Evidence Based Review: Speed, Agility, and Quickness
|
Introduction With the increasing demand to perform at the highest level possible, athletes, coaches, and fitness personnel are looking to improve speed, agility, and quickness (SAQ). These qualities have been proven to be independent of one another with low coefficients of determination.(11,19,20) Speed has been defined as the ability to move the components of the kinetic chain through the required range of motion in the fastest possible time.(4) Whereas agility was defined by Sheppard and Young(17) as “a rapid whole-body movement with change of velocity or direction in response to a stimulus.” There has been no consistent definition of quickness found outside of simply “reaction time”.(4) While only a fraction of most athletic competitions require athletes to perform at an all out pace, typically these are the most crucial moments that can decide the outcome of an event. Most often, the player who is faster and more agile will come out on top. Many sports like soccer(9,10,15), volleyball(7), and tennis(16) are Random, Intermittent, Dynamic Sports (R.I.D.S.).(3, 5,20) They require an unpredictable mixture of sprinting, rapid change of direction, jumping, and prolonged running/jogging. These maneuvers at full speed are forceful and explosive in nature. The combination of such maneuvering requires a great demand of physical fitness from the athlete to continue participating at the highest level of competition. Previous training to improve one’s physical fitness has relied on increasing aerobic and anaerobic fitness through various cardiovascular exercises ranging from jogging to sprints. In addition, many coaches and fitness professionals over the year’s thought that the stronger an athlete was, the better they would perform on the field. Thus, the weight room became a plausible environment for athletes to spend much of their time during the off-season and preseason. Unfortunately, these mechanisms lacked multi-planar and multi-dimensional training. Recently the focus has shifted to improving ones overall coordination and functional abilities which as changed the speed of play in all sports at most levels of competition. Thus, the importance of speed, agility, and quickness training is gaining popularity in the athletic community. Unfortunately, the majority of research involving SAQ training programs has only been published in the past 4 years.(3,7,9,10,12,13,15,16) Some aspects of this training have been proven through research, while other areas are still lacking solid clinical support. To provide coaches and fitness professionals with the current findings, we systematically reviewed the literature for studies examining the effects of speed, agility, and quickness training on healthy subjects. Literature-Review MethodsWe searched through the PubMed (run by the National Library of Medicine), and Cinahl for our electronic search of articles that met our eligibility criteria (table 1). Each database was search and provided us with 125 and 490 articles respectively. Eleven articles from PubMed met our criteria. We added an extra 4 from Cinahl. The search terms used are in table 2. In addition, we manually searched the reference list of known published review articles.(17) The articles that met the eligibility criteria were reviewed, and the information on speed, agility, and quickness training was abstracted. The information abstracted is listed in table 3. Inclusion Criteria
Search Terms Used in Electronic Search
Information Abstracted for Each Article
Training Programs- Speed, Agility, and QuicknessEffects of Straight Sprints and Agility Young et al.(20) found little in common when comparing agility to straight sprinting using pretest and posttest times before and after a 6-week training program. Twenty-seven male subjects were randomly assigned to one of three groups. The speed group performed only sprints, whereas the agility group performed 3-5 change-of-direction sprints at 100º angles. The control group consisted of subjects continuing their normal activities with no change. Times were collected on 7 different tasks that gradually increased in difficulty from a straight sprint to various zigzag patterns with multiple changes of direction at increasing angles. The results showed that after 6-weeks of training the sprint-training group significantly improved their scores on the straight sprint test, while the agility-training group significantly improved on the change of direction tasks. A major limiting factor in this study was the number of subjects who completed the study. The speed group ended up with 11 subjects while the agility and control groups had 9 and 7 respectively. Other studies including speed and/or agility ranged from 14 subjects(13) to 33 subjects(12). In addition, Young et al.(20)did not randomize the order of their field tests. They did start half the subjects with test 1 and work upwards in complexity to test 7 with the other half going from 7 to 1. One could rationalize that as the tests became less complex going from test 7 to test 1, a subject could have performed the later tests with less effort. On the contrary, as the tests progressively increased in difficulty a subject could have tried harder than in the beginning. In a separate study investigating the effects of a training program on straight speed and agility, Gabbett et al.(7) found significant improvements as well. Twenty-six 15-year-old volleyball players participated in an 8-week skill based training period. The group reported for training which included a low to high intensity warm up, low intensity activities like serving and passing, high intensity activities such as blocking and spiking, and finally small sided games (3 vs. 3 or 5 vs. 5). Sessions occurred 3 times per week and lasted between 120 and 180 minutes. Every subject performed the same routine as there was no control group. Pretest and posttest data was collected on a 5-m and 10-m sprint test for speed, as well as the T-test for agility. All three tests significantly improved from pretest to posttest with times dropping at least 0.6 seconds on each test. The strength of this study was the controlled program performed by 26 athletes. Every player performed the exact same routine for the length of the study thus providing results with little variability. However, this could also be viewed as a limiting factor in that there was no control group to compare these results to. In addition, the types of exercises chosen to test the effects on speed and agility were sport specific to volleyball including spiking, blocking, and passing. There were no specific exercises geared towards improving speed and agility such as ladder drills, sprints, or shuttle runs. Addition of such exercises could have changed the results. <TOP> Effects of Strength Training Jullien et al.(9) studied the effectiveness of strength training on running speed and agility in young (17-19 years old) professional soccer athletes. Twenty-six male soccer athletes were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 training groups (squat group, coordination group, and control group). They performed their routines for 3 weeks at a frequency of 5 times per week for 20 minutes per session. Four performance tests (two sprints, shuttle test, and circuit test) were completed before training and at the end of each week. All 4 tests demonstrated good to high reliability. The squat group significantly decreased their performance on the shuttle test. Jullien et al.(9) rationalize this finding by stating that muscular strength is more related to max sprinting speed versus starting ability as seen in the shuttle test. Their results also showed that performance on the circuit agility test improved in all 3 groups, but more so in the coordination group. The results of this study suggest that agility and coordination could improve with a sport specific training program. In addition, the decreased performance in the squat group suggests that a strengthening program, while important, could prevent athletes from performing at their highest level. However, the strengthening group only performed squats as their strengthening exercise. It is possible to suggest that additional strengthening exercises in multiple planes of motion, may have changed the results of this group. With that said, these results were observed in a 3-week program which could be another limiting factor when compared to other training program studies that test subjects for 6-13 weeks.(3,5,7,10,12,13,15,16,20) Effects of Strength and Speed Training Kotzamanidis et al.(10) also examined the effects of a strength and speed program on soccer players. However, their study spanned 13-weeks with a frequency of 3 times per week and 100-120 minutes per session. Twenty-three male soccer players were randomly assigned to a combined strength and speed training group (n = 12) or a strength only training group (n = 11). Twelve additional recreationally active males were used as a control group. Each subject performed two trials of a 30-m sprint as a measure to compare pre and post test data. Significant improvements in the 30-m test for sprint speed were only observed for the combination group that completed both the strength training and the speed training. These results show that strength training alone will not increase an athlete’s ability to sprint faster. There is a need for actual sprint training in addition to strengthening. Kotzamanidis et al.(10) explain that previous literature suggests that the optimal time period for velocity training is approximately 5 minutes after high-intensity strengthening. The effects, however, completely diminish 20 minutes later. Thus, their suggestion is a combination of resistance exercises followed shortly there after by a speed training routine. Delecluse et al.(5) also studied the effects of a strengthening program or speed program on sprint performance. Their field test included a 100-m sprint divided into three distinct phases: initial acceleration (first 10-m), building up running speed to a max (10-36 m), and maintaining maximal speed (36-100). Pretest and posttest data was collected on 66 subjects who were assigned to 1 of 4 groups which included the aforementioned strength (n = 22) and speed (n = 21) groups, as well as a run (n = 12) group (aerobic activity only) and a control (n= 11) group (no activity). The program lasted 9 weeks and required subjects to participate in 2 training sessions per week. Their results showed that the speed group significantly improved initial acceleration compared to all 3 other groups, max speed compared to the control group, and total 100-m sprint time compared to the run group. In addition, the strength group also significantly improved initial acceleration compared to the control group. It can be concluded from their results that a high resistance (strength) program does not improve sprint performance in comparison to a high velocity (speed) program. However, the high velocity program used in this study did not limit exercises to only speed training work. Included in this program were push-ups, sit-ups, bounding, hopping, vertical jumps and broad jumps. An argument can be made that the first two are strength exercises while the last four are more plyometric in nature. The “speed” program displayed the majority of the significant improvements using exercises that could have been included in the “strength” program instead. Effects of Plyometric Training Miller et al.(13) found that plyometric training significantly improved an individual’s agility through a 6-week intervention. They randomly assigned 28 subjects to either a plyometric group or a control group. Subjects completed the program 2 times per week through the 6-week program. Pretest and posttest times were collected on 3 agility tasks (T-test, Illinois Agility Test, 180º Turning Test). In all three tests, the plyometric group times had significantly decreased from pretest to posttest. Subjects improved by 4.9% on the T-test, 2.9% on the Illinois Agility Test, and over 10% on the 180º Turn Test. The authors concluded that plyometric training is an extremely effective way to increase a person’s agility. Unfortunately, Miller et al.(13) did not provide demographics of their subjects including whether or not they were athletes. One can assume that due to the complexity of the exercises included in the study, that the subjects were athletic enough to perform the programs. However, it is not stated for certain that athletes were tested, so one should hesitate to assume their results would apply to an athletic population. More recently, other studies have tested the effects of plyometric training on known physically active individuals(13) and tennis players.(16) Unlike Miller et al.’s(13) results, a more recent study found that plyometric training did not significantly improve agility performance, however sprint training did significantly improved agility.(12) Markovic et al.(12) compared the effects of sprint and plyometric training on athletic performance through a 20-m sprint test and the 5-10-5 agility test. Ninety-three male physical education students were randomly placed into a sprint training group, plyometric training group, or control group. Times on the two field tests were taken before and after the 10-week program in which subjects completed their training 3 times per week. The strength of Markovic et al.’s(12) study was their sample size of 30 participants in each of their intervention groups. Compared to other studies also examining the effects of plyometrics on speed and agility, this number is at least double the size of other intervention 13,16 This allows readers to determine with high confidence that sprint training could provide more beneficial effects towards athletic performance when compared to plyometric training. However, a few limitations of Markovic et al.’s(12) should be noted. Their study was performed on physical education students and should not be generalized to high trained athletes. In addition, the exercises in the plyometric group consisted of hurdle jumps for the first 6 weeks and drop jumps for the remaining weeks. Training, while progressive in difficulty, was not multi directional but rather occurred only in the sagital plane. One could argue that multi directional training in the plyometric group may have altered the outcome of the study allowing the plyometric group to increase agility performance as well. Salonikidis and Zafeirdis(16) examined sixty-four tennis players with at least 2 years of competitive match experience. Subjects were equally (n = 16) and randomly assigned to one of four groups. Sixteen subjects were placed in a plyometric only group (PT), a tennis drill only group (TDT), a combined plyometric and tennis drill group (CT), or a control group. Training was performed 3 times per week for 9 weeks. In addition to differences between groups, they also assessed each subjects “slow” side for lateral displacement. The training program was then performed on the contralateral side. Testing was performed before and after training for the evaluation of 4-m lateral and forward sprints, 12-m forward sprints with and without a turn, reaction time, and reactive ability. The author’s discovered numerous significant findings. There was a significant difference in lateral speed (side steps) between the 2 sides. The PT, TDT, and CT each significantly improved from pretest to posttest on the 4-m lateral and forward sprints. In addition, the reaction time on the “slow” side was significantly improved in the PT and CT. Only the TDT and CT groups significantly improved their times on the 12-m sprints with and without turns. The author’s concluded that the combination of PT and TDT (CT group) seems to provide the optimal training regimen for coaches and fitness professionals since the CT group significantly improved in every aspect of the study. Speed and Agility With and Without Specialized Equipment Polman and colleagues(14) conducted a study to evaluate the effects of various conditioning exercises on female soccer players. Thirty-six elite female athletes were randomly assigned to one of three groups comparing speed, agility, and quickness exercises with (group 1) and without (group 2) specialized equipment to an active control group (group 3). The program lasted 12 weeks with athletes performing their program 2 times per week for 1 hour each. Various tests were performed before, at the mid point, and at the conclusion of the program to measure athlete’s speed (7x 34.2-m sprints for fatigue and 3x 25-m sprints for speed), agility (“L” test), and turning ability (sprint, 180º turn, sprint back). They found that the equipment and non-equipment groups significantly decreased their time on the fatigue sprint test, the 25-m sprint test, and the agility “L” test when compared with the active control group. In addition, they suggested that the use of specialized equipment to increase speed, agility, and quickness was not needed since their participants gained similar results with and without the equipment. Another study(3) examining the effects of specialized S.A.Q equipment tested untrained individuals compared to Polman et al.’s(14) elite female soccer players. Bloomfield et al.(3) tested 46 (men = 25, females = 21) participants before and after a 6-week intervention program. The battery of tests included an acceleration test for speed (3x 15-m sprints) and the T-test for agility. Subjects were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 training groups. The first group received specific S.A.Q. conditioning and was then subdivided into an equipment group and non-equipment group. The second group was supervised through small-sided soccer games, and the third group received no conditioning and was used as the control group. Participants completed 3 1-hour sessions per week. The authors were in agreement with Polman et al.(14) that the use of specialized S.A.Q. equipment was not needed. No significant differences were discovered between the two equipment and non-equipment groups. In addition, they found that the programmed group (S.A.Q. training) significantly improved their performance on the 0-5 m and 0-15 m sprint tests as well as the agility T-test. <TOP> The purpose of this paper was to provide a systematic review of the most current speed, agility, and quickness literature pertaining to training programs. Training to improve an athletes performance has been ongoing for many years, however only recently has science start to examine the intricate parts of this training. In fact, 80% of the articles reviewed were published within the past 4 years of this review. Speed Sprinting has commonly been divided into an acceleration phase and a maximal speed phase.(4,11) Depending on the distance of the sprint, the acceleration phase spans approximately the first 10-m while the maximal speed phase is the remaining portion of the sprint(5,9,10) Delecluse et al.(5) divided a 100-m sprint into 3 different phases. They described the acceleration phase as the first 10-m as well, but divided the remaining portion into a building up to max running speed phase (10-36 m) and finally a maintaining maximal running speed phase from 36-m to the end. Regardless of the breakdown, research has been trying to decipher if specific training can positively effect the whole sprint as well as each phase. Traditionally, increasing an athlete’s lower extremity strength through high resistance training was the common method thought to increase their speed.(5) Delecluse et al.(5) found that strength training did increase an athlete’s acceleration from 0-10m. However, research has started to prove that intense strength training does not directly correlate to improved speed throughout an entire sprint beyond the acceleration phase.(5,9,10) The types of exercises used in these studies have ranged from simply doing 3 sets of squats for 3 weeks(9) to half squats, step ups, and leg curls(10) all the way up to a 9-week program including leg extensions, leg curls, hip extension, hip flexion, back extension, sit-ups, leg press, ½ squat, calf raises, bench press, and arm curls.(5) In addition to the varying types of exercises seen in the literature, the duration and frequency of these programs has differed as well. Jullien et al.(9) incorporated a program that lasted only 3 weeks, but had their subjects performing their exercises 5 times a week on consecutive days (Monday-Friday). Delecluse et al.(5) and Kotzamanidis et al.(10) studied the effects over a longer period of time with a decrease in the frequency. Their subjects performed exercises two times a week for 9 weeks(5) and 3 times a week for 13 weeks.(10) Even though research has shown there seems to be an agreement that strength training, while important, does not independently improve speed performance. There are still holes in the research that need to be answered regarding the types of exercises as well as the duration and frequency that coaches and fitness personnel should be integrating into training programs. The combination of strength training and speed training in the same work out session has shown beneficial improvements to an athlete’s speed.(10) Kotzamanidis et al.(10) found significant improvements in running speed over a 30-m sprint following a combined strength and speed program. Their 13-week program was divided into 4 phases. The first 4 weeks were focused on increasing the athlete’s flexibility, coordination, endurance, and strength endurance. The following 9 weeks incorporated a 15-minute warm up followed immediately by 60 minutes of resistance training. After the resistance training, athletes performed their speed-training program for 15 minutes and finally engaged in a cool down for 10 minutes. Other strength studies did not include a speed-training period in addition. Additional research should be conducted on the effects of this combined style of training that incorporates both strength training and speed work within the same session. In addition to examining the effects of strength training on sprinting performance, research has also started to study the effects of plyometric training. Plyometric training has been used for improvement in leg muscle power and athletic performance.(12) However, there is limited support in the literature providing insight into the exact effects of plyometric training on speed. In a study conducted by Markovic et al.(12) a plyometric training group did not significantly improve on a 20-m sprint test after a 10-week training program. In agreement with these findings, Salonikidis and Zafeiridis(16) discovered no significant improvement in 12-m sprint times after a 9-week plyometric training program. They did however discover a significant improvement in sprint times on a 4-m sprint test. Taking into consideration that sprints have been broken down into an acceleration phase spanning 10-m and a max speed phase (10+ m), the findings that plyometric training improved speed in a 4-m test may shed light the effects of plyometric training on the acceleration phase of sprinting. Even though the results of these studies do not support the use of plyometric training on overall sprint performance, it could still be used to possibly train athletes in their acceleration phase. Additional research into the effects of plyometric training should focus on the initial acceleration phase of sprinting where an increase in muscle power would be needed. Agility Young et al.(21) proposed a model to describe the components that influence an athlete’s agility. They divided agility into two subcategories, Change of Direction Speed (anticipated movements) and Perceptual and Decision Making Factors (unanticipated movements). Numerous studies have analyzed preplanned agility maneuvers comparable to an offensive player trying to get around a defender.(1,2,3,7,9,11-15,19-20) Of these studies, few have studied the effects of a training program on agility performance.(3,7,9,12,13,15,20) Even fewer studies have examined unplanned agility moves similar to guarding an opponent and having to react to their moves.(6,8,18) Unfortunately, neither of these studies incorporated a training program. Anticipated agility tasks have been shown to improve performance with direct agility training.(9,20) One agility training programs consisted of simply performing sprints with multiple changes of direction in a zigzag pattern.(20) This was the first study to examine the effects of a training program on agility performance thus the exercises were relatively simple in nature without much diversity. However, more recent studies have included an assorted of exercises versus a simple zigzag pattern(3,13,15) Some of the exercises included were: lateral shuffles, carioca, ladder drills, breakaway belts, box drills and “W” drills. These studies have displayed positive results on increasing an athlete’s agility. It would seem as though through a diverse series of agility exercises, coaches and fitness professionals could create an effective program with a variety of exercises to keep the athlete’s motivation elevated and minimize the effects of becoming familiar with the program. Seven studies were reviewed examining the effects of various exercises on agility.(3,7,9,12,13,15,21,3,7,12,13,15,21) six of the seven articles had their subjects perform the program 2 or 3 times a week for 6-12 weeks. One study(9) was conducted 5 times a week for 3 weeks. It would be reasonable to suggest that when designing a fitness program, including agility specific drills 2-3 times a week would be effective since the results of these studies displayed positive effects on athletes agility during that time frame. Plyometric training was used in two studies and displayed conflicting results. Miller et al.(13) found that plyometric training over the course of a 6-week program improved agility times in two field tests. Whereas Markovic et al.’s(12) subjects showed no improvement in agility times following a 10-week plyometric program. An explanation for the conflicting results can be provided when closely examining what was included in their programs. Markovic et al.(12) only had their subjects doing box jumps and hurdle jumps for their plyometric activities. In the study conducted by Miller et al.(13), their subjects performed jumps and hops forward, side to side, and with rotation. In addition, they incorporated the hexagon drill and long jumps immediately followed by sprints in various directions. Thus the improvements noted in their study are justified by the complexity of their plyometric program with numerous exercises involving all planes of motion. Markovic et al.’s(12) program was not nearly as diverse in nature, which could be the explanation of their results. Over the past few years exercise companies have started to push specialized S.A.Q. equipment as a way to improve athletic performance. Equipment such as hurdles, speed ladders, boxes, resistance belts, and parachutes have gained popularity in the arsenal of coaches and fitness professionals as a way increase their athlete’s abilities on the playing field or court. In reality, the equipment has not shown any improvements in agility performance in comparison to similar exercises not using special S.A.Q. equipment.(3,15) The studies incorporated either 3 sessions a week for 6 weeks(3) or 2 sessions a week for 12 weeks. So the duration and frequency of training could not have played a role in the outcomes. However, Bloomfield et al.3 collected data on untrained subjects whose experience using such equipment was minimal, whereas Polman et al.(15) used collegiate female soccer players. From simply one study using untrained subjects and one study using trained subjects, it would be hard to decipher if subject experience and training levels had an influence on the outcomes as well. In order to understand exactly why there is no difference in using the equipment and not using the equipment, additional research should be conducted. Quickness We were unable to find any peer reviewed articles examining the effects of a training program on quickness. However, as we previously discussed, agility can be divided into two distinct phases of preplanned and unplanned maneuvers.(21) If we assume that an unplanned maneuver is in response to an external stimulus, such as defending an opponent, than it would be safe to say that an unplanned maneuver can be described as “quickness” (reaction time). We were able to find three articles that studied an athlete’s ability to react to an unanticipated stimulus or “reactive agility” as they called it.(6,8,18) Each of these studies included a sprint forward of a meter or two, followed by a reaction to either a video screen6 or the tester.(8,18) Farrow et al.(6) allowed subjects to perform 6 trials of the unanticipated task followed by 6 trials knowing which way to cut. Not surprisingly, their results showed that the anticipated trials were performed significantly faster than the unanticipated ones. In addition, their reactive agility test proved to have good test-retest reliability. Gabbett et al.(8) also found no significant results in decision time and response accuracy of the reactive agility task. The results of these three studies raise the question on how valid are the preplanned agility maneuvers compared to quickness or “reactive agility” maneuvers. Additional research into quickness and how it is improved needs to be completed to fully understand the topic of quickness as part of the popular S.A.Q. training. References (1) Baker DG and Newton RU. Comparison of lower body strength, power, accleration, speed, agility, and sprint momentum to describe and compare playing rand among professional rugby league players. J. Strength Cond Res. 2008;22(1):153-158. |
My Store
www.MitchellPapesh.com 