Effect of weightlifting training on jumping ability,sprinting performance and squat strength: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract

This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the effect of using weightlifting movement and their derivatives in training on vertical jump, sprint times, and maximal strength performance. Thirty-four studies were used for meta-analysis with a moderate quality on the PEDro scale. Meta-analysis showed positive effects of weightlifting training, especially when combined with traditional resistance training on countermovement jump performance, sprint times, and one-repetition maximum squat (ES = 0.41, ES = −0.44, and ES = 0.81, respectively). In conclusion, results revealed the usefulness of weightlifting combined with traditional resistance training in improving sprint, countermovement jump and maximal strength performance.

Keywords

Acceleration countermovement jump resistance training

Introduction

Weightlifting movements are ballistic resistance exercises that involve great acceleration of the segments through the entire movement resulting in mobilization of the barbell at high velocities.¹ There are two kinds of exercises, the snatch (SN) and the clean & jerk (C&J), which are performed in the sport of weightlifting.² Outside of weightlifting competitions, weightlifting derivatives such as hang snatch, clean pull, and push jerk exercises are commonly used during strength and power training programs.^3–8

The use of weightlifting is popular in both fitness and sports fields. In particular, weightlifting exercises have been suggested as a useful tool to improve jump height and muscular strength⁹ due to the biomechanical, neural, and muscular characteristics of these movements. According to the literature, several reasons could be argued in favor of weightlifting exercises. From a neuromuscular perspective, compared with traditional exercises such as the squat or deadlift, weightlifting exercises show decreases in muscles’ coactivation.¹ These differences in the neuromuscular pattern are linked to improvements in muscle-tendon unit stiffness,^10,11 resulting in an optimization of the stretch-shortening cycle.¹² Another important advantage of weightlifting exercises is not only the great number of muscle groups recruited during these movements¹³ but also the substantial levels of muscle activation achieved,¹⁴ similar to isolated traditional exercise.¹⁵ Compared to traditional resistance exercises, weightlifting movements show greater velocity and power values.¹⁶ This can be potentially explained by the ballistic component and the nature of the weightlifting exercises, since they allow to apply force during a greater range of movement than traditional exercises.^17–20 Besides, the second pull of weightlifting is characterized by an explosive triple extension action of the ankle, knee, and hip joints,²¹ which is similar to main sports actions such as a vertical jump^22–26 and a sprint.²⁶ Thus, the inclusion of weightlifting movements within strength training programs is meaningful, due to the potential transfer to many sports actions’ performance.^27–29

Despite the widely reported usefulness of weightlifting movements in improving sprint and jumping performance,^3,30,31 their superiority to other resistance training methods is controversial.³² However, from a practical point of view, most athletes’ training programs use a combination of traditional and weightlifting exercises. Thus, the present review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the effectiveness of isolated weightlifting training, isolated traditional resistance training, and a combination of them in improving one repetition maximum (1RM), jumping and sprinting performance.

Methods

A systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis were conducted and reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.³³

Data search and sources

Potential studies were identified via a comprehensive strategy. The electronic database search was carried out in PubMed, Scopus and Google Scholar database (restricted to the first 1000 citations) from the inception up to 12 December 2020. The search strategy included the terms “Weightlifting”, “Snatch”, “Power clean”, “Hang clean”, “Clean and jerk”, “Split jerk”, “Push jerk”, “High pull”, “1RM”, “Jump”, and “Sprint”. References from the original studies included were searched for further relevant investigations. Besides, the authors of the included articles were contacted to identify possible additional published and unpublished studies.

Study selection

Eligibility criteria were established according to PIO (participants, intervention, and outcomes) guidelines. We selected studies performed with healthy male or female participants regardless of age. All studies should have weightlifting exercise included in the experimental group or compared weightlifting with other training methodologies. In this sense, we sorted the intervention groups as weightlifting in isolation (WL group), traditional training (TD group) and combined training (CB group). The classification was made according to the training volume (i.e. sets × repetitions) of lower-limb exercises because output analysis in this meta-analysis refers to lower-limb performance. Interventions were allocated in the WL group if athletes performed weightlifting (SN or C&J) exercise or its derivatives from catching (exercises that include catch phase) and pulling (exercises that exclude catch phase) in isolation or training volume of weightlifting exercises were more than 50% of total training volume. If weightlifting exercises were performed with other strength exercises and weightlifting training volume was less than 50% of total training volume, they were included in the CB group. Strength training that did not meet the criteria for being included in the CB or WL group, was allocated to the TD group. Each selected study had to assess 1RM squat, sprinting -up to 40-yards, and/or jump performance and agree with a single and multi-intervention study. Only articles published in English were selected. For studies with more than one article based on the same sample, inclusion was limited to just one of them.

Three reviewers (R.S., J.L.H., A.G.) independently analyzed the titles and abstracts of the articles retrieved from the literature search and reviewed the full text of the selected articles. Any disagreement between the reviewers regarding study inclusion was resolved by a fourth investigator (A.M.).

Methodological quality

Reviewers classified articles according to PEDro scale for reporting on the methodological quality.³⁴

Computation of effect sizes and statistical analysis

The literature search revealed studies that included a control group (CG) and studies without a CG. To not discard studies without a CG, we included all of them and, as a consequence, our analysis unit was the group, not the study. Thus, for each group, the standard mean difference (SMD) was used as the effect size (ES) index. SMD was defined as the difference between pretest and post-test means divided by the standard deviation at baseline, then corrected by the factor for small samples (df_E,C).³⁵ Although between-group ES exhibits better internal validity than within-group ones, using one-group pretest–post-test ES is recommended in the meta-analytic arena when there are many studies without a CG.³⁶ To perform statistical analysis, a random-effects model was applied using the restricted maximum likelihood (REML) estimator for calculating within-study variance estimated, which has been proved to be reasonably robust even in the absence of normal data distribution.³⁷ A first analysis consisted of calculating the mean ES with its 95% confidence interval (CI), the heterogeneity test, Chi², and the I² index.^38,39 Statistical analyses were considered significant at p < .05. The practical relevance of each ES was interpreted with the Cohen's criterion (trivial: < 0.2; small: 0.2–0.49; moderate: 0.5–0.79; large: ≥ 0.8).⁴⁰ The heterogeneity was interpreted depending on I² magnitude as no heterogeneity (< 25%), low (25–49.9%), moderate (50–74.9%), and large heterogeneity (> 75%).^38,41

In case of substantial heterogeneity (Chi² < 0.05 and/or I² > 50%), random-effects meta-regression for continuous moderator variables (i.e. participant age, total training session, and publication year) and subgroup analysis for categorical moderator variables (i.e., training frequency [≤ 2, 3, and ≥ 4 days a week], length [≤ 8, 8–12, and >12 weeks], and performance level) were carried out to explain the heterogeneity. The performance level was sorted by 1RM squat lift according to the strengthlevel.com database. Nevertheless, studies that did not provide strength values were sorted by comparing height CMJ to Hoffmann et al.⁴² In both cases, the cut-off value was determined to percentile 5, 20, 50, 80, and 95 for beginner, novice, intermediate, advanced, and elite category, respectively.

To investigate the robustness of our results, sensitivity analyses were carried out. We assessed the impact of including or excluding outliers. To assess outliers, we used the outlier-labelling rule.⁴³ Besides, publication bias analyses were carried out through the Egger test⁴⁴ and the nonparametric trim-and-fill method.⁴⁵

Statistical analyses were performed using RStudio (version 4.0.2) with the “meta” package (version 4.14), “dmetar” package (version 0.0.9000), and “metafor” package (version 2.4).

Results

Literature search

The literature search process resulted in a total of 2350 articles. Initially, all duplicate articles were removed (122 articles dismissed). A total of 2228 remained, and a further 2157 were removed after screening using the title and abstract. The full text of the remaining 71 articles were reviewed for more detailed evaluation and resulted in the exclusion of 37 articles. Based on the eligibility criteria, 34 articles were included in the final analysis (Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Selection of studies included in the meta-analysis. PRISMA flowchart.

Methodological quality

All studies included in the meta-analysis were classified by the PEDro scale and had a range of 4–7 points. Thus, they were considered to be of moderate quality. The 34 studies included along with the result of the PEDro scale are described in Table 1.

Table 1.

Characteristics of studies.

Study	PEDro's score	Participants	Experimental group	Exercises	Intensity	Frequency	Duration	Test parameter	Result
Arabatzi and Kellis¹	6	Male students (n = 26; 21.5 ± 12.5 y)	WL (n = 9)	Power clean; snatch; clean & jerk; high pull; half-squat	4–6 series × 6 rep (weeks 1–4) 4 series @ 4RM (weeks 5–8)	3 d·wk⁻¹	8 wk	Hand on hips vertical jump on a force platform (Type 9281C, Kistler Instruments, Winterthur, Switzerland)	OW = TD > C
			TD (n = 9)	Leg press; leg curl; leg extension; bench press; half-squat	4–6 series × 6 rep (weeks 1–4)4 series @ 4RM (weeks 5–8)
			C (n = 8)	Their standard sport activities	NA
Ayers et al.⁴⁶	6	NCAA female athlete (n = 23; 21.1 ± 1 y)	WL HC (n = 11)	They included hang clean in their standard training.	5 series × 3 rep @ 80–85% 1RM	2 d·wk⁻¹	6 wk	1RM back squat.40-yard sprint (hand-held stopwatch)Vertical jump on Vertec (Sports Imports, Columbus, Ohio)	HC = HS
			WL HS (n = 12)	They included hang snatch on their standard training.
Barfield and Anderson⁴⁷	5	Male students (n = 50; 21 ± 2.5 y)	CB (n = 25)	Include varied gymnastic and Olympic lifts	CrossFit^TM referenced training	2 d·wk⁻¹	14 wk	1.5-mile run.Vertical jump.Waist-hip ratio.Body mass indexYMCA sit-and-reach	OW = TD
			TD (n = 25)	Multi-joint exercises lie: Bench press; Deadlift; Squat	3 series × 8–12RM3–5 series x 2–3 RM3–5 series x 2–3 rep @ low-moderate intensity
Barr⁴⁸	4	University Canadian football players (n = 31; 20.8 ± 1.9 y)	WL (n = 31)	Variations of snatch; clean & jerk; back squat; pressing exercises	Weekly repetition: 10–15 @ 60–90% 1RM10–12 @ +90% 1RM	3 d·wk⁻¹	16 wk	1RM front squat.1RM press.1RM clean & jerk.Countermovement jump (just jump, probotics, huntsville)Body mass index.	Pre-WL < Post-OW
Channell and Barfield⁴⁹	5	Male students (n = 27)	WL (n = 11)	Including power clean, hang clean, clean pulls and snatch on exercise progression	3–5 series × 10–3 rep @ 75–95% 1RM	3 d wk⁻¹	4 + 8 wk	1RM back squat.Vertical jump on Vertec (Sports Imports, Columbus, Ohio.)	OW > PT > C
			TD (n = 10)	Including squat, overhead squat, deadlift and leg press on exercise progression
			C (n = 6)	Their standard sport activities	NA
Chaouachi et al.⁴	6	Children (n = 64; 10–12 y)	WL (n = 17)	Clean, snatch, shoulder push press, kettlebell/cross-body pull	1–3 series × 12–18 rep @ maximal weight they manage to lift with correct technique	3 d wk⁻¹	12 wk	Body mass index.CMJ. (Quattro-Jump; Kisler, Winterthur, Switzerland)Horizontal jump.Balance.5- and 20-m (Brower Timing Systems, Salt Lake City, UT, USA)Isokinetic force at 60 and 300°s⁻¹.	OW > PL > TD > C
			PL (n = 17)	Maximum CMJs, drop jumps, drop from a low platform, Medicine ball throws.
			TD (n = 17)	Squat, lunges, chest press, shoulder flyes or presses
			C (n = 13)	Their standard sport activities	NA
Ciacci and Bartolomei⁵⁰	6	Male basktetball (n = 58; 18.3 ± 1.8 y)	CB senior (n = 10)CB U19 (n = 10)CB U17 (n = 9)	Hang clean; jump rope	4 series × 8 rep @ 50% 1RM +CMJS200 foot contacts/session	2 d ·wk⁻¹	16 wk	Bosco test	OW1 = TD1OW2 = TD2OW3 < TD3
			TD senior (n = 12)TD U19 (n = 8)TD U17 (n = 9)	Half squat; speed ladder	4 series × 8 rep @ 50% 1RM +CMJS200 foot contacts/session
Comfort et al.⁸	7	Youth soccer player and Collegiate athletes (n = 34; 19.5 ± 2.3 y; 26 male and 8 female)	WL catch (n = 16)	Power clean, mid-thigh power clean, back squat, push press, Nordic lowers	3 series × 5 rep @ 67.5–82.5% 1RM (weeks 1–4)3 series × 3 rep @ 75–90% 1RM (weeks 6–9)	2 d·wk⁻¹	12 wk	Hand on waist vertical jump testing on a force platform (type 9286AA, Kistler Instruments Inc., Amherst, NY, USA)Maximal isometric mid-thigh pulls.1RM Power Clean.	Catch = Pull
			WL pull (n = 18)	Clean pull, mid-thigh pull, back squat, Push press, Nordic Lowers
Gharib⁵¹	5	Federated weightlifters (n = 12; 19.5 ± 3.05)	WL (n = 6)	Snatch power, back drop in large grip, snatch squat, deadlift large grip, clean power, front squat, back squat, deadlift narrow grip, power jerk, back jerk, jerk from split position, quarter squat, snatch pull and snatch.	2–3 series × 1–4 rep @ 75–80% 1RM	3 d ·wk⁻¹	12 wk	Strength tests (front squat, back squat and good morning)power test (clean power and snatch power)balancing test (snatch balance and deadlift)	OW > C
			C (n = 6)	Their standard training	NA
González-Badillo et al.⁵²	6	Junior male lifter (n = 51)	WL 1 (n = 16)WL 2 (n = 17)WL 3 (n = 18)	Snatch, clean & jerk, pulls, squat	3–7 series × 2–6 rep @ 60–80% 1RM1–3 series × 1–3 rep @ 90–100%	4–5 d ·wk⁻¹	8 wk	1RM snatch1RM clean & jerk1RM squat	OW 1 = WL 2 = WL 3
Hawkins et al.⁵³	6	College-aged male (n = 29; 21.5 ± 12.5 y)	TD (n = 10)	Squats, lunges, bent-over row, pullover, upright row, deadlift, stiff-leg deadlifts, step-up, walking lunges, split squats, stiff-leg deadlifts, 45-degree lunges, standing 1-arm row, standing dumbbell press.	3 series × 10–6 rep (weeks 1–4)3 series × 6–4 rep (weeks 5–8)	3 d wk⁻¹	4 + 4 wk	CMJ and SJ on a force plate (Fitness Technology, Skye, South Australia)1RM Squat.	OW > PLOW > TD
			PL (n = 10)	Jumps in place, squat jumps a-skips, single-leg hops, double-leg hops, double-leg hops, jump and reach, double-leg tuck jump, depth jump bounding.	3 series × 10–13 rep (weeks 1–4)3 series × 15–5 rep (weeks 5–8)
			WL (n = 9)	High pull Hang clean, Power push (front), Snatch balance, Front squats, Split jerks, Back squat.	3 series × 8–6 rep (weeks 1–4)3 series × 6–2 rep (weeks 5–8)
Helland et al.³²	6	Young athletes (n = 39; 20 ± 3 y)	WL (n = 13)	Clean with front squat; hang clean; snatch; power jerk; power clean; hang snatch;	3–5 series x 3–5 rep @ 5–3RM	2–3 d ·wk⁻¹	8 wk	CMJSJDJ30-m sprint1RM Squat	IK > TD > OW
			IK (n = 13)	Squat 0.4 m/s; Single leg squat 0.4 m/s; CMJ; Single leg CMJ	1–4 series x 5–10 rep @ 40–60% 1RM +120–140% ecc
			TD (n = 13)	Squat; single leg squat; CMJ; single leg CMJ	2–6 series x 5–3 rep @ 40–80% 1RM/5–3RM
Hoffman et al.³	6	NCAA Division III football team male (n = 20; 19.1 ± 1.3 y)	CB (n = 10)	Bench press, Incline bench press, Incline flys, squats, deadlift, leg extension, snatch pulls (knee), snatch pulls (floor), dumbell pulls, push jerk, clean (floor), clean pull (knee), power shrugs, overhead squats, etc. Between other exercises as sprinting	4–2 series @ 10RM (week 1–5)4–5 series @ 6–8, 5RM (weeks 6–10)4–5 series @ 6–8, 5RM (weeks 11–15)	4 d·wk⁻¹	15 wk	1RM Squat1RM Bench pressCMJ (Celesco model PT 9510, Canoga Park, CA)40-yard sprint (hand-held stopwatch)T-drill (hand-held stopwatch)	OW > PL
			TD (n = 10)	Bench press, incline bench press, incline flys, squats, deadlift, leg extension, stiff leg deadlift, leg curl, incline dumbbell bench press, upright row, front raise, etc. Between other exercises as sprinting	4–2 series @ 10 RM (week 1–5)3–4 series @ 6–8RM (week 6–10)3–5 series @ 6–8RM (week 11–15)
Hornsby et al.⁵⁴	4	Competitive weightlifters (n = 7; 20–30 y)	WL female (n = 3)WL male (n = 4)	Squat, front squat, standing press, snatch grip, clean grip, clean grip shoulder shrugs, clean grip mid-thigh pull, stiff legged deadlift, snatch grip shoulder shrugs, undulating, snatch, snatch grip stiff-legged deadlift	1 series × 4 rep @ 60–95%	2 d·wk⁻¹	20 wk	Isometric Mid-Thigh Clean Pull (Rice Lake Weighing Systems, Rice Lake, WI, USA)Static Vertical Jumps	Pre < Post
Ince⁵⁵	6	Collegiate female volleyball players (n = 33; 15.38 ± 0.98 y)	WL Split (n = 11)	Split hang power snatch, split hang power clean, split jerk	3–5 series × 5 rep @ 70–90% 1RM rest: 2 min.	2 d·wk⁻¹	6 wk	Spike jumpCMJ (Optojump Next. Microgate, Bolzano)Change of directionLeg stiffness5-m sprint20-m sprint (Photocell. Microgate, Bolzano)	Split = Squat > C
			WL Squat (n = 11)	Squat hang power snatch, squat hang power clean, power jerk
			C (n = 11)
Ince⁵⁶	6	Junior male weightlifter (n = 34; 16.03 ± 0.9 y)	WL (n = 11)	Clean pull and snatch pull, block snatch pull and block clean pull, hang high pull, Jump shrug	3 series × 3–5 rep @ 30–100%	2 d·wk⁻¹	8 wk	1RM Snatch1RM Clean & Jerk1RM Front squatCMJ (Optojump Next®, Microgate, Bolzano, Italy)Peak barbell velocity (Tendo Weightlifting Analyzer, Tendo Sports, Trencin, Slovak Republic)Back strength (Fabrication Enterprises, Inc., New York, USA)	OW = PL > WL (control)
			PL (n = 12)	Hurdle hops, Box jump, Depth jump, Medicine ball back throws	2–4 series x 5–20 rep
			WL (Control) (n = 11)	Snatch, Clean & Jerk, Squat, Power Snatch and Clean & Jerk	6–8 series x 1 rep @80–95%
Ince¹²	6	Collegiate volleyball players female (n = 34; 15.43 ± 1.91 y)	WL (n = 17)	Hang split snatch, Hang split clean, Split jerk were included in their standard training.	2–4 series x 5 rep @ 70–85% 1RMIncreasing load every week	2 d·wk⁻¹	6 wk	Spike jump (Optojump)CMJ (Optojump)5- and 20 m sprint (Microgate, Bolzano, Italy)Change of direction (Microgate, Bolzano, Italy)Leg stiffness	OW > C
			C (n = 17)	Their standard training and activities
James et al.⁵⁷	4	Males (n = 16)	CB stronger (n = 8)CB weaker (n = 8)	Power clean, jump squat, hang power clean, snatch grip pull, depth jump, plyometric split squat (rebound)	Week 1–54–5 series × 5 rep @ 40–70% 1RMWeek 6–104–5 series x 4–3 rep @ unload-85% 1RM	3 d·wk⁻¹	10 wk	1RM Power CleanCMJ (Bertec Corporation, USA)	Pre < Post
James et al.⁵⁸	4	Males (n = 16)	CB stronger (n = 8)CB weaker (n = 8)	Power clean, jump squat, hang power clean, snatch grip pull, depth jump.	5 series × 5 rep @ 40–70% 1RM5 series × 4 rep @70–85% 1RM3–5 series x 3–4 rep	3 d·wk⁻¹	10 wk	1RM SquatJump SquatIsometric squatMuscle activation	OW weaker > WL stronger
Loturco et al.⁵⁹	5	Male soccer player (n = 17; 18.4 ± 1.2 y)	WL (n = 8)	Push-press	Session 1–46series × 8 rep @ optimum power loadSession 5–86 series × 6 rep @ 1.05 optimum power loadSession 9–126 series x 4 rep @ 1.1 optimum power load	2 d·wk⁻¹	6 wk	Squat jumpCMJ5-m sprint10-m sprint20-m sprint30-m sprintChange of directionSpeed tests	TD > OW
			TD (n = 9)	Jump squat	Session 1–46series × 8 rep @ optimum power loadSession 5–86 series x 6 rep @ 1.05 optimum power loadSession 9–126 series × 4 rep @ 1.1 optimum power load
Maulit⁶⁰	6	Recreationally resistance-trained men (n = 31; 23.13 ± 2.38 y)	WL EDLG (n = 16)	Explosive deadlift (NSCA)	Linear periodization training model: Beginning 4 series × 5 rep @ 30% 1RM (week 1–2)Ending 6 series x 4 rep @ 40% 1RM (week 3–4)	2 d·wk⁻¹	4 wk	Vertical jump (EPIC, JS; Lincoln, NE, USA)1RM deadliftMaximal isometric Mid-Thigh Pull	Pre < Post
Miller⁶¹	4	Male football player and female soccer player (n = 21; 19.85 ± 0.88 y)	CB female (n = 12)CB female (n = 9)	Clean, snatch pull, hang snatch split jerk, power jerk, clean grip RDL, back squat, snatch grip lunges, incline press, bar rows, single-arm dumbbell bench, pull-ups/pulldowns, single leg RDL, Front squat, Side lunge, bench press (…)	3–6 series × 12–5 rep @ 70–95% 1RM	4 d·wk⁻¹	6 wk	1RM Clean1RM incline press1RM squatBody composition	Pre < Post
Moore et al.⁶²	5	Collegiate athletes (n = 15; 20.2 ± 0.2 y; 10 females, 5 males)	CB (n = 8)	Hang clean, Romanian straight leg deadlift+Resistance training supersets	3 series x 6 rep3 series x 6 rep @ failure	3 d·kw⁻¹	12 wk	CMJ on Vertec (Sports Imports, Inc., Columbus, OH)4RM Squat25 m sprint (hand-held stopwatch)Figure 8 drill on a 5-dot mat	OW = PL
			PL (n = 7)	Hops, over & back, side-to-side, one-legged moving, bounds, tuck jumps, split squat jump, bound hop back, box jump, stadium hops, alternate bound, one-leg zig-sag+Resistance training superset	2–3 series x 15–30 rep (week 1–4)2 series × 15–30 rep week 5–6)1–3 series × 15–30 rep (week 7–8)1–3 series × 10–16 rep (week 9–101–3 series × 10–30 rep (week 11)3 series × 6 rep @ failure
Oranchuk⁶³	6	Female and male golfers (n = 12; 20.3 ± 1.5 y)	WL (n = 6)	Hang clean, Power clean, Push press, Front squat, Incline dumbbell bench, Seated row, Deadlift, Back squat, Trap-bar jump, Dumbbell shoulder press, pull-up, RDL, Dumbbell bench press, Dumbbell rows, Lunge jump, Plate sit-up	Week 1–43–5 series × 10–4 rep @ 85–90%/60–120 sWeek 5–83–5 series × 8–3 rep @ 92.5–95%/60–120 s	3 d·wk⁻¹	8 wk	Club head speedCMJ (Just Jump, Probotics Inc, Huntsville, AL, USA)1RM squat1RM power clean1RM deadlift	OW > C
			C (n = 6)	Bodyweight single-leg squat, dumbbell single-leg RDL, leg curl, plate sit-up, medicine-ball twist, pull-up, dumbbell one-arm bench, band pull-apart, face-pulls, medicine ball golf swing, medicine ball walking lunge, cable internal rotation, cable wood-chop, medicine ball sit-up, one-leg back extension	3–4 series × 12–4 rep/30–45s
Oranchuk⁶⁴	7	NCAA swimmers (females n = 10; males n = 8; 19.6 ± 2.7 y)	CB (n = 9)	Hang high-pull, back squat, dumbbell rdl, alternating dumbbell bench, one-arm cable row, bench press, pull-ups, dumbbell single-leg deadlift, lateral lunges	Week 1–43–4 series × 12–4 rep @ 10–75% / 60–120 sWeek 4–83–6 series x 10–3 rep @ 20–85%/60–180 sWeek 9–102–5 series x 10–2 rep @ 25–90% / 60–180 s	2 d·wk⁻¹	10 wk	SJCMJIsometric mid-thigh pull	OW = TD
			TD (n = 9)	Trap-bar jump squat, Back squat, Dumbbell RDL, Alternating dumbbell bench, One-arm cable row, Bench press, Pull-ups, Dumbbell single-leg deadlift, Lateral lunges
Otto³⁰	6	Healthy men (n = 30; 22.82 ± 1.91 y)	WL (n = 13)	High pull, Power clean, Back Squat	3–4 series × 6–4RM (weeks 1–3)4–6 series x 6–4RM (week 4–6)	2 d· wk⁻¹	6 wk	1RM Back Squat1RM Power CleanVertical jump (EPIC Athletic Performance, Inc., Colorado Springs, CO, USA)	OW > KT
			KT (n = 17)	Kettlebell swing, Accelerated swings, goblet squat	3–4 series × 6–4 (weeks 1–3)4–6 series × 6–4 (weeks 4–6)
Pichardo et al.⁶⁵	6	Male students (n = 59; 12–14 y)	CB (n = 31)	Clean derivatives (above the knee), snatch derivatives (above knee), squat, lunge, upper body horizontal push and pull, brace, rotate, hinge, reactive horizontal and vertical jump, lineal speed.	Weeks 1–61–3 series × 8–20 repWeeks 7–141–3 series × 8–12 repWeek 15–221–4 series × 2–6 repWeeks 23–281–4 series × 2–5 rep	2 d· wk⁻¹	28 wk	Resistance training skills battery quotientIsometric mid-thigh pull (Pasco, CA, USA)CMJ (GymAware; Kinetic Performance Technology, Canberra, Australia)Horizontal jump10-m sprint20-m sprint30-m sprintSeated medicine ball throw	OW = TD
			TD (n = 28)	Deadlift + vertical plyometric jump, Sumo deadlift + horizontal plyometric jump, squat, lunge, upper body horizontal push and pull, brace, rotate, hinge, reactive horizontal and vertical jump, lineal speed.
Roberts⁶⁶	6	High school football players male (n = 40; 14–18 y)	CB (n = 20)	Hang clean, hang power clean, high pull. (Only 2 d·wk⁻¹ Olympic lifting exercise)Bench press, squat and other auxiliary lift	3 series × 5 rep @ 60–95% 1RM (increasing 5% 1RM per week)	4 d·wk⁻¹	8 wk	1RM Squat1RM Power cleanVertical jump (Probotics Just Jump system)9.14 m sprint (Polaris Sports Timing System)	OW > TD
			TD (n = 20)	Deadlift, Bench press, squat and other auxiliary lift
Slovak et al.⁶⁷	4	Young female handball athletes (n = 10; 17 ± 1.3 y)	CB (n = 10)	Squat, Snatch pull, Full snatch, Second round in the throwing gesture, Bench press	3 series × 5–10 rep @ load: 22–46	NA	8 wk	Abalakov jumpCMJ (Globus Brasil, RJ, Brazil)1RM squat10-m sprint20-m sprint30-m sprint	OW > TD
			TD (n = 10)	Squat, Earth lifting, Stiff, Bench press, Bent-over row	3–4 series × 3–10 rep @ load: 30–58
Sofiene et al.⁶⁸	6	Elite table tennis player (n = 30; 18.05 ± 1.04 y)	WL (n = 15)	Power snatch, power cleanSquat, Push press, Jerk	2–4 series × 4–8 rep @ 70–85% 1RM	3 d·wk⁻¹	6 wk	5-m sprintSJCMJStrength hand gripThrowing medicine ball1RM Bench press1RM squat	OW > C
			C (n = 15)	Their standard training and activities
Suchomel et al.⁶⁹	6	Male (n = 27; 22.43 ± 2.52 y)	CB Catch (n = 9)	Power clean, Midthigh power clean, Countermovement power clean, hang power clean	3–5 series × 2–10 rep @50–82.5% 1RM Power clean	3 d·wk⁻¹	10 wk	Isometric mid-thigh pull1RM Power clean10-m sprint20-m sprint30-m sprint505 change of direction	OW Overload > WL Catch = WL Pull
			CB Pull (n = 9)	Clean pull, Midthigh pull, Countermovement shrug, hang high pull, jump shrug	3–5 series × 2–10 rep @50–82.5% 1RM Power clean
			CB overload (n = 9)	Clean pull, midthigh pull, clean pull, countermovement shrug, hang high pull, jump shrug	3–5 series × 2–10 rep @30–110% 1RM Power clean
Suchomel et al. ⁷	6	Male (n = 25; 22.64 ± 2.36 y)	CB catch (n = 8)	Power clean, midthigh power clean, Countermovement power clean, hang power clean	3–5 series × 2–10 rep @50–82.5% 1RM Power clean	3 d·wk⁻¹	10 wk	SJ (PASPORT, PASCO Scientific, CA, USA)CMJ (PASPORT, PASCO Scientific, CA, USA)	OW Overload > WL Catch = WL Pull
			CB pull (n = 9)	Clean pull, midthigh pull, countermovement shrug, hang high pull, jump shrug	3–5 series × 2–10 rep @50–82.5% 1RM Power clean
			CB overload (n = 8)	Clean pull, midthigh pull, clean pull, countermovement shrug, hang high pull, jump shrug	3–5 series × 2–10 rep @30–110% 1RM Power clean
Teo et al.⁷⁰	7	Recreationally active male (n = 26; 24.2 ± 1.11 y)	WL (n = 13)	Hang power clean, power snatch, half squat,	4 series × 4 rep @ 70% 1RM; 4 series × 6RM (week 1–3)6 series × 4 rep @ 70% 1RM; 4 series × 6RM (weeks 1–3)	3 d·wk⁻¹	6 wk	CMJSJDJ5- and 20 m sprint505 agility test	OW = PL
			PL (n = 13)	Weighted double, leg jumps, 45 cm depth jumps, half squat	4 series × 4 rep @ 30% 1RM; 8 series10 rep; 4 series × 6RM (week 1–3)6 series x 4 rep @ 30% 1RM; 8 series12 rep; 4 series × 6RM (week 1–3)
Tricoli et al.³¹	5	Male college physical education students (n = 22; 22.0 ± 1.5)	WL (n = 7)	High pull, Power clean, Clean and Jerk	3–6 series × 6–4RM (weeks 1–4)4–6 series × 6–4RM (weeks 5–8)	3 d·wk⁻¹	8 wk	SJ and CMJ (Jump Test Pro device)10- and 30 m sprint (photocells)Agility test (photocells)1RM Clean and jerk1RM Half Squat	OW > PL > C
			PL (n = 8)	Double-leg hurdle hops, Alternated single-leg hurdle hops, single-leg hurdle hops, 40-cm drop jumps	4 series × 4 rep (weeks 1–4)6 series × 4 rep (week -8)
			C (n = 7)	No training

y: Years; rep: Repetition; d: Days; wk: Week; CMJ: Countermovement Jump; SJ: Squat Jump; DJ: Drop Jump; NA: Not an available; WL: Weightlifting and its derived; TD: Traditional Weightlifting; C: Control; PL: Plyometric Training; IK: Isokinetic; HC: Hang Clean; HS: Hang Snatch; Catch: Power Clean with Catch phase; Pull: Power Clean without Catch phase; KBG: Kettlebell Training; EDLG: Explosive Deadlift Training; RDL: Romanian deadlift; RPE10: 0–10 rate of perceived exertion scale.

Outcomes

Pooled analysis showed a statistically significant improvement after training in all analyzed variables (p < .05), and the ES magnitudes showed a small to moderate change for SJ (number of analysis units [k] = 34; n = 372; SMD₊ = 0.31 [95% CI = 0.22, 0.40]; Figure 2), CMJ (k = 43; n = 536; SMD₊ = 0.33 [95% CI = 0.21, 0.46]; Figure 3), sprint (k = 23; n = 304; SMD₊ = −0.38 [95% CI = −0.55, −0.21]; Figure 4), and 1RM squat (k = 28; n = 345; SMD₊ = 0.58 [95% CI = 0.38, 0.79]; Figure 5).

Figure 2.

Meta-analysis of the effect of three type of exercises (CB = weightlifting and derivatives combine with traditional exercises; TD = only traditional exercises; WL = only weightlifting and derivatives exercises) on squat jump performance. Values on x-axis denote standarised mean differences (SMD). Random effects model with predictive interval. The predictive interval indicates the range within which we expect the effects of 95% of future studies will be. For studies that had multiple study group, the effect are presented independently and are marked as it is called on original paper.

Figure 3.

Meta-analysis of the effect of three type of exercises (CB = weightlifting and derivatives combine with traditional exercises; TD = only traditional exercises; WL = only weightlifting and derivatives exercises) on countermovement jump performance. Values on x-axis denote standarised mean differences (SMD). Random effects model with predictive interval. The predictive interval indicates the range within which we expect the effects of 95% of future studies will be. For studies that had multiple study group, the effect are presented independently and are marked as it is called on original paper.

Figure 4.

Meta-analysis of the effect of three type of exercises (CB = weightlifting and derivatives combine with traditional exercises; TD = only traditional exercises; WL = only weightlifting and derivatives exercises) on sprinting performance. Values on x-axis denote standarised mean differences (SMD). Random effects model with predictive interval. The predictive interval indicates the range within which we expect the effects of 95% of future studies will be. For studies that had multiple study group, the effect are presented independently and are marked as it is called on original paper.

Figure 5.

Meta-analysis of the effect of three type of exercises (CB = weightlifting and derivatives combine with traditional exercises; TD = only traditional exercises; WL = only weightlifting and derivatives exercises) on squat strength. Values on x-axis denote standarised mean differences (SMD). Random effects model with predictive interval. The predictive interval indicates the range within which we expect the effects of 95% of future studies will be. For studies that had multiple study group, the effect are presented independently and are marked as it is called on original paper.

Subgroup analyses showed no statistically significant differences between training methods (i.e. CB, WL, and TD) for SJ (Q_M = 0.29; p = 0.866), CMJ (Q_M = 3.54, p = 0.171) or sprint (Q_M = 0.81, p = 0.666), but for 1RM (Q_M = 10.17, p = 0.006). However, heterogeneity analyses of the overall SMD reached statistical significance with moderate inconsistency for CMJ (I² = 51%, p < 0.01), sprint (I² = 56%, p < 0.01), and 1RM (I² = 60%, p < 0.01), while no inconsistency was found for SJ (I² = 0%, p < 0.630). Therefore, moderator analyses were performed for CMJ, sprint, and 1RM.

Analysis of moderator variables on the ESs of CMJ, sprint, and 1RM squat

Meta-regression analysis did not show results influenced by continuous moderators’ variables described before. However, several categorical variables showed an influence on the training-induced effect on CMJ (Table 2), sprint (Table 3), and 1RM (Table 4) results. Regarding moderator effect in CMJ, the higher frequency of training showed a higher ES (SMD₊ = 0.51) than the lower frequency (SMD₊ = 0.21). For the sprint, the performance level influenced the result, since the inexperienced participants (SMD₊ = −0.71) achieved better results than the experienced (SMD₊ = −0.38). On the other hand, for 1RM, the length of the intervention was positive for 1RM squat (SMD₊ = 0.94) regardless of increasing frequency (SMD₊ = 0.53).

Table 2.

Results of analysing the influence of categorical moderatos variables on effect for CMJ.

Moderator	Category	k	SMD [95% CI]	Q	p	I ²
Experience	Beginner	14	0.32 [0.02, 0.62]	5.63	0.228	50%
	Novice	13	0.36 [0.25, 0.46]
	Intermediate	12	0.41 [0.15, 0.68]
	Advance	2	0.77 [−2.26, 3.81]
	Elite	2	−0.37 [−6.45, 5.69]
Training days per week	≤ 2 days	24	0.21 [0.08, 0.33]	10.21	0.006	43%
	3 days	17	0.37 [0.37, 0.83]
	≥ 4 days	2	0.51 [−6.86, 7.88]
Weeks of intervention	≤ 8 weeks	18	0.22 [0.02, 0.41]	4.97	0.083	48%
	8 – 12weeks	12	0.58 [0.28, 0.86]
	>12 weeks	13	0.30 [0.11, 0.48]

Note. 95% CI: 95% Confidence Interval around SMD; Q: statistic for testing the significant of the moderator variable; I²: heterogeneity index; k: number of analysis’ units; SMD: standard mean difference; p: probability level associated to Q.

Table 3.

Results of analyzing the influence of categorical moderatos variables on effect for sprint.

Moderator	Category	k	SMD [95% CI]	Q	p	I ²
Experience	Beginner	9	−0.71 [−0.91, −0.52]	41.75	<0.001	56%
	Novice	4	0.01 [−0.23, 0.26]
	Intermediate	7	−0.30 [−0.41, −0.19]
	Advance	1	0.03 [−0.58, 0.64]
	Elite	2	−0.38 [−6.68, 5.93]
Training days per week	≤ 2 days	12	−0.50 [−0.77, −0.24]	5.95	0.051	56%
	3 days	7	−0.31 [−0.63, 0.01]
	≥ 4 days	4	−0.12 [−0.45, 0.20]
Weeks of intervention	≤ 8 weeks	15	−0.33 [−0.55, −0.11]	2.68	0.262	56%
	8 – 12weeks	4	−0.34 [−1.16, 0.49]
	>12 weeks	4	−0.58 [−0.97, −0.19]

Note. 95% CI: 95% Confidence Interval around SMD; Q: statistic for testing the significant of the moderator variable; I²: heterogeneity index; k: number of analysis’ unit; SMD: standard mean difference; p: probability level associated to Q.

Table 4.

Results of analyzing the influence of categorical moderatos variables on effect for 1RM squat.

Moderator	Category	k	SMD [95% CI]	Q	p	I ²
Experience	Beginner	4	0.70 [−0.31, 1.72]	5.24	0.155	59%
	Novice	10	0.76 [0.37, 1.14]
	Intermediate	12	0.38 [0.13, 0.63]
	Advance	2	1.14 [−5.33, 7.62]
	Elite	–	–
Training days per week	≤ 2 days	8	0.40 [0.04, 0.77]	2.89	0.235	56%
	3 days	11	0.86 [0.36, 1.37]
	≥ 4 days	9	0.49 [0.22, 0.75]
Weeks of intervention	≤ 8 weeks	20	0.53 [0.29, 0.77]	7.58	0.022	57%
	8–12weeks	5	0.48 [−0.32, 1.27]
	>12 weeks	3	0.94 [0.47, 1.41]

Note. 95% CI: 95% confidence interval around SMD; Q: statistic for testing the significant of the moderator variable; I²: heterogeneity index; k: number of analysis’ units; SMD: standard mean difference; p: probability level associated to Q.

Sensitivity analysis

Outliers were found for the SJ, CMJ, sprint, and 1RM sensitivity analysis. Thus, for SJ with a lower critical value (SMD = 0.22) and an upper critical value (SMD = 0.40), the outlier was Sofiene et al.⁶⁸ (SMD = 0.97). For CMJ, with a lower critical value (SD = 0.21) and an upper critical value (SMD = 0.46), the outliers were Chaouachi et al.⁴ (SMD = 1.39), İnce⁵⁵ for the split group (SMD = −0.33) James et al.⁵⁸ for weaker group (SMD = 3.56), and Loturco et al.⁵⁹ (SMD = −0.89). For sprint, with a lower critical value (SMD = −0.55) and an upper critical value (SMD = −0.21), the outlier was Moore et al.⁶² (SMD = −2.73). For 1RM squat, with a lower critical value (SMD = 0.38) and an upper critical value (SMD = 0.79), the outliers were Hawkins et al.⁵³ (SMD = 2.45), Moore et al.⁶² (SMD = 13.24), and Slovak et al.⁶⁷ (SMD = 3.46).

The analysis was carried out after removing the outlier. The conclusion was similar to before removing the outliers in all variables (Table 5). In contrast, the heterogeneity showed a stronger decrease for CMJ (from I² = 51% to I² = 26%, p = 0.07) and 1RM (from 60% to 43%, p < 0.05).

Table 5.

Results of meta-analysis after removing outliers.

Variable	Subgroup	k	SMD [95% CI]	Q	p	I ²
SJ		33	0.30 [0.22, 0.38]	1.28	0.528	0%
	CB	13	0.26 [0.14, 0.38]
	WL	10	0.31 [0.06, 0.45]
	TD	10	0.34 [0.24, 0.45]
CMJ		39	0.33 [0.24, 0.43]	2.76	0.252	26%
	CB	20	0.41 [0.28, 0.55]
	WL	9	0.25 [0.00, 0.49]
	TD	10	0.22 [0.05, 0.40]
Sprint		22	−0.37 [−0.52, −0.21]	0.72	0.696	52%
	CB	11	−0.44 [−0.60, −0.29]
	WL	6	−0.31 [−0.81, 0.20]
	TD	5	−0.30 [−0.89, 0.28]
1RM squat		25	0.53 [0.38, 0.69]	15.41	<0.001	43%
	CB	11	0.81 [0.57, 1.04]
	WL	11	0.31 [0.15, 0.47]
	TD	3	0.39 [−0.10, 0.87]

Note. 95% CI: 95% confidence interval around SMD; Q: statistic for testing the significant of the subgroup; I²: heterogeneity index; k: number of analysis’ units; SMD: standard mean difference; p: probability level associated to Q.

Publication bias

The Egger tests were statistically significant for SJ (t[33] = 2.06, p = 0.047), CMJ (t[42] = 2.38, p = 0.022), and 1RM squat (t[27] = 5.76, p < 0.001). Therefore, the trim-and-fill method was used for imputing missed ESs. Three ESs were imputed for SJ (Figure 6(a)), six for CMJ (Figure 6(b)), and nine for 1RM (Figure 6(c)). After imputing missed ESs, the ES magnitudes were diminished for SJ (from 0.31 [95% CI = 0.23, 0.40] to 0.28 [95% CI = 0.18, 0.38]), for CMJ (from 0.33 [95% CI = 0.21, 0.46] to 0.26 (95% CI = 0.12, 0.41]) and for 1RM (from 0.58 [95% CI = 0.38, 0.79] to 0.42 [95% CI = 0.13, 0.71]). Therefore, publication bias cannot be disregarded as a possible threat to the validity of the current findings for SJ, CMJ, and 1RM.

Figure 6.

Analysis of publication bias for SJ (a), CMJ (b), and 1RM squat (c). Results of trim-and-fill method are drawn (empty dot are imputed missed effect size). Funnel plot, using data from studies included in meta-analysis.

Discussion

The aim of this meta-analysis was to analyze the effect of isolated weightlifting training, combined weightlifting and traditional resistance training on squat strength, jumping and sprinting performance improvements. Our analysis did not find a significant difference between training groups. However, weightlifting exercises combined with traditional resistance training exercises caused a greater magnitude of changes in CMJ, sprint, and 1RM.

The benefits of including weightlifting movements in training sessions compared to traditional resistance training to improve jumping performance could be dependent on the jump type. Thus, while TD showed a higher magnitude of changes on SJ performance, the groups including weightlifting exercises (WL and CB) showed a greater magnitude of changes in CMJ height. Nevertheless, all groups showed a small effect in both jump types. A reason for the higher magnitude of change in CMJ when weightlifting exercises are used in training sessions could be attributed to changes in muscle-tendon stiffness,¹² which optimize the stretch-shorting cycle required in CMJ. Also, neuromuscular adaptations may explain the greater ES found in CMJ, since they have been linked to the ability to produce higher force levels during explosive movements after weightlifting training.^22–26,71 Although there are differences between movements (e.g. weightlifting exercises involve bar acceleration, while the jump involves body mass acceleration), several authors have reported comparable values for peak force and rate of force development between weightlifting and jump tasks.^22,25,72 In this sense, several authors^22–26 have shown that weightlifting movement patterns are similar to vertical jump. So, the benefits on CMJ performance after WL and CB training found in our analysis may be related to changes in peak force and rate of force development.⁷³ Since plyometric exercise could increase the effect on vertical jump, the CB group effect could have been influenced by type training. So, a higher SMD was shown for training that combined weightlifting movements and plyometric exercise as in James’ studies.^57,58

Another important variable to interpret the results from studies can be the training load. There are differences in the total training load employed in weightlifting training to improve jump performance. For example, in Hawkins et al.'s⁵³ protocol participants have to complete repetition until muscle failure during training sessions. These authors showed benefits for SJ, but not for CMJ, so training with repetitions until failure may not be a good strategy to improve explosive movements that include the stretch-shortening cycle such as CMJ, but could be a possibility to improve concentric-only movements like SJ, as shown in the TD group. Nevertheless, another variable was confirmed—frequency of training—which is a moderator for improving CMJ performance. In this sense, the present meta-analysis showed that higher frequency (≥ 4 days per week) in studies such as that by Hoffman et al.³ achieved a higher effect compared with studies with lower training days per week, such as that by Ciacci and Bartolomei⁵⁰ (≤ 2 days per week).

Concerning sprinting time, results obtained from meta-analysis showed an unusual result in the Moore et al.'s⁶² study, with a very high SMD according to other studies. We repeated the analysis without that study, and the new analysis showed a lower SMD for the CB group (ES = −0.48) and lower heterogeneity (I² = 34%).

Sprinting performance improvements may be related to changes in the stretch-shortening cycle pattern and increases in the muscle-tendon unit's stiffness, which has been reported after weightlifting training.¹ In this context, some authors have linked muscle-tendon unit stiffness to lower-limb performance,⁷⁴ which explains the higher leg stiffness values found in power athletes compared with endurance athletes or untrained populations.^75–77 According to the result of moderator analysis, the benefits of weightlifting on sprinting performance are mediated by participants’ level. For example, Pichardo et al.⁶⁵ included participants aged between 9 and 14 years old and showed a moderate increase in sprinting performance (ES = −0.68), while Helland et al.³² measured high-level athletes, showing a lower effect (ES = −0.08) after weightlifting training. Another explanation for heterogeneity between studies may be related to exercises included in the training program. In Loturco et al.'s⁵⁹ study, one group carried out weightlifting through the push press exercise, and another group performed jump squat. Push press could not be a specific task compared to jump squat to improve sprinting performance, despite Comfort et al.⁷⁸ have shown some similarities between squat jump and push press executions. This might partially explain the greater effects found in the TD group compared with the CB and WL groups.

The last variable analyzed was the effect of weightlifting training on 1RM in the squat exercise. This variable initially showed higher values of SMD in the CB and TD groups, but with an important influence of two studies. The unusual 1RM changes reported by Moore et al.'s⁶² (from 70 to 212 kg) and Hawkins et al.'s⁵³ (from 112.25 to 147.75) studies, made us contact the authors to ask for the original data. Unfortunately, no responses were obtained. For these reasons, we decided to repeat the analysis for this variable without data from those studies. As a result, SMD showed a moderate effect for CB (ES = 0.78) and small effect for TD (ES = 0.39).

The moderate effect on maximal strength after weightlifting training could be explained by the high relative loads used in weightlifting exercises. Loads above 80% of 1RM are required to maximize power output in weightlifting exercises like the SN or the C&J.⁷⁹ Therefore, the concomitant factor of the load that maximized power output and a heavy load can be postulated as an optimal stimulus to increase 1RM strength. In this line, Schoenfeld et al.⁸⁰ suggested that heavy load training is more effective than lower loads for improving maximal strength. Also, resistance training performed at higher movement velocity is a greater stimulus for enhancing cross-sectional area, force, and power than training at lower movement velocities.⁸¹ In this sense, weightlifting exercises require movements to be performed at maximal intended velocity and usually show higher velocities than traditional resistance exercises such as squat.⁸² Velocity is a key point during weightlifting performance and could be an important advantage to improve maximal strength through these movements. A final variable that could take in account, is the training program duration, where longer studies have shown a bigger effect on 1RM than shorter studies.^3,48 Despite the usefulness of training programs based on weightlifting exercises in improving explosive actions, the current meta-analysis presents some limitations. An important limitation is the high variability found in participants’ characteristics, including a wide range of ages and, in particular, differences in resistance training experience. Further, the diversity in training program variables (i.e. intensity, volume, program duration) is an important limitation to obtain more solid conclusions. Altogether, these limitations highlight the necessity for more studies, which will allow the detection of any qualitative moderator variable.

Practical application

The main finding in this meta-analysis is that weightlifting and their derivatives are effective for improving sprinting, jumping performance, and squat strength, as long as they are combined with other traditional resistance exercises. Based on the magnitude of changes, it should be highlighted that the combination of weightlifting with traditional resistance training appears to be the most useful strategy to improve 1RM squat, jumping and sprinting performance. Based on the present results, strength and conditioning coaches are encouraged to prescribe combined weightlifting training from 2 to 4 days per week for 8–12 weeks. According to prescription characteristics from studies on this meta-analysis, we can suggest that weightlifting exercises would be carried out over two to six series, with an intensity higher than 75% of 1RM. The use of specific exercises and intensities depending on the periodization phase remains understudied, although research is showing promising results.⁸³ In this sense, derivatives such as clean/snatch pull from floor, thigh, or knee are strongly recommended for several training phases.

Footnotes

Author contribution

The screening and writing of the manuscript were carried out by R.S., J.L., A.M. and A.G.; the data analysis was performed by A.G. with support from A.M.; the methodology was supervised by J.L. and A.M.; and, the original idea was conceived by R.S. who supervised the project.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Adrián García-Valverde

References

Arabatzi

Kellis

. Olympic weightlifting training causes different knee muscle–coactivation adaptations compared with traditional weight training. J Strength Cond Res 2012; 26: 2192–2201.

Garhammer

Takano

. Training for weightlifting. In: Komi PV (ed) Strength and Power in Sport. 2nd ed. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 1992, pp.502–516.

Hoffman

Cooper

Wendell

, et al. Comparison of olympic vs. traditional power lifting training programs in football players. J Strength Cond Res 2004; 18: 129–135.

Chaouachi

Hammami

Kaabi

, et al. Olympic weightlifting and plyometric training with children provides similar or greater performance improvements than traditional resistance training. J Strength Cond Res 2014; 28: 1483–1496.

Hackett

Davies

Soomro

, et al. Olympic weightlifting training improves vertical jump height in sportspeople: a systematic review with meta-analysis. British Journal of Sports Medicine 2015; 50: 865–872. DOI: 10.1136/bjsports-2015-094951.

Kipp

Suchomel

Comfort

. Correlational analysis between joint-level kinetics of countermovement jumps and weightlifting derivatives. J Sports Sci Med Sci Sports 2019; 18: 663.

Suchomel

McKeever

Comfort

. Training with weightlifting derivatives: the effects of force and velocity overload stimuli. J Strength Cond Res 2020; 34: 1808–1818.

Comfort

Dos’ Santos

Thomas

, et al. An investigation into the effects of excluding the catch phase of the power clean on force-time characteristics during isometric and dynamic tasks: an intervention study. J Strength Cond Res 2018; 32: 2116–2129.

Fatouros

Jamurtas

Leontsini

, et al. Evaluation of plyometric exercise training, weight training, and their combination on vertical jumping performance and leg strength. J Strength Cond Res 2000; 14: 470–476.

10.

Tüfekçi

Erdağı

. Ultrasonographic Measurements of the Achilles Tendon Thickness of Men and Women Athletes in Olympic Weightlifting. Journal of Education and Training Studies 2019; 7: 180–186. DOI: 10.11114/jets.v7i4.4116

11.

Erdağı

Tüfekçi

Studies

. The Study of Effects of Olympic-Style Weightlifting Trainings on the Thickness of the Quadriceps Femoris Tendon of Athletes. Journal of Education and Training Studies 2019; 7: 7–13. DOI: 10.11114/jets.v7i6.4171

12.

İnce

. Effects of split style Olympic weightlifting training on Leg stiffness vertical jump change of direction and sprint in collegiate volleyball players. Universal J Educ Res 2019; 7: 24–31.

13.

Calatayud

Colado

Martin

, et al. Core muscle activity during the clean and jerk lift with barbell versus sandbags and water bags. Int J Sports Phys Ther 2015; 10: 803.

14.

MacKenzie

Lavers

Wallace

. A biomechanical comparison of the vertical jump, power clean, and jump squat. J Sports Sci 2014; 32: 1576–1585.

15.

Yavuz

Erdag

. Kinematic and electromyographic activity changes during back squat with submaximal and maximal loading. Appl Bionics Biomech 2017; 2017: 9084725.

16.

Garhammer

. Power production by olympic weightlifters. Med Sci Sports Exercise 1980; 12: 54–60.

17.

Mastalerz

Szyszka

Grantham

, et al. Biomechanical analysis of successful and unsuccessful snatch lifts in elite female weightlifters. J Hum Kinet 2019; 68: 69.

18.

Sanchez-Medina

Perez

Gonzalez-Badillo

. Importance of the propulsive phase in strength assessment. Int J Sports Med 2010; 31: 123–129.

19.

Gourgoulis

Aggeloussis

Garas

, et al. Unsuccessful vs. successful performance in snatch lifts: a kinematic approach. J Strength Cond Res 2009; 23: 486–494.

20.

Andersen

Fimland

Gunnarskog

, et al. Core muscle activation in one-armed and two-armed Kettlebell swing. J Strength Cond Res 2016; 30: 1196–1204.

21.

Gourgoulis

Aggeloussis

Antoniou

, et al. Comparative 3-dimensional kinematic analysis of the snatch technique in elite male and female Greek weightlifters. J Strength Cond Res 2002; 16: 359–366.

22.

Canavan

Garrett

Armstrong

. Kinematic and kinetic relationships between an olympic-style lift and the vertical jump. J Strength Cond Res 1996; 10: 127–130.

23.

Carlock

Smith

Hartman

, et al. The relationship between vertical jump power estimates and weightlifting ability: a field-test approach. J Strength Cond Res 2004; 18: 534–539.

24.

Childers

Wood

Stone

, et al. Influence of different relative intensities on power output during; the hang, power clean: identification of the optimal load. J Strength Cond Res 2005; 19: 698–708.

25.

Garhammer

Gregor

. Propulsion forces as a function of intensity for weightlifting and vertical jumping. J Strength Cond Res 1992; 6: 129–134.

26.

Hori

Newton

Andrews

, et al.

Does performance of hang power clean differentiate performance of jumping, sprinting, and changing of direction?

J Strength Cond Res 2008; 22: 412–418.

27.

Markström

Olsson

. Countermovement jump peak force relative to body weight and jump height as predictors for sprint running performances: (in) homogeneity of track and field athletes? J Strength Cond Res 2013; 27: 944–953.

28.

Stone

Sands

Carlock

, et al. The importance of isometric maximum strength and peak rate-of-force development in sprint cycling. J Strength Cond Res 2004; 18: 878–884.

29.

Wisløff

Castagna

Helgerud

, et al. Strong correlation of maximal squat strength with sprint performance and vertical jump height in elite soccer players. Br J Sports Med 2004; 38: 285–288.

30.

Otto

Coburn

Brown

, et al. Effects of weightlifting vs. kettlebell training on vertical jump, strength, and body composition. J Strength Cond Res 2012; 26: 1199–1202.

31.

Tricoli

Lamas

Carnevale

, et al. Short-term effects on lower-body functional power development: weightlifting vs. vertical jump training programs. J Strength Cond Res 2005; 19: 433–437.

32.

Helland

Hole

Iversen

, et al.

Training strategies to improve muscle power: is olympic-style weightlifting relevant?

Med Sci Sports Exercise 2017; 49: 736–745.

33.

Moher

Liberati

Tetzlaff

, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med 2009; 151: 264–269.

34.

Maher

Sherrington

Herbert

, et al. Reliability of the PEDro scale for rating quality of randomized controlled trials. Physical therapy 2003; 83: 713–721.

35.

Morris

. Estimating effect sizes from pretest-posttest-control group designs. Organ Res Methods 2008; 11: 364–386.

36.

Petticrew

Roberts

. Systematic reviews in the social sciences: a practical guide. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2006.

37.

Langan

Higgins

JPT

Jackson

, et al. A comparison of heterogeneity variance estimators in simulated random-effects meta-analyses. Res Synth Methods 2019; 10: 83–98. 2018/08/02.

38.

Higgins

Thompson

. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med 2002; 21: 1539–1558.

39.

Sánchez-Meca

Marín-Martínez

. Confidence intervals for the overall effect size in random-effects meta-analysis. Psychol Methods 2008; 13: 31.

40.

Cohen

. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2nd ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1988.

41.

Huedo-Medina

Sánchez-Meca

Marín-Martínez

, et al.

Assessing heterogeneity in meta-analysis: q statistic or I² index?

Psychol Methods 2006; 11: 193.

42.

Hoffmann

Colley

Doyon

, et al. Normative-referenced percentile values for physical fitness among Canadians. Heatlth Reports 2019; 30: 14–22.

43.

Tukey

. Exploratory data analysis. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley Pub. Co., 1977.

44.

Egger

Smith

Schneider

, et al. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ 1997; 315: 629–634.

45.

Hoffman

JIE

. Meta-analysis. In: Hoffman

JIE

(ed) Basic Biostatistics for Medical and Biomedical Practitioners. 2ed. London: Academic Press, 2019, pp.621–629.

46.

Ayers

DeBeliso

Sevene

, et al. Hang cleans and hang snatches produce similar improvements in female collegiate athletes. Biol Sport 2016; 33: 251.

47.

Barfield

Anderson

. Effect of CrossFit™ on health-related physical fitness: a pilot study. J Sport Human Performance 2014; 2: 23–28.

48.

Barr

. The effect of a 16 week weightlifting style program on changes in body mass, strength and countermovement jump in university football players. J Australian Strength Cond 2012; 20: 24–30.

49.

Channell

Barfield

. Effect of olympic and traditional resistance training on vertical jump improvement in high school boys. J Strength Cond Res 2008; 22: 1522–1527.

50.

Ciacci

Bartolomei

. The effects of two different explosive strength training programs on vertical jump performance in basketball. J Sports Med Phys Fitness 2018; 58: 1375–1382.

51.

Gharib

. Effect of functional strength training on snatch performance for weightlifters. Turkish J Kinesiol 2018; 4: 47–52.

52.

González-Badillo

Gorostiaga

Arellano

, et al. Moderate resistance training volume produces more favorable strength gains than high or low volumes during a short-term training cycle. J Strength Cond Res 2005; 19: 689–697.

53.

Hawkins

Doyle

McGuigan

The effect of different training programs on eccentric energy utilization in college-aged males. J Strength Cond Res 2009; 23: 1996–2002.

54.

Hornsby

Gentles

MacDonald

, et al. Maximum strength, rate of force development, jump height, and peak power alterations in weightlifters across five months of training. Sports 2017; 5: 78.

55.

İnce

. Comparison of Training Effects of Split-Style Olympic Lifts and Squat-Style Olympic Lifts on Performance in Collegiate Volleyball Players. The Physical Educator 2020; 77: 668–686. DOI: 10.18666/tpe-2020-v77-i3-9913

56.

İnce

Şentürk

. Effects of plyometric and pull training on performance and selected strength characteristics of junior male weightlifter. Phys Educ Students 2019; 23: 120–128.

57.

James

Comfort

Suchomel

, et al. Influence of power clean ability and training age on adaptations to weightlifting-style training. J Strength Cond Res 2019; 33: 2936–2944.

58.

James

Haff

Kelly

, et al. The impact of strength level on adaptations to combined weightlifting, plyometric, and ballistic training. Scand J Med Sci Sports 2018; 28: 1494–1505.

59.

Loturco

Pereira

Kobal

, et al. Improving sprint performance in soccer: effectiveness of jump squat and olympic push press exercises. PloS One 2016; 11: e0153958.

60.

Maulit

Archer

Leyva

, et al. Effects of kettlebell swing vs. explosive deadlift training on strength and power. Int J Kinesiol Sports Sci 2017; 5: 1–7.

61.

Miller

Koh

Park

C-G

. Effects of power-based complex training on body composition and muscular strength in collegiate athletes. Am J Sports Sci Med 2014; 2: 202–207.

62.

Moore

EWG

Hickey

Raoul

FRI

. Comparison of two twelve week off-season combined training programs on entry level collegiate soccer players’ performance. J Strength Cond Res 2005; 19: 791–798.

63.

Oranchuk

Mannerberg

Robinson

, et al. Eight weeks of strength and power training improves club head speed in collegiate golfers. J Strength Cond Res 2020; 34: 2205–2213.

64.

Oranchuk

Robinson

Switaj

, et al. Comparison of the hang high pull and loaded jump squat for the development of vertical jump and isometric force-time characteristics. J Strength Cond Res 2019; 33: 17–24.

65.

Pichardo

Oliver

Harrison

, et al. Effects of combined resistance training and weightlifting on motor skill performance of adolescent male athletes. J Strength Cond Res 2019; 33: 3226–3235.

66.

Roberts

DeBeliso

. Olympic lifting vs. Traditional lifting methods for North American high school football players. Turkish J Kinesiol 2018; 4: 91–100.

67.

Slovak

Carvalho

Rodrigues

, et al. Effects of traditional strength training and olympic weightlifting in handball players. Revista Brasileira de Medicina do Esporte 2019; 25: 230–234.

68.

Sofiene

Hermassi

Safa

, et al. Effect of an integrated resistance program based weightlifting exercises on improving physical performance of young table elite’s tennis players. Adv Phys Educ 2016; 06: 364–377.

69.

Suchomel

McKeever

McMahon

, et al. The effect of training with weightlifting catching or pulling derivatives on squat jump and countermovement jump force–time adaptations. J Functional Morphol Kinesiol 2020; 5: 28.

70.

Teo

Newton

, et al. Comparing the effectiveness of a short-term vertical jump vs. weightlifting program on athletic power development. J Strength Cond Res 2016; 30: 2741–2748.

71.

Hori

Newton

Nosaka

, et al. Weightlifting exercises enhance athletic performance that requires high-load speed strength. Strength Cond J 2005; 24: 50.

72.

Haff

Stone

O’Bryant

, et al. Force-time dependent characteristics of dynamic and isometric muscle actions. J Strength Cond Res 1997; 11: 269–272.

73.

Harbili

Alptekin

. Comparative kinematic analysis of the snatch lifts in elite male adolescent weightlifters. J Sports Sci Med 2014; 13: 417–422.

74.

Brazier

Bishop

Simons

, et al. Lower extremity stiffness: effects on performance and injury and implications for training. Strength Cond J 2014; 36: 103–112.

75.

Brughelli

Cronin

. Influence of running velocity on vertical, leg and joint stiffness: modelling and recommendations for future research. Sports Med 2008; 38: 647–657.

76.

Hobara

Kimura

Omuro

, et al. Differences in lower extremity stiffness between endurance-trained athletes and untrained subjects. J Sci Med Sport 2009; 13: 106–111.

77.

Hobara

Kimura

Omuro

, et al. Determinants of difference in leg stiffness between endurance- and power-trained athletes. J Biomech 2008; 41: 506–514.

78.

Comfort

Mather

Smith

. No differences in kinetics between the squat jump, push press and mid-thigh power clean. J Athl Enhanc 2013; 2. DOI: 10.4172/2324-9080.1000132

79.

Pennington

Laubach

De Marco

, et al. Determining the optimal load for maximal power output for the power clean and snatch in collegiate male football players. J Exercise Phys Online 2010; 13: 10–19.

80.

Schoenfeld

Peterson

Ogborn

, et al. Effects of low- vs. high-load resistance training on muscle strength and hypertrophy in well-trained men. J Strength Cond Res 2015; 29: 2954–2963.

81.

Claflin

Larkin

Cederna

, et al. Effects of high- and low-velocity resistance training on the contractile properties of skeletal muscle fibers from young and older humans. J Appl Physiol 2011; 111: 1021–1030.

82.

Haff

Garcia-Ramos

James

. Using velocity to predict the maximum dynamic strength in the power clean. Sports (Basel 2020; 8: 129.

83.

Suchomel

Comfort

Lake

. Enhancing the force-velocity profile of athletes using weightlifting derivatives. Strength Cond J 2017; 39: 10–20.