Original Research

Effects of Vest and Sled Resisted Sprint Training on

Sprint Performance in Young Soccer Players: A
Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Luis Miguel Fernández-Galván,1 Arturo Casado,2 Amador Garcı́a-Ramos,3,4 and Guy Gregory Haff5,6
1
Education Faculty, Autónoma University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain; 2Centre for Sport Studies, Rey Juan Carlos University, Madrid,
Spain; 3Department of Physical Education and Sport, Faculty of Sport Sciences, University of Granada, Granada, Spain; 4Department
of Sports Sciences and Physical Conditioning, Faculty of Education, Universidad Católica de la Santı´sima Concepción, Concepción,
Chile; 5School of Medical and Health Sciences, Edith Cowan University, Joondalup, Australia; and 6Directorate of Psychology and
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCywCX1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC1y0abggQZXdtwnfKZBYtws= on 05/05/2022

Sport, University of Salford, Salford, Greater Manchester, United Kingdom

Abstract
Fernández-Galván, LM, Casado, A, Garcı́a-Ramos, A, and Haff, GG. Effects of vest and sled resisted sprint training on sprint
performance in young soccer players: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Strength Cond Res XX(X): 000–000, 2022—The
aim of the meta-analysis was to determine the effect of resisted sprint training (RST) on sprint performance in young (,20 years)
soccer players and to analyze whether the training equipment (sled or vest) and magnitude of the resistive load (above or below 20%
of body mass [BM]) influences the long-term adaptations in sprint performance. Resisted sprint training reduced the acceleration
phase time [standardized mean difference (SMD) 5 20.41], with greater reduction in sprint time occurring in response to applying
resistance with a vest (SMD 5 20.70) when compared with a sled (SMD 5 20.27). Similar reductions were determined for resistive
loads ,20% (SMD 5 20.55) and $20% of BM (SMD 5 20.31). Full sprint time showed a small reduction after RST (SMD 5 20.36),
regardless of the training equipment (sled: SMD 5 20.44; vest: SMD 5 20.26) and resistive load (,20% of BM: SMD 5 20.40 $
20% of BM: SMD 5 20.21). There was a small and nonsignificant reduction in the maximum-velocity phase after RST (SMD 5 2
0.25), which was comparable when the training was performed with vest (SMD 5 20.34) or sled (SMD 5 20.22). No significant
differences in the changes of the acceleration phase time (SMD 5 0.05) or full sprint time (SMD 5 0.08) were observed between the
experimental (sled or vest RST) and control groups (only soccer or unresisted sprint training). In conclusion, RST is effective to
improve sprint performance in young soccer players, but the improvements are not superior to unresisted sprint training.
Key Words: strength training, acceleration, maximal velocity, ground reaction forces

Introduction distances (e.g., #5 m) is considered to be a critical component of

Modern soccer is characterized by a high playing speed which in
turn is reflected by a great number of high-intensity actions and a
high speed in ball circulation (7,14,79). Global positioning sys-
tems (GPS) and video analysis allow coaching staff to quantify the
activities conducted by players during a match or training (74). As
a result of using these systems, it is possible to determine the
specific features of these activities and their evolution across dif-
ferent seasons. For example, high-intensity running (19.8–25.1
km·h21) and sprinting (.25.1 km·h21) actions increased by
;30% between 2006–2007 and 2012–2013 seasons (7) in Pre-
mier League. In addition, players regularly initiate their all-out
sprints from movements of moderate speeds (43,86). Most of
these high-intensity actions, such as sprints or accelerations,
jumps, rotations, and rapid change-of-direction (COD) maneu-
vers, are present in the decisive actions contained within a soccer
match (29,73). Thus, sprint performance over distances of 10 m
or less, and the speed attained during the first step are considered
to be key indicators of performance potential in soccer players
(17,18). Particularly, the ability to accelerate over very-short
Address correspondence to Luis Miguel Fernández-Galván, luisdepucela@
gmail.com.
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 00(00)/1–12
ª 2022 National Strength and Conditioning Association
successful match performances (7,14,29). Therefore, coaches and
researchers are constantly looking for better and more effective
training methods that have the potential to improve and optimize
the acceleration capability of professional soccer players.
In a 100-m race, there are several clearly defined phases, which
can be simplified into 2 key phases. First, the acceleration phase is
characterized by the start of the sprint where the athlete initiates
the sprint from a semistatic position and then increases their speed
over a short period of time. Second, the maximum-velocity phase
where the athlete moves at high speed and attempts to maintain
that speed across the remainder of the race (86). Performance
during the maximum-velocity phase is typically evaluated as the
time needed to complete 10 meters distance from the 30-m line to
the 40-m line. In team sport athletes, acceleration capacity has
been typically measured as the time needed to complete the initial
10 meters distance (0–10 m), whereas the maximum-velocity
capacity has been identified as the time needed to complete the
distance from the 30-m line until the 40-m line (30–40 m) (24,36).
Strength training is considered to be crucial in the long-term de-
velopment plan of soccer players (45,58). Contemporary models
have proposed that strength training is important in pre-
adolescence, highlighting a neural plasticity associated with pre-
pubertal players that supports targeting muscular strength
development during this time period to enhance neuromuscular

Copyright © 2022 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Resisted Sprint Training in Young Soccer Players (2022) 00:00
adaptations, such as intramuscular and intermuscular co-
ordination (44). Possessing high level of maximal strength has
been positively linked to sprint and vertical jump performance
(85), team success (5), and player performance (34). In their
systematic review, Seitz et al. (75) reported significant correlation
between lower body strength (i.e., squat strength) and the increase
in sprint performance (r 5 20.77; p 5 0.0001). In addition, it was
noted that the improvement in sprint time was modulated by the
body mass (BM) (r 5 0.35; p 5 0.011), level of practice (p 5
0.03), frequency of resistance training sessions per week (r 5
0.50; p 5 0.001), and rest interval between sets of resistance-
training exercises (r 5 20.47; p # 0.001). Therefore, it is clear
that there is a need to identify effective training methods aiming to
improve maximal strength for the development of both single
sprint performance at each phase and repeated sprint ability
(RSA) in soccer players (8,31,75).
Given that sprint, acceleration, and power abilities are consid-
ered performance determinants in soccer, a great deal of research
has focused on the impact of structured resistance training
(12,17,25), plyometric training (12,18,67), strength training
(21,26), COD (16,69), combined training methods (31), and
resisted sprint training (RST) combined with traditional soccer
training on soccer performance (4). Resisted sprint training with a
loaded sled or a weighted vest has been reported to be effective at
improving sprint performance during the early acceleration phase
(4). These methods are generally used to increase the propulsive
forces of lower-body muscles potentially increasing stride length
during sprinting (46). These training stimuli promote the de-
velopment of both the vertical and horizontal force components of
sprinting (40). One of the main variables to consider in RST is the
load applied (2). The added load will positively or negatively affect
the kinetic (application of force) or kinematic (technical similarity)
properties of the sprint (11). However, there is no clear evidence as
to whether there is a specific load that allows for the maximization
of performance improvements in the different phases of the sprint.
Whereas performing RST with loads that are .15% BM or de-
creasing maximal velocity capacity more than 10% yielded
changes in sprint kinematics (i.e., reduction of stride length and
stride frequency) (1), this loading strategy also results in a perfor-
mance improvement during the acceleration phase (1,46,69,77), no
long-term negative effects on running technique have been ob-
served (3,77). The training effects of sled towing with high loads
(e.g., 30% BM) and concluded that this practice requires a higher
horizontal force application have been reported in the literature
(40,69,81). However, the same authors (40,69) performed an in-
tervention with 2 experimental groups (low loads: 12.5–13% BM
vs. high loads: 43–50% BM) without obtaining significant differ-
ences between the groups in the changes in sprint performance and
horizontal rate of force development.
The effects of RST methodology on sprint performance have been
previously reviewed in elite team sports adult athletes
(1,2,4,33,49,65,77,83). Resisted sprint training was determined to
be effective at improving performance during the acceleration phase
(,10 m) (4,33,40,73,77,83), but was not more effective than unre-
sisted sprint (URS) training (4,65,73,77,83). The determination of
the load is a determinant aspect (2) influencing changes in sprint
kinematics (23,39,46); however, there is not an optimal load for RST
and it has been recommended that the resistive load should be se-
lected according to the specific sport and physical condition of the
athlete (4). Some authors indicated that the load should never exceed
20% of the subject’s body weight (1,4,33,40,73,77,83) to not alter
sprint kinematics. However, other authors reported that higher loads
($20% of the body weight) are more effective as they increase the
Copyright © 2022 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
relative net production of horizontal momentum and propulsion
(40,65). Of note is that the aim of RST is to increase force production
capability and, therefore, acute changes in kinematics should not be
an issue. Nonetheless, to our knowledge, no review article has fo-
cused on this specific topic in young soccer players despite the
existing notable physiological and anatomical differences between
children and adults in muscle architecture and size (61). Therefore,
the objectives of this systematic review with meta-analysis are: (a) to
determine the effect of vest and sled RST on the performance of the
different sprint phases (initial [0–10 m], acceleration [0–30 m], and
maximum-velocity [30–40 m]) in young (,20 years) soccer players,
and (b) to elucidate whether the training equipment (sled or vest) and
the magnitude of the load used in RST (above or below 20% of BM)
influence the long-term training adaptations in sprint performance.
Methods
Experimental Approach to the Problem
This study was not evaluated by the Autónoma University of
Madrid Institutional review board because it only uses descriptive
data previously published in randomized control trials that have
undergone institutional review. The descriptive data was
obtained from the published articles and no raw data was
reviewed or used in this study. Thus, this systematic review does
not require institutional review as per Autónoma University of
Madrid guidelines. This systematic review and meta-analysis
adheres to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews
and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement (64).
Literature Search. Electronic literature searches were conducted
on the US National Library of Medicine (PubMed), Web of Sci-
ence, and Google Scholar databases up to March 31, 2021. The
systematic review included studies where at least one group re-
ceived RST with sled or vest. The search was performed by 2
independent researchers (L.F. and A.C.) using the following
keywords in English: “resisted sprint,” “resisted sled OR vest,”
“sled OR vest training.” First, duplicate records were removed.
Second, title and abstract of the articles were screened for po-
tential eligibility. Third, a full-text read of potentially eligible
studies was conducted. Authors were required to achieve a con-
sensus on the included articles. In case of discrepancy between the
2 reviewers, a third author participated in the process until a
consensus was reached. In addition, the reference list and citations
of the studies that met the inclusion criteria were screened to find
additional articles. Authors of the selected articles were contacted
to request any relevant information that was missing from the
article.
Subjects
Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria. The following inclusion criteria
had to be met for a study to be considered in this review: (a) article
written in English and published in a peer-reviewed scientific
journal, (b) athletic population consisted of soccer players
younger than 20 years (mean of the group), (c) sprint time (.5 m)
was measured before and after training by an automated elec-
tronic machine (e.g., time gate or radar gun), (d) the experimental
group performed sled or vest RST at maximum-velocity, (e)
studies reported the load of the sled or vest and (f) the RST in-
tervention lasted at least 4 weeks. Studies were excluded if the
subjects did not perform all-out sprints during training or if the
RST was performed with sled-push or running uphill. After
 Resisted Sprint Training in Young Soccer Players (2022) 00:00
critically analyzing the initial studies collected with the above
criteria, a cohort of 12 studies was selected. Figure 2 shows the
flow diagrams for the entire search process. The authors
obtained/provided informed consents for the different studies.
Quality Assessment. Risk of bias and methodological quality of
the included studies were independently assessed by 2 authors
using the Cochrane Risk of Bias (RoB) assessment tool (37) and
the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale (50), re-
spectively. The RoB tool includes the following items: selection
bias (randomization sequence generation, allocation conceal-
ment), performance bias (blinding participants, blinding ther-
apists), detection bias (blinding outcome assessor), attrition
bias (incomplete out-come data), reporting bias (source of
funding bias/selecting outcome reporting), and other bias
(sample size) and each item was classified as low-risk, high-risk,
or unclear according to the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool (37)
(Figure 1).
The PEDro score was used to evaluate the quality of the studies
by assessing the following items: random allocation; concealed
allocation; baseline between-groups similarity; participants
blinding; therapists blinding; assessors blinding; dropouts;
intention-to-treat statistical analysis; between-groups statistical
comparison; point measures, and variability data (50). A trial was
considered of high-quality when the PEDro score was $5 of 10
points. All the studies included in the meta-analysis scored be-
tween 6 and 7 points, indicating a methodological “high quality”
according to the criteria proposed by Moseley et al. (59).
Characteristics of Included Studies. A total of 246 studies were
identified in the literature search. After eliminating duplicates and
reviewing titles and abstracts, we read 132 articles. Afterward,
120 articles were excluded because they did not meet the selection
criteria. The current systematic review consists of 12 articles
(Figure 2).
This systematic review included intervention studies (pre-post)
that analyzed the effects of RST performed with sled or vest on
performance during the phases of a sprint: acceleration (0–10 m),
full sprint (0–30 m) and maximum velocity (30–40 m). A com-
plementary analysis consisted of exploring the influence of the
training equipment (sled or vest) and resistive load (,20 or
$20% of BM) on the changes in sprint performance. A com-
parison between pre and post was made independently for each
study, and also compared against the changes observed in the
control group when possible. Only 5 studies included a control
group; 3 of them continued with their usual soccer training
(62,69,81) and 2 of them performed URS training (15,80).
Figure 1. Risk of bias for included studies. Review authors’ judgements about each risk of bias
item presented as percentages across all included studies.
Copyright © 2022 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
| www.nsca.com
Procedures
Data Extraction. We extracted from each eligible study, data re-
lating to linear sprints over various distances (acceleration 0–10 m,
full sprint 0–30 m, and maximum-velocity phase 30–40 m). Means,
standard deviations (SD), and sample sizes (n) were extracted by one
author (L.F.) from the included papers and were corroborated by a
second author (A.C.). Any discrepancy between the authors was re-
solved through discussion with a third author (A.G.). Only studies
that performed RST and reported the data needed to perform the
meta-analysis were included. Seven meta-analyses were performed
according to the sprint phases (acceleration 0–10 m, full sprint
0–30 m and maximum-velocity phase 30–40 m). In addition, in each
meta-analysis, 3 subgroups were considered: sled versus vest, sled and
vest with a load $20% of BM versus sled and vest with a load ,20%
of BM, and sled and vest postintervention versus the control group.
Statistical Analyses
Meta-analysis was conducted using a free software program (Rev-
Man ver 5.3; The Nordic Cochrane Centre, Copenhagen, Den-
mark). Means, standard deviations, and sample sizes for a measure
of postintervention performance within experimental group (pre-vs.
posttest) and between groups (experimental vs. control group) were
used to calculate an effect size (ES). Effect sizes were calculated by
subtracting the preintervention mean value from the post-
intervention mean value (post–pre) for the experimental (D1) and
control groups (D2). The net treatment effect size was obtained as D1
minus D2 divided by the pooled SD of baseline values (42). In studies
that reported intermediate and postintervention values, only final
values were compared against baseline.
Subgroup analyses were performed to evaluate the potential
moderating factors of the training equipment (sled or vest) and re-
sistive load (above or below 20% of BM). For continuous variables
comparison, the cut-off values based on medians from the full sprint
analysis were used as cut-off values for grouping studies. However, in
specific cases, the cut-off was established in an arbitrary way
(i.e., load). The SD was calculated as the square root of the summation
of the squared SDs of the mean time in the known conditions. Stan-
dardized mean difference (SMD) can be interpreted as trivial (,0.20),
small (0.20–0.49), moderate (0.50–0.79), and large ($0.80) (78).
Significant differences between subgroups were reported when the
SMD of one subgroup was outside the 95% confidence interval of the
other subgroup. An inverse-variance random-effects model was used
because of the heterogeneous study methods and subject populations.
Statistical heterogeneity was examined using chi-squared and I2-Index
tests (78). A test for heterogeneity examines the null hypothesis that all
 Resisted Sprint Training in Young Soccer Players (2022) 00:00

Figure 2. Flow diagram of the studies that underwent the review process. Criteria I: article written in English and published in a
peer-reviewed scientific journal; Criteria II: athletic population consisted of soccer players younger than 20 years (mean of the
group); Criteria III: sprint time (. 5 m) was measured before and after training by an automated electronic machine (e.g., time
gate or radar gun); Criteria IV: the experimental group performed sled or vest RST at maximum-velocity: Criteria V: studies
reported the load of the sled or vest and Criteria VI: the RST intervention lasted at least 4 weeks.

studies are evaluating the same effect. The quantity, which we call I2,
describes the percentage of total variation across studies that is because
of heterogeneity rather than chance. An I2 value lower than 25% is
considered to exhibit low heterogeneity, 50% as moderate heteroge-
neity, and 75% as high heterogeneity (37). Statistical significance of
the overall result is also expressed with the probability value (p value)
in the “test for overall effect.” A p value of #0.05 was considered
statistically significant.
Results
Description of Included Studies
All included studies (6,10,15,19,27,62,68,69,72,76,80,81)
performed RST with a vest or sled and only 5 studies included a
control group. A total of 53 effect sizes were computed between
postintervention and preintervention sprint times from 12
original studies, and 13 effects from 5 original studies examined
the differences in the changes in sprint performance between the
experimental and control groups. Of the 12 studies, only Upton
(80) analyzed women. The age of the participants ranged from
10.4 6 0.8 to 19.8 6 1.6 years. The number of subjects who
performed the sled towing and vest RST intervention was 156
and 63, respectively. Three distances (0–10, 0–30, and
30–40 m) were considered for analyses. The studies included
were training interventions that were performed for a duration
between 4 and 8 weeks with a total of 12–24 training sessions.
The total intervention sprint volume ranged from 560 to
6,240 m. Finally, the resistive load was individualized accord-
ing to the percentage of subjects’ BM and ranged from the 2.5%

Copyright © 2022 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Copyright © 2022 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

Resisted Sprint Training in Young Soccer Players (2022) 00:00

Table 1
Main characteristics of the participants and resistive training programs of the studies included in the meta-analysis.*
N Variable reported Training
Study RST vest RST sled CG Gender Body mass (kg) Height (cm) Age (y) Post Pre Sessions Weeks S. volume (m) T. Volume (m) % BM Method
Vivas et al. (15) 11 — — Male 75.90 6 12.40 180.00 6 0.05 18.00 6 1.60 T0–10 m’ S 5 2.07 6 0.06 2.10 6 0.07 16 8 114.37 m 1830 m 10–20 Vest
T0–30 m’ S 5 4.49 6 0.16 4.55 6 0.17
T20–30 m’ S 5 1.17 6 0.05 1.19 6 0.05
— 13 — Male 71.30 6 7.50 178.00 6 0.04 18.20 6 2.20 T0–10 m’ S 5 2.08 6 0.02 2.11 6 0.03 16 8 114.37 m 1830 m 10–20 Sled
T0–30 m’ S 5 4.55 6 0.07 4.61 6 0.07
T20–30 m’ S 5 1.2 6 0.03 0.21 6 0.03
— — 12 Male 71.70 6 10.90 178.00 6 0.04 18.40 6 2.40 16 8 — — — Control
Uthoff et al. (81) — 34 — Male 58.70 6 10.80 170.20 6 7.90 14.00 6 0.30 T0–10 m’ S 5 1.89 6 0.1 1.9 6 0.1 16 8 112.50 m 1800 m 20–55 Sled
— — 35 Male 56.30 6 9.90 168.60 6 10.10 14.40 6 0.52 16 8 — — — Control
Osorio et al. (69) 19 — — Male 63.90 6 11.50 174.20 6 8.10 18.80 6 5.30 T–10 m’ S 5 1.76 6 0.1 1.83 6 0.07 12 6 100 m 1,200 m 12.50 Vest
T 0–30 m’ S 5 4.33 6 0.21 4.36 6 0.2 12 6 100 m 1,200 m 50
19 — — Male 63.20 6 8.10 173.50 6 6.10 17.70 6 3.40 T0–10 m’ S 5 1.73 6 0.09 1.82 6 0.13 Vest
T0–30 m’ S 5 4.32 6 0.29 4.37 6 0.32
— — 16 Male 64.70 6 9.20 164.80 6 4.00 17.80 6 4.20 12 6 — — — Control
Esquina et al. (62) — 12 — Male 69.40 6 4.20 176.70 6 2.20 17.00 6 1.00 T0–10 m’ S 5 1.7 6 0.05 1.7 6 0.06 14 7 40 m 560 m 20 Sled
— 12 — Male 69.40 6 4.20 176.70 6 2.20 17.00 6 1.00 T0–10 m’ S 5 1.69 6 0.05 1.71 6 0.05 14 7 40 m 560 m 20 Sled
— — 12 Male 69.40 6 4.20 176.70 6 2.20 17.00 6 1.00 14 7 — — — Control
Raya et al. (68) 8 — — Male 66.40 6 4.80 176.90 6 7.30 16.50 6 0.30 T0–10 m’ S 5 1.84 6 0.06 1.89 6 0.08 12 6 242.91 m 2,915 m 0–15 Vest
T0–30 m’ S 5 4.33 6 0.12 4.38 6 0.18
Borges et al. (10) — 9 — Male 68.70 6 9.20 175.00 6 7.10 16.60 6 0.60 T0–30 m’ S 5 4.26 6 0.17 4.31 6 0.11 12 7 170.80 m 2050 m 10–13 Sled
73.12 6 2.50 178.24 6 1.20 17.00 6 1.00 T0–10 m’ S 5 1.71 6 0.06 1.72 6 0.05
5

Hoyo et al. (27) — 12 — Male 16 8 83.75 m 1,340 m 12.60 Sled

T0–30 m’ S 5 4.19 6 0.13 4.22 6 0.12
T30–50 m’ S 5 2.33 6 0.08 2.37 6 0.10
Sekine (76) — 10 — Male 60.30 6 6.30 167.50 6 4.90 16.50 6 0.50 T0–10 m’ S 5 2.18 6 0.15 2.27 6 0.17 24 8 260 m 6,240 m 20 Sled
Bachero et al. (6) — 6 — Male 70.20 6 11.90 175.40 6 6.70 19.80 6 1.60 T0–10 m’ S 5 1.77 6 0.15 1.78 6 0.05 14 7 151 m 2,115 m 20 Sled
T0–30 m’ S 5 4.25 6 0.07 4.28 6 0.08
T20–40 m’ S 5 2.07 6 0.04 2.07 6 0.06
Rumpf et al. (72) — 14 — Male 38.20 6 15.60 141.00 6 7.93 10.40 6 0.80 T0–30 m’ S 5 10 10.1 6 0.96 16 6 220 m 3,520 m 2.50–10 Sled
— 18 — Male 62.70 6 11.00 173.00 6 5.32 15.20 6 1.60 T0–30 m’ S 5 6.55 6 0.44 6.95 6 0.54 16 6 220 m 3,520 m 2.50–10 Sled
Upton (80) — 9 — Female 63.40 6 6.90 166.90 6 5.90 19.60 6 0.90 T0–13.7 m’ S 5 2.66 6 0.16 2.65 6 0.21 12 4 137 m 1,644 m 12.60 Sled
T0–36.6 m’ S 5 5.84 6 0.21 5.9 6 0.23
T22.9–32 m’ S 5 1.87 6 0.31 1.89 6 0.32
— — 10 Female 63.40 6 6.90 166.90 6 5.90 19.60 6 0.90 12 4 — — — Control
Clark et al. (19) 6 — — Male 79.10 6 5.26 182.25 6 8.30 19.79 6 0.90 T18.3–54.9 m’ S 5 4.35 6 0.2 4.41 6 0.21 13 7 236 m 3,071 m 18.52 Vest
— 7 — Male 87.90 6 17.30 181.15 6 6.80 19.73 6 1.00 T18.3–54.9 m’ S 5 4.44 6 0.19 4.45 6 0.21 13 7 236 m 3,071 m 10.24 Sled
*CG 5 control group; N 5 sample size; RST 5 resisted sprint training; S. volume 5 Session volume; T. volume 5 Total; post 5 postintervention; pre 5 preintervention.

| www.nsca.com
 Resisted Sprint Training in Young Soccer Players (2022) 00:00

Table 2
Quality metrics of included studies.
Outcome Reporting of Point measures
Eligibility Random Groups measures Intention between group and measures of Overall
criteria allocation of Allocation similar at Assessors assessed in 85% to treat statistical variability PeDro
Study name specified participants concealed baseline blinded of participants analysis comparison reported score
Vivas et al. (15) Yes Yes No Yes No No Yes Yes Yes 6
Uthoff et al. (81) Yes Yes No Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes 7
Osorio et al. (69) Yes Yes No Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes 7
Esquina et al. (62) Yes No No Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes 6
Raya et al. (68) Yes Yes No Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes 7
Borges et al. (10) Yes Yes No Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes 7
Hoyo et al. (27) Yes No No Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes 6
Sekine (76) Yes Yes No Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes 7
Bachero et al. (6) Yes Yes No Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes 7
Rumpf et al. (72) Yes No No Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes 6
Upton (80) Yes Yes No Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes 7
Clark et al. (19) Yes Yes No Yes No No Yes Yes Yes 6

to the 55% of BM. The main characteristics of the selected
articles are shown in Table 1.
The quality of the 12 studies included in the meta-analysis is
summarized in Table 2. The median PEDro score was 6 of 7. All
studies clearly stated eligibility criteria and provided point estimates
for effect size calculation. Nine (75%) studies were randomized, and
all studies matched intervention groups at baseline. None of the
studies used concealed allocation nor the evaluators were blinded to
treatment allocation. Ten (83%) studies reported that .85% of
participants had complied with the intervention. All studies awarded
a point in the intention-to-treat analysis and reported that all par-
ticipants received treatment or control conditions as allocated. All
studies completed between-group analyses.
Acceleration Phase (0–10 m)
Twelve effects were analyzed from 9 original studies that com-
pared the acceleration phase performance before and after per-
forming RST. The overall effect of RST considering a total of 166
participants was a small reduction in acceleration phase time
(SMD 5 20.41; [95% CI: 20.63 to 20.19], p 5 0.0002). Based
on the subgroup analyses, improvement in acceleration phase
time was greater when the RST was performed using vest (SMD 5
20.70; [95% CI: 21.08 to 20.32], p 5 0.0003) compared with
using sled (SMD 5 20.27; [95% CI: 20.54 to 0.00], p 5 0.05)
(Figure 3). In addition, RST with a load lower than 20% of BM
induced a moderate reduction in acceleration phase time (SMD 5
20.55; [95% CI: 20.89 to 20.21], p 5 0.001), whereas only a
small reduction in the acceleration phase time was observed using
loads equal of greater than the 20% of BM (SMD 5 20.31; [95%
CI: 20.60 to 20.02], p 5 0.04) (Figure 4).
Eight effects were computed from the 5 original studies that
included a control group (Figure 5). A trivial and nonsignificant
effect on acceleration sprint performance was observed between
the experimental (sled or vest RST) and control groups (normal
soccer training or URS training) (SMD 5 0.05; [95% CI: 20.20
to 0.30], p 5 0.68).
Full Sprint Phase (0–30 m)
Eleven effects were analyzed from 8 original studies that com-
pared the full sprint phase performance before and after
performing RST. The overall effect of RST considering a total of
139 participants was a small reduction in full sprint phase time
(SMD 5 20.36; [95% CI: 20.60 to 20.13], p 5 0.003). A small
reduction in full sprint phase time when the RST was performed
with sled (SMD 5 20.44; [95% CI: 20.75 to 20.13], p 5 0.006)
and vest (SMD 5 20.26; [95% CI: 20.63 to 0.11], p 5 0.17) was
observed in the subgroup analyses (Figure 6). In addition, RST
with a load lower than 20% of BM induced a small reduction in
full sprint phase time (SMD 5 20.40; [95% CI: 20.66 to 20.14],
p 5 0.003), whereas a small and nonsignificant reduction in the
full sprint phase time was observed using loads equal of greater
than the 20% of BM (SMD 5 20.21; [95% CI: 20.77 to 0.35], p
5 0.46) (Figure 7).
Five effects were computed from the 3 original studies that
included a control group (Figure 8). A trivial and nonsignificant
effect on full sprint performance was observed between the ex-
perimental (sled or vest RST) and control groups (normal soccer
training or URS training) (SMD 5 0.08; [95% CI: 20.25 to 0.42],
p 5 0.64).
Maximum-Velocity Phase (30–40 m)
Seven effect sizes were analyzed from 5 original studies that
compared the maximum-velocity phase performance before and
after performing RST. The overall effect of RST considering a
total of 65 participants was associated with a small and non-
significant reduction in maximum-velocity phase time (SMD 5 2
0.25; [95% CI: 20.60 to 0.09], p 5 0.15). The changes in
maximum-velocity phase time were comparable when the RST
was performed with vest (SMD 5 20.34; [95% CI: 21.02 to
0.33], p 5 0.32) and sled (SMD 5 20.22; [95% CI: 20.62 to
0.18], p 5 0.28) (Figure 9).
Discussion
The purpose of this meta-analysis was to determine whether RST
improves sprint performance in young soccer players and to
elucidate whether the long-term adaptations in the different
phases of the sprint are affected by the training equipment (vest vs
sled) and resistive load (,20% vs $ 20% of BM) used in training.
The main findings of this study were that: (a) RST is an effective
method for improving sprint performance in young soccer

Copyright © 2022 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Resisted Sprint Training in Young Soccer Players (2022) 00:00 | www.nsca.com

Figure 3. Standardized mean differences comparing the effects of sled and vest resistive sprint training on acceleration phase
performance (sprint time). Note: Forest plot shows pooled standardized mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (CI)
separately for the 12 interventions. Subgroup analyses show the results for each type of training equipment: 8 sled (n 5 109)
and 4 vest (n 5 57). The diamond at the bottom of the graph and the subgroups represents the pooled standardized mean
difference with the 95% CI for all trials following random effect meta-analyses.

players, resulting in a decrease in sprint time of 21.94%; (b) no
additional performance benefit was observed when RST influence
was compared with that of URS training; (c) the greatest effec-
tiveness of RST with vest and sled was found in the 0–10 m (de-
crease in mean sprint time of 23.57%) and 0–30 m (decrease in
mean sprint time of 22.04%) sprint phases, respectively (d) the
use of RST was equally effective when using light (,20% of BM;
decrease in mean sprint time of 21.85%) and heavy loads ($20%
of BM; decrease in mean sprint time of 21.65%); and (e) no
significant improvements were observed in the maximum-
velocity phase between either method (sled or vest). To our
knowledge, this is the first systematic review and meta-analysis to
analyze the effects of RST conducted with sled or vest on sprint
performance exclusively in athletes below 20 years.
Significant improvements were obtained in the acceleration
phase after RST performance concurrently with their usual soccer
training or URS training (ES 5 20.41; p 5 0.0002; decrease in
acceleration phase time of 21.81%) (Figure 3). These results were
expected because resistance training is known to improve lower-
body maximal strength (75), which in turn positively affects sprint
performance (8,75). These results are similar to those found in
other reviews showing the effects of RST in adult subjects (4,65). It
is known that high levels of strength to overcome BM inertia are
required in the initial phase of the sprint (0–5 m), which is reflected
by the significant relationship between relative strength and per-
formance during this phase of the sprint (20). For example, a large
correlation (r 5 20.613) was reported (20) between 5-m sprint
time and relative maximal squat strength. Although relative
strength is an important contributor to sprint performance, it is
important to note that only one of the studies included in the pre-
sent review reported relative strength values (15). Therefore, we
were unable to explore whether changes in relative strength values
were related to the different training adaptations found in the
studies included in this review. Furthermore, the results of different

Figure 4. Standardized mean differences comparing the effects of performing resistive sprint training using loads $ or , 20%
of body mass (BM) on acceleration phase performance (sprint time). Forest plot shows pooled standardized mean differences
with 95% confidence intervals (CI) separately for the 12 interventions. Subgroup analyses show the results for the magnitude
of the resistive load: $ 20% of BM (n 5 93) and , 20% of BM (n 5 73). The diamond at the bottom of the graph and the
subgroups represents the pooled standardized mean difference with the 95% CI for all trials following random effect meta-
analyses.

Copyright © 2022 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Resisted Sprint Training in Young Soccer Players (2022) 00:00

Figure 5. Effects of resistive sprint training conducted with sled or vest (experimental groups) compared with soccer training
alone or unresisted sprint training (control groups) on acceleration phase performance. Forest plot shows pooled stan-
dardized mean differences with 95% confidence intervals separately for 8 controlled trials. The diamond at the bottom of the
graph represents the pooled standardized mean difference with the 95% CI for all 5 studies following random effect meta-
analyses.

reviews that have examined the impact of different training meth-
odologies (e.g., plyometric training, strength training, or sprint
training) on sprint performance in both young (55,57,71) and adult
athletes (8,24,31,63,73,75) have confirmed the efficacy of these
methods for improving sprint performance. Interestingly, the
magnitude of the changes reported in these meta-analyses seems to
be comparable if not higher than the changes reported in this re-
view. In addition, when training young athletes, we must take into
account the different stages of maturity (prepeak, midpeak, and
postpeak high velocity), which have a decisive influence on the
training methodologies used (53). When the RST group and con-
trol group are compared, there was no difference between the im-
pact of these training activities on acceleration phase performance
(ES 5 0.05; p 5 0.68) (Figure 5) as found in other studies (4,77).
Therefore, in our opinion, RST should not be used as a substitute
for conventional strength training or plyometric training methods,
which have consistently been reported to be effective for enhancing
soccer-specific explosive actions when compared with only per-
forming soccer training (31). In addition, whereas the effect size of
performance improvement generated from training with a vest was
moderate (ES 5 0.70, p 5 0.0003; decrease in mean sprint time of
23.57%), that derived from training with a sled was small (ES 5
0.27, p 5 0.05; decrease in mean sprint time of 20.90%). These
findings are surprising considering the importance of horizontal
propulsive forces, especially in the acceleration phase of sprint (66).
One possible explanation is that the vest intervention may increase
intramuscular coordination and eccentric forces of the leg extensor
muscles during the braking phase, which result in an increase in
muscle and leg stiffness, thus decreasing the contact time with the
ground and therefore increasing the stride speed (23). Furthermore,
RST with vest provides a different overload stimulus than that of
the same load magnitude in the horizontal direction because of the
added effect of gravity, leading to a further increase in maximal
power output which limbs can develop (Pmax) being located in the
midpoint of the force-velocity (F-V) curve (15). An additional ex-
planation for this finding is that GRF orientation becomes more
vertical as long as speed increases during the sprint (48). Therefore,
a more horizontal GRF orientation displays a high correlation with
soccer sprints, where most sprints start with little or no initial speed
(35). Finally, these results match with those from Fitzpatrick et al.
(30), who have reported that the force-vector theory, which clas-
sifies exercises based on the direction of force expression with re-
spect to the global coordinate frame, is flawed and that the
direction of force relative to the athlete is more important (30). This
seems evident in sprinting as the athlete maintains a triple flexion
position (ankle, knee, and hip flexion) in proper synchrony.
In relation to the load applied to the sled or with a vest, it is likely
that the amount of load used can result in changes to the kinematics
of the sprint resulting in changes in the stride length or frequency
(2,46) and an increase in ground contact time, trunk lean, and hip

Figure 6. Standardized mean differences comparing the effects of sled and vest resistive sprint training on full sprint phase
performance (sprint time). Forest plot shows pooled standardized mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (CI)
separately for the 11 interventions. Subgroup analyses show the results for each type of training equipment: 7 sled (n 5 82)
and 4 vest (n 5 57). The diamond at the bottom of the graph and the subgroups represents the pooled standardized mean
difference with the 95% CI for all trials following random effect meta-analyses.

Copyright © 2022 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Resisted Sprint Training in Young Soccer Players (2022) 00:00 | www.nsca.com

Figure 7. Standardized mean differences comparing the effects of performing resistive sprint training using loads $ or , 20%
of body mass (BM) on full sprint phase performance (sprint time). Forest plot shows pooled standardized mean differences
with 95% confidence intervals (CI) separately for the 11 interventions. Subgroup analyses show the results for the magnitude
of the resistive load: $ 20% of BM (n 5 25) and , 20% of BM (n 5 114). The diamond at the bottom of the graph and the
subgroups represents the pooled standardized mean difference with the 95% CI for all trials following random effect meta-
analyses.

flexion (46). Mann et al. (54) have reported that the hip flexors are
the main muscles that increase gait speed, which lends support for
using activities that target the development of greater strength and
power (46). In this regard, Lockie et al. (46) conducted a pilot study
that analyzed the performance changes produced by 2 loads (12.6
and 32.2% of BM) on sprint kinematics and found that significant
changes in hip flexion occurred at loads of 12.6% of BM. How-
ever, subsequent increases in load did not seem to alter the hip
flexion angle. Thus, researchers commonly recommend an external
loading that yields 10% or lower decrement in maximum sprint
velocity, or a load of 12.6% of BM or lower (2,46). Based on the
available literature, studies using heavy loads showed both positive
(1,6,9,39,60) and negative (46) effects on performance during the
acceleration phase. These discrepancies found may be because of
the different types of methodology used (i.e., load range, number of
sessions, initial performance level and familiarization degree of
subjects, and the time between the end of training and the post-test
and associated tapering). Therefore, it is not clear which training
method produces best results and we understand that more re-
search is needed. Based on our analysis studies where the load was
$20% of BM, the effects of training on performance were small
(ES 5 0.31; p 5 0.04; decrease in mean sprint time 5 21.82%).
However, when the load was ,20% of BM, the performance ef-
fects were moderate (ES 5 0.55; p 5 0.001; decrease in mean sprint
time 5 21.81%). In this sense, we determined that loads between
10 and 20% of BM produced the best improvements during the
acceleration phase in young athletes (15,68,69). This may be
explained by the fact that an excessive load can limit the stretch-
shortening cycle (SSC) and decrease motor neuron excitability (H
reflex), thus impairing the performance of the acceleration phase.
The sled intervention resulted in significant improvements and a
positive small effect on full sprint phase performance (ES 5 0.44; p
5 0.006; decrease in mean sprint time 5 22.04%), whereas no
significant improvements were noted when using vest resistance
(ES 5 0.26; p 5 0.17) (Figure 6). This improvement is given by a
better result in kinetic variables such as a greater stride length
(39,47), stride frequency (39,87), increase in trunk angle (77,87),
or decrease in ground contact time (77). It was reported that the
performance in the acceleration phase depends largely on the
propulsive force provided by the hip, knee, and foot extensors (41)
including specific adaptations within the neuromuscular system,
which allow increased production of impulses and horizontal/
vertical GRF, thus improving sprint performance without re-
sistance (46,77). A further explanation may be related to the key
role of relative strength during the full sprint phase, which was
supported by the large correlations reported by Comfort et al. (21)
between relative strength and 20-m sprint times (r 5 20.672). In
relation to the load, we observe that as in the acceleration phase,
when loads were ,20% of BM, the improvements were significant
and effect sizes were small (ES 5 0.40; p 5 0.003; decrease in mean
sprint time 5 21.87%), whereas when they were $20% of the
subject’s BM, nonsignificant improvements were found (ES 5 0.21

Figure 8. Effects of resistive sprint training conducted with sled or vest (experimental groups) as compared to soccer training
alone or unresisted sprint training (control groups) on full sprint phase performance. Forest plot shows pooled standardized
mean differences with 95% confidence intervals separately for 5 controlled trials. The diamond at the bottom of the graph
represents the pooled standardized mean difference with the 95% CI for all 3 studies following random effect meta-analyses.

Copyright © 2022 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Resisted Sprint Training in Young Soccer Players (2022) 00:00

Figure 9. Standardized mean differences comparing the maximum-velocity phase performance (sprint time) before and after
performing sled and vest resistive sprint training. Forest plot shows pooled standardized mean differences with 95% confi-
dence intervals (CI) separately for the 7 interventions. Subgroup analyses show the results for each type of training equipment:
5 sled (n 5 48) and 2 vest (n 5 17). The diamond at the bottom of the graph and the subgroups represents the pooled
standardized mean difference with the 95% CI for all trials following random effect meta-analyses.

p 5 0.46) (Figure 7). These results are in agreement with those
found in adult elite athletes (3,4,27,33,49,77,83). It is likely that the
higher loads result in longer contact time with the ground and
slower rates of force development (RFDs). Finally, a trivial and
nonsignificant effect on full sprint performance was observed be-
tween the experimental (sled or vest RST) and control groups
(normal soccer training or URS training) (SMD 5 0.08; p 5 0.64).
In relation to the maximum-velocity phase, we observed pos-
itive effects after training with sled (ES 5 0.22; p 5 0.28; decrease
in mean sprint time of 20.91%) and vest (ES 5 0.34; p 5 0.32;
decrease in mean sprint time of 21.57%), but the changes were
not statistically significant. It is known that the ability to produce
force is important over short distances, but maximum-velocity
depends on other factors such as pure speed (13). These results
were expected, as other studies have shown that RST does not
induce better performance in the maximum-velocity phase than
unloaded training (6,19,80). It should be noted that the correla-
tion between acceleration and maximum-velocity found in pre-
vious studies (r 5 0.56–0.87) (32,43,56,82) suggests that these
are specific qualities that require a different approach to in-
tervention (34). In this way, the acceleration phase is influenced
by concentric force development, impulse and knee and hip ex-
tensor activity (28) where the maximal capacities of the muscles to
produce force (F0) are fundamental (38). On the other hand, the
objective of maximum-velocity phase is to produce great vertical
ground reaction forces related with stretch-shortening cycle,
lower-limb stiffness and hip extensor activity (84), being
maximum-velocity capacity (V0) fundamental for developing
long accelerations and reaching a high sprint velocity (70).
Besides the inherent limitations associated with the meta-
analytic technique itself, a number of specific limitations of the
current meta-analysis have to be considered. Regarding the pri-
mary literature, we must recognize that no important scientific
criteria were met in any article, such as that of evaluators blinded
to treatment assignment or hidden assignment. This meta-
analysis concludes that RST improves sprint performance be-
tween 0-10 and 0–30 m, but this should be interpreted cautiously
because several variables that were not considered in the studies
reviewed in the present study could have on our results. Specifi-
cally, aspects that could have affected our findings include (a) the
load used in relation to the weight of the subject and more im-
portantly how it relates to individual maximal strength level may
affect the variation of force and speed during the race (1,9,60).
For example, it is expected that participants were able to tow a
sled with a greater weight than their BM; therefore, the specific
weight used in relation to their maximal strength ability was
much lower to that which was indicated, ie, a percentage of their
BM. (b). Time of the season when the intervention is performed,
in the preseason, where the level of the subject is lower, the in-
tervention will be more advantageous than at the end of the
season (22). (c). Sample population study and in particular the age
of the athletes, since the rate of physical adaptation to training is
linked to the subject’s fitness profile (51,52) and familiarity with
strength training (44). For all these reasons, we believe it is nec-
essary to continue studying this topic in depth and to conduct
interventions in subjects below 20 years. For example, it would be
interesting to verify in future research, kinetic (GRF) and kine-
matic (joint angle and stride length) improvements in sprint per-
formance, on different variables such as stride length, flight time,
and joint angles. In addition, no significant differences were found
in postintervention versus control group. Although it is true that
only 5 studies had a control group, we encourage future re-
searchers to go deeper into this aspect.
Practical Applications
According to the findings of the articles reviewed in the present
study, coaches should consider RST as a complement to regular
soccer training to improve the sprint ability of young soccer
players. More specifically, they should note that the vest and
loads lower than 20% of BM were more effective than the sled
and loads equal to or higher than 20% of BM to improve
performance during the initial acceleration phase (0–10 m).
They should also consider the inclusion of the sled and loads
lower than 20% of the BM rather than vest and loads equal to
or higher than 20% of BM to improve performance in the
acceleration phase (0–30 m). However, strength and condi-
tioning professionals working with young athletes should also
note that no evidence supports that RST induces superior ad-
aptations in the different phases of the sprint than URS training.
The results of this meta-analysis could help coaches and
strength and conditioning staff involved in the physical prepa-
ration of young soccer players to optimize their sprint ability.

10

Copyright © 2022 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Resisted Sprint Training in Young Soccer Players (2022) 00:00
Acknowledgments
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect
to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. The
authors received no financial support for the research, author-
ship, and/or publication of this article. The results of the present
study do not constitute endorsement of the product by the authors
or the NSCA. L.M. Fernández-Galván, A. Garcı́a-Ramos and A.
Casado devised the study, L.M. Fernández-Galván, A. Casado
and G.G. Haff conducted the data collection, L.M. Fernández-
Galván and A. Casado analyzed the data, L.M. Fernández-
Galván, and A. Casado drafted the study and literature review.
G.G. Haff and A. Garcı́a-Ramos revised the study critically for
intellectual content and approved the final version to be
published.
REFERENCES
1. Alcaraz PE, Palao JM, Elvira JLL, Linthorne NP. Effects of three types of
resisted sprint training devices on the kinematics of sprinting at maximum
velocity. J Strength Cond Res 22: 890–897, 2008.
2. Alcaraz PE, Palao JM, Elvira JLL. Determining the optimal load for
resisted sprint training with sled towing. J Strength Cond Res 23:
480–485, 2009.
3. Alcaraz PE, Elvira JLL, Palao JM. Kinematic, strength, and stiffness ad-
aptations after a short-term sled towing training in athletes. Scand J Med
Sci Sport 24: 279–290, 2014.
4. Alcaraz PE, Carlos-Vivas J, Oponjuru BO, Martı́nez-Rodrı́guez A. The
effectiveness of resisted sled training (RST) for sprint performance: A
systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports Med 48: 2143–2165, 2018.
5. Arnason A, Sigurdsson SB, Gudmundsson A, Holme I, Engebretsen L,
Bahr R. Physical fitness, injuries, and team performance in soccer. Med Sci
Sports Exerc 36: 278–285, 2004.
6. Bachero-Mena B, González-Badillo JJ. Effects of resisted sprint training on
acceleration with three different loads accounting for 5, 12.5, and 20% of
body mass. J Strength Cond Res 28: 2954–2960, 2014.
7. Barnes C, Archer DT, Hogg B, Bush M, Bradley PS. The evolution of
physical and technical performance parameters in the English premier
league. Int J Sports Med 35: 1095–1100, 2014.
8. Bauer P, Uebellacker F, Mitter B, et al. Combining higher-load and lower-
load resistance training exercises: A systematic review and meta-analysis of
findings from complex training studies. J Sci Med Sport 22: 838–851, 2019.
9. Behrens MJ, Simonson SR. A comparison of the various methods used to
enhance sprint speed. Strength Cond J 33: 64–71, 2011.
10. Borges JH, Conceição MS, Vechin FC, Pascoal EHF, Silva RP, Borin JP.
The effects of resisted sprint vs. plyometric training on sprint performance
and repeated sprint ability during the final weeks of the youth soccer
season. Sci Sports 31: e101–e105, 2016.
11. Brearley S, Bishop C. Transfer of training: How specific should we be?
Strength Cond J 41: 97–109, 2019.
12. Brito J, Vasconcellos F, Oliveira J, Krustrup P, Rebelo A. Short-term per-
formance effects of three different low-volume strength-training Pro-
grammes in college male soccer players. J Hum Kinet 40: 121–128, 2014.
13. Buchheit M, Samozino P, Glynn JA, et al. Mechanical determinants of
acceleration and maximal sprinting speed in highly trained young soccer
players. J Sports Sci 32: 1906–1913, 2014.
14. Bush M, Barnes C, Archer DT, Hogg B, Bradley PS. Evolution of match
performance parameters for various playing positions in the English
Premier League. Hum Mov Sci 39: 1–11, 2015.
15. Carlos-Vivas J, Perez-Gomez J, Eriksrud O, Freitas TT, Marı́n-Cascales E,
Alcaraz PE. Vertical versus horizontal resisted sprint training applied to
young soccer players: Effects on physical performance. Int J Sports Physiol
Perform 15: 748–758, 2020.
16. Chaabene H, Prieske O, Negra Y, Granacher U. Change of direction
speed: Toward a strength training approach with accentuated eccentric
muscle actions. Sport Med 48: 1773–1779, 2018.
17. Chelly MS, Fathloun M, Cherif N, Amar MB, Tabka Z, Van Praagh E.
Effects of a back squat training program on leg power,jump, and sprint
performances in junior soccer players. J Strength Cond Res 23:
2241–2249, 2009.
18. Chelly MS, Chérif N, Amar MB, et al. Relationships of peak leg power, 1
maximal repetition half back squat, and leg muscle volume to 5-M sprint
11
Copyright © 2022 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
| www.nsca.com
performance of junior soccer players. J Strength Cond Res 24: 266–271,
2010.
19. Clark KP, Stearne DJ, Walts CT, Miller AD. The longitudinal effects of
resisted sprint training using weighted sleds vs. weighted vests. J Strength
Cond Res 24: 3287–3295, 2010.
20. Comfort P, Bullock N, Pearson SJ. A comparison of maximal squat
strength and 5-, 10-, and 20-meter sprint times, in athletes and recrea-
tionally trained men. J Strength Cond Res 26: 937–940, 2012.
21. Comfort P, Stewart A, Bloom L, Clarkson B. Relationships between
strength, sprint, and jump performance in well-trained youth soccer
players. J Strength Cond Res 28: 173–177, 2014.
22. Coppalle S, Rave G, Ben Abderrahman A, et al. Relationship of pre-season
training load with in-season biochemical markers, injuries and performance
in professional soccer players. Front Physiol 10: 409, 2019.
23. Cronin J, Hansen K, Kawamori N, Mcnair P. Effects of weighted vests and
sled towing on sprint kinematics. Sport Biomech 7: 160–172, 2008.
24. Cross MR, Brughelli M, Samozino P, Morin JB. Methods of power-force-
velocity profiling during sprint running: A narrative review. Sports Med
47: 1255–1269, 2017.
25. De Hoyo M, Pozzo M, Sañudo B, et al. Effects of a 10-week in-season
eccentric-overload training program on muscle-injury prevention and
performance in junior elite soccer players. Int J Sports Physiol Perform 10:
46–52, 2015.
26. De Hoyo M, Sañudo B, Carrasco L, et al. Effects of traditional versus
horizontal inertial flywheel power training on common sport-related
tasks. J Hum Kinet 47: 155–167, 2015.
27. De Hoyo M, Gonzalo-Skok O, Sanudo B, et al. Comparative effects of in-
season full-back squat, resisted sprint training, and plyometric training on
explosive performance in U-19 elite soccer players. J Strength Cond Res
30: 368–377, 2016.
28. Dorn TW, Schache AG, Pandy MG. Muscular strategy shift in human
running: Dependence of running speed on hip and ankle muscle perfor-
mance. J Exp Biol 215: 1944–1956, 2012.
29. Faude O, Koch T, Meyer T. Straight sprinting is the most frequent action
in goal situations in professional football. J Sports Sci 30: 625–631, 2012.
30. Fitzpatrick D, Cimadoro G, Cleather D. The magical horizontal force
muscle? A preliminary study examining the “force-vector” theory. Sports
7: 30–38, 2019.
31. Garcı́a-Ramos A, Haff GG, Feriche B, Jaric S. Effects of different condi-
tioning programmes on the performance of high-velocity soccer-related
tasks: Systematic review and meta-analysis of controlled trials. Int J Sport
Sci Coach 13: 129–151, 2018.
32. Harris NK, Cronin JB, Hopkins WG, Hansen KT. Relationship between
sprint times and the strength/power outputs of a machine squat jump.
J Strength Cond Res 22: 691–698, 2008.
33. Harrison AJ, Bourke G. The effect of resisted sprint training on speed and
strength performance in male rugby players. J Strength Cond Res 23:
275–283, 2009.
34. Haugen TA, Tønnessen E, Seiler S. Anaerobic performance testing of
professional soccer players 1995-2010. Int J Sports Physiol Perform 8:
148–156, 2013.
35. Haugen TA, Tønnessen E, Hisdal J, Seiler S. The role and development of
sprinting speed in soccer. Int J Sports Physiol Perform 9: 432–441, 2014.
36. Haugen T, McGhie D, Ettema G. Sprint running: From fundamental
mechanics to practice—A review. Eur J Appl Physiol 119, 2019.
37. Higgins JPT, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, et al. The Cochrane Collabora-
tion’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 343: d5928,
2011.
38. Jiménez-Reyes P, Garcı́a-Ramos A, Cuadrado-Peñafiel V, et al. Differ-
ences in sprint mechanical force–velocity profile between trained soccer
and futsal players. Int J Sports Physiol Perform 14: 478–485, 2019.
39. Kawamori N, Newton R, Nosaka K. Effects of weighted sled towing on
ground reaction force during the acceleration phase of sprint running.
J Sports Sci 32: 1139–1145, 2014.
40. Kawamori N, Newton RU, Hori N, Nosaka K. Effects of weighted sled
towing with heavy versus light load on sprint acceleration ability.
J Strength Cond Res 28: 2738–2745, 2014.
41. Kraemer WJ, Ratamess NA, Volek JS, Mazzetti SA, Gómez AL. The effect
of the meridian shoe on vertical jump and sprint performances following
short-term combined plyometric/sprint and resistance training. J Strength
Cond Res 14: 228–238, 2000.
42. Lachenbruch PA, Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral
sciences (2nd ed). J Am Stat Assoc, 84: 1096, 1989.
43. Little T, Williams AG. Specificity of acceleration, maximum speed, and
agility in professional soccer players. J Strength Cond Res 19: 76–78,
2005.
 Resisted Sprint Training in Young Soccer Players (2022) 00:00
44. Lloyd RS, Oliver JL. The youth physical development model: A new ap-
proach to long-term athletic development. Strength Cond J. 34: 61–72,
2012.
45. Lloyd RS, Oliver JL, Faigenbaum AD, Myer GD, De Ste Croix MBA.
Chronological age vs. biological maturation: Implications for exercise
programming in youth. J Strength Cond Res 28: 1454–1464, 2014.
46. Lockie RG, Murphy AJ, Spinks CD. Effects of resisted sled towing on
sprint kinematics in field-sport athletes. J Strength Cond Res 17: 760–767,
2003.
47. Lockie RG, Murphy AJ, Schultz AB, Knight TJ, De Jonge XAKJ. The
effects of different speed training protocols on sprint acceleration kine-
matics and muscle strength and power in field sport athletes. J Strength
Cond Res 26: 1539–1550, 2012.
48. Loturco I, Pereira LA, Cal Abad CC, et al. Vertical and horizontal jump
tests are strongly associated with competitive performance in 100-m dash
events. J Strength Cond Res 29: 1966–1971, 2015.
49. Luteberget LS, Raastad T, Seynnes O, Spencer M. Effect of traditional and
resisted sprint training in highly trained female team handball players. Int
J Sports Physiol Perform 10: 642–647, 2015.
50. Maher CG, Sherrington C, Herbert RD, Moseley AM, Elkins M. Re-
liability of the PEDro scale for rating quality of randomized controlled
trials. Phys Ther 83: 713–721, 2003.
51. Malina RM, Bouchard C, Bar-Or O. Growth, maturation, and physical
activity. 2nd ed. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 2004.
52. Malina RM, Peña Reyes ME, Figueiredo AJ, et al. Skeletal age in youth
soccer players: Implication for age verification. Clin J Sport Med 20:
469–474, 2010.
53. Malina RM, Rogol AD, Cumming SP, Coelho E Silva MJ, Figueiredo AJ.
Biological maturation of youth athletes: Assessment and implications. Br J
Sports Med 49: 852–859, 2015.
54. Mann RA, Moran GT, Dougherty SE. Comparative electromyography of
the lower extremity in jogging, running, and sprinting. Am J Sports Med
14: 501–510, 1986.
55. Martı́nez-P érez P, Vaquero-Cristóbal R. Revisión sistemática del
entrenamiento de fuerza en futbolistas pre-adolescentes y adolescentes
(Systematic review of strength training in preadolescent and adoles-
cent football players). Retos, 41: 272–284, 2020.
56. Mendez-Villanueva A, Buchheit M, Kuitunen S, et al. Age-related
differences in acceleration, maximum running speed, and repeated-
sprint performance in young soccer players. J Sports Sci 29: 477–484,
2011.
57. Moran J, Sandercock G, Rumpf MC, Parry DA. Variation in responses to
sprint training in male youth athletes: A meta-analysis. Int J Sports Med
38: 1–11, 2017.
58. Moran J, Sandercock GRH, Ramı́rez-Campillo R, Meylan C, Collison J,
Parry DA. A meta-analysis of maturation-related variation in adolescent
boy athletes’ adaptations to short-term resistance training. J Sports Sci 35:
1041–1051, 2017.
59. Moseley AM, Herbert RD, Sherrington C, Maher CG. Evidence for
physiotherapy practice: A survey of the Physiotherapy evidence database
(PEDro). Aust J Physiother 48: 43–49, 2002.
60. Murray A, Aitchison TC, Ross G, et al. The effect of towing a range of
relative resistances on sprint performance. J Sports Sci 23: 927–935, 2005.
61. O’brien TD, Reeves ND, Baltzopoulos V, Jones DA, Maganaris CN.
Muscle-tendon structure and dimensions in adults and children. J Anat
216: 631–642, 2010.
62. Otero-Esquina C, de Hoyo Lora M, Gonzalo-Skok Ó, Domı́nguez-Cobo
S, Sánchez H. Is strength-training frequency a key factor to develop per-
formance adaptations in young elite soccer players?. Eur J Sport Sci 17:
1241–1251, 2017.
63. Pagaduan J, Schoenfeld BJ, Pojskić H. Systematic review and meta-
analysis on the effect of contrast training on vertical jump performance.
Strength Cond J, 41: 63–78, 2019.
64. Page M, McKenzie J, Bossuyt P, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An
updated guidelinefor reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 372: 71, 2021.
65. Petrakos G, Morin JB, Egan B. Resisted sled sprint training to improve
sprint performance: A systematic review. Sport Med 46: 381–400, 2016.
12
Copyright © 2022 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
66. Rabita G, Dorel S, Slawinski J, et al. Sprint mechanics in world-class
athletes: A new insight into the limits of human locomotion. Scand J Med
Sci Sport 25: 583–594, 2015.
67. Ramı́rez-Campillo R, Vergara-Pedreros M, Henrı́quez-Olguı́n C, et al.
Effects of plyometric training on maximal-intensity exercise and endur-
ance in male and female soccer players. J Sports Sci 34: 687–693, 2016.
68. Raya-González J, Suárez-Arrones L, Moreno-Puentedura M, Ruiz-
Márquez J, De Villarreal ES. Short-term physical performance effects of
two different neuromuscular oriented training programs on U-17 elite
soccer players. Ricyde Rev Int Ciencias Del Deport 13: 88–103, 2017.
69. Rodrı́guez-Osorio D, Gonzalo-Skok O, Pareja-Blanco F. Effects of resis-
ted sprints with changes of direction through several relative loads on
physical performance in soccer players. Int J Sports Physiol Perform 14:
1022–1028, 2019.
70. Romero-Franco N, Jiménez-Reyes P, Castaño-Zambudio A, et al. Sprint per-
formance and mechanical outputs computed with an iPhone app: Comparison
with existing reference methods. Eur J Sport Sci 17:386–392, 2017.
71. Rumpf MC, Cronin JB, Pinder SD, Oliver J, Hughes M. Effect of different
training methods on running sprint times in male youth. Pediatr Exerc Sci
24: 170–86, 2012.
72. Rumpf MC, Cronin JB, Mohamad IN, et al. The effect of resisted sprint
training on maximum sprint kinetics and kinematics in youth. Eur J Sport
Sci 15: 374–381, 2015.
73. Rumpf MC, Lockie RG, Cronin JB, Jalilvand F. Effect of different sprint
training methods on sprint performance over various distances: A brief
review. J Strength Cond Res 30: 1767–1785, 2016.
74. Sarmento H, Marcelino R, Anguera MT, CampaniÇo J, Matos N, LeitÃo
JC. Match analysis in football: A systematic review. J Sports Sci 32:
1831–1843, 2014.
75. Seitz LB, Reyes A, Tran TT, de Villarreal ES, Haff GG. Increases in lower-
body strength transfer positively to sprint performance: A systematic re-
view with meta-analysis. Sport Med 44: 1693–1702, 2014.
76. Sekine Y. Effects of resisted sprint training on sprint performance in high
school baseball players. Am J Sport Sci 34: 332–343, 2016.
77. Spinks CD, Murphy AJ, Spinks WL, Lockie RG. The effects of resisted sprint
training on acceleration performance and kinematics in soccer, rugby union,
and Australian football players. J Strength Cond Res 21: 77–85, 2007.
78. Higgins JPT, Green S. The Cochrane Collaboration: Cochrane Handbook
for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0.2011. Available at:
www.cochrane.org.
79. Turner AN, Stewart PF. Strength and conditioning for soccer players.
Strength Cond J 36: 1–13, 2014.
80. Upton DE. The effect of assisted and resisted sprint training on accelera-
tion and velocity in Division IA female soccer athletes. J Strength Cond Res
25: 2645–2652, 2011.
81. Uthoff A, Oliver J, Cronin J, Winwood P, Harrison C, Lee JE. Resisted
sprint training in youth: the effectiveness of backward vs. forward sled
towing on speed, jumping, and leg compliance measures in high-school
athletes. J Strength Cond Res 35: 2205–2212, 2021.
82. Vescovi JD, McGuigan MR. Relationships between sprinting, agility, and
jump ability in female athletes. J Sports Sci 26: 97–107, 2008.
83. West DJ, Cunningham DJ, Bracken RM, et al. Effects of resisted sprint
training on acceleration in professional rugby union players. J Strength
Cond Res 27: 1014–1018, 2013.
84. Weyand PG, Sandell RF, Prime DNL, Bundle MW. The biological limits to
running speed are imposed from the ground up. J Appl Physiol 108:
950–961, 2010.
85. Wisløff U, Castagna C, Helgerud J, Jones R, Hoff J. Strong correlation of
maximal squat strength with sprint performance and vertical jump height
in elite soccer players. Br J Sports Med 38: 285–288, 2004.
86. Young W, Benton D, Duthie G, Pryor J. Resistance training for short
sprints and maximum-speed sprints. Strength Cond J, 23: 7–13, 2001.
87. Zafeiridis A, Saraslanidis P, Manou V, Ioakimidis P, Dipla K, Kellis S. The
effects of resisted sled-pulling sprint training on acceleration and maxi-
mum speed performance. J Sports Med Phys Fitness 45: 284–290, 2005.