-
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 -
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 -
European Journal of Sport Science Feb 2021The objectives of this paper were to: (a) systematically review studies that explored the effects of exercise order (EO) on muscular strength and/or hypertrophy; (b)... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
The objectives of this paper were to: (a) systematically review studies that explored the effects of exercise order (EO) on muscular strength and/or hypertrophy; (b) pool their results using a meta-analysis; and (c) provide recommendations for the prescription of EO in resistance training (RT) programmes. A literature search was performed in four databases. Studies were included if they explored the effects of EO on dynamic muscular strength and/or muscle hypertrophy. The meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model with Hedges' g effect size (ES). The methodological quality of studies was appraised using the TESTEX checklist. Eleven good-to-excellent methodological quality studies were included in the review. When all strength tests, that is, both in multi-joint (MJ) and single-joint (SJ) exercises were considered, there was no difference between the EOs (ES = -0.11; 0.306). However, there was a difference between the MJ-to-SJ and SJ-to-MJ orders for strength gains in the MJ exercises, favouring starting the exercise session with MJ exercises (ES = 0.32; 0.034), and the strength gains in the SJ exercises, favouring starting the exercise session with SJ exercises (ES = -0.58; 0.032). No significant effect of EO was observed for hypertrophy combining site-specific and indirect measures (ES = 0.03; 0.862). In conclusion, increases in muscular strength are the largest in the exercises performed at the beginning of an exercise session. For muscle hypertrophy, our meta-analysis indicated that both MJ-to-SJ and SJ-to-MJ EOs may produce similar results.
Topics: Humans; Hypertrophy; Muscle Strength; Muscle, Skeletal; Resistance Training
PubMed: 32077380
DOI: 10.1080/17461391.2020.1733672 -
Sports Medicine (Auckland, N.Z.) May 2017Resistance training is an integral component of physical preparation for athletes. A growing body of evidence indicates that eccentric strength training methods induce... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Resistance training is an integral component of physical preparation for athletes. A growing body of evidence indicates that eccentric strength training methods induce novel stimuli for neuromuscular adaptations.
OBJECTIVE
The purpose of this systematic review was to determine the effects of eccentric training in comparison to concentric-only or traditional (i.e. constrained by concentric strength) resistance training.
METHODS
Searches were performed using the electronic databases MEDLINE via EBSCO, PubMed and SPORTDiscus via EBSCO. Full journal articles investigating the long-term (≥4 weeks) effects of eccentric training in healthy (absence of injury or illness during the 4 weeks preceding the training intervention), adult (17-35 years), human participants were selected for the systematic review. A total of 40 studies conformed to these criteria.
RESULTS
Eccentric training elicits greater improvements in muscle strength, although in a largely mode-specific manner. Superior enhancements in power and stretch-shortening cycle (SSC) function have also been reported. Eccentric training is at least as effective as other modalities in increasing muscle cross-sectional area (CSA), while the pattern of hypertrophy appears nuanced and increased CSA may occur longitudinally within muscle (i.e. the addition of sarcomeres in series). There appears to be a preferential increase in the size of type II muscle fibres and the potential to exert a unique effect upon fibre type transitions. Qualitative and quantitative changes in tendon tissue that may be related to the magnitude of strain imposed have also been reported with eccentric training.
CONCLUSIONS
Eccentric training is a potent stimulus for enhancements in muscle mechanical function, and muscle-tendon unit (MTU) morphological and architectural adaptations. The inclusion of eccentric loads not constrained by concentric strength appears to be superior to traditional resistance training in improving variables associated with strength, power and speed performance.
Topics: Adaptation, Physiological; Adolescent; Adult; Exercise; Humans; Muscle Contraction; Muscle Fibers, Skeletal; Muscle Strength; Muscle, Skeletal; Physical Education and Training; Resistance Training
PubMed: 27647157
DOI: 10.1007/s40279-016-0628-4 -
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 -
The Journal of Sports Medicine and... Aug 2022The aim of this study was to compare changes in muscle size, strength, and power between free-weight and machine-based exercises. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
INTRODUCTION
The aim of this study was to compare changes in muscle size, strength, and power between free-weight and machine-based exercises.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION
The online databases of Pubmed, Scopus, and Web of Science were each searched using the following terms: "free weights" OR barbells OR dumbbells AND machines" up until September 15, 2020. A three-level random effects meta-analytic model was used to compute effect sizes.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS
When strength was tested using a free-weight exercise, individuals training with free-weights gained more strength than those training with machines (ES: 0.655; [95% CI: 0.269, 1.041]). When strength was tested a machine-based exercise incorporated as part of the machine-based training program, individuals training with machines gained more strength than those training with free-weights (ES: -0.784 [95% CI: -1.223, -0.344]). When strength was tested using a neutral device, machines and free-weight exercises resulted in similar strength gains (ES: 0.128 [95% CI: -0303, 0.559]). There were no differences in the change in power (ES: -0.049 [95% CI: -0.557, 0.460]) or muscle hypertrophy (ES: -0.01 [95% CI: -0.525, 0.545]) between exercise modes.
CONCLUSIONS
Individuals looking to increase strength and power should consider the specificity of exercise, and how their strength and power will be tested and applied. Individuals looking to increase general strength and muscle mass to maintain health may choose whichever activity they prefer and are more likely to adhere to.
Topics: Exercise; Exercise Therapy; Humans; Muscle Strength; Muscle, Skeletal; Resistance Training
PubMed: 34609100
DOI: 10.23736/S0022-4707.21.12929-9 -
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 -
Nutrition (Burbank, Los Angeles County,... 2022Creatine supplementation has been shown to increase measures of lean body mass (LBM); however, there often is high heterogeneity across individual studies. Therefore,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Influence of age, sex, and type of exercise on the efficacy of creatine supplementation on lean body mass: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.
Creatine supplementation has been shown to increase measures of lean body mass (LBM); however, there often is high heterogeneity across individual studies. Therefore, the aim of this study was to systematically review and meta-analyze randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating creatine supplementation on LBM. Subanalyses were performed based on age, sex, and type of exercise. Based on PRISMA guidelines, we searched the following databases: Pubmed, SPORTDiscus, Web of Science, and Scopus (PROSPERO register: CRD42020207122) until May 2022. RCTs for investigation of creatine supplementation on LBM were included. Animal studies and studies on individuals with specific diseases were excluded. Thirty-five studies were included, with 1192 participants. Overall (i.e., inclusion of all studies with and without exercise training interventions) revealed that creatine increased LBM by 0.68 kg (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.26-1.11). Subanalyses revealed greater gains in LBM when creatine was combined with resistance training (mean difference [MD], 1.10 kg; 95% CI, 0.56-1.65), regardless of age. There was no statistically significant effect of creatine on LBM when combined with mixed exercise (MD, 0.74 kg; 95% CI, -3.89 to 5.36) or without exercise (MD, 0.03 kg; 95% CI, -0.65 to 0.70). Further subanalyses found that males on creatine increased LBM by 1.46 kg (95% CI, 0.47-2.46), compared with a non-significant increase of 0.29 kg (95% CI, -0.43 to 1.01) for females. In conclusion, the addition of creatine supplementation to a resistance training program increases LBM. During a resistance training program, males on creatine respond more favorably than females.
Topics: Male; Female; Animals; Creatine; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Body Composition; Exercise; Dietary Supplements; Muscle Strength
PubMed: 35986981
DOI: 10.1016/j.nut.2022.111791 -
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 -
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