Resisted sprint training improves short-distance acceleration (under 20 meters), particularly in young male athletes, but evidence for maximal velocity, jump performance, and sprint mechanics remains inconsistent or weak.
Researchers conducted an umbrella review (a systematic review of systematic reviews) examining 15 meta-analyses on resisted sprint training (RST) to determine what actually improves sprint performance. The work synthesized evidence from over 100 primary studies involving nearly 1,000 participants across multiple databases through August 2025.
The most reliable finding: resisted sprint training consistently improved short-distance acceleration, particularly over distances of 20 meters or less. This was the single most robust outcome across the reviewed evidence. The authors also found moderate support for improvements in change-of-direction performance and leg stiffness (the ability of leg muscles and tendons to generate force rapidly). However, the magnitude and certainty of these secondary effects varied substantially between reviews.
For other outcomes commonly associated with sprint training, the picture fragmented. Evidence for maximal-velocity sprinting (the fastest part of a sprint, typically 30-60 meters) was inconsistent. Findings for vertical stiffness, jump performance (including vertical jump), and specific sprint mechanics like stride length or ground contact time showed no clear pattern across reviews. This inconsistency matters because it suggests that RST may not be a universal sprint improvement tool.
A critical limitation emerged during quality assessment: only 5 of the 15 reviews achieved high methodological quality using AMSTAR 2 criteria. The remaining 10 were rated low quality, primarily due to risk of bias, indirectness (studies not directly addressing the question), imprecision (small sample sizes), and heterogeneity (very different study designs mixed together). GRADE certainty ratings ranged from very low to high, with certainty frequently undermined by the same methodological issues. The review identified moderate overlap between primary studies, meaning certain studies appeared in multiple meta-analyses, potentially amplifying their influence on conclusions. Importantly, "resisted sprint training" is not a single intervention. The reviews encompassed different resistance modalities (sled pushing, weighted vests, harnesses, bands), varied loading prescriptions, different sprint distances, and distinct training exposures. This heterogeneity made it difficult to identify an optimal approach.
If you're an athlete focused on acceleration (the first 20 meters of a sprint), resisted sprint training appears worth integrating into your program, particularly if you compete in team sports like soccer, rugby, or American football. Evidence is most robust for young male athletes in these populations.
However, do not expect resisted sprint training alone to improve top-end speed or jumping ability based on current evidence. The research simply doesn't support those claims consistently. If your goal is maximal velocity, traditional sprint mechanics work and resistance training remain more established approaches.
The takeaway for coaches and athletes is methodological: the field lacks consensus on loading prescriptions and resistance modalities. What works for one athlete or team may not transfer to another due to differences in training experience, age, sport, and prior resistance training history. This umbrella review reveals that "resisted sprint training" needs to be much more specific about *how* resistance is applied, *how much* load is used, and *for whom* the intervention is intended.
If you implement RST, track short-distance acceleration metrics (0-20m times) as your primary outcome measure. If you don't see gains there within 4-6 weeks, the intervention may not suit your physiology or training context.
| Attribute | Details |
|---|---|
| Study type | Umbrella review (systematic review of 15 systematic reviews/meta-analyses) |
| Primary studies included | 6-157 per review (109-978 total participants across reviews) |
| Populations | Healthy, active, or athletic individuals |
| Primary outcomes | Sprint performance (short-distance acceleration, maximal velocity), sprint mechanics, related physical capacities |
| Methodological quality | 5 of 15 reviews rated high quality (AMSTAR 2); 10 rated low quality |
| Evidence certainty | GRADE ratings: very low to high, frequently limited by bias, indirectness, imprecision, heterogeneity |
| Most consistent finding | Short-distance acceleration (≤20m) improved; strongest evidence in young male team sport athletes |
| Inconsistent findings | Maximal velocity, vertical stiffness, jump performance, spatiotemporal mechanics |
| Key limitation | Heterogeneity in resistance modality, loading, sprint distance, and training exposure complicated interpretation |
| Registry | Open Science Framework: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/KPD83 |
1. Petrakos G, et al. Effects of Resisted Sprint Training on Sprint Performance and Related Physical Capacities: An Umbrella Review of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses. Sports Medicine. 2025. PubMed. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/42839220/
ProtocolEngine provides general health information based on published research. This is not medical advice. Consult a healthcare professional before starting any supplement or health protocol.