Scholarlink

Purpose <p>We aimed to conduct a systematic review with meta-analysis of the effects of force-velocity (FV) profile-based individualized strength training vs. non-individualized strength training on mechanical variables of FV profile and athletic performance.</p> Methods <p>A computerized systematic literature search was performed in three electronic databases. Studies were included if they analyzed effects of FV profile-based individualized strength training on the metrics of FV measures (theoretical maximal force (F<sub>0</sub>), theoretical maximal velocity (V<sub>0</sub>), force-velocity imbalance (FV<sub>imb</sub>) and theoretical maximal power (P<sub>max</sub>)) and athletic performance in adults and tested at least one variable of interest. The effect sizes were determined using a robust variance estimation random-effects model and were reported as Hedge’s <i>g</i>.</p> Results <p>Overall, 6 studies were eligible to be included in this meta-analysis. Individualized FV strength training lasted between 7 and 10 weeks, with 2 weekly sessions and 8–28 sets per week. Strength training intensities ranged between 70 and 85% of the one-repetition maximum (1-RM) x 3–10 repetitions resistance training (training load ratio range: 70–100% : 30 − 0%) and velocity-oriented training involved 0–60% body mass x 3–10 repetitions plyometric training (training load ratio range: 70–100% : 30 − 0%). The meta-analysis showed significant and large differences between both training conditions for F<sub>0</sub> (<i>g</i> = 0.99, <i>p</i> &lt; 0.01), V<sub>0</sub> (<i>g</i> = 0.78, <i>p</i> &lt; 0.01), FV<sub>imb</sub> (<i>g</i> = 0.60, <i>p</i> &lt; 0.01) and vertical jump height (<i>g</i> = 0.82, <i>p</i> &lt; 0.01) favoring individualized strength training, whereas there was a non-significant effect on P<sub>max</sub> (<i>g</i> = -0.12, <i>p</i> = 0.42) and sprint performance (<i>g</i> = 0.18, <i>p</i> = 0.45),</p> Conclusion <p>Our findings suggest that FV profile–based individualized training may confer advantages for FV profile optimization and vertical jump performance, the high degree of heterogeneity underscores the need for cautious interpretation and further well-controlled studies. Therefore, practitioners should specifically and carefully consider individual FV profile when programming individualized strength training.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Effect of force-velocity profile-based individualized vs. non-individualized strength training on force-velocity profiles and athletic performance: a systematic review and meta-analysis

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年6月25日

查看全文
  • Gaojun Li,
  • Yang Shen,
  • Junlei Lin,
  • Wei Li

摘要

Purpose

We aimed to conduct a systematic review with meta-analysis of the effects of force-velocity (FV) profile-based individualized strength training vs. non-individualized strength training on mechanical variables of FV profile and athletic performance.

Methods

A computerized systematic literature search was performed in three electronic databases. Studies were included if they analyzed effects of FV profile-based individualized strength training on the metrics of FV measures (theoretical maximal force (F0), theoretical maximal velocity (V0), force-velocity imbalance (FVimb) and theoretical maximal power (Pmax)) and athletic performance in adults and tested at least one variable of interest. The effect sizes were determined using a robust variance estimation random-effects model and were reported as Hedge’s g.

Results

Overall, 6 studies were eligible to be included in this meta-analysis. Individualized FV strength training lasted between 7 and 10 weeks, with 2 weekly sessions and 8–28 sets per week. Strength training intensities ranged between 70 and 85% of the one-repetition maximum (1-RM) x 3–10 repetitions resistance training (training load ratio range: 70–100% : 30 − 0%) and velocity-oriented training involved 0–60% body mass x 3–10 repetitions plyometric training (training load ratio range: 70–100% : 30 − 0%). The meta-analysis showed significant and large differences between both training conditions for F0 (g = 0.99, p < 0.01), V0 (g = 0.78, p < 0.01), FVimb (g = 0.60, p < 0.01) and vertical jump height (g = 0.82, p < 0.01) favoring individualized strength training, whereas there was a non-significant effect on Pmax (g = -0.12, p = 0.42) and sprint performance (g = 0.18, p = 0.45),

Conclusion

Our findings suggest that FV profile–based individualized training may confer advantages for FV profile optimization and vertical jump performance, the high degree of heterogeneity underscores the need for cautious interpretation and further well-controlled studies. Therefore, practitioners should specifically and carefully consider individual FV profile when programming individualized strength training.