI), % = pre-post change)
Hammami HSs 70–90%1RM 8 2 Force platform PP in CMJ (Watts), ES = 1.13 (0.45–1.82), % = 26.7; ES = 1.36 (0.65–
et al. Relative PP in 2.07), % = 23.1; ES = 0.67 (0.01–1.32), % = 12.1;
(2018) CMJ (W/kg), PP ES = 0.87 (0.20–1.53), % = 9.0a
in SJ (W),
Relative PP in SJ
(W/kg)
Hermassi HSs 80–95%1RM 8 2 Force platform PP in CMJ (Watts), ES = 0.93 (0.08–1.77), % = 15.3; ES = 2.33 (1.29–
et al. Relative PP in 3.37), % = 13.6; ES = 0.14 (−0.67–0.94), % = 3.3;
(2011) CMJ (W/kg), PP ES = 0.20 (−0.60–1.00), % = 3.4a
in SJ (W),
Relative PP in SJ
(W/kg)
Ishida et al. BS, DB lunge, clean pull, deadlift 65–95%1RM 7 3 Force platform PP in SJ 0, 20, 40 kg ES = 0.17 (−0.51–0.84), % = 3.6; ES = 1.75 (0.96–
(2020) (W) 0.99), % = 47.0; ES = 0.31 (−0.37–0.99), % = 6.8a
Loturco HS and JSs HS (60–90%1RM), JS (30% 6 3 Linear position MPP in JS, BM & ES = 1.50, % = 8.3; ES = 0.25, % = 3.0b
et al. 1RM) transducer 40%BM (W)
(2016)
Ronnestad HS and hip flexion exercises 85–90%1RM 7 2 Force platform PP in SJ 20, 35, ES = 3.07 (1.40–4.74), % = 9.9; ES = 2.38 (0.90–
et al. 50 kg (W) 3.86), % = 7.4; ES = 3.83 (1.93–5.74), % = 11.1a
(2008)
Freitas HS paired with HS (OL), and hip thrust paired with 80%1RM and OL 6 2 Force platform PP in CMJ (W) ES = 0.22 (−0.70–1.15), % = 3.9a
et al. hip thrust (OL)
(2018)
Horwath Bilateral and unilateral JSs 20–60%PP (unilateral), 10– 8 2–3 Linear position MP in JS, mean ES = 0.97 (0.09–1.85), % = 17.5a
et al. 20%PP (bilateral) transducer across loads 20,
(2019) 40, 60, 80 kg (W)
Helland Bilateral and unilateral squats, and CMJs Squats (85–95%1RM), CMJ 8 2 Linear position PP in CMJ (W) ES = small (0.20–0.59), % = 8.1b
et al. (10–60%1RM) transducer
SPORTS BIOMECHANICS
(2017)
(Continued)
11
12
Type of
Hansen FSs, clean pulls, box squats, power cleans, BS, and 80–95%1RM, JS (10–20% 8 2 Force platform PP in JS 0, 20, 40, ES = 0.30 (−0.63–1.23), % = 3.8; ES = 0.27 (−0.66–
et al. JSs. Note: traditional or in clusters 1RM) 60 kg (W) 1.20), % = 2.9; ES = 0.82 (−0.14–1.78), % = 7.2;
P. CORMIER ET AL.
(2011) ES = 0.52 (−0.42–1.46), % = 4.4; ES = 0.18

(−0.74–1.11), % = 2.0; ES = 0.38 (−0.55–1.31),
% = 4.8; ES = 0.04 (−0.88–0.96), % = 0.5;
ES = 0.17 (−0.76–1.10), % = 2.7a
Los Arcos Vertical: Unilateral and bilateral HSs, 30–35%PP (unilateral), 70– 8 2 Linear position PP in HS (kg at ES = 0.79 (−0.08–1.65), % = 13.5; ES = 0.61 (−0.25–
et al. gastrocnemius, CMJ, CMJ to box, Unilateral CMJ 74%PP (bilateral) transducer 1 m∙s−1) 1.46), % = 12.2a
(2014) to box, VJ with load (5%BM), skipping VJ,
unilateral DJ; Vertical/horizontal: Unilateral and
bilateral HSs, gastrocnemius, sled walking, hip
external wall drill, double triple jump, hip
external wall drill, unilateral DJ, skipping HJ
Ronnestad HS, hip flexion exercise, leg bounds, bilateral 85–90%1RM 7 2 Force platform PP in SJ 20, 35, ES = 2.21 (0.97–3.46), % = 9.9; ES = 1.71 (0.57–
et al. hurdle jumps, and unilateral forward hops 50 kg (W) 2.86), % = 8.0; ES = 1.68 (0.54–2.82), % = 9.5a
(2008)
Talpey HSs and JSs 80%1RM, BM 9 2 Force platform PP in CMJ, ES = 0.16 (−0.77–1.08), % = 4.0; ES = −0.02
et al. & linear unloaded (W), (−0.94–0.90), % = −0.5; ES = 0.07 (−0.86–0.99),
(2016) position PP in CMJ, 10% % = 1.6; ES = 0.19 (−0.65–1.02), % = 3.9;
transducer 1RM (W), PP in ES = −0.18 (−1.02–0.66), % = −3.5; ES = −0.03
CMJ, 20%1RM (−0.87–0.80), % = −0.6a
Rauch BS and dead lifts 0.55–0.70 m∙s−1, 0.85– 7 3 Linear position PP in BS and ES = 0.86, % = 18.3
et al. 1.0 m∙s-1 transducer deadlift (W) ES = 1.32, % = 15.7b
(2018)
Ramirez HS and hip thrusts 65–75%1RM whilst 10 2 Linear position Relative PP (W/kg), ES = 0.81 (0.13–1.49), % = 12.6; ES = 0.89 (0.21–
et al. maintaining within ± 10% transducer PP in HS (W) 1.58), % = 12.6a
(2015) movement velocity
Optimal power load
Freitas HS and hip thrusts Individual OL 6 2 Force platform PP in CMJ (W) ES = 0.15 (−0.77–1.08), % = 2.9a
et al.
(2018)
(Continued)
Type of
Loturco JSs Individual OL 6 3 Linear position MPP in JS, BM & ES = 1.70, % = 14.5; ES = 1.20, % = 13.0b
et al. transducer 40%BM (W)
(2016)
Loturco BS and JSs 30–80%1RM, ±15% (ranging 6 2 Linear position MP in BS, 60%1RM Velocity vs Intensity: BS % = 18.5 vs 20.4; MPP JS
et al. from 30 to 60% 1RM) JS transducer (W), MPP in % = 29.1 vs 31.0b
(2013) OL. Note: using a velocity JS,45%1RM (W)
vs intensity-based
approach
Rauch BS and dead lifts 0.85–0.9 m∙s−1 7 3 Linear position PP in BS and ES = 0.79, % = 19.8
et al. transducer deadlift (W) ES = 1.77, % = 20.1b
(2018)
Hermassi Snatches, clean and jerk 55–75%1RM 12 2 Force platform Relative PP in CMJ ES = 0.58 (−0.28–1.43), % = 9.2; ES = 1.18 (0.28–
et al. (W/kg), Relative 2.09), % = 20.3a
(2019) PP in SJ (W/kg)
Helland Clean with front squat, hang clean, snatch, power 85–95%1RM 8 2 Linear position PP in CMJ (W) ES = trivial (<0.20), % = 2.6b
et al. jerk transducer
(2017)
Horwath Iso/ecc: Unilateral and bilateral Squats & JS Squats (0.4 m∙s−1), JS (10– 8 2–3 Linear position MP in JS, mean ES = 0.76 (−0.10–1.63), % = 12.5a
et al. 60%1RM + 120–140% transducer across loads 20,
(2019) ecc.) 40, 60, 80 kg (W)
Flywheel training
Nuñez HSs using Kbox 0.05 (unilateral), 0.10 6 2 Rotary position Relative PP (HSs ES = 0.68 (−0.08–1.44), % = 19.4; ES = 1.38 (0.53–
et al. (bilateral) kg/m2 moment transducer 0.05 kg/m2, 2.24), % = 36.9a
(2018) inertia 0.10 kg/m2
moment inertia)
Mixed training
Cook et al. Squats, mid-thigh pull, Romanian deadlifts with Eccentric group: 120%1RM, 12 2 Force platform PP in CMJ, ES = 0.94b
(2013) overspeed assisted CMJs and downhill sprints no conc phase; Traditional unloaded (W)
(40 m) group: 80%1RM;
SPORTS BIOMECHANICS
Overspeed exercises:
CMJs with reduced BM by
20%
13
(Continued)
14
P. CORMIER ET AL.
Type of
Helland Bilateral and unilateral squats and CMJs Squats (0.2–0.4 m∙s−1), CMJ 8 2 Linear position PP in CMJ (W) ES = small (0.20–0.59), % = 6.1b
et al. (10–20%1RM+120-140% transducer
(2017) ecc)
Otero- Full squat, YoYo leg curls, plyometrics (tuck jumps, 40–55%1RM, FS 7 1–2 Force platform Relative PP in CMJ ES = 0.80 (−0.03–1.63), % = 7.2; ES = 0.40 (−0.40–
Esquina DJs, hurdle jumps), and resisted sprints (MPV = ~1.28–1.07 m∙s−1) (W/kg) 1.21), % = 4.9a
et al.
(2017)
Suarez- Single leg Yo-Yo leg curl, single leg hip extensions, 0.05 & 0.10 kg/m2 moment 27 2 Linear position MPP in HS, 30 and ES = 0.45–1.73; % = LL 30 kg = 4.9, LL 40 kg = 13.7,
Arrones lunges, HS variations using Kbox, lateral HS in inertia (Kbox) transducer 40 kg (W) RL 30 kg = 3.0, RL 40 kg = 11.5, Bilateral
et al. Kbox, Russian belt hip rotation, and ankle 30 kg = 3.3, Bilateral 40 kg = 11.5b
(2018) extensions
Data is represented in mean (±SD), n, or range. CMJ = countermovement jump, FS = front squat, BS = back squats, HS = half squat, SJ = squat jump, JS = jump squats, VJ = vertical jump, DJ = drop jump, DB = dumbbell,
BM = body mass, RM = repetition maximum, ES = effect size, CI = confidence interval, g = hedges g, OL = optimal load, iso = isometric, ecc = eccentric, MP = mean power, MPP = mean propulsive power, PP = peak
power, LL = left leg, RL = right leg, MPV = mean propulsive velocity, W = Watts, kg = kilograms
a
Pre-post data was extracted, ES, 95% CI, and % change calculated by the authors of this review.
b
Results data extracted from the study due to no pre-post data presented.
(Helland et al., 2017; Hermassi et al., 2019), eccentric overload (EOT) (Horwath
et al., 2019), flywheel (FW) (Nuñez et al., 2018), and mixed (MT) (Cook et al., 2013;
Helland et al., 2017; Otero-Esquina et al., 2017; Suarez-Arrones et al., 2018) train
ing. If a study compared two distinctly different methods of training (i.e., two or
more intervention groups), the experimental groups were divided into their respec
tive training category for the purpose of this review. Notably, there were no studies
that met the inclusion criteria regarding plyometric training. TDT training inter
ventions lasted from 6 to 8 weeks, from 2 to 3 times/week, using loads ranging from
30% to 95%1RM. CBT studies were 6 to 9 weeks duration, from 2 to 3 times/week
frequency. Regarding the loads for CBT, a variety was used from 10% to 95%1RM
combining higher-load strength and lower-load power exercises. One CBT study
(Freitas et al., 2018) used a modified complex training method using moderate load
(80%1RM) strength exercises paired with OPL conditions in combination. Within
the VBT interventions, interventions from 7 to 10 weeks, and 2 to 3 times/week
were used. Velocity (m∙s−1) was used to monitor the load in different formats:
velocity thresholds (e.g., 0.85–1.0 m∙s−1) and placing constraints (e.g., not allowing
velocity ± 10% with a corresponding load). The OPL training interventions lasted 6
to 7 weeks, at a frequency of 2 to 3 times/week at intensities of 0.85–0.9 m∙s−1,
1 m∙s−1, or the load that maximised mechanical power and loads ranging from 30%
to 80%1RM. Concerning WL, the interventions lasted 8 to 12 weeks with
a frequency of 2 times/week (loads ranged from 55% to 95%1RM). The EOT
intervention was 8 weeks in duration, 2 to 3 times/week with overloads of 120–
140%1RM. The FW training intervention lasted 6 weeks and was performed 2 times/
week, using 0.05 (unilaterally) and 0.10 (bilaterally) kg/m2 moment inertia using the
Exxentric kbox (Exxentric AB, Stockholm, Sweden). MT durations ranged from 7 to
27 weeks in duration, 1–2 time/week, using many different loading protocols (mixed
protocols where >2 training types were used). From the included studies, 3 were
performed in the off-season (Helland et al., 2017; Ishida et al., 2020; Rauch et al.,
2018), 4 in the pre-season (Cook et al., 2013; Hansen et al., 2011; Loturco et al.,
2013; Ronnestad et al., 2008), 7 in the in-season (Freitas et al., 2018; Hammami
et al., 2018; Hermassi et al., 2011, 2019; Loturco, Nakamura et al., 2016; Otero-
Esquina et al., 2017; Suarez-Arrones et al., 2018), and 1 study in the pre and in-
season (Los Arcos et al., 2014) periods.
Outcome measures
The instruments used to measure power outcomes in the studies included were force
platforms (Cook et al., 2013; Freitas et al., 2018; Hammami et al., 2018; Hansen et al.,
2011; Hermassi et al., 2011, 2019; Ishida et al., 2020; Otero-Esquina et al., 2017;
Ronnestad et al., 2008; Talpey et al., 2016) and linear position transducers (Helland
et al., 2017; Horwath et al., 2019; Los Arcos et al., 2014; Loturco et al., 2013; Nuñez et al.,
2018; Ramirez et al., 2015; Rauch et al., 2018; Suarez-Arrones et al., 2018; Talpey et al.,
2016) (Table 3). MP, PP, and MPP values derived from data collected by force platforms
are considered a kinetic measurement method and linear position transducers are
considered a kinematic method (Cormie et al., 2007). Force platforms obtain data via
ground reaction forces and velocity of centre of mass as integrated from the impulse-
16 P. CORMIER ET AL.
momentum theorem and acceleration-time curve (Dugan et al., 2004; McMaster et al.,
2014; Soriano et al., 2020). Linear position transducers obtain data from the mass of the
system (with or without the inclusion of BM of the athlete in the calculation) and velocity
of the position of the transducer attachment point on the barbell as differentiated by the
displacement-time data (McMaster et al., 2014; Soriano et al., 2020) which is subse
quently analysed with software to derive power values (Harris et al., 2010). A rotary
position transducer was used in one study (Nuñez et al., 2018) which employs the same
concept as linear position transducers to obtain power values. Furthermore, power values
were obtained in one study (Talpey et al., 2016) using synchronised force platforms and
linear position transducer (combined kinetic-kinematic method) via the instantaneous
product of vertical ground reaction force and bar velocity. It is important to note that
obtaining power measures combining ground reaction force (from force platforms) and
barbell velocity may overestimate velocity and power since the barbell may undergo
displacement at a greater velocity compared to the centre of mass of the athlete (Lake
et al., 2012). Further, sport scientists and strength and conditioning specialists may
employ different strategies to calculate power values depending on the type of sport,
loading parameters (barbell load) and selected exercise (e.g., squat vs jump squat)
whereby some may be interested in using barbell power (including barbell mass only),
body power (BM without barbell), or system power (including BM + barbell) (McBride
et al., 2011). Practically speaking, using the barbell power method could be relevant for
athletes who must primarily maximise power production against external resistances in
their sport (e.g., throwers or competitive weightlifters). Conversely, using body power or
system power may be more suitable for team-sport athletes (Balsalobre-Fernández &
Torres-Ronda, 2021; McBride et al., 2011). Further, when assessing power values in
a back squat vs a jump squat, the displacement of the centre of mass of the athlete in the
propulsive phase of the movement would be greater in the latter than in the former, thus
resulting in a higher power output in the jumping task (McBride et al., 2011). Whilst
keeping this in mind, power was measured in the half-squat (HS) (Los Arcos et al., 2014;
Nuñez et al., 2018; Ramirez et al., 2015; Suarez-Arrones et al., 2018), back squat (BS)
(Loturco et al., 2013; Rauch et al., 2018), deadlift (Rauch et al., 2018), jump squat (JS)
(Hansen et al., 2011; Horwath et al., 2019; Loturco, Nakamura et al., 2016; Loturco et al.,
2013), countermovement jump (CMJ) (Cook et al., 2013; Freitas et al., 2018; Hammami
et al., 2018; Helland et al., 2017; Hermassi et al., 2011, 2019; Otero-Esquina et al., 2017;
Talpey et al., 2016), and squat jump (SJ) (Hermassi et al., 2011, 2019; Ishida et al., 2020;
Ronnestad et al., 2008). Tests were performed unloaded or with a range of loads and the
outcome values were recorded as concentric MP, PP, or MPP (Table 3).
Based on the studies and outcomes analysed, Table 4 summarises the potential of the
different methods for increasing lower-body power measures according to the level of
evidence available in the literature to date. The level of evidence was determined by
a combined assessment of the ES reported in each individual study, the amount of
evidence present (i.e., number of studies and total sample size), and the expert judgement
of the authors of this review.
Table 4. Level of evidence relating to the potential effectiveness of a training method for improving
power.
Level of evidence for the effectiveness of a training method potentially improving lower-body
Training method power (i.e., MP, PP, and MPP)a
Traditional strength +++++
Combination +++++
Velocity-based +++
Optimal power load ++++
Weightlifting and ++
derivatives
Eccentric overload +
Flywheel +
Mixed ++++
Plyometric *
MP = mean power, PP = peak power, MPP = mean propulsive power
a
Training methodology classified on scale from +, meaning low evidence, and ++++++, meaning high evidence; *means
lack of evidence.
Discussion and implications

The aims of this study were to systematically review the scientific literature on the
methodologies used to develop concentric MP, PP, and MPP in team-sports, identify
which training methods may be the most effective based on the level of evidence
available, and consider the timing of the implementation of these training methods
within a season or annual training plan. Importantly, for a better understanding of the
discussion section, it must be recognised that the measurement instrument and type of
exercise used may affect outcome values. For example, when assessing PP in the JS using
a linear position transducer, the values reported usually indicate the power developed ‘on
the barbell’ (i.e., only the external load is considered for power output determination)
(Loturco, Pereira et al., 2016; Loturco, Suchomel, Bishop et al., 2018; Loturco, Suchomel,
James et al., 2018). Conversely, calculating PP in the JS (with or without added external
loads) using force platforms may yield completely different power outputs since, in this
case, the system mass (BM + external load) is utilised in the computation. It is also
important to keep in mind that the differences in movement patterns (e.g., squat depth),
loading parameters (e.g., no load vs incremental loading), methodology (e.g., data
collection and processing technique), and athlete’s competitive level (e.g., amateur vs
elite) or training status (e.g., strong vs weak) may affect power outcome measures
(McMaster et al., 2014). This being said, the present results indicate that all training
methodologies included in this review effectively improve the expression of lower-body
mechanical power production amongst team-sport athletes whilst performing sport-
specific training concurrently. Further, the information from this systematic review
may have important implications for practitioners when making decisions on which
methods should be used within the context of a team-sports season.

TDT methods, in our analysis, resulted in trivial-very large improvements. This method
has been extensively researched and has been found to be effective in increasing muscular
power (Aagaard, 2003). Further, positive associations between maximal dynamic
strength and sprint performance (Wisløff et al., 2004) and reductions in injury risk
(Malone et al., 2019) have been reported in team-sports, supporting the implementation
of TDT programmes. Therefore, the level of evidence concerning its use is high.
Accordingly, looking specifically at a study by Ronnestad et al. (2008) with professional
soccer players, greater effects were achieved using traditional methods rather than using
CBT, although they both demonstrated large effects. Interestingly, only the CBT group
reported significant improvements in sprint speed, thus it appears that TDT may lead to
PP improvements, while CBT may have a greater transfer to velocity-specific perfor
mance-based adaptations, possibly due to inclusion of more rapid movement velocities
with the latter. Conversely, Harris et al. (2008), examined the effectiveness of SJ training
with heavy loads (80%1RM) vs SJ at OPL loads (20–43.5%1RM) with elite rugby athletes
showing that neither intervention was superiorly effective over the other for improving
sprint ability even though the heavy load group became stronger. Albeit the OPL
intervention group did exhibit lesser decrements in relative and absolute values of PP.
However, it should be noted that a small portion of the training volume was allocated to
the heavy load and OPL loads in this intervention (~20%), which may not have been
sufficient in eliciting differential adaptive responses. This further highlights the impor
tance of taking the training volume, competitive level, and initial strength levels into
consideration when planning to use TDT over methods that use lighter loads.
In previous literature, relatively stronger individuals (i.e., squat 1RM ~2.0 kg∙BM−1)
have responded better to more advanced training methods (e.g., CBT) (James et al., 2018;
Newton & Kraemer, 1994). Considering training status is particularly important in terms
of strength-power adaptations but also when interpreting meaningful changes in perfor
mance. For example, small increments in power performance (little as ~1%) in highly
trained individuals may be reported as non-statistically significant in training studies, but
the ES may reflect a positive outcome which could deem a training method to be effective
(Malcata & Hopkins, 2014; Rhea, 2004). Therefore, using TDT to increase baseline
strength levels seems like a logical periodisation progression. Still, the overall greater
time under tension (TUT), when using moderate to heavy loads at lower velocities in
TDT may induce excessive muscle damage (Baumert et al., 2016; Wilson et al., 2012) and
increase the overall metabolic stress placed on the neuromuscular system. This could be
a disadvantage when used during congested periods of the season where speed-power
qualities (i.e., vertical jump height, MPP, straight and curved sprinting, and COD ability)
tend to be impaired (Freitas et al., 2021). Thus, perhaps TDT would be most beneficial
when implemented in off-season periods rather than pre-season and in-season. In this
context, a logical progression would be to shift to training methods that rely more on
velocity-oriented lifts and movements that abide by the principles of velocity specificity
(Cormie et al., 2011b) after the off-season, moving into preparatory periods like the pre-
season. Therefore, practitioners should consider the pros and cons of TDT to avoid
hindering the technical/tactical stimulus essential for achieving results in match fixtures
(Berryman et al., 2018).
The studies included reported trivial-very large effects on lower-body concentric MP and
PP values supported by a high level of evidence in the literature. The CBT interventions
in this review, consisted of using heavier-load exercises with lighter-load exercises within
the same session using various training methods paired together (e.g., traditional squats
at 80–95%1RM with BM plyometric exercises). In previous literature, there is evidence
that the use of CBT could potentially be superior to the lone use of other methods (e.g.,
TDT alone) (Spineti et al., 2016, 2019) at improving lower-body power, despite dispa
rities found with the acute and chronic use of CBT for PP improvements in differing
populations (recreationally trained vs trained team-sport athletes) (Duthie et al., 2002;
Talpey et al., 2014, 2016). This aligns with the wide range of effects observed in this
review which could be explained by the heterogeneity displayed in the participant and
intervention characteristics. Theoretically, greater enhancements in power using CBT
would be logical, in the sense that it utilises various exercises that target specific areas of
the force-velocity continuum (i.e., high-force, low-velocity to low-force, high-velocity)
whereas using a training method in isolation may only target one area. The underlying
physiological and performance mechanisms of adaptation with the use of CBT have been
attributed to the targeting the above-mentioned areas of the force-velocity continuum
within a session but also post-activation potentiation (PAP) (Seitz & Haff, 2016).
However, the term ‘post-activation performance enhancement’ (PAPE) has been intro
duced in recent literature when referring to the enhancements in maximal strength,
power, and speed following conditioning contractions (e.g., enhancement in sprint
velocity following a set of back squats) whereas PAP should be referred to augmentation
of muscular force/torque production during electrically evoked twitch following con
ditioning contractions (Blazevich & Babault, 2019; Boullosa et al., 2020; Prieske et al.,
2020). Although, both PAPE and PAP can be present simultaneously following condi
tioning contractions (Zimmermann et al., 2021). Importantly, training status and relative
strength may play a role in the adaptations following CBT. Stronger athletes have been
reported to possess greater potentiation ability (i.e., the higher-load exercise may not
excessively fatigue the athlete thereby creating an optimal condition to perform the
subsequent lower-load power exercise) as well as an enhanced capability to produce
mechanical power through distinctive force-time curve characteristics (e.g., net impulse
forces during jumping) when compared to weaker individuals (Suchomel et al., 2016).
Recently, different systematic reviews with meta-analyses have assessed the effective
ness of CBT (Bauer et al., 2019; Marshall et al., 2021; Pagaduan et al., 2019). However,
only few have examined the order in which the higher and lower load exercises were
sequenced in a CBT session (e.g., complex vs contrast) specifically with team-sport
athletes (Cormier et al., 2020; Freitas et al., 2017; Thapa et al., 2021). Overall, considerable
positive effects have been found following complex training interventions (i.e., sequences
alternating high-load with low-load, high-velocity exercises set-by-set) for adaptations in
maximal strength, PP, jumping, sprinting, and COD ability with team-sport players
(Cormier et al., 2020; Marshall et al., 2021). The potentially greater adaptations are
theorised to be due to the presence of PAPE and PAP acutely in every session which
then results in chronic adaptations after an accrued period of training. Further, these
benefits have been found using CBT with higher level athletes with greater levels of
strength in interventions >6 weeks in durations with moderate loads (<85%1RM)
(Cormier et al., 2020). Therefore, based on the findings from this review, and previous
literature, CBT is warranted for use in team-sport and may be a reasonable method to
implement in various season periods due to the wide ranges of loads and intensities that
can be manipulated within one session. Coaches and sport scientists may prefer this
method over others since it may result in the maintenance or improvement of strength
(using the high-load exercises) whilst also developing the power/velocity (using low-load
exercises) in every session.
VBT training was found to elicit positive effects on power development, with a moderate
level of evidence on its effectiveness regarding concentric PP. In recent literature, VBT
training has been discussed as a superior method over widely used percentage-based
training to optimise individual programmes and identify an athlete’s progression
through an exercise programme, or as an accessory to percentage-based training
(Guerriero et al., 2018). Mainly, velocities can be prescribed using mean velocity thresh
olds and/or velocity loss throughout a set with real-time visual (Randell et al., 2011) and/
or verbal (Argus et al., 2011) feedback. This is said to increase competitiveness and
motivation throughout the sets and repetitions of exercises (Weakley et al., 2019).
Acutely, in one session, the use of VBT with 20% velocity loss thresholds can result in
faster mean concentric and peak velocities across all repetitions compared to percentage-
based training. Further, significantly less repetitions, TUT, and concentric TUT have
been found when compared to percentage-based prescription (Banyard et al., 2019).
Chronically, superior improvements with VBT compared to percentage-based have
been found with resistance-trained individuals (>2 years resistance training experience
with a back squat 1RM to BM ratio of ~1.55 and above) (Banyard et al., 2020; Dorrell
et al., 2020) in CMJ height, CMJ peak velocity, sprinting and COD ability after 6-week
durations, using velocity zones (e.g., 0.74–0.88 m∙s−1 in the back squat) and velocity
drops (i.e., 20% velocity loss threshold) to maintain intensity. Similarly, Orange et al.
(2019) found greater velocity and power across sessions with lower TUT and perceptual
training stress with academy rugby league players in a competitive season using VBT
over percentage based training. This has important implications for coaches in team-
sport settings where time can be limited, for-which the implementation of VBT could be
a logical alternative. Using velocity to normalise the intensity at which force is applied at
each concentric portion of a repetition may allow practitioners to adjust programmes
based on adaptations that might have occurred on an in-between set and sessional basis
whilst applying force with maximal intent in each repetition. However, it is important to
note that every exercise has a load-velocity relationship that is task specific (González-
Badillo & Sánchez-Medina, 2010; Pérez-Castilla et al., 2020), hence the minimum
velocity thresholds that can be prescribed will be different depending upon the exercise
(e.g., bench press vs back squat). Also, VBT is a novel autoregulation method that
can be implemented in many ways thus recent reviews regarding VBT should be
consulted for a summary of current practices (Balsalobre-Fernández & Torres-
Ronda, 2021; Weakley et al., 2021). Further, results must be interpreted cautiously
since there are limitations present and sometimes misapplication when using VBT
with team-sport athletes thus the athlete’s relative strength levels (strong vs weak),
validity/reliability of instrumentation, and power calculation method (e.g., bar-
power vs system-
power) must be considered (Balsalobre-Fernández & Torres-Ronda, 2021; Jiménez-
Reyes et al., 2021).
Furthermore, an argument concerning ecological validity could be made that the

equipment used in VBT is not time efficient in situations where practitioners only have
one device. On the other hand, in situations where multiple devices may be needed for
time efficiency or in sports that have large rosters, the overall cost may be too great.
Regardless, VBT as a method of prescribing exercise intensity and load is recommended
for use with team-sport athletes to mitigate the variability in training adaptations due to
individual strength-power characteristics. Further, VBT was shown to elicit performance
improvements when applied in the off-season (Rauch et al., 2018), pre-season (Loturco
et al., 2013), and in-season (Otero-Esquina et al., 2017) periods, indicating that this
method may be beneficial in various periods of an annual periodisation with different
types of team-sport players.
Optimal power load

Concerning OPL, this review assessed the results from a number of studies (Freitas et al.,
2018; Loturco, Nakamura et al., 2016; Loturco et al., 2013; Rauch et al., 2018) reporting
mainly trivial to large effect sizes; hence, the level of evidence supporting the use of this
training method is high. OPL training within team-sports is often used due to its
applicability to practice in congested periods and its ability to improve neuromuscular
power at both ends of the force-velocity curve without the use of heavy loading methods
(Freitas et al., 2018). Accordingly, this method can optimise power development in elite
athletes concurrently with sport specific-training and matches possibly due to the max
imal intent required to move the load as rapidly as possible for each repetition and in
every session to produce mechanical power. Further, using OPL, similarly to VBT
training, allows sport scientists and strength & conditioning coaches to manipulate the
velocity and load used during strength-power sessions for each athlete, hence, indivi
dualising their training based on their needs. In alignment with this, Loturco et al. (2016)
found that OPL resulted in large positive effects on BM MPP (ES = 1.7, 14.5%) and 40%
BM MPP (ES = 1.2, 13.0%) compared to traditional strength-power periodisation using
an HS and JS protocol within top-level soccer players (using a linear position transducer
to measure MPP). Conversely, Freitas et al. (2018) reported trivial positive effects on CMJ
PP (ES = 0.15, 2.9%) using OPL with an HS and hip thrust exercise protocol with semi-
professional basketball players during a 6-week period (using force platforms to measure
PP). Further, interestingly, Rauch et al. (2018) found that progressive VBT was equally as
effective at improving concentric BS PP in comparison to OPL with volleyball players
(ES: VBT = 0.86, 18.3% vs OPL = 0.79, 19.8% increase) (using a linear position transducer
to measure PP). Notably, OPL can be described as a type of VBT training, since the
velocity that maximises mechanical power is used (e.g., 1 m∙s−1 in the half-squat),
therefore it is no surprise that these methods of training elicit similar adaptations in
power performance.
OPL training conditions may be better suited for use in pre-season (Loturco, Pereira
et al., 2015) and in-season (Freitas et al., 2018; Loturco, Nakamura et al., 2016) periods to
elicit improvements in high-velocity movements. Additionally, in many team-sports,
recovery may be hindered for up to 72 h (Doeven et al., 2018) or more (McLean et al.,
2010) following a match, and weekly concurrent technical-tactical and physical training
volume may pose a problem for coaches wishing to maintain power- and speed-related
abilities, thus utilising methods such as OPL and VBT may be optimal for sessions with
less TUT, shorter session times, whilst maximising power and velocity throughout.

Two WL studies (Helland et al., 2017; Hermassi et al., 2019) were included our analysis
and trivial-moderate effects were found in concentric PP. Thus, the level of evidence in
the current literature supporting the use of WL in team-sports to develop these specific
power outcomes could be considered low. Still, it is important to note that WL move
ments are often incorporated alone or in combination with other methods (e.g., with
TDT, plyometric or ballistic) into strength and conditioning programmes for athletes
looking to improve their dynamic force production and can also be used as a new
stimulus to strength training with athletes at a higher level when training becomes
monotonous or new challenges need to be incorporated to optimise power development
(i.e., training effect becomes stagnant meaning a new stimulus is required) (Haff &
Nimphius, 2012). To improve various areas of an athlete’s force-velocity (power)
curve, many WL movements and/or their derivatives can be used to optimise areas
where there are weaknesses by balancing the force or velocity components (James
et al., 2020; Suchomel et al., 2017). Further, another aspect, and a benefit of WL, is that
it can incorporate an important eccentric stimulus in the catch phase (i.e., load attenua
tion) of the lift which may not otherwise be achieved by other methods of training
(Moolyk et al., 2013). Nevertheless, most coaches choose to include these types of
exercises into their programmes since they involve triple extension actions (of the
ankle, knee, and hip). In this context, WL pulling derivatives such as the clean pull,
snatch pull, hang high pull, jump shrug, and mid-thigh pull may be good alternatives to
full versions of WL exercises like cleans or power cleans and may produce a superior
stimulus when compared to the full lifts (Comfort et al., 2011; DeWeese et al., 2013;
Suchomel et al., 2015, 2020).
However, although effective, this type of training may be time consuming for practi
tioners to implement into their programmes as the exercises often require a greater amount
of time dedicated to the technical execution of the lifts (Suchomel et al., 2015) to permit the
athlete to develop adequate motor function to allow for proper loading. Given that WL
elicits trivial-moderate effects and other methods in this review also elicited similar
adaptations, some practitioners may opt to use less intricate training methods that require
less coaching time. Accordingly, Helland et al. (2017) compared WL to CBT and MT and
found that CBT and MT were more effective than WL at improving squat CMJ PP
(measured using a linear position transducer) during an off-season. Interestingly, Hansen
et al. (2011) combined traditional exercises (i.e., front and back squats) with WL (i.e., clean
pull and power clean) in elite rugby union players during a pre-season period and showed
positive improvements in PP at 40 kg load using traditional (i.e., 1% increase) and cluster
(7.5%) loading schemes. These improvements were found in highly trained individuals;
thus, there is evidence to support the use of TDT lifts alongside WL exercises (while
minimising fatigue and maximising power/velocity using cluster loading). In fact, it is
possible that such combination leads to superior improvements in power rather than using
WL alone in team-sport athletes.

Regarding EOT, our analysis was only performed on one study (Horwath et al., 2019);
therefore, a low level of evidence persists. Nonetheless, the included investigation yielded
moderate effects on power development in resistance-trained ice hockey players. JS MP
increased by 12.5% (ES = 0.76) using EOT vs 17.5% (ES = 0.97) using CBT. It can be
hypothesised that the utilisation of high-loads at low-velocities (e.g., EOT) as opposed to
CBT methods that include exercises with lower-loads and higher-velocities could poten
tially explain the adaptations observed. Still, these can be mediated by the training
background of individual athletes (i.e., familiarisation with eccentric-based training,
resistance training experience and relative strength level). Despite this, EOT still resulted
in MP enhancements possibly due to the variety of neural, neuromuscular, hormonal,
and molecular adaptations attributed to eccentrically focused exercises (i.e., lengthening
muscle actions) (Douglas et al., 2017). Specifically, production of higher peak force with
lower levels of muscle activation, selective recruitment of higher-order motor units,
greater cortical activity, stiffer muscle-tendon units, and lower metabolic costs
(Douglas et al., 2017). Further, there are strong relationships between eccentric peak
forces with CMJ PP and height in resistance trained individuals (Bridgeman et al., 2018).
Altogether, these characteristics possibly contribute to an intra-session acute potentia
tion effect of EOT.
Regarding chronic strength-power adaptations following EOT, there appears to be
a positive transfer to performance-based skills that are essential in multidirectional
and intermittent-type sports (e.g., soccer, basketball, rugby, etc.) such as jumping
(McNeill et al., 2019), sprinting (Krommes et al., 2017), and COD (Chaabene et al.,
2018) ability. As far as implementing EOT in an annual training cycle, it would be
rational to implement this method of training during the off-season or pre-season due
to the importance of maintaining velocity-specific qualities in the competitive periods
(i.e., in-season). However, a counter point to the previous may be related to the fact
that in team-sports where maintaining strength within a season is crucial (e.g., foot
ball, ice hockey, and rugby), EOT can be effective at improving strength and maximal
sprint velocity (Douglas et al., 2018). Thus, EOT may still be considered in competi
tive periods depending on the sport.
Flywheel training
Iso-inertial FW training possesses many similarities to EOT. The mechanisms of iso-
inertial equipment (e.g., kBox, Versa Pulley, YoYo, etc.) allow for an overload stimulus
throughout the concentric and eccentric phases of a lift (Maroto-Izquierdo et al., 2017). In
this review, FW exhibited overall moderate-large effects on relative PP values; however,
only one study was included resulting in a low level of evidence. Still, it is worth noting that
this training intervention (Nuñez et al., 2018) concluded that using FW bilaterally was
superior to unilateral (large and moderate effect, respectively) at enhancing relative PP with
team-sport players. Further, long-term adaptations of performance-based actions have also
been found using FW in strength training and rehabilitation programmes (De Hoyo et al.,
2015, 2016). Due to the overloaded eccentric component of FW, neuromuscular character
istics are thought to be similar to that of EOT. Importantly, an aspect of FW and EOT worth
considering is the potentially elevated levels of muscle damage and soreness observed
following the initial sessions. Yet, there seems to be a protective mechanism
(García-López et al., 2007) against the occurrence of future injuries (De Hoyo et al.,
2015) by incorporating an eccentric overload stimulus. Hence, when deciding the best
seasonal period to implement FW and EOT, coaches should consider that the initial
sessions may create adverse training effects (i.e., high magnitude of muscle damage).
However, this is likely temporary and after growing accustomed to this methodology,
players should be able to complete their training as planned. Also, another important aspect
worth considering is that, in match-play, eccentric actions are not isolated nor performed at
slow movement velocities. Rather, actions are performed in short time-periods, with most
eccentric muscle actions occurring as part of the stretch-shortening cycle (i.e., storage of
elastic energy to be subsequently used to increase the concentric action) or to rapidly
decelerate the body (e.g., during COD manoeuvres). Therefore, movement specificity in the
chosen training method must be taken into consideration in terms of the timing of
implementation within an annual training plan. Exercises emphasising the eccentric por
tion of a movement using methods such as EOT and FW have been shown to improve
many power values in team-sports, however, like in VBT and OPL, the equipment
necessary may be too costly or time consuming to implement.
Mixed training
Some team-sport clubs have the ability to acquire the proper equipment for MT which
allows VBT, OPL, FW, WL, plyometric, hill sprints, resisted sprints and other methods to
be used interchangeably throughout the year. Coaches can combine these training methods
in one session or over different sessions based on the physical demands of the season and
the stimulus needed to maintain or improve performance-related outcomes. As previously
mentioned, Otero-Esquina et al. (2017) used velocity zones between 1.28 and 1.07 m∙s−1 in
the full squat exercise with professional soccer players in a training intervention that also
incorporated FW, plyometric, and resisted sprint exercises and that resulted in meaningful
improvements in relative CMJ PP. In this sense, the mechanisms of adaptation are thought
to be similar to CBT. Specifically, the main adaptations may be related to the utilisation of
exercises that target multiple points on the force-velocity curve from high-load low-velocity
to low-load high-velocity and potentially from an accruement of potentiated (i.e., PAPE
and PAP) strength-power training sessions over the intervention period. In theory, due to
the multidirectional and intermittent nature of team-sports and the importance of devel
oping qualities that are specific to actual match-play, it would be logical for coaches to
prescribe MT interventions; still, more research is needed to confirm this assumption. MT
is also characterised by relatively lighter loads moved at higher velocities which may be
beneficial in crucial in-season periods where velocity-specific adaptations are key for
success in competition. Finally, one challenging aspect with team-sports is prescribing
exercise intensities for large rosters of players, thus an MT such as the protocol suggested by
Otero-Esquina et al. (i.e., VBT exercises combined with plyometrics and sprints) may allow
load individualisation for each athlete on the team whilst prescribing similar intensities
based on the physical characteristics coaches wish to develop.
Limitations and future research

Some limitations can be found in this systematic review. First, there were a limited
number of studies to be included in the VBT, OPL, WT, FW, EOT, and MT groups, thus
findings must be interpreted cautiously. Secondly, the heterogeneity between partici
pants, measurement and intervention characteristics could have affected our results.
Moreover, in many studies, moments of the season were not reported, resistance training
history was not clearly stated, and pre-post outcome data were missing. Such issues are
problematic when assessing the effectiveness of the interventions on training outcomes.
Also, no plyometric only studies met the inclusion criteria in this review, thus resulting in
a lack of evidence concerning its effectiveness on the development of these specific power
outcome measures (i.e., concentric MP, PP and MPP). However, it is important to note
that plyometric training has been shown to be effective at improving other metrics of
lower-body power in team-sports (Moran et al., 2020; Slimani et al., 2016). Further, there
was a disproportionate number of studies conducted with males compared to females
(Helland et al., 2017; Rauch et al., 2018) subjects, hence examining sex differences
between the training methods listed in this review would be an interesting line of
research. Finally, there was a lack of high-quality randomised control trials. Although
the risk of bias was deemed ‘low’ with a mean PEDro score between 6 and 8, and study
quality considered ‘good’, the methodological quality of studies could be improved in
future research.
Importantly, we identified that most studies failed to adequately report the training
loads and details about how exercises were performed. Mujika (2013) outlined two
considerations that coaches and sport science researchers should take into account
when quantifying training loads: (i) there are three distinct training loads: the planned
loads before the season, loads prescribed on a daily basis, and the actual load completed
by each individual athlete, and (ii) the actual load should be quantified, not only the
prescribed load by the coach or researcher. This not only applies to the loads with
strength and power training methods, but altogether with the technical-tactical sessions.
Thus, the actual training loads (e.g., velocities, session ratings of perceived exertion,
external workloads, etc.) of all concurrent training must be reported (if possible) in future
studies related to training interventions in team-sport athletes. If actual training loads
and intervention protocols are unclear, it is impossible to draw conclusions on the
effectiveness of a training programme on power-related variables.
Practical applications
Based on the results from this systematic review, VBT, CBT, WL, OPL, TDT, FW, and EOT
appear to be effective in improving concentric MP, PP and MPP outcomes. Importantly, no
plyometric training only studies met the inclusion criteria which do not imply that this
method is ineffective; rather, it simply means that no specific plyometric intervention
studies have reported the abovementioned outcome variables with team-sport populations.
The included methods have benefits on the development of lower-body absolute and
relative power outcomes when used for durations between 6 to 12 weeks, 1 to 3 times per
week with athletes 16 to 28 years of age from diverse types of team-sports even when
performed concurrently with sport-specific training. Given the positive adaptations
obtained from many different training methods, coaches could benefit from utilising
a variety of strategies throughout long and (sometimes) monotonous seasons, thereby
seemingly increasing athlete buy-in regarding gym-based sessions. Further, when training
effects become stagnant, various training methods can be manipulated to stimulate adapta
tions. Overall, the main recommendations following this review are: (i) team-sport athletes
may benefit from developing appropriate levels of relative strength before progressing to
more advanced training methods (i.e., WL, EOT, FW, CBT or MT) where TDT was shown
to result in trivial to large ES in the current study; (ii) methods where barbell velocity or
power can be monitored (e.g., OPL and VBT) on every repetition to maintain quality and
intent are recommended in team-sports that train concurrently with high volumes of
technical-technical training and congested schedules; and (iii) MT methods stimulating
various areas of the force-velocity continuum (e.g., incorporating OPL half-squats, FW,
plyometrics, and sprints used in the same session) may be beneficial. However, these should
be prescribed by coaches and sport science practitioners taking into account actual (sport-
specific) training loads.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
ORCID
Patrick Cormier http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6944-0467
Tomás T. Freitas http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8571-3189
References
Aagaard, P. (2003). Training-induced changes in neural function. Exercise and Sport Sciences
Reviews, 31(2), 61–67. https://doi.org/10.1097/00003677-200304000-00002
Argus, C. K., Gill, N. D., Keogh, J. W., & Hopkins, W. G. (2011). Acute effects of verbal feedback
on upper-body performance in elite athletes. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 25
(12), 3282–3287. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0b013e3182133b8c
Balsalobre-Fernández, C., & Torres-Ronda, L. (2021). The implementation of velocity-based
training paradigm for team sports: Framework, technologies, practical recommendations and
challenges. Sports, 9(4), 47. https://doi.org/10.3390/sports9040047
Banyard, H. G., Tufano, J. J., Delgado, J., Thompson, S. W., & Nosaka, K. (2019). Comparison of
the effects of velocity-based training methods and traditional 1RM-percent-based training
prescription on acute kinetic and kinematic variables. International Journal of Sports
Physiology and Performance, 14(2), 246–255. https://doi.org/10.1123/ijspp.2018-0147
Banyard, H. G., Tufano, J. J., Weakley, J. J. S., Wu, S., Jukic, I., & Nosaka, K. (2020). Superior
changes in jump, sprint, and change-of-direction performance but not maximal strength
following 6 weeks of velocity-based training compared with 1-repetition-maximum
percentage-based training. International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, 16(2)
232–34. https://doi.org/10.1123/ijspp.2019-0999
Bauer, P., Uebellacker, F., Mitter, B., Aigner, A. J., Hasenoehrl, T., Ristl, R., Tschan, H., &
Seitz, L. B. (2019). Combining higher-load and lower-load resistance training exercises:
A systematic review and meta-analysis of findings from complex training studies. Journal of
Science & Medicine in Sport, 22(7), 838–851. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsams.2019.01.006
Baumert, P., Lake, M. J., Stewart, C. E., Drust, B., & Erskine, R. M. (2016). Genetic variation and
exercise-induced muscle damage: Implications for athletic performance, injury and ageing.
European Journal of Applied Physiology, 116, 1595–1625. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00421-016-
3411-1
Berryman, N., Mujika, I., & Bosquet, L. (2018). Concurrent training for sports performance: The
two sides of the medal. International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, 14(3), 279–
285. https://doi.org/10.1123/ijspp.2018-0103
Blazevich, A. J., & Babault, N. (2019). Post-activation potentiation versus post-activation perfor
mance enhancement in humans: Historical perspective, underlying mechanisms, and current
issues. Frontiers in Physiology, 10, 1359. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2019.01359
Boullosa, D., Beato, M., Dello Iacono, A., Cuenca-Fernández, F., Doma, K., Schumann, M.,
Zagatto, A. M., Loturco, I., & Behm, D. G. (2020). A new taxonomy for postactivation
potentiation in sport. International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, 15(1),
Bridgeman, L. A., McGuigan, M. R., Gill, N. D., & Dulson, D. K. (2018). Relationships between
concentric and eccentric strength and countermovement jump performance in resistance
trained men. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 32(1), 255–260. https://doi.org/
10.1519/JSC.0000000000001539
Cashin, A. G., & McAuley, J. H. (2020). Clinimetrics: Physiotherapy evidence database (PEDro)
scale. Journal of Physiotherapy, 66(1), 59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jphys.2019.08.005
Chaabene, H., Negra, Y., Moran, J., Prieske, O., Sammoud, S., Ramirez-Campillo, R., &
Granacher, U. (2019). Plyometric training improves not only measures of linear speed,
power, and change-of-direction speed but also repeated sprint ability in female young handball
players. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, Epub Ahead of Print. https://doi.org/10.
1519/JSC.0000000000003128
Chaabene, H., Prieske, O., Negra, Y., & Granacher, U. (2018). Change of direction speed: Toward
a strength training approach with accentuated eccentric muscle actions. Sports Medicine
(Auckland, N.Z.), 48(8), 1773–1779. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-018-0907-3
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Routledge. https://doi.org/
10.4324/9780203771587
Comfort, P., Allen, M., & Graham-Smith, P. (2011). Comparisons of peak ground reaction force
and rate of force development during variations of the power clean. The Journal of Strength &
Conditioning Research, 25(5), 1235–1239. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0b013e3181d6dc0d
Cook, C. J., Beaven, C. M., & Kilduff, L. P. (2013). Three weeks of eccentric training combined with
overspeed exercises enhances power and running speed performance gains in trained athletes.
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 27(5), 1280–1286. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.
0b013e3182679278
Cormie, P., McBride, J. M., & McCaulley, G. O. (2007). Validation of power measurement
techniques in dynamic lower body resistance exercises. Journal of Applied Biomechanics, 23
(2), 103–118. https://doi.org/10.1123/jab.23.2.103
Cormie, P., McBride, J. M., & McCaulley, G. O. (2009). Power-time, force-time, and velocity-time
curve analysis of the countermovement jump: Impact of training. Journal of Strength and
Conditioning Research, 23(1), 177–186. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0b013e3181889324
Cormie, P., McGuigan, M. R., & Newton, R. U. (2011a). Developing maximal neuromuscular
power: Part 1--biological basis of maximal power production. Sports Medicine (Auckland, N.Z.),
41(1), 17–38. https://doi.org/10.2165/11537690-000000000-00000
Cormie, P., McGuigan, M. R., & Newton, R. U. (2011b). Developing maximal neuromuscular
power: Part 2 - training considerations for improving maximal power production. Sports
Medicine (Auckland, N.Z.), 41(2), 125–146. https://doi.org/10.2165/11538500-000000000-00000
Cormier, P., Freitas, T. T., Rubio-Arias, J. A., & Alcaraz, P. E. (2020). Complex and contrast
training: Does strength and power training sequence affect performance-based adaptations in
team sports? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Strength and Conditioning
Research, 34(5), 1461–1479. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000003493
Cronin, J., & Sleivert, G. (2005). Challenges in understanding the influence of maximal power
training on improving athletic performance. Sports Medicine, 35(3), 213–234. https://doi.org/
10.2165/00007256-200535030-00003
de Hoyo, M., Pozzo, M., Sañudo, B., Carrasco, L., Gonzalo-Skok, O., Domínguez-Cobo, S., &
Morán-Camacho, E. (2015). Effects of a 10-week in-season eccentric-overload training program
on muscle-injury prevention and performance in junior elite soccer players. International
Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, 10(1), 46–52. https://doi.org/10.1123/ijspp.
2013-0547
de Hoyo, M., Sañudo, B., Carrasco, L., Mateo-Cortes, J., Domínguez-Cobo, S., Fernandes, O., Del
Ojo, J. J., & Gonzalo-Skok, O. (2016). Effects of 10-week eccentric overload training on kinetic
parameters during change of direction in football players. Journal of Sports Sciences, 34(14),
1380–1387. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2016.1157624
DeWeese, B. H., Serrano, A. J., Scruggs, S. K., & Burton, J. D. (2013). The midthigh pull: Proper
application and progressions of a weightlifting movement derivative. Strength & Conditioning
Journal, 35(6), 54–58. https://doi.org/10.1519/SSC.0b013e318297c77b
Doeven, S. H., Brink, M. S., Kosse, S. J., & Lemmink, K. A. P. M. (2018). Postmatch recovery of
physical performance and biochemical markers in team ball sports: A systematic review. BMJ
Open Sport & Exercise Medicine, 4(1), e000264. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjsem-2017-000264
Dorrell, H. F., Smith, M. F., & Gee, T. I. (2020). Comparison of velocity-based and traditional
percentage-based loading methods on maximal strength and power adaptations. The Journal of
Strength & Conditioning Research, 34(1), 46–53. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000003089
Dos’Santos, T., Thomas, C., Jones, P. A., & Comfort, P. (2017). Mechanical determinants of faster
change of direction speed performance in male athletes. Journal of Strength and Conditioning
Research, 31(3), 696–705. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000001535
Douglas, J., Pearson, S., Ross, A., & McGuigan, M. (2017). Eccentric exercise: Physiological
characteristics and acute responses. Sports Medicine (Auckland, N.Z.), 47(4), 663–675. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s40279-016-0624-8
Douglas, J., Pearson, S., Ross, A., & McGuigan, M. (2018). Effects of accentuated eccentric loading
on muscle properties, strength, power, and speed in resistance-trained rugby players. Journal of
Strength and Conditioning Research, 32(10), 2750–2761. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.
0000000000002772
Dugan, E. L., Doyle, T. L. A., Humphries, B., Hasson, C. J., & Newton, R. U. (2004). Determining the
optimal load for jump squats: A review of methods and calculations. Journal of Strength and
Conditioning Research, 18(3), 668–674.
Duthie, G. M., Young, W. B., & Aitken, D. A. (2002). The acute effects of heavy loads on jump
squat performance: An evaluation of the complex and contrast methods of power development.
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 16(4), 530–538.
Freitas, T. T., Calleja-González, J., Carlos-Vivas, J., Marín-Cascales, E., & Alcaraz, P. E. (2018).
Short-term optimal load training vs a modified complex training in semi-professional basketball
players. Journal of Sports Sciences 37(4), 434–442. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2018.
1504618
Freitas, T. T., Martinez-Rodriguez, A., Calleja-González, J., & Alcaraz, P. E. (2017). Short-term
adaptations following Complex Training in team-sports: A meta-analysis. PloS One, 12(6),
e0180223. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0180223
Freitas, T. T., Pereira, L. A., Reis, V. P., Fernandes, V., Alcaraz, P. E., Azevedo, P. H. S. M., &
Loturco, I. (2021). Effects of a congested fixture period on speed and power performance of
elite young soccer players. International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, 16(8),
García-López, D., Cuevas, M. J., Almar, M., Lima, E., De Paz, J. A., & González-Gallego, J. (2007).
Effects of eccentric exercise on NF-kappaB activation in blood mononuclear cells. Medicine and
Science in Sports and Exercise, 39(4), 653–664. https://doi.org/10.1249/mss.0b013e31802f04f6
González-Badillo, J. J., & Sánchez-Medina, L. (2010). Movement velocity as a measure of loading
intensity in resistance training. International Journal of Sports Medicine, 31(5), 347–352. https://
doi.org/10.1055/s-0030-1248333
Guerriero, A., Varalda, C., & Piacentini, M. F. (2018). The role of velocity-based training in the
strength periodization for modern athletes. Journal of Functional Morphology and Kinesiology, 3
(4), 55. https://doi.org/10.3390/jfmk3040055
Haff, G. G., & Nimphius, S. (2012). Training principles for power. Strength & Conditioning
Journal, 34(6), 2–12. https://doi.org/10.1519/SSC.0b013e31826db467
Häkkinen, K. (1989). Neuromuscular and hormonal adaptations during strength and power
training. A review. The Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness, 29(1), 9–26.
Hammami, M., Negra, Y., Billaut, F., Hermassi, S., Shephard, R. J., & Chelly, M. S. (2018). Effects of
lower-limb strength training on agility, repeated sprinting with changes of direction, leg peak
power, and neuromuscular adaptations. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 32(1),
37–47. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000001813
Hansen, K. T., Cronin, J. B., & Newton, M. J. (2011). The effect of cluster loading on force, velocity,
and power during ballistic jump squat training. International Journal of Sports Physiology &
Performance, 6(4), 455–468. https://doi.org/10.1123/ijspp.6.4.455
Harper, D. J., Carling, C., & Kiely, J. (2019). High-intensity acceleration and deceleration demands
in elite team sports competitive match play: A systematic review and meta-analysis of observa
tional studies. Sports Medicine, 49(12), 1923–1947. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-019-01170-1
Harris, N. K., Cronin, J., Taylor, K.-L., Boris, J., & Sheppard, J. (2010). Understanding position
transducer technology for strength and conditioning practitioners. Strength & Conditioning
Journal, 32(4), 66–79. https://doi.org/10.1519/SSC.0b013e3181eb341b
Harris, N. K., Cronin, J. B., Hopkins, W. G., & Hansen, K. T. (2008). Squat jump training at
maximal power loads vs. heavy loads: Effect on sprint ability. Journal of Strength and
Conditioning Research, 22(6), 1742–1749. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0b013e318187458a
Helland, C., Hole, E., Iversen, E., Olsson, M. C., Seynnes, O., Solberg, P. A., & Paulsen, G. (2017).
Training strategies to improve muscle power: Is Olympic-style weightlifting relevant? Medicine
and Science in Sports and Exercise, 49(4), 736–745. https://doi.org/10.1249/MSS.
0000000000001145
Hermassi, S., Chelly, M. S., Tabka, Z., Shephard, R. J., & Chamari, K. (2011). Effects of 8-week
in-season upper and lower limb heavy resistance training on the peak power, throwing velocity,
and sprint performance of elite male handball players. Journal of Strength and Conditioning
Research, 25(9), 2424–2433. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0b013e3182030edb
Hermassi, S., Schwesig, R., Aloui, G., Shephard, R. J., & Chelly, M. S. (2019). Effects of short-term
in-season weightlifting training on the muscle strength, peak power, sprint performance, and
ball-throwing velocity of male handball players. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research,
33(12), 3309–3321. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000003068
Hopkins, W. G., Marshall, S. W., Batterham, A. M., & Hanin, J. (2009). Progressive statistics for
studies in sports medicine and exercise science. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 41
(1), 3–13. https://doi.org/10.1249/MSS.0b013e31818cb278
Horwath, O., Paulsen, G., Esping, T., Seynnes, O., & Olsson, M. C. (2019). Isokinetic resistance
training combined with eccentric overload improves athletic performance and induces muscle
hypertrophy in young ice hockey players. Journal of Science & Medicine in Sport, 22(7), 821–826.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsams.2018.12.017
Ishida, A., Rochau, K., Findlay, K. P., Devero, B., Duca, M., & Stone, M. H. (2020). Effects of an
initial muscle strength level on sports performance changes in collegiate soccer players. Sports, 8
(9), 127. https://doi.org/10.3390/sports8090127
James, L. P., Gregory Haff, G., Kelly, V. G., Connick, M. J., Hoffman, B. W., & Beckman, E. M.
(2018). The impact of strength level on adaptations to combined weightlifting, plyometric, and
ballistic training. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 28(5), 1494–1505.
https://doi.org/10.1111/sms.13045
James, L. P., Suchomel, T. J., Comfort, P., Haff, G. G., & Connick, M. J. (2020). Rate of force
development adaptations after weightlifting-style training: The influence of power clean ability.
The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, Publish Ahead of Print. https://doi.org/10.
1519/JSC.0000000000003673
Jiménez-Reyes, P., Castaño-Zambudio, A., Cuadrado-Peñafiel, V., González-Hernández, J. M.,

Capelo-Ramírez, F., Martínez-Aranda, L. M., & González-Badillo, J. J. (2021). Differences
between adjusted vs. non-adjusted loads in velocity-based training: Consequences for strength
training control and programming. Peer Journal, 9, e10942. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.10942
Kawamori, N., & Haff, G. G. (2004). The optimal training load for the development of muscular
power. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 18(3), 675.
Kawamori, N., Nosaka, K., & Newton, R. U. (2013). Relationships between ground reaction
impulse and sprint acceleration performance in team sport athletes. Journal of Strength and
Conditioning Research, 27(3), 568–573. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0b013e318257805a
Kirby, T. J., McBride, J. M., Haines, T. L., & Dayne, A. M. (2011). Relative net vertical impulse
determines jumping performance. Journal of Applied Biomechanics, 27(3), 207–214. https://doi.
org/10.1123/jab.27.3.207
Krommes, K., Petersen, J., Nielsen, M. B., Aagaard, P., Hölmich, P., & Thorborg, K. (2017). Sprint
and jump performance in elite male soccer players following a 10-week Nordic Hamstring
exercise Protocol: A randomised pilot study. BMC Research Notes, 10(1), 669. https://doi.org/10.
1186/s13104-017-2986-x
Lake, J. P., Lauder, M. A., & Smith, N. A. (2012). Barbell kinematics should not be used to estimate
power output applied to the Barbell-and-body system center of mass during lower-body
resistance exercise. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 26(5), 1302–1307. https://
doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0b013e31822e7b48
Lakens, D. (2013). Calculating and reporting effect sizes to facilitate cumulative science: A practical
primer for t-tests and ANOVAs. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, article 863. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.
2013.00863
Lauersen, J. B., Andersen, T. E., & Andersen, L. B. (2018). Strength training as superior,
dose-dependent and safe prevention of acute and overuse sports injuries: A systematic review,
qualitative analysis and meta-analysis. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 52(24), 1557–1563.
https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2018-099078
Los Arcos, A., Yanci, J., Mendiguchia, J., Salinero, J. J., Brughelli, M., & Castagna, C. (2014). Short-
term training effects of vertically and horizontally oriented exercises on neuromuscular perfor
mance in professional soccer players. International Journal of Sports Physiology and
Performance, 9(3), 480–488. https://doi.org/10.1123/ijspp.2013-0063
Loturco, I., Bishop, C., Freitas, T. T., Pereira, L. A., & Jeffreys, I. (2020). Vertical force production
in soccer: Mechanical aspects and applied training strategies. Strength & Conditioning Journal,
42(2), 6–15. https://doi.org/10.1519/SSC.0000000000000513
Loturco, I., Nakamura, F. Y., Kobal, R., Gil, S., Pivetti, B., Pereira, L. A., & Roschel, H. (2016).
Traditional periodization versus optimum training load applied to soccer players: Effects on
neuromuscular abilities. International Journal of Sports Medicine, 37(13), 1051–1059. https://
doi.org/10.1055/s-0042-107249
Loturco, I., Nakamura, F. Y., Tricoli, V., Kobal, R., Cal Abad, C. C., Kitamura, K.,
Ugrinowitsch, C., Gil, S., Pereira, L. A., & Gonzalez-Badillo, J. J. (2015). Determining the
optimum power load in jump squat using the mean propulsive velocity. PloS One, 10(10),
e0140102. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0140102
Loturco, I., Pereira, L. A., Kobal, R., Kitamura, K., Cal Abad, C. C., Nakamura, F. Y., & Pai, C. N.
(2017). Peak versus mean propulsive power outputs: Which is more closely related to jump
squat performance? The Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness, 57(11), 1432–1444.
https://doi.org/10.23736/S0022-4707.17.06940-7
Loturco, I., Pereira, L. A., Kobal, R., Zanetti, V., Gil, S., Kitamura, K., Abad, C. C. C., &
Nakamura, F. Y. (2015). Half-squat or jump squat training under optimum power load condi
tions to counteract power and speed decrements in Brazilian elite soccer players during the
preseason. Journal of Sports Sciences, 33(12), 1283–1292. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.
2015.1022574
Loturco, I., Pereira, L. A., Zanetti, V., Kitamura, K., Abad, C. C. C., Kobal, R., & Nakamura, F. Y.
(2016). Mechanical differences between barbell and body optimum power loads in the jump squat
exercise. Journal of Human Kinetics, 54(1), 153–162. https://doi.org/10.1515/hukin-2016-0044
Loturco, I., Suchomel, T., Bishop, C., Kobal, R., Pereira, L. A., & McGuigan, M. (2018). 1RM
measures or maximum bar-power output: Which is more related to sport performance?
International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, 14(1), 33–37. https://doi.org/10.
1123/ijspp.2018-0255
Loturco, I., Suchomel, T., James, L. P., Bishop, C., Abad, C. C. C., Pereira, L. A., &
McGuigan, M. R. (2018). Selective influences of maximum dynamic strength and bar-power
output on team sports performance: A comprehensive study of four different disciplines.
Frontiers in Physiology, 9, 1820. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2018.01820
Loturco, I., Ugrinowitsch, C., Tricoli, V., Pivetti, B., & Roschel, H. (2013). Different loading
schemes in power training during the preseason promote similar performance improvements
in Brazilian elite soccer players. Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 27(7), 1791–1797.
https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0b013e3182772da6
Maher, C. G., Sherrington, C., Herbert, R. D., Moseley, A. M., & Elkins, M. (2003). Reliability of
the PEDro scale for rating quality of randomized controlled trials. Physical Therapy, 83(8),
713–721. https://doi.org/10.1093/ptj/83.8.713
Malcata, R. M., & Hopkins, W. G. (2014). Variability of competitive performance of elite athletes:
A systematic review. Sports Medicine (Auckland, N.Z.), 44(12), 1763–1774. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s40279-014-0239-x
Malone, S., Hughes, B., Doran, D. A., Collins, K., & Gabbett, T. J. (2019). Can the workload-injury
relationship be moderated by improved strength, speed and repeated-sprint qualities? Journal of
Science and Medicine in Sport, 22(1), 29–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsams.2018.01.010
Mann, J. B., Ivey, P. A., & Sayers, S. P. (2015). Velocity-based training in football. Strength &
Conditioning Journal, 37(6), 52–57. https://doi.org/10.1519/SSC.0000000000000177
Maroto-Izquierdo, S., Fernandez-Gonzalo, R., Magdi, H. R., Manzano-Rodriguez, S., González-
Gallego, J., & De Paz, J. A. (2019). Comparison of the musculoskeletal effects of different
iso-inertial resistance training modalities: Flywheel vs. Electric-motor. European Journal of
Sport Science, 19(9), 1184–1194. https://doi.org/10.1080/17461391.2019.1588920
Maroto-Izquierdo, S., García-López, D., Fernandez-Gonzalo, R., Moreira, O. C., González-
Gallego, J., & de Paz, J. A. (2017). Skeletal muscle functional and structural adaptations after
eccentric overload flywheel resistance training: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal
of Science and Medicine in Sport, 20(10), 943–951. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsams.2017.03.004
Marshall, J., Bishop, C., Turner, A., & Haff, G. G. (2021). Optimal training sequences to develop
lower body force, velocity, power, and jump height: A systematic review with meta-analysis.
Sports Medicine, 51(6), 1245–1271. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-021-01430-z
McBride, J. M., Haines, T. L., & Kirby, T. J. (2011). Effect of loading on peak power of the bar,
body, and system during power cleans, squats, and jump squats. Journal of Sports Sciences, 29
(11), 1215–1221. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2011.587444
McBride, J. M., Kirby, T. J., Haines, T. L., & Skinner, J. (2010). Relationship between relative net
vertical impulse and jump height in jump squats performed to various squat depths and with
various loads. International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, 5(4), 484–496.
https://doi.org/10.1123/ijspp.5.4.484
McGuigan, M. R., Wright, G. A., & Fleck, S. J. (2012). Strength training for athletes: Does it really
help sports performance? International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, 7(1), 2–5.
https://doi.org/10.1123/ijspp.7.1.2
McLean, B. D., Coutts, A. J., Kelly, V., McGuigan, M. R., & Cormack, S. J. (2010). Neuromuscular,
endocrine, and perceptual fatigue responses during different length between-match microcycles
in professional rugby league players. International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance,
5(3), 367–383. https://doi.org/10.1123/ijspp.5.3.367
McMaster, D. T., Gill, N., Cronin, J., & McGuigan, M. (2014). A brief review of strength and
ballistic assessment methodologies in sport. Sports Medicine (Auckland, N.Z.), 44(5), 603–623.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-014-0145-2
McNeill, C., Beaven, C. M., McMaster, D. T., & Gill, N. (2019). Eccentric training interventions
and team sport athletes. Journal of Functional Morphology and Kinesiology, 4(4), 67. https://doi.
org/10.3390/jfmk4040067
Meylan, C. M. P., Cronin, J. B., Oliver, J. L., Hughes, M. G., & Manson, S. (2014). An
evidence-based model of power development in youth soccer. International Journal of Sports
Science & Coaching, 9(5), 1241–1264. https://doi.org/10.1260/1747-9541.9.5.1241
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & Group, T. P. (2009). Preferred reporting items
for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLOS Medicine, 6(7),
e1000097. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097
Moolyk, A. N., Carey, J. P., & Chiu, L. Z. F. (2013). Characteristics of lower extremity work during
the impact phase of jumping and weightlifting. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research,
27(12), 3225–3232. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0b013e31828ddf19
Moran, J., Ramirez-Campillo, R., Liew, B., Chaabene, H., Behm, D. G., García-Hermoso, A.,
Izquierdo, M., & Granacher, U. (2020). Effects of vertically and horizontally orientated plyo
metric training on physical performance: A meta-analytical comparison. Sports Medicine, 51(1),
65–79. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-020-01340-6
Mujika, I. (2013). The alphabet of sport science research starts with Q. International Journal of
Sports Physiology and Performance, 8(5), 465–466. https://doi.org/10.1123/ijspp.8.5.465
Newton, R. U., & Kraemer, W. J. (1994). Developing explosive muscular power: Implications for
a mixed methods training strategy. Strength & Conditioning Journal, 16(5), 20.
Nuñez, F. J., Santalla, A., Carrasquila, I., Asian, J. A., Reina, J. I., & Suarez-Arrones, L. J. (2018).
The effects of unilateral and bilateral eccentric overload training on hypertrophy, muscle power
and COD performance, and its determinants, in team sport players. Plos One, 13(3), e0193841.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0193841
Orange, S. T., Metcalfe, J. W., Robinson, A., Applegarth, M. J., & Liefeith, A. (2019). Effects of
in-season velocity- versus percentage-based training in academy rugby league players.
1123/ijspp.2019-0058
Otero-Esquina, C., de Hoyo Lora, M., Gonzalo-Skok, Ó., Domínguez-Cobo, S., & Sánchez, H.
(2017). Is strength-training frequency a key factor to develop performance adaptations in young
elite soccer players? European Journal of Sport Science, 17(10), 1241–1251. https://doi.org/10.
1080/17461391.2017.1378372
Pagaduan, J., Schoenfeld, B., & Pojskic, H. (2019). Systematic review and meta-analysis on the
effect of contrast training on vertical jump performance. Strength & Conditioning Journal, 41(3),
63–78. https://doi.org/10.1519/SSC.0000000000000442
Pérez-Castilla, A., García-Ramos, A., Padial, P., Morales-Artacho, A. J., & Feriche, B. (2020). Load-
velocity relationship in variations of the half-squat exercise: Influence of execution technique.
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 34(4), 1024–1031. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.
0000000000002072
Prieske, O., Behrens, M., Chaabene, H., Granacher, U., & Maffiuletti, N. A. (2020). Time to
differentiate postactivation “potentiation” from “performance enhancement” in the strength
and conditioning community. Sports Medicine, 50(9), 1559–1565. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s40279-020-01300-0
Ramirez, J. M., Nunez, V. M., Lancho, C., Poblador, M. S., & Lancho, J. L. (2015). Velocity-based
training of lower limb to improve absolute and relative power outputs in concentric phase of
half-squat in soccer players. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 29(11), 3084–3088.
https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000000407
Randell, A. D., Cronin, J. B., Keogh, J. W. L., Gill, N. D., & Pedersen, M. C. (2011). Effect of
instantaneous performance feedback during 6 weeks of velocity-based resistance training on
sport-specific performance tests. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 25(1), 87–93.
https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0b013e3181fee634
Rauch, J. T., Loturco, I., Cheesman, N., Thiel, J., Alvarez, M., Miller, N., Carpenter, N., Barakat, C.,
Velasquez, G., Stanjones, A., Aube, D., Andersen, J. C., & De Souza, E. O. (2018). Similar
strength and power adaptations between two different velocity-based training regimens in
collegiate female volleyball players. Sports (Basel, Switzerland), 6(4), 163. https://doi.org/10.
3390/sports6040163
Rhea, M. R. (2004). Determining the magnitude of treatment effects in strength training research
through the use of the effect size. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 18(4), 918–920.
https://doi.org/10.1519/14403.1
Ribeiro, J., Teixeira, L., Lemos, R., Teixeira, A. S., Moreira, V., Silva, P., & Nakamura, F. Y. (2020).
Effects of plyometric versus optimum power load training on components of physical fitness in
young male soccer players. International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, 15(2),
Ronnestad, B. R., Kvamme, N. H., Sunde, A., & Raastad, T. (2008). Short-term effects of strength
and plyometric training on sprint and jump performance in professional soccer players. Journal
of Strength and Conditioning Research, 22(3), 773–780. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.
0b013e31816a5e86
Sanchez-Medina, L., Perez, C. E., & Gonzalez-Badillo, J. J. (2010). Importance of the propulsive
phase in strength assessment. International Journal of Sports Medicine, 31(2), 123–129. https://
doi.org/10.1055/s-0029-1242815
Sapega, A. A., & Drillings, G. (1983). The definition and assessment of muscular power. The
Journal of Orthopaedic and Sports Physical Therapy, 5(1), 7–9. https://doi.org/10.2519/jospt.
1983.5.1.7
Seitz, L. B., & Haff, G. G. (2016). Factors modulating post-activation potentiation of jump, sprint,
throw, and upper-body ballistic performances: A systematic review with meta-analysis. Sports
Medicine (Auckland, N.Z.), 46(2), 231–240. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-015-0415-7
Slimani, M., Chamari, K., Miarka, B., Del Vecchio, F. B., & Cheour, F. (2016). Effects of plyometric
training on physical fitness in team sport athletes: A systematic review. Journal of Human
Kinetics, 53(1), 231–247. https://doi.org/10.1515/hukin-2016-0026
Soriano, M. A., Jiménez-Reyes, P., Rhea, M. R., & Marín, P. J. (2015). The optimal load for
maximal power production during lower-body resistance exercises: A meta-analysis. Sports
Soriano, M. A., Kipp, K., Lake, J. P., Suchomel, T. J., Marín, P. J., Sainz De Baranda, M. P., &
Comfort, P. (2020). Mechanical power production assessment during weightlifting exercises.
A systematic review. Sports Biomechanics, 1752–6116. https://doi.org/10.1080/14763141.2020.
1747529
Spineti, J., Figueiredo, T., Bastos De Oliveira, V., Assis, M., Fernandes De Oliveira, L., Miranda, H.,
Machado De Ribeiro Reis, V. M., & Simao, R. (2016). Comparison between traditional strength
training and complex contrast training on repeated sprint ability and muscle architecture in
elite soccer players. Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness, 56(11), 1269–1278.
Spineti, J., Figueiredo, T., Willardson, J., Bastos de Oliveira, V., Assis, M., Fernandes de
Oliveira, L., Miranda, H., Machado de Ribeiro Reis, V. M., & Simão, R. (2019). Comparison
between traditional strength training and complex contrast training on soccer players. The
Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness, 59(1), 42–49. https://doi.org/10.23736/S0022-
4707.18.07934-3
Suarez-Arrones, L., Saez De Villarreal, E., Nunez, F. J., Di Salvo, V., Petri, C., Buccolini, A.,
Maldonado, R. A., Torreno, N., & Mendez-Villanueva, A. (2018). In-season eccentric-overload
training in elite soccer players: Effects on body composition, strength and sprint performance.
PloS One, 13(10), e0205332. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0205332
Suchomel, T. J., Comfort, P., & Lake, J. P. (2017). Enhancing the force-velocity profile of athletes
using weightlifting derivatives. Strength & Conditioning Journal, 39(1), 10. https://doi.org/10.
1519/SSC.0000000000000275
Suchomel, T. J., Comfort, P., & Stone, M. H. (2015). Weightlifting pulling derivatives: Rationale for
implementation and application. Sports Medicine (Auckland, N.Z.), 45(6), 823–839. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s40279-015-0314-y
Suchomel, T. J., McKeever, S. M., McMahon, J. J., & Comfort, P. (2020). The effect of training with
weightlifting catching or pulling derivatives on squat jump and countermovement jump force–
time adaptations. Journal of Functional Morphology and Kinesiology, 5(2), 28. https://doi.org/10.
3390/jfmk5020028
Suchomel, T. J., Nimphius, S., & Stone, M. H. (2016). The importance of muscular strength in
athletic performance. Sports Medicine (Auckland, N.Z.), 46(10), 1419–1449. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s40279-016-0486-0
Talpey, S. W., Young, W. B., & Saunders, N. (2014). The acute effects of conventional, complex,
and contrast protocols on lower-body power. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 28
(2), 361–366. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0b013e318299a68b
Talpey, S. W., Young, W. B., & Saunders, N. (2016). Is nine weeks of complex training effective for
improving lower body strength, explosive muscle function, sprint and jumping performance?
International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, 11(5), 736–745. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1747954116667112
Thapa, R. K., Lum, D., Moran, J., & Ramirez-Campillo, R. (2021). Effects of complex training on
sprint, jump, and change of direction ability of soccer players: A systematic review and
meta-Analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, Article 627869. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.
627869
Turner, A. N., Comfort, P., McMahon, J., Bishop, C., Chavda, S., Read, P., Mundy, P., & Lake, J.
(2020). Developing powerful athletes, Part 1: Mechanical underpinnings. Strength &
Conditioning Journal, 42(3), 30–39. https://doi.org/10.1519/SSC.0000000000000543
Wagle, J. P., Taber, C. B., Cunanan, A. J., Bingham, G. E., Carroll, K. M., DeWeese, B. H., Sato, K., &
Stone, M. H. (2017). Accentuated eccentric loading for training and performance: A review. Sports
Weakley, J., Mann, B., Banyard, H., McLaren, S., Scott, T., & Garcia-Ramos, A. (2021). Velocity-
based training: From theory to application. Strength & Conditioning Journal, 43(2), 31-49.
https://doi.org/10.1519/SSC.0000000000000560
Weakley, J., Wilson, K. M., Till, K., Read, D. B., Darrall-Jones, J., Roe, G. A. B., Phibbs, P. J., &
Jones, B. (2019). Visual feedback attenuates mean concentric barbell velocity loss and improves
motivation, competitiveness, and perceived workload in male adolescent athletes. Journal of
Strength and Conditioning Research, 33(9), 2420–2425. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.
0000000000002133
Wilson, J. M., Marin, P. J., Rhea, M. R., Wilson, S. M. C., Loenneke, J. P., & Anderson, J. C. (2012).
Concurrent training: A meta-analysis examining interference of aerobic and resistance
exercises. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 26(8), 2293–2307. https://doi.org/10.
1519/JSC.0b013e31823a3e2d
Winter, E. M., Abt, G., Brookes, F. B. C., Challis, J. H., Fowler, N. E., Knudson, D. V.,
Knuttgen, H. G., Kraemer, W. J., Lane, A. M., van Mechelen, W., Morton, R. H.,
Newton, R. U., Williams, C., & Yeadon, M. R. (2016). Misuse of “power” and other mechanical
terms in sport and exercise science research. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 30
(1), 292–300. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000001101
Wisløff, U., Castagna, C., Helgerud, J., Jones, R., & Hoff, J. (2004). Strong correlation of maximal
squat strength with sprint performance and vertical jump height in elite soccer players. British
Journal of Sports Medicine, 38(3), 285–288. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsm.2002.002071
Zimmermann, H. B., Knihs, D., Diefenthaler, F., MacIntosh, B., & Pupo, J. D. (2021). Continuous
jumps enhance twitch peak torque and sprint performance in highly trained sprint athletes.
1123/ijspp.2020-0240

Cormier 2021

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cormier 2021

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cormier 2021

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sports Biomechanics

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rspb20

A systematic review of resistance training

Patrick Cormier, Tomás T. Freitas & Kenneth Seaman

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/14763141.2021.1948601

Published online: 04 Aug 2021.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

A systematic review of resistance training methodologies for

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

underpinning aspect leading to performance in powerful muscular actions, such as

Materials and methods

Figure 1. Flow diagram of the study selection process.

Methodological quality of studies

et al. professional Norway

(2011) ES = 0.52 (−0.42–1.46), % = 4.4; ES = 0.18

Discussion and implications

Traditional strength training

Furthermore, an argument concerning ecological validity could be made that the

Optimal power load

Weightlifting and derivatives

Eccentric overload training

Limitations and future research

Jiménez-Reyes, P., Castaño-Zambudio, A., Cuadrado-Peñafiel, V., González-Hernández, J. M.,

You might also like