-
British Journal of Sports Medicine Sep 2023To determine how distinct combinations of resistance training prescription (RTx) variables (load, sets and frequency) affect muscle strength and hypertrophy. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To determine how distinct combinations of resistance training prescription (RTx) variables (load, sets and frequency) affect muscle strength and hypertrophy.
DATA SOURCES
MEDLINE, Embase, Emcare, SPORTDiscus, CINAHL, and Web of Science were searched until February 2022.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
Randomised trials that included healthy adults, compared at least 2 predefined conditions (non-exercise control (CTRL) and 12 RTx, differentiated by load, sets and/or weekly frequency), and reported muscle strength and/or hypertrophy were included.
ANALYSES
Systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis methodology was used to compare RTxs and CTRL. Surface under the cumulative ranking curve values were used to rank conditions. Confidence was assessed with threshold analysis.
RESULTS
The strength network included 178 studies (n=5097; women=45%). The hypertrophy network included 119 studies (n=3364; women=47%). All RTxs were superior to CTRL for muscle strength and hypertrophy. Higher-load (>80% of single repetition maximum) prescriptions maximised strength gains, and all prescriptions comparably promoted muscle hypertrophy. While the calculated effects of many prescriptions were similar, higher-load, multiset, thrice-weekly training (standardised mean difference (95% credible interval); 1.60 (1.38 to 1.82) vs CTRL) was the highest-ranked RTx for strength, and higher-load, multiset, twice-weekly training (0.66 (0.47 to 0.85) vs CTRL) was the highest-ranked RTx for hypertrophy. Threshold analysis demonstrated these results were extremely robust.
CONCLUSION
All RTx promoted strength and hypertrophy compared with no exercise. The highest-ranked prescriptions for strength involved higher loads, whereas the highest-ranked prescriptions for hypertrophy included multiple sets.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER
CRD42021259663 and CRD42021258902.
Topics: Humans; Adult; Female; Resistance Training; Bayes Theorem; Network Meta-Analysis; Muscle, Skeletal; Muscle Strength; Hypertrophy; Prescriptions
PubMed: 37414459
DOI: 10.1136/bjsports-2023-106807 -
Nutrients Apr 2023The purpose of this paper was to carry out a systematic review with a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials that examined the combined effects of resistance... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
The purpose of this paper was to carry out a systematic review with a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials that examined the combined effects of resistance training (RT) and creatine supplementation on regional changes in muscle mass, with direct imaging measures of hypertrophy. Moreover, we performed regression analyses to determine the potential influence of covariates. We included trials that had a duration of at least 6 weeks and examined the combined effects of creatine supplementation and RT on site-specific direct measures of hypertrophy (magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), computed tomography (CT), or ultrasound) in healthy adults. A total of 44 outcomes were analyzed across 10 studies that met the inclusion criteria. A univariate analysis of all the standardized outcomes showed a pooled mean estimate of 0.11 (95% Credible Interval (CrI): -0.02 to 0.25), providing evidence for a very small effect favoring creatine supplementation when combined with RT compared to RT and a placebo. Multivariate analyses found similar small benefits for the combination of creatine supplementation and RT on changes in the upper and lower body muscle thickness (0.10-0.16 cm). Analyses of the moderating effects indicated a small superior benefit for creatine supplementation in younger compared to older adults (0.17 (95%CrI: -0.09 to 0.45)). In conclusion, the results suggest that creatine supplementation combined with RT promotes a small increase in the direct measures of skeletal muscle hypertrophy in both the upper and lower body.
Topics: Humans; Aged; Creatine; Resistance Training; Hypertrophy; Muscles; Dietary Supplements
PubMed: 37432300
DOI: 10.3390/nu15092116 -
Scandinavian Journal of Medicine &... Apr 2019Isometric training is used in the rehabilitation and physical preparation of athletes, special populations, and the general public. However, little consensus exists...
Isometric training is used in the rehabilitation and physical preparation of athletes, special populations, and the general public. However, little consensus exists regarding training guidelines for a variety of desired outcomes. Understanding the adaptive response to specific loading parameters would be of benefit to practitioners. The objective of this systematic review, therefore, was to detail the medium- to long-term adaptations of different types of isometric training on morphological, neurological, and performance variables. Exploration of the relevant subject matter was performed through MEDLINE, PubMed, SPORTDiscus, and CINAHL databases. English, full-text, peer-reviewed journal articles and unpublished doctoral dissertations investigating medium- to long-term (≥3 weeks) adaptations to isometric training in humans were identified. These studies were evaluated further for methodological quality. Twenty-six research outputs were reviewed. Isometric training at longer muscle lengths (0.86%-1.69%/week, ES = 0.03-0.09/week) produced greater muscular hypertrophy when compared to equal volumes of shorter muscle length training (0.08%-0.83%/week, ES = -0.003 to 0.07/week). Ballistic intent resulted in greater neuromuscular activation (1.04%-10.5%/week, ES = 0.02-0.31/week vs 1.64%-5.53%/week, ES = 0.03-0.20/week) and rapid force production (1.2%-13.4%/week, ES = 0.05-0.61/week vs 1.01%-8.13%/week, ES = 0.06-0.22/week). Substantial improvements in muscular hypertrophy and maximal force production were reported regardless of training intensity. High-intensity (≥70%) contractions are required for improving tendon structure and function. Additionally, long muscle length training results in greater transference to dynamic performance. Despite relatively few studies meeting the inclusion criteria, this review provides practitioners with insight into which isometric training variables (eg, joint angle, intensity, intent) to manipulate to achieve desired morphological and neuromuscular adaptations.
Topics: Adaptation, Physiological; Humans; Isometric Contraction; Muscle, Skeletal; Resistance Training; Tendons
PubMed: 30580468
DOI: 10.1111/sms.13375 -
Sports Medicine (Auckland, N.Z.) Mar 2023This systematic review with meta-analysis investigated the influence of resistance training proximity-to-failure on muscle hypertrophy. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE
This systematic review with meta-analysis investigated the influence of resistance training proximity-to-failure on muscle hypertrophy.
METHODS
Literature searches in the PubMed, SCOPUS and SPORTDiscus databases identified a total of 15 studies that measured muscle hypertrophy (in healthy adults of any age and resistance training experience) and compared resistance training performed to: (A) momentary muscular failure versus non-failure; (B) set failure (defined as anything other than momentary muscular failure) versus non-failure; or (C) different velocity loss thresholds.
RESULTS
There was a trivial advantage for resistance training performed to set failure versus non-failure for muscle hypertrophy in studies applying any definition of set failure [effect size=0.19 (95% confidence interval 0.00, 0.37), p=0.045], with no moderating effect of volume load (p=0.884) or relative load (p=0.525). Given the variability in set failure definitions applied across studies, sub-group analyses were conducted and found no advantage for either resistance training performed to momentary muscular failure versus non-failure for muscle hypertrophy [effect size=0.12 (95% confidence interval -0.13, 0.37), p=0.343], or for resistance training performed to high (>25%) versus moderate (20-25%) velocity loss thresholds [effect size=0.08 (95% confidence interval -0.16, 0.32), p=0.529].
CONCLUSION
Overall, our main findings suggest that (i) there is no evidence to support that resistance training performed to momentary muscular failure is superior to non-failure resistance training for muscle hypertrophy and (ii) higher velocity loss thresholds, and theoretically closer proximities-to-failure do not always elicit greater muscle hypertrophy. As such, these results provide evidence for a potential non-linear relationship between proximity-to-failure and muscle hypertrophy.
Topics: Humans; Muscle, Skeletal; Resistance Training; Muscle Strength; Hypertrophy
PubMed: 36334240
DOI: 10.1007/s40279-022-01784-y -
International Journal of Environmental... Oct 2021The load in resistance training is considered to be a critical variable for neuromuscular adaptations. Therefore, it is important to assess the effects of applying... (Review)
Review
Effects of Resistance Training Performed with Different Loads in Untrained and Trained Male Adult Individuals on Maximal Strength and Muscle Hypertrophy: A Systematic Review.
The load in resistance training is considered to be a critical variable for neuromuscular adaptations. Therefore, it is important to assess the effects of applying different loads on the development of maximal strength and muscular hypertrophy. The aim of this study was to systematically review the literature and compare the effects of resistance training that was performed with low loads versus moderate and high loads in untrained and trained healthy adult males on the development of maximal strength and muscle hypertrophy during randomized experimental designs. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines (2021) were followed with the eligibility criteria defined according to participants, interventions, comparators, outcomes, and study design (PICOS): (P) healthy males between 18 and 40 years old, (I) interventions performed with low loads, (C) interventions performed with moderate or high loads, (O) development of maximal strength and muscle hypertrophy, and (S) randomized experimental studies with between- or within-subject parallel designs. The literature search strategy was performed in three electronic databases (Embase, PubMed, and Web of Science) on 22 August 2021. Twenty-three studies with a total of 563 participants (80.6% untrained and 19.4% trained) were selected. The studies included both relative and absolute loads. All studies were classified as being moderate-to-high methodological quality, although only two studies had a score higher than six points. The main findings indicated that the load magnitude that was used during resistance training influenced the dynamic strength and isometric strength gains. In general, comparisons between the groups (i.e., low, moderate, and high loads) showed higher gains in 1RM and maximal voluntary isometric contraction when moderate and high loads were used. In contrast, regarding muscle hypertrophy, most studies showed that when resistance training was performed to muscle failure, the load used had less influence on muscle hypertrophy. The current literature shows that gains in maximal strength are more pronounced with high and moderate loads compared to low loads in healthy adult male populations. However, for muscle hypertrophy, studies indicate that a wide spectrum of loads (i.e., 30 to 90% 1RM) may be used for healthy adult male populations.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Humans; Hypertrophy; Male; Men; Muscle Strength; Muscle, Skeletal; Resistance Training; Young Adult
PubMed: 34769755
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph182111237 -
Sports Medicine (Auckland, N.Z.) Mar 2022Both athletes and recreational exercisers often perform relatively high volumes of aerobic and strength training simultaneously. However, the compatibility of these two... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Both athletes and recreational exercisers often perform relatively high volumes of aerobic and strength training simultaneously. However, the compatibility of these two distinct training modes remains unclear.
OBJECTIVE
This systematic review assessed the compatibility of concurrent aerobic and strength training compared with strength training alone, in terms of adaptations in muscle function (maximal and explosive strength) and muscle mass. Subgroup analyses were conducted to examine the influence of training modality, training type, exercise order, training frequency, age, and training status.
METHODS
A systematic literature search was conducted according to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. PubMed/MEDLINE, ISI Web of Science, Embase, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, and Scopus were systematically searched (12 August 2020, updated on 15 March 2021). Eligibility criteria were as follows.
POPULATION
healthy adults of any sex and age; Intervention: supervised concurrent aerobic and strength training for at least 4 weeks; Comparison: identical strength training prescription, with no aerobic training; Outcome: maximal strength, explosive strength, and muscle hypertrophy.
RESULTS
A total of 43 studies were included. The estimated standardised mean differences (SMD) based on the random-effects model were - 0.06 (95% confidence interval [CI] - 0.20 to 0.09; p = 0.446), - 0.28 (95% CI - 0.48 to - 0.08; p = 0.007), and - 0.01 (95% CI - 0.16 to 0.18; p = 0.919) for maximal strength, explosive strength, and muscle hypertrophy, respectively. Attenuation of explosive strength was more pronounced when concurrent training was performed within the same session (p = 0.043) than when sessions were separated by at least 3 h (p > 0.05). No significant effects were found for the other moderators, i.e. type of aerobic training (cycling vs. running), frequency of concurrent training (> 5 vs. < 5 weekly sessions), training status (untrained vs. active), and mean age (< 40 vs. > 40 years).
CONCLUSION
Concurrent aerobic and strength training does not compromise muscle hypertrophy and maximal strength development. However, explosive strength gains may be attenuated, especially when aerobic and strength training are performed in the same session. These results appeared to be independent of the type of aerobic training, frequency of concurrent training, training status, and age.
PROSPERO
CRD42020203777.
Topics: Adaptation, Physiological; Adult; Exercise; Humans; Infant; Infant, Newborn; Muscle Strength; Muscle, Skeletal; Resistance Training
PubMed: 34757594
DOI: 10.1007/s40279-021-01587-7 -
Journal of Sports Sciences Jun 2017The purpose of this paper was to systematically review the current literature and elucidate the effects of total weekly resistance training (RT) volume on changes in... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
The purpose of this paper was to systematically review the current literature and elucidate the effects of total weekly resistance training (RT) volume on changes in measures of muscle mass via meta-regression. The final analysis comprised 34 treatment groups from 15 studies. Outcomes for weekly sets as a continuous variable showed a significant effect of volume on changes in muscle size (P = 0.002). Each additional set was associated with an increase in effect size (ES) of 0.023 corresponding to an increase in the percentage gain by 0.37%. Outcomes for weekly sets categorised as lower or higher within each study showed a significant effect of volume on changes in muscle size (P = 0.03); the ES difference between higher and lower volumes was 0.241, which equated to a percentage gain difference of 3.9%. Outcomes for weekly sets as a three-level categorical variable (<5, 5-9 and 10+ per muscle) showed a trend for an effect of weekly sets (P = 0.074). The findings indicate a graded dose-response relationship whereby increases in RT volume produce greater gains in muscle hypertrophy.
Topics: Humans; Muscle Strength; Muscle, Skeletal; Resistance Training; Time Factors
PubMed: 27433992
DOI: 10.1080/02640414.2016.1210197 -
Sleep Medicine Reviews Apr 2018The purpose of our review was to synthesize the existing literature about the prevalence of adenoid hypertrophy (AH) in children and adolescents confirmed by the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
The purpose of our review was to synthesize the existing literature about the prevalence of adenoid hypertrophy (AH) in children and adolescents confirmed by the reference standard - the nasoendoscopy (NE). Six electronic databases and partial grey literature were searched. Studies were included if they reported the prevalence of AH confirmed via NE. Studies involving participants with associated comorbidities and/or fully diagnosed sleep apnea in their sample were excluded. The MAStARI tool assessed the potential risk of bias (RoB) among the studies, while the GRADE approach determined the level of evidence. A total of 5248 patients were included. Seventeen studies were included in the meta-analysis showing an AH prevalence of 49.70% (confidence interval (CI): 39.92 to 59.50). The studies were then divided into 3 groups based on the RoB assessment and patient selection method. The AH prevalence for group 1 (studies having low RoB) was 42.18% (CI: 34.93 to 49.60; n = 2794), for group 2 (studies having moderate RoB) was 70.02% (CI: 40.102 to 92.690; n = 538), and finally for group 3 (studies with randomly collected samples) was 34.46% (CI: 10.507 to 63.742; n = 1446). High heterogeneity between the studies was found. The GRADE approach classified the quality of evidence as moderate. In summary, in a randomized representative sample the prevalence of AH was 34.46%; however, in convenience samples the prevalence ranged from 42 to 70%.
Topics: Adenoids; Humans; Hypertrophy; Prevalence
PubMed: 29153763
DOI: 10.1016/j.smrv.2017.06.001 -
Sports Medicine (Auckland, N.Z.) Apr 2015Maximizing the hypertrophic response to resistance training (RT) is thought to be best achieved by proper manipulation of exercise program variables including exercise... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Maximizing the hypertrophic response to resistance training (RT) is thought to be best achieved by proper manipulation of exercise program variables including exercise selection, exercise order, length of rest intervals, intensity of maximal load, and training volume. An often overlooked variable that also may impact muscle growth is repetition duration. Duration amounts to the sum total of the concentric, eccentric, and isometric components of a repetition, and is predicated on the tempo at which the repetition is performed.
OBJECTIVE
We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine whether alterations in repetition duration can amplify the hypertrophic response to RT.
METHODS
Studies were deemed eligible for inclusion if they met the following criteria: (1) were an experimental trial published in an English-language refereed journal; (2) directly compared different training tempos in dynamic exercise using both concentric and eccentric repetitions; (3) measured morphologic changes via biopsy, imaging, and/or densitometry; (4) had a minimum duration of 6 weeks; (5) carried out training to muscle failure, defined as the inability to complete another concentric repetition while maintaining proper form; and (6) used human subjects who did not have a chronic disease or injury. A total of eight studies were identified that investigated repetition duration in accordance with the criteria outlined.
RESULTS
Results indicate that hypertrophic outcomes are similar when training with repetition durations ranging from 0.5 to 8 s.
CONCLUSIONS
From a practical standpoint it would seem that a fairly wide range of repetition durations can be employed if the primary goal is to maximize muscle growth. Findings suggest that training at volitionally very slow durations (>10s per repetition) is inferior from a hypertrophy standpoint, although a lack of controlled studies on the topic makes it difficult to draw definitive conclusions.
Topics: Adaptation, Physiological; Humans; Muscle Fatigue; Muscle Strength; Muscle, Skeletal; Resistance Training; Time Factors
PubMed: 25601394
DOI: 10.1007/s40279-015-0304-0 -
Biomedicine & Pharmacotherapy =... Jan 2022Ferroptosis is a programmed iron-dependent cell death characterized by accumulation of lipid peroxides (LOOH) and redox disequilibrium. Ferroptosis shows unique...
Ferroptosis is a programmed iron-dependent cell death characterized by accumulation of lipid peroxides (LOOH) and redox disequilibrium. Ferroptosis shows unique characteristics in biology, chemistry, and gene levels, compared to other cell death forms. The metabolic disorder of intracellular LOOH catalyzed by iron causes the inactivity of GPX4, disrupts the redox balance, and triggers cell death. Metabolism of amino acid, iron, and lipid, including associated pathways, is considered as a specific hallmark of ferroptosis. Epidemiological studies and animal experiments have shown that ferroptosis plays an important character in the pathophysiology of cardiovascular disease such as atherosclerosis, myocardial infarction (MI), ischemia/reperfusion (I/R), heart failure (HF), cardiac hypertrophy, cardiomyopathy, and abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA). This review systematically summarized the latest research progress on the mechanisms of ferroptosis. Then we report the contribution of ferroptosis in cardiovascular diseases. Finally, we discuss and analyze the therapeutic approaches targeting for ferroptosis associated with cardiovascular diseases.
Topics: Animals; Cardiovascular Diseases; Cell Death; Ferroptosis; Humans; Lipid Peroxides; Metabolic Diseases; Oxidation-Reduction
PubMed: 34800783
DOI: 10.1016/j.biopha.2021.112423