Effects of Combined Uphill-Downhill Sprinting Versus Resisted Sprinting Methods on Sprint Performance: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Two specific sprint training methods that are present to varying degrees in research and practice are combined uphill-downhill sprinting (UDS) and resisted sprint training methods (RS). Both methods seem to improve sprint performance, but to the author's knowledge a comparison does not exist investigating the differences between the two training protocols and traditional sprinting.

OBJECTIVE

The present systematic review and meta-analysis investigated sprint performance changes between combined uphill-downhill sprinting and resisted sprinting methods (sleds, cables/bands, vests, uphill) and how these compared with traditional sprinting.

METHODS

A literature search was performed on 19 December 2022, in the databases PubMed, SPORTDiscus, Web of Science and SCOPUS, which from 22 studies yielded a total of 24 eligible groups (UDS, n = 6; RS, n = 18). Studies that measured sprint performance, had a traditional sprinting control, and used either training intervention in healthy individuals of any age for ≥ 4 weeks were eligible for the meta-analysis. The change in sprint performance from baseline to post intervention was compared between the interventions and their traditional sprinting control group. Outcomes were expressed as standardized mean differences (SMD).

RESULTS

The standardized changes in sprint performance between intervention groups and traditional-sprinting controls (negative in favour of intervention, positive in favour of traditional sprint) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were as follows: small for UDS (SMD - 0.41 [- 0.79, - 0.03]; p = 0.03), trivial for RS (SMD - 0.14 [- 0.36, 0.07]; p = 0.19).

CONCLUSION

Combined uphill-downhill sprinting was more effective than traditional sprinting, while resisted sprinting was not. It appears that resisted sprint interventions do not increase sprint performance any more than traditional sprinting. Subgroup analysis and meta-regression appear to show differences between sled loads and possible differences across distances tested. The results of this review and meta-analysis seem to warrant further investigations into the possibility that UDS may be a superior sprint training method to resisted and traditional sprinting.

Sprinting kinematics and inter-limb coordination patterns at varying slope inclinations

Uphill training is applied to induce specific overload on the musculoskeletal system to improve sprinting mechanics. This study aimed to identify unique kinematic features of uphill sprinting at different slopes and to suggest practical implications based on comparisons we early stance phase. At take-off, steeper slopes induced significantly more extended joint angles and higher ROMs during the late stance phase. Compared with moderate slopes, more anti-phase coordination patterns were detected at steeper slopes. Thus, uphill sprinting at steeper slopes shares essential kinematic features with the early acceleration phase of level sprinting. Moderate inclinations induce biomechanical adaptations similar to those in the late acceleration phase of level sprinting. Hence, the specific transfer of uphill sprinting to acceleration depends on the slope inclinations.

The Impact of a Repeated Sprint Training Program on Performance Measures in Male Field Hockey Players

ABSTRACT

Taylor, L and Jakeman, JR. The impact of a repeated sprint training program on performance measures in male field hockey players. J Strength Cond Res XX(X): 000-000, 2021-Sprint interval training (SIT) has been shown to be effective at improving athletic performance in laboratory studies, but the efficacy of SIT programs incorporated into normal training schedules is poorly considered. This study aimed to investigate the impact of a running SIT intervention applied to competitive athletes within a training program and to consider whether an uphill or flat (horizontal) SIT protocol had different effects on performance changes over time. Eighteen male hockey players (mean ± SD: age, 20.7 ± 0.9 years; hockey training experience, 9.9 ± 3.0 years) completed 2 sessions of SIT per week for 8 weeks, with intensity progressively increasing from 6 sprints in week 1 to 12 sprints in week 8. Subjects were randomly allocated to a flat or uphill (6% gradient) training condition (n = 9) and completed 30-m maximal sprint efforts with a 30-second recovery. Performance measures, including squat jump, 30-m sprint speed, and repeated sprint time, all improved significantly (p ≤ 0.05). Squat jump performance improved by 3.84 (d = 0.8) and 3.55 (d = 0.7) in the flat and uphill groups, respectively. Thirty-meter sprint speed improved by 0.06 (d = -0.4) and 0.10 (d = -0.7), and repeated sprint performance also improved, with the fastest of recorded sprints after intervention being 0.06 and 0.04 faster in the flat and uphill groups, respectively. Supplementing a normal hockey training week with SIT can have a positive impact on performance measures in male university hockey players. Furthermore, using an uphill training modality had a small, nonsignificant additional positive effect to some performance adaptations.

The Training and Development of Elite Sprint Performance: an Integration of Scientific and Best Practice Literature

Despite a voluminous body of research devoted to sprint training, our understanding of the training process leading to a world-class sprint performance is limited. The objective of this review is to integrate scientific and best practice literature regarding the training and development of elite sprint performance. Sprint performance is heavily dependent upon genetic traits, and the annual within-athlete performance differences are lower than the typical variation, the smallest worthwhile change, and the influence of external conditions such as wind, monitoring methodologies, etc. Still, key underlying determinants (e.g., power, technique, and sprint-specific endurance) are trainable. In this review, we describe how well-known training principles (progression, specificity, variation/periodization, and individualization) and varying training methods (e.g., sprinting/running, technical training, strength/power, plyometric training) are used in a sprint training context. Indeed, there is a considerable gap between science and best practice in how training principles and methods are applied. While the vast majority of sprint-related studies are performed on young team sport athletes and focus on brief sprints with maximal intensity and short recoveries, elite sprinters perform sprinting/running over a broad range of distances and with varying intensity and recovery periods. Within best practice, there is a stronger link between choice of training component (i.e., modality, duration, intensity, recovery, session rate) and the intended purpose of the training session compared with the “one-size-fits-all” approach in scientific literature. This review provides a point of departure for scientists and practitioners regarding the training and development of elite sprint performance and can serve as a position statement for outlining state-of-the-art sprint training recommendations and for generation of new hypotheses to be tested in future research.

General versus sports-specific injury prevention programs in athletes: A systematic review on the effects on performance

INTRODUCTION

Injury prevention programs (IPPs) are an inherent part of training in recreational and professional sports. Providing performance-enhancing benefits in addition to injury prevention may help adjust coaches and athletes' attitudes towards implementation of injury prevention into daily routine. Conventional thinking by players and coaches alike seems to suggest that IPPs need to be specific to one's sport to allow for performance enhancement. The systematic literature review aims to firstly determine the IPPs nature of exercises and whether they are specific to the sport or based on general conditioning. Secondly, can they demonstrate whether general, sports-specific or even mixed IPPs improve key performance indicators with the aim to better facilitate long-term implementation of these programs?

METHODS

PubMed and Web of Science were electronically searched throughout March 2018. The inclusion criteria were randomized control trials, publication dates between Jan 2006 and Feb 2018, athletes (11-45 years), injury prevention programs and included predefined performance measures that could be categorized into balance, power, strength, speed/agility and endurance. The methodological quality of included articles was assessed with the Cochrane Collaboration assessment tools.

RESULTS

Of 6619 initial findings, 22 studies met the inclusion criteria. In addition, reference lists unearthed a further 6 studies, making a total of 28. Nine studies used sports specific IPPs, eleven general and eight mixed prevention strategies. Overall, general programs ranged from 29-57% in their effectiveness across performance outcomes. Mixed IPPs improved in 80% balance outcomes but only 20-44% in others. Sports-specific programs led to larger scale improvements in balance (66%), power (83%), strength (75%), and speed/agility (62%).

CONCLUSION

Sports-specific IPPs have the strongest influence on most performance indices based on the significant improvement versus control groups. Other factors such as intensity, technical execution and compliance should be accounted for in future investigations in addition to exercise modality.

Early Adaptations to a Two-Week Uphill Run Sprint Interval Training and Cycle Sprint Interval Training

This study sought to compare early physiological and performance adaptations between a two-week cycle sprint interval training (SIT) and uphill run sprint training (UST) programs. Seventeen recreationally active adult males (age = 28 ± 5 years; body mass (BM) = 78 ± 9 kg) were assigned to either a control (n = 5), SIT (n = 6), or UST (n = 6) group. A discrete group of participants (n = 6, age = 33 ± 6 years, and body mass = 80 ± 9 kg) completed both training protocols to determine acute physiological responses. Intervention groups completed either a run or cycle peak oxygen uptake (VO₂peak) test (intervention type dependent) prior to and following two weeks of training. Training comprised of three sessions per week of 4 × 30-s “all-out” sprints with a four-minute active recovery between bouts on a cycle ergometer against 7.5% of body mass in the SIT group and on a 10% slope in the UST group. The VO₂peak values remained unchanged in both training groups, but time-to-exhaustion (TTE) was significantly increased only in the UST group (pre—495 ± 40 s, post—551 ± 15 s; p = 0.014) and not in the SIT group (pre—613 ± 130 s, post—634 ± 118 s, p = 0.07). Ventilatory threshold (VT) was significantly increased in both training groups (SIT group: pre—1.94 ± 0.45 L·min⁻¹, post—2.23 ± 0.42 L·min⁻¹; p < 0.005, UST group: pre—2.04 ± 0.40 L·min⁻¹, post—2.33 ± 0.34 L·min⁻¹, p < 0.005). These results indicate that UST may be an effective alternative to SIT in healthy individuals.