Optimization of Training Methods For Strength Elements In Men’s Artistic Gymnastics: A Meta-Analysis
Optimization of Training Methods For Strength Elements In Men’s Artistic Gymnastics: A Meta-Analysis

Summary/Abstract: Introduction: This meta-analysis examines the relative benefits of isometric versus dynamic resistance training on strength element performance in men's artistic gymnastics (MAG), with a focus on key variables such as Muscle Activation (MA), Hold Duration (HD), Strength gain (SG), Transition Efficiency (TE). Gymnastics requires excellent upper-body strength, coordination, and joint stability, especially for elements on Ring like the Swallow, Azarian, and Iron cross. Methods: A systematic review was conducted using PRISMA guidelines, using databases such as PubMed, Scopus, Google Scholars, and Web of Science between 2000 and 2024. Twenty-three studies met the inclusion criteria based on the PICOS framework; only those that received a score of ≥6 were retained for further examination using the PEDro scale. Results: The information obtained included training modes, sample characteristics, and outcome factors. Cohen's d was used to compare the interventions, and the Chi-square (φ²) test and I² statistic were used to evaluate heterogeneity. Results showed that isometric training enhanced components of static strength, especially muscle activation and hold duration, with effect sizes as high as 1.097. Conclusion: Dynamic resistance training had minor effects on transition efficiency and overall strength gains, whereas hybrid regimens showed consistent trends across several variables, although direct comparative experimental evidence remains limited. Additionally, biomechanical tests demonstrated that optimal angular velocity and joint alignment had a significant impact on dismount mechanics and injury prevention. This meta-analysis provides preliminary evidence regarding training-related adaptations in static strength elements; however, due to heterogeneity in study designs and limited direct comparisons between training modalities, the findings should be interpreted cautiously and cannot be considered definitive prescriptive guidelines.

• Details
• Contents