Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2024 Mar 5;14(1):5453.
doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-54282-8.

The use of wearable resistance and weighted vest for sprint performance and kinematics: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Gabriel Felipe Arantes Bertochi  1 , Márcio Fernando Tasinafo Júnior  2 , Izabela A Santos  3 , Jeffer Eidi Sasaki  4 , Gustavo R Mota  4 , Gabriela Gregorutti Jordão  5 , Enrico Fuini Puggina  3   2
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

The use of wearable resistance and weighted vest for sprint performance and kinematics: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Gabriel Felipe Arantes Bertochi et al. Sci Rep. .

Abstract

Wearable resistance (WR) and weighted vests (WV) can be used in almost all training conditions to enhance sprint performance; however, positioning and additional mass are different in WV and WR strategies, affecting performance and kinematics differently. We aimed to systematically review the literature, searching for intervention studies that reported the acute or chronic kinematic and performance impact of WV and WR and comparing them. We analyzed Pubmed, Embase, Scopus, and SPORTDiscuss databases for longitudinal and cross-over studies investigating sprint performance or kinematics using an inverse-variance with a random-effect method for meta-analysis. After the eligibility assessment, 25 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Cross-over WR and WV studies found significantly higher sprint times and higher ground contact times (CT) compared to unloaded (UL) conditions. However, WR presented a lower step frequency (SF) compared to UL, whereas WV presented a lower step length (SL). Only one study investigated the chronic adaptations for WR, indicating a superiority of the WR group on sprint time compared to the control group. However, no difference was found chronically for WV regarding sprint time, CT, and flight time (FT). Our findings suggest that using WV and WR in field sports demonstrates overload sprint gesture through kinematic changes, however, WR can be more suitable for SF-reliant athletes and WV for SL-reliant athletes. Although promising for chronic performance improvement, coaches and athletes should carefully consider WV and WR use since there is no supporting evidence that WV or WR will impact sprint performance, CT, and FT.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no competing interests.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
PRISMA Flow diagram.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Forest plot of meta-analysis of the standardized mean difference from WR and UL conditions for sprint time. Ante., Anterior; CI, Confidence interval; SD, Standard deviation; UL, Unloaded condition; WR, Wearable resistance condition.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Forest plot of meta-analysis of the standardized mean difference from WR and UL conditions for ground contact time. accel., Acceleration phase; Ante., Anterior; CI, Confidence interval; SD, Standard deviation; UL, Unloaded condition; WR, Wearable resistance condition.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Forest plot of meta-analysis of the standardized mean difference from WR and UL conditions for flight time. accel., Acceleration phase; Ante., Anterior; CI, Confidence interval; SD, Standard deviation; UL, Unloaded condition; WR, Wearable resistance condition.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Forest plot of meta-analysis of the standardized mean difference from WR and UL conditions for step frequency. accel., Acceleration phase; Ante., Anterior; CI, Confidence interval; SD, Standard deviation; UL, Unloaded condition; WR, Wearable resistance condition.
Figure 6
Figure 6
Forest plot of meta-analysis of the standardized mean difference from WR and UL conditions for step length. accel., Acceleration phase; Ante., Anterior; CI, Confidence interval; SD, Standard deviation; UL, Unloaded condition; WR, Wearable resistance condition.
Figure 7
Figure 7
Forest plot of meta-analysis of the standardized mean difference from WV and UL conditions for sprint time. CI, Confidence interval; SD, Standard deviation; UL, Unloaded condition; WV Weighted vest condition.
Figure 8
Figure 8
Forest plot of meta-analysis of the standardized mean difference from WV and UL conditions for ground contact time. CI, Confidence interval; Max. vel., Maximum velocity; SD, Standard deviation; UL, Unloaded condition; WV, Weighted vest condition.
Figure 9
Figure 9
Forest plot of meta-analysis of the standardized mean difference from WV and UL conditions for flight time. CI, Confidence interval; Max. vel., Maximum velocity; SD, Standard deviation; UL, Unloaded condition; WV, Weighted vest condition.
Figure 10
Figure 10
Forest plot of meta-analysis of the standardized mean difference from WV and UL conditions for step frequency. CI, Confidence interval; Max. vel., Maximum velocity; SD, Standard deviation; UL, Unloaded condition; WV, Weighted vest condition.
Figure 11
Figure 11
Forest plot of meta-analysis of the standardized mean difference from WV and UL conditions for FT. CI, Confidence interval; Max. vel., Maximum velocity; SD, Standard deviation; SL, Step length; UL, Unloaded condition; WV, Weighted vest condition.
Figure 12
Figure 12
Forest plot of meta-analysis of the standardized mean difference between WV and CON intervention for sprint time. CI, Confidence interval; CON, Control group; SD, Standard deviation; WV, Weighted vest group.
Figure 13
Figure 13
Forest plot of meta-analysis of the standardized mean difference between WV and CON intervention for ground contact time. CI, Confidence interval; CON, Control group; SD, Standard deviation; WV, Weighted vest group.
Figure 14
Figure 14
Forest plot of meta-analysis of the standardized mean difference from WV and CON intervention for flight time. CI, Confidence interval; CON, Control group; SD, Standard deviation; WV, Weighted vest group.
Figure 15
Figure 15
Acute kinematic change during sprint with WR/WV infographic. CT: Ground contact time; FT: Flight time; SF: Step frequency; SL: Step length; SMD: Standardize mean difference; ST: sprint time. Asterisks denote significant differences compared with the respective UL conditions.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Morin J-B, et al. Mechanical determinants of 100-m sprint running performance. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. 2012;112:3921–3930. doi: 10.1007/s00421-012-2379-8. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Sweeting AJ, Cormack SJ, Morgan S, Aughey RJ. When is a sprint a sprint? A review of the analysis of team-sport athlete activity profile. Front. Physiol. 2017;8:432. doi: 10.3389/fphys.2017.00432. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Cronin J, Ogden T, Lawton T, Brughelli M. Does Increasing Maximal Strength Improve Sprint Running Performance? Strength Cond. J. 2007;29:86–95. doi: 10.1519/00126548-200706000-00014. - DOI
    1. Rodríguez-Rosell D, Torres-Torrelo J, Franco-Márquez F, González-Suárez JM, González-Badillo JJ. Effects of light-load maximal lifting velocity weight training vs. combined weight training and plyometrics on sprint, vertical jump and strength performance in adult soccer players. J. Sci. Med. Sport. 2017;20:695–699. doi: 10.1016/j.jsams.2016.11.010. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Haugen TA, Tønnessen E, Hisdal J, Seiler S. The role and development of sprinting speed in soccer. Int. J. Sports Physiol. Perform. 2014;9:432–441. doi: 10.1123/ijspp.2013-0121. - DOI - PubMed