-
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 -
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 English, full-text, peer-reviewed journal articles and unpublished doctoral dissertations investigating medium- to long-term (≥3 weeks) adaptations to isometric training in humans were identified.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 -
Journal of Bodywork and Movement... Jan 2022Spinal cord injuries (SCI) have physiological, emotional, and economic consequences in the lives of affected people. Resistance training (RT) is efficient in improving... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
INTRODUCTION
Spinal cord injuries (SCI) have physiological, emotional, and economic consequences in the lives of affected people. Resistance training (RT) is efficient in improving several physiological factors, quality of life, and body composition.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION
Due to the scarce literature on RT analyzed separately, the objective of this systematic review is to analyze the effects of RT with no association to other techniques, in aspects related to the quality of life and body composition of people The research for the articles was carried out in the Pubmed, Cochrane, and Web of Science databases using the terms "Spinal cord injuries" AND "Resistance Training" OR "Strength training". Given the scarcity of evidence on the subject, no deadline was set for the study to be eligible for analysis.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS
The research for the articles was carried out in November of 2020 and returned 349 results, of which 220 remained after the elimination of duplicates, with 145 being excluded after title analysis. Seventy-five abstracts were analyzed and 70 studies were excluded, leaving 5 complete articles for a thorough analysis with SCI. Despite the I being 87%, the meta-analysis revealed an overall effect of Z = 4.79 (P < 0.00001).
CONCLUSIONS
After analyzing the main results, we concluded that RT is feasible, secure, and promotes significant improvements in maximum strength, local muscular endurance, power, and muscular isometric voluntary contraction in people with spinal cord injury.
Topics: Body Composition; Humans; Muscle Strength; Quality of Life; Resistance Training; Spinal Cord Injuries
PubMed: 35248264
DOI: 10.1016/j.jbmt.2021.09.031 -
Clinical Rehabilitation Sep 2020This systematic review and meta-analysis investigates the effects of resistance training in supporting the recovery in stroke patients. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
This systematic review and meta-analysis investigates the effects of resistance training in supporting the recovery in stroke patients.
DATA SOURCES
PubMed, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and the PEDro databases were reviewed up to 30 April 2020.
REVIEW METHODS
Randomized controlled trials were included, who compared: (i) resistance training with no intervention, (ii) resistance training with other interventions and (iii) different resistance training protocols in stroke rehabilitation.
RESULTS
Overall 30 trials ( = 1051) were enrolled. The parameters evaluated were: (1) gait, (2) muscular force and motor function, (3) mobility, balance and postural control, (4) health related quality of life, independence and reintegration, (5) spasticity and hypertonia, (6) cardiorespiratory fitness, (7) cognitive abilities and emotional state and (8) other health-relevant physiological indicators. The data indicates that: (i) resistance training is beneficial for the majority of parameters observed, (ii) resistance training is superior to other therapies on muscular force and motor function of lower and upper limbs, health related quality of life, independence and reintegration and other health-relevant physiological indicators, not significantly different from other therapies on walking ability, mobility balance and postural control and spasticity and hypertonia, and inferior to ergometer training on cardiorespiratory fitness and (iii) the type of resistance training protocol significantly impacts its effect; leg press is more efficient than knee extension and high intensity training is superior than low intensity training.
CONCLUSION
Current data indicates that resistance training may be beneficial in supporting the recovery of stroke patients. However, the current evidence is insufficient for evidence-based rehabilitation.
Topics: Humans; Resistance Training; Stroke Rehabilitation
PubMed: 32527148
DOI: 10.1177/0269215520932964 -
Ageing Research Reviews Sep 2022To determine the effects of low- vs. high-intensity aerobic and resistance training on motor and cognitive function, brain activation, brain structure, and neurochemical... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
To determine the effects of low- vs. high-intensity aerobic and resistance training on motor and cognitive function, brain activation, brain structure, and neurochemical markers of neuroplasticity and the association thereof in healthy young and older adults and in patients with multiple sclerosis, Parkinson's disease, and stroke.
DESIGN
Systematic review and robust variance estimation meta-analysis with meta-regression.
DATA SOURCES
Systematic search of MEDLINE, Web of Science, and CINAHL databases.
RESULTS
Fifty studies with 60 intervention arms and 2283 in-analyses participants were included. Due to the low number of studies, the three patient groups were combined and analyzed as a single group. Overall, low- (g=0.19, p = 0.024) and high-intensity exercise (g=0.40, p = 0.001) improved neuroplasticity. Exercise intensity scaled with neuroplasticity only in healthy young adults but not in healthy older adults or patient groups. Exercise-induced improvements in neuroplasticity were associated with changes in motor but not cognitive outcomes.
CONCLUSION
Exercise intensity is an important variable to dose and individualize the exercise stimulus for healthy young individuals but not necessarily for healthy older adults and neurological patients. This conclusion warrants caution because studies are needed that directly compare the effects of low- vs. high-intensity exercise on neuroplasticity to determine if such changes are mechanistically and incrementally linked to improved cognition and motor function.
Topics: Aged; Biomarkers; Cognition; Exercise; Humans; Multiple Sclerosis; Neuronal Plasticity; Resistance Training
PubMed: 35853549
DOI: 10.1016/j.arr.2022.101698 -
Sports Medicine (Auckland, N.Z.) Mar 2023Although it is known that resistance training can be as effective as stretch training to increase joint range of motion, to date no comprehensive meta-analysis has... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Although it is known that resistance training can be as effective as stretch training to increase joint range of motion, to date no comprehensive meta-analysis has investigated the effects of resistance training on range of motion with all its potential affecting variables.
OBJECTIVE
The objective of this systematic review with meta-analysis was to evaluate the effect of chronic resistance training on range of motion compared either to a control condition or stretch training or to a combination of resistance training and stretch training to stretch training, while assessing moderating variables.
DESIGN
For the main analysis, a random-effect meta-analysis was used and for the subgroup analysis a mixed-effect model was implemented. Whilst subgroup analyses included sex and participants' activity levels, meta-regression included age, frequency, and duration of resistance training.
DATA SOURCES
Following the systematic search in four databases (PubMed, Scopus, SPORTDiscus, and Web of Science) and reference lists, 55 studies were found to be eligible.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
Controlled or randomized controlled trials that separately compared the training effects of resistance training exercises with either a control group, stretching group, or combined stretch and resistance training group on range of motion in healthy participants.
RESULTS
Resistance training increased range of motion (effect size [ES] = 0.73; p < 0.001) with the exception of no significant range of motion improvement with resistance training using only body mass. There were no significant differences between resistance training versus stretch training (ES = 0.08; p = 0.79) or between resistance training and stretch training versus stretch training alone (ES = - 0.001; p = 0.99). Although "trained or active people" increased range of motion (ES = 0.43; p < 0.001) "untrained and sedentary" individuals had significantly (p = 0.005) higher magnitude range of motion changes (ES = 1.042; p < 0.001). There were no detected differences between sex and contraction type. Meta-regression showed no effect of age, training duration, or frequency.
CONCLUSIONS
As resistance training with external loads can improve range of motion, stretching prior to or after resistance training may not be necessary to enhance flexibility.
Topics: Humans; Resistance Training; Exercise Therapy; Exercise; Range of Motion, Articular; Muscle, Skeletal
PubMed: 36622555
DOI: 10.1007/s40279-022-01804-x -
International Journal of Environmental... Nov 2022Resistance training is considered to be an efficient treatment for age-related sarcopenia and can improve muscle strength and quality in patients. However, there are... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Resistance training is considered to be an efficient treatment for age-related sarcopenia and can improve muscle strength and quality in patients. However, there are currently no recommendations on resistance training parameters to improve muscle strength and quality in elderly patients with sarcopenia. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and included 13 eligible RCTs. Resistance training significantly improved grip strength, gait speed, and skeletal muscle index in patients with age-related sarcopenia, and kettlebell was found to be the most effective modality. However, it is noteworthy that the elastic band is also a recommended form of resistance training considering that the kettlebell intervention was tested in only one study, while the elastic band was confirmed by multiple studies. Elastic band training (Hedges's g = 0.629, 95%CI = 0.090-1.168, < 0.05) (40-60 min per session, more than three times per week for at least 12 weeks) was the most efficient training method. Thus, resistance training can significantly improve muscle strength and muscle quality in elderly patients with sarcopenia. In addition, moderate-intensity resistance training using elastic bands may be the best training prescription for elderly patients with sarcopenia.
Topics: Humans; Aged; Resistance Training; Sarcopenia; Muscle Strength; Muscle, Skeletal; Hand Strength
PubMed: 36497565
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph192315491 -
Supportive Care in Cancer : Official... Aug 2020The purpose of this systematic review update and meta-analysis was to analyze resistance exercise (RE) intervention trials in breast cancer survivors (BCS) regarding... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The purpose of this systematic review update and meta-analysis was to analyze resistance exercise (RE) intervention trials in breast cancer survivors (BCS) regarding their effect on breast cancer-related lymphedema (BCRL) status and upper and lower extremity strength.
METHODS
Systematic literature search was conducted utilizing PubMed, MEDLINE, and Embase databases. Any exercise intervention studies-both randomized controlled and uncontrolled-which assessed the effects of RE on BCRL in BCS in at least one intervention group published between 1966 and 31st January 2020 were included. Included articles were analyzed regarding their level of evidence and their methodological quality using respective tools for randomized and nonrandomized trials of the Cochrane collaboration. Meta-analysis for bioimpedance spectroscopy (BIS) values as well as upper and lower extremity strength was conducted.
RESULTS
Altogether, 29 studies were included in the systematic review. Results of six studies with altogether twelve RE intervention groups could be pooled for meta-analysis of the BCRL. A significant reduction of BCRL after RE was seen in BIS values (95% CI - 1.10 [- 2.19, - 0.01] L-Dex score). Furthermore, strength results of six studies could be pooled and meta-analysis showed significant improvements of muscular strength in the upper and lower extremities (95% CI 8.96 [3.42, 14.51] kg and 95% CI 23.42 [11.95, 34.88] kg, respectively).
CONCLUSION
RE does not have a systematic negative effect on BCRL and, on the contrary, potentially decreases it.
Topics: Breast Cancer Lymphedema; Cancer Survivors; Electric Impedance; Female; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Resistance Training
PubMed: 32415386
DOI: 10.1007/s00520-020-05521-x -
The American Journal of Sports Medicine Jun 2021Blood flow restriction (BFR) is a novel technique involving the use of a cuff/tourniquet system positioned around the proximal end of an extremity to maintain arterial...
BACKGROUND
Blood flow restriction (BFR) is a novel technique involving the use of a cuff/tourniquet system positioned around the proximal end of an extremity to maintain arterial flow while restricting venous return.
PURPOSE
To analyze the available literature regarding the use of BFR to supplement traditional resistance training in healthy athletes.
STUDY DESIGN
Systematic review.
METHODS
A systematic review was performed in accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. From November to December 2018, studies that examined the effects of BFR training in athletes were identified using PubMed and OVID Medline. Reference lists from selected articles were analyzed for additional studies. The inclusion criteria for full article review were randomized studies with control groups that implemented BFR training into athletes' resistance training workouts. Case reports and review studies were excluded. The following data were extracted: patient demographics, study design, training protocol, occlusive cuff location/pressure, maximum strength improvements, muscle size measurements, markers of sports performance (eg, sprint time, agility tests, and jump measurements), and other study-specific markers (eg, electromyography, muscular torque, and muscular endurance).
RESULTS
The initial search identified 237 articles. After removal of duplicates and screening of titles, abstracts, and full articles, 10 studies were identified that met the inclusion criteria. Seven of 9 (78%) studies found a significant increase in strength associated with use of BFR training as compared with control; 4 of 8 (50%) noted significant increases in muscle size associated with BFR training; and 3 of 4 (75%) reported significant improvements in sport-specific measurements in the groups that used BFR training. Occlusive cuff pressure varied across studies, from 110 to 240 mm HG.
CONCLUSION
The literature appears to support that BFR can lead to improvements in strength, muscle size, and markers of sports performance in healthy athletes. Combining traditional resistance training with BFR may allow athletes to maximize athletic performance and remain in good health. Additional studies should be conducted to find an optimal occlusive pressure to maximize training improvements.
REGISTRATION
CRD42019118025 (PROSPERO).
Topics: Athletes; Athletic Performance; Humans; Muscle Strength; Muscle, Skeletal; Regional Blood Flow; Resistance Training; Torque
PubMed: 33196300
DOI: 10.1177/0363546520964454 -
Sports Medicine (Auckland, N.Z.) May 2018Current recommendations on resistance training (RT) frequency for gains in muscular strength are based on extrapolations from limited evidence on the topic, and thus... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Current recommendations on resistance training (RT) frequency for gains in muscular strength are based on extrapolations from limited evidence on the topic, and thus their practical applicability remains questionable.
OBJECTIVE
To elucidate this issue, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the studies that compared muscular strength outcomes with different RT frequencies.
METHODS
To carry out this review, English-language literature searches of the PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, and SPORTDiscus databases were conducted. The meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model. The meta-analysis models were generated with RT frequencies classified as a categorical variable as either 1, 2, 3, or 4+ times/week, or, if there were insufficient data in subgroup analyses, the training frequencies were categorized as 1, 2, or 3 times/week. Subgroup analyses were performed for potential moderators, including (1) training volume; (2) exercise selection for the 1 repetition maximum (RM) test (for both multi-joint and single-joint exercises); (3) upper and lower body strength gains; (4) training to muscular failure (for studies involving and not involving training to muscular failure); (5) age (for both middle-aged/older adults and young adults); and (6) sex (for men and for women). The methodological quality of studies was appraised using the modified Downs and Black checklist.
RESULTS
A total of 22 studies were found to meet the inclusion criteria. The average score on the Downs and Black checklist was 18 (range 13-22 points). Four studies were classified as being of good methodological quality, while the rest were classified as being of moderate methodological quality. Results of the meta-analysis showed a significant effect (p = 0.003) of RT frequency on muscular strength gains. Effect sizes increased in magnitude from 0.74, 0.82, 0.93, and 1.08 for training 1, 2, 3, and 4+ times per week, respectively. A subgroup analysis of volume-equated studies showed no significant effect (p = 0.421) of RT frequency on muscular strength gains. The subgroup analysis for exercise selection for the 1RM test suggested a significant effect of RT frequency on multi-joint (p < 0.001), but not single-joint, 1RM test results (p = 0.324). The subgroup analysis for upper and lower body showed a significant effect of frequency (p = 0.004) for upper body, but not lower body, strength gains (p = 0.070). In the subgroup analysis for studies in which the training was and was not carried out to muscular failure, no significant effect of RT frequency was found. The subgroup analysis for the age groups suggested a significant effect of training frequency among young adults (p = 0.024), but not among middle-aged and older adults (p = 0.093). Finally, the subgroup analysis for sex indicated a significant effect of RT frequency on strength gains in women (p = 0.030), but not men (p = 0.190).
CONCLUSIONS
The results of the present systematic review and meta-analysis suggest a significant effect of RT frequency as higher training frequencies are translated into greater muscular strength gains. However, these effects seem to be primarily driven by training volume because when the volume is equated, there was no significant effect of RT frequency on muscular strength gains. Thus, from a practical standpoint, greater training frequencies can be used for additional RT volume, which is then likely to result in greater muscular strength gains. However, it remains unclear whether RT frequency on its own has significant effects on strength gain. It seems that higher RT frequencies result in greater gains in muscular strength on multi-joint exercises in the upper body and in women, and, finally, in contrast to older adults, young individuals seem to respond more positively to greater RT frequencies. More evidence among resistance-trained individuals is needed as most of the current studies were performed in untrained participants.
Topics: Aged; Exercise; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Muscle Strength; Muscle, Skeletal; Resistance Training; Rest; Young Adult
PubMed: 29470825
DOI: 10.1007/s40279-018-0872-x