Influence of Resistance Training Proximity-to-Failure on Skeletal Muscle Hypertrophy: A Systematic Review with Meta-analysis

Martin C. Refalo,Eric R. Helms,Eric. T. Trexler,D. Lee Hamilton,Jackson J. Fyfe

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-022-01784-y

IF: 11.928

2022-11-07

Sports Medicine

Abstract:This systematic review with meta-analysis investigated the influence of resistance training proximity-to-failure on muscle hypertrophy.

sport sciences

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Towards an improved understanding of proximity-to-failure in resistance training and its influence on skeletal muscle hypertrophy, neuromuscular fatigue, muscle damage, and perceived discomfort: A scoping review

Martin C. Refalo,Eric R. Helms,D. Lee Hamilton,Jackson J. Fyfe

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2022.2080165

IF: 3.9428

2022-06-07

Journal of Sports Sciences

Abstract:While proximity-to-failure is considered an important resistance training (RT) prescription variable, its influence on physiological adaptations and short-term responses to RT is uncertain. Given the ambiguity in the literature, a scoping review was undertaken to summarise evidence for the influence of proximity-to-failure on muscle hypertrophy, neuromuscular fatigue, muscle damage and perceived discomfort. Literature searching was performed according to PRISMA-ScR guidelines and identified three themes of studies comparing either: i) RT performed to momentary muscular failure versus non-failure, ii) RT performed to set failure (defined as anything other than momentary muscular failure) versus non-failure, and iii) RT performed to different velocity loss thresholds. The findings highlight that no consensus definition for "failure" exists in the literature, and the proximity-to-failure achieved in "non-failure" conditions is often ambiguous and variable across studies. This poses challenges when deriving practical recommendations for manipulating proximity-to-failure in RT to achieve desired outcomes. Based on the limited available evidence, RT to set failure is likely not superior to non-failure RT for inducing muscle hypertrophy, but may exacerbate neuromuscular fatigue, muscle damage, and post-set perceived discomfort versus non-failure RT. Together, these factors may impair post-exercise recovery and subsequent performance, and may also negatively influence long-term adherence to RT. KEY POINTS This scoping review identified three broad themes of studies investigating proximity-to-failure in RT, based on the specific definition of set failure used (and therefore the research question being examined), to improve the validity of study comparisons and interpretations. There is no consensus definition for set failure in RT, and the proximity-to-failure achieved during non-failure RT is often unclear and varies both within and between studies, which together poses challenges when interpreting study findings and deriving practical recommendations regarding the influence of RT proximity-to-failure on muscle hypertrophy and other short-term responses. Based on the limited available evidence, performing RT to set failure is likely not superior to non-failure RT to maximise muscle hypertrophy, but the optimal proximity to failure in RT for muscle hypertrophy is unclear and may be moderated by other RT variables (e.g., load, volume-load). Also, RT performed to set failure likely induces greater neuromuscular fatigue, muscle damage, and perceived discomfort than non-failure RT, which may negatively influence RT performance, post-RT recovery, and long-term adherence.

sport sciences
Influence of Resistance Training Proximity-to-Failure, Determined by Repetitions-in-Reserve, on Neuromuscular Fatigue in Resistance-Trained Males and Females

Martin C. Refalo,Eric R. Helms,D. Lee Hamilton,Jackson J. Fyfe

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40798-023-00554-y

2023-02-08

Sports Medicine - Open

Abstract:Abstract Background This study examined the influence of proximity-to-failure in resistance training (RT), using subjective repetitions-in-reserve (RIR) prediction, on neuromuscular fatigue and perceptual responses. Methods Twenty-four resistance-trained males ( n = 12) and females ( n = 12) completed three experimental trials in a randomised order, each involving six RT sets (barbell bench press) with 75% 1-RM performed to either momentary muscular failure (FAIL), 1-RIR, or 3-RIR. Changes in lifting velocity with a fixed load were assessed from pre-exercise to post-exercise with the aim of quantifying acute neuromuscular fatigue (4 min post-exercise) and the associated time course of recovery (24 and 48 h post-exercise), and from the first to final set performed. Perceptual responses to RT were assessed at multiple time points during and following RT. Results Decreases in lifting velocity at 4 min post-exercise were greater for FAIL ( − 25%) versus 1-RIR ( − 13%) and 3-RIR ( − 8%), with greater decreases for male ( − 29%) versus female ( − 21%) participants following FAIL. At 24 h post-exercise, decreases in lifting velocity were greater for FAIL ( − 3%) and 1-RIR ( − 3%) versus 3-RIR (+ 2%), with all between-protocol differences diminishing at 48 h post-exercise. Loss of lifting velocity from the first to final set was greater for FAIL ( − 22%) versus 1-RIR ( − 9%) and 3-RIR ( − 6%), with a greater lifting velocity loss from the first to final set for males ( − 15%) versus females ( − 9%). As proximity-to-failure neared, ratings of perceived discomfort, exertion, and muscle soreness increased, general feelings worsened, and perceived recovery decreased. Conclusion These findings support a linear relationship between RT proximity-to-failure and both acute neuromuscular fatigue and negative perceptual responses, which may influence long-term physiological adaptations and adherence to RT.

sport sciences
Strength and Hypertrophy Adaptations Between Low- vs. High-Load Resistance Training: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Brad J Schoenfeld,Jozo Grgic,Dan Ogborn,James W Krieger,Grgic, Jozo,Schoenfeld, Brad J.,Krieger, James W.,Ogborn, Dan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000002200

2019-10-03

Abstract:Abstract: 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.

sport sciences
Effects of Resistance Training Volume on Physical Function, Lean Body Mass and Lower-Body Muscle Hypertrophy and Strength in Older Adults: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis of 151 Randomised Trials

Régis Radaelli,Anderson Rech,Talita Molinari,Anna Maria Markarian,Maria Petropoulou,Urs Granacher,Tibor Hortobágyi,Pedro Lopez

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-024-02123-z

IF: 11.928

2024-10-17

Sports Medicine

Abstract:The optimal prescription and precise recommendations of resistance training volume for older adults is unclear in the current literature. In addition, the interactions between resistance training volume and program duration as well as physical health status remain to be determined when assessing physical function, muscle size and hypertrophy and muscle strength adaptations in older adults.

sport sciences
Does Aerobic Training Promote the Same Skeletal Muscle Hypertrophy as Resistance Training? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Jozo Grgic,Luke C. Mcllvenna,Jackson J. Fyfe,Filip Sabol,David J. Bishop,Brad J. Schoenfeld,Zeljko Pedisic

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-018-1008-z

IF: 11.928

2018-10-20

Sports Medicine

Abstract:BackgroundCurrently, there are inconsistencies in the body of evidence for the effects of resistance and aerobic training on skeletal muscle hypertrophy.ObjectiveWe aimed to systematically review and meta-analyze current evidence on the differences in hypertrophic adaptation to aerobic and resistance training, and to discuss potential reasons for the disparities noted in the literature.MethodsThe PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines were followed for this review. The Downs and Black checklist was used for the assessment of methodological quality of the included studies. A random-effects meta-analysis was employed. In total, three analyses were performed: (1) for whole-muscle knee extensor data; (2) for type I fiber cross-sectional area; and (3) for type II fiber cross-sectional area.ResultsThe final number of included studies in the present review is 21. All studies were of good or moderate methodological quality. The meta-analysis for whole-muscle hypertrophy resulted in a significant pooled difference (p < 0.001) in responses between the aerobic training and resistance training interventions. The pooled Hedge’s g, favoring resistance over aerobic training, was 0.66 (95% confidence interval 0.41–90; I2 = 0%). The meta-analysis for type I fiber cross-sectional area data resulted in a significant pooled difference (p < 0.001) between the aerobic training and resistance training groups. The pooled Hedge’s g, favoring resistance training over aerobic training, was 0.99 (95% confidence interval 0.44–1.54; I2 = 24%). The meta-analysis of type II fiber cross-sectional area data resulted in a significant pooled difference (p < 0.001) between the aerobic training and resistance training groups. The pooled Hedge’s g, favoring resistance training over aerobic training, was 1.44 (95% confidence interval 0.93–1.95; I2 = 8%).ConclusionsThe results of this systematic review and meta-analysis suggest that single-mode aerobic training does not promote the same skeletal muscle hypertrophy as resistance training. This finding was consistent with measurements of muscle hypertrophy both at the whole-muscle and myofiber levels. While these results are specific to the knee extensor musculature, it can be hypothesized that similar results would be seen for other muscle groups as well.

sport sciences
Magnitude of Muscle Strength and Mass Adaptations Between High-Load Resistance Training Versus Low-Load Resistance Training Associated with Blood-Flow Restriction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Manoel E. Lixandrão,Carlos Ugrinowitsch,Ricardo Berton,Felipe C. Vechin,Miguel S. Conceição,Felipe Damas,Cleiton A. Libardi,Hamilton Roschel

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-017-0795-y

IF: 11.928

2017-10-17

Sports Medicine

Abstract:BackgroundLow-load resistance training (< 50% of one-repetition maximum [1RM]) associated with blood-flow restriction (BFR-RT) has been thought to promote increases in muscle strength and mass. However, it remains unclear if the magnitude of these adaptations is similar to conventional high-load resistance training (> 65% 1RM; HL-RT).ObjectiveTo compare the effects of HL- versus BFR-RT on muscle adaptations using a systematic review and meta-analysis procedure.MethodsStudies were identified via electronic databases based on the following inclusion criteria: (a) pre- and post-training assessment of muscular strength; (b) pre- and post-training assessment of muscle hypertrophy; (c) comparison of HL-RT vs. BFR-RT; (d) score ≥ 4 on PEDro scale; (e) means and standard deviations (or standard errors) are reported from absolute values or allow estimation from graphs. If this last criterion was not met, data were directly requested from the authors.ResultsThe main results showed higher increases in muscle strength for HL- as compared with BFR-RT, even when considering test specificity, absolute occlusion pressure, cuff width, and occlusion pressure prescription. Regarding the hypertrophic response, results revealed similar effects between HL- and BFR-RT, regardless of the absolute occlusion pressure, cuff width, and occlusion pressure prescription.ConclusionsBased on the present data, maximum muscle strength may be optimized by specific training methods (i.e., HL-RT) while both HL- and BFR-RT seem equally effective in increasing muscle mass. Importantly, BFR-RT is a valid and effective approach for increasing muscle strength in a wide spectrum of ages and physical capacity, although it may seem particularly of interest for those individuals with physical limitations to engage in HL-RT.

sport sciences
Effects of Resistance Training on Muscle Size and Strength in Very Elderly Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Jozo Grgic,Alessandro Garofolini,John Orazem,Filip Sabol,Brad J. Schoenfeld,Zeljko Pedisic

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-020-01331-7

IF: 11.928

2020-08-01

Sports Medicine

Abstract:Effects of resistance training on muscle strength and hypertrophy are well established in adults and younger elderly. However, less is currently known about these effects in the very elderly (i.e., 75 years of age and older).

sport sciences
The impact of resistance training volume on muscle size and lean body mass: to infinity and beyond?

Daniel Souza,Matheus Barbalho,Paulo Gentil

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5114/hm.2020.94199

2020-01-01

Human Movement

Abstract:PurposeTo conduct a narrative review of relevant studies comparing the impact of different resistance training (RT) volumes on muscle hypertrophy and lean body massMethodsStudies were eligible for inclusion if they were clinical trials comparing the effects of different RT volumes on muscle hypertrophy and body composition. Overall, 22 articles were considered relevant and included in this review after an extensive literature hand search of the following databases: SciELO, PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, SPORTDiscus, LILACS, and Web of ScienceResultsOf the 22 studies, 6 showed greater effects of high-volume, 1 showed greater effects of low-volume, and the remaining studies showed no difference between high- and low-volume RT. Five studies that revealed better results for higher volume were performed in untrained people, 1 concerned trained people, and the study that presented better results for lower volume referred to trained subjects. High heterogeneity was observed in the studies’ methodology regarding training protocols, population characteristics, length of intervention, supervision status, and measures of muscle size and body compositionConclusionsOur findings suggest that muscle size and lean body mass are not mainly affected by RT volume and that other variables, especially the intensity of effort, should be considered in RT prescription. In this sense, increased volume could be beneficial, especially when training with low effort or when effort is not well controlled. However, it is important to note that there seems to be a ceiling effect and the use of higher volumes might be detrimental to muscle hypertrophy over a long term.
Potential Moderators of the Effects of Blood Flow Restriction Training on Muscle Strength and Hypertrophy: A Meta-analysis Based on a Comparison with High-Load Resistance Training

Yu Geng,Xueping Wu,Yong Zhang,Meng Zhang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40798-024-00719-3

2024-05-22

Abstract:Background: While it has been examined whether there are similar magnitudes of muscle strength and hypertrophy adaptations between low-load resistance training combined with blood-flow restriction training (BFR-RT) and high-load resistance training (HL-RT), some important potential moderators (e.g., age, sex, upper and lower limbs, frequency and duration etc.) have yet to be analyzed further. Furthermore, training status, specificity of muscle strength tests (dynamic versus isometric or isokinetic) and specificity of muscle mass assessments (locations of muscle hypertrophy assessments) seem to exhibit different effects on the results of the analysis. The role of these influencing factors, therefore, remains to be elucidated. Objectives: The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the effects of BFR- versus HL-RT on muscle adaptations, when considering the influence of population characteristics (training status, sex and age), protocol characteristics (upper or lower limbs, duration and frequency) and test specificity. Methods: Studies were identified through database searches based on the following inclusion criteria: (1) pre- and post-training assessment of muscular strength; (2) pre- and post-training assessment of muscular hypertrophy; (3) comparison of BFR-RT vs. HL-RT; (4) score ≥ 4 on PEDro scale; (5) means and standard deviations (or standard errors) are reported or allow estimation from graphs. In cases where the fifth criterion was not met, the data were requested directly from the authors. Results: The main finding of the present study was that training status was an important influencing factor in the effects of BFR-RT. The trained individuals may gain greater muscle strength and hypertrophy with BFR-RT as compared to HL-RT. However, the results showed that the untrained individuals experienced similar muscle mass gains and superior muscle strength gains in with HL-RT compared to BFR-RT. Conclusion: Compared to HL-RT, training status is an important factor influencing the effects of the BFR-RT, in which trained can obtain greater muscle strength and hypertrophy gains in BFR-RT, while untrained individuals can obtain greater strength gains and similar hypertrophy in HL-RT.
The effects of resistance training to near failure on strength, hypertrophy, and motor unit adaptations in previously trained adults

Bradley A. Ruple,Daniel L. Plotkin,Morgan A. Smith,Joshua S. Godwin,Casey L. Sexton,Mason C. McIntosh,Nicholas J. Kontos,Jonathan P. Beausejour,Jason I. Pagan,Juan P. Rodriguez,Daniel Sheldon,Kevan S. Knowles,Cleiton A. Libardi,Kaelin C. Young,Matt S. Stock,Michael D. Roberts

DOI: https://doi.org/10.14814/phy2.15679

2023-05-07

Physiological Reports

Abstract:Limited data exist examining how resistance training to failure affects applied outcomes and single motor unit characteristics in previously trained individuals. Here, we show that training near failure versus not training near failure for 5 weeks similarly increases strength and does not affect muscle hypertrophy. However, training near failure increases lower‐threshold motor unit firing rates, and further research is needed to determine the significance of this finding. Limited research exists examining how resistance training to failure affects applied outcomes and single motor unit characteristics in previously trained individuals. Herein, resistance‐trained adults (24 ± 3 years old, self‐reported resistance training experience was 6 ± 4 years, 11 men and 8 women) were randomly assigned to either a low‐repetitions‐in‐reserve (RIR; i.e., training near failure, n = 10) or high‐RIR (i.e., not training near failure, n = 9) group. All participants implemented progressive overload during 5 weeks where low‐RIR performed squat, bench press, and deadlift twice weekly and were instructed to end each training set with 0–1 RIR. high‐RIR performed identical training except for being instructed to maintain 4–6 RIR after each set. During week 6, participants performed a reduced volume‐load. The following were assessed prior to and following the intervention: (i) vastus lateralis (VL) muscle cross‐sectional area (mCSA) at multiple sites; (ii) squat, bench press, and deadlift one‐repetition maximums (1RMs); and (iii) maximal isometric knee extensor torque and VL motor unit firing rates during an 80% maximal voluntary contraction. Although RIR was lower in the low‐ versus high‐RIR group during the intervention (p
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

Brad Jon Schoenfeld,Jozo Grgic,James Krieger

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2018.1555906

IF: 3.9428

2018-12-17

Journal of Sports Sciences

Abstract: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.

sport sciences
Muscle Adaptations to High-Load Training and Very Low-Load Training With and Without Blood Flow Restriction

Matthew B. Jessee,Samuel L. Buckner,J. Grant Mouser,Kevin T. Mattocks,Scott J. Dankel,Takashi Abe,Zachary W. Bell,John P. Bentley,Jeremy P. Loenneke

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2018.01448

IF: 4

2018-10-16

Frontiers in Physiology

Abstract:An inability to lift loads great enough to disrupt muscular blood flow may impair the ability to fatigue muscles, compromising the hypertrophic response. It is unknown what level of blood flow restriction (BFR) pressure, if any, is necessary to reach failure at very low-loads [i.e., 15% one-repetition maximum (1RM)]. The purpose of this study was to investigate muscular adaptations following resistance training with a very low-load alone (15/0), with moderate BFR (15/40), or with high BFR (15/80), and compare them to traditional high-load (70/0) resistance training. Using a within/between subject design, healthy young participants (n = 40) performed four sets of unilateral knee extension to failure (up to 90 repetitions/set), twice per week for 8 weeks. Data presented as mean change (95% CI). There was a condition by time interaction for 1RM (p < 0.001), which increased for 70/0 [3.15 (2.04,4.25) kg] only. A condition by time interaction (p = 0.028) revealed greater changes in endurance for 15/80 [6 (4,8) repetitions] compared to 15/0 [4 (2,6) repetitions] and 70/0 [4 (2,5) repetitions]. There was a main effect of time for isometric MVC [change = 10.51 (3.87,17.16) Nm, p = 0.002] and isokinetic MVC at 180°/s [change = 8.61 (5.54,11.68) Nm, p < 0.001], however there was no change in isokinetic MVC at 60°/s [2.45 (-1.84,6.74) Nm, p = 0.261]. Anterior and lateral muscle thickness was assessed at 30, 40, 50, and 60% of the upper leg. There was no condition by time interaction for muscle thickness sites (all p ≥ 0.313). There was a main effect of time for all sites, with increases over time (all p < 0.001). With the exception of the 30% lateral site (p = 0.059) there was also a main effect of condition (all p < 0.001). Generally, 70/0 was greater. Average weekly volume increased for all conditions across the 8 weeks, and was greatest for 70/0 followed by 15/0, 15/40, then 15/80. With the exception of 1RM, changes in strength and muscle size were similar regardless of load or restriction. The workload required to elicit these changes lowered with increased BFR pressure. These findings may be pertinent to rehabilitative settings, future research, and program design.

physiology
The Influence of Frequency, Intensity, Volume and Mode of Strength Training on Whole Muscle Cross-Sectional Area in Humans

Mathias Wernbom,Jesper Augustsson,Roland Thomeé,Roland Thome??

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/00007256-200737030-00004

IF: 11.928

2007-01-01

Sports Medicine

Abstract:Strength training is an important component in sports training and rehabilitation. Quantification of the dose-response relationships between training variables and the outcome is fundamental for the proper prescription of resistance training. The purpose of this comprehensive review was to identify dose-response relationships for the development of muscle hypertrophy by calculating the magnitudes and rates of increases in muscle cross-sectional area induced by varying levels of frequency, intensity and volume, as well as by different modes of strength training.Computer searches in the databases MEDLINE, SportDiscus® and CJNAHL® were performed as well as hand searches of relevant journals, books and reference lists. The analysis was limited to the quadriceps femoris and the elbow flexors, since these were the only muscle groups that allowed for evaluations of dose-response trends. The modes of strength training were classified as dynamic external resistance (including free weights and weight machines), accommodating resistance (e.g. isokinetic and semi-isokinetic devices) and isometric resistance. The subcategories related to the types of muscle actions used. The results demonstrate that given sufficient frequency, intensity and volume of work, all three types of muscle actions can induce significant hypertrophy at an impressive rate and that, at present, there is insufficient evidence for the superiority of any mode and/or type of muscle action over other modes and types of training. Tentative dose-response relationships for each variable are outlined, based on the available evidence, and interactions between variables are discussed. In addition, recommendations for training and suggestions for further research are given.

sport sciences
The influence of specific resistance training methodological prescription variables on strength development under hypoxic conditions: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Cristina Benavente,Belén Feriche

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2024.2425536

IF: 3.9428

2024-11-24

Journal of Sports Sciences

Abstract:A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted focused on the impact of specific methodological prescription variables in resistance training (R T ) programming on muscle strength under hypoxic conditions. Searches of Pubmed-Medline, Web of Science, Sport Discuss and the Cochrane Library compared the effect of R T on strength development under hypoxic (RTH) vs. normoxic (RTN) conditions through the 1-repetition maximum (1RM) test. Apart from the overall meta-analysis, several R T methodological prescription variables available in the included studies (set end point, total weekly training volume, type of exercise, region of the body measured or type of routine) were analysed. Thirteen studies met the inclusion criteria. The overall analyses showed trivial differences in 1RM favouring RTH over RTN (SMD = 0.18 [CI: 0.04; 0.31]; p = 0.030). Sub-analyses revealed that a R T programme of a non-full-body routine, including 9 or more sets per exercise/week of multi-joint exercises performed to non-failure, favoured RTH for enhancing 1RM ( p < 0.10). In conclusion, the evidence ratified a trivial benefit of RTH over RTN for muscle strength gains after a R T period. However, the handling of specific R T methodological prescription variables can slightly improve strength development outcomes in hypoxia.

sport sciences
Resistance training prescription for muscle strength and hypertrophy in healthy adults: a systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis

Brad S Currier,Jonathan C Mcleod,Laura Banfield,Joseph Beyene,Nicky J Welton,Alysha C D'Souza,Joshua A J Keogh,Lydia Lin,Giulia Coletta,Antony Yang,Lauren Colenso-Semple,Kyle J Lau,Alexandria Verboom,Stuart M Phillips

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2023-106807

IF: 18.4793

2023-07-06

British Journal of Sports Medicine

Abstract: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.

sport sciences
The Effects of Resistance Training on Sport-Specific Performance of Elite Athletes: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis

Hubert Makaruk,Marcin Starzak,Piotr Tarkowski,Jerzy Sadowski,Jason Winchester

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5114/jhk/185877

2024-04-15

Journal of Human Kinetics

Abstract:This systematic review examines the influence of resistance training (RT) on the performance outcomes of elite athletes. Adhering to PRISMA guidelines, a comprehensive search across PubMed, Scopus, SPORTDiscus, and Web of Science databases was conducted, considering studies up to November 19, 2023. The inclusion criteria were elite athletes involved in high-level competitions. Studies were categorized by the competitive level among elite athletes, athlete's sex, performance outcomes, and a training modality with subgroup analyses based on these factors. Thirty-five studies involving 777 elite athletes were included. The results of the meta-analysis revealed a large and significant overall effect of RT on sport-specific performance (standardized mean difference, SMD = 1.16, 95% CI: 0.65, 1.66), with substantial heterogeneity (I2 = 84%). Subgroup analyses revealed differential effects based on the competitive level, the type of sport-specific outcomes, and sex. National elite athletes showed more pronounced (large SMD) benefits from RT compared to international elite athletes (small SMD). Global outcomes revealed a medium but non-significant (p > 0.05) SMD, while local outcomes showed a large SMD. Notably, female athletes exhibited a large SMD, though not reaching statistical significance (p > 0.05), probably due to limited study participants. No significant (p > 0.05) differences were found between heavy and light load RT. Resistance training is effective in improving sport-specific performance in elite athletes, with its effectiveness modulated by the competitive level, the type of the performance outcome, and athlete's sex. The findings underscore the need for personalized RT regimens and further research, particularly in female elite athletes, as well as advanced RT methods for international elite athletes.

sport sciences
Resistance Training Volume Enhances Muscle Hypertrophy but Not Strength in Trained Men

Brad J Schoenfeld,Bret Contreras,James Krieger,Jozo Grgic,Kenneth Delcastillo,Ramon Belliard,Andrew Alto,Brad J. Schoenfeld

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1249/MSS.0000000000001764

2019-10-04

Abstract:Purpose The purpose of this study was to evaluate muscular adaptations between low-, moderate-, and high-volume resistance training protocols in resistance-trained men. Methods Thirty-four healthy resistance-trained men were randomly assigned to one of three experimental groups: a low-volume group performing one set per exercise per training session (n = 11), a moderate-volume group performing three sets per exercise per training session (n = 12), or a high-volume group performing five sets per exercise per training session (n = 11). Training for all routines consisted of three weekly sessions performed on nonconsecutive days for 8 wk. Muscular strength was evaluated with one repetition maximum (RM) testing for the squat and bench press. Upper-body muscle endurance was evaluated using 50% of subjects bench press 1RM performed to momentary failure. Muscle hypertrophy was evaluated using B-mode ultrasonography for the elbow flexors, elbow extensors, mid-thigh, and lateral thigh. Results Results showed significant preintervention to postintervention increases in strength and endurance in all groups, with no significant between-group differences. Alternatively, while all groups increased muscle size in most of the measured sites from preintervention to postintervention, significant increases favoring the higher-volume conditions were seen for the elbow flexors, mid-thigh, and lateral thigh. Conclusions Marked increases in strength and endurance can be attained by resistance-trained individuals with just three 13-min weekly sessions over an 8-wk period, and these gains are similar to that achieved with a substantially greater time commitment. Alternatively, muscle hypertrophy follows a dose–response relationship, with increasingly greater gains achieved with higher training volumes.

sport sciences
Resistance training, skeletal muscle hypertrophy, and glucose homeostasis: how related are they? A Systematic review and Meta-analysis

J. Paquin,R. Tremblay,H. Islam,E. Riesco,A. Marcotte-Chénard,I.J. Dionne

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1139/apnm-2024-0128

2024-11-03

Applied Physiology Nutrition and Metabolism

Abstract:Applied Physiology, Nutrition, and Metabolism, Ahead of Print. Resistance training (RT) promotes skeletal muscle (Skm) hypertrophy, increases muscular strength, and improves metabolic health. Whether changes in fat-free mass (FFM; a surrogate marker of muscle hypertrophy) moderate RT-induced improvements in glucose homeostasis has not been determined, despite extensive research on the benefits of RT for health and performance. The aim of this meta-analysis is to examine whether RT-induced Skm hypertrophy drives improvements in glucose metabolism and to explore confounders, such as biological sex and training parameters. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed using variance random effects. Meta-regressions were performed for confounding factors depending on the heterogeneity (I2). Analyses from 33 intervention studies revealed significant within-study increases in FFM with a moderate effect size (within-studies: (effect size; ES = 0.24 [0.10; 0.39]; p = 0.002; I2 = 56%) and a tendency for significance when compared with control groups (ES = 0.42 [−0.04–0.88]; p = 0.07). Within-study significant increases in glucose tolerance (2 h glucose: ES = −0.3 [−0.50; −0.11]; p < 0.01; I2 = 43%; glucose area under the curve (AUC): −0.40 [−0.66; −0.13] I2 = 76.1%; p < 0.01) and insulin sensitivity (ES = 0.38 [0.13; 0.62]; I2 = 53.0%; p < 0.01) were also apparent with RT. When compared to control groups, there was no significant difference in 2 h glucose, nor in glucose AUC from baseline in RT intervention groups. Meta-regression analyses failed to consistently reveal increases in FFM as a moderator of glucose homeostasis. Other mixed-effect models were also unsuccessful to unveil biological sex or training parameters as moderators of FFM increases and glucose homeostasis changes. Although Skm hypertrophy and improvements in glycemic control occur concurrently during RT, changes in these variables were not always related. Well-controlled trials including detailed description of training parameters are needed to inform RT guidelines for improving metabolic health. Registration and protocol number (Prospero): CRD42023397362.

nutrition & dietetics,physiology,sport sciences
Compatibility of Concurrent Aerobic and Strength Training for Skeletal Muscle Size and Function: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Moritz Schumann,Joshua F. Feuerbacher,Marvin Sünkeler,Nils Freitag,Bent R. Rønnestad,Kenji Doma,Tommy R. Lundberg

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-021-01587-7

IF: 11.928

2021-11-10

Sports Medicine

Abstract:Abstract 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 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.

sport sciences
The influence of resistance training on neuromuscular function in middle-aged and older adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

Emily James,Simon Nichols,Stuart Goodall,Kirsty M Hicks,Alasdair F O'Doherty,Kirsty M. Hicks,Alasdair F. O'Doherty

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.exger.2021.111320

IF: 4.253

2021-07-01

Experimental Gerontology

Abstract:BackgroundDeterioration of neuromuscular function is a major mechanism of age-related strength loss. Resistance training (RT) improves muscle strength and mass. However, the effects of RT on neuromuscular adaptations in middle-aged and older adults are unclear.MethodsRandomised controlled RT interventions (≥2 weeks) involving adults aged ≥50 years were identified. Primary outcome measures were voluntary activation (VA), electromyographic (EMG) activity during maximal voluntary contraction (MVC), and antagonist coactivation. Data were pooled using a weighted random-effect model. Sub-analyses were conducted by muscle or muscle group and health status of participants. Sensitivity analysis was based on study quality. P < 0.05 indicated statistical significance.ResultsTwenty-seven studies were included. An effect was found for VA (standardised mean difference [SMD] 0.54, 0.01 to 1.07, P = 0.04), This result remained significant following sensitivity analysis involving only studies that were low risk of bias. Subgroup analyses showed an effect for plantar flexor VA (SMD 1.13, 0.20 to 2.06, P = 0.02) and VA in healthy participants (SMD 1.04, 0.32 to 1.76, P = 0.004). There was no effect for EMG activity or antagonist coactivation of any muscle group (P > 0.05).DiscussionResistance training did not alter EMG activity or antagonist coactivation in older adults. Sensitivity analysis resulted in the effect for VA remaining significant, indicating that this finding was not dependent on study quality. Studies predominantly involved healthy older adults (78%), limiting the generalisability of these findings to clinical cohorts. Future research should determine the effects of RT on neuromuscular function in people with sarcopenia and age-related syndromes.

geriatrics & gerontology,gerontology

Influence of Resistance Training Proximity-to-Failure on Skeletal Muscle Hypertrophy: A Systematic Review with Meta-analysis

Towards an improved understanding of proximity-to-failure in resistance training and its influence on skeletal muscle hypertrophy, neuromuscular fatigue, muscle damage, and perceived discomfort: A scoping review

Influence of Resistance Training Proximity-to-Failure, Determined by Repetitions-in-Reserve, on Neuromuscular Fatigue in Resistance-Trained Males and Females

Strength and Hypertrophy Adaptations Between Low- vs. High-Load Resistance Training: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Effects of Resistance Training Volume on Physical Function, Lean Body Mass and Lower-Body Muscle Hypertrophy and Strength in Older Adults: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis of 151 Randomised Trials

Does Aerobic Training Promote the Same Skeletal Muscle Hypertrophy as Resistance Training? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Magnitude of Muscle Strength and Mass Adaptations Between High-Load Resistance Training Versus Low-Load Resistance Training Associated with Blood-Flow Restriction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Effects of Resistance Training on Muscle Size and Strength in Very Elderly Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

The impact of resistance training volume on muscle size and lean body mass: to infinity and beyond?

Potential Moderators of the Effects of Blood Flow Restriction Training on Muscle Strength and Hypertrophy: A Meta-analysis Based on a Comparison with High-Load Resistance Training

The effects of resistance training to near failure on strength, hypertrophy, and motor unit adaptations in previously trained adults

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

Muscle Adaptations to High-Load Training and Very Low-Load Training With and Without Blood Flow Restriction

The Influence of Frequency, Intensity, Volume and Mode of Strength Training on Whole Muscle Cross-Sectional Area in Humans

The influence of specific resistance training methodological prescription variables on strength development under hypoxic conditions: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Resistance training prescription for muscle strength and hypertrophy in healthy adults: a systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis

The Effects of Resistance Training on Sport-Specific Performance of Elite Athletes: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis

Resistance Training Volume Enhances Muscle Hypertrophy but Not Strength in Trained Men

Resistance training, skeletal muscle hypertrophy, and glucose homeostasis: how related are they? A Systematic review and Meta-analysis

Compatibility of Concurrent Aerobic and Strength Training for Skeletal Muscle Size and Function: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

The influence of resistance training on neuromuscular function in middle-aged and older adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.