-
Sports Medicine (Auckland, N.Z.) Oct 2022Whole muscle hypertrophy does not appear to be negatively affected by concurrent aerobic and strength training compared to strength training alone. However, there are... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Whole muscle hypertrophy does not appear to be negatively affected by concurrent aerobic and strength training compared to strength training alone. However, there are contradictions in the literature regarding the effects of concurrent training on hypertrophy at the myofiber level.
OBJECTIVE
The current study aimed to systematically examine the extent to which concurrent aerobic and strength training, compared with strength training alone, influences type I and type II muscle fiber size adaptations. We also conducted subgroup analyses to examine the effects of the type of aerobic training, training modality, exercise order, training frequency, age, and training status.
DESIGN
A systematic literature search was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) [PROSPERO: CRD42020203777]. The registered protocol was modified to include only muscle fiber hypertrophy as an outcome.
DATA SOURCES
PubMed/MEDLINE, ISI Web of Science, Embase, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, and Scopus were systematically searched on 12 August, 2020, and updated on 15 March, 2021.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
Population: healthy adults of any sex and age; intervention: supervised, concurrent aerobic and strength training of at least 4 weeks; comparison: identical strength training prescription, with no aerobic training; and outcome: muscle fiber hypertrophy.
RESULTS
A total of 15 studies were included. The estimated standardized mean difference based on the random-effects model was - 0.23 (95% confidence interval [CI] - 0.46 to - 0.00, p = 0.050) for overall muscle fiber hypertrophy. The standardized mean differences were - 0.34 (95% CI - 0.72 to 0.04, p = 0.078) and - 0.13 (95% CI - 0.39 to 0.12, p = 0.315) for type I and type II fiber hypertrophy, respectively. A negative effect of concurrent training was observed for type I fibers when aerobic training was performed by running but not cycling (standardized mean difference - 0.81, 95% CI - 1.26 to - 0.36). None of the other subgroup analyses (i.e., based on concurrent training frequency, training status, training modality, and training order of same-session training) revealed any differences between groups.
CONCLUSIONS
In contrast to previous findings on whole muscle hypertrophy, the present results suggest that concurrent aerobic and strength training may have a small negative effect on fiber hypertrophy compared with strength training alone. Preliminary evidence suggests that this interference effect may be more pronounced when aerobic training is performed by running compared with cycling, at least for type I fibers.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Hypertrophy; Infant; Infant, Newborn; Muscle Fibers, Skeletal; Muscle Strength; Muscle, Skeletal; Resistance Training
PubMed: 35476184
DOI: 10.1007/s40279-022-01688-x -
Journal of Human Kinetics Jan 2022The main goal of this study was to compare responses to moderate and high training volumes aimed at inducing muscle hypertrophy. A literature search on 3 databases...
The main goal of this study was to compare responses to moderate and high training volumes aimed at inducing muscle hypertrophy. A literature search on 3 databases (Pubmed, Scopus and Chocrane Library) was conducted in January 2021. After analyzing 2083 resultant articles, studies were included if they met the following inclusion criteria: a) studies were randomized controlled trials (with the number of sets explicitly reported), b) interventions lasted at least six weeks, c) participants had a minimum of one year of resistance training experience, d) participants' age ranged from 18 to 35 years, e) studies reported direct measurements of muscle thickness and/or the cross-sectional area, and f) studies were published in peer-review journals. Seven studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the qualitative analysis, whereas just six were included in the quantitative analysis. All participants were divided into three groups: "low" (<12 weekly sets), "moderate" (12-20 weekly sets) and "high" volume (>20 weekly sets). According to the results of this meta-analysis, there were no differences between moderate and high training volume responses for the quadriceps (p = 0.19) and the biceps brachii (p = 0.59). However, it appears that a high training volume is better to induce muscle mass gains in the triceps brachii (p = 0.01). According to the results of this review, a range of 12-20 weekly sets per muscle group may be an optimum standard recommendation for increasing muscle hypertrophy in young, trained men.
PubMed: 35291645
DOI: 10.2478/hukin-2022-0017 -
Journal of Sport and Health Science Jan 2024The aim of this umbrella review was to determine the impact of resistance training (RT) and individual RT prescription variables on muscle mass, strength, and physical... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
The aim of this umbrella review was to determine the impact of resistance training (RT) and individual RT prescription variables on muscle mass, strength, and physical function in healthy adults.
METHODS
Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, we systematically searched and screened eligible systematic reviews reporting the effects of differing RT prescription variables on muscle mass (or its proxies), strength, and/or physical function in healthy adults aged >18 years.
RESULTS
We identified 44 systematic reviews that met our inclusion criteria. The methodological quality of these reviews was assessed using A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews; standardized effectiveness statements were generated. We found that RT was consistently a potent stimulus for increasing skeletal muscle mass (4/4 reviews provide some or sufficient evidence), strength (4/6 reviews provided some or sufficient evidence), and physical function (1/1 review provided some evidence). RT load (6/8 reviews provided some or sufficient evidence), weekly frequency (2/4 reviews provided some or sufficient evidence), volume (3/7 reviews provided some or sufficient evidence), and exercise order (1/1 review provided some evidence) impacted RT-induced increases in muscular strength. We discovered that 2/3 reviews provided some or sufficient evidence that RT volume and contraction velocity influenced skeletal muscle mass, while 4/7 reviews provided insufficient evidence in favor of RT load impacting skeletal muscle mass. There was insufficient evidence to conclude that time of day, periodization, inter-set rest, set configuration, set end point, contraction velocity/time under tension, or exercise order (only pertaining to hypertrophy) influenced skeletal muscle adaptations. A paucity of data limited insights into the impact of RT prescription variables on physical function.
CONCLUSION
Overall, RT increased muscle mass, strength, and physical function compared to no exercise. RT intensity (load) and weekly frequency impacted RT-induced increases in muscular strength but not muscle hypertrophy. RT volume (number of sets) influenced muscular strength and hypertrophy.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Resistance Training; Exercise Therapy; Exercise; Hypertrophy; Muscle, Skeletal
PubMed: 37385345
DOI: 10.1016/j.jshs.2023.06.005 -
International Journal of Environmental... Oct 2022Reviews focused on the ketogenic diet (KD) based on the increase in fat-free mass (FFM) have been carried out with pathological populations or, failing that, without... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Reviews focused on the ketogenic diet (KD) based on the increase in fat-free mass (FFM) have been carried out with pathological populations or, failing that, without population differentiation. The aim of this review and meta-analysis was to verify whether a ketogenic diet without programmed energy restriction generates increases in fat-free mass (FFM) in resistance-trained participants. We evaluated the effect of the ketogenic diet, in conjunction with resistance training, on fat-free mass in trained participants. Boolean algorithms from various databases (PubMed, Scopus. and Web of Science) were used, and a total of five studies were located that related to both ketogenic diets and resistance-trained participants. In all, 111 athletes or resistance-trained participants (87 male and 24 female) were evaluated in the studies analyzed. We found no significant differences between groups in the FFM variables, and more research is needed to perform studies with similar ketogenic diets and control diet interventions. Ketogenic diets, taking into account the possible side effects, can be an alternative for increasing muscle mass as long as energy surplus is generated; however, their application for eight weeks or more without interruption does not seem to be the best option due to the satiety and lack of adherence generated.
Topics: Athletes; Diet, Ketogenic; Female; Humans; Hypertrophy; Male; Muscles; Resistance Training
PubMed: 36231929
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph191912629 -
Sports Medicine (Auckland, N.Z.) Jan 2019The combination of low-load resistance training with blood flow restriction (BFR) has recently been shown to promote muscular adaptations in various populations. To... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The combination of low-load resistance training with blood flow restriction (BFR) has recently been shown to promote muscular adaptations in various populations. To date, however, evidence is sparse on how this training regimen influences muscle mass and strength in older adults.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to quantitatively identify the effects of low-load BFR (LL-BFR) training on muscle mass and strength in older individuals in comparison with conventional resistance training programmes. Additionally, the effectiveness of walking with and without BFR was assessed.
METHODS
A PRISMA-compliant systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted. The systematic literature research was performed in the following electronic databases from inception to 1 June 2018: PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus and CENTRAL. Subsequently, a random-effects meta-analysis with inverse variance weighting was conducted.
RESULTS
A total of 2658 articles were screened, and 11 studies with a total population of N = 238 were included in the meta-analysis. Our results revealed that during both low-load training and walking, the addition of BFR elicits significantly greater improvements in muscular strength with pooled effect sizes (ES) of 2.16 (95% CI 1.61 to 2.70) and 3.09 (95% CI 2.04 to 4.14), respectively. Muscle mass was also increased when comparing walking with and without BFR [ES 1.82 (95% CI 1.32 to 2.32)]. In comparison with high-load training, LL-BFR promotes similar muscle hypertrophy [ES 0.21 (95% CI - 0.14 to 0.56)] but lower strength gains [ES - 0.42 (95% CI - 0.70 to - 0.14)].
CONCLUSION
This systematic review and meta-analysis reveals that LL-BFR and walking with BFR is an effective interventional approach to stimulate muscle hypertrophy and strength gains in older populations. As BFR literature is still scarce with regard to potential moderator variables (e.g. sex, cuff pressure or training volume/frequency), further research is needed for strengthening the evidence for an effective application of LL-BFR training in older people.
Topics: Aged; Constriction; Humans; Muscle Strength; Muscle, Skeletal; Regional Blood Flow; Resistance Training; Walking
PubMed: 30306467
DOI: 10.1007/s40279-018-0994-1 -
Journal of Applied Physiology... Dec 2023Hormonal changes around ovulation divide the menstrual cycle (MC) into the follicular and luteal phases. In addition, oral contraceptives (OCs) have active (higher... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Hormonal changes around ovulation divide the menstrual cycle (MC) into the follicular and luteal phases. In addition, oral contraceptives (OCs) have active (higher hormone) and placebo phases. Although there are some MC-based effects on various physiological outcomes, we found these differences relatively subtle and difficult to attribute to specific hormones, as estrogen and progesterone fluctuate rather than operating in a complete on/off pattern as observed in cellular or preclinical models often used to substantiate human data. A broad review reveals that the differences between the follicular and luteal phases and between OC active and placebo phases are not associated with marked differences in exercise performance and appear unlikely to influence muscular hypertrophy in response to resistance exercise training. A systematic review and meta-analysis of substrate oxidation between MC phases revealed no difference between phases in the relative carbohydrate and fat oxidation at rest and during acute aerobic exercise. Vascular differences between MC phases are also relatively small or nonexistent. Although OCs can vary in composition and androgenicity, we acknowledge that much more work remains to be done in this area; however, based on what little evidence is currently available, we do not find compelling support for the notion that OC use significantly influences exercise performance, substrate oxidation, or hypertrophy. It is important to note that the study of females requires better methodological control in many areas. Previous studies lacking such rigor have contributed to premature or incorrect conclusions regarding the effects of the MC and systemic hormones on outcomes. While we acknowledge that the evidence in certain research areas is limited, the consensus view is that the impact of the MC and OC use on various aspects of physiology is small or nonexistent.
Topics: Female; Humans; Contraceptives, Oral; Menstrual Cycle; Hormones; Progesterone; Hypertrophy
PubMed: 37823207
DOI: 10.1152/japplphysiol.00346.2023 -
BMC Sports Science, Medicine &... Aug 2023The effectiveness of strength training with free-weight vs. machine equipment is heavily debated. Thus, the purpose of this meta-analysis was to summarize the data on...
BACKGROUND
The effectiveness of strength training with free-weight vs. machine equipment is heavily debated. Thus, the purpose of this meta-analysis was to summarize the data on the effect of free-weight versus machine-based strength training on maximal strength, jump height and hypertrophy.
METHODS
The review was conducted in accordance with the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, and the systematic search of literature was conducted up to January 1, 2023. Studies that directly compared free-weight vs. machine-based strength training for a minimum of 6 weeks in adults (18-60 yrs.) were included.
RESULTS
Thirteen studies (outcomes: maximal strength [n = 12], jump performance [n = 5], muscle hypertrophy [n = 5]) with a total sample of 1016 participants (789 men, 219 women) were included. Strength in free-weight tests increased significantly more with free-weight training than with machines (SMD: -0.210, CI: -0.391, -0.029, p = 0.023), while strength in machine-based tests tended to increase more with machine training than with free-weights (SMD: 0.291, CI: -0.017, 0.600, p = 0.064). However, no differences were found between modalities in direct comparison (free-weight strength vs. machine strength) for dynamic strength (SMD: 0.084, CI: -0.106, 0.273, p = 0.387), isometric strength (SMD: -0.079, CI: -0.432, 0.273, p = 0.660), countermovement jump (SMD: -0.209, CI: -0.597, 0.179, p = 0.290) and hypertrophy (SMD: -0.055, CI: -0.397, 0.287, p = 0.751).
CONCLUSION
No differences were detected in the direct comparison of strength, jump performance and muscle hypertrophy. Current body of evidence indicates that strength changes are specific to the training modality, and the choice between free-weights and machines are down to individual preferences and goals.
PubMed: 37582807
DOI: 10.1186/s13102-023-00713-4 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2022Hypertrophic and keloid scars are common skin conditions resulting from abnormal wound healing. They can cause itching, pain and have a negative physical and... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Hypertrophic and keloid scars are common skin conditions resulting from abnormal wound healing. They can cause itching, pain and have a negative physical and psychological impact on patients' lives. Different approaches are used aiming to improve these scars, including intralesional corticosteroids, surgery and more recently, laser therapy. Since laser therapy is expensive and may have adverse effects, it is critical to evaluate the potential benefits and harms of this therapy for treating hypertrophic and keloid scars.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of laser therapy for treating hypertrophic and keloid scars.
SEARCH METHODS
In March 2021 we searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL EBSCO Plus and LILACS. To identify additional studies, we also searched clinical trials registries for ongoing and unpublished studies, and scanned reference lists of relevant included studies as well as reviews, meta-analyses, and health technology reports. There were no restrictions with respect to language, date of publication, or study setting.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) for treating hypertrophic or keloid scars (or both), comparing laser therapy with placebo, no intervention or another intervention.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently selected studies, extracted the data, assessed the risk of bias of included studies and carried out GRADE assessments to assess the certainty of evidence. A third review author arbitrated if there were disagreements.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 15 RCTs, involving 604 participants (children and adults) with study sample sizes ranging from 10 to 120 participants (mean 40.27). Where studies randomised different parts of the same scar, each scar segment was the unit of analysis (906 scar segments). The length of participant follow-up varied from 12 weeks to 12 months. All included trials had a high risk of bias for at least one domain: all studies were deemed at high risk of bias due to lack of blinding of participants and personnel. The variability of intervention types, controls, follow-up periods and limitations with report data meant we pooled data for one comparison (and only two outcomes within this). Several review secondary outcomes - cosmesis, tolerance, preference for different modes of treatment, adherence, and change in quality of life - were not reported in any of the included studies. Laser versus no treatment: We found low-certainty evidence suggesting there may be more hypertrophic and keloid scar improvement (that is scars are less severe) in 585-nm pulsed-dye laser (PDL) -treated scars compared with no treatment (risk ratio (RR) 1.96; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.11 to 3.45; two studies, 60 scar segments). It is unclear whether non-ablative fractional laser (NAFL) impacts on hypertrophic scar severity when compared with no treatment (very low-certainty evidence). It is unclear whether fractional carbon dioxide (CO) laser impacts on hypertrophic and keloid scar severity compared with no treatment (very low-certainty evidence). Eight studies reported treatment-related adverse effects but did not provide enough data for further analyses. Laser versus other treatments: We are uncertain whether treatment with 585-nm PDL impacts on hypertrophic and keloid scar severity compared with intralesional corticosteroid triamcinolone acetonide (TAC), intralesional Fluorouracil (5-FU) or combined use of TAC plus 5-FU (very low-certainty evidence). It is also uncertain whether erbium laser impacts on hypertrophic scar severity when compared with TAC (very low-certainty evidence). Other comparisons included 585-nm PDL versus silicone gel sheeting, fractional CO laser versus TAC and fractional CO laser versus verapamil. However, the authors did not report enough data regarding the severity of scars to compare the interventions. As only very low-certainty evidence is available on treatment-related adverse effects, including pain, charring (skin burning so that the surface becomes blackened), telangiectasia (a condition in which tiny blood vessels cause thread-like red lines on the skin), skin atrophy (skin thinning), purpuric discolorations, hypopigmentation (skin colour becomes lighter), and erosion (loss of part of the top layer of skin, leaving a denuded surface) secondary to blistering, we are not able to draw conclusions as to how these treatments compare. Laser plus other treatment versus other treatment: It is unclear whether 585-nm PDL plus TAC plus 5-FU leads to a higher percentage of good to excellent improvement in hypertrophic and keloid scar severity compared with TAC plus 5-FU, as the certainty of evidence has been assessed as very low. Due to very low-certainty evidence, it is also uncertain whether CO laser plus TAC impacts on keloid scar severity compared with cryosurgery plus TAC. The evidence is also very uncertain about the effect of neodymium-doped yttrium aluminium garnet (Nd:YAG) laser plus intralesional corticosteroid diprospan plus 5-FU on scar severity compared with diprospan plus 5-FU and about the effect of helium-neon (He-Ne) laser plus decamethyltetrasiloxane, polydimethylsiloxane and cyclopentasiloxane cream on scar severity compared with decamethyltetrasiloxane, polydimethylsiloxane and cyclopentasiloxane cream. Only very low-certainty evidence is available on treatment-related adverse effects, including pain, atrophy, erythema, telangiectasia, hypopigmentation, regrowth, hyperpigmentation (skin colour becomes darker), and depigmentation (loss of colour from the skin). Therefore, we are not able to draw conclusions as to how these treatments compare. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence to support or refute the effectiveness of laser therapy for treating hypertrophic and keloid scars. The available information is also insufficient to perform a more accurate analysis on treatment-related adverse effects related to laser therapy. Due to the heterogeneity of the studies, conflicting results, study design issues and small sample sizes, further high-quality trials, with validated scales and core outcome sets should be developed. These trials should take into consideration the consumers' opinion and values, the need for long-term follow-up and the necessity of reporting the rate of recurrence of scars to determine whether lasers may achieve superior results when compared with other therapies for treating hypertrophic and keloid scars.
Topics: Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Adult; Aluminum; Atrophy; Carbon Dioxide; Child; Cicatrix, Hypertrophic; Dimethylpolysiloxanes; Erbium; Fluorouracil; Helium; Humans; Hypertrophy; Hypopigmentation; Keloid; Laser Therapy; Neodymium; Neon; Pain; Silicone Gels; Telangiectasis; Triamcinolone Acetonide; Verapamil; Wound Healing; Yttrium
PubMed: 36161591
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011642.pub2 -
Aging and Disease Feb 2022Aging is a prominent risk factor for cardiovascular diseases, which is the leading cause of death around the world. Recently, cellular senescence has received potential... (Review)
Review
Aging is a prominent risk factor for cardiovascular diseases, which is the leading cause of death around the world. Recently, cellular senescence has received potential attention as a promising target in preventing cardiovascular diseases, including acute myocardial infarction, atherosclerosis, cardiac aging, pressure overload-induced hypertrophy, heart regeneration, hypertension, and abdominal aortic aneurysm. Here, we discuss the mechanisms underlying cellular senescence and describe the involvement of senescent cardiovascular cells (including cardiomyocytes, endothelial cells, vascular smooth muscle cells, fibroblasts/myofibroblasts and T cells) in age-related cardiovascular diseases. Then, we highlight the targets (SIRT1 and mTOR) that regulating cellular senescence in cardiovascular disorders. Furthermore, we review the evidence that senescent cells can exert both beneficial and detrimental implications in cardiovascular diseases on a context-dependent manner. Finally, we summarize the emerging pro-senescent or anti-senescent interventions and discuss their therapeutic potential in preventing cardiovascular diseases.
PubMed: 35111365
DOI: 10.14336/AD.2021.0927 -
Journal of Sports Sciences Jun 2019Training frequency is considered an important variable in the hypertrophic response to regimented resistance exercise. The purpose of this paper was to conduct a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
How many times per week should a muscle be trained to maximize muscle hypertrophy? A systematic review and meta-analysis of studies examining the effects of resistance training frequency.
Training frequency is considered an important variable in the hypertrophic response to regimented resistance exercise. The purpose of this paper was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of experimental studies designed to investigate the effects of weekly training frequency on hypertrophic adaptations. Following a systematic search of PubMed/MEDLINE, Scoups, and SPORTDiscus databases, a total of 25 studies were deemed to meet inclusion criteria. Results showed no significant difference between higher and lower frequency on a volume-equated basis. Moreover, no significant differences were seen between frequencies of training across all categories when taking into account direct measures of growth, in those considered resistance-trained, and when segmenting into training for the upper body and lower body. Meta-regression analysis of non-volume-equated studies showed a significant effect favoring higher frequencies, although the overall difference in magnitude of effect between frequencies of 1 and 3+ days per week was modest. In conclusion, there is strong evidence that resistance training frequency does not significantly or meaningfully impact muscle hypertrophy when volume is equated. Thus, for a given training volume, individuals can choose a weekly frequency per muscle groups based on personal preference.
Topics: Adaptation, Physiological; Humans; Lower Extremity; Muscle Strength; Muscle, Skeletal; Resistance Training; Time Factors; Upper Extremity
PubMed: 30558493
DOI: 10.1080/02640414.2018.1555906