-
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 -
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 -
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 -
British Journal of Sports Medicine Mar 2018We performed a systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression to determine if dietary protein supplementation augments resistance exercise training (RET)-induced... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
A systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression of the effect of protein supplementation on resistance training-induced gains in muscle mass and strength in healthy adults.
OBJECTIVE
We performed a systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression to determine if dietary protein supplementation augments resistance exercise training (RET)-induced gains in muscle mass and strength.
DATA SOURCES
A systematic search of Medline, Embase, CINAHL and SportDiscus.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
Only randomised controlled trials with RET ≥6 weeks in duration and dietary protein supplementation.
DESIGN
Random-effects meta-analyses and meta-regressions with four a priori determined covariates. Two-phase break point analysis was used to determine the relationship between total protein intake and changes in fat-free mass (FFM).
RESULTS
Data from 49 studies with 1863 participants showed that dietary protein supplementation significantly (all p<0.05) increased changes (means (95% CI)) in: strength-one-repetition-maximum (2.49 kg (0.64, 4.33)), FFM (0.30 kg (0.09, 0.52)) and muscle size-muscle fibre cross-sectional area (CSA; 310 µm (51, 570)) and mid-femur CSA (7.2 mm (0.20, 14.30)) during periods of prolonged RET. The impact of protein supplementation on gains in FFM was reduced with increasing age (-0.01 kg (-0.02,-0.00), p=0.002) and was more effective in resistance-trained individuals (0.75 kg (0.09, 1.40), p=0.03). Protein supplementation beyond total protein intakes of 1.62 g/kg/day resulted in no further RET-induced gains in FFM.
SUMMARY/CONCLUSION
Dietary protein supplementation significantly enhanced changes in muscle strength and size during prolonged RET in healthy adults. Increasing age reduces and training experience increases the efficacy of protein supplementation during RET. With protein supplementation, protein intakes at amounts greater than ~1.6 g/kg/day do not further contribute RET-induced gains in FFM.
Topics: Adult; Dietary Proteins; Dietary Supplements; Humans; Muscle Strength; Muscle, Skeletal; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Regression Analysis; Resistance Training
PubMed: 28698222
DOI: 10.1136/bjsports-2017-097608 -
Medicine and Science in Sports and... Jun 2021This study aimed to analyze the effect of resistance training (RT) performed until volitional failure with low, moderate, and high loads on muscle hypertrophy and muscle... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
PURPOSE
This study aimed to analyze the effect of resistance training (RT) performed until volitional failure with low, moderate, and high loads on muscle hypertrophy and muscle strength in healthy adults and to assess the possible participant-, design-, and training-related covariates that may affect the adaptations.
METHODS
Using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, SPORTDiscus, and Web of Science databases were searched. Including only studies that performed sets to volitional failure, the effects of low- (>15 repetitions maximum (RM)), moderate- (9-15 RM), and high-load (≤8 RM) RTs were examined in healthy adults. Network meta-analysis was undertaken to calculate the standardized mean difference (SMD) between RT loads in overall and subgroup analyses involving studies deemed of high quality. Associations between participant-, design-, and training-related covariates with SMD were assessed by univariate and multivariate network meta-regression analyses.
RESULTS
Twenty-eight studies involving 747 healthy adults were included. Although no differences in muscle hypertrophy between RT loads were found in overall (P = 0.113-0.469) or subgroup analysis (P = 0.871-0.995), greater effects were observed in untrained participants (P = 0.033) and participants with some training background who undertook more RT sessions (P = 0.031-0.045). Muscle strength improvement was superior for both high-load and moderate-load compared with low-load RT in overall and subgroup analysis (SMD, 0.60-0.63 and 0.34-0.35, respectively; P < 0.001-0.003), with a nonsignificant but superior effect for high compared with moderate load (SMD, 0.26-0.28, P = 0.068).
CONCLUSIONS
Although muscle hypertrophy improvements seem to be load independent, increases in muscle strength are superior in high-load RT programs. Untrained participants exhibit greater muscle hypertrophy, whereas undertaking more RT sessions provides superior gains in those with previous training experience.
Topics: Adult; Female; Humans; Male; Muscle Strength; Network Meta-Analysis; Resistance Training; Skeletal Muscle Enlargement
PubMed: 33433148
DOI: 10.1249/MSS.0000000000002585 -
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 -
Journal of Sports Science & Medicine Mar 2020The gluteus maximus (GMax) is one of the primary hip extensors. Several exercises have been performed by strength and conditioning practitioners aiming to increase GMax...
The gluteus maximus (GMax) is one of the primary hip extensors. Several exercises have been performed by strength and conditioning practitioners aiming to increase GMax strength and size. This systematic review aimed to describe the GMax activation levels during strength exercises that incorporate hip extension and use of external load. A search of the current literature was performed using PubMed/Medline, SportDiscuss, Scopus, Google Scholar, and Science Direct electronic databases. Sixteen articles met the inclusion criteria and reported muscle activation levels as a percentage of a maximal voluntary isometric contraction (MVIC). The exercises classified as very high level of GMax activation (>60% MVIC) were step-up, lateral step-up, diagonal step-up, cross over step-up, hex bar deadlift, rotational barbell hip thrust, traditional barbell hip thrust, American barbell hip thrust, belt squat, split squat, in-line lunge, traditional lunge, pull barbell hip thrust, modified single-leg squat, conventional deadlift, and band hip thrust. We concluded that several exercises could induce very high levels of GMax activation. The step-up exercise and its variations present the highest levels of GMax activation followed by several loaded exercises and its variations, such as deadlifts, hip thrusts, lunges, and squats. The results of this systematic review may assist practitioners in selecting exercised for strengthening GMax.
Topics: Electromyography; Humans; Isometric Contraction; Muscle Strength; Muscle, Skeletal; Resistance Training; Weight Lifting
PubMed: 32132843
DOI: No ID Found -
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 -
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 -
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