Relevance and Effectiveness of Combined Resistance and Balance Training to Improve Balance and Muscular Fitness in Healthy Youth and Youth Athletes: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Balance and resistance training applied as single-mode interventions have proven to enhance measures of balance and/or muscular fitness in youth and youth athletes. Less is known on the effectiveness of combined or sequenced balance and resistance training in youth and youth athletes. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this scoping review was to describe the effects of concurrently performed balance and resistance training (i.e., metastable resistance training) and different sequencing schemes of balance and resistance training on measures of balance and/or muscular fitness in healthy youth and youth athletes. We additionally aimed to identify knowledge gaps in the literature. METHODS: According to the principles of a scoping review, we followed a broad research question, identified gaps in the literature, and reported findings on the level of single studies but did not aggregate and meta-analyze outcomes across studies. For this purpose, systematic literature searches were conducted in the electronic databases PubMed (including MEDLINE), Web of Science, and SPORTDiscus from inception until August 2022. We included metastable resistance training and sequenced balance and resistance training studies in healthy youth and youth athletes aged 6-18 years that investigated the training-induced effects on measures of balance (e.g., stork balance test) and muscular fitness (e.g., countermovement jump test) in contrast to active/passive controls. The Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale was used to assess the risk of bias. The Strength of Recommendation Taxonomy (SORT) was applied for the whole scoping review on levels A (high strength of recommendation) to C (low strength of recommendation) and for individual studies on levels 1 (high-quality evidence) to 3 (low-quality evidence). RESULTS: The strength of recommendation for the scoping review was level B based on inconsistent or limited-quality evidence. Eleven randomized controlled trials were eligible to be included in this scoping review and each study was rated as 'limited-quality evidence'. A median PEDro score of 6 was computed across the included studies. Four studies examined the effects of metastable resistance training (e.g., plyometric training on unstable surfaces) on measures of balance and/or muscle fitness in youth athletes. The remaining seven studies investigated the impact of sequenced balance and resistance training (e.g., blocked balance training followed by blocked resistance training) on measures of balance and/or muscle fitness in youth and youth athletes. The duration of the intervention programs ranged from 6 to 10 weeks with 2-weekly to 3-weekly exercise sessions. Participants' age range was 10-18 years (mean 15 years). Ten studies examined young male and female athletes from different sports (i.e., basketball, handball, soccer) and one study physical education students. Metastable resistance training compared with plyometric training performed on stable surfaces showed no extra effect on measures of balance and muscular fitness. Stable plyometric training appears to be even more effective to improve jump performance. Sequenced balance and resistance training in the form of a mesocycle of balance followed by plyometric training seems to be particularly effective to improve measures of balance and muscular fitness in young athletes. This scoping review identified knowledge gaps that may indicate future research avenues: (i) comparative studies should be designed to examine how sex, age, maturity status, and expertise level impact on the adaptive potential following metastable resistance training or sequenced balance and resistance training in youth and youth athletes, (ii) at least one established measure of balance and muscular fitness should always be included in study designs to allow future comparison between studies and to aggregate (meta-analyze) findings across studies and (iii) studies are needed that examine neuromuscular and tendomuscular adaptations following these exercise types as well as dosage effects. CONCLUSIONS: According to the results of this scoping review, balance training should be an essential training component for youth that is incorporated with the resistance training exercises or introduced at least a month before resistance and plyometric training within a periodized training program. More research is needed to examine the moderating roles of age, maturity status, and sex.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.020 | 0.095 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".