International journal of sports physiology and performance · 2025
The Sensitivity of Isometric Versus Ballistic Measures of Rapid Force Production Following Ballistic Speed-Strength Training: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
СтатьяСистематический обзорМетаанализНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
James Lachlan P, Talpey Scott W, Stutter Luke R, Häkkinen Keijo, Huynh Minh
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Accurate assessment of rapid force production is essential for monitoring adaptations to ballistic speed-strength training, a modality central to athletic performance enhancement. Both dynamic (eg, countermovement-jump height or drop-jump reactive strength index) and isometric (eg, rate of force development) tests are commonly used, yet their relative sensitivity to training-induced change remains unclear.
PURPOSE: To systematically review and analyze the literature to establish whether measures of dynamic or isometric rapid force production were more sensitive to ballistic speed-strength training. In addition, subgroup analysis was performed to evaluate whether the type and temporal aspects of isometric test and associated measures had an impact on the effect.
METHODS: A systematic search of databases for eligible articles was conducted up to February 2025. A multivariate random-effects meta-analysis with adjustment for within-study dependencies was employed.
RESULTS: Five studies yielded 15 isometric-dynamic change comparisons, and a total of 82 participants were included in the final analysis. The pooled analysis indicated no significant difference between isometric and dynamic measures following ballistic speed-strength training. Prediction intervals were wide, indicating substantial variability in outcomes across settings. Subgroup analyses similarly revealed no consistent moderating effect.
CONCLUSIONS: The magnitude of change in isometric versus dynamic measures of rapid force production can be expected to vary considerably in future practical or experimental settings following ballistic speed-strength training. Practitioners should closely monitor individual responses and avoid assuming uniform training effects for these 2 forms of testing across all athletes.
PURPOSE: To systematically review and analyze the literature to establish whether measures of dynamic or isometric rapid force production were more sensitive to ballistic speed-strength training. In addition, subgroup analysis was performed to evaluate whether the type and temporal aspects of isometric test and associated measures had an impact on the effect.
METHODS: A systematic search of databases for eligible articles was conducted up to February 2025. A multivariate random-effects meta-analysis with adjustment for within-study dependencies was employed.
RESULTS: Five studies yielded 15 isometric-dynamic change comparisons, and a total of 82 participants were included in the final analysis. The pooled analysis indicated no significant difference between isometric and dynamic measures following ballistic speed-strength training. Prediction intervals were wide, indicating substantial variability in outcomes across settings. Subgroup analyses similarly revealed no consistent moderating effect.
CONCLUSIONS: The magnitude of change in isometric versus dynamic measures of rapid force production can be expected to vary considerably in future practical or experimental settings following ballistic speed-strength training. Practitioners should closely monitor individual responses and avoid assuming uniform training effects for these 2 forms of testing across all athletes.