-
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 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 -
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 -
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 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 -
Journal of the International Society of... 2018Caffeine is commonly used as an ergogenic aid. Literature about the effects of caffeine ingestion on muscle strength and power is equivocal. The aim of this systematic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Caffeine is commonly used as an ergogenic aid. Literature about the effects of caffeine ingestion on muscle strength and power is equivocal. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to summarize results from individual studies on the effects of caffeine intake on muscle strength and power.
METHODS
A search through eight databases was performed to find studies on the effects of caffeine on: (i) maximal muscle strength measured using 1 repetition maximum tests; and (ii) muscle power assessed by tests of vertical jump. Meta-analyses of standardized mean differences (SMD) between placebo and caffeine trials from individual studies were conducted using the random effects model.
RESULTS
Ten studies on the strength outcome and ten studies on the power outcome met the inclusion criteria for the meta-analyses. Caffeine ingestion improved both strength (SMD = 0.20; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.03, 0.36; = 0.023) and power (SMD = 0.17; 95% CI: 0.00, 0.34; = 0.047). A subgroup analysis indicated that caffeine significantly improves upper (SMD = 0.21; 95% CI: 0.02, 0.39; = 0.026) but not lower body strength (SMD = 0.15; 95% CI: -0.05, 0.34; = 0.147).
CONCLUSION
The meta-analyses showed significant ergogenic effects of caffeine ingestion on maximal muscle strength of upper body and muscle power. Future studies should more rigorously control the effectiveness of blinding. Due to the paucity of evidence, additional findings are needed in the female population and using different forms of caffeine, such as gum and gel.
Topics: Athletes; Caffeine; Humans; Muscle Strength; Muscle, Skeletal; Performance-Enhancing Substances; Sports Nutritional Physiological Phenomena
PubMed: 29527137
DOI: 10.1186/s12970-018-0216-0 -
Journal of Bodywork and Movement... Jan 2022Spinal cord injuries (SCI) have physiological, emotional, and economic consequences in the lives of affected people. Resistance training (RT) is efficient in improving... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
INTRODUCTION
Spinal cord injuries (SCI) have physiological, emotional, and economic consequences in the lives of affected people. Resistance training (RT) is efficient in improving several physiological factors, quality of life, and body composition.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION
Due to the scarce literature on RT analyzed separately, the objective of this systematic review is to analyze the effects of RT with no association to other techniques, in aspects related to the quality of life and body composition of people The research for the articles was carried out in the Pubmed, Cochrane, and Web of Science databases using the terms "Spinal cord injuries" AND "Resistance Training" OR "Strength training". Given the scarcity of evidence on the subject, no deadline was set for the study to be eligible for analysis.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS
The research for the articles was carried out in November of 2020 and returned 349 results, of which 220 remained after the elimination of duplicates, with 145 being excluded after title analysis. Seventy-five abstracts were analyzed and 70 studies were excluded, leaving 5 complete articles for a thorough analysis with SCI. Despite the I being 87%, the meta-analysis revealed an overall effect of Z = 4.79 (P < 0.00001).
CONCLUSIONS
After analyzing the main results, we concluded that RT is feasible, secure, and promotes significant improvements in maximum strength, local muscular endurance, power, and muscular isometric voluntary contraction in people with spinal cord injury.
Topics: Body Composition; Humans; Muscle Strength; Quality of Life; Resistance Training; Spinal Cord Injuries
PubMed: 35248264
DOI: 10.1016/j.jbmt.2021.09.031 -
Journal of Cachexia, Sarcopenia and... Apr 2022We performed a systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression to determine if increasing daily protein ingestion contributes to gaining lean body mass (LBM),... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
We performed a systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression to determine if increasing daily protein ingestion contributes to gaining lean body mass (LBM), muscle strength, and physical/functional test performance in healthy subjects. A protocol for the present study was registered (PROSPERO, CRD42020159001), and a systematic search of Medline, Embase, CINAHL, and Web of Sciences databases was undertaken. Only randomized controlled trials (RCT) where participants increased their daily protein intake and were healthy and non-obese adults were included. Research questions focused on the main effects on the outcomes of interest and subgroup analysis, splitting the studies by participation in a resistance exercise (RE), age (<65 or ≥65 years old), and levels of daily protein ingestion. Three-level random-effects meta-analyses and meta-regressions were conducted on data from 74 RCT. Most of the selected studies tested the effects of additional protein ingestion during RE training. The evidence suggests that increasing daily protein ingestion may enhance gains in LBM in studies enrolling subjects in RE (SMD [standardized mean difference] = 0.22, 95% CI [95% confidence interval] 0.14:0.30, P < 0.01, 62 studies, moderate level of evidence). The effect on LBM was significant in subjects ≥65 years old ingesting 1.2-1.59 g of protein/kg/day and for younger subjects (<65 years old) ingesting ≥1.6 g of protein/kg/day submitted to RE. Lower-body strength gain was slightly higher by additional protein ingestion at ≥1.6 g of protein/kg/day during RE training (SMD = 0.40, 95% CI 0.09:0.35, P < 0.01, 19 studies, low level of evidence). Bench press strength is slightly increased by ingesting more protein in <65 years old subjects during RE training (SMD = 0.18, 95% CI 0.03:0.33, P = 0.01, 32 studies, low level of evidence). The effects of ingesting more protein are unclear when assessing handgrip strength and only marginal for performance in physical function tests. In conclusion, increasing daily protein ingestion results in small additional gains in LBM and lower body muscle strength gains in healthy adults enrolled in resistance exercise training. There is a slight effect on bench press strength and minimal effect performance in physical function tests. The effect on handgrip strength is unclear.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Exercise; Exercise Therapy; Humans; Muscle Strength; Muscles; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Resistance Training
PubMed: 35187864
DOI: 10.1002/jcsm.12922 -
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 -
Ageing Research Reviews May 2021Engaging in physical activity (PA) and avoiding sedentary behavior (SB) are important for healthy ageing with benefits including the mitigation of disability and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
The association of objectively measured physical activity and sedentary behavior with skeletal muscle strength and muscle power in older adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
Engaging in physical activity (PA) and avoiding sedentary behavior (SB) are important for healthy ageing with benefits including the mitigation of disability and mortality. Whether benefits extend to key determinants of disability and mortality, namely muscle strength and muscle power, is unclear.
AIMS
This systematic review aimed to describe the association of objective measures of PA and SB with measures of skeletal muscle strength and muscle power in community-dwelling older adults.
METHODS
Six databases were searched from their inception to June 21, 2020 for articles reporting associations between objectively measured PA and SB and upper body or lower body muscle strength or muscle power in community dwelling adults aged 60 years and older. An overview of associations was visualized by effect direction heat maps, standardized effect sizes were estimated with albatross plots and summarized in box plots. Articles reporting adjusted standardized regression coefficients (β) were included in meta-analyses.
RESULTS
A total of 112 articles were included representing 43,796 individuals (range: 21 to 3726 per article) with a mean or median age from 61.0 to 88.0 years (mean 56.4 % female). Higher PA measures and lower SB were associated with better upper body muscle strength (hand grip strength), upper body muscle power (arm curl), lower body muscle strength, and lower body muscle power (chair stand test). Median standardized effect sizes were consistently larger for measures of PA and SB with lower compared to upper body muscle strength and muscle power. The meta-analyses of adjusted β coefficients confirmed the associations between total PA (TPA), moderate-to-vigorous PA (MVPA) and light PA (LPA) with hand grip strength (β = 0.041, β = 0.057, and β = 0.070, respectively, all p ≤ 0.001), and TPA and MVPA with chair stand test (β = 0.199 and β = 0.211, respectively, all p ≤ 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS
Higher PA and lower SB are associated with greater skeletal muscle strength and muscle power, particularly with the chair stand test.
Topics: Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Exercise; Female; Hand Strength; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Muscle Strength; Muscle, Skeletal; Sedentary Behavior
PubMed: 33607291
DOI: 10.1016/j.arr.2021.101266