-
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 -
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 -
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 -
PloS One 2021Rheumatoid arthritis(RA) and osteoarthritis(OA) patients showed systemic manifestations that may lead to a reduction in muscle strength, muscle mass and, consequently,...
The effects of resistance training with blood flow restriction on muscle strength, muscle hypertrophy and functionality in patients with osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis: A systematic review with meta-analysis.
INTRODUCTION
Rheumatoid arthritis(RA) and osteoarthritis(OA) patients showed systemic manifestations that may lead to a reduction in muscle strength, muscle mass and, consequently, to a reduction in functionality. On the other hand, moderate intensity resistance training(MIRT) and high intensity resistance training(HIRT) are able to improve muscle strength and muscle mass in RA and OA without affecting the disease course. However, due to the articular manifestations caused by these diseases, these patients may present intolerance to MIRT or HIRT. Thus, the low intensity resistance training combined with blood flow restriction(LIRTBFR) may be a new training strategy for these populations.
OBJECTIVE
To perform a systematic review with meta-analysis to verify the effects of LIRTBFR on muscle strength, muscle mass and functionality in RA and OA patients.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A systematic review with meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials(RCTs), published in English, between 1957-2021, was conducted using MEDLINE(PubMed), Embase and Cochrane Library. The methodological quality was assessed using Physiotherapy Evidence Database scale. The risk of bias was assessed using RoB2.0. Mean difference(MD) or standardized mean difference(SMD) and 95% confidence intervals(CI) were pooled using a random-effects model. A P<0.05 was considered statistically significant.
RESULTS
Five RCTs were included. We found no significant differences in the effects between LIRTBFR, MIRT and HIRT on muscle strength, which was assessed by tests of quadriceps strength(SMD = -0.01[-0.57, 0.54], P = 0.96; I² = 58%) and functionality measured by tests with patterns similar to walking(SMD = -0.04[-0.39, 0.31], P = 0.82; I² = 0%). Compared to HIRT, muscle mass gain after LIRTBFR was reported to be similar. When comparing LIRTBFR with low intensity resistance training without blood flow restriction(LIRT), the effect LIRTBFR was reported to be higher on muscle strength, which was evaluated by the knee extension test.
CONCLUSION
LIRTBFR appears to be a promising strategy for gains in muscle strength, muscle mass and functionality in a predominant sample of RA and OA women.
Topics: Arthritis, Rheumatoid; Blood Flow Restriction Therapy; Hemodynamics; Humans; Hypertrophy; Muscle Strength; Resistance Training
PubMed: 34758045
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0259574 -
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 -
Sports Medicine (Auckland, N.Z.) Jan 2015Protein supplements are frequently consumed by athletes and recreationally active adults to achieve greater gains in muscle mass and strength and improve physical... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Protein supplements are frequently consumed by athletes and recreationally active adults to achieve greater gains in muscle mass and strength and improve physical performance.
OBJECTIVE
This review provides a systematic and comprehensive analysis of the literature that tested the hypothesis that protein supplements accelerate gains in muscle mass and strength resulting in improvements in aerobic and anaerobic power. Evidence statements were created based on an accepted strength of recommendation taxonomy.
DATA SOURCES
English language articles were searched through PubMed and Google Scholar using protein and supplements together with performance, exercise, strength, and muscle, alone or in combination as keywords. Additional articles were retrieved from reference lists found in these papers.
STUDY SELECTION
Studies recruiting healthy adults between 18 and 50 years of age that evaluated the effects of protein supplements alone or in combination with carbohydrate on a performance metric (e.g., one repetition maximum or isometric or isokinetic muscle strength), metrics of body composition, or measures of aerobic or anaerobic power were included in this review. The literature search identified 32 articles which incorporated test metrics that dealt exclusively with changes in muscle mass and strength, 5 articles that implemented combined resistance and aerobic training or followed participants during their normal sport training programs, and 1 article that evaluated changes in muscle oxidative enzymes and maximal aerobic power.
STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS
All papers were read in detail, and examined for experimental design confounders such as dietary monitoring, history of physical training (i.e., trained and untrained), and the number of participants studied. Studies were also evaluated based on the intensity, frequency, and duration of training, the type and timing of protein supplementation, and the sensitivity of the test metrics.
RESULTS
For untrained individuals, consuming supplemental protein likely has no impact on lean mass and muscle strength during the initial weeks of resistance training. However, as the duration, frequency, and volume of resistance training increase, protein supplementation may promote muscle hypertrophy and enhance gains in muscle strength in both untrained and trained individuals. Evidence also suggests that protein supplementation may accelerate gains in both aerobic and anaerobic power.
LIMITATIONS
To demonstrate measureable gains in strength and performance with exercise training and protein supplementation, many of the studies reviewed recruited untrained participants. Since skeletal muscle responses to exercise and protein supplementation differ between trained and untrained individuals, findings are not easily generalized for all consumers who may be considering the use of protein supplements.
CONCLUSIONS
This review suggests that protein supplementation may enhance muscle mass and performance when the training stimulus is adequate (e.g., frequency, volume, duration), and dietary intake is consistent with recommendations for physically active individuals.
Topics: Adult; Athletic Performance; Dietary Carbohydrates; Dietary Proteins; Dietary Supplements; Humans; Muscle Strength; Muscle, Skeletal; Physical Education and Training; Resistance Training
PubMed: 25169440
DOI: 10.1007/s40279-014-0242-2 -
Journal of Strength and Conditioning... Apr 2021Vieira, AF, Umpierre, D, Teodoro, JL, Lisboa, SC, Baroni, BM, Izquierdo, M, and Cadore, EL. Effects of resistance training performed to failure or not to failure on... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Vieira, AF, Umpierre, D, Teodoro, JL, Lisboa, SC, Baroni, BM, Izquierdo, M, and Cadore, EL. Effects of resistance training performed to failure or not to failure on muscle strength, hypertrophy, and power output: A systematic review with meta-analysis. J Strength Cond Res 35(4): 1165-1175, 2021-The aim of this review was to summarize the evidence from longitudinal studies assessing the effects induced by resistance training (RT) performed to failure (RTF) vs. not to failure (RTNF) on muscle strength, hypertrophy, and power output in adults. Three electronic databases were searched using terms related to RTF and RTNF. Studies were eligible if they met the following criteria: randomized and nonrandomized studies comparing the effects of RTF vs. RTNF on muscle hypertrophy, maximal strength, and muscle power in adults, and RT intervention ≥6 weeks. Results were presented as standardized mean differences (SMDs) between treatments with 95% confidence intervals, and calculations were performed using random effects models. Significance was accepted when p < 0.05. Thirteen studies were included in this review. No difference was found between RTF and RTNF on maximal strength in overall analysis (SMD: -0.08; p = 0.642), but greater strength increase was observed in RTNF considering nonequalized volumes (SMD: -0.34; p = 0.048). Resistance training performed to failure showed a greater increase in muscle hypertrophy than RTNF (SMD: 0.75; p = 0.005), whereas no difference was observed considering equalized RT volumes. No difference was found between RTF and RTNF on muscle power considering overall analysis (SMD: -0.20; p = 0.239), whereas greater improvement was observed in RTNF considering nonequalized RT volumes (SMD: -0.61; p = 0.025). Resistance training not to failure may induce comparable or even greater improvements in maximal dynamic strength and power output, whereas no difference between RTF vs. RTNF is observed on muscle hypertrophy, considering equalized RT volumes.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Hypertrophy; Muscle Strength; Muscle, Skeletal; Resistance Training
PubMed: 33555822
DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000003936 -
Chronobiology International Apr 2019The present paper endeavored to elucidate the topic on the effects of morning versus evening resistance training on muscle strength and hypertrophy by conducting a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
The present paper endeavored to elucidate the topic on the effects of morning versus evening resistance training on muscle strength and hypertrophy by conducting a systematic review and a meta-analysis of studies that examined time of day-specific resistance training. This systematic review was performed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines with searches conducted through PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, and SPORTDiscus databases. The Downs and Black checklist was used for the assessment of the methodological quality of the included studies. Studies that examined the effects of time of day-specific resistance training (while equating all other training variables, such as training frequency and volume, between the groups) on muscle strength and/or muscle size were included in the present review. The random effects model was used for the meta-analysis. Meta-analyses explored (1) the differences in strength expression between morning and evening hours at baseline; (2) the differences in strength within the groups training in the morning and evening by using their post-intervention strength data from the morning and evening strength assessments; (3) the overall differences between the effects of morning and evening resistance training (with subgroup analyses conducted for studies that assessed strength in the morning hours and for the studies that assessed strength in the evening hours). Finally, a meta-analysis was also conducted for studies that assessed muscle hypertrophy. Eleven studies of moderate and good methodological quality were included in the present review. The primary findings of the review are as follows: (1) at baseline, a significant difference in strength between morning and evening is evident, with greater strength observed in the evening hours; (2) resistance training in the morning hours may increase strength assessed in the morning to similar levels as strength assessed in the evening; (3) training in the evening hours, however, maintains the general difference in strength across the day, with greater strength observed in the evening hours; (4) when comparing the effects between the groups training in the morning versus in the evening hours, increases in strength are similar in both groups, regardless of the time of day at which strength assessment is conducted; and (5) increases in muscle size are similar irrespective of the time of day at which the training is performed.
Topics: Adaptation, Physiological; Circadian Rhythm; Humans; Muscle Strength; Muscle, Skeletal; Resistance Training
PubMed: 30704301
DOI: 10.1080/07420528.2019.1567524 -
The Journal of Sports Medicine and... Aug 2022The aim of this study was to compare changes in muscle size, strength, and power between free-weight and machine-based exercises. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
INTRODUCTION
The aim of this study was to compare changes in muscle size, strength, and power between free-weight and machine-based exercises.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION
The online databases of Pubmed, Scopus, and Web of Science were each searched using the following terms: "free weights" OR barbells OR dumbbells AND machines" up until September 15, 2020. A three-level random effects meta-analytic model was used to compute effect sizes.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS
When strength was tested using a free-weight exercise, individuals training with free-weights gained more strength than those training with machines (ES: 0.655; [95% CI: 0.269, 1.041]). When strength was tested a machine-based exercise incorporated as part of the machine-based training program, individuals training with machines gained more strength than those training with free-weights (ES: -0.784 [95% CI: -1.223, -0.344]). When strength was tested using a neutral device, machines and free-weight exercises resulted in similar strength gains (ES: 0.128 [95% CI: -0303, 0.559]). There were no differences in the change in power (ES: -0.049 [95% CI: -0.557, 0.460]) or muscle hypertrophy (ES: -0.01 [95% CI: -0.525, 0.545]) between exercise modes.
CONCLUSIONS
Individuals looking to increase strength and power should consider the specificity of exercise, and how their strength and power will be tested and applied. Individuals looking to increase general strength and muscle mass to maintain health may choose whichever activity they prefer and are more likely to adhere to.
Topics: Exercise; Exercise Therapy; Humans; Muscle Strength; Muscle, Skeletal; Resistance Training
PubMed: 34609100
DOI: 10.23736/S0022-4707.21.12929-9