-
Journal of Strength and Conditioning... Mar 2021Baz-Valle, E, Fontes-Villalba, M, and Santos-Concejero, J. Total number of sets as a training volume quantification method for muscle hypertrophy: A systematic review. J...
Baz-Valle, E, Fontes-Villalba, M, and Santos-Concejero, J. Total number of sets as a training volume quantification method for muscle hypertrophy: A systematic review. J Strength Cond Res 35(3): 870-878, 2021-This review aimed to determine whether assessing the total number of sets is a valid method to quantify training volume in the context of hypertrophy training. A literature search on 2 databases (PubMed and Scopus) was conducted on May 18, 2018. After analyzing 2,585 resultant articles, studies were included if they met the following criteria: (a) studies were randomized controlled trials, (b) studies compared the total number of sets, repetition range, or training frequency, (c) interventions lasted at least 6 weeks, (d) subjects had a minimum of 1 year of resistance training experience, (e) subjects' age ranged from 18 to 35 years, (f) studies reported morphologic changes through direct or indirect assessment methods, (g) studies involved subjects with no known medical conditions, and (h) studies were published in peer-reviewed journals. Fourteen studies met the inclusion criteria. According to the results of this review, the total number of sets to failure, or near to, seems to be an adequate method to quantify training volume when the repetition range lies between 6 and 20+ if all the other variables are kept constant. This approach requires further development to assess whether specific numbers of sets are key to inducing optimal muscle gains.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Humans; Hypertrophy; Muscle Strength; Muscle, Skeletal; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Research Design; Resistance Training; Young Adult
PubMed: 30063555
DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000002776 -
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 -
Journal of Strength and Conditioning... Sep 2017Schoenfeld, BJ, Ogborn, DI, Vigotsky, AD, Franchi, MV, and Krieger, JW. Hypertrophic effects of concentric vs. eccentric muscle actions: A systematic review and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Schoenfeld, BJ, Ogborn, DI, Vigotsky, AD, Franchi, MV, and Krieger, JW. Hypertrophic effects of concentric vs. eccentric muscle actions: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Strength Cond Res 31(9): 2599-2608, 2017-Controversy exists as to whether different dynamic muscle actions produce divergent hypertrophic responses. The purpose of this paper was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing the hypertrophic effects of concentric vs. eccentric training in healthy adults after regimented resistance training (RT). Studies were deemed eligible for inclusion if they met the following criteria: (a) were an experimental trial published in an English-language refereed journal; (b) directly compared concentric and eccentric actions without the use of external implements (i.e., blood pressure cuffs) and all other RT variables equivalent; (c) measured morphologic changes using biopsy, imaging (magnetic resonance imaging, computerized tomography, or ultrasound), bioelectrical impedance, and/or densitometry; (d) had a minimum duration of 6 weeks; and (e) used human participants without musculoskeletal injury or any health condition that could directly, or through the medications associated with the management of said condition, be expected to impact the hypertrophic response to resistance exercise. A systematic literature search determined that 15 studies met inclusion criteria. Results showed that eccentric muscle actions resulted in a greater effect size (ES) compared with concentric actions, but results did not reach statistical significance (ES difference = 0.25 ± 0.13; 95% confidence interval: -0.03 to 0.52; p = 0.076). The mean percent change in muscle growth across studies favored eccentric compared with concentric actions (10.0% vs. 6.8, respectively). The findings indicate the importance of including eccentric and concentric actions in a hypertrophy-oriented RT program, as both have shown to be effective in increasing muscle hypertrophy.
Topics: Adult; Biopsy; Electric Impedance; Exercise; Female; Humans; Magnetic Resonance Imaging; Male; Muscle, Skeletal; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Resistance Training
PubMed: 28486337
DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000001983 -
Sports Medicine - Open Jul 2023One of the most popular time-efficient training methods when training for muscle hypertrophy is drop sets, which is performed by taking sets to concentric muscle failure...
BACKGROUND
One of the most popular time-efficient training methods when training for muscle hypertrophy is drop sets, which is performed by taking sets to concentric muscle failure at a given load, then making a drop by reducing the load and immediately taking the next set to concentric or voluntary muscle failure. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the effects of drop sets over traditional sets on skeletal muscle hypertrophy.
METHODS
This systematic review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. The SPORTDiscus and MEDLINE/PubMed databases were searched on April 9, 2022, for all studies investigating the effects of the drop set training method on muscle hypertrophy that meets the predefined inclusion criteria. Comprehensive Meta-Analysis Version 3 (Biostat Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA) was used to run the statistical analysis. Publication bias was assessed through visual inspection of the funnel plots for asymmetry and statistically by Egger's regression test with an alpha level of 0.10.
RESULTS
Six studies met the predefined inclusion criteria. The number of participants in the studies was 142 (28 women and 114 men) with an age range of 19.2-27 years. The average sample size was 23.6 ± 10.9 (range 9-41). Five studies were included in the quantitative synthesis. Meta-analysis showed that both the drop set and traditional training groups increased significantly from pre- to post-test regarding muscle hypertrophy (drop set standardized mean difference: 0.555, 95% CI 0.357-0.921, p < 0.0001; traditional set standardized mean difference: 0.437, 95% CI 0.266-0.608, p < 0.0001). No significant between-group difference was found (standardized mean difference: 0.155, 95% CI - 0.199 to - 0.509, p = 0.392).
CONCLUSIONS
The results of this systematic review and meta-analysis indicate that drop sets present an efficient strategy for maximizing hypertrophy in those with limited time for training. There was no significant difference in hypertrophy measurements between the drop set and traditional training groups, but some of the drop set modalities took half to one-third of the time compared with traditional training.
PubMed: 37523092
DOI: 10.1186/s40798-023-00620-5 -
Journal of Strength and Conditioning... Jun 2022Kassiano, W, Nunes, JP, Costa, B, Ribeiro, AS, Schoenfeld, BJ, and Cyrino, ES. Does varying resistance exercises promote superior muscle hypertrophy and strength gains?...
Kassiano, W, Nunes, JP, Costa, B, Ribeiro, AS, Schoenfeld, BJ, and Cyrino, ES. Does varying resistance exercises promote superior muscle hypertrophy and strength gains? A systematic review. J Strength Cond Res 36(6): 1753-1762, 2022-Fitness professionals routinely employ a variety of resistance training exercises in program design as a strategy to enhance muscular adaptations. However, it remains uncertain whether such an approach offers advantages over a fixed-exercise selection. The objective of this review was to review the effects of exercise variation on muscle hypertrophy and strength. A search of the literature was conducted using PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science databases. Eight studies were identified as meeting inclusion criteria. The combined total sample of the studies was N = 241, comprising all young men. The methodological quality of included studies was considered "good" and "excellent" based on the Physiotherapy Evidence Database Scale. The available studies indicate that varying exercise selection can influence muscle hypertrophy and strength gains. Some degree of systematic variation seems to enhance regional hypertrophic adaptations and maximize dynamic strength, whereas excessive, random variation may compromise muscular gains. We conclude that exercise variation should be approached systematically with a focus on applied anatomical and biomechanical constructs; on the contrary, employing different exercises that provide a redundant stimulus, as well as excessive rotation of different exercises (i.e., high frequency of change), may actually hinder muscular adaptations.
Topics: Exercise; Humans; Hypertrophy; Male; Muscle Strength; Muscle, Skeletal; Resistance Training
PubMed: 35438660
DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000004258 -
Journal of Clinical Medicine Dec 2020Patients undergoing anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction and patients suffering from knee osteoarthritis (KOA) have been shown to have quadriceps muscle... (Review)
Review
Comparison of Blood Flow Restriction Training versus Non-Occlusive Training in Patients with Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction or Knee Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review.
Patients undergoing anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction and patients suffering from knee osteoarthritis (KOA) have been shown to have quadriceps muscle weakness and/or atrophy in common. The physiological mechanisms of blood flow restriction (BFR) training could facilitate muscle hypertrophy. The purpose of this systematic review is to investigate the effects of BFR training on quadriceps cross-sectional area (CSA), pain perception, function and quality of life on these patients compared to a non-BFR training. A literature research was performed using Web of Science, PEDro, Scopus, MEDLINE, Dialnet, CINAHL and The Cochrane Library databases. The main inclusion criteria were that papers were English or Spanish language reports of randomized controlled trials involving patients with ACL reconstruction or suffering from KOA. The initial research identified 159 publications from all databases; 10 articles were finally included. The search was conducted from April to June 2020. Four of these studies found a significant improvement in strength. A significant increase in CSA was found in two studies. Pain significantly improved in four studies and only one study showed a significant improvement in functionality/quality of life. Low-load training with BFR may be an effective option treatment for increasing quadriceps strength and CSA, but more research is needed.
PubMed: 33375515
DOI: 10.3390/jcm10010068 -
Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport Aug 2016To systematically search and assess studies that have combined blood flow restriction (BFR) with exercise, and to perform meta-analysis of the reported results to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
To systematically search and assess studies that have combined blood flow restriction (BFR) with exercise, and to perform meta-analysis of the reported results to quantify the effectiveness of BFR exercise on muscle strength and hypertrophy.
DESIGN
A systematic review.
METHODS
A computer assisted database search was conducted for articles investigating the effect of exercise combined with BFR on muscle hypertrophy and strength. A total of 916 hits were screened in order based on title, abstract, and full article, resulting in 47 articles that fit the review criteria.
RESULTS
A total of 400 participants were included from 19 different studies measuring muscle strength increases when exercise is combined with BFR. Exercise was separated into aerobic and resistance exercise. Resulting from BFR aerobic exercise, there was a mean strength improvement of 0.4Nm between the experimental group and control group, while BFR resistance exercise resulted in a mean improvement of 0.3kg. A total of 377 participants were included in 19 studies measuring muscle size increase (cross sectional area) when exercise was combined with BFR. The mean difference in muscle size between the experimental group and control group was 0.4cm(2).
CONCLUSION
Current evidence suggests that the addition of BFR to dynamic exercise training is effective for augmenting changes in both muscle strength and size. This effect was consistent for both resistance training and aerobically-based exercise, although the effect sizes varied. The magnitude of observed changes are noteworthy, particularly considering the relatively short duration of the average intervention.
Topics: Exercise; Humans; Muscle Hypertonia; Muscle Strength; Muscle, Skeletal; Regional Blood Flow; Resistance Training; Veins
PubMed: 26463594
DOI: 10.1016/j.jsams.2015.09.005 -
International Journal of Environmental... Oct 2021Low-intensity training with blood flow restriction (LI-BFR) has been suggested as an alternative to high-intensity resistance training for the improvement of strength... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Resistance Training with Blood Flow Restriction Compared to Traditional Resistance Training on Strength and Muscle Mass in Non-Active Older Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Low-intensity training with blood flow restriction (LI-BFR) has been suggested as an alternative to high-intensity resistance training for the improvement of strength and muscle mass, becoming advisable for individuals who cannot assume such a load. The systematic review aimed to determine the effectiveness of the LI-BFR compared to dynamic high-intensity resistance training on strength and muscle mass in non-active older adults. A systematic review was conducted according to the Cochrane Handbook and reportedly followed the PRISMA statement. MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science Core Collection, and Scopus databases were searched between September and October 2020. Two reviewers independently selected the studies, extracted data, assessed the risk of bias and the quality of evidence using the GRADE approach. Twelve studies were included in the qualitative synthesis. Meta-analysis pointed out significant differences in maximal voluntary contraction (MVC): SMD 0.61, 95% CI [0.10, 1.11], = 0.02, I 71% < 0.0001; but not in the repetition maximum (RM): SMD 0.07, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.40], = 0.66, I 0% < 0.53; neither in the muscle mass: SMD 0.62, 95% CI [-0.09, 1.34], = 0.09, I 59% = 0.05. Despite important limitations such as scarce literature regarding LI-BFR in older adults, the small sample size in most studies, the still differences in methodology and poor quality in many of them, this systematic review and meta-analysis revealed a positive benefit in non-active older adults. LI- BFR may induce increased muscular strength and muscle mass, at least at a similar extent to that in the traditional high-intensity resistance training.
Topics: Aged; Hemodynamics; Humans; Muscle Strength; Muscle, Skeletal; Regional Blood Flow; Resistance Training
PubMed: 34769957
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph182111441 -
Journal of Strength and Conditioning... Jul 2019Ferland, PM and Comtois, AS. Classic powerlifting performance: A systematic review. J Strength Cond Res XX(X): 000-000, 2019-The purpose of this study was to review all...
Ferland, PM and Comtois, AS. Classic powerlifting performance: A systematic review. J Strength Cond Res XX(X): 000-000, 2019-The purpose of this study was to review all scientific publications related to able-body drug-tested classic powerlifting performance since January 1, 2012, and to regroup them into a brief narrative review. Three electronic databases were systematically searched in August 2018 using the wildcard: powerlift*. A manual search was performed from the reference list of all retained articles. The search and selection strategy permitted to gather a total of 16 scientific articles published in peer-reviewed journals. Results show that practitioners should prioritize a low-bar squat and a wide grip bench press because they generally contribute to moving greater loads, bring more attention to preventing injuries, since a fair amount of powerlifters seem to train injured and prioritize a hypertrophy-power-strength model when prescribing 3 times a week daily undulating periodization on nonconsecutive days for squat and bench. Practitioners could also introduce respiratory muscle training, use daily 1 repetition maximum training combined with down sets on experienced athletes and use a rate of perceived exertion scale based on repetitions in reserve combined with an individual velocity profile when prescribing intensity. Before competition, powerlifters seem to taper in this order: the deadlift, the squat, and lastly the bench press. The Slingshot does help to move more weight because it helps to generate more inertia, but it also deactivates the triceps. Finally, the present work was limited by the present literature but could serve as a reference in the field of powerlifting. Further research should include more details about the circumstances under which they were conducted.
Topics: Athletic Performance; Breathing Exercises; Humans; Muscle Strength; Muscle, Skeletal; Physical Exertion; Resistance Training; Weight Lifting
PubMed: 30844981
DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000003099 -
Sports Medicine (Auckland, N.Z.) Feb 2018Low-load resistance training (< 50% of one-repetition maximum [1RM]) associated with blood-flow restriction (BFR-RT) has been thought to promote increases in muscle... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Magnitude of Muscle Strength and Mass Adaptations Between High-Load Resistance Training Versus Low-Load Resistance Training Associated with Blood-Flow Restriction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
BACKGROUND
Low-load resistance training (< 50% of one-repetition maximum [1RM]) associated with blood-flow restriction (BFR-RT) has been thought to promote increases in muscle strength and mass. However, it remains unclear if the magnitude of these adaptations is similar to conventional high-load resistance training (> 65% 1RM; HL-RT).
OBJECTIVE
To compare the effects of HL- versus BFR-RT on muscle adaptations using a systematic review and meta-analysis procedure.
METHODS
Studies were identified via electronic databases based on the following inclusion criteria: (a) pre- and post-training assessment of muscular strength; (b) pre- and post-training assessment of muscle hypertrophy; (c) comparison of HL-RT vs. BFR-RT; (d) score ≥ 4 on PEDro scale; (e) means and standard deviations (or standard errors) are reported from absolute values or allow estimation from graphs. If this last criterion was not met, data were directly requested from the authors.
RESULTS
The main results showed higher increases in muscle strength for HL- as compared with BFR-RT, even when considering test specificity, absolute occlusion pressure, cuff width, and occlusion pressure prescription. Regarding the hypertrophic response, results revealed similar effects between HL- and BFR-RT, regardless of the absolute occlusion pressure, cuff width, and occlusion pressure prescription.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on the present data, maximum muscle strength may be optimized by specific training methods (i.e., HL-RT) while both HL- and BFR-RT seem equally effective in increasing muscle mass. Importantly, BFR-RT is a valid and effective approach for increasing muscle strength in a wide spectrum of ages and physical capacity, although it may seem particularly of interest for those individuals with physical limitations to engage in HL-RT.
Topics: Adaptation, Physiological; Humans; Muscle Strength; Muscle, Skeletal; Regional Blood Flow; Resistance Training; Weight-Bearing
PubMed: 29043659
DOI: 10.1007/s40279-017-0795-y