Wearable resistance sprint running is superior to training with no load for retaining performance in pre-season training for rugby athletes

The use of wearable resistance and weighted vest for sprint performance and kinematics: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Wearable resistance (WR) and weighted vests (WV) can be used in almost all training conditions to enhance sprint performance; however, positioning and additional mass are different in WV and WR strategies, affecting performance and kinematics differently. We aimed to systematically review the literature, searching for intervention studies that reported the acute or chronic kinematic and performance impact of WV and WR and comparing them. We analyzed Pubmed, Embase, Scopus, and SPORTDiscuss databases for longitudinal and cross-over studies investigating sprint performance or kinematics using an inverse-variance with a random-effect method for meta-analysis. After the eligibility assessment, 25 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Cross-over WR and WV studies found significantly higher sprint times and higher ground contact times (CT) compared to unloaded (UL) conditions. However, WR presented a lower step frequency (SF) compared to UL, whereas WV presented a lower step length (SL). Only one study investigated the chronic adaptations for WR, indicating a superiority of the WR group on sprint time compared to the control group. However, no difference was found chronically for WV regarding sprint time, CT, and flight time (FT). Our findings suggest that using WV and WR in field sports demonstrates overload sprint gesture through kinematic changes, however, WR can be more suitable for SF-reliant athletes and WV for SL-reliant athletes. Although promising for chronic performance improvement, coaches and athletes should carefully consider WV and WR use since there is no supporting evidence that WV or WR will impact sprint performance, CT, and FT.

Effects of Different Wearable Resistance Placements on Running Stability

Stability during running has been recognized as a crucial factor contributing to running performance. This study aimed to investigate the effects of wearable equipment containing external loads on different body parts on running stability. Fifteen recreational male runners (20.27 ± 1.23 years, age range 19-22 years) participated in five treadmill running conditions, including running without loads and running with loads equivalent to 10% of individual body weight placed on four different body positions: forearms, lower legs, trunk, and a combination of all three (forearms, lower legs, and trunk). A tri-axial accelerometer-based smartphone sensor was attached to the participants' lumbar spine (L5) to record body accelerations. The largest Lyapunov exponent (LyE) was applied to individual acceleration data as a measure of local dynamic stability, where higher LyE values suggest lower stability. The effects of load distribution appear in the mediolateral (ML) direction. Specifically, running with loads on the lower legs resulted in a lower LyE_ML value compared to running without loads (p = 0.001) and running with loads on the forearms (p < 0.001), trunk (p = 0.001), and combined segments (p = 0.005). These findings suggest that running with loads on the lower legs enhances side-to-side local dynamic stability, providing valuable insights for training.

Does lateral banking and radius affect well-trained sprinters and team-sports players during bend sprinting?

This study investigated the short-term responses of step characteristics in sprinters and team-sports players under different bend conditions. Eight participants from each group completed 80 m sprints in four conditions: banked and flat, in lanes two and four (L2B, L4B, L2F, L4F). Groups showed similar changes in step velocity (SV) across conditions and limbs. However, sprinters produced significantly shorter ground contact times (GCT) than team sports players in L2B and L4B for both left (0.123 s vs 0.145 s and 0.123 s vs 0.140 s) and right steps (0.115 s vs 0.136 s and 0.120 s vs 0.141 s) (p > 0.001-0.029; ES = 1.15-1.37). Across both groups, SV was generally lower in flat conditions compared to banked (Left: 7.21 m/s vs 6.82 m/s and Right: 7.31 m/s vs 7.09 m/s in lane two), occurring due to reduced step length (SL) rather than step frequency (SF), suggesting that banking improves SV via increased SL. Sprinters produced significantly shorter GCT in banked conditions that led to non-significant increases in SF and SV, highlighting the importance of bend sprinting specific conditioning and training environments representative of indoor competition for sprint athletes.

Acute locomotor, heart rate and neuromuscular responses to added wearable resistance during soccer specific training

PURPOSE

Investigate acute locomotor, internal (heart rate (HR) and ratings of perceived exertion (RPE)) and neuromuscular responses to using wearable resistance loading for soccer-specific training.

METHODS

Twenty-six footballers from a French 5^th division team completed a 9-week parallel-group training intervention (intervention group: n = 14, control: n = 12). The intervention group trained with wearable resistance (200-g on each posterior, distal-calf) for full-training sessions on Day + 2, D + 4 and unloaded on D + 5. Between-group differences in locomotor (GPS) and internal load were analyzed for full-training sessions and game simulation drills. Neuromuscular status was evaluated using pre- and post-training box-to-box runs. Data were analyzed using linear mixed-modelling, effect size ± 90% confidence limits (ES ± 90%CL) and magnitude-based decisions.

RESULTS

Full-training sessions: Relative to the control, the wearable resistance group showed greater total distance (ES [lower, upper limits]: 0.25 [0.06, 0.44]), sprint distance (0.27 [0.08, 0.46]) and mechanical work (0.32 [0.13, 0.51]). Small game simulation (<190 m²/player): wearable resistance group showed small decreases in mechanical work (0.45 [0.14, 0.76]) and moderately lower average HR (0.68 [0.02, 1.34]). Large game simulation (>190 m²/player): no meaningful between-group differences were observed for all variables. Training induced small to moderate neuromuscular fatigue increases during post-training compared to pre-training box-to-box runs for both groups (Wearable resistance:0.46 [0.31, 0.61], Control:0.73 [0.53, 0.93]).

CONCLUSION

For full training, wearable resistance induced higher locomotor responses, without affecting internal responses. Locomotor and internal outputs varied in response to game simulation size. Football-specific training with wearable resistance did not impact neuromuscular status differently than unloaded training.

Lower-limb wearable resistance overloads joint angular velocity during early acceleration sprint running

Lower-limb wearable resistance (WR) facilitates targeted resistance-based training during sports-specific movement tasks. The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of two different WR placements (thigh and shank) on joint kinematics during the acceleration phase of sprint running. Eighteen participants completed maximal effort sprints while unloaded and with 2% body mass thigh- or shank-placed WR. The main findings were as follows: 1) the increase to 10 m sprint time was small with thigh WR (effect size [ES] = 0.24), and with shank WR, the increase was also small but significant (ES = 0.33); 2) significant differences in peak joint angles between the unloaded and WR conditions were small (ES = 0.23-0.38), limited to the hip and knee joints, and <2° on average; 3) aside from peak hip flexion angles, no clear trends were observed in individual difference scores; and, 4) thigh and shank WR produced similar reductions in average hip flexion and extension angular velocities. The significant overload to hip flexion and extension velocity with both thigh- and shank-placed WR may be beneficial to target the flexion and extension actions associated with fast sprint running.

Effect of Attentional Focus on Sprint Performance: A Meta-Analysis

Sprinting is often seen in a variety of sports. Focusing one's attention externally before sprinting has been demonstrated to boost sprint performance. The present study aimed to systematically review previous findings on the impact of external focus (EF), in comparison to internal focus (IF), on sprint performance. A literature search was conducted in five electronic databases (APA PsycINFO, PubMed, Scopus, SPORTDiscus, and Web of Science). A random-effects model was used to pool Hedge's g with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The meta-analysis included six studies with a total of 10 effect sizes and 166 participants. In general, the EF condition outperformed the IF condition in sprint performance (g = 0.279, 95% CI [0.088, 0.470], p = 0.004). The subgroup analysis, which should be viewed with caution, suggested that the benefits associated with the EF strategy were significant in low-skill sprinters (g = 0.337, 95% CI [0.032, 0.642], p = 0.030) but not significant in high-skill sprinters (g = 0.246, 95% CI [-0.042, 0.533], p = 0.094), although no significant difference was seen between these subgroups (p = 0.670). The reported gain in sprint performance due to attentional focus has practical implications for coaches and athletes, as making tiny adjustments in verbal instructions can lead to significant behavioral effects of great importance in competitive sports.