Comparison Between Eccentric vs. Concentric Muscle Actions On Hypertrophy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

IF 2.5 2区 医学 Q2 SPORT SCIENCES
Leonardo Santos Lopes da Silva, Leonardo da Silva Gonçalves, Pedro Henrique Alves Campos, Cícero Jonas Rodrigues Benjamim, Marcio Fernando Tasinafo Júnior, Leonardo Coelho Rabello de Lima, Carlos Roberto Bueno Júnior, Charles Phillipe de Lucena Alves
{"title":"Comparison Between Eccentric vs. Concentric Muscle Actions On Hypertrophy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.","authors":"Leonardo Santos Lopes da Silva, Leonardo da Silva Gonçalves, Pedro Henrique Alves Campos, Cícero Jonas Rodrigues Benjamim, Marcio Fernando Tasinafo Júnior, Leonardo Coelho Rabello de Lima, Carlos Roberto Bueno Júnior, Charles Phillipe de Lucena Alves","doi":"10.1519/JSC.0000000000004981","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Abstract: </strong>da Silva, LSL, Gonçalves, LdS, Alves Campos, PH, Benjamim, CJR, Tasinafo Júnior, MF, de Lima, LCR, Bueno Júnior, CR, and Alves, CPdL. Comparison between eccentric vs. concentric muscle actions on hypertrophy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Strength Cond Res 39(1): 115-134, 2025-Different physiological mechanisms of sarcomere activity during eccentric (ECC) and concentric (CON) muscle actions led to investigations into muscle hypertrophy outcomes, but conclusions remain elusive. We aimed to investigate the effects of ECC vs. CON muscle actions on muscle hypertrophy in apparently healthy adults through a systematic review with meta-analysis. The searches were conducted on EMBASE, MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Scopus, and SPORTDiscus databases. To be eligible for inclusion, studies had to: (a) be randomized/controlled trials; (b) investigate the effects of CON vs. ECC resistance training programs in apparently healthy adults; (c) assess hypertrophy outcomes using direct imaging for cross-sectional area, muscle thickness, or muscle volume. A total of 15,778 studies were identified, and 26 (682 subjects included in the meta-analysis) met the inclusion criteria. The main findings indicated no statistical difference between ECC vs. CON on hypertrophy measurements (0.285 [95% CI: -0.131 to 0.701]; p = 0.179; I2: 84.4%; GRADE: very low). Subgroup meta-analysis analyzing possible hypertrophy outcome moderators as age (18-59 years old and ≥60 years old) and weeks of intervention duration (>8 weeks) did not reveal differences between ECC vs. CON. Subgroup analysis revealed an effect favoring the ECC for the upper limb muscles (p = 0.018), ≤8 weeks of intervention (p = 0.046), muscle thickness assessment (p = 0.0352), and isokinetic contraction (p = 0.0251). Our findings suggest similar hypertrophy between ECC and CON muscle actions in apparently healthy adults. However, it appears that the muscles of the upper limbs, shorter interventions, hypertrophy assessment method, and the contraction type may favor ECC muscle actions.</p>","PeriodicalId":17129,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research","volume":"39 1","pages":"115-134"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000004981","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SPORT SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract: da Silva, LSL, Gonçalves, LdS, Alves Campos, PH, Benjamim, CJR, Tasinafo Júnior, MF, de Lima, LCR, Bueno Júnior, CR, and Alves, CPdL. Comparison between eccentric vs. concentric muscle actions on hypertrophy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Strength Cond Res 39(1): 115-134, 2025-Different physiological mechanisms of sarcomere activity during eccentric (ECC) and concentric (CON) muscle actions led to investigations into muscle hypertrophy outcomes, but conclusions remain elusive. We aimed to investigate the effects of ECC vs. CON muscle actions on muscle hypertrophy in apparently healthy adults through a systematic review with meta-analysis. The searches were conducted on EMBASE, MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Scopus, and SPORTDiscus databases. To be eligible for inclusion, studies had to: (a) be randomized/controlled trials; (b) investigate the effects of CON vs. ECC resistance training programs in apparently healthy adults; (c) assess hypertrophy outcomes using direct imaging for cross-sectional area, muscle thickness, or muscle volume. A total of 15,778 studies were identified, and 26 (682 subjects included in the meta-analysis) met the inclusion criteria. The main findings indicated no statistical difference between ECC vs. CON on hypertrophy measurements (0.285 [95% CI: -0.131 to 0.701]; p = 0.179; I2: 84.4%; GRADE: very low). Subgroup meta-analysis analyzing possible hypertrophy outcome moderators as age (18-59 years old and ≥60 years old) and weeks of intervention duration (>8 weeks) did not reveal differences between ECC vs. CON. Subgroup analysis revealed an effect favoring the ECC for the upper limb muscles (p = 0.018), ≤8 weeks of intervention (p = 0.046), muscle thickness assessment (p = 0.0352), and isokinetic contraction (p = 0.0251). Our findings suggest similar hypertrophy between ECC and CON muscle actions in apparently healthy adults. However, it appears that the muscles of the upper limbs, shorter interventions, hypertrophy assessment method, and the contraction type may favor ECC muscle actions.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.70
自引率
9.40%
发文量
384
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: The editorial mission of The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research (JSCR) is to advance the knowledge about strength and conditioning through research. A unique aspect of this journal is that it includes recommendations for the practical use of research findings. While the journal name identifies strength and conditioning as separate entities, strength is considered a part of conditioning. This journal wishes to promote the publication of peer-reviewed manuscripts which add to our understanding of conditioning and sport through applied exercise science.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信