Effects of different velocity loss thresholds during resistance training on jump and sprint performance in trained populations: a systematic review and three-level meta-analysis.
8 affiliations
- 1School of Physical Education and Tourism, Polus International College, Chengdu, Sichuan, China.
- 2School of Physical Education, Chengdu Sport University, Chengdu, Sichuan, China.
- 3School of Physical Education, Sichuan University of Science & Engineering, Zigong, China.
- 4School of Leisure Sports, Chengdu Sport University, Chengdu, Sichuan, China.
- 5School of Sport and Human Movement Science, Beijing Sport University, Beijing, China.
- 6School of Wushu, Tianjin University of Sport, Tianjin, China.
- 7School of Physical Education and Sports Science, Hengyang Normal University, Hunan, China.
- 8School of Coaching, Shanghai University of Sport, Shanghai, China.
Abstract
Purpose
To systematically evaluate the effects of different velocity loss (VL) thresholds during resistance training on jump and sprint performance in trained populations and to examine potential moderators.Methods
PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and SPORTDiscus were searched from inception through April 10, 2026. Randomized controlled trials meeting the prespecified PICOS criteria were included. A three-level random-effects meta-analysis was conducted to calculate Hedges' g and 95% confidence intervals (CIs), accounting for dependence among multiple effect sizes within studies. Risk of bias and certainty of evidence were assessed using RoB 2 and GRADE, respectively.Results
Twelve randomized controlled trials comprising 42 effect sizes were included. Lower VL thresholds produced a small but statistically significant favorable effect on combined jump and sprint performance compared with higher VL thresholds (g=0.29, 95% CI: 0.17 to 0.42, p<0.001), with negligible heterogeneity ( Itotal2=0.1% ). Domain-specific analyses showed significant favorable effects for both jump performance (g=0.27, 95% CI: 0.10 to 0.45, p=0.002) and sprint performance (g=0.32, 95% CI: 0.13 to 0.50, p<0.001). Outcome-specific analyses indicated clearer effects for countermovement jump, 10 m sprint, and 30 m sprint, whereas the estimates for squat jump and 20 m sprint were not statistically significant. Significant effects were observed for the 10% versus 30% VL and 10% versus 20% VL comparisons, whereas the 20% versus 40% VL comparison yielded a smaller, non-significant effect. Exploratory moderator analyses did not detect statistically significant effects of population type, training frequency, training mode, intervention duration, or VL-threshold difference; however, these analyses may have been underpowered because of the limited number of included studies. The direction and statistical significance of the pooled effect were robust across alternative pre-post correlation assumptions and model specifications, although heterogeneity estimates and prediction intervals were more sensitive to higher assumed correlations. No evidence of significant small-study effects was detected.Conclusions
Lower VL thresholds may confer small favorable effects on jump and sprint performance in trained populations, with clearer evidence for countermovement jump and selected sprint outcomes. However, the effects were not consistent across all outcomes, and the certainty of evidence ranged from low to moderate. Lower VL may therefore be considered as one potential option for speed-power-oriented resistance training rather than a universally superior prescription.Systematic review registration
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier CRD420261396083.
Related
- Impact of different protein sources on acute muscle protein synthesis following resistance training: a systematic review with standard and dose–response network meta-analyses
- Acute effects of bench press conditioning performed with different velocity-loss thresholds on punch performance in elite adolescent boxers.
- Effects of flywheel resistance training on jump, sprint, and change-of-direction performance in basketball players: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
- Effects of high-intensity resistance training within concurrent training programs on athletic performance in elite athletes: a systematic review
- Delayed menopausal transition in polycystic ovary syndrome: A call for research on age‐dependent phenotypes and different ethnic populations
BibTeX
@article{zhang2026effects,
title = {{Effects of different velocity loss thresholds during resistance training on jump and sprint performance in trained populations: a systematic review and three-level meta-analysis.}},
author = {Jie Zhang and Shan Zhang and Yan Cui and Yijie Huang and Yiran Dan and Xiuling Wu and Xing Ye and Hao Zeng and Bitai Wu and Mingyue Yin},
journal = {Frontiers in physiology},
year = {2026},
month = oct,
doi = {10.3389/fphys.2026.1893020},
url = {https://europepmc.org/article/MED/42903080},
note = {CC BY},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Effects of different velocity loss thresholds during resistance training on jump and sprint performance in trained populations: a systematic review and three-level meta-analysis.
AU - Jie Zhang
AU - Shan Zhang
AU - Yan Cui
AU - Yijie Huang
AU - Yiran Dan
AU - Xiuling Wu
AU - Xing Ye
AU - Hao Zeng
AU - Bitai Wu
AU - Mingyue Yin
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/10/06
JO - Frontiers in physiology
DO - 10.3389/fphys.2026.1893020
UR - https://europepmc.org/article/MED/42903080
AB - Purpose To systematically evaluate the effects of different velocity loss (VL) thresholds during resistance training on jump and sprint performance in trained populations and to examine potential moderators.Methods PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and SPORTDiscus were searched from inception through April 10, 2026. Randomized controlled trials meeting the prespecified PICOS criteria were included. A three-level random-effects meta-analysis was conducted to calculate Hedges' g and 95% confidence intervals (CIs), accounting for dependence among multiple effect sizes within studies. Risk of bias and certainty of evidence were assessed using RoB 2 and GRADE, respectively.Results Twelve randomized controlled trials comprising 42 effect sizes were included. Lower VL thresholds produced a small but statistically significant favorable effect on combined jump and sprint performance compared with higher VL thresholds (g=0.29, 95% CI: 0.17 to 0.42, p<0.001), with negligible heterogeneity ( Itotal2=0.1% ). Domain-specific analyses showed significant favorable effects for both jump performance (g=0.27, 95% CI: 0.10 to 0.45, p=0.002) and sprint performance (g=0.32, 95% CI: 0.13 to 0.50, p<0.001). Outcome-specific analyses indicated clearer effects for countermovement jump, 10 m sprint, and 30 m sprint, whereas the estimates for squat jump and 20 m sprint were not statistically significant. Significant effects were observed for the 10% versus 30% VL and 10% versus 20% VL comparisons, whereas the 20% versus 40% VL comparison yielded a smaller, non-significant effect. Exploratory moderator analyses did not detect statistically significant effects of population type, training frequency, training mode, intervention duration, or VL-threshold difference; however, these analyses may have been underpowered because of the limited number of included studies. The direction and statistical significance of the pooled effect were robust across alternative pre-post correlation assumptions and model specifications, although heterogeneity estimates and prediction intervals were more sensitive to higher assumed correlations. No evidence of significant small-study effects was detected.Conclusions Lower VL thresholds may confer small favorable effects on jump and sprint performance in trained populations, with clearer evidence for countermovement jump and selected sprint outcomes. However, the effects were not consistent across all outcomes, and the certainty of evidence ranged from low to moderate. Lower VL may therefore be considered as one potential option for speed-power-oriented resistance training rather than a universally superior prescription.Systematic review registration https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier CRD420261396083.
SN - 1664-042X
ER -