-
Sports Medicine (Auckland, N.Z.) Jul 2022In resistance training, periodization is often used in an attempt to promote development of strength and muscle hypertrophy. However, it remains unclear how resistance... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
In resistance training, periodization is often used in an attempt to promote development of strength and muscle hypertrophy. However, it remains unclear how resistance training variables are most effectively periodized to maximize gains in strength and muscle hypertrophy.
OBJECTIVE
The aims of this study were to examine the current body of literature to determine whether there is an effect of periodization of training volume and intensity on maximal strength and muscle hypertrophy, and, if so, to determine how these variables are more effectively periodized to promote increases in strength and muscle hypertrophy, when volume is equated between conditions from pre to post intervention.
METHODS
Systematic searches were conducted in PubMed, Scopus and SPORTDiscus databases. Data from the individual studies were extracted and coded. Meta-analyses using the inverse-variance random effects model were performed to compare 1-repetition maximum (1RM) and muscle hypertrophy outcomes in (a) non-periodized (NP) versus periodized training and (b) in linear periodization (LP) versus undulating periodization (UP). Subgroup analyses examining whether results were affected by training status were performed. Meta-analyses of other periodization model comparisons were not performed, due to a low number of studies.
RESULTS
Thirty-five studies met the inclusion criteria. Results of the meta-analyses comparing NP and periodized training demonstrated an overall effect on 1RM strength favoring periodized training (ES 0.31, 95% confidence interval (CI) [0.04, 0.57]; Z = 2.28, P = 0.02). In contrast, muscle hypertrophy did not differ between NP and periodized training (ES 0.13, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.36]; Z = 1.10, P = 0.27). Results of the meta-analyses comparing LP and UP indicated an overall effect on 1RM favoring UP (ES 0.31, 95% CI [0.02, 0.61]; Z = 2.06, P = 0.04). Subgroup analyses indicated an effect on 1RM favoring UP in trained participants (ES 0.61, 95% CI [0.00, 1.22]; Z = 1.97 (P = 0.05)), whereas changes in 1RM did not differ between LP and UP in untrained participants (ES 0.06, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.31]; Z = 0.43 (P = 0.67)). The meta-analyses showed that muscle hypertrophy did not differ between LP and UP (ES 0.05, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.29]; Z = 0.36 (P = 0.72)).
CONCLUSION
The results suggest that when volume is equated between conditions, periodized resistance training has a greater effect on 1RM strength compared to NP resistance training. Also, UP resulted in greater increases in 1RM compared to LP. However, subgroup analyses revealed that this was only the case for trained and not previously untrained individuals, indicating that trained individuals benefit from daily or weekly undulations in volume and intensity, when the aim is maximal strength. Periodization of volume and intensity does not seem to affect muscle hypertrophy in volume-equated pre-post designs. Based on this, we propose that the effects of periodization on maximal strength may instead be related to the neurophysiological adaptations accompanying resistance training.
Topics: Adaptation, Physiological; Humans; Hypertrophy; Muscle Strength; Muscle, Skeletal; Resistance Training
PubMed: 35044672
DOI: 10.1007/s40279-021-01636-1 -
Physical Therapy Aug 2020A clinical practice guideline on total knee arthroplasty was developed by an American Physical Therapy (APTA) volunteer guideline development group that consisted of...
A clinical practice guideline on total knee arthroplasty was developed by an American Physical Therapy (APTA) volunteer guideline development group that consisted of physical therapists, an orthopedic surgeon, a nurse, and a consumer. The guideline was based on systematic reviews of current scientific and clinical information and accepted approaches to management of total knee arthroplasty.
Topics: Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee; Cryotherapy; Electric Stimulation Therapy; Exercise; Humans; Motion Therapy, Continuous Passive; Movement; Osteoarthritis, Knee; Patient Discharge; Peer Review; Physical Therapists; Postoperative Care; Preoperative Care; Prognosis; Quality Improvement; Range of Motion, Articular; Resistance Training; Risk Factors
PubMed: 32542403
DOI: 10.1093/ptj/pzaa099 -
Current Hypertension Reports Apr 2023Hypertension is the primary risk factor for cardiovascular disease and adequate blood pressure control is often elusive. The objective of this work was to conduct a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE OF REVIEW
Hypertension is the primary risk factor for cardiovascular disease and adequate blood pressure control is often elusive. The objective of this work was to conduct a meta-analysis of trial data of isometric resistance training (IRT) studies in people with hypertension, to establish if IRT produced an anti-hypertensive effect. A database search (PubMed, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and MEDLINE) identified randomised controlled and crossover trials of IRT versus a sedentary or sham control group in adults with hypertension.
RECENT FINDINGS
We included 12 studies (14 intervention groups) in the meta-analyses, with an aggregate of 415 participants. IRT reduced systolic blood pressure (SBP), mean difference (MD) - 7.47 mmHg (95%CI - 10.10, - 4.84), P < 0.01; diastolic blood pressure (DBP) MD - 3.17 mmHg (95%CI - 5.29, - 1.04), P < 0.01; and mean arterial blood pressure (MAP) MD - 7.19 mmHg (95%CI - 9.06, - 5.32), P < 0.0001. Office pulse pressure and resting heart rate was not significantly reduced, neither were 24-h or day-time ambulatory blood pressures (SBP, DBP). Night-time blood pressures, however, were significantly reduced with SBP MD - 4.28 mmHg (95%CI - 7.88, - 0.67), P = 0.02, and DBP MD - 2.22 mmHg (95%CI - 3.55, - 0.88), P < 0.01. IRT does lower SBP, DBP and MAP office and night-time ambulatory SBP and DBP, but not 24-h mean ambulatory blood pressures in people with hypertension.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Hypertension; Resistance Training; Blood Pressure; Cardiovascular Diseases; Hypotension
PubMed: 36853479
DOI: 10.1007/s11906-023-01232-w -
Heart Failure Reviews Sep 2022Aerobic training (AT) has been the primary mode of exercise training in cardiac rehabilitation. Historically, the reason for the prescription of AT was that it was... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Aerobic training (AT) has been the primary mode of exercise training in cardiac rehabilitation. Historically, the reason for the prescription of AT was that it was speculated that although RT may be beneficial for some clinical outcomes, it may have an adverse effect on ventricular structure and function. However, RT has now made its way into current cardiac rehabilitation guidelines, including those directed towards patients with HF, albeit differences exist across institutions and guidelines. A systematic search of PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Trials Register on April 30, 2021, was conducted for exercise-based rehabilitation trials in HF. Randomised and controlled trials that reported on resistance training versus usual care or trials that directly compared RT to an AT intervention were included. Resistance training versus controls improves parameters of lower (SMD 0.76 (95%CI 0.26, 1.25, p = 0.003] and upper extremity muscle strength (SMD 0.85 (95%CI 0.35, 1.35), p = 0.0009], both key parameters of physical function throughout the lifespan. Importantly, RT in isolation, versus control, improves VO2peak [MD: 2.64 ml/kg/min (95%CI 1.67, 3.60), p < 0.00001] and 6MWD [MD: 49.94 m (95%CI 34.59, 65.29), p < 0.00001], without any detrimental effect on left ventricular parameters. Resistance training in HF patients is safe and improves parameters of physical function and quality of life. Where people with HF are unable to, or are not inclined to, partake in aerobic activity, RT alone is appropriate to elicit meaningful benefit.
Topics: Exercise Therapy; Exercise Tolerance; Heart Failure; Humans; Quality of Life; Resistance Training
PubMed: 34542742
DOI: 10.1007/s10741-021-10169-8 -
Cancer Medicine Oct 2022Health professionals predict that the number of people who will suffer and die from oncological diseases will continue to increase. It is vitally important to provide... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Health professionals predict that the number of people who will suffer and die from oncological diseases will continue to increase. It is vitally important to provide comprehensive care to these patients and prescribe physical exercise programs as adjuvant therapy. The objective of this systematic review was to determine the impact of physical exercise on advanced-stage cancer patients. A literature search was performed in eight different databases. This search focused on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published during the last 10 years. To assess the methodological quality of the sample of 15 RCTs finally obtained, the PEDro scale was used. Aerobic and strength training methods were used. The combination of both aerobic and strength training methods was the most frequently reported. Likewise, different physical and psychological variables were recorded, from which improvements were seen in fatigue, independence, quality of life and sleep, among others. The participation in physical exercise programs by advanced-stage cancer patients has a positive impact on health. Providing these programs serves as adjuvant therapy, facilitating the comprehensive care of patients. Similarly, aerobic, strength or mixed training programs increase the muscle mass of patients and therefore reduce hypotonia, the main side effect during the advanced-stages of cancer.
Topics: Exercise; Exercise Therapy; Fatigue; Humans; Neoplasms; Quality of Life; Resistance Training
PubMed: 35411694
DOI: 10.1002/cam4.4746 -
Sports Medicine (Auckland, N.Z.) May 2018Middle- and long-distance running performance is constrained by several important aerobic and anaerobic parameters. The efficacy of strength training (ST) for distance... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Middle- and long-distance running performance is constrained by several important aerobic and anaerobic parameters. The efficacy of strength training (ST) for distance runners has received considerable attention in the literature. However, to date, the results of these studies have not been fully synthesized in a review on the topic.
OBJECTIVES
This systematic review aimed to provide a comprehensive critical commentary on the current literature that has examined the effects of ST modalities on the physiological determinants and performance of middle- and long-distance runners, and offer recommendations for best practice.
METHODS
Electronic databases were searched using a variety of key words relating to ST exercise and distance running. This search was supplemented with citation tracking. To be eligible for inclusion, a study was required to meet the following criteria: participants were middle- or long-distance runners with ≥ 6 months experience, a ST intervention (heavy resistance training, explosive resistance training, or plyometric training) lasting ≥ 4 weeks was applied, a running only control group was used, data on one or more physiological variables was reported. Two independent assessors deemed that 24 studies fully met the criteria for inclusion. Methodological rigor was assessed for each study using the PEDro scale.
RESULTS
PEDro scores revealed internal validity of 4, 5, or 6 for the studies reviewed. Running economy (RE) was measured in 20 of the studies and generally showed improvements (2-8%) compared to a control group, although this was not always the case. Time trial (TT) performance (1.5-10 km) and anaerobic speed qualities also tended to improve following ST. Other parameters [maximal oxygen uptake ([Formula: see text]), velocity at [Formula: see text], blood lactate, body composition] were typically unaffected by ST.
CONCLUSION
Whilst there was good evidence that ST improves RE, TT, and sprint performance, this was not a consistent finding across all works that were reviewed. Several important methodological differences and limitations are highlighted, which may explain the discrepancies in findings and should be considered in future investigations in this area. Importantly for the distance runner, measures relating to body composition are not negatively impacted by a ST intervention. The addition of two to three ST sessions per week, which include a variety of ST modalities are likely to provide benefits to the performance of middle- and long-distance runners.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Female; Humans; Male; Muscle Strength; Oxygen Consumption; Physical Endurance; Plyometric Exercise; Resistance Training; Running; Young Adult
PubMed: 29249083
DOI: 10.1007/s40279-017-0835-7 -
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... May 2021Due to drawbacks of the percentage-based approach, velocity-based training was proposed as a method to better and more accurately prescribe training loads to increase... (Review)
Review
Due to drawbacks of the percentage-based approach, velocity-based training was proposed as a method to better and more accurately prescribe training loads to increase general and specific performance. The purpose of this study was to perform a systematic review of the studies that show effects of velocity-based resistance training on strength and power performance in elite athletes. Electronic searches of computerized databases were performed according to a protocol that was agreed by all co-authors. Four databases-SportDiscus with Full Text and MEDLINE via EBSCO, SCOPUS, and Web of Science-were searched. Seven studies were found which researched the effects of velocity-based resistance training on athletes after a given training period. The analyzed studies suggest that applying velocity losses of 10-20% can help induce neuromuscular adaptations and reduce neuromuscular fatigue. Using velocity zones as part of a separate or combined (e.g., plyometric) training program can elicit adaptations in body composition and performance parameters. Moreover, velocity zones can be programmed using a periodized or non-periodized fixed velocity zones protocol. Lastly, obtaining instantaneous feedback during training is a more effective tool for increasing performance in sport-specific parameters, and should be used by sport practitioners to help keep athletes accountable for their performance.
Topics: Adaptation, Physiological; Athletes; Humans; Muscle Strength; Resistance Training
PubMed: 34069249
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph18105257 -
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