-
Sports Medicine (Auckland, N.Z.) Oct 2021Lack of time is among the more commonly reported barriers for abstention from exercise programs. The aim of this review was to determine how strength training can be... (Review)
Review
Lack of time is among the more commonly reported barriers for abstention from exercise programs. The aim of this review was to determine how strength training can be most effectively carried out in a time-efficient manner by critically evaluating research on acute training variables, advanced training techniques, and the need for warm-up and stretching. When programming strength training for optimum time-efficiency we recommend prioritizing bilateral, multi-joint exercises that include full dynamic movements (i.e. both eccentric and concentric muscle actions), and to perform a minimum of one leg pressing exercise (e.g. squats), one upper-body pulling exercise (e.g. pull-up) and one upper-body pushing exercise (e.g. bench press). Exercises can be performed with machines and/or free weights based on training goals, availability, and personal preferences. Weekly training volume is more important than training frequency and we recommend performing a minimum of 4 weekly sets per muscle group using a 6-15 RM loading range (15-40 repetitions can be used if training is performed to volitional failure). Advanced training techniques, such as supersets, drop sets and rest-pause training roughly halves training time compared to traditional training, while maintaining training volume. However, these methods are probably better at inducing hypertrophy than muscular strength, and more research is needed on longitudinal training effects. Finally, we advise restricting the warm-up to exercise-specific warm-ups, and only prioritize stretching if the goal of training is to increase flexibility. This review shows how acute training variables can be manipulated, and how specific training techniques can be used to optimize the training response: time ratio in regard to improvements in strength and hypertrophy.
Topics: Exercise; Humans; Hypertrophy; Muscle Strength; Muscle, Skeletal; Resistance Training
PubMed: 34125411
DOI: 10.1007/s40279-021-01490-1 -
Journal of Sport and Health Science Mar 2022We aimed to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of the effects of training to muscle failure or non-failure on muscular strength and hypertrophy. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE
We aimed to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of the effects of training to muscle failure or non-failure on muscular strength and hypertrophy.
METHODS
Meta-analyses of effect sizes (ESs) explored the effects of training to failure vs. non-failure on strength and hypertrophy. Subgroup meta-analyses explored potential moderating effects of variables such as training status (trained vs. untrained), training volume (volume equated vs. volume non-equated), body region (upper vs. lower), exercise selection (multi- vs. single-joint exercises (only for strength)), and study design (independent vs. dependent groups).
RESULTS
Fifteen studies were included in the review. All studies included young adults as participants. Meta-analysis indicated no significant difference between the training conditions for muscular strength (ES = -0.09, 95% confidence interval (95%CI): -0.22 to 0.05) and for hypertrophy (ES = 0.22, 95%CI: -0.11 to 0.55). Subgroup analyses that stratified the studies according to body region, exercise selection, or study design showed no significant differences between training conditions. In studies that did not equate training volume between the groups, the analysis showed significant favoring of non-failure training on strength gains (ES = -0.32, 95%CI: -0.57 to -0.07). In the subgroup analysis for resistance-trained individuals, the analysis showed a significant effect of training to failure for muscle hypertrophy (ES = 0.15, 95%CI: 0.03-0.26).
CONCLUSION
Training to muscle failure does not seem to be required for gains in strength and muscle size. However, training in this manner does not seem to have detrimental effects on these adaptations, either. More studies should be conducted among older adults and highly trained individuals to improve the generalizability of these findings.
Topics: Adaptation, Physiological; Aged; Humans; Hypertrophy; Muscle Strength; Muscle, Skeletal; Resistance Training; Young Adult
PubMed: 33497853
DOI: 10.1016/j.jshs.2021.01.007 -
Medicine and Science in Sports and... Sep 2022Skeletal muscle plays a critical role in physical function and metabolic health. Muscle is a highly adaptable tissue that responds to resistance exercise (RE; loading)... (Review)
Review
Skeletal muscle plays a critical role in physical function and metabolic health. Muscle is a highly adaptable tissue that responds to resistance exercise (RE; loading) by hypertrophying, or during muscle disuse, RE mitigates muscle loss. Resistance exercise training (RET)-induced skeletal muscle hypertrophy is a product of external (e.g., RE programming, diet, some supplements) and internal variables (e.g., mechanotransduction, ribosomes, gene expression, satellite cells activity). RE is undeniably the most potent nonpharmacological external variable to stimulate the activation/suppression of internal variables linked to muscular hypertrophy or countering disuse-induced muscle loss. Here, we posit that despite considerable research on the impact of external variables on RET and hypertrophy, internal variables (i.e., inherent skeletal muscle biology) are dominant in regulating the extent of hypertrophy in response to external stimuli. Thus, identifying the key internal skeletal muscle-derived variables that mediate the translation of external RE variables will be pivotal to determining the most effective strategies for skeletal muscle hypertrophy in healthy persons. Such work will aid in enhancing function in clinical populations, slowing functional decline, and promoting physical mobility. We provide up-to-date, evidence-based perspectives of the mechanisms regulating RET-induced skeletal muscle hypertrophy.
Topics: Exercise; Humans; Hypertrophy; Mechanotransduction, Cellular; Muscle, Skeletal; Resistance Training
PubMed: 35389932
DOI: 10.1249/MSS.0000000000002929 -
Physiological Reviews Oct 2023Mechanisms underlying mechanical overload-induced skeletal muscle hypertrophy have been extensively researched since the landmark report by Morpurgo (1897) of... (Review)
Review
Mechanisms underlying mechanical overload-induced skeletal muscle hypertrophy have been extensively researched since the landmark report by Morpurgo (1897) of "work-induced hypertrophy" in dogs that were treadmill trained. Much of the preclinical rodent and human resistance training research to date supports that involved mechanisms include enhanced mammalian/mechanistic target of rapamycin complex 1 (mTORC1) signaling, an expansion in translational capacity through ribosome biogenesis, increased satellite cell abundance and myonuclear accretion, and postexercise elevations in muscle protein synthesis rates. However, several lines of past and emerging evidence suggest that additional mechanisms that feed into or are independent of these processes are also involved. This review first provides a historical account of how mechanistic research into skeletal muscle hypertrophy has progressed. A comprehensive list of mechanisms associated with skeletal muscle hypertrophy is then outlined, and areas of disagreement involving these mechanisms are presented. Finally, future research directions involving many of the discussed mechanisms are proposed.
Topics: Humans; Animals; Dogs; Muscle, Skeletal; Signal Transduction; Mechanistic Target of Rapamycin Complex 1; Protein Biosynthesis; Hypertrophy; Mammals
PubMed: 37382939
DOI: 10.1152/physrev.00039.2022 -
Journal of Neuromuscular Diseases 2021Skeletal muscle hypertrophy can be induced by hormones and growth factors acting directly as positive regulators of muscle growth or indirectly by neutralizing negative... (Review)
Review
Skeletal muscle hypertrophy can be induced by hormones and growth factors acting directly as positive regulators of muscle growth or indirectly by neutralizing negative regulators, and by mechanical signals mediating the effect of resistance exercise. Muscle growth during hypertrophy is controlled at the translational level, through the stimulation of protein synthesis, and at the transcriptional level, through the activation of ribosomal RNAs and muscle-specific genes. mTORC1 has a central role in the regulation of both protein synthesis and ribosomal biogenesis. Several transcription factors and co-activators, including MEF2, SRF, PGC-1α4, and YAP promote the growth of the myofibers. Satellite cell proliferation and fusion is involved in some but not all muscle hypertrophy models.
Topics: Humans; Hypertrophy; Muscle, Skeletal; Protein Biosynthesis; Signal Transduction
PubMed: 33216041
DOI: 10.3233/JND-200568 -
International Journal of Environmental... Dec 2019Effective hypertrophy-oriented resistance training (RT) should comprise a combination of mechanical tension and metabolic stress. Regarding training variables, the most...
BACKGROUND
Effective hypertrophy-oriented resistance training (RT) should comprise a combination of mechanical tension and metabolic stress. Regarding training variables, the most effective values are widely described in the literature. However, there is still a lack of consensus regarding the efficiency of advanced RT techniques and methods in comparison to traditional approaches.
METHODS
MEDLINE and SPORTDiscus databases were searched from 1996 to September 2019 for all studies investigating the effects of advanced RT techniques and methods on muscle hypertrophy and training variables. Thirty articles met the inclusion criteria and were consequently included for the quality assessment and data extraction.
RESULTS
Concerning the time-efficiency of training, the use of agonist-antagonist, upper-lower body supersets, drop and cluster sets, sarcoplasma stimulating training, employment of fast, but controlled duration of eccentric contractions (~2s), and high-load RT supplemented with low-load RT under blood flow restriction may provide an additional stimulus and an advantage to traditional training protocols. With regard to the higher degree of mechanical tension, the use of accentuated eccentric loading in RT should be considered. Implementation of drop sets, sarcoplasma stimulating training, low-load RT in conjunction with low-load RT under blood flow restriction could provide time-efficient solutions to increased metabolic stress.
CONCLUSIONS
Due to insufficient evidence, it is difficult to provide specific guidelines for volume, intensity of effort, and frequency of previously mentioned RT techniques and methods. However, well-trained athletes may integrate advanced RT techniques and methods into their routines as an additional stimulus to break through plateaus and to prevent training monotony.
Topics: Humans; Hypertrophy; Muscle Strength; Muscle, Skeletal; Resistance Training
PubMed: 31817252
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph16244897 -
Cells Aug 2020Insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1) is a key growth factor that regulates both anabolic and catabolic pathways in skeletal muscle. IGF-1 increases skeletal muscle... (Review)
Review
Insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1) is a key growth factor that regulates both anabolic and catabolic pathways in skeletal muscle. IGF-1 increases skeletal muscle protein synthesis via PI3K/Akt/mTOR and PI3K/Akt/GSK3β pathways. PI3K/Akt can also inhibit FoxOs and suppress transcription of E3 ubiquitin ligases that regulate ubiquitin proteasome system (UPS)-mediated protein degradation. Autophagy is likely inhibited by IGF-1 via mTOR and FoxO signaling, although the contribution of autophagy regulation in IGF-1-mediated inhibition of skeletal muscle atrophy remains to be determined. Evidence has suggested that IGF-1/Akt can inhibit muscle atrophy-inducing cytokine and myostatin signaling via inhibition of the NF-κΒ and Smad pathways, respectively. Several miRNAs have been found to regulate IGF-1 signaling in skeletal muscle, and these miRs are likely regulated in different pathological conditions and contribute to the development of muscle atrophy. IGF-1 also potentiates skeletal muscle regeneration via activation of skeletal muscle stem (satellite) cells, which may contribute to muscle hypertrophy and/or inhibit atrophy. Importantly, IGF-1 levels and IGF-1R downstream signaling are suppressed in many chronic disease conditions and likely result in muscle atrophy via the combined effects of altered protein synthesis, UPS activity, autophagy, and muscle regeneration.
Topics: Humans; Hypertrophy; Insulin-Like Growth Factor I; Muscle, Skeletal; Muscular Atrophy; Signal Transduction
PubMed: 32858949
DOI: 10.3390/cells9091970 -
Nutrients Apr 2023The purpose of this paper was to carry out a systematic review with a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials that examined the combined effects of resistance... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
The purpose of this paper was to carry out a systematic review with a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials that examined the combined effects of resistance training (RT) and creatine supplementation on regional changes in muscle mass, with direct imaging measures of hypertrophy. Moreover, we performed regression analyses to determine the potential influence of covariates. We included trials that had a duration of at least 6 weeks and examined the combined effects of creatine supplementation and RT on site-specific direct measures of hypertrophy (magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), computed tomography (CT), or ultrasound) in healthy adults. A total of 44 outcomes were analyzed across 10 studies that met the inclusion criteria. A univariate analysis of all the standardized outcomes showed a pooled mean estimate of 0.11 (95% Credible Interval (CrI): -0.02 to 0.25), providing evidence for a very small effect favoring creatine supplementation when combined with RT compared to RT and a placebo. Multivariate analyses found similar small benefits for the combination of creatine supplementation and RT on changes in the upper and lower body muscle thickness (0.10-0.16 cm). Analyses of the moderating effects indicated a small superior benefit for creatine supplementation in younger compared to older adults (0.17 (95%CrI: -0.09 to 0.45)). In conclusion, the results suggest that creatine supplementation combined with RT promotes a small increase in the direct measures of skeletal muscle hypertrophy in both the upper and lower body.
Topics: Humans; Aged; Creatine; Resistance Training; Hypertrophy; Muscles; Dietary Supplements
PubMed: 37432300
DOI: 10.3390/nu15092116 -
British Journal of Sports Medicine Sep 2023To determine how distinct combinations of resistance training prescription (RTx) variables (load, sets and frequency) affect muscle strength and hypertrophy. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To determine how distinct combinations of resistance training prescription (RTx) variables (load, sets and frequency) affect muscle strength and hypertrophy.
DATA SOURCES
MEDLINE, Embase, Emcare, SPORTDiscus, CINAHL, and Web of Science were searched until February 2022.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
Randomised trials that included healthy adults, compared at least 2 predefined conditions (non-exercise control (CTRL) and 12 RTx, differentiated by load, sets and/or weekly frequency), and reported muscle strength and/or hypertrophy were included.
ANALYSES
Systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis methodology was used to compare RTxs and CTRL. Surface under the cumulative ranking curve values were used to rank conditions. Confidence was assessed with threshold analysis.
RESULTS
The strength network included 178 studies (n=5097; women=45%). The hypertrophy network included 119 studies (n=3364; women=47%). All RTxs were superior to CTRL for muscle strength and hypertrophy. Higher-load (>80% of single repetition maximum) prescriptions maximised strength gains, and all prescriptions comparably promoted muscle hypertrophy. While the calculated effects of many prescriptions were similar, higher-load, multiset, thrice-weekly training (standardised mean difference (95% credible interval); 1.60 (1.38 to 1.82) vs CTRL) was the highest-ranked RTx for strength, and higher-load, multiset, twice-weekly training (0.66 (0.47 to 0.85) vs CTRL) was the highest-ranked RTx for hypertrophy. Threshold analysis demonstrated these results were extremely robust.
CONCLUSION
All RTx promoted strength and hypertrophy compared with no exercise. The highest-ranked prescriptions for strength involved higher loads, whereas the highest-ranked prescriptions for hypertrophy included multiple sets.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER
CRD42021259663 and CRD42021258902.
Topics: Humans; Adult; Female; Resistance Training; Bayes Theorem; Network Meta-Analysis; Muscle, Skeletal; Muscle Strength; Hypertrophy; Prescriptions
PubMed: 37414459
DOI: 10.1136/bjsports-2023-106807 -
Sports Medicine (Auckland, N.Z.) Mar 2023This systematic review with meta-analysis investigated the influence of resistance training proximity-to-failure on muscle hypertrophy. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE
This systematic review with meta-analysis investigated the influence of resistance training proximity-to-failure on muscle hypertrophy.
METHODS
Literature searches in the PubMed, SCOPUS and SPORTDiscus databases identified a total of 15 studies that measured muscle hypertrophy (in healthy adults of any age and resistance training experience) and compared resistance training performed to: (A) momentary muscular failure versus non-failure; (B) set failure (defined as anything other than momentary muscular failure) versus non-failure; or (C) different velocity loss thresholds.
RESULTS
There was a trivial advantage for resistance training performed to set failure versus non-failure for muscle hypertrophy in studies applying any definition of set failure [effect size=0.19 (95% confidence interval 0.00, 0.37), p=0.045], with no moderating effect of volume load (p=0.884) or relative load (p=0.525). Given the variability in set failure definitions applied across studies, sub-group analyses were conducted and found no advantage for either resistance training performed to momentary muscular failure versus non-failure for muscle hypertrophy [effect size=0.12 (95% confidence interval -0.13, 0.37), p=0.343], or for resistance training performed to high (>25%) versus moderate (20-25%) velocity loss thresholds [effect size=0.08 (95% confidence interval -0.16, 0.32), p=0.529].
CONCLUSION
Overall, our main findings suggest that (i) there is no evidence to support that resistance training performed to momentary muscular failure is superior to non-failure resistance training for muscle hypertrophy and (ii) higher velocity loss thresholds, and theoretically closer proximities-to-failure do not always elicit greater muscle hypertrophy. As such, these results provide evidence for a potential non-linear relationship between proximity-to-failure and muscle hypertrophy.
Topics: Humans; Muscle, Skeletal; Resistance Training; Muscle Strength; Hypertrophy
PubMed: 36334240
DOI: 10.1007/s40279-022-01784-y