BACKGROUND Muscular rate of force development (RFD) is positively influenced by resistance training. However, the effects of movement patterns and velocities of training exercises are unknown. OBJECTIVES To determine the effects of velocity, the intent for fast force production, and movement pattern of training exercises on the improvement in isometric RFD from chronic resistance training. METHODS A systematic search of electronic databases was conducted to 18 September, 2018. Meta-regression and meta-analytic methods were used to compute standardized mean differences (SMD ± 95% confidence intervals) to examine effects of movement pattern similarity (between training and test exercises; specific vs. non-specific) and movement speed (fast vs. slow vs. slow with intent for fast force production) for RFD calculated within different time intervals. RESULTS The search yielded 1443 articles, of which 54 met the inclusion criteria (59 intervention groups). Resistance training increased RFD measured to both early (e.g., 50 ms; standardized mean difference [95% CI] 0.58 [0.40, 0.75]) and later (e.g., 200 ms; 0.39 [0.25, 0.52]) times from contraction onset, as well as maximum RFD (RFDmax; 0.35 [0.21, 0.48]). However, sufficient data for sub-analyses were only available for RFDmax. Significant increases relative to control groups were observed after training with high-speed (0.54 [0.05, 1.03]), slow-speed with intent for fast force production (0.41 [0.20, 0.63), and movement pattern-specific (0.38 [0.17, 0.59]) exercises only. No clear effect was observed for slow-speed without intent for fast force production (0.21 [0.00, 0.42], p = 0.05) or non-movement-specific (0.27 [- 0.32, 0.85], p = 0.37) exercises. Meta-regression did not reveal a significant difference between sexes (p = 0.09); however, a negative trend was found in women (- 0.57 [- 1.51, 0.37], p = 0.23), while a favorable effect was found in men (0.40 [0.22, 0.58], p < 0.001). Study duration did not statistically influence the meta-analytic results, although the greatest RFD increases tended to occur within the first weeks of the commencement of training. CONCLUSIONS Resistance training can evoke significant increases in RFD. For maximum (peak) RFD, the use of faster movement speeds, the intention to produce rapid force irrespective of actual movement speed, and similarity between training and testing movement patterns evoke the greatest improvements. In contrast to expectation, current evidence indicates a between-sex difference in response to training; however, a lack of data in women prevents robust analysis, and this should be a target of future research. Of interest from a training program design perspective was that RFD improvements were greatest within the first weeks of training, with less ongoing improvement (or a reduction in RFD) with longer training, particularly when training velocity was slow or there was a lack of intent for fast force production.

中文翻译：

---

阻力训练运动方式和速度对力量发展的等距肌肉速率的影响：荟萃分析和荟萃回归的系统评价。

背景技术肌肉力量发展速度（RFD）受到阻力训练的积极影响。但是，运动方式和训练运动速度的影响尚不清楚。目的确定速度，快速产生力的意图以及训练运动的方式对慢性阻力训练中等距RFD改善的影响。方法到2018年9月18日对电子数据库进行系统搜索。采用Meta回归和荟萃分析方法计算标准化均值差（SMD±95％置信区间），以检验运动模式相似性的影响（训练与测试之间）练习；特定时间段与非特定时间段）以及在不同时间间隔内计算出的RFD的运动速度（快，慢，慢，意在快速产生力）。结果该搜索产生了1443篇文章，其中54篇符合纳入标准（59个干预组）。阻力训练可将RFD从收缩发作开始的早期（例如50 ms；标准平均差异[95％CI] 0.58 [0.40，0.75]）和以后（例如200 ms; 0.39 [0.25，0.52]）的时间增加以及最大RFD（RFDmax; 0.35 [0.21，0.48]）。但是，只有RFDmax可获得用于子分析的足够数据。在进行高速训练（0.54 [0.05，1.03]），慢速训练以产生快速的力量（0.41 [0.20，0.63）和特定于运动模式的训练（0.38 [0.17， 0.59]）。对于低速，没有意图产生快速力的现象（0.21 [0.00，0.42]，p = 0.05）或非运动特定（0.27 [-0.32，0.85]，p = 0），没有观察到明显的效果。37）练习。元回归没有显示性别之间的显着差异（p = 0.09）；然而，女性的消极趋势（-0.57 [-1.51，0.37]，p = 0.23），而男性则有良好的趋势（0.40 [0.22，0.58]，p <0.001）。尽管RFD的最大增加往往发生在训练开始的头几周，但研究持续时间并没有统计学上的影响荟萃分析的结果。结论阻力训练可以引起RFD的显着增加。对于最大（峰值）RFD，使用更快的运动速度，与实际运动速度无关地产生快速作用力的意图以及训练和测试运动模式之间的相似性可以带来最大的改进。与预期相反，当前证据表明性别对训练的反应有所不同。然而，妇女缺乏数据妨碍进行有力的分析，这应该是未来研究的目标。从培训计划设计的角度来看，有趣的是，在培训的最初几周内，RFD的改进最大，而在较长的培训中，持续改进（或RFD的减少）减少，特别是在培训速度缓慢或缺乏培训意图的情况下。快速部队生产。