Comparison of Traditional and Advanced Resistance Training Paradigms on Muscle Hypertrophy in Trained Individuals: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

IF 1.2 Q3 SPORT SCIENCES
Translational sports medicine Pub Date : 2023-07-18 eCollection Date: 2023-01-01 DOI:10.1155/2023/9507977
Pedro A B Fonseca, Bernardo N Ide, Dustin J Oranchuk, Moacir Marocolo, Mário A M Simim, Michael D Roberts, Gustavo R Mota
{"title":"Comparison of Traditional and Advanced Resistance Training Paradigms on Muscle Hypertrophy in Trained Individuals: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.","authors":"Pedro A B Fonseca, Bernardo N Ide, Dustin J Oranchuk, Moacir Marocolo, Mário A M Simim, Michael D Roberts, Gustavo R Mota","doi":"10.1155/2023/9507977","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Trained individuals may require variations in training stimuli and advanced resistance training paradigms (ADV) to increase skeletal muscle hypertrophy. However, no meta-analysis has examined how ADV versus traditional (TRAD) approaches may differentially affect hypertrophic outcomes in trained populations. The aim of this review was to determine whether the skeletal muscle hypertrophy responses induced by TRAD differed from ADV in resistance-trained individuals. Furthermore, we sought to examine potential effects of dietary factors, participants' training status, and training loads. We searched for peer-reviewed, randomized controlled trials (published in English) conducted in healthy resistance-trained adults performing a period of TRAD and ADV with pre-to-post measurement(s) of muscle hypertrophy in PubMed, Web of Science, SPORTDiscus, and MEDLINE databases up to October 2022. A formal meta-analysis was conducted in Revman5, and risk of bias was assessed by ROB2. Ten studies met the inclusion criteria. Results indicated no difference between ADV and TRAD for muscle thickness (SMD = 0.05, 95% CI: -0.20 0.29, <i>p</i> = 0.70), lean mass (SMD = -0.01, 95% CI: -0.26 0.23, <i>p</i> = 0.92), muscle cross-sectional area (SMD = -0.07, 95% CI: -0.36 0.22, <i>p</i> = 0.64), or all measurements analyzed together (SMD = -0.00, 95% CI: -0.15 0.14, <i>p</i> = 0.95). No heterogeneity or inconsistencies were observed; however, unclear risk of bias was present in most of the studies. Short-term ADV does not induce superior skeletal muscle hypertrophy responses when compared with TRAD in trained individuals. This review was not previously registered.</p>","PeriodicalId":75247,"journal":{"name":"Translational sports medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11022786/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Translational sports medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1155/2023/9507977","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SPORT SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Trained individuals may require variations in training stimuli and advanced resistance training paradigms (ADV) to increase skeletal muscle hypertrophy. However, no meta-analysis has examined how ADV versus traditional (TRAD) approaches may differentially affect hypertrophic outcomes in trained populations. The aim of this review was to determine whether the skeletal muscle hypertrophy responses induced by TRAD differed from ADV in resistance-trained individuals. Furthermore, we sought to examine potential effects of dietary factors, participants' training status, and training loads. We searched for peer-reviewed, randomized controlled trials (published in English) conducted in healthy resistance-trained adults performing a period of TRAD and ADV with pre-to-post measurement(s) of muscle hypertrophy in PubMed, Web of Science, SPORTDiscus, and MEDLINE databases up to October 2022. A formal meta-analysis was conducted in Revman5, and risk of bias was assessed by ROB2. Ten studies met the inclusion criteria. Results indicated no difference between ADV and TRAD for muscle thickness (SMD = 0.05, 95% CI: -0.20 0.29, p = 0.70), lean mass (SMD = -0.01, 95% CI: -0.26 0.23, p = 0.92), muscle cross-sectional area (SMD = -0.07, 95% CI: -0.36 0.22, p = 0.64), or all measurements analyzed together (SMD = -0.00, 95% CI: -0.15 0.14, p = 0.95). No heterogeneity or inconsistencies were observed; however, unclear risk of bias was present in most of the studies. Short-term ADV does not induce superior skeletal muscle hypertrophy responses when compared with TRAD in trained individuals. This review was not previously registered.

传统和高级阻力训练模式对训练个体肌肉肥大的比较:系统综述和荟萃分析
经过训练的个体可能需要不同的训练刺激和高级阻力训练模式(ADV)来增加骨骼肌肥大。然而,没有荟萃分析研究ADV与传统(TRAD)方法如何对训练人群的肥大结果产生不同影响。本综述的目的是确定阻力训练个体中TRAD诱导的骨骼肌肥大反应是否与ADV不同。此外,我们试图研究饮食因素、参与者的训练状态和训练负荷的潜在影响。我们在PubMed、Web of Science、SPORTDiscus和MEDLINE数据库中搜索了截至2022年10月在接受过抵抗训练的健康成年人中进行的同行评审的随机对照试验(英文版),这些成年人进行了一段时间的TRAD和ADV,并进行了肌肉肥大的前后测量。Revman5进行了一项正式的荟萃分析,并通过ROB2评估了偏倚风险。10项研究符合纳入标准。结果表明ADV和TRAD之间的肌肉厚度(SMD = 0.05,95%置信区间:-0.20 0.29,p = 0.70),贫质量(SMD = −0.01,95%置信区间:-0.26 0.23,p = 0.92),肌肉横截面积(SMD = −0.07,95%置信区间:-0.36 0.22,p = 0.64),或一起分析的所有测量值(SMD = −0.00,95%置信区间:-0.15 0.14,p = 0.95)。未观察到异质性或不一致性;然而,大多数研究中都存在不明确的偏倚风险。与训练个体的TRAD相比,短期ADV不会诱导上骨骼肌肥大反应。此审查以前未注册。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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