-
Journal of Sports Sciences Jun 2019Training frequency is considered an important variable in the hypertrophic response to regimented resistance exercise. The purpose of this paper was to conduct a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
How many times per week should a muscle be trained to maximize muscle hypertrophy? A systematic review and meta-analysis of studies examining the effects of resistance training frequency.
Training frequency is considered an important variable in the hypertrophic response to regimented resistance exercise. The purpose of this paper was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of experimental studies designed to investigate the effects of weekly training frequency on hypertrophic adaptations. Following a systematic search of PubMed/MEDLINE, Scoups, and SPORTDiscus databases, a total of 25 studies were deemed to meet inclusion criteria. Results showed no significant difference between higher and lower frequency on a volume-equated basis. Moreover, no significant differences were seen between frequencies of training across all categories when taking into account direct measures of growth, in those considered resistance-trained, and when segmenting into training for the upper body and lower body. Meta-regression analysis of non-volume-equated studies showed a significant effect favoring higher frequencies, although the overall difference in magnitude of effect between frequencies of 1 and 3+ days per week was modest. In conclusion, there is strong evidence that resistance training frequency does not significantly or meaningfully impact muscle hypertrophy when volume is equated. Thus, for a given training volume, individuals can choose a weekly frequency per muscle groups based on personal preference.
Topics: Adaptation, Physiological; Humans; Lower Extremity; Muscle Strength; Muscle, Skeletal; Resistance Training; Time Factors; Upper Extremity
PubMed: 30558493
DOI: 10.1080/02640414.2018.1555906 -
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 -
Sports Medicine (Auckland, N.Z.) Mar 2022Both athletes and recreational exercisers often perform relatively high volumes of aerobic and strength training simultaneously. However, the compatibility of these two... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Both athletes and recreational exercisers often perform relatively high volumes of aerobic and strength training simultaneously. However, the compatibility of these two distinct training modes remains unclear.
OBJECTIVE
This systematic review assessed the compatibility of concurrent aerobic and strength training compared with strength training alone, in terms of adaptations in muscle function (maximal and explosive strength) and muscle mass. Subgroup analyses were conducted to examine the influence of training modality, training type, exercise order, training frequency, age, and training status.
METHODS
A systematic literature search was conducted according to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. PubMed/MEDLINE, ISI Web of Science, Embase, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, and Scopus were systematically searched (12 August 2020, updated on 15 March 2021). Eligibility criteria were as follows.
POPULATION
healthy adults of any sex and age; Intervention: supervised concurrent aerobic and strength training for at least 4 weeks; Comparison: identical strength training prescription, with no aerobic training; Outcome: maximal strength, explosive strength, and muscle hypertrophy.
RESULTS
A total of 43 studies were included. The estimated standardised mean differences (SMD) based on the random-effects model were - 0.06 (95% confidence interval [CI] - 0.20 to 0.09; p = 0.446), - 0.28 (95% CI - 0.48 to - 0.08; p = 0.007), and - 0.01 (95% CI - 0.16 to 0.18; p = 0.919) for maximal strength, explosive strength, and muscle hypertrophy, respectively. Attenuation of explosive strength was more pronounced when concurrent training was performed within the same session (p = 0.043) than when sessions were separated by at least 3 h (p > 0.05). No significant effects were found for the other moderators, i.e. type of aerobic training (cycling vs. running), frequency of concurrent training (> 5 vs. < 5 weekly sessions), training status (untrained vs. active), and mean age (< 40 vs. > 40 years).
CONCLUSION
Concurrent aerobic and strength training does not compromise muscle hypertrophy and maximal strength development. However, explosive strength gains may be attenuated, especially when aerobic and strength training are performed in the same session. These results appeared to be independent of the type of aerobic training, frequency of concurrent training, training status, and age.
PROSPERO
CRD42020203777.
Topics: Adaptation, Physiological; Adult; Exercise; Humans; Infant; Infant, Newborn; Muscle Strength; Muscle, Skeletal; Resistance Training
PubMed: 34757594
DOI: 10.1007/s40279-021-01587-7 -
Journal of Sports Sciences Jun 2017The purpose of this paper was to systematically review the current literature and elucidate the effects of total weekly resistance training (RT) volume on changes in... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
The purpose of this paper was to systematically review the current literature and elucidate the effects of total weekly resistance training (RT) volume on changes in measures of muscle mass via meta-regression. The final analysis comprised 34 treatment groups from 15 studies. Outcomes for weekly sets as a continuous variable showed a significant effect of volume on changes in muscle size (P = 0.002). Each additional set was associated with an increase in effect size (ES) of 0.023 corresponding to an increase in the percentage gain by 0.37%. Outcomes for weekly sets categorised as lower or higher within each study showed a significant effect of volume on changes in muscle size (P = 0.03); the ES difference between higher and lower volumes was 0.241, which equated to a percentage gain difference of 3.9%. Outcomes for weekly sets as a three-level categorical variable (<5, 5-9 and 10+ per muscle) showed a trend for an effect of weekly sets (P = 0.074). The findings indicate a graded dose-response relationship whereby increases in RT volume produce greater gains in muscle hypertrophy.
Topics: Humans; Muscle Strength; Muscle, Skeletal; Resistance Training; Time Factors
PubMed: 27433992
DOI: 10.1080/02640414.2016.1210197 -
Journal of Human Kinetics Jan 2022The main goal of this study was to compare responses to moderate and high training volumes aimed at inducing muscle hypertrophy. A literature search on 3 databases...
The main goal of this study was to compare responses to moderate and high training volumes aimed at inducing muscle hypertrophy. A literature search on 3 databases (Pubmed, Scopus and Chocrane Library) was conducted in January 2021. After analyzing 2083 resultant articles, studies were included if they met the following inclusion criteria: a) studies were randomized controlled trials (with the number of sets explicitly reported), b) interventions lasted at least six weeks, c) participants had a minimum of one year of resistance training experience, d) participants' age ranged from 18 to 35 years, e) studies reported direct measurements of muscle thickness and/or the cross-sectional area, and f) studies were published in peer-review journals. Seven studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the qualitative analysis, whereas just six were included in the quantitative analysis. All participants were divided into three groups: "low" (<12 weekly sets), "moderate" (12-20 weekly sets) and "high" volume (>20 weekly sets). According to the results of this meta-analysis, there were no differences between moderate and high training volume responses for the quadriceps (p = 0.19) and the biceps brachii (p = 0.59). However, it appears that a high training volume is better to induce muscle mass gains in the triceps brachii (p = 0.01). According to the results of this review, a range of 12-20 weekly sets per muscle group may be an optimum standard recommendation for increasing muscle hypertrophy in young, trained men.
PubMed: 35291645
DOI: 10.2478/hukin-2022-0017 -
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 -
Journal of Strength and Conditioning... Jun 2022Kassiano, W, Nunes, JP, Costa, B, Ribeiro, AS, Schoenfeld, BJ, and Cyrino, ES. Does varying resistance exercises promote superior muscle hypertrophy and strength gains?...
Kassiano, W, Nunes, JP, Costa, B, Ribeiro, AS, Schoenfeld, BJ, and Cyrino, ES. Does varying resistance exercises promote superior muscle hypertrophy and strength gains? A systematic review. J Strength Cond Res 36(6): 1753-1762, 2022-Fitness professionals routinely employ a variety of resistance training exercises in program design as a strategy to enhance muscular adaptations. However, it remains uncertain whether such an approach offers advantages over a fixed-exercise selection. The objective of this review was to review the effects of exercise variation on muscle hypertrophy and strength. A search of the literature was conducted using PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science databases. Eight studies were identified as meeting inclusion criteria. The combined total sample of the studies was N = 241, comprising all young men. The methodological quality of included studies was considered "good" and "excellent" based on the Physiotherapy Evidence Database Scale. The available studies indicate that varying exercise selection can influence muscle hypertrophy and strength gains. Some degree of systematic variation seems to enhance regional hypertrophic adaptations and maximize dynamic strength, whereas excessive, random variation may compromise muscular gains. We conclude that exercise variation should be approached systematically with a focus on applied anatomical and biomechanical constructs; on the contrary, employing different exercises that provide a redundant stimulus, as well as excessive rotation of different exercises (i.e., high frequency of change), may actually hinder muscular adaptations.
Topics: Exercise; Humans; Hypertrophy; Male; Muscle Strength; Muscle, Skeletal; Resistance Training
PubMed: 35438660
DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000004258 -
Nutrition (Burbank, Los Angeles County,... 2022Creatine supplementation has been shown to increase measures of lean body mass (LBM); however, there often is high heterogeneity across individual studies. Therefore,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Influence of age, sex, and type of exercise on the efficacy of creatine supplementation on lean body mass: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.
Creatine supplementation has been shown to increase measures of lean body mass (LBM); however, there often is high heterogeneity across individual studies. Therefore, the aim of this study was to systematically review and meta-analyze randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating creatine supplementation on LBM. Subanalyses were performed based on age, sex, and type of exercise. Based on PRISMA guidelines, we searched the following databases: Pubmed, SPORTDiscus, Web of Science, and Scopus (PROSPERO register: CRD42020207122) until May 2022. RCTs for investigation of creatine supplementation on LBM were included. Animal studies and studies on individuals with specific diseases were excluded. Thirty-five studies were included, with 1192 participants. Overall (i.e., inclusion of all studies with and without exercise training interventions) revealed that creatine increased LBM by 0.68 kg (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.26-1.11). Subanalyses revealed greater gains in LBM when creatine was combined with resistance training (mean difference [MD], 1.10 kg; 95% CI, 0.56-1.65), regardless of age. There was no statistically significant effect of creatine on LBM when combined with mixed exercise (MD, 0.74 kg; 95% CI, -3.89 to 5.36) or without exercise (MD, 0.03 kg; 95% CI, -0.65 to 0.70). Further subanalyses found that males on creatine increased LBM by 1.46 kg (95% CI, 0.47-2.46), compared with a non-significant increase of 0.29 kg (95% CI, -0.43 to 1.01) for females. In conclusion, the addition of creatine supplementation to a resistance training program increases LBM. During a resistance training program, males on creatine respond more favorably than females.
Topics: Male; Female; Animals; Creatine; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Body Composition; Exercise; Dietary Supplements; Muscle Strength
PubMed: 35986981
DOI: 10.1016/j.nut.2022.111791 -
European Journal of Sport Science Sep 2017Although the effects of short versus long inter-set rest intervals in resistance training on measures of muscle hypertrophy have been investigated in several studies,... (Review)
Review
Although the effects of short versus long inter-set rest intervals in resistance training on measures of muscle hypertrophy have been investigated in several studies, the findings are equivocal and the practical implications remain unclear. In an attempt to provide clarity on the topic, we performed a systematic literature search of PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) electronic databases. Six studies were found to have met the inclusion criteria: (a) an experimental trial published in an English-language peer-reviewed journal; (b) the study compared the use of short (≤60 s) to long (>60 s) inter-set rest intervals in a traditional dynamic resistance exercise using both concentric and eccentric muscle actions, with the only difference in resistance training among groups being the inter-set rest interval duration; (c) at least one method of measuring changes in muscle mass was used in the study; (d) the study lasted for a minimum of four weeks, employed a training frequency of ≥2 resistance training days per week, and (e) used human participants without known chronic disease or injury. Current evidence indicates that both short and long inter-set rest intervals may be useful when training for achieving gains in muscle hypertrophy. Novel findings involving trained participants using measures sensitive to detect changes in muscle hypertrophy suggest a possible advantage for the use of long rest intervals to elicit hypertrophic effects. However, due to the paucity of studies with similar designs, further research is needed to provide a clear differentiation between these two approaches.
Topics: Humans; Hypertrophy; Muscle Strength; Muscle, Skeletal; Research Design; Resistance Training; Rest; Time Factors
PubMed: 28641044
DOI: 10.1080/17461391.2017.1340524 -
Journal of the American College of... Feb 2022Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) is a relatively common often inherited global heart disease, with complex phenotypic and genetic expression and natural history,...
Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) is a relatively common often inherited global heart disease, with complex phenotypic and genetic expression and natural history, affecting both genders and many races and cultures. Prevalence is 1:200-1:500, largely based on the disease phenotype with imaging, inferring that 750,000 Americans may be affected by HCM. However, cross-sectional data show that only a fraction are clinically diagnosed, suggesting under-recognition, with most clinicians exposed to small segments of the broad disease spectrum. Highly effective HCM management strategies have emerged, altering clinical course and substantially lowering mortality and morbidity rates. These advances underscore the importance of reliable HCM diagnosis with echocardiography and cardiac magnetic resonance. Family screening with noninvasive imaging will identify relatives with the HCM phenotype, while genetic analysis recognizes preclinical sarcomere gene carriers without left ventricular hypertrophy, but with the potential to transmit disease. Comprehensive initial patient evaluations are important for reliable diagnosis, accurate portrayal of HCM and family history, risk stratification, and distinguishing obstructive versus nonobstructive forms.
Topics: Cardiac Imaging Techniques; Cardiomyopathy, Hypertrophic; Humans
PubMed: 35086660
DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2021.12.002