Max Coleman, Khalil Harrison, Roberto Arias, Ericka Johnson, J. Grgic, J. Orazem, B. Schoenfeld
{"title":"Muscular Adaptations in Drop Set vs. Traditional Training: A meta-analysis","authors":"Max Coleman, Khalil Harrison, Roberto Arias, Ericka Johnson, J. Grgic, J. Orazem, B. Schoenfeld","doi":"10.47206/ijsc.v2i1.135","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The purpose of this paper was to systematically review and meta-analyze the effects of drop set training (DS) vs. traditional training (TRAD) on measures of muscle strength and hypertrophy. We carried out a comprehensive search on PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, and CINAHL databases for studies that satisfied the following criteria: (a) had a randomized experimental design (either within- or between-group); (b) directly compared DS versus TRAD; (c) assessed changes in muscular strength and/or hypertrophy; (d) had a training protocol that lasted a minimum of 6 weeks, and; (e) involved apparently healthy participants. We employed a robust variance meta-analysis model, with adjustments for small samples. Study quality was assessed by the Downs and Black checklist. A total of 5 studies met inclusion criteria. Qualitative assessment indicated the included studies were of moderate to good quality. For the strength outcomes results indicated a trivial point estimate of the effect size (ES) with a relatively narrow precision for the confidence interval (CI) estimate (0.07; 95% CI = -0.14, 0.29). Similarly, results for the hypertrophy outcomes indicated a trivial point estimate of the ES with a relatively narrow precision for the CI estimate (0.08; 95% CI = -0.08, 0.24). In conclusion, DS and TRAD appear to have similar effects on muscular strength and hypertrophy. This would seem to indicate that both DS and TRAD are viable options for promoting muscular adaptations; DS may provide a more time-efficient alternative for achieving results.","PeriodicalId":170948,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Strength and Conditioning","volume":"159 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"7","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Strength and Conditioning","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.47206/ijsc.v2i1.135","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7
Abstract
The purpose of this paper was to systematically review and meta-analyze the effects of drop set training (DS) vs. traditional training (TRAD) on measures of muscle strength and hypertrophy. We carried out a comprehensive search on PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, and CINAHL databases for studies that satisfied the following criteria: (a) had a randomized experimental design (either within- or between-group); (b) directly compared DS versus TRAD; (c) assessed changes in muscular strength and/or hypertrophy; (d) had a training protocol that lasted a minimum of 6 weeks, and; (e) involved apparently healthy participants. We employed a robust variance meta-analysis model, with adjustments for small samples. Study quality was assessed by the Downs and Black checklist. A total of 5 studies met inclusion criteria. Qualitative assessment indicated the included studies were of moderate to good quality. For the strength outcomes results indicated a trivial point estimate of the effect size (ES) with a relatively narrow precision for the confidence interval (CI) estimate (0.07; 95% CI = -0.14, 0.29). Similarly, results for the hypertrophy outcomes indicated a trivial point estimate of the ES with a relatively narrow precision for the CI estimate (0.08; 95% CI = -0.08, 0.24). In conclusion, DS and TRAD appear to have similar effects on muscular strength and hypertrophy. This would seem to indicate that both DS and TRAD are viable options for promoting muscular adaptations; DS may provide a more time-efficient alternative for achieving results.
本文的目的是系统地回顾和荟萃分析跌落训练(DS)与传统训练(TRAD)对肌肉力量和肥厚测量的影响。我们对PubMed/MEDLINE、Scopus、Web of Science和CINAHL数据库进行了全面检索,寻找满足以下标准的研究:(a)具有随机实验设计(组内或组间);(b)直接比较DS与TRAD;(c)评估肌肉力量和/或肥大的变化;(d)有至少持续6周的培训方案,并且;(e)涉及明显健康的参与者。我们采用了稳健方差荟萃分析模型,并对小样本进行了调整。研究质量通过Downs和Black检查表进行评估。共有5项研究符合纳入标准。定性评价表明纳入的研究质量为中等至良好。对于强度结果,结果表明效应大小(ES)的微不足道点估计具有相对较窄的置信区间(CI)估计精度(0.07;95% ci = -0.14, 0.29)。同样,肥厚结局的结果表明ES的点估计值微不足道,CI估计值的精度相对较窄(0.08;95% ci = -0.08, 0.24)。综上所述,DS和TRAD似乎对肌肉力量和肥厚有相似的影响。这似乎表明,DS和TRAD都是促进肌肉适应的可行选择;DS可以为实现结果提供更省时的替代方案。