REF-765 · Petrakos et al., 2015 · Sports Medicine, Vol. · Paper · PubMed

Resisted Sled Sprint Training to Improve Sprint Performance: A Systematic Review

A-fairly strong evidenceMeasured on trained to highly trained athletesWritten before October 2026, being re-checked

Systematic review of 11 longitudinal studies in which resisted sled sprinting (RSS) was the main difference between training groups. Sled loads were prescribed as % of body mass, as a target % velocity decrement or in kg.

Light loads in sprint-trained athletes and moderate-to-very-heavy loads in strength-trained or team-sport athletes produced changes ranging from trivial to extremely large, but whether RSS is more effective than unresisted sprinting (URS) for acceleration or maximal velocity remained equivocal.

Participants

11 studies (the abstract does not give the total number of participants). Populations: sprint-trained individuals (light loads) and strength-trained or team-sport individuals (moderate to very heavy loads).

Protocol

Search primarily in PubMed and SPORTDiscus.
Inclusion: peer-reviewed longitudinal interventions using a sled towing device, with RSS training as the primary difference between groups.
Effect size: Cohen's d, for dependent and independent groups.
Load categories: 'light' (<10 %BM or <10 %V(dec)); 'moderate' (10-19.9%BM or 10-14.9%V(dec)) up to 'very heavy' (>30%BM or >30%V(dec)).

Key Results

LoadPopulationOutcome (abstract wording)
Light (<10 %BM or <10 %V(dec))Sprint-trained'small' decrements in acceleration (-1.5%, ES = 0.50) to 'moderate' improvements in maximal sprint velocity (2.4%, ES = 0.80)
Moderate (10-19.9%BM or 10-14.9%V(dec)) to very heavy (>30%BM or >30%V(dec))Strength-trained or team sport'trivial' to 'extremely large' improvements in acceleration (0.5-9.1%, ES = 0.14-4.00)
Whether RSS training is more effective than URS training for acceleration or maximal sprint velocity remains equivocal.
The abstract does not make clear whether the light-load "decrements in acceleration (-1.5%)" mean a shorter acceleration time (a gain) or worse acceleration; read that cell with care.
Between-study comparison is limited by differences in training status, training phase and sled-load prescription.

Practical Application

"Should I sprint with a sled?" — in a systematic review of 11 training studies, sled sprinting produced sprint changes from trivial to extremely large (acceleration 0.5-9.1% better with moderate to very heavy loads in strength-trained and team-sport athletes; maximal velocity 2.4% better with light loads in sprint-trained athletes), but it has not been shown to beat the same sprinting without a sled.
Treat the sled as one option for acceleration work, not a replacement for sprinting: the advantage over unresisted sprints is unproven.
Heavier loads (from 10% of body mass up to more than 30%) were where the large acceleration changes appeared, and those were in strength-trained or team-sport athletes, not in sprinters.
Prescribe the load as a % of body mass or as a target velocity decrement, the two ways the studies used, and keep it the same across a block so progress is comparable.
Not from this paper; the base's own practice: a force-deficit profile on a sprint force-velocity test (REF-553) is the usual reason to choose heavier resisted accelerations.

Limitations

No pooled estimate; each study's ES is reported separately, and the populations, training phases and load prescriptions differ.
The comparison with unresisted sprinting, the question a coach actually has, is equivocal.
The total number of participants is not given in the abstract; the included studies are small.
Written from the abstract and record metadata only (full text not read); the meaning of the light-load acceleration "decrement" could not be checked.
How this entry was checked and changed
Why this level

systematic review of small training studies with inconsistent load prescription