-
International Journal of Environmental... Oct 2021The load in resistance training is considered to be a critical variable for neuromuscular adaptations. Therefore, it is important to assess the effects of applying... (Review)
Review
Effects of Resistance Training Performed with Different Loads in Untrained and Trained Male Adult Individuals on Maximal Strength and Muscle Hypertrophy: A Systematic Review.
The load in resistance training is considered to be a critical variable for neuromuscular adaptations. Therefore, it is important to assess the effects of applying different loads on the development of maximal strength and muscular hypertrophy. The aim of this study was to systematically review the literature and compare the effects of resistance training that was performed with low loads versus moderate and high loads in untrained and trained healthy adult males on the development of maximal strength and muscle hypertrophy during randomized experimental designs. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines (2021) were followed with the eligibility criteria defined according to participants, interventions, comparators, outcomes, and study design (PICOS): (P) healthy males between 18 and 40 years old, (I) interventions performed with low loads, (C) interventions performed with moderate or high loads, (O) development of maximal strength and muscle hypertrophy, and (S) randomized experimental studies with between- or within-subject parallel designs. The literature search strategy was performed in three electronic databases (Embase, PubMed, and Web of Science) on 22 August 2021. Twenty-three studies with a total of 563 participants (80.6% untrained and 19.4% trained) were selected. The studies included both relative and absolute loads. All studies were classified as being moderate-to-high methodological quality, although only two studies had a score higher than six points. The main findings indicated that the load magnitude that was used during resistance training influenced the dynamic strength and isometric strength gains. In general, comparisons between the groups (i.e., low, moderate, and high loads) showed higher gains in 1RM and maximal voluntary isometric contraction when moderate and high loads were used. In contrast, regarding muscle hypertrophy, most studies showed that when resistance training was performed to muscle failure, the load used had less influence on muscle hypertrophy. The current literature shows that gains in maximal strength are more pronounced with high and moderate loads compared to low loads in healthy adult male populations. However, for muscle hypertrophy, studies indicate that a wide spectrum of loads (i.e., 30 to 90% 1RM) may be used for healthy adult male populations.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Humans; Hypertrophy; Male; Men; Muscle Strength; Muscle, Skeletal; Resistance Training; Young Adult
PubMed: 34769755
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph182111237 -
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.) Apr 2015Maximizing the hypertrophic response to resistance training (RT) is thought to be best achieved by proper manipulation of exercise program variables including exercise... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Maximizing the hypertrophic response to resistance training (RT) is thought to be best achieved by proper manipulation of exercise program variables including exercise selection, exercise order, length of rest intervals, intensity of maximal load, and training volume. An often overlooked variable that also may impact muscle growth is repetition duration. Duration amounts to the sum total of the concentric, eccentric, and isometric components of a repetition, and is predicated on the tempo at which the repetition is performed.
OBJECTIVE
We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine whether alterations in repetition duration can amplify the hypertrophic response to RT.
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 training tempos in dynamic exercise using both concentric and eccentric repetitions; (3) measured morphologic changes via biopsy, imaging, and/or densitometry; (4) had a minimum duration of 6 weeks; (5) carried out training to muscle failure, defined as the inability to complete another concentric repetition while maintaining proper form; and (6) used human subjects who did not have a chronic disease or injury. A total of eight studies were identified that investigated repetition duration in accordance with the criteria outlined.
RESULTS
Results indicate that hypertrophic outcomes are similar when training with repetition durations ranging from 0.5 to 8 s.
CONCLUSIONS
From a practical standpoint it would seem that a fairly wide range of repetition durations can be employed if the primary goal is to maximize muscle growth. Findings suggest that training at volitionally very slow durations (>10s per repetition) is inferior from a hypertrophy standpoint, although a lack of controlled studies on the topic makes it difficult to draw definitive conclusions.
Topics: Adaptation, Physiological; Humans; Muscle Fatigue; Muscle Strength; Muscle, Skeletal; Resistance Training; Time Factors
PubMed: 25601394
DOI: 10.1007/s40279-015-0304-0 -
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 (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 -
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 -
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 -
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 -
Scandinavian Journal of Medicine &... Apr 2019Isometric training is used in the rehabilitation and physical preparation of athletes, special populations, and the general public. However, little consensus exists...
Isometric training is used in the rehabilitation and physical preparation of athletes, special populations, and the general public. However, little consensus exists regarding training guidelines for a variety of desired outcomes. Understanding the adaptive response to specific loading parameters would be of benefit to practitioners. The objective of this systematic review, therefore, was to detail the medium- to long-term adaptations of different types of isometric training on morphological, neurological, and performance variables. Exploration of the relevant subject matter was performed through MEDLINE, PubMed, SPORTDiscus, and CINAHL databases. English, full-text, peer-reviewed journal articles and unpublished doctoral dissertations investigating medium- to long-term (≥3 weeks) adaptations to isometric training in humans were identified. These studies were evaluated further for methodological quality. Twenty-six research outputs were reviewed. Isometric training at longer muscle lengths (0.86%-1.69%/week, ES = 0.03-0.09/week) produced greater muscular hypertrophy when compared to equal volumes of shorter muscle length training (0.08%-0.83%/week, ES = -0.003 to 0.07/week). Ballistic intent resulted in greater neuromuscular activation (1.04%-10.5%/week, ES = 0.02-0.31/week vs 1.64%-5.53%/week, ES = 0.03-0.20/week) and rapid force production (1.2%-13.4%/week, ES = 0.05-0.61/week vs 1.01%-8.13%/week, ES = 0.06-0.22/week). Substantial improvements in muscular hypertrophy and maximal force production were reported regardless of training intensity. High-intensity (≥70%) contractions are required for improving tendon structure and function. Additionally, long muscle length training results in greater transference to dynamic performance. Despite relatively few studies meeting the inclusion criteria, this review provides practitioners with insight into which isometric training variables (eg, joint angle, intensity, intent) to manipulate to achieve desired morphological and neuromuscular adaptations.
Topics: Adaptation, Physiological; Humans; Isometric Contraction; Muscle, Skeletal; Resistance Training; Tendons
PubMed: 30580468
DOI: 10.1111/sms.13375