-
Sports Medicine (Auckland, N.Z.) Oct 2022Whole muscle hypertrophy does not appear to be negatively affected by concurrent aerobic and strength training compared to strength training alone. However, there are... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Whole muscle hypertrophy does not appear to be negatively affected by concurrent aerobic and strength training compared to strength training alone. However, there are contradictions in the literature regarding the effects of concurrent training on hypertrophy at the myofiber level.
OBJECTIVE
The current study aimed to systematically examine the extent to which concurrent aerobic and strength training, compared with strength training alone, influences type I and type II muscle fiber size adaptations. We also conducted subgroup analyses to examine the effects of the type of aerobic training, training modality, exercise order, training frequency, age, and training status.
DESIGN
A systematic literature search was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) [PROSPERO: CRD42020203777]. The registered protocol was modified to include only muscle fiber hypertrophy as an outcome.
DATA SOURCES
PubMed/MEDLINE, ISI Web of Science, Embase, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, and Scopus were systematically searched on 12 August, 2020, and updated on 15 March, 2021.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
Population: healthy adults of any sex and age; intervention: supervised, concurrent aerobic and strength training of at least 4 weeks; comparison: identical strength training prescription, with no aerobic training; and outcome: muscle fiber hypertrophy.
RESULTS
A total of 15 studies were included. The estimated standardized mean difference based on the random-effects model was - 0.23 (95% confidence interval [CI] - 0.46 to - 0.00, p = 0.050) for overall muscle fiber hypertrophy. The standardized mean differences were - 0.34 (95% CI - 0.72 to 0.04, p = 0.078) and - 0.13 (95% CI - 0.39 to 0.12, p = 0.315) for type I and type II fiber hypertrophy, respectively. A negative effect of concurrent training was observed for type I fibers when aerobic training was performed by running but not cycling (standardized mean difference - 0.81, 95% CI - 1.26 to - 0.36). None of the other subgroup analyses (i.e., based on concurrent training frequency, training status, training modality, and training order of same-session training) revealed any differences between groups.
CONCLUSIONS
In contrast to previous findings on whole muscle hypertrophy, the present results suggest that concurrent aerobic and strength training may have a small negative effect on fiber hypertrophy compared with strength training alone. Preliminary evidence suggests that this interference effect may be more pronounced when aerobic training is performed by running compared with cycling, at least for type I fibers.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Hypertrophy; Infant; Infant, Newborn; Muscle Fibers, Skeletal; Muscle Strength; Muscle, Skeletal; Resistance Training
PubMed: 35476184
DOI: 10.1007/s40279-022-01688-x -
International Journal of Environmental... Oct 2022Reviews focused on the ketogenic diet (KD) based on the increase in fat-free mass (FFM) have been carried out with pathological populations or, failing that, without... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Reviews focused on the ketogenic diet (KD) based on the increase in fat-free mass (FFM) have been carried out with pathological populations or, failing that, without population differentiation. The aim of this review and meta-analysis was to verify whether a ketogenic diet without programmed energy restriction generates increases in fat-free mass (FFM) in resistance-trained participants. We evaluated the effect of the ketogenic diet, in conjunction with resistance training, on fat-free mass in trained participants. Boolean algorithms from various databases (PubMed, Scopus. and Web of Science) were used, and a total of five studies were located that related to both ketogenic diets and resistance-trained participants. In all, 111 athletes or resistance-trained participants (87 male and 24 female) were evaluated in the studies analyzed. We found no significant differences between groups in the FFM variables, and more research is needed to perform studies with similar ketogenic diets and control diet interventions. Ketogenic diets, taking into account the possible side effects, can be an alternative for increasing muscle mass as long as energy surplus is generated; however, their application for eight weeks or more without interruption does not seem to be the best option due to the satiety and lack of adherence generated.
Topics: Athletes; Diet, Ketogenic; Female; Humans; Hypertrophy; Male; Muscles; Resistance Training
PubMed: 36231929
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph191912629 -
Journal of Sport and Health Science Jan 2024The aim of this umbrella review was to determine the impact of resistance training (RT) and individual RT prescription variables on muscle mass, strength, and physical... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
The aim of this umbrella review was to determine the impact of resistance training (RT) and individual RT prescription variables on muscle mass, strength, and physical function in healthy adults.
METHODS
Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, we systematically searched and screened eligible systematic reviews reporting the effects of differing RT prescription variables on muscle mass (or its proxies), strength, and/or physical function in healthy adults aged >18 years.
RESULTS
We identified 44 systematic reviews that met our inclusion criteria. The methodological quality of these reviews was assessed using A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews; standardized effectiveness statements were generated. We found that RT was consistently a potent stimulus for increasing skeletal muscle mass (4/4 reviews provide some or sufficient evidence), strength (4/6 reviews provided some or sufficient evidence), and physical function (1/1 review provided some evidence). RT load (6/8 reviews provided some or sufficient evidence), weekly frequency (2/4 reviews provided some or sufficient evidence), volume (3/7 reviews provided some or sufficient evidence), and exercise order (1/1 review provided some evidence) impacted RT-induced increases in muscular strength. We discovered that 2/3 reviews provided some or sufficient evidence that RT volume and contraction velocity influenced skeletal muscle mass, while 4/7 reviews provided insufficient evidence in favor of RT load impacting skeletal muscle mass. There was insufficient evidence to conclude that time of day, periodization, inter-set rest, set configuration, set end point, contraction velocity/time under tension, or exercise order (only pertaining to hypertrophy) influenced skeletal muscle adaptations. A paucity of data limited insights into the impact of RT prescription variables on physical function.
CONCLUSION
Overall, RT increased muscle mass, strength, and physical function compared to no exercise. RT intensity (load) and weekly frequency impacted RT-induced increases in muscular strength but not muscle hypertrophy. RT volume (number of sets) influenced muscular strength and hypertrophy.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Resistance Training; Exercise Therapy; Exercise; Hypertrophy; Muscle, Skeletal
PubMed: 37385345
DOI: 10.1016/j.jshs.2023.06.005 -
Aging and Disease Feb 2022Aging is a prominent risk factor for cardiovascular diseases, which is the leading cause of death around the world. Recently, cellular senescence has received potential... (Review)
Review
Aging is a prominent risk factor for cardiovascular diseases, which is the leading cause of death around the world. Recently, cellular senescence has received potential attention as a promising target in preventing cardiovascular diseases, including acute myocardial infarction, atherosclerosis, cardiac aging, pressure overload-induced hypertrophy, heart regeneration, hypertension, and abdominal aortic aneurysm. Here, we discuss the mechanisms underlying cellular senescence and describe the involvement of senescent cardiovascular cells (including cardiomyocytes, endothelial cells, vascular smooth muscle cells, fibroblasts/myofibroblasts and T cells) in age-related cardiovascular diseases. Then, we highlight the targets (SIRT1 and mTOR) that regulating cellular senescence in cardiovascular disorders. Furthermore, we review the evidence that senescent cells can exert both beneficial and detrimental implications in cardiovascular diseases on a context-dependent manner. Finally, we summarize the emerging pro-senescent or anti-senescent interventions and discuss their therapeutic potential in preventing cardiovascular diseases.
PubMed: 35111365
DOI: 10.14336/AD.2021.0927 -
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 -
BMC Sports Science, Medicine &... Aug 2023The effectiveness of strength training with free-weight vs. machine equipment is heavily debated. Thus, the purpose of this meta-analysis was to summarize the data on...
BACKGROUND
The effectiveness of strength training with free-weight vs. machine equipment is heavily debated. Thus, the purpose of this meta-analysis was to summarize the data on the effect of free-weight versus machine-based strength training on maximal strength, jump height and hypertrophy.
METHODS
The review was conducted in accordance with the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, and the systematic search of literature was conducted up to January 1, 2023. Studies that directly compared free-weight vs. machine-based strength training for a minimum of 6 weeks in adults (18-60 yrs.) were included.
RESULTS
Thirteen studies (outcomes: maximal strength [n = 12], jump performance [n = 5], muscle hypertrophy [n = 5]) with a total sample of 1016 participants (789 men, 219 women) were included. Strength in free-weight tests increased significantly more with free-weight training than with machines (SMD: -0.210, CI: -0.391, -0.029, p = 0.023), while strength in machine-based tests tended to increase more with machine training than with free-weights (SMD: 0.291, CI: -0.017, 0.600, p = 0.064). However, no differences were found between modalities in direct comparison (free-weight strength vs. machine strength) for dynamic strength (SMD: 0.084, CI: -0.106, 0.273, p = 0.387), isometric strength (SMD: -0.079, CI: -0.432, 0.273, p = 0.660), countermovement jump (SMD: -0.209, CI: -0.597, 0.179, p = 0.290) and hypertrophy (SMD: -0.055, CI: -0.397, 0.287, p = 0.751).
CONCLUSION
No differences were detected in the direct comparison of strength, jump performance and muscle hypertrophy. Current body of evidence indicates that strength changes are specific to the training modality, and the choice between free-weights and machines are down to individual preferences and goals.
PubMed: 37582807
DOI: 10.1186/s13102-023-00713-4 -
Journal of Clinical Medicine Dec 2020Patients undergoing anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction and patients suffering from knee osteoarthritis (KOA) have been shown to have quadriceps muscle... (Review)
Review
Comparison of Blood Flow Restriction Training versus Non-Occlusive Training in Patients with Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction or Knee Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review.
Patients undergoing anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction and patients suffering from knee osteoarthritis (KOA) have been shown to have quadriceps muscle weakness and/or atrophy in common. The physiological mechanisms of blood flow restriction (BFR) training could facilitate muscle hypertrophy. The purpose of this systematic review is to investigate the effects of BFR training on quadriceps cross-sectional area (CSA), pain perception, function and quality of life on these patients compared to a non-BFR training. A literature research was performed using Web of Science, PEDro, Scopus, MEDLINE, Dialnet, CINAHL and The Cochrane Library databases. The main inclusion criteria were that papers were English or Spanish language reports of randomized controlled trials involving patients with ACL reconstruction or suffering from KOA. The initial research identified 159 publications from all databases; 10 articles were finally included. The search was conducted from April to June 2020. Four of these studies found a significant improvement in strength. A significant increase in CSA was found in two studies. Pain significantly improved in four studies and only one study showed a significant improvement in functionality/quality of life. Low-load training with BFR may be an effective option treatment for increasing quadriceps strength and CSA, but more research is needed.
PubMed: 33375515
DOI: 10.3390/jcm10010068 -
Sports Medicine - Open Jul 2023One of the most popular time-efficient training methods when training for muscle hypertrophy is drop sets, which is performed by taking sets to concentric muscle failure...
BACKGROUND
One of the most popular time-efficient training methods when training for muscle hypertrophy is drop sets, which is performed by taking sets to concentric muscle failure at a given load, then making a drop by reducing the load and immediately taking the next set to concentric or voluntary muscle failure. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the effects of drop sets over traditional sets on skeletal muscle hypertrophy.
METHODS
This systematic review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. The SPORTDiscus and MEDLINE/PubMed databases were searched on April 9, 2022, for all studies investigating the effects of the drop set training method on muscle hypertrophy that meets the predefined inclusion criteria. Comprehensive Meta-Analysis Version 3 (Biostat Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA) was used to run the statistical analysis. Publication bias was assessed through visual inspection of the funnel plots for asymmetry and statistically by Egger's regression test with an alpha level of 0.10.
RESULTS
Six studies met the predefined inclusion criteria. The number of participants in the studies was 142 (28 women and 114 men) with an age range of 19.2-27 years. The average sample size was 23.6 ± 10.9 (range 9-41). Five studies were included in the quantitative synthesis. Meta-analysis showed that both the drop set and traditional training groups increased significantly from pre- to post-test regarding muscle hypertrophy (drop set standardized mean difference: 0.555, 95% CI 0.357-0.921, p < 0.0001; traditional set standardized mean difference: 0.437, 95% CI 0.266-0.608, p < 0.0001). No significant between-group difference was found (standardized mean difference: 0.155, 95% CI - 0.199 to - 0.509, p = 0.392).
CONCLUSIONS
The results of this systematic review and meta-analysis indicate that drop sets present an efficient strategy for maximizing hypertrophy in those with limited time for training. There was no significant difference in hypertrophy measurements between the drop set and traditional training groups, but some of the drop set modalities took half to one-third of the time compared with traditional training.
PubMed: 37523092
DOI: 10.1186/s40798-023-00620-5 -
International Journal of Environmental... Oct 2021Low-intensity training with blood flow restriction (LI-BFR) has been suggested as an alternative to high-intensity resistance training for the improvement of strength... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Resistance Training with Blood Flow Restriction Compared to Traditional Resistance Training on Strength and Muscle Mass in Non-Active Older Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Low-intensity training with blood flow restriction (LI-BFR) has been suggested as an alternative to high-intensity resistance training for the improvement of strength and muscle mass, becoming advisable for individuals who cannot assume such a load. The systematic review aimed to determine the effectiveness of the LI-BFR compared to dynamic high-intensity resistance training on strength and muscle mass in non-active older adults. A systematic review was conducted according to the Cochrane Handbook and reportedly followed the PRISMA statement. MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science Core Collection, and Scopus databases were searched between September and October 2020. Two reviewers independently selected the studies, extracted data, assessed the risk of bias and the quality of evidence using the GRADE approach. Twelve studies were included in the qualitative synthesis. Meta-analysis pointed out significant differences in maximal voluntary contraction (MVC): SMD 0.61, 95% CI [0.10, 1.11], = 0.02, I 71% < 0.0001; but not in the repetition maximum (RM): SMD 0.07, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.40], = 0.66, I 0% < 0.53; neither in the muscle mass: SMD 0.62, 95% CI [-0.09, 1.34], = 0.09, I 59% = 0.05. Despite important limitations such as scarce literature regarding LI-BFR in older adults, the small sample size in most studies, the still differences in methodology and poor quality in many of them, this systematic review and meta-analysis revealed a positive benefit in non-active older adults. LI- BFR may induce increased muscular strength and muscle mass, at least at a similar extent to that in the traditional high-intensity resistance training.
Topics: Aged; Hemodynamics; Humans; Muscle Strength; Muscle, Skeletal; Regional Blood Flow; Resistance Training
PubMed: 34769957
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph182111441 -
Journal of Human Kinetics Aug 2019Beta-hydroxy-beta-methylbutyrate (HMB) has been used extensively as a dietary supplement for athletes and physically active people. HMB is a leucine metabolite, which is...
Beta-hydroxy-beta-methylbutyrate (HMB) has been used extensively as a dietary supplement for athletes and physically active people. HMB is a leucine metabolite, which is one of three branched chain amino acids. HMB plays multiple roles in the human body of which most important ones include protein metabolism, insulin activity and skeletal muscle hypertrophy. The ergogenic effects of HMB supplementation are related to the enhancement of sarcolemma integrity, inhibition of protein degradation (ubiquitin pathway), decreased cell apoptosis, increased protein synthesis (mTOR pathway), stimulation of the growth hormone/insulin-like growth factor-1 (GH/IGF-1) axis and enhancement of muscle stem cells proliferation and differentiation. HMB supplementation has been carried out with various groups of athletes. In endurance and martial arts athletes, HMB supplementation revealed positive effects on specific aerobic capacity variables. Positive results were also disclosed in resistance trained athletes, where changes in strength, body fat and muscle mass as well as anaerobic performance and power output were observed. The purpose of this review was to present the main mechanisms of HMB action, especially related to muscle protein synthesis and degradation, and ergogenic effects on different types of sports and physical activities.
PubMed: 31531146
DOI: 10.2478/hukin-2019-0070