-
Journal of Strength and Conditioning... Mar 2023Bartolomei, S, Zaniboni, F, Verzieri, N, and Hoffman, JR. New perspectives in resistance training periodization: mixed session vs. block periodized programs in trained... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
Bartolomei, S, Zaniboni, F, Verzieri, N, and Hoffman, JR. New perspectives in resistance training periodization: mixed session vs. block periodized programs in trained men. J Strength Cond Res 37(3): 537-545, 2023-The purpose of this investigation was to compare the effects of 2 different periodized resistance training programs on maximal strength, power, and muscle architecture, in trained individuals. Twenty-two resistance-trained men were randomly assigned to either a mixed session training group (MSP; n = 11; age = 23.7 ± 2.6 years; body mass = 80.5 ± 9.8 kg; height = 175.5 ± 6.1 cm) or a block periodization group (BP; n = 11; age = 25.7 ± 4.6 years; body mass = 81.1 ± 10.7 kg; height = 176.8 ± 8.4 cm). Both training programs were 10 weeks in duration and were equated in volume. Each training session of the MSP focused on power, maximal strength, and hypertrophy, whereas each mesocycle within the BP focused on one of these components. Subjects were assessed for body composition, muscle architecture, maximal strength, and power. In addition, perceived training load, and training volume were calculated. Subjects in MSP experienced greater improvements in fat free mass ( p = 0.021), muscle thickness of the pectoralis and vastus lateralis ( p < 0.05), and a greater improvement in 1RM bench press ( p < 0.001; +8.6% in MSP and +2% in BP) than in BP. By contrast, BP resulted in greater improvements in vertical jump ( p = 0.022; +7.2%) compared with MSP (+1.2%). No significant differences were noted between the groups for perceived training load ( p = 0.362) nor training volume ( p = 0.169). Results of this study indicated that in a 10-week training study, MSP may enhance muscle hypertrophy and maximal strength to a greater extent than BP, with the same training volume and perceived training load. However, BP may be more effective for vertical jump improvement.
Topics: Male; Humans; Young Adult; Adult; Resistance Training; Muscle Strength; Muscle, Skeletal; Body Composition; Hypertrophy
PubMed: 36727999
DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000004465 -
Journal of the American Medical... Dec 2014Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) increases dementia risk with no pharmacologic treatment available. (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
The Study of Mental and Resistance Training (SMART) study—resistance training and/or cognitive training in mild cognitive impairment: a randomized, double-blind, double-sham controlled trial.
BACKGROUND
Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) increases dementia risk with no pharmacologic treatment available.
METHODS
The Study of Mental and Resistance Training was a randomized, double-blind, double-sham controlled trial of adults with MCI. Participants were randomized to 2 supervised interventions: active or sham physical training (high intensity progressive resistance training vs seated calisthenics) plus active or sham cognitive training (computerized, multidomain cognitive training vs watching videos/quizzes), 2-3 days/week for 6 months with 18-month follow-up. Primary outcomes were global cognitive function (Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-cognitive subscale; ADAS-Cog) and functional independence (Bayer Activities of Daily Living). Secondary outcomes included executive function, memory, and speed/attention tests, and cognitive domain scores.
RESULTS
One hundred adults with MCI [70.1 (6.7) years; 68% women] were enrolled and analyzed. Resistance training significantly improved the primary outcome ADAS-Cog; [relative effect size (95% confidence interval) -0.33 (-0.73, 0.06); P < .05] at 6 months and executive function (Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale Matrices; P = .016) across 18 months. Normal ADAS-Cog scores occurred in 48% (24/49) after resistance training vs 27% (14/51) without resistance training [P < .03; odds ratio (95% confidence interval) 3.50 (1.18, 10.48)]. Cognitive training only attenuated decline in Memory Domain at 6 months (P < .02). Resistance training 18-month benefit was 74% higher (P = .02) for Executive Domain compared with combined training [z-score change = 0.42 (0.22, 0.63) resistance training vs 0.11 (-0.60, 0.28) combined] and 48% higher (P < .04) for Global Domain [z-score change = .0.45 (0.29, 0.61) resistance training vs 0.23 (0.10, 0.36) combined].
CONCLUSIONS
Resistance training significantly improved global cognitive function, with maintenance of executive and global benefits over 18 months.
Topics: Activities of Daily Living; Aged; Cognitive Dysfunction; Double-Blind Method; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Neuropsychological Tests; Resistance Training; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 25444575
DOI: 10.1016/j.jamda.2014.09.010 -
European Journal of Sport Science Feb 2021The objectives of this paper were to: (a) systematically review studies that explored the effects of exercise order (EO) on muscular strength and/or hypertrophy; (b)... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
The objectives of this paper were to: (a) systematically review studies that explored the effects of exercise order (EO) on muscular strength and/or hypertrophy; (b) pool their results using a meta-analysis; and (c) provide recommendations for the prescription of EO in resistance training (RT) programmes. A literature search was performed in four databases. Studies were included if they explored the effects of EO on dynamic muscular strength and/or muscle hypertrophy. The meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model with Hedges' g effect size (ES). The methodological quality of studies was appraised using the TESTEX checklist. Eleven good-to-excellent methodological quality studies were included in the review. When all strength tests, that is, both in multi-joint (MJ) and single-joint (SJ) exercises were considered, there was no difference between the EOs (ES = -0.11; 0.306). However, there was a difference between the MJ-to-SJ and SJ-to-MJ orders for strength gains in the MJ exercises, favouring starting the exercise session with MJ exercises (ES = 0.32; 0.034), and the strength gains in the SJ exercises, favouring starting the exercise session with SJ exercises (ES = -0.58; 0.032). No significant effect of EO was observed for hypertrophy combining site-specific and indirect measures (ES = 0.03; 0.862). In conclusion, increases in muscular strength are the largest in the exercises performed at the beginning of an exercise session. For muscle hypertrophy, our meta-analysis indicated that both MJ-to-SJ and SJ-to-MJ EOs may produce similar results.
Topics: Humans; Hypertrophy; Muscle Strength; Muscle, Skeletal; Resistance Training
PubMed: 32077380
DOI: 10.1080/17461391.2020.1733672 -
Osteoporosis International : a Journal... Sep 2022The effectiveness of home-based resistance exercise in elder participants with osteoporosis remains unclear. This study demonstrates the beneficial effects of this mode... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
UNLABELLED
The effectiveness of home-based resistance exercise in elder participants with osteoporosis remains unclear. This study demonstrates the beneficial effects of this mode of exercise on improving physical function, increasing confidence in exercise, and reducing fear of falling.
INTRODUCTION
This study aims to evaluate the effect of a home-based resistance exercise (HBRE) program versus control on physical function, exercise self-efficacy, falling efficacy, and health-related quality of life (HRQOL).
METHODS
This randomized controlled trial included 72 elderly participants with osteoporosis. Participants in the intervention group received a 12-week HBRE program, and the control group received usual care. The primary outcome was physical function, including muscle strength and balance ability; secondary outcomes were exercise self-efficacy, falling efficacy, and HRQOL. Within-group and between-group changes in outcome were evaluated by t-test and rank-sum test.
RESULTS
A total of 68 subjects were included in the final analysis. Improvement in physical function was significantly greater in the HBRE group compared with controls. On a psychological level, exercise self-efficacy and falling efficacy improved significantly in the HBRE group; no significant change was observed in the control group. Most of the dimensions of HRQOL demonstrated improvements as well. The adherence was 85.29%, with no adverse events related to the exercise.
CONCLUSION
A 12-week HBRE program was safe non-pharmacological therapy for elderly participants with osteoporosis, improving physical function, exercise self-efficacy, reduced fear of falling, and improved HRQOL.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
Chinese Clinical Trial Register: ChiCTR2100051455. Registered 23.09.21. Retrospectively registered.
Topics: Accidental Falls; Aged; Fear; Humans; Osteoporosis; Postural Balance; Quality of Life; Resistance Training
PubMed: 35704055
DOI: 10.1007/s00198-022-06456-1 -
Journal of Strength and Conditioning... Jun 2022Longo, AR, Silva-Batista, C, Pedroso, K, de Salles Painelli, V, Lasevicius, T, Schoenfeld, BJ, Aihara, AY, de Almeida Peres, B, Tricoli, V, and Teixeira, EL. Volume load...
Longo, AR, Silva-Batista, C, Pedroso, K, de Salles Painelli, V, Lasevicius, T, Schoenfeld, BJ, Aihara, AY, de Almeida Peres, B, Tricoli, V, and Teixeira, EL. Volume load rather than resting interval influences muscle hypertrophy during high-intensity resistance training. J Strength Cond Res 36(6): 1554-1559, 2022-Interset rest interval has been proposed as an important variable for inducing muscle mass and strength increases during resistance training. However, its influence remains unclear, especially when protocols with differing intervals have equalized volume. We aimed to compare the effects of long (LI) vs. short rest interval (SI) on muscle strength (one repetition maximum [1RM]) and quadriceps cross-sectional area (QCSA), with or without equalized volume load (VL). Twenty-eight subjects trained twice a week for 10 weeks. Each subject's leg was allocated to 1 of 4 unilateral knee extension protocols: LI, SI, SI with VL -matched by LI (VLI-SI), and LI with VL-matched by SI (VSI-LI). A 3-minute rest interval was afforded in LI and VSI-LI protocols, while SI and VLI-SI employed a 1-minute interval. All subjects trained with a load corresponding to 80% 1RM. One repetition maximum and QCSA were measured before and after training. All protocols significantly increased 1RM values in post-training (p < 0.0001; LI: 27.6%, effect size [ES] = 0.90; VLI-SI: 31.1%, ES = 1.00; SI: 26.5%, ES = 1.11; and VSI-LI: 31.2%, ES = 1.28), with no significant differences between protocols. Quadriceps cross-sectional area increased significantly for all protocols in post-training (p < 0.0001). However, absolute changes in QCSA were significantly greater in LI and VLI-SI (13.1%, ES: 0.66 and 12.9%, ES: 0.63) than SI and VSI-LI (6.8%, ES: 0.38 and 6.6%, ES: 0.37) (both comparisons, p < 0.05). These data suggest that maintenance of high loads is more important for strength increases, while a greater VL plays a primary role for hypertrophy, regardless of interset rest interval.
Topics: Humans; Hypertrophy; Muscle Strength; Quadriceps Muscle; Resistance Training
PubMed: 35622106
DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000003668 -
Journal of Sports Science & Medicine Mar 2019Both foam rolling and joint distraction training with elastic bands are very popular interventions designed to improve muscular function, motor performance, and joint... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
Both foam rolling and joint distraction training with elastic bands are very popular interventions designed to improve muscular function, motor performance, and joint range of motion, as well as to reduce feeling of fatigue and delayed onset of muscle soreness. The heterogeneity of methods used among studies however prevents from drawing firm conclusions about the optimal content of pre/post interventions. The present study aims at answering the following questions: Do foam rolling and joint distraction with elastic band training improve joint range of motion in national rugby players? Do short and long rolling durations have similar effects on range of motion? In a first experiment, we compared ankle, knee, and hip flexibility scores in 30 national rugby players after a 7-week foam rolling training program involving either a short (20s) or long (40s) rolling duration. Data revealed that foam rolling substantially improved all range of motion scores, regardless the rolling duration (performance gains ranged from 9 to 18° in the foam rolling groups, i.e. 8 to 20% increase, but remained under 2° in the control group). In a second experiment, we investigated the effect of a 5-week joint distraction with elastic band training program on hamstring and adductor range of motion in 23 national rugby players. Data showed that elastic band training significantly improved sit-and-reach (29.16% increase, p = 0.01) as well as side split (2.31% increase, p < 0.001) stretching performances. Taken together, present findings confirm that both foam rolling and joint distraction exercises with elastic bands are likely to enhance joint range of motion and specific mobility patterns during sport performance, and further serve prophylaxis. Such effects therefore constitute a promising avenue for clinical, home therapy, and personal flexibility training.
Topics: Adolescent; Ankle; Football; Hip; Humans; Knee; Lower Extremity; Male; Massage; Range of Motion, Articular; Resistance Training; Sports Equipment; Young Adult
PubMed: 30787664
DOI: No ID Found -
International Journal of Environmental... Jul 2022Velocity-based training (VBT) is a rising auto-regulation method that dynamically regulates training loads to promote resistance training. However, the role of VBT in... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Velocity-based training (VBT) is a rising auto-regulation method that dynamically regulates training loads to promote resistance training. However, the role of VBT in improving various athletic performances is still unclear. Hence, the presented study aimed to examine the role of VBT in improving lower limbs’ maximum strength, strength endurance, jump, and sprint performance among trained individuals. A systematic literature search was performed to identify studies on VBT for lower limb strength training via databases, including PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, EBSCO, Cochrane, CNKI (in Chinese), and Wanfang Database (in Chinese). Controlled trials that deployed VBT only without extra training content were considered. Eventually, nine studies with a total of 253 trained males (at least one year of training experience) were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled results suggest that VBT may effectively enhance lower limbs’ maximum strength (SMD = 0.76; p < 0.001; I2 = 0%), strength endurance (SMD = 1.19; p < 0.001; I2 = 2%), countermovement jump (SMD = 0.53; p < 0.001; I2 = 0%), and sprint ability (SMD of sprint time = −0.40; p < 0.001; I2 = 0%). These findings indicate the positive role of VBT in serving athletic training. Future research is warranted to focus on the effect of velocity loss of VBT on athletic performance.
Topics: Athletic Performance; Controlled Clinical Trials as Topic; Humans; Lower Extremity; Male; Muscle Strength; Resistance Training
PubMed: 35954603
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19159252 -
Journal of Strength and Conditioning... May 2015The study's purpose was to compare the response of performing 1, 3, and 5 sets on measures of performance and muscle hypertrophy. Forty-eight men, with no weight... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
The study's purpose was to compare the response of performing 1, 3, and 5 sets on measures of performance and muscle hypertrophy. Forty-eight men, with no weight training experience, were randomly assigned to one of the 3 training groups, 1 SET, 3 SETS, 5 SETS, or control group. All training groups performed 3 resistance training sessions per week for 6 months. The 5 repetition maximum (RM) for all training groups increased in the bench press (BP), front lat pull down (LPD), shoulder press (SP), and leg press (LP) (p ≤ 0.05), with the 5 RM increases in the BP and LPD being significantly greater for 5 SETS compared with the other training groups (p ≤ 0.05). Bench press 20 RM in the 3-SET and 5-SET groups significantly increased with the increase being significantly greater than the 1-SET group and the 5-SET group increase being significantly greater than the 3-SET group (p ≤ 0.05). LP 20 RM increased in all training groups (p ≤ 0.05), with the 5-SETS group showing a significantly greater increase than the 1-SET group (p ≤ 0.05). The 3-SET and 5-SET groups significantly increased elbow flexor muscle thickness (MT) with the 5-SET increase being significantly greater than the other 2 training groups (p ≤ 0.05). The 5-SET group significantly increased elbow extensor MT with the increase being significantly greater than the other training groups (p ≤ 0.05). All training groups decreased percent body fat, increased fat-free mass, and vertical jump ability (p ≤ 0.05), with no differences between groups. The results demonstrate a dose-response for the number of sets per exercise and a superiority of multiple sets compared with a single set per exercise for strength gains, muscle endurance, and upper arm muscle hypertrophy.
Topics: Adaptation, Physiological; Adult; Arm; Humans; Hypertrophy; Male; Muscle Strength; Muscle, Skeletal; Physical Endurance; Resistance Training; Time Factors; Weight Lifting; Young Adult
PubMed: 25546444
DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000000758 -
Journal of Bodywork and Movement... Jul 2023One of the most popular training methods in weight rooms is the pyramidal. Despite this, its superiority over traditional training is still speculative. (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
One of the most popular training methods in weight rooms is the pyramidal. Despite this, its superiority over traditional training is still speculative.
OBJECTIVE
To review the effects of pyramid strength training on acute responses and long-term adaptations of this training method.
METHOD
The research was performed in PubMed, BIREME/BVS and Google Scholar databases using the search words in different combinations: 'strength training', 'resistance training', 'resistance exercise', 'strength exercise', 'pyramid', 'system pyramidal', 'crescent pyramid' and 'decrescent pyramid'. As inclusion criteria were considered: studies in English, which compared the effects of pyramidal training versus traditional training on acute responses and long-term adaptations. The TESTEX scale (0-15 points) was used to assess the methodological quality of the studies.
RESULTS
This article included 15 studies (6 acute effect studies and 9 longitudinal studies), which evaluated hormonal, metabolic and performance responses, strength gains and muscle hypertrophy of strength training in pyramidal and traditional format. Studies were rated between good and excellent quality.
CONCLUSION
The pyramid training protocol was not superior to the traditional protocol on acute physiological responses, strength gains and muscle hypertrophy. From a practical point of view, these findings allow us to say that the manipulation of this training method could be based on issues of periodization, motivation and/or even in personal preference. But, this is based on studies developed with repetition zones between 8 and 12 and/or intensities between 67% and 85% of 1RM.
Topics: Humans; Muscle, Skeletal; Muscle Strength; Adaptation, Physiological; Resistance Training; Hypertrophy
PubMed: 37330772
DOI: 10.1016/j.jbmt.2023.04.070 -
International Journal of Sports... Dec 2023Exercise with blood-flow restriction (BFR) is being increasingly used by practitioners working with athletic and clinical populations alike. Most early research combined...
BACKGROUND
Exercise with blood-flow restriction (BFR) is being increasingly used by practitioners working with athletic and clinical populations alike. Most early research combined BFR with low-load resistance training and consistently reported increased muscle size and strength without requiring the heavier loads that are traditionally used for unrestricted resistance training. However, this field has evolved with several different active and passive BFR methods emerging in recent research.
PURPOSE
This commentary aims to synthesize the evolving BFR methods for cohorts ranging from healthy athletes to clinical or load-compromised populations. In addition, real-world considerations for practitioners are highlighted, along with areas requiring further research.
CONCLUSIONS
The BFR literature now incorporates several active and passive methods, reflecting a growing implementation of BFR in sport and allied health fields. In addition to low-load resistance training, BFR is being combined with high-load resistance exercise, aerobic and anaerobic energy systems training of varying intensities, and sport-specific activities. BFR is also being applied passively in the absence of physical activity during periods of muscle disuse or rehabilitation or prior to exercise as a preconditioning or performance-enhancement technique. These various methods have been reported to improve muscular development; cardiorespiratory fitness; functional capacities; tendon, bone, and vascular adaptations; and physical and sport-specific performance and to reduce pain sensations. However, in emerging BFR fields, many unanswered questions remain to refine best practice.
Topics: Humans; Muscle, Skeletal; Regional Blood Flow; Muscle Strength; Resistance Training; Exercise
PubMed: 37777193
DOI: 10.1123/ijspp.2023-0135