-
Pediatrics Jun 2020Resistance training is becoming more important as an integral part of comprehensive sport training regimens, school physical education classes, and after-school fitness... (Review)
Review
Resistance training is becoming more important as an integral part of comprehensive sport training regimens, school physical education classes, and after-school fitness programs. The increasing number of youth who are involved in sport activities, coupled with the health problems of inactivity and being overweight, have resulted in increased interest in resistance training. Secular declines in measures of muscular fitness in modern-day youth highlight the need for participation in youth resistance training for nonathletes as well as athletes. Parents often ask pediatricians to offer advice regarding the safety, benefits, and implementation of an effective resistance-training program. This report is a revision of the 2008 American Academy of Pediatrics policy statement and reviews current information and research on the benefits and risks of resistance training for children and adolescents.
Topics: Adolescent; Child; Humans; Physical Education and Training; Physical Fitness; Resistance Training
PubMed: 32457216
DOI: 10.1542/peds.2020-1011 -
Archivos Argentinos de Pediatria Dec 2018In the last decade, there has been a notable increase in the implementation of strength training programs in sports for children and adolescents. This review of strength... (Review)
Review
In the last decade, there has been a notable increase in the implementation of strength training programs in sports for children and adolescents. This review of strength training includes potential health benefits, fitness, risks and recommendations for the healthy, overweight, obese, or sedentary population in children 7-19 years of age. The general guidelines include supervision, planning and proper learning of the technique. Scientific evidence and clinical experience of strength training in children and adolescents as part of a training program demonstrate that it is useful, effective and safe if properly prescribed and supervised, with potential health benefits on a physical, social and psychological level
Topics: Adolescent; Child; Humans; Pediatric Obesity; Physical Fitness; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Resistance Training; Sedentary Behavior; Sports; Young Adult
PubMed: 30525318
DOI: 10.5546/aap.2018.s82 -
Journal of Strength and Conditioning... Dec 2017Schoenfeld, BJ, Grgic, J, Ogborn, D, and Krieger, JW. Strength and hypertrophy adaptations between low- vs. high-load resistance training: a systematic review and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Schoenfeld, BJ, Grgic, J, Ogborn, D, and Krieger, JW. Strength and hypertrophy adaptations between low- vs. high-load resistance training: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Strength Cond Res 31(12): 3508-3523, 2017-The purpose of this article was to conduct a systematic review of the current body of literature and a meta-analysis to compare changes in strength and hypertrophy between low- vs. high-load resistance training protocols. Searches of PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and Scopus were conducted for studies that met the following criteria: (a) an experimental trial involving both low-load training [≤60% 1 repetition maximum (1RM)] and high-load training (>60% 1RM); (b) with all sets in the training protocols being performed to momentary muscular failure; (c) at least one method of estimating changes in muscle mass or dynamic, isometric, or isokinetic strength was used; (d) the training protocol lasted for a minimum of 6 weeks; (e) the study involved participants with no known medical conditions or injuries impairing training capacity. A total of 21 studies were ultimately included for analysis. Gains in 1RM strength were significantly greater in favor of high- vs. low-load training, whereas no significant differences were found for isometric strength between conditions. Changes in measures of muscle hypertrophy were similar between conditions. The findings indicate that maximal strength benefits are obtained from the use of heavy loads while muscle hypertrophy can be equally achieved across a spectrum of loading ranges.
Topics: Adaptation, Physiological; Humans; Hypertrophy; Muscle Strength; Muscle, Skeletal; Resistance Training
PubMed: 28834797
DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000002200 -
Sports Medicine (Auckland, N.Z.) Apr 2018This review covers underlying physiological characteristics and training considerations that may affect muscular strength including improving maximal force expression... (Review)
Review
This review covers underlying physiological characteristics and training considerations that may affect muscular strength including improving maximal force expression and time-limited force expression. Strength is underpinned by a combination of morphological and neural factors including muscle cross-sectional area and architecture, musculotendinous stiffness, motor unit recruitment, rate coding, motor unit synchronization, and neuromuscular inhibition. Although single- and multi-targeted block periodization models may produce the greatest strength-power benefits, concepts within each model must be considered within the limitations of the sport, athletes, and schedules. Bilateral training, eccentric training and accentuated eccentric loading, and variable resistance training may produce the greatest comprehensive strength adaptations. Bodyweight exercise, isolation exercises, plyometric exercise, unilateral exercise, and kettlebell training may be limited in their potential to improve maximal strength but are still relevant to strength development by challenging time-limited force expression and differentially challenging motor demands. Training to failure may not be necessary to improve maximum muscular strength and is likely not necessary for maximum gains in strength. Indeed, programming that combines heavy and light loads may improve strength and underpin other strength-power characteristics. Multiple sets appear to produce superior training benefits compared to single sets; however, an athlete's training status and the dose-response relationship must be considered. While 2- to 5-min interset rest intervals may produce the greatest strength-power benefits, rest interval length may vary based an athlete's training age, fiber type, and genetics. Weaker athletes should focus on developing strength before emphasizing power-type training. Stronger athletes may begin to emphasize power-type training while maintaining/improving their strength. Future research should investigate how best to implement accentuated eccentric loading and variable resistance training and examine how initial strength affects an athlete's ability to improve their performance following various training methods.
Topics: Athletes; Athletic Performance; Exercise; Humans; Muscle Strength; Muscle, Skeletal; Resistance Training; Rest
PubMed: 29372481
DOI: 10.1007/s40279-018-0862-z -
Applied Physiology, Nutrition, and... Apr 2022The purpose of this paper was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies that compared muscle hypertrophy and strength gains between resistance training... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
The purpose of this paper was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies that compared muscle hypertrophy and strength gains between resistance training protocols employing very low (VLL < 30% of 1-repetition maximum (RM) or >35RM), low (LL30%-59% of 1RM, or 16-35RM), moderate (ML60%-79% of 1RM, or 8-15RM), and high (HL ≥ 80% of 1RM, or ≤7RM) loads with matched volume loads (sets × repetitions × weight). A pooled analysis of the standardized mean difference for 1RM strength outcomes across the studies showed a benefit favoring HL vs. LL and vs. ML and favoring ML vs. LL. The LL and VLL results showed little difference. A pooled analysis of the standardized mean difference for hypertrophy outcomes across all studies showed no differences between training loads. Our findings indicate that when the volume load is equal between conditions, the highest loads induce superior dynamic strength gains. Alternatively, hypertrophic adaptations were similar irrespective of the load magnitude. Training with higher loads elicits greater gains in 1RM muscle strength when compared to lower loads, even when the volume load is equal between conditions. Muscle hypertrophy is similar irrespective of the magnitude of the load, even when the volume load is equal between conditions.
Topics: Adaptation, Physiological; Humans; Hypertrophy; Muscle Strength; Muscle, Skeletal; Resistance Training
PubMed: 35015560
DOI: 10.1139/apnm-2021-0515 -
Sports Medicine (Auckland, N.Z.) Nov 2016A number of resistance training (RT) program variables can be manipulated to maximize muscular hypertrophy. One variable of primary interest in this regard is RT... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
A number of resistance training (RT) program variables can be manipulated to maximize muscular hypertrophy. One variable of primary interest in this regard is RT frequency. Frequency can refer to the number of resistance training sessions performed in a given period of time, as well as to the number of times a specific muscle group is trained over a given period of time.
OBJECTIVE
We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the effects of resistance training frequency on hypertrophic outcomes.
METHODS
Studies were deemed eligible for inclusion if they met the following criteria: (1) were an experimental trial published in an English-language refereed journal; (2) directly compared different weekly resistance training frequencies in traditional dynamic exercise using coupled concentric and eccentric actions; (3) measured morphologic changes via biopsy, imaging, circumference, and/or densitometry; (4) had a minimum duration of 4 weeks; and (5) used human participants without chronic disease or injury. A total of ten studies were identified that investigated RT frequency in accordance with the criteria outlined.
RESULTS
Analysis using binary frequency as a predictor variable revealed a significant impact of training frequency on hypertrophy effect size (P = 0.002), with higher frequency being associated with a greater effect size than lower frequency (0.49 ± 0.08 vs. 0.30 ± 0.07, respectively). Statistical analyses of studies investigating training session frequency when groups are matched for frequency of training per muscle group could not be carried out and reliable estimates could not be generated due to inadequate sample size.
CONCLUSIONS
When comparing studies that investigated training muscle groups between 1 to 3 days per week on a volume-equated basis, the current body of evidence indicates that frequencies of training twice a week promote superior hypertrophic outcomes to once a week. It can therefore be inferred that the major muscle groups should be trained at least twice a week to maximize muscle growth; whether training a muscle group three times per week is superior to a twice-per-week protocol remains to be determined.
Topics: Exercise; Humans; Hypertrophy; Muscle Fatigue; Muscle Strength; Muscle, Skeletal; Resistance Training
PubMed: 27102172
DOI: 10.1007/s40279-016-0543-8 -
Physical Therapy in Sport : Official... Mar 2017The aim was to critically evaluate the literature investigating strength training interventions in the treatment of plantar fasciitis and improving intrinsic foot... (Review)
Review
The aim was to critically evaluate the literature investigating strength training interventions in the treatment of plantar fasciitis and improving intrinsic foot musculature strength. A search of PubMed, CINHAL, Web of Science, SPORTSDiscus, EBSCO Academic Search Complete and PEDRO using the search terms plantar fasciitis, strength, strengthening, resistance training, intrinsic flexor foot, resistance training. Seven articles met the eligibility criteria. Methodological quality was assessed using the modified Downs and Black checklist. All articles showed moderate to high quality, however external validity was low. A comparison of the interventions highlights significant differences in strength training approaches to treating plantar fasciitis and improving intrinsic strength. It was not possible to identify the extent to which strengthening interventions for intrinsic musculature may benefit symptomatic or at risk populations to plantar fasciitis. There is limited external validity that foot exercises, toe flexion against resistance and minimalist running shoes may contribute to improved intrinsic foot musculature function. Despite no plantar fascia thickness changes being observed through high-load plantar fascia resistance training there are indications that it may aid in a reduction of pain and improvements in function. Further research should use standardised outcome measures to assess intrinsic foot musculature strength and plantar fasciitis symptoms.
Topics: Fasciitis, Plantar; Humans; Muscle Stretching Exercises; Pain Measurement; Resistance Training
PubMed: 27692740
DOI: 10.1016/j.ptsp.2016.08.008 -
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 -
Scandinavian Journal of Medicine &... Aug 2014Here we report on the effect of combining endurance training with heavy or explosive strength training on endurance performance in endurance-trained runners and... (Review)
Review
Here we report on the effect of combining endurance training with heavy or explosive strength training on endurance performance in endurance-trained runners and cyclists. Running economy is improved by performing combined endurance training with either heavy or explosive strength training. However, heavy strength training is recommended for improving cycling economy. Equivocal findings exist regarding the effects on power output or velocity at the lactate threshold. Concurrent endurance and heavy strength training can increase running speed and power output at VO2max (Vmax and Wmax, respectively) or time to exhaustion at Vmax and Wmax. Combining endurance training with either explosive or heavy strength training can improve running performance, while there is most compelling evidence of an additive effect on cycling performance when heavy strength training is used. It is suggested that the improved endurance performance may relate to delayed activation of less efficient type II fibers, improved neuromuscular efficiency, conversion of fast-twitch type IIX fibers into more fatigue-resistant type IIA fibers, or improved musculo-tendinous stiffness.
Topics: Anaerobic Threshold; Athletic Performance; Bicycling; Humans; Lactic Acid; Physical Conditioning, Human; Resistance Training; Running
PubMed: 23914932
DOI: 10.1111/sms.12104 -
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