Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
BACKGROUND: A small number of reviews have explored lower- versus higher-volume training in non-athletes, but the growing challenge of congested schedules in team sports highlights the need to synthesize evidence specific to team sport athletes. Thus, the objectives of this systematic review with meta-analysis are twofold: (i) to summarize the primary physiological and physical fitness outcomes of lower-volume versus higher-volume training interventions in team sports players; and (ii) to compare the effects of lower-volume training with higher, considering the training modalities used. METHODS: We conducted searches across key databases, including PubMed, Scopus, SPORTDiscus, and Web of Science. We included team sports players with at least a trained or developmental level, focusing on studies comparing different training volumes (lower vs higher) within the same research. Lower volume training was defined in comparison to another load, emphasizing smaller training volume in terms of repetitions, duration, or frequency. The studies had to examine key physical performance adaptations and use two-arm or multi-arm designs. Methodological assessments of the included studies were performed using the Rob2 and ROBINS-I instruments, with evidence certainty evaluated through GRADE. RESULTS: = 0.0%). A meta-analysis was not conducted for aerobic-based training due to only two studies being available, with one showing that lower volume training improved maximal oxygen uptake by 3.8% compared to 1.3% for higher volume, while the other indicated that lower training volumes enhanced performance by 1.6% versus 0.8%. The evidence certainty for physical performance outcomes was very low. CONCLUSIONS: In newly introduced resistance training, lower volumes-regardless of repetitions or frequency-can achieve similar fitness gains to higher volumes. More pronounced tapering also appears more effective for supercompensation. However, the variability in study designs and training methods makes it difficult to establish a clear minimal dose. The main contribution of this review is mapping current research, providing a foundation for future studies and training optimization.
Clemente et al. (Mon,) studied this question.