Effects of Concurrent Training on 1RM and VO2 in Adults: Systematic Review with Meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pedro Gabriel Pito ◽  
Jefferson R. Cardoso ◽  
James Tufano ◽  
Débora Guariglia
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Oxygen Consumption ◽  
Strength Training ◽  
Aerobic Training ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Lower Limbs ◽  
Peak Oxygen Consumption ◽  
Concurrent Training ◽  
Strength Development ◽  
Randomized Controlled

AbstractThe purpose of this systematic review was to analyze the effects of concurrent training on one repetition maximum (1RM), maximum oxygen consumption (VO2max), and peak oxygen consumption (VO2peak) in healthy adults. The review followed PRISMA recommendations using randomized controlled trials in nine databases. Twenty-one studies met the inclusion criteria, totaling a sample of 796 subjects to perform the meta-analysis. As result, concurrent training provides similar increases in 1RM as strength training for upper limbs (standardized mean difference [SMD]: 0.12; 95% IC: [−0.18; 0.41]; p=0.43) and for the lower limbs (SMD: −0.32; 95% IC: [−0.79; 0.15]; p=0.19). Similarly, no difference was found in the aerobic capacity between the concurrent training vs. aerobic training groups ([SMD – VO2max]: −0.19; 95% IC: [−0.71; 0.33]; p=0.48 and [SMD – VO2peak]: −0.24; 95% IC: [−0.57; 0.08]; p=0.14). Based on the results found, we can affirm that a) similar to strength training, concurrent training provides maximum strength development for upper and lower limbs; and b) cardiorespiratory capacity is not impaired by concurrent training in relation to aerobic training, demonstrating the compatibility of the two training sessions.

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

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Moritz Schumann ◽  
Joshua F. Feuerbacher ◽  
Marvin Sünkeler ◽  
Nils Freitag ◽  
Bent R. Rønnestad ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Strength Training ◽  
Muscle Hypertrophy ◽  
Aerobic Training ◽  
Concurrent Training ◽  
Strength Development ◽  
Training Status ◽  
Maximal Strength ◽  
Explosive Strength ◽  
Training Frequency

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 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.

scholarly journals An updated systematic review and meta-analysis on the compatibility of concurrent aerobic and strength training for skeletal muscle size and function

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Moritz Schumann ◽  
Joshua F Feuerbacher ◽  
Marvin Sünkeler ◽  
Nils Freitag ◽  
Bent Rønnestad ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Strength Training ◽  
Muscle Hypertrophy ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Muscle Size ◽  
Concurrent Training ◽  
Strength Development ◽  
Maximal Strength ◽  
Explosive Strength ◽  
The Impact

ObjectiveThis systematic review assessed the compatibility of concurrent aerobic and strength training compared to sole strength training regarding adaptations in muscle function (maximal and explosive strength) and muscle mass. Subgroup analyses were conducted to examine the impact of training modality, exercise type, exercise order, training frequency, age, and training status.DesignA systematic literature search was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). PROSPERO: CRD42020203777Data sourcesPubMed/MEDLINE, ISI Web of Science, Embase, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus and Scopus were systematically searched (12th of August 2020, updated on the 15th of March 2021).Eligibility criteriaPopulation: Healthy adults of any sex and age; Intervention: Supervised, concurrent aerobic and strength training of at least 4 weeks; Comparison: Sole strength training with matched strength training volume; Outcome: maximal strength, explosive strength and muscle hypertrophy. ResultsA total of 43 studies were included. The estimated average standardised mean differences (SMD) based on the random-effects model were -0.06 (95% CI: -0.20, 0.09, p=0.446), -0.28 (95% CI: -0.48, - 0.08, p=0.007) and -0.01 (95% CI: -0.16, 0.18, p=0.919) for maximal strength, explosive strength and muscle hypertrophy, respectively. The attenuation in explosive strength was more pronounced when concurrent training was performed within the same session (p=0.043) compared with separating the sessions by at least 3 h (p&gt;0.05). Summary/ConclusionConcurrent 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 within the same session.

scholarly journals Strength Training to Prevent Falls in Older Adults: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (14) ◽  
pp. 3184
Author(s):  
João Gustavo Claudino ◽  
José Afonso ◽  
Javad Sarvestan ◽  
Marcel Bahia Lanza ◽  
Juliana Pennone ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Older Adults ◽  
Strength Training ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Exercise Interventions ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Falls In Older Adults

We performed a systematic review with meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to assess the effects of strength training (ST), as compared to alternative multimodal or unimodal exercise programs, on the number of falls in older adults (≥60 years). Ten databases were consulted (CINAHL, Cochrane Library, EBSCO, EMBASE, PEDro, PubMed, Scielo, Scopus, SPORTDiscus and Web of Science), without limitations on language or publication date. Eligibility criteria were as follows: RCTs with humans ≥60 years of age of any gender with one group performing supervised ST and a group performing another type of exercise training, reporting data pertaining falls. Certainty of evidence was assessed with Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). Meta-analysis used a random effects model to calculate the risk ratio (RR) for number of falls. Five RCTs with six trials were included (n = 543, 76% women). There was no difference between ST and alternative exercise interventions for falls (RR = 1.00, 95% CI 0.77–1.30, p = 0.99). The certainty of evidence was very low. No dose–response relationship could be established. In sum, ST showed comparable RR based on number of falls in older adults when compared to other multimodal or unimodal exercise modalities, but evidence is scarce and heterogeneous, and additional research is required for more robust conclusions. Registration: PROSPERO CRD42020222908.

scholarly journals The efficacy and safety of pulmonary vasodilators in patients with Fontan circulation: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

2018 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 204589401879045 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wuwan Wang ◽  
Xiankang Hu ◽  
Weitin Liao ◽  
W.H. Rutahoile ◽  
David J. Malenka ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Oxygen Consumption ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Functional Class ◽  
Mean Difference ◽  
Peak Oxygen Consumption ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Nyha Functional Class ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Pulmonary Vasodilators ◽  
Fontan Patients

No previous meta-analysis has evaluated the efficacy and safety of pulmonary vasodilators in Fontan physiology. Recent relative trials have obtained conflicting results regarding improvements in peak oxygen consumption; the relatively small number of patients in each study may be a limiting factor. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of pulmonary vasodilators in Fontan patients. Relevant studies were identified by searching the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases. Pooled outcomes were determined to assess the efficacy and safety of pulmonary vasodilators in Fontan patients. Nine randomized controlled studies involving 381 patients with Fontan circulation were included. Pulmonary vasodilator therapy led to significant improvement (mean difference = −0.39, 95% CI: [−0.72, −0.05]) in the New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class. The 6-minute walking distance (6MWD) was significantly increased by 134 m (95% CI: [86.07, 181.94]), and the peak VO2 was also significantly improved (mean difference = 1.42 ml·(kg·min)-1, 95% CI: [0.21, 2.63]). Additionally, the mean pulmonary artery pressure (mPAP) was significantly reduced (mean difference = −2.25 mmHg, 95% CI: [−3.00, −1.50]). No significant change was found in mortality or in brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) or N-terminal pronatriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP). Four studies reported no side effects and good drug tolerance, and two studies reported mild adverse effects. The present meta-analysis indicated that pulmonary vasodilators (primarily the PDE-5 inhibitor and endothelin-1 receptor antagonist) significantly improved the hemodynamics of Fontan patients, reduced the NYHA functional class and increased the 6MWD. The peak oxygen consumption was also improved. No significant change was observed in mortality or in the BNP or NT-proBNP level. Overall, the pulmonary vasodilators were well tolerated. This finding needs to be confirmed in future studies.

Interventions to Reduce Alcohol Harms in Low and Middle Income Countries: a Systematic Review and Meta Analysis

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joao Ricardo Nickenig Vissoci
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Alcohol Use ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Brain Stimulation ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
World Health ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Middle Income ◽  
Brief Motivational Intervention ◽  
Randomized Controlled

BackgroundHarmful alcohol use leads to a large burden of disease and disability which disportionately impacts LMICs. The World Health Organization and the Lancet have issued calls for this burden to be addressed, but issues remain, primarily due to gaps in information. While a variety of interventions have been shown to be effective at reducing alcohol use in HICs, their efficacy in LMICs have yet to be assessed. This systematic review describes the current published literature on alcohol interventions in LMICs and conducts a meta analysis of clinical trials evaluating interventions to reduce alcohol use and harms in LMICs.MethodsIn accordance with PRISMA guidelines we searched the electronic databases Pubmed, EMBASE, Scopus,Web of Science, Cochrane, and Psych Info. Articles were eligible if they evaluated an intervention targeting alcohol-related harm in LMICs. After a reference and citation analysis, we conducted a quality assessment per PRISMA protocol. A meta-analysis was performed on the 39 randomized controlled trials that evaluated an alcohol-related outcome.ResultsOf the 3,801 articles from the literature search, 87 articles from 25 LMICs fit the eligibility and inclusion criteria. Of these studies, 39 randomized controlled trials were included in the meta-analysis. Nine of these studies focused specifically on medication, while the others focused on brief motivational intervention, brain stimulation, AUDIT-based brief interventions, WHO ASSIST-based interventions, group based education, basic screening and interventions, brief psychological or counseling, dyadic relapse prevention, group counseling, CBT, motivational + PTSD based interview, and health promotion/awareness. Conclusion Issues in determining feasible options specific to LMICs arise from unstandardized interventions, unequal geographic distribution of intervention implementation, and uncertain effectiveness over time. Current research shows that brain stimulation, psychotherapy, and brief motivational interviews have the potential to be effective in LMIC settings, but further feasibility testing and efforts to standardize results are necessary to accurately assess their effectiveness.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document