scholarly journals A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis of the Effect of Resistance Training on Whole-Body Muscle Growth in Healthy Adult Males

2020 ◽  
Vol 17 (4) ◽  
pp. 1285 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pedro J. Benito ◽  
Rocío Cupeiro ◽  
Domingo J. Ramos-Campo ◽  
Pedro E. Alcaraz ◽  
Jacobo Á. Rubio-Arias
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Resistance Training ◽  
Muscle Mass ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Muscle Growth ◽  
Fat Free Mass ◽  
Muscle Size ◽  
Whole Body ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Significant Variable

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to study all published clinical trial interventions, determined the magnitude of whole-body hypertrophy in humans (healthy males) and observed the individual responsibility of each variable in muscle growth after resistance training (RT). Searches were conducted in PubMed, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library from database inception until 10 May 2018 for original articles assessing the effects of RT on muscle size after interventions of more than 2 weeks of duration. Specifically, we obtain the variables fat-free mass (FMM), lean muscle mass (LMM) and skeletal muscle mass (SMM). The effects on outcomes were expressed as mean differences (MD) and a random-effects meta-analysis and meta-regressions determined covariates (age, weight, height, durations in weeks…) to explore the moderate effect related to the participants and characteristics of training. One hundred and eleven studies (158 groups, 1927 participants) reported on the effects of RT for muscle mass. RT significantly increased muscle mass (FFM+LMM+SMM; Δ1.53 kg; 95% CI [1.30, 1.76], p < 0.001; I2 = 0%, p = 1.00). Considering the overall effects of the meta-regression, and taking into account the participants’ characteristics, none of the studied covariates explained any effect on changes in muscle mass. Regarding the training characteristics, the only significant variable that explained the variance of the hypertrophy was the sets per workout, showing a significant negative interaction (MD; estimate: 1.85, 95% CI [1.45, 2.25], p < 0.001; moderator: -0.03 95% CI [−0.05, −0.001] p = 0.04). In conclusion, RT has a significant effect on the improvement of hypertrophy (~1.5 kg). The excessive sets per workout affects negatively the muscle mass gain.

scholarly journals Effects of different exercise training modes on muscle strength and physical performance in older people with sarcopenia: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Linqian Lu ◽  
Lin Mao ◽  
Yuwei Feng ◽  
Barbara E. Ainsworth ◽  
Yu Liu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Resistance Training ◽  
Muscle Strength ◽  
Exercise Training ◽  
Older People ◽  
Physical Performance ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Whole Body ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Randomized Controlled

Abstract Objective We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to clarify the effects of different exercise modes (resistance training [RT], whole body vibration training [WBVT], and mixed training [MT, resistance training combined with other exercises such as balance, endurance and aerobic training]) on muscle strength (knee extension strength [KES]) and physical performance (Timed Up and Go [TUG], gait speed [GS] and the Chair Stand [CS]) in older people with sarcopenia. Method All studies published from January 2010 to March 2021 on the effects of exercise training in older people with sarcopenia were retrieved from 6 electronic databases: Pubmed, Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science, the China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and Wanfang Database. Two researchers independently extracted and evaluated studies that met inclusion and exclusion criteria. Pooled analyses for pre- and post- outcome measurements were performed using Review Manager 5.4 with standardized mean differences (SMDs) and fixed-effect models. Result Twenty-six studies (25 randomized controlled trails [RCTs] and one non-randomized controlled trail) were included in this study with 1191 older people with sarcopenia (mean age 60.6 ± 2.3 to 89.5 ± 4.4). Compared with a control group, RT and MT significantly improved KES (RT, SMD = 1.36, 95% confidence intervals [95% CI]: 0.71 to 2.02, p < 0.0001, I2 = 72%; MT, SMD = 0.62, 95% CI: 0.29 to 0.95, p = 0.0002, I2 = 56%) and GS (RT, SMD = 2.01, 95% CI: 1.04 to 2.97, p < 0.0001, I2 = 84%; MT, SMD = 0.69, 95% CI: 0.29 to 1.09, p = 0.008, I2 = 81%). WBVT showed no changes in KES (SMD = 0.65, 95% CI: − 0.02 to 1.31, p = 0.06, I2 = 80%) or GS (SMD = 0.12, 95% CI: − 0.15 to 0.39, p = 0.38, I2 = 0%). TUG times were significantly improved with all exercise training modes (SMD = -0.66, 95% CI: − 0.94 to − 0.38, p < 0.00001, I2 = 60%). There were no changes in CS times with any of the exercise training modes (SMD = 0.11, 95% CI: − 0.36 to 0.57, p = 0.65, I2 = 87%). Conclusions In older people with sarcopenia, KES and GS can be improved by RT and MT, but not by WBVT. All three training modes improved TUG times, but not improved CS times.

scholarly journals Effects of vibration therapy on muscle mass, muscle strength and physical function in older adults with sarcopenia: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Shuang Wu ◽  
Hong-Ting Ning ◽  
Su-Mei Xiao ◽  
Ming-Yue Hu ◽  
Xin-Yin Wu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Older Adults ◽  
Muscle Strength ◽  
Physical Function ◽  
Muscle Mass ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Whole Body Vibration ◽  
Whole Body ◽  
Local Vibration ◽  
Vibration Therapy

Abstract Background Sarcopenia, a progressive loss of muscle mass and function with advancing age, is a prevalent condition among older adults. As most older people are too frail to do intensive exercise and vibration therapy has low risk and ease of participation, it may be more readily accepted by elderly individuals. However, it remains unclear whether vibration therapy would be effective among older adults with sarcopenia. This systematic review and meta-analysis examined the effect of vibration therapy including local vibration therapy and whole-body vibration therapy, for enhancing muscle mass, muscle strength and physical function in older people with sarcopenia. Methods A systematic literature search was conducted in March 2019 in the following 5 electronic databases: PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, PEDro, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, with no restriction of language or the year of publication. Randomized controlled trials and quasi-experimental studies examining effects of vibration therapy on muscle mass, muscle strength or physical function in older adults with sarcopenia were included in this systematic review. Two reviewers independently assessed the methodological quality of the selected studies. Results Of the 1972 identified studies, seven publications from six studies involving 223 participants were included in this systematic review. Five of them conducted whole-body vibration therapy, while two conducted local vibration therapy. A meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies indicated that muscle strength significantly increased after whole-body vibration therapy (SMD 0.69, 95% CI 0.28 to 1.11, I2 = 0%, P = 0.001) and local vibration therapy (SMD 3.78, 95% CI 2.29 to 5.28, P < 0.001). Physical performance measured by the sit-to-stand test and the timed-up-and-go test were significantly improved after the intervention (SMD -0.79, 95% CI − 1.21 to − 0.37, I2 = 0%, P < 0.001) and SMD -0.83, 95% CI − 1.56 to − 0.11, I2 = 64%, P = 0.02, respectively). Conclusion Vibration therapy could be a prospective strategy for improving muscle strength and physical performance in older adults with sarcopenia. However, due to the limited number of the included studies, caution is needed when interpreting these results. More well-designed, large sample size studies should be conducted to further explore and validate the benefits of vibration therapy for this population.

scholarly journals Resistance Training with Blood Flow Restriction Compared to Traditional Resistance Training on Strength and Muscle Mass in Non-Active Older Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (21) ◽  
pp. 11441
Author(s):  
Darío Rodrigo-Mallorca ◽  
Andrés Felipe Loaiza-Betancur ◽  
Pablo Monteagudo ◽  
Cristina Blasco-Lafarga ◽  
Iván Chulvi-Medrano
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Older Adults ◽  
Blood Flow ◽  
Resistance Training ◽  
Muscle Mass ◽  
High Intensity ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Small Sample ◽  
Blood Flow Restriction ◽  
Flow Restriction

Low-intensity training with blood flow restriction (LI-BFR) has been suggested as an alternative to high-intensity resistance training for the improvement of strength and muscle mass, becoming advisable for individuals who cannot assume such a load. The systematic review aimed to determine the effectiveness of the LI-BFR compared to dynamic high-intensity resistance training on strength and muscle mass in non-active older adults. A systematic review was conducted according to the Cochrane Handbook and reportedly followed the PRISMA statement. MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science Core Collection, and Scopus databases were searched between September and October 2020. Two reviewers independently selected the studies, extracted data, assessed the risk of bias and the quality of evidence using the GRADE approach. Twelve studies were included in the qualitative synthesis. Meta-analysis pointed out significant differences in maximal voluntary contraction (MVC): SMD 0.61, 95% CI [0.10, 1.11], p = 0.02, I2 71% p < 0.0001; but not in the repetition maximum (RM): SMD 0.07, 95% CI [−0.25, 0.40], p = 0.66, I2 0% p < 0.53; neither in the muscle mass: SMD 0.62, 95% CI [−0.09, 1.34], p = 0.09, I2 59% p = 0.05. Despite important limitations such as scarce literature regarding LI-BFR in older adults, the small sample size in most studies, the still differences in methodology and poor quality in many of them, this systematic review and meta-analysis revealed a positive benefit in non-active older adults. LI- BFR may induce increased muscular strength and muscle mass, at least at a similar extent to that in the traditional high-intensity resistance training.

scholarly journals The effects of resistance training with blood flow restriction on muscle strength, muscle hypertrophy and functionality in patients with osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis: A systematic review with meta-analysis

PLoS ONE ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (11) ◽  
pp. e0259574
Author(s):  
Leonardo Peterson dos Santos ◽  
Rafaela Cavalheiro do Espírito Santo ◽  
Thiago Rozales Ramis ◽  
Juliana Katarina Schoer Portes ◽  
Rafael Mendonça da Silva Chakr ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Blood Flow ◽  
Resistance Training ◽  
Muscle Strength ◽  
Muscle Mass ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Blood Flow Restriction ◽  
Flow Restriction ◽  
Low Intensity

Introduction Rheumatoid arthritis(RA) and osteoarthritis(OA) patients showed systemic manifestations that may lead to a reduction in muscle strength, muscle mass and, consequently, to a reduction in functionality. On the other hand, moderate intensity resistance training(MIRT) and high intensity resistance training(HIRT) are able to improve muscle strength and muscle mass in RA and OA without affecting the disease course. However, due to the articular manifestations caused by these diseases, these patients may present intolerance to MIRT or HIRT. Thus, the low intensity resistance training combined with blood flow restriction(LIRTBFR) may be a new training strategy for these populations. Objective To perform a systematic review with meta-analysis to verify the effects of LIRTBFR on muscle strength, muscle mass and functionality in RA and OA patients. Materials and methods A systematic review with meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials(RCTs), published in English, between 1957–2021, was conducted using MEDLINE(PubMed), Embase and Cochrane Library. The methodological quality was assessed using Physiotherapy Evidence Database scale. The risk of bias was assessed using RoB2.0. Mean difference(MD) or standardized mean difference(SMD) and 95% confidence intervals(CI) were pooled using a random-effects model. A P<0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results Five RCTs were included. We found no significant differences in the effects between LIRTBFR, MIRT and HIRT on muscle strength, which was assessed by tests of quadriceps strength(SMD = -0.01[-0.57, 0.54], P = 0.96; I² = 58%) and functionality measured by tests with patterns similar to walking(SMD = -0.04[-0.39, 0.31], P = 0.82; I² = 0%). Compared to HIRT, muscle mass gain after LIRTBFR was reported to be similar. When comparing LIRTBFR with low intensity resistance training without blood flow restriction(LIRT), the effect LIRTBFR was reported to be higher on muscle strength, which was evaluated by the knee extension test. Conclusion LIRTBFR appears to be a promising strategy for gains in muscle strength, muscle mass and functionality in a predominant sample of RA and OA women.

scholarly journals Protein Intakes Greater Than vs. at the RDA Differentially Affect Lean Body Mass Change to Purposeful Catabolic and Anabolic Stressors: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (P08-075-19)

2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Yu Wang ◽  
Joshua Hudson ◽  
Robert Bergia ◽  
Wayne Campbell
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Resistance Training ◽  
Lean Mass ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Final Analysis ◽  
Energy Restriction ◽  
Mass Change ◽  
Whole Body ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Body Mass Change

Abstract Objectives Under stressful conditions such as energy restriction (ER) and resistance training (RT), recommended dietary allowance (RDA) for protein of 0.8 g/kg/d may no longer be an appropriate recommendation. Higher protein intakes are proposed to help promote, preserve, or attenuate the loss of lean mass. No known meta-analysis has been published previously that compares protein intakes greater than the RDA vs. the RDA as a control group. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the effects of protein intake greater than versus at the RDA on changes in whole-body lean mass. Methods Three researchers independently screened 1531 articles published through August 2018 using PubMed, Scopus, CINAHL, and Cochrane databases, with additional articles identified through previously published review articles. Randomized-controlled, parallel studies at least 6 weeks long with apparently healthy adults (> = 19 years old) were eligible for data extraction. (PROSPERO, CRD 42018106532). Results Data from 19 studies resulting in 23 comparisons of lean mass changes were included in the final analysis. This abstract presents sub-analyses for comparisons with catabolic and anabolic stimuli, specifically ER and/or RT, respectively. Among all comparisons, protein intakes greater than the RDA attenuated lean mass loss after ER [0.41 kg (0.15, 0.67); WMD (95% CI), n = 15 comparisons], but did not influence lean mass change without ER [0.23 kg (−0.44, 0.89), n = 8]. Protein intakes greater than the RDA increased lean mass after RT [0.77 kg (0.23, 1.31), n = 3], but not influence change in lean mass without RT [0.29 kg (−0.04, 0.62, n = 20]. Conclusions Protein intakes greater than the RDA positively influence changes in lean mass when adults are purposefully stressed by the catabolic stimulus of dietary energy restriction and/or the anabolic stimulus of resistance training. The RDA for protein is adequate for adults during non-stressed states. Funding Sources Purdue University Lynn Fellowship. No external funding was provided for this review.

Betaine supplementation fails to improve body composition: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-21
Author(s):  
Damoon Ashtary-Larky ◽  
Reza Bagheri ◽  
Grant M. Tinsley ◽  
Omid Asbaghi ◽  
Sara Salehpour ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Body Composition ◽  
Body Mass ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Fat Free Mass ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Dietary Intakes ◽  
Fat Percentage ◽  
Trial Duration ◽  
Betaine Supplementation

Abstract Previous studies evaluating the effects of betaine supplementation on body composition offer contradictory findings. This systematic review and meta-analysis assessed the effects of betaine supplementation on body composition indices (body mass [BM], body mass index [BMI], body fat percentage [BFP], fat mass [FM], fat-free mass [FFM]), and dietary intakes. Studies examining the effects of betaine supplementation on body composition and dietary intakes published up to August 2021 were identified through PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Embase, SCOPUS, and Ovid databases. Betaine supplementation failed to significantly affect BM [(WMD: −0.40 kg, 95% CI: −1.46 to 0.64), p=0.447], BMI [(WMD: −0.05 kg/m2, 95% CI: −0.36 to 0.25), p=0.719], BFP [(WMD: 0.26%, 95% CI: −0.82 to 1.36), p=0.663], FM [(WMD: −0.57 kg, 95% CI: −2.14 to 0.99), p=0.473], and FFM [(WMD: 0.61 kg, 95% CI: −1.27 to 2.49), p=0.527]. Subgroup analyses based on participant’s age (<40 and >40 years), sex, BMI, trial duration (<8 and ≥8 weeks), betaine supplementation dosage (<4 and ≥4 g), and health status (healthy or unhealthy) demonstrated similar results. Other than a potential negligible increase in protein intake (WMD: 3.56 g, 95% CI: 0.24 to 6.88, p=0.035), no changes in dietary intakes were observed following betaine supplementation compared to control. The present systematic review and meta-analysis does not show any beneficial effects of betaine supplementation on body composition indices (BM, BMI, FM, and FFM).

scholarly journals Efficacy of Whole-Body Electromyostimulation (WB-EMS) on Body Composition and Muscle Strength in Non-athletic Adults. A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wolfgang Kemmler ◽  
Mahdieh Shojaa ◽  
James Steele ◽  
Joshua Berger ◽  
Michael Fröhlich ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Body Composition ◽  
Muscle Mass ◽  
Body Fat ◽  
Fat Mass ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Whole Body ◽  
Body Fat Mass ◽  
Strength Parameters ◽  
Trunk Extension

This systematic review and meta-analysis set out to determine the efficacy on whole-body electromyostimulation (WB-EMS) on body composition and strength parameters in non-athletic cohorts. A systematic review of the literature according to the PRISMA statement included (a) controlled trials, (b) WB-EMS trials with at least one exercise and one control group, (c) WB-EMS as primary physical intervention, (d) WB-EMS with at least six electrodes covering most muscle groups, (e) non-athletic cohorts. We searched eight electronic databases up to June 30, 2020, without language restrictions. Standardized mean differences (SMD) for muscle mass parameters, total body fat mass, maximum leg extension, and trunk extension strength were defined as outcome measures. In summary, 16 studies with 19 individual WB-EMS groups representing 897 participants were included. Studies vary considerably with respect to age, BMI, and physical conditions. Impulse protocols of the studies were roughly comparable, but training frequency (1–5 sessions/week) and intervention length (6–54 weeks) differed between the studies. SMD average was 1.23 (95%-CI: 0.71–1.76) for muscle mass, 0.98 (0.74–1.22) for maximum leg, and 1.08 (0.78–1.39) for maximum trunk extension strength changes (all p &lt; 0.001). SMD for body fat changes (−0.40, [−0.98 to 0.17]), however, did not reach significance. I2 and Q-statistics revealed substantial heterogeneity of muscle and fat mass changes between the trials. However, rank and regression tests did not indicate positive evidence for small-study bias and funnel plot asymmetries. This work provided further evidence for significant, large-sized effects of WB-EMS on muscle mass and strength parameters, but not on body fat mass.Clinical Trial Registration:ClinicalTrials.gov, PROSPERO; ID: CRD42020183059.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document