RESUMO
Exercises can be categorized into either unilateral or bilateral movements. Despite the topic popularity, the answer to the question as to which (unilateral or bilateral) is superior for a certain athletic performance enhancement remains unclear. To compare the effect of unilateral and bilateral resistance training interventions on measures of athletic performance. Keywords related with unilateral, bilateral and performance were used to search in the Web of Science, PubMed databases, and Google Scholar and ResearchGate™ websites. 6365 articles were initially identified, 14 met the inclusion criteria and were included in the final analysis, with overall article quality being deemed moderate. The quantitative analysis comprised 392 subjects (aged: 16 to 26 years). Sub-group analysis showed that unilateral exercise resistance training resulted in a large effect in improving unilateral jump performance compared to bilateral training (ES = 0.89 [0.52, 1.26]). In contrast, bilateral exercise resistance training showed a small effect in improving bilateral strength compared to unilateral (ES = -0.43 [-0.71, -0.14]). Non-significant differences were found in improving unilateral strength (ES = 0.26 [-0.03, 0.55]), bilateral jump performance (ES = -0.04 [-0.31, 0.23]), change of direction (COD) (ES = 0.31 [-0.01, 0.63]) and speed (ES = -0.12 [-0.46, 0.21]) performance. Unilateral resistance training exercises should be chosen for improving unilateral jumping performance, and bilateral resistance training exercises should be chosen for improving bilateral strength performance.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: There has been a surge of interest on velocity-based training (VBT) in recent years. However, it remains unclear whether VBT is more effective in improving strength, jump, linear sprint and change of direction speed (CODs) than the traditional 1RM percentage-based training (PBT). OBJECTIVES: To compare the training effects in VBT vs. PBT upon strength, jump, linear sprint and CODs performance. DATA SOURCES: Web of science, PubMed and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI). STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: The qualified studies for inclusion in the meta-analysis must have included a resistance training intervention that compared the effects of VBT and PBT on at least one measure of strength, jump, linear sprint and CODs with participants aged ≥16 yrs. and be written in English or Chinese. METHODS: The modified Pedro Scale was used to assess the risk of bias. Random-effects model was used to calculate the effects via the mean change and pre-SD (standard deviation). Mean difference (MD) or Standardized mean difference (SMD) was presented correspondently with 95% confidence interval (CI). RESULTS: Six studies met the inclusion criteria including a total of 124 participants aged 16 to 30 yrs. The differences of training effects between VBT and PBT were not significant in back squat 1RM (MD = 3.03kg; 95%CI: -3.55, 9.61; I2 = 0%) and load velocity 60%1RM (MD = 0.02m/s; 95%CI: -0.01,0.06; I2 = 0%), jump (SMD = 0.27; 95%CI: -0.15,0.7; I2 = 0%), linear sprint (MD = 0.01s; 95%CI: -0.06, 0.07; I2 = 0%), and CODs (SMD = 0.49; 95%CI: -0.14, 1.07; I2 = 0%). CONCLUSION: Both VBT and PBT can enhance strength, jump, linear sprint and CODs performance effectively without significant group difference.
