scholarly journals Muscle hypertrophy and ladder‐based resistance training for rodents: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (17) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ítalo Lourenço ◽  
Walter Krause Neto ◽  
Laura Santos Portella Amorim ◽  
Vagner Moraes Munhoz Ortiz ◽  
Vitor Lopes Geraldo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Resistance Training ◽  
Muscle Hypertrophy ◽  
Meta Analysis

Effect of Repetition Duration During Resistance Training on Muscle Hypertrophy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2015 ◽  
Vol 45 (4) ◽  
pp. 577-585 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brad J. Schoenfeld ◽  
Dan I. Ogborn ◽  
James W. Krieger
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Resistance Training ◽  
Muscle Hypertrophy ◽  
Meta Analysis

Muscle hypertrophy and strength gains after resistance training with different volume matched loads: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

2022 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leonardo Henrique Fernandes Carvalho ◽  
Roberto Moriggi Junior ◽  
Júlia Barreira ◽  
Brad Jon Schoenfeld ◽  
John Orazem ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Resistance Training ◽  
Muscle Hypertrophy ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Dynamic Strength ◽  
Pooled Analysis ◽  
High Load ◽  
Mean Difference ◽  
Volume Load ◽  
Standardized Mean Difference

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 1RM or >35 RM), low (LL30%-59% of 1RM, or 16–35 RM), moderate (ML60%-79% of 1RM, or 8 -15RM) and high load (HL≥80% of 1RM, or ≤7 RM) with matched volume loads (sets x reps x 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. Results from LL and VLL indicated little difference. A pooled analysis of the standardized mean difference for hypertrophy outcomes across all studies showed no differences between the training loads. Our findings indicate that, when volume load is equated between conditions, the highest loads induce superior dynamic strength gains. Alternatively, hypertrophic adaptations are similar irrespective of the magnitude of load. NOVELTY BULLETS: • Training with higher loads elicits greater gains in 1RM muscle strength when compared to lower loads, even when volume load is equated between conditions. • Muscle hypertrophy is similar irrespective of the magnitude of load, even when volume load is equated between conditions.

scholarly journals Effects of linear and daily undulating periodized resistance training programs on measures of muscle hypertrophy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PeerJ ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 5 ◽  
pp. e3695 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jozo Grgic ◽  
Pavle Mikulic ◽  
Hrvoje Podnar ◽  
Zeljko Pedisic
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Resistance Training ◽  
Muscle Hypertrophy ◽  
Web Of Science ◽  
Training Programs ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Future Studies ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Intervention Trials ◽  
Theses And Dissertations

BackgroundPeriodization is an important component of resistance training programs. It is meant to improve adherence to the training regimen, allow for constant progression, help in avoiding plateaus, and reduce occurrence and severity of injuries. Previous findings regarding the effects of different periodization models on measures of muscle hypertrophy are equivocal. To provide a more in-depth look at the topic, we undertook a systematic review of the literature and a meta-analysis of intervention trials comparing the effects of linear periodization (LP) and daily undulating periodization (DUP) resistance training programs on muscle hypertrophy.Materials and MethodsA comprehensive literature search was conducted through PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, SPORTDiscus, Networked Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations (NDLTD) and Open Access Theses and Dissertations (OATD).ResultsThe pooled standardized mean difference (Cohen’s d) from 13 eligible studies for the difference between the periodization models on muscle hypertrophy was −0.02 (95% confidence interval [−0.25, 0.21],p = 0.848).ConclusionsThe meta-analysis comparing LP and DUP indicated that the effects of the two periodization models on muscle hypertrophy are likely to be similar. However, more research is needed in this area, particularly among trained individuals and clinical populations. Future studies may benefit from using instruments that are more sensitive for detecting changes in muscle mass, such as ultrasound or magnetic resonance imaging.

scholarly journals Effects of Low-to-Moderate Doses of Anabolic Steroids on Lipid Profile and Muscle Hypertrophy in Resistance Training Practitioners: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mário César Carvalho Tenório ◽  
Cláudio Luiz Paz ◽  
Flávia Valladares ◽  
Marcelo Guimarães ◽  
Cloud Kennedy Couto de Sá ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Resistance Training ◽  
Lipid Profile ◽  
Muscle Hypertrophy ◽  
Anabolic Steroids ◽  
Meta Analysis

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

2018 ◽  
Vol 49 (2) ◽  
pp. 233-254 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jozo Grgic ◽  
Luke C. Mcllvenna ◽  
Jackson J. Fyfe ◽  
Filip Sabol ◽  
David J. Bishop ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Skeletal Muscle ◽  
Resistance Training ◽  
Muscle Hypertrophy ◽  
Aerobic Training ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Skeletal Muscle Hypertrophy

scholarly journals Is power training effective to produce muscle hypertrophy in older adults? A systematic review and meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 45 (9) ◽  
pp. 1031-1040
Author(s):  
Lucas B.R. Orssatto ◽  
Ewertton S. Bezerra ◽  
Anthony J. Shield ◽  
Gabriel S. Trajano
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Older Adults ◽  
Resistance Training ◽  
Analytical Approach ◽  
Muscle Hypertrophy ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Significant Heterogeneity ◽  
Power Training ◽  
Similar Extent ◽  
High Quality

Power training has been suggested to be effective in improving strength, power, and functional capacity in older adults. However, there is still a lack of systematic investigations reporting its effectiveness for muscle hypertrophy. Thus, this study investigated the effect of power training on muscle hypertrophy and compared its magnitude with traditional moderate-velocity resistance training in older adults. A systematic search was conducted to identify clinical trials investigating the effect of power training on muscle hypertrophy (power training vs. control) and/or comparing the effect of power training versus moderate-velocity resistance training for a meta-analytical approach. Ten studies comparing power training to control conditions and 9 studies comparing power training to moderate-velocity resistance training were selected. Three studies were classified as high quality and 2 were preregistered. The meta-analysis showed that power training was superior for muscle hypertrophy compared with control condition (n = 8 studies; standardised mean difference (SMD) = 0.31; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.04, 0.58; p = 0.029), and resulted in similar hypertrophy compared with moderate-velocity resistance training (n = 7 studies; SMD = 0.07; 95% CI = –0.18, 0.32; p = 0.50). No significant heterogeneity was observed (p = 0.46 and 0.54, and I2 = 0% and 0%, respectively). Our data suggest that power training is effective for muscle hypertrophy in older adults, with similar effectiveness as moderate-velocity resistance training. (PROSPERO registration no.: CRD42019128951.) Novelty It is known that power training might be superior to moderate-velocity resistance training for function improvements in older adults, but there was no meta-analysis investigating its effect on muscle hypertrophy. Power training is effective to induce muscle hypertrophy in older adults to a similar extent as moderate-velocity resistance training.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document