-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2017Cerebral palsy (CP) is a neurodevelopmental disorder resulting from an injury to the developing brain. It is the most common form of childhood disability with prevalence... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Cerebral palsy (CP) is a neurodevelopmental disorder resulting from an injury to the developing brain. It is the most common form of childhood disability with prevalence rates of between 1.5 and 3.8 per 1000 births reported worldwide. The primary impairments associated with CP include reduced muscle strength and reduced cardiorespiratory fitness, resulting in difficulties performing activities such as dressing, walking and negotiating stairs.Exercise is defined as a planned, structured and repetitive activity that aims to improve fitness, and it is a commonly used intervention for people with CP. Aerobic and resistance training may improve activity (i.e. the ability to execute a task) and participation (i.e. involvement in a life situation) through their impact on the primary impairments of CP. However, to date, there has been no comprehensive review of exercise interventions for people with CP.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of exercise interventions in people with CP, primarily in terms of activity, participation and quality of life. Secondary outcomes assessed body functions and body structures. Comparators of interest were no treatment, usual care or an alternative type of exercise intervention.
SEARCH METHODS
In June 2016 we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, nine other databases and four trials registers.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs of children, adolescents and adults with CP. We included studies of aerobic exercise, resistance training, and 'mixed training' (a combination of at least two of aerobic exercise, resistance training and anaerobic training).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened titles, abstracts and potentially relevant full-text reports for eligibility; extracted all relevant data and conducted 'Risk of bias' and GRADE assessments.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 29 trials (926 participants); 27 included children and adolescents up to the age of 19 years, three included adolescents and young adults (10 to 22 years), and one included adults over 20 years. Males constituted 53% of the sample. Five trials were conducted in the USA; four in Australia; two in Egypt, Korea, Saudi Arabia, Taiwan, the Netherlands, and the UK; three in Greece; and one apiece in India, Italy, Norway, and South Africa.Twenty-six trials included people with spastic CP only; three trials included children and adolescents with spastic and other types of CP. Twenty-one trials included people who were able to walk with or without assistive devices, four trials also included people who used wheeled mobility devices in most settings, and one trial included people who used wheeled mobility devices only. Three trials did not report the functional ability of participants. Only two trials reported participants' manual ability. Eight studies compared aerobic exercise to usual care, while 15 compared resistance training and 4 compared mixed training to usual care or no treatment. Two trials compared aerobic exercise to resistance training. We judged all trials to be at high risk of bias overall.We found low-quality evidence that aerobic exercise improves gross motor function in the short term (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.53, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.02 to 1.04, N = 65, 3 studies) and intermediate term (mean difference (MD) 12.96%, 95% CI 0.52% to 25.40%, N = 12, 1 study). Aerobic exercise does not improve gait speed in the short term (MD 0.09 m/s, 95% CI -0.11 m/s to 0.28 m/s, N = 82, 4 studies, very low-quality evidence) or intermediate term (MD -0.17 m/s, 95% CI -0.59 m/s to 0.24 m/s, N = 12, 1 study, low-quality evidence). No trial assessed participation or quality of life following aerobic exercise.We found low-quality evidence that resistance training does not improve gross motor function (SMD 0.12, 95% CI -0.19 to 0.43, N = 164, 7 studies), gait speed (MD 0.03 m/s, 95% CI -0.02 m/s to 0.07 m/s, N = 185, 8 studies), participation (SMD 0.34, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.70, N = 127, 2 studies) or parent-reported quality of life (MD 12.70, 95% CI -5.63 to 31.03, n = 12, 1 study) in the short term. There is also low-quality evidence that resistance training does not improve gait speed (MD -0.03 m/s, 95% CI -0.17 m/s to 0.11 m/s, N = 84, 3 studies), gross motor function (SMD 0.13, 95% CI -0.30 to 0.55, N = 85, 3 studies) or participation (MD 0.37, 95% CI -6.61 to 7.35, N = 36, 1 study) in the intermediate term.We found low-quality evidence that mixed training does not improve gross motor function (SMD 0.02, 95% CI -0.29 to 0.33, N = 163, 4 studies) or gait speed (MD 0.10 m/s, -0.07 m/s to 0.27 m/s, N = 58, 1 study) but does improve participation (MD 0.40, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.67, N = 65, 1 study) in the short-term.There is no difference between resistance training and aerobic exercise in terms of the effect on gross motor function in the short term (SMD 0.02, 95% CI -0.50 to 0.55, N = 56, 2 studies, low-quality evidence).Thirteen trials did not report adverse events, seven reported no adverse events, and nine reported non-serious adverse events.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The quality of evidence for all conclusions is low to very low. As included trials have small sample sizes, heterogeneity may be underestimated, resulting in considerable uncertainty relating to effect estimates. For children with CP, there is evidence that aerobic exercise may result in a small improvement in gross motor function, though it does not improve gait speed. There is evidence that resistance training does not improve gait speed, gross motor function, participation or quality of life among children with CP.Based on the evidence available, exercise appears to be safe for people with CP; only 55% of trials, however, reported adverse events or stated that they monitored adverse events. There is a need for large, high-quality, well-reported RCTs that assess the effectiveness of exercise in terms of activity and participation, before drawing any firm conclusions on the effectiveness of exercise for people with CP. Research is also required to determine if current exercise guidelines for the general population are effective and feasible for people with CP.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Cerebral Palsy; Child; Exercise; Female; Humans; Male; Motor Skills; Muscle Spasticity; Publication Bias; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Resistance Training; Walking Speed; Young Adult
PubMed: 28602046
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011660.pub2 -
Sports Medicine (Auckland, N.Z.) Mar 2022Both athletes and recreational exercisers often perform relatively high volumes of aerobic and strength training simultaneously. However, the compatibility of these two... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Both athletes and recreational exercisers often perform relatively high volumes of aerobic and strength training simultaneously. However, the compatibility of these two distinct training modes remains unclear.
OBJECTIVE
This systematic review assessed the compatibility of concurrent aerobic and strength training compared with strength training alone, in terms of adaptations in muscle function (maximal and explosive strength) and muscle mass. Subgroup analyses were conducted to examine the influence of training modality, training type, exercise order, training frequency, age, and training status.
METHODS
A systematic literature search was conducted according to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. PubMed/MEDLINE, ISI Web of Science, Embase, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, and Scopus were systematically searched (12 August 2020, updated on 15 March 2021). Eligibility criteria were as follows.
POPULATION
healthy adults of any sex and age; Intervention: supervised concurrent aerobic and strength training for at least 4 weeks; Comparison: identical strength training prescription, with no aerobic training; Outcome: maximal strength, explosive strength, and muscle hypertrophy.
RESULTS
A total of 43 studies were included. The estimated standardised mean differences (SMD) based on the random-effects model were - 0.06 (95% confidence interval [CI] - 0.20 to 0.09; p = 0.446), - 0.28 (95% CI - 0.48 to - 0.08; p = 0.007), and - 0.01 (95% CI - 0.16 to 0.18; p = 0.919) for maximal strength, explosive strength, and muscle hypertrophy, respectively. Attenuation of explosive strength was more pronounced when concurrent training was performed within the same session (p = 0.043) than when sessions were separated by at least 3 h (p > 0.05). No significant effects were found for the other moderators, i.e. type of aerobic training (cycling vs. running), frequency of concurrent training (> 5 vs. < 5 weekly sessions), training status (untrained vs. active), and mean age (< 40 vs. > 40 years).
CONCLUSION
Concurrent aerobic and strength training does not compromise muscle hypertrophy and maximal strength development. However, explosive strength gains may be attenuated, especially when aerobic and strength training are performed in the same session. These results appeared to be independent of the type of aerobic training, frequency of concurrent training, training status, and age.
PROSPERO
CRD42020203777.
Topics: Adaptation, Physiological; Adult; Exercise; Humans; Infant; Infant, Newborn; Muscle Strength; Muscle, Skeletal; Resistance Training
PubMed: 34757594
DOI: 10.1007/s40279-021-01587-7 -
Sports Medicine (Auckland, N.Z.) Nov 2017The majority of propulsive forces in swimming are produced from the upper body, with strong correlations between upper body strength and sprint performance. There are... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The majority of propulsive forces in swimming are produced from the upper body, with strong correlations between upper body strength and sprint performance. There are significant gaps in the literature relating to the impact of resistance training on swimming performance, specifically the transfer to swimming performance.
OBJECTIVE
The aims of this systematic literature review are to (1) explore the transfer of resistance-training modalities to swimming performance, and (2) examine the effects of resistance training on technical aspects of swimming.
METHODS
Four online databases were searched with the following inclusion criteria: (1) journal articles with outcome measures related to swimming performance, and (2) competitive swimmers participating in a structured resistance-training programme. Exclusion criteria were (1) participants with a mean age <16 years; (2) untrained, novice, masters and paraplegic swimmers; (3) triathletes and waterpolo players; (4) swimmers with injuries or illness; and (5) studies of starts and turns specifically. Data were extracted using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, and the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale was applied.
RESULTS
For optimal transfer, specific, low-volume, high-velocity/force resistance-training programmes are optimal. Stroke length is best achieved through resistance training with low repetitions at a high velocity/force. Resisted swims are the most appropriate training modality for improving stroke rate.
CONCLUSION
Future research is needed with respect to the effects of long-term resistance-training interventions on both technical parameters of swimming and overall swimming performance. The results of such work will be highly informative for the scientific community, coaches and athletes.
Topics: Adolescent; Athletes; Athletic Performance; Female; Humans; Male; Paraplegia; Resistance Training; Swimming; Time Factors
PubMed: 28497283
DOI: 10.1007/s40279-017-0730-2 -
Sports Medicine (Auckland, N.Z.) Jul 2022Weightlifting training (WLT) is commonly used to improve strength, power and speed in athletes. However, to date, WLT studies have either not compared training effects... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Weightlifting training (WLT) is commonly used to improve strength, power and speed in athletes. However, to date, WLT studies have either not compared training effects against those of other training methods, or been limited by small sample sizes, which are issues that can be resolved by pooling studies in a meta-analysis. Therefore, the objective of this systematic review with meta-analysis was to evaluate the effects of WLT compared with traditional resistance training (TRT), plyometric training (PLYO) and/or control (CON) on strength, power and speed.
METHODS
The systematic review included peer-reviewed articles that employed a WLT intervention, a comparison group (i.e. TRT, PLYO, CON), and a measure of strength, power and/or speed. Means and standard deviations of outcomes were converted to Hedges' g effect sizes using an inverse variance random-effects model to generate a weighted mean effect size (ES).
RESULTS
Sixteen studies were included in the analysis, comprising 427 participants. Data indicated that when compared with TRT, WLT resulted in greater improvements in weightlifting load lifted (4 studies, p = 0.02, g = 1.35; 95% CI 0.20-2.51) and countermovement jump (CMJ) height (9 studies, p = 0.00, g = 0.95; 95% CI 0.04-1.87). There was also a large effect in terms of linear sprint speed (4 studies, p = 0.13, g = 1.04; 95% CI - 0.03 to 2.39) and change of direction speed (CODS) (2 studies, p = 0.36, g = 1.21; 95% CI - 1.41 to 3.83); however, this was not significant. Interpretation of these findings should acknowledge the high heterogeneity across the included studies and potential risk of bias. WLT and PLYO resulted in similar improvements in speed, power and strength as demonstrated by negligible to moderate, non-significant effects in favour of WLT for improvements in linear sprint speed (4 studies, p = 0.35, g = 0.20; 95% CI - 0.23 to 0.63), CODS (3 studies, p = 0.52, g = 0.17; 95% CI - 0.35 to 0.68), CMJ (6 studies, p = 0.09, g = 0.31; 95% CI - 0.05 to 0.67), squat jump performance (5 studies, p = 0.08, g = 0.34; 95% CI - 0.04 to 0.73) and strength (4 studies, p = 0.20, g = 0.69; 95% CI - 0.37 to 1.75).
CONCLUSION
Overall, these findings support the notion that if the training goal is to improve strength, power and speed, supplementary weightlifting training may be advantageous for athletic development. Whilst WLT and PLYO may result in similar improvements, WLT can elicit additional benefits above that of TRT, resulting in greater improvements in weightlifting and jumping performance.
Topics: Athletes; Athletic Performance; Humans; Muscle Strength; Plyometric Exercise; Resistance Training; Weight Lifting
PubMed: 35025093
DOI: 10.1007/s40279-021-01627-2 -
Journal of Strength and Conditioning... May 2020Roberts, BM, Nuckols, G, and Krieger, JW. Sex differences in resistance training: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Strength Cond Res 34(5): 1448-1460, 2020-The... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Roberts, BM, Nuckols, G, and Krieger, JW. Sex differences in resistance training: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Strength Cond Res 34(5): 1448-1460, 2020-The purpose of this study was to determine whether there are different responses to resistance training for strength or hypertrophy in young to middle-aged males and females using the same resistance training protocol. The protocol was pre-registered with PROSPERO (CRD42018094276). Meta-analyses were performed using robust variance random effects modeling for multilevel data structures, with adjustments for small samples using package robumeta in R. Statistical significance was set at P < 0.05. The analysis of hypertrophy comprised 12 outcomes from 10 studies with no significant difference between males and females (effect size [ES] = 0.07 ± 0.06; P = 0.31; I = 0). The analysis of upper-body strength comprised 19 outcomes from 17 studies with a significant effect favoring females (ES = -0.60 ± 0.16; P = 0.002; I = 72.1). The analysis of lower-body strength comprised 23 outcomes from 23 studies with no significant difference between sexes (ES = -0.21 ± 0.16; P = 0.20; I = 74.7). We found that males and females adapted to resistance training with similar effect sizes for hypertrophy and lower-body strength, but females had a larger effect for relative upper-body strength. Given the moderate effect size favoring females in the upper-body strength analysis, it is possible that untrained females display a higher capacity to increase upper-body strength than males. Further research is required to clarify why this difference occurs only in the upper body and whether the differences are due to neural, muscular, motor learning, or are an artifact of the short duration of studies included.
Topics: Adult; Female; Humans; Hypertrophy; Male; Middle Aged; Muscle Strength; Muscle, Skeletal; Resistance Training; Sex Characteristics; Time Factors; Young Adult
PubMed: 32218059
DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000003521 -
Sports Health 2020Dosing parameters are needed to ensure the best practice guidelines for knee osteoarthritis.
CONTEXT
Dosing parameters are needed to ensure the best practice guidelines for knee osteoarthritis.
OBJECTIVE
To determine whether resistance training affects pain and physical function in individuals with knee osteoarthritis, and whether a dose-response relationship exists. Second, we will investigate whether the effects are influenced by Kellgren-Lawrence grade or location of osteoarthritis.
DATA SOURCES
A search for randomized controlled trials was conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL, from their inception dates, between November 1, 2018, and January 15, 2019. Keywords included , and .
STUDY SELECTION
Inclusion criteria were randomized controlled trials reporting changes in pain and physical function on humans with knee osteoarthritis comparing resistance training interventions with no intervention. Two reviewers screened 471 abstracts; 12 of the 13 studies assessed were included.
STUDY DESIGN
Systematic review.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
Level 2.
DATA EXTRACTION
Mean baseline and follow-up Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) scores and standard deviations were extracted to calculate the standard mean difference. Articles were assessed for methodological quality using the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) 2010 scale and Cochrane Collaboration tool for assessing risk of bias.
RESULTS
The 12 included studies had high methodological quality. Of these, 11 studies revealed that resistance training improved pain and/or physical function. The most common regimen was a 30- to 60-minute session of 2 to 3 sets of 8 to 12 repetitions with an initial resistance of 50% to 60% of maximum resistance that progressed over 3 sessions per week for 24 weeks. Seven studies reported Kellgren-Lawrence grade, and 4 studies included osteoarthritis location.
CONCLUSION
Resistance training improves pain and physical function in knee osteoarthritis. Large effect sizes were associated with 24 total sessions and 8- to 12-week duration. No optimal number of repetitions, maximum strength, or frequency of sets or repetitions was found. No trends were identified between outcomes and location or Kellgren-Lawrence grade of osteoarthritis.
Topics: Activities of Daily Living; Humans; Osteoarthritis, Knee; Pain; Quality of Life; Resistance Training; Weight Lifting
PubMed: 31850826
DOI: 10.1177/1941738119887183 -
Brazilian Journal of Physical Therapy 2017Physical exercise has been used to mitigate the metabolic effects of diabetes mellitus. (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Physical exercise has been used to mitigate the metabolic effects of diabetes mellitus.
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the effect of resistance exercise when compared to aerobic exercise without insulin therapy on metabolic and clinical outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.
METHODS
Papers were searched on the databases MEDLINE/PubMed, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, LILACS, and SCIELO, without language or date of publication limits. Clinical trials that compared resistance exercise to aerobic exercise in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus who did not use insulin therapy were included. The quality of evidence and risk of bias were assessed using the GRADE system and the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool, respectively. Meta-analysis was also used, whenever possible. Two reviewers extracted the data independently. Eight eligible articles were included in this study, with a total of 336 individuals, with a mean age of 48-58 years. The protocols of aerobic and resistance exercise varied in duration from eight to 22 weeks, 30-60min/day, three to five times/week.
RESULTS
Overall the available evidence came from a very low quality of evidence and there was an increase in Maximal oxygen consumption (mean difference: -2.86; 95% CI: -3.90 to -1.81; random effect) for the resistance exercise and no difference was found in Glycated hemoglobin, Body mass index, High-density lipoprotein cholesterol, Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, triglycerides, and total cholesterol.
CONCLUSIONS
Resistance exercise appears to be more effective in promoting an increase in Maximal oxygen consumption in protocols longer than 12 weeks and there is no difference in the control of glycemic and lipid levels between the two types of exercise.
Topics: Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Exercise; Exercise Therapy; Humans; Insulin; Oxygen Consumption; Resistance Training
PubMed: 28728958
DOI: 10.1016/j.bjpt.2017.06.004 -
Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and... Apr 2023The combination of resistance training (RT) and aerobic training is believed to achieve the best effects. Several different aerobic training methods have emerged in...
BACKGROUND
The combination of resistance training (RT) and aerobic training is believed to achieve the best effects. Several different aerobic training methods have emerged in combination with or as a substitute for traditional RT. This study wished to verify which RT is safest in terms of injury prevalence and incidence. Also, it ascertained the characteristics of the injured subjects, the level of severity of the injuries and what definitions of injuries the available studies use.
METHODS
This systematic review followed the PRISMA recommendations and was registered in PROSPERO with the number CRD42021257010. The searches were performed in the PubMed, Cochrane and Web of Science, electronic databases using the Medical Subject Headings terms "Resistance training" or "Strength training" or "Crossfit" or "Weightlifting" or "Powerlifting" combined (AND) with "Injury" or "Injuries" or "Sprain" AND "Incidence" or "Prevalence" AND "Epidemiology" or "Epidemiological" in the title or abstract. The last search was performed on March 2023. To be included in the review, the studies had to be available as full text, be clinical trials focusing on epidemiological injuries of resistance training. There was no time limit for the selection of articles. To assess the quality of the studies, the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) was used.
RESULTS
The initial literature search resulted in 4982 studies. After reading the titles, abstracts and full text, 28 articles were selected for data extraction. Seventeen investigated the injuries in HIFT/CrossFit, three in powerlifting, three in strength training, three in weightlifting and one in strongman. In addition, one study examined the HIFT/CrossFit and weightlifting. The incidence of injuries presented in the studies ranged from 0.21/1000 h to 18.9/1000 h and the prevalence of injuries was 10% to 82%. In the quality assessment for STROBE, five studies were classified at level A, 21 at level B and two at level C.
CONCLUSION
This systematic review showed that traditional strength training is the safest RT method, and strongman is the least safe regarding injuries. Few studies have been rated highly according to STROBE. Furthermore, few studies have been published on some RT methods. These two factors make it difficult to generalize the results.
Topics: Humans; Sprains and Strains; Resistance Training; Sports; Exercise; Incidence
PubMed: 37046275
DOI: 10.1186/s13018-023-03781-x -
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 -
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