Search

Background: Many sports require maximal strength and endurance performance. Concurrent strength and endurance training can lead to suboptimal training adaptations. However, how adaptations differ between males and females is currently unknown. Additionally, current training status may affect training adaptations. Objective: We aimed to assess sex-specific differences in adaptations in strength, power, muscle hypertrophy, and maximal oxygen consumption ( V ˙ O2max) to concurrent strength and endurance training in healthy adults. Second, we investigated how training adaptations are influenced by strength and endurance training status. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted according to PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines, and a Cochrane risk of bias was evaluated. ISI Web of science, PubMed/MEDLINE, and SPORTDiscus databases were searched using the following inclusion criteria: healthy adults aged 18–50 years, intervention period of ≥ 4 weeks, and outcome measures were defined as upper- and lower-body strength, power, hypertrophy, and/or V ˙ O2max. A meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model and reported in standardized mean differences. Results: In total, 59 studies with 1346 participants were included. Concurrent training showed blunted lower-body strength adaptations in males, but not in females (male: − 0.43, 95% confidence interval [− 0.64 to − 0.22], female: 0.08 [− 0.34 to 0.49], group difference: P = 0.03). No sex differences were observed for changes in upper-body strength (P = 0.67), power (P = 0.37), or V ˙ O2max (P = 0.13). Data on muscle hypertrophy were insufficient to draw any conclusions. For training status, untrained but not trained or highly trained endurance athletes displayed lower V ˙ O2max gains with concurrent training (P = 0.04). For other outcomes, no differences were found between untrained and trained individuals, both for strength and endurance training status. Conclusions: Concurrent training results in small interference for lower-body strength adaptations in males, but not in females. Untrained, but not trained or highly trained endurance athletes demonstrated impaired improvements in V ˙ O2max following concurrent training. More studies on females and highly strength-trained and endurance-trained athletes are warranted. Clinical Trial Registration: PROSPERO: CRD42022370894. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Resistance exercise training is widely used by general and athletic populations to increase skeletal muscle hypertrophy, power and strength. Endogenous sex hormones influence various bodily functions, including possibly exercise performance, and may influence adaptive changes in response to exercise training. Hormonal contraceptive (HC) use modulates the profile of endogenous sex hormones, and therefore, there is increasing interest in the impact, if any, of HC use on adaptive responses to resistance exercise training. Objective: Our aim is to provide a quantitative synthesis of the effect of HC use on skeletal muscle hypertrophy, power and strength adaptations in response to resistance exercise training. Methods: A systematic review with meta-analysis was conducted on experimental studies which directly compared skeletal muscle hypertrophy, power and strength adaptations following resistance exercise training in hormonal contraceptive users and non-users conducted before July 2023. The search using the online databases PUBMED, SPORTDiscus, Web of Science, Embase and other supplementary search strategies yielded 4669 articles, with 8 articles (54 effects and 325 participants) meeting the inclusion criteria. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using the "Tool for the assessment of study quality and reporting in exercise". Results: All included studies investigated the influence of oral contraceptive pills (OCP), with no study including participants using other forms of HC. The articles were analysed using a meta-analytic multilevel maximum likelihood estimator model. The results indicate that OCP use does not have a significant effect on hypertrophy [0.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) [− 0.11, 0.13], t = 0.14, p = 0.90), power (− 0.04, 95% CI [− 0.93, 0.84], t = − 0.29, p = 0.80) or strength (0.10, 95% CI [− 0.08, 0.28], t = 1.48, p = 0.20). Discussion: Based on the present analysis, there is no evidence-based rationale to advocate for or against the use of OCPs in females partaking in resistance exercise training to increase hypertrophy, power and/or strength. Rather, an individualised approach considering an individual's response to OCPs, their reasons for use and menstrual cycle history may be more appropriate. Registration: The review protocol was registered on PROSPERO (ID number and hyperlink: CRD42022365677). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Increasing muscle strength and cross-sectional area is of crucial importance to improve or maintain physical function in musculoskeletal rehabilitation and sports performance. Decreases in muscular performance are experienced in phases of reduced physical activity or immobilization. These decrements highlight the need for alternative, easily accessible training regimens for a sedentary population to improve rehabilitation and injury prevention routines. Commonly, muscle hypertrophy and strength increases are associated with resistance training, typically performed in a training facility. Mechanical tension, which is usually induced with resistance machines and devices, is known to be an important factor that stimulates the underlying signaling pathways to enhance protein synthesis. Findings from animal studies suggest an alternative means to induce mechanical tension to enhance protein synthesis, and therefore muscle hypertrophy by inducing high-volume stretching. Thus, this narrative review discusses mechanical tension-induced physiological adaptations and their impact on muscle hypertrophy and strength gains. Furthermore, research addressing stretch-induced hypertrophy is critically analyzed. Derived from animal research, the stretching literature exploring the impact of static stretching on morphological and functional adaptations was reviewed and critically discussed. No studies have investigated the underlying physiological mechanisms in humans yet, and thus the underlying mechanisms remain speculative and must be discussed in the light of animal research. However, studies that reported functional and morphological increases in humans commonly used stretching durations of > 30 min per session of the plantar flexors, indicating the importance of high stretching volume, if the aim is to increase muscle mass and maximum strength. Therefore, the practical applicability seems limited to settings without access to resistance training (e.g., in an immobilized state at the start of rehabilitation), as resistance training seems to be more time efficient. Nevertheless, further research is needed to generate evidence in different human populations (athletes, sedentary individuals, and rehabilitation patients) and to quantify stretching intensity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Blood flow-restricted exercise is currently used as a low-intensity time-efficient approach to reap many of the benefits of typical high-intensity training. Evidence continues to lend support to the notion that even highly trained individuals, such as athletes, still benefit from this mode of training. Both resistance and endurance exercise may be combined with blood flow restriction to provide a spectrum of adaptations in skeletal muscle, spanning from myofibrillar to mitochondrial adjustments. Such diverse adaptations would benefit both muscular strength and endurance qualities concurrently, which are demanded in athletic performance, most notably in team sports. Moreover, recent work indicates that when traditional high-load resistance training is supplemented with low-load, blood flow-restricted exercise, either in the same session or as a separate training block in a periodised programme, a synergistic and complementary effect on training adaptations may occur. Transient reductions in mechanical loading of tissues afforded by low-load, blood flow-restricted exercise may also serve a purpose during de-loading, tapering or rehabilitation of musculoskeletal injury. This narrative review aims to expand on the current scientific and practical understanding of how blood flow restriction methods may be applied by coaches and practitioners to enhance current athletic development models. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Objective: This systematic review with meta-analysis investigated the influence of resistance training proximity-to-failure on muscle hypertrophy. Methods: Literature searches in the PubMed, SCOPUS and SPORTDiscus databases identified a total of 15 studies that measured muscle hypertrophy (in healthy adults of any age and resistance training experience) and compared resistance training performed to: (A) momentary muscular failure versus non-failure; (B) set failure (defined as anything other than momentary muscular failure) versus non-failure; or (C) different velocity loss thresholds. Results: There was a trivial advantage for resistance training performed to set failure versus non-failure for muscle hypertrophy in studies applying any definition of set failure [effect size=0.19 (95% confidence interval 0.00, 0.37), p=0.045], with no moderating effect of volume load (p=0.884) or relative load (p=0.525). Given the variability in set failure definitions applied across studies, sub-group analyses were conducted and found no advantage for either resistance training performed to momentary muscular failure versus non-failure for muscle hypertrophy [effect size=0.12 (95% confidence interval −0.13, 0.37), p=0.343], or for resistance training performed to high (>25%) versus moderate (20–25%) velocity loss thresholds [effect size=0.08 (95% confidence interval −0.16, 0.32), p=0.529]. Conclusion: Overall, our main findings suggest that (i) there is no evidence to support that resistance training performed to momentary muscular failure is superior to non-failure resistance training for muscle hypertrophy and (ii) higher velocity loss thresholds, and theoretically closer proximities-to-failure do not always elicit greater muscle hypertrophy. As such, these results provide evidence for a potential non-linear relationship between proximity-to-failure and muscle hypertrophy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Velocity loss (VL) experienced in a set during resistance training is often monitored to control training volume and quantify acute fatigue responses. Accordingly, various VL thresholds are used to prescribe resistance training and target different training adaptations. However, there are inconsistencies in the current body of evidence regarding the magnitude of the acute and chronic responses to the amount of VL experienced during resistance training. Objective: The aim of this systematic review was to (1) evaluate the acute training volume, neuromuscular, metabolic, and perceptual responses to the amount of VL experienced during resistance training; (2) synthesize the available evidence on the chronic effects of different VL thresholds on training adaptations; and (3) provide an overview of the factors that might differentially influence the magnitude of specific acute and chronic responses to VL during resistance training. Methods: This review was performed using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Five databases were searched, and studies were included if they were written in English, prescribed resistance training using VL, and evaluated at least one (1) acute training volume, neuromuscular, metabolic, or perceptual response or (2) training adaptation. Risk of bias was assessed using a modified Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing the risk of bias in randomized trials. Multilevel and multivariate meta-regressions were performed where possible. Results: Eighteen acute and 19 longitudinal studies met the inclusion criteria, of which only one had more than one risk of bias item assessed as high risk. Based on the included acute studies, it seems that the number of repetitions per set, blood lactate concentration, and rating of perceived exertion generally increase, while countermovement jump height, running sprint times, and velocity against fixed loads generally decrease as VL increases. However, the magnitude of these effects seems to be influenced, among other factors, by the exercise and load used. Regarding training adaptations, VL experienced during resistance training did not influence muscle strength and endurance gains. Increases in VL were associated with increases in hypertrophy (b = 0.006; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.001, 0.012), but negatively affected countermovement jump (b = − 0.040; 95% CI − 0.079, − 0.001), sprint (b = 0.001; 95% CI 0.001, 0.002), and velocity against submaximal load performance (b = − 0.018; 95% CI − 0.029, − 0.006). Conclusions: A graded relationship exists between VL experienced during a set and acute training volume, neuromuscular, metabolic, and perceptual responses to resistance training. However, choice of exercise, load, and individual trainee characteristics (e.g., training history) seem to modulate these relationships. The choice of VL threshold does not seem to affect strength and muscle endurance gains whereas higher VL thresholds are superior for enhancing hypertrophy, and lower VL thresholds are superior for jumping, sprinting, and velocity against submaximal loads performance. Clinical Trial Registration: The original protocol was prospectively registered (https://osf.io/q4acs/) with the Open Science Framework. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In 1924, Otto Warburg asked "How does the metabolism of a growing tissue differ from that of a non-growing tissue?" Currently, we know that proliferating healthy and cancer cells reprogramme their metabolism. This typically includes increased glucose uptake, glycolytic flux and lactate synthesis. A key function of this reprogramming is to channel glycolytic intermediates and other metabolites into anabolic reactions such as nucleotide-RNA/DNA synthesis, amino acid-protein synthesis and the synthesis of, for example, acetyl and methyl groups for epigenetic modification. In this review, we discuss evidence that a hypertrophying muscle similarly takes up more glucose and reprogrammes its metabolism to channel energy metabolites into anabolic pathways. We specifically discuss the functions of the cancer-associated enzymes phosphoglycerate dehydrogenase and pyruvate kinase muscle 2 in skeletal muscle. In addition, we ask whether increased glucose uptake by a hypertrophying muscle explains why muscularity is often negatively associated with type 2 diabetes mellitus and obesity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Whole muscle hypertrophy does not appear to be negatively affected by concurrent aerobic and strength training compared to strength training alone. However, there are contradictions in the literature regarding the effects of concurrent training on hypertrophy at the myofiber level. Objective: The current study aimed to systematically examine the extent to which concurrent aerobic and strength training, compared with strength training alone, influences type I and type II muscle fiber size adaptations. We also conducted subgroup analyses to examine the effects of the type of aerobic training, training modality, exercise order, training frequency, age, and training status. Design: A systematic literature search was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) [PROSPERO: CRD42020203777]. The registered protocol was modified to include only muscle fiber hypertrophy as an outcome. Data Sources: PubMed/MEDLINE, ISI Web of Science, Embase, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, and Scopus were systematically searched on 12 August, 2020, and updated on 15 March, 2021. Eligibility Criteria: Population: healthy adults of any sex and age; intervention: supervised, concurrent aerobic and strength training of at least 4 weeks; comparison: identical strength training prescription, with no aerobic training; and outcome: muscle fiber hypertrophy. Results: A total of 15 studies were included. The estimated standardized mean difference based on the random-effects model was − 0.23 (95% confidence interval [CI] − 0.46 to − 0.00, p = 0.050) for overall muscle fiber hypertrophy. The standardized mean differences were − 0.34 (95% CI − 0.72 to 0.04, p = 0.078) and − 0.13 (95% CI − 0.39 to 0.12, p = 0.315) for type I and type II fiber hypertrophy, respectively. A negative effect of concurrent training was observed for type I fibers when aerobic training was performed by running but not cycling (standardized mean difference − 0.81, 95% CI − 1.26 to − 0.36). None of the other subgroup analyses (i.e., based on concurrent training frequency, training status, training modality, and training order of same-session training) revealed any differences between groups. Conclusions: In contrast to previous findings on whole muscle hypertrophy, the present results suggest that concurrent aerobic and strength training may have a small negative effect on fiber hypertrophy compared with strength training alone. Preliminary evidence suggests that this interference effect may be more pronounced when aerobic training is performed by running compared with cycling, at least for type I fibers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Resistance training variables such as volume, load, and frequency are well defined. However, the variable proximity to failure does not have a consistent quantification method, despite being defined as the number of repetitions in reserve (RIR) upon completion of a resistance training set. Further, there is between-study variability in the definition of failure itself. Studies have defined failure as momentary (inability to complete the concentric phase despite maximal effort), volitional (self-termination), or have provided no working definition. Methods to quantify proximity to failure include percentage-based prescription, repetition maximum zone training, velocity loss, and self-reported RIR; each with positives and negatives. Specifically, applying percentage-based prescriptions across a group may lead to a wide range of per-set RIR owing to interindividual differences in repetitions performed at specific percentages of 1 repetition maximum. Velocity loss is an objective method; however, the relationship between velocity loss and RIR varies set-to-set, across loading ranges, and between exercises. Self-reported RIR is inherently individualized; however, its subjectivity can lead to inaccuracy. Further, many studies, regardless of quantification method, do not report RIR. Consequently, it is difficult to make specific recommendations for per-set proximity to failure to maximize hypertrophy and strength. Therefore, this review aims to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the current proximity to failure quantification methods. Further, we propose future directions for researchers and practitioners to quantify proximity to failure, including implementation of absolute velocity stops using individual average concentric velocity/RIR relationships. Finally, we provide guidance for reporting self-reported RIR regardless of the quantification method. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In resistance training, periodization is often used in an attempt to promote development of strength and muscle hypertrophy. However, it remains unclear how resistance training variables are most effectively periodized to maximize gains in strength and muscle hypertrophy. Objective: The aims of this study were to examine the current body of literature to determine whether there is an effect of periodization of training volume and intensity on maximal strength and muscle hypertrophy, and, if so, to determine how these variables are more effectively periodized to promote increases in strength and muscle hypertrophy, when volume is equated between conditions from pre to post intervention. Methods: Systematic searches were conducted in PubMed, Scopus and SPORTDiscus databases. Data from the individual studies were extracted and coded. Meta-analyses using the inverse-variance random effects model were performed to compare 1-repetition maximum (1RM) and muscle hypertrophy outcomes in (a) non-periodized (NP) versus periodized training and (b) in linear periodization (LP) versus undulating periodization (UP). Subgroup analyses examining whether results were affected by training status were performed. Meta-analyses of other periodization model comparisons were not performed, due to a low number of studies. Results: Thirty-five studies met the inclusion criteria. Results of the meta-analyses comparing NP and periodized training demonstrated an overall effect on 1RM strength favoring periodized training (ES 0.31, 95% confidence interval (CI) [0.04, 0.57]; Z = 2.28, P = 0.02). In contrast, muscle hypertrophy did not differ between NP and periodized training (ES 0.13, 95% CI [–0.10, 0.36]; Z = 1.10, P = 0.27). Results of the meta-analyses comparing LP and UP indicated an overall effect on 1RM favoring UP (ES 0.31, 95% CI [0.02, 0.61]; Z = 2.06, P = 0.04). Subgroup analyses indicated an effect on 1RM favoring UP in trained participants (ES 0.61, 95% CI [0.00, 1.22]; Z = 1.97 (P = 0.05)), whereas changes in 1RM did not differ between LP and UP in untrained participants (ES 0.06, 95% CI [–0.20, 0.31]; Z = 0.43 (P = 0.67)). The meta-analyses showed that muscle hypertrophy did not differ between LP and UP (ES 0.05, 95% CI [–0.20, 0.29]; Z = 0.36 (P = 0.72)). Conclusion: The results suggest that when volume is equated between conditions, periodized resistance training has a greater effect on 1RM strength compared to NP resistance training. Also, UP resulted in greater increases in 1RM compared to LP. However, subgroup analyses revealed that this was only the case for trained and not previously untrained individuals, indicating that trained individuals benefit from daily or weekly undulations in volume and intensity, when the aim is maximal strength. Periodization of volume and intensity does not seem to affect muscle hypertrophy in volume-equated pre-post designs. Based on this, we propose that the effects of periodization on maximal strength may instead be related to the neurophysiological adaptations accompanying resistance training. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Concurrent training incorporates dual exercise modalities, typically resistance and aerobic-based exercise, either in a single session or as part of a periodized training program, that can promote muscle strength, mass, power/force and aerobic capacity adaptations for the purposes of sports performance or general health/wellbeing. Despite multiple health and exercise performance-related benefits, diminished muscle hypertrophy, strength and power have been reported with concurrent training compared to resistance training in isolation. Dietary protein is well-established to facilitate skeletal muscle growth, repair and regeneration during recovery from exercise. The degree to which increased protein intake can amplify adaptation responses with resistance exercise, and to a lesser extent aerobic exercise, has been highly studied. In contrast, much less focus has been directed toward the capacity for protein to enhance anabolic and metabolic responses with divergent contractile stimuli inherent to concurrent training and potentially negate interference in muscle strength, power and hypertrophy. This review consolidates available literature investigating increased protein intake on rates of muscle protein synthesis, hypertrophy, strength and force/power adaptations following acute and chronic concurrent training. Acute concurrent exercise studies provide evidence for the significant stimulation of myofibrillar protein synthesis with protein compared to placebo ingestion. High protein intake can also augment increases in lean mass with chronic concurrent training, although these increases do not appear to translate into further improvements in strength adaptations. Similarly, the available evidence indicates protein intake twice the recommended intake and beyond does not rescue decrements in selective aspects of muscle force and power production with concurrent training. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Both athletes and recreational exercisers often perform relatively high volumes of aerobic and strength training simultaneously. However, the compatibility of these two distinct training modes remains unclear. Objective: This systematic review assessed the compatibility of concurrent aerobic and strength training compared with strength training alone, in terms of adaptations in muscle function (maximal and explosive strength) and muscle mass. Subgroup analyses were conducted to examine the influence of training modality, training type, exercise order, training frequency, age, and training status. Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted according to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. PubMed/MEDLINE, ISI Web of Science, Embase, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, and Scopus were systematically searched (12 August 2020, updated on 15 March 2021). Eligibility criteria were as follows. Population: healthy adults of any sex and age; Intervention: supervised concurrent aerobic and strength training for at least 4 weeks; Comparison: identical strength training prescription, with no aerobic training; Outcome: maximal strength, explosive strength, and muscle hypertrophy. Results: A total of 43 studies were included. The estimated standardised mean differences (SMD) based on the random-effects model were − 0.06 (95% confidence interval [CI] − 0.20 to 0.09; p = 0.446), − 0.28 (95% CI − 0.48 to − 0.08; p = 0.007), and − 0.01 (95% CI − 0.16 to 0.18; p = 0.919) for maximal strength, explosive strength, and muscle hypertrophy, respectively. Attenuation of explosive strength was more pronounced when concurrent training was performed within the same session (p = 0.043) than when sessions were separated by at least 3 h (p > 0.05). No significant effects were found for the other moderators, i.e. type of aerobic training (cycling vs. running), frequency of concurrent training (> 5 vs. < 5 weekly sessions), training status (untrained vs. active), and mean age (< 40 vs. > 40 years). Conclusion: Concurrent aerobic and strength training does not compromise muscle hypertrophy and maximal strength development. However, explosive strength gains may be attenuated, especially when aerobic and strength training are performed in the same session. These results appeared to be independent of the type of aerobic training, frequency of concurrent training, training status, and age. PROSPERO: CRD42020203777. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Surface electromyography amplitudes are commonly measured in acute sports and exercise science studies to make inferences about muscular strength, performance, and hypertrophic adaptations that may result from different exercises or exercise-related variables. Here, we discuss the presumptive logic and assumptions underlying these inferences, focusing on hypertrophic adaptations for simplicity's sake. We present counter-evidence for each of its premises and discuss evidence both for and against the logical conclusion. Given the limited evidence validating the amplitude of surface electromyograms as a predictor of longitudinal hypertrophic adaptations, coupled with its weak mechanistic foundation, we suggest that acute comparative studies that wish to assess stimulus potency be met with scrutiny. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Lack of time is among the more commonly reported barriers for abstention from exercise programs. The aim of this review was to determine how strength training can be most effectively carried out in a time-efficient manner by critically evaluating research on acute training variables, advanced training techniques, and the need for warm-up and stretching. When programming strength training for optimum time-efficiency we recommend prioritizing bilateral, multi-joint exercises that include full dynamic movements (i.e. both eccentric and concentric muscle actions), and to perform a minimum of one leg pressing exercise (e.g. squats), one upper-body pulling exercise (e.g. pull-up) and one upper-body pushing exercise (e.g. bench press). Exercises can be performed with machines and/or free weights based on training goals, availability, and personal preferences. Weekly training volume is more important than training frequency and we recommend performing a minimum of 4 weekly sets per muscle group using a 6–15 RM loading range (15–40 repetitions can be used if training is performed to volitional failure). Advanced training techniques, such as supersets, drop sets and rest-pause training roughly halves training time compared to traditional training, while maintaining training volume. However, these methods are probably better at inducing hypertrophy than muscular strength, and more research is needed on longitudinal training effects. Finally, we advise restricting the warm-up to exercise-specific warm-ups, and only prioritize stretching if the goal of training is to increase flexibility. This review shows how acute training variables can be manipulated, and how specific training techniques can be used to optimize the training response: time ratio in regard to improvements in strength and hypertrophy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Hypertrophy and strength are two common long-term goals of resistance training that are mediated by the manipulation of numerous variables. One training variable that is often neglected but is essential to consider for achieving strength and hypertrophy gains is the movement tempo of particular repetitions. Although research has extensively investigated the effects of different intensities, volumes, and rest intervals on muscle growth, many of the present hypertrophy guidelines do not account for different movement tempos, likely only applying to volitional movement tempos. Changing the movement tempo during the eccentric and concentric phases can influence acute exercise variables, which form the basis for chronic adaptive changes to resistance training. To further elaborate on the already unclear anecdotal evidence of different movement tempos on muscle hypertrophy and strength development, one must acknowledge that the related scientific research does not provide equivocal evidence. Furthermore, there has been no assessment of the impact of duration of particular movement phases (eccentric vs. concentric) on chronic adaptations, making it difficult to draw definitive conclusions in terms of resistance-training recommendations. Therefore, the purpose of this review is to explain how variations in movement tempo can affect chronic adaptive changes. This article provides an overview of the available scientific data describing the impact of movement tempo on hypertrophy and strength development with a thorough analysis of changes in duration of particular phases of movement. Additionally, the review provides movement tempo-specific recommendations as well real training solutions for strength and conditioning coaches and athletes, depending on their goals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Calculating resistance-training volume in programs focused on muscle hypertrophy is an attempt to quantify the external workload carried out, then to estimate the dose of stimulus imposed on targeted muscles. The volume is usually expressed in some variables that directly affected the total training work, such as the number of sets, repetitions, and volume-load. These variables are used to try to quantify the training work easily, for the subsequent organization and prescription of training programs. One of the main uses of measures of volume quantification is seen in studies in which the purpose is to compare the effects of different training protocols on muscle growth in a volume-equated format. However, it seems that not all measures of volume are always appropriate for equating training protocols. In the current paper, it is discussed what training volume is and the potentials and shortcomings of each one of the most common ways to equate it between groups depending on the independent variable to be compared (e.g., weekly frequency, intensity of load, and advanced techniques). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Previous research has suggested that concurrent training (CT) may attenuate resistance training (RT)-induced gains in muscle strength and mass, i.e.‚ the interference effect. In 2000, a seminal theoretical model indicated that the interference effect should occur when high-intensity interval training (HIIT) (repeated bouts at 95–100% of the aerobic power) and RT (multiple sets at ~ 10 repetition maximum;10 RM) were performed in the same training routine. However, there was a paucity of data regarding the likelihood of other HIIT-based CT protocols to induce the interference effect at the time. Thus, based on current HIIT-based CT literature and HIIT nomenclature and framework, the present manuscript updates the theoretical model of the interference phenomenon previously proposed. We suggest that very intense HIIT protocols [i.e., resisted sprint training (RST), and sprint interval training (SIT)] can greatly minimize the odds of occurring the interference effect on muscle strength and mass. Thus, very intensive HIIT protocols should be implemented when performing CT to avoid the interference effect. Long and short HIIT-based CT protocols may induce the interference effect on muscle strength when HIIT bout is performed before RT with no rest interval between them. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Effects of resistance training on muscle strength and hypertrophy are well established in adults and younger elderly. However, less is currently known about these effects in the very elderly (i.e., 75 years of age and older). Objective: To examine the effects of resistance training on muscle size and strength in very elderly individuals. Methods: Randomized controlled studies that explored the effects of resistance training in very elderly on muscle strength, handgrip strength, whole-muscle hypertrophy, and/or muscle fiber hypertrophy were included in the review. Meta-analyses of effect sizes (ESs) were used to analyze the data. Results: Twenty-two studies were included in the review. The meta-analysis found a significant effect of resistance training on muscle strength in the very elderly [difference in ES = 0.97; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.50, 1.44; p = 0.001]. In a subgroup analysis that included only the oldest-old participants (80 + years of age), there was a significant effect of resistance training on muscle strength (difference in ES = 1.28; 95% CI 0.28, 2.29; p = 0.020). For handgrip strength, we found no significant difference between resistance training and control groups (difference in ES = 0.26; 95% CI − 0.02, 0.54; p = 0.064). For whole-muscle hypertrophy, there was a significant effect of resistance training in the very elderly (difference in ES = 0 30; 95% CI 0.10, 0.50; p = 0.013). We found no significant difference in muscle fiber hypertrophy between resistance training and control groups (difference in ES = 0.33; 95% CI − 0.67, 1.33; p = 0.266). There were minimal reports of adverse events associated with the training programs in the included studies. Conclusions: We found that very elderly can increase muscle strength and muscle size by participating in resistance training programs. Resistance training was found to be an effective way to improve muscle strength even among the oldest-old. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The effect of resistance training (RT) on adaptations in muscular strength and hypertrophy has never been examined in an exclusively female synthesis of the literature. Objective: The objectives of this study were threefold: (1) to systematically review the literature on female adaptations to RT, characterising the effect in terms of muscular strength and hypertrophy; (2) to distinguish the individual effects of intervention duration, frequency, and intensity on these adaptations via sub-analysis; (3) to draw evidence-based conclusions regarding training expectations in female populations. Methods: Three electronic databases were searched using terms related to RT combined with females or women. Random-effects meta-analyses were undertaken to estimate the effect of RT on muscular strength and hypertrophy in females. Possible predictors that may have influenced training-related effects (e.g., training intensity and volume) were explored using univariate analyses. Results: The systematic search identified 14,067 articles of which a total of 24 studies met the inclusion criteria and were eligible. Upper body strength was assessed in 15 studies, lower body strength in 19 studies, and muscular hypertrophy in 15 studies. Study duration lasted between 4 weeks and 12 months. Large-effect sizes were found for upper body strength (Hedges' g = 1.70; p < 0.001) and lower body strength (Hedges' g = 1.40; p < 0.001). Following use of the Trim and Fill method (due to presence of publication bias), a large effect still remained for upper body strength (Hedges' g = 1.07), although a medium effect was found for lower body strength (Hedges' g = 0.52). A medium effect was found for muscular hypertrophy (g = 0.52, p = 0.002). Sub-analyses revealed that the moderating variables "training frequency" and "training volume" significantly influenced lower body muscular strength (p < 0.001). "Training frequency" and "sets per exercise" moderated the RT effects on upper body strength (p < 0.01). No moderating variables were found to significantly influence muscular hypertrophy. A trend for a moderating effect on upper body strength was found for "age of participants" (p = 0.08), whereby younger participants experienced a greater effect. A moderating effect was also observed where supervised training had a larger influence on the adaptation of lower body strength (p = 0.05) compared with unsupervised training. Methodological quality for the studies included in the review was found to be moderate. Conclusions: RT elicits large improvements in muscular strength and hypertrophy in healthy adult females. Training volume and frequency appear to be important variables that influence muscular strength. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: We implemented a blood flow restriction resistance training (BFR-RT) intervention during an 8-week rehabilitation programme in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) patients within a National Health Service setting. Objective: To compare the effectiveness of BFR-RT and standard-care traditional heavy-load resistance training (HL-RT) at improving skeletal muscle hypertrophy and strength, physical function, pain and effusion in ACLR patients following surgery. Methods: 28 patients scheduled for unilateral ACLR surgery with hamstring autograft were recruited for this parallel-group, two-arm, single-assessor blinded, randomised clinical trial following appropriate power analysis. Following surgery, a criteria-driven approach to rehabilitation was utilised and participants were block randomised to either HL-RT at 70% repetition maximum (1RM) (n = 14) or BFR-RT (n = 14) at 30% 1RM. Participants completed 8 weeks of biweekly unilateral leg press training on both limbs, totalling 16 sessions, alongside standard hospital rehabilitation. Resistance exercise protocols were designed consistent with standard recommended protocols for each type of exercise. Scaled maximal isotonic strength (10RM), muscle morphology of the vastus lateralis of the injured limb, self-reported function, Y-balance test performance and knee joint pain, effusion and range of motion (ROM) were assessed at pre-surgery, post-surgery, mid-training and post-training. Knee joint laxity and scaled maximal isokinetic knee extension and flexion strength at 60°/s, 150°/s and 300°/s were measured at pre-surgery and post-training. Results: Four participants were lost, with 24 participants completing the study (12 per group). There were no adverse events or differences between groups for any baseline anthropometric variable or pre- to post-surgery change in any outcome measure. Scaled 10RM strength significantly increased in the injured limb (104 ± 30% and 106 ± 43%) and non-injured limb (33 ± 13% and 39 ± 17%) with BFR-RT and HL-RT, respectively, with no group differences. Significant increases in knee extension and flexion peak torque were observed at all speeds in the non-injured limb with no group differences. Significantly greater attenuation of knee extensor peak torque loss at 150°/s and 300°/s and knee flexor torque loss at all speeds was observed with BFR-RT. No group differences in knee extensor peak torque loss were found at 60°/s. Significant and comparable increases in muscle thickness (5.8 ± 0.2% and 6.7 ± 0.3%) and pennation angle (4.1 ± 0.3% and 3.4 ± 0.1%) were observed with BFR-RT and HL-RT, respectively, with no group differences. No significant changes in fascicle length were observed. Significantly greater and clinically important increases in several measures of self-reported function (50–218 ± 48% vs. 35–152 ± 56%), Y-balance performance (18–59 ± 22% vs. 18–33 ± 19%), ROM (78 ± 22% vs. 48 ± 13%) and reductions in knee joint pain (67 ± 15% vs. 39 ± 12%) and effusion (6 ± 2% vs. 2 ± 2%) were observed with BFR-RT compared to HL-RT, respectively. Conclusion: BFR-RT can improve skeletal muscle hypertrophy and strength to a similar extent to HL-RT with a greater reduction in knee joint pain and effusion, leading to greater overall improvements in physical function. Therefore, BFR-RT may be more appropriate for early rehabilitation in ACLR patient populations within the National Health Service. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Resistance training increases muscle size (i.e., causes hypertrophy) and muscle strength, particularly in untrained individuals. Hypertrophy is widely believed to be one of the mechanisms (i.e., a mediator) by which resistance training increases strength. However, some researchers have questioned whether training-induced hypertrophy causes increases in strength. One approach to resolving this issue has been to use correlations between training-induced changes in muscle size and strength to infer the effect of hypertrophy on strength. This is problematic because correlations between changes in muscle size and strength may be confounded (i.e., correlation is not causation). Another approach has involved randomizing participants to different volumes of exercise to create different levels of hypertrophy and then comparing the strength increases associated with different levels of hypertrophy. This approach is also problematic because the unit of randomization is exercise volume rather than hypertrophy, and the potential for confounding remains. Thus, a new approach is needed to determine the extent to which hypertrophy increases muscle strength. Here, we introduce resistance training researchers to causal mediation analysis and recommend that it be used to resolve the current debate. Causal mediation analysis potentially provides an unconfounded estimate of the effect of a mediating variable (hypertrophy) on an outcome (strength). This analysis is supplemented by causal maps that help conceptualize research questions and identify potential confounders. In addition to resolving the debate on hypertrophy, causal mediation analysis can be used to answer a host of other questions about mechanisms in the health sciences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discuses the relationship between changes in strength and training-induced increases in muscle size or hypertrophy. It refers to the use of three studies to analyze the relationship including exemplary training studies, epistemological and statistical considerations and molecular, mechanical and single-fiber bases.

The article focuses on an 8-week study conducted on five individuals who did bicep curls in one arm with the other arm serving as a non-exercise control. It found that an increase in strength following 2 weeks of training but no downward shift in electromyography (EMG) amplitude relative to absolute force was observed.

Background: Currently, there are inconsistencies in the body of evidence for the effects of resistance and aerobic training on skeletal muscle hypertrophy.Objective: We aimed to systematically review and meta-analyze current evidence on the differences in hypertrophic adaptation to aerobic and resistance training, and to discuss potential reasons for the disparities noted in the literature.Methods: The PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines were followed for this review. The Downs and Black checklist was used for the assessment of methodological quality of the included studies. A random-effects meta-analysis was employed. In total, three analyses were performed: (1) for whole-muscle knee extensor data; (2) for type I fiber cross-sectional area; and (3) for type II fiber cross-sectional area.Results: The final number of included studies in the present review is 21. All studies were of good or moderate methodological quality. The meta-analysis for whole-muscle hypertrophy resulted in a significant pooled difference (p < 0.001) in responses between the aerobic training and resistance training interventions. The pooled Hedge's g, favoring resistance over aerobic training, was 0.66 (95% confidence interval 0.41-90; I2 = 0%). The meta-analysis for type I fiber cross-sectional area data resulted in a significant pooled difference (p < 0.001) between the aerobic training and resistance training groups. The pooled Hedge's g, favoring resistance training over aerobic training, was 0.99 (95% confidence interval 0.44-1.54; I2 = 24%). The meta-analysis of type II fiber cross-sectional area data resulted in a significant pooled difference (p < 0.001) between the aerobic training and resistance training groups. The pooled Hedge's g, favoring resistance training over aerobic training, was 1.44 (95% confidence interval 0.93-1.95; I2 = 8%).Conclusions: The results of this systematic review and meta-analysis suggest that single-mode aerobic training does not promote the same skeletal muscle hypertrophy as resistance training. This finding was consistent with measurements of muscle hypertrophy both at the whole-muscle and myofiber levels. While these results are specific to the knee extensor musculature, it can be hypothesized that similar results would be seen for other muscle groups as well. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The combination of low-load resistance training with blood flow restriction (BFR) has recently been shown to promote muscular adaptations in various populations. To date, however, evidence is sparse on how this training regimen influences muscle mass and strength in older adults.Purpose: The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to quantitatively identify the effects of low-load BFR (LL-BFR) training on muscle mass and strength in older individuals in comparison with conventional resistance training programmes. Additionally, the effectiveness of walking with and without BFR was assessed.Methods: A PRISMA-compliant systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted. The systematic literature research was performed in the following electronic databases from inception to 1 June 2018: PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus and CENTRAL. Subsequently, a random-effects meta-analysis with inverse variance weighting was conducted.Results: A total of 2658 articles were screened, and 11 studies with a total population of N = 238 were included in the meta-analysis. Our results revealed that during both low-load training and walking, the addition of BFR elicits significantly greater improvements in muscular strength with pooled effect sizes (ES) of 2.16 (95% CI 1.61 to 2.70) and 3.09 (95% CI 2.04 to 4.14), respectively. Muscle mass was also increased when comparing walking with and without BFR [ES 1.82 (95% CI 1.32 to 2.32)]. In comparison with high-load training, LL-BFR promotes similar muscle hypertrophy [ES 0.21 (95% CI − 0.14 to 0.56)] but lower strength gains [ES − 0.42 (95% CI − 0.70 to − 0.14)].Conclusion: This systematic review and meta-analysis reveals that LL-BFR and walking with BFR is an effective interventional approach to stimulate muscle hypertrophy and strength gains in older populations. As BFR literature is still scarce with regard to potential moderator variables (e.g. sex, cuff pressure or training volume/frequency), further research is needed for strengthening the evidence for an effective application of LL-BFR training in older people. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Distinguishing between adaptive and maladaptive cardiovascular response to exercise is crucial to prevent the unnecessary termination of an athlete’s career and to minimize the risk of sudden death. This is a challenging task essentially due to the substantial phenotypic overlap between electrical and structural changes seen in the physiological athletic heart remodeling and pathological changes seen in inherited or acquired cardiomyopathies. Stress testing is an ideal tool to discriminate normal from abnormal cardiovascular response by unmasking subtle pathologic responses otherwise undetectable at rest. Treadmill or bicycle electrocardiography, transthoracic echocardiography, and cardiopulmonary exercise testing are common clinical investigations used in sports cardiology, specifically among participants presenting with resting electrocardiographic abnormalities, frequent premature ventricular beats, or non-sustained ventricular arrhythmias. In this setting, as well as in cases of left ventricular hypertrophy or asymptomatic left ventricular dysfunction, stress imaging and myocardial tissue characterization by cardiovascular magnetic resonance show promise. In this review, we aimed to reappraise current diagnostic schemes, screening strategies and novel approaches that may be used to distinguish adaptive remodeling patterns to physical exercise from early phenotypes of inherited or acquired pathological conditions commanding prompt intervention. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Historically, heat has been used in various clinical and sports rehabilitation settings to treat soft tissue injuries. More recently, interest has emerged in using heat to pre-condition muscle against injury. The aim of this narrative review was to collate information on different types of heat therapy, explain the physiological rationale for heat therapy, and to summarise and evaluate the effects of heat therapy before, during and after muscle injury, immobilisation and strength training. Studies on skeletal muscle cells demonstrate that heat attenuates cellular damage and protein degradation (following in vitro challenges/insults to the cells). Heat also increases the expression of heat shock proteins (HSPs) and upregulates the expression of genes involved in muscle growth and differentiation. In rats, applying heat before and after muscle injury or immobilisation typically reduces cellular damage and muscle atrophy, and promotes more rapid muscle growth/regeneration. In humans, some research has demonstrated benefits of microwave diathermy (and, to a lesser extent, hot water immersion) before exercise for restricting muscle soreness and restoring muscle function after exercise. By contrast, the benefits of applying heat to muscle after exercise are more variable. Animal studies reveal that applying heat during limb immobilisation attenuates muscle atrophy and oxidative stress. Heating muscle may also enhance the benefits of strength training for improving muscle mass in humans. Further research is needed to identify the most effective forms of heat therapy and to investigate the benefits of heat therapy for restricting muscle wasting in the elderly and those individuals recovering from serious injury or illness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Human skeletal muscle satellite cells are activated in response to both resistance and endurance exercise. It was initially proposed that satellite cell proliferation and differentiation were only required to support resistance exercise-induced hypertrophy. However, satellite cells may also play a role in muscle fibre remodelling after endurance-based exercise and extracellular matrix regulation. Given the importance of dietary protein, particularly branched chain amino acids, in supporting myofibrillar and mitochondrial adaptations to both resistance and endurance-based training, a greater understanding of how protein intake impacts satellite cell activity would provide further insight into the mechanisms governing skeletal muscle remodelling with exercise. While many studies have investigated the capacity for protein ingestion to increase post-exercise rates of muscle protein synthesis, few investigations have examined the role for protein ingestion to modulate satellite cell activity. Here we review the molecular mechanisms controlling the activation of satellite cells in response to mechanical stress and protein intake in both in vitro and in vivo models. We provide a mechanistic framework that describes how protein ingestion may enhance satellite activity and promote exercise adaptations in human skeletal muscle. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This review covers underlying physiological characteristics and training considerations that may affect muscular strength including improving maximal force expression and time-limited force expression. Strength is underpinned by a combination of morphological and neural factors including muscle cross-sectional area and architecture, musculotendinous stiffness, motor unit recruitment, rate coding, motor unit synchronization, and neuromuscular inhibition. Although single- and multi-targeted block periodization models may produce the greatest strength-power benefits, concepts within each model must be considered within the limitations of the sport, athletes, and schedules. Bilateral training, eccentric training and accentuated eccentric loading, and variable resistance training may produce the greatest comprehensive strength adaptations. Bodyweight exercise, isolation exercises, plyometric exercise, unilateral exercise, and kettlebell training may be limited in their potential to improve maximal strength but are still relevant to strength development by challenging time-limited force expression and differentially challenging motor demands. Training to failure may not be necessary to improve maximum muscular strength and is likely not necessary for maximum gains in strength. Indeed, programming that combines heavy and light loads may improve strength and underpin other strength-power characteristics. Multiple sets appear to produce superior training benefits compared to single sets; however, an athlete’s training status and the dose-response relationship must be considered. While 2- to 5-min interset rest intervals may produce the greatest strength-power benefits, rest interval length may vary based an athlete’s training age, fiber type, and genetics. Weaker athletes should focus on developing strength before emphasizing power-type training. Stronger athletes may begin to emphasize power-type training while maintaining/improving their strength. Future research should investigate how best to implement accentuated eccentric loading and variable resistance training and examine how initial strength affects an athlete’s ability to improve their performance following various training methods. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Resistance training is the most effective method to increase muscle mass. It has also been shown to promote many health benefits. Although it is deemed safe and of clinical relevance for treating and preventing a vast number of diseases, a time-efficient and minimal dose of exercise has been the focus of a great number of research studies. Similarly, an inverted U-shaped relationship between training dose/volume and physiological response has been hypothesized to exist. However, the majority of available evidence supports a clear dose-response relationship between resistance training volume and physiological responses, such as muscle hypertrophy and health outcomes. Additionally, there is a paucity of data to support the inverted U-shaped response. Although it may indeed exist, it appears to be much more plastic than previously thought. The overarching principle argued herein is that volume is the most easily modifiable variable that has the most evidenced-based response with important repercussions, be these muscle hypertrophy or health-related outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Low-load resistance training (< 50% of one-repetition maximum [1RM]) associated with blood-flow restriction (BFR-RT) has been thought to promote increases in muscle strength and mass. However, it remains unclear if the magnitude of these adaptations is similar to conventional high-load resistance training (> 65% 1RM; HL-RT). Objective: To compare the effects of HL- versus BFR-RT on muscle adaptations using a systematic review and meta-analysis procedure. Methods: Studies were identified via electronic databases based on the following inclusion criteria: (a) pre- and post-training assessment of muscular strength; (b) pre- and post-training assessment of muscle hypertrophy; (c) comparison of HL-RT vs. BFR-RT; (d) score ≥ 4 on PEDro scale; (e) means and standard deviations (or standard errors) are reported from absolute values or allow estimation from graphs. If this last criterion was not met, data were directly requested from the authors. Results: The main results showed higher increases in muscle strength for HL- as compared with BFR-RT, even when considering test specificity, absolute occlusion pressure, cuff width, and occlusion pressure prescription. Regarding the hypertrophic response, results revealed similar effects between HL- and BFR-RT, regardless of the absolute occlusion pressure, cuff width, and occlusion pressure prescription. Conclusions: Based on the present data, maximum muscle strength may be optimized by specific training methods (i.e., HL-RT) while both HL- and BFR-RT seem equally effective in increasing muscle mass. Importantly, BFR-RT is a valid and effective approach for increasing muscle strength in a wide spectrum of ages and physical capacity, although it may seem particularly of interest for those individuals with physical limitations to engage in HL-RT. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Incorporating both endurance and resistance training into an exercise regime is termed concurrent training. While there is evidence that concurrent training can attenuate resistance training-induced improvements in maximal strength and muscle hypertrophy, research findings are often equivocal, with some suggesting short-term concurrent training may instead further enhance muscle hypertrophy versus resistance training alone. These observations have questioned the validity of the purported 'interference effect' on muscle hypertrophy with concurrent versus single-mode resistance training. This article aims to highlight some methodological considerations when interpreting the concurrent training literature, and, in particular, the degree of changes in strength and muscle hypertrophy observed with concurrent versus single-mode resistance training. Individual training status clearly influences the relative magnitude and specificity of both training adaptation and post-exercise molecular responses in skeletal muscle. The training status of participants is therefore likely a key modulator of the degree of adaptation and interference seen with concurrent training interventions. The divergent magnitudes of strength gain versus muscle hypertrophy induced by resistance training also suggests most concurrent training studies are likely to observe more substantial changes in (and in turn, any potential interference to) strength compared with muscle hypertrophy. Both the specificity and sensitivity of measures used to assess training-induced changes in strength and muscle hypertrophy also likely influence the interpretation of concurrent training outcomes. Finally, the relative importance of any modulation of hypertrophic versus strength adaptation with concurrent training should be considered in context with the relevance of training-induced changes in these variables for enhancing athletic performance and/or functional capacity. Taken together, these observations suggest that aside from various training-related factors, additional non-training-related variables, including participant training status and the measures used to assess changes in strength and muscle hypertrophy, are important considerations when interpreting the outcomes of concurrent training interventions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

It is well known that resistance exercise results in increased muscle strength, but the cause of the improvement is not well understood. It is generally thought that initial increases in strength are caused by neurological factors, before being predominantly driven by increases in muscle size. Despite this hypothesis, there is currently no direct evidence that training-induced increases in muscle size contribute to training-induced increases in muscle strength. The evidence used to support this hypothesis is exclusively correlational analyses and these are often an afterthought using data collected to answer a different question of interest. Not only do these studies not infer causality, but they have inherent limitations associated with measurement error and limited inter-individual variability. To answer the question as to whether training-induced increases in muscle size lead to training-induced increases in strength requires a study designed to produce differential effects on muscle size based on group membership (i.e., one group increases muscle size and one does not) and observe how this impacts muscle strength. We have performed studies in our laboratory in which muscle strength increases similarly independent of whether muscle growth is or is not present, illustrating that the increases in muscle strength are not likely driven by increases in muscle size. The hypothesis that training-induced increases in muscle size contribute to training-induced increases in muscle strength requires more appropriately designed studies, and until such studies are completed, this statement should not be made as there are no data to support this hypothesis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There is a necessity for numerous sports to develop strength and aerobic capacity simultaneously, placing a significant demand upon the practice of effective concurrent training methods. Concurrent training requires the athlete to perform both resistance and endurance exercise within a training plan. This training paradigm has been associated with an 'interference effect', with attenuated strength adaptation in comparison to that following isolated resistance training. The effectiveness of the training programme rests on the intricacies of manipulating acute training variables, such as exercise sequence. The research, in the most part, does not provide a clarity of message as to whether intra-session exercise sequence has the potential to exacerbate or mitigate the interference effect associated with concurrent training methods. Objective: The aim of the systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess whether intra-session concurrent exercise sequence modifies strength-based outcomes associated with the interference effect. Methods: Ten studies were identified from a systematic review of the literature for the outcomes of lower-body dynamic and static strength, lower-body hypertrophy, maximal aerobic capacity and body fat percentage. Each study examined the effect of intra-session exercise sequence on the specified outcomes, across a prolonged (≥5 weeks) concurrent training programme in healthy adults. Results: Analysis of pooled data indicated that resistance-endurance exercise sequence had a positive effect for lower-body dynamic strength, in comparison to the alternate sequence (weighted mean difference, 6.91% change; 95% confidence interval 1.96, 11.87 change; p = 0.006), with no effect of exercise sequence for lower-body muscle hypertrophy (weighted mean difference, 1.15% change; 95% confidence interval −1.56, 3.87 change; p = 0.40), lower-body static strength (weighted mean difference, −0.04% change; 95% confidence interval −3.19, 3.11 change; p = 0.98), or the remaining outcomes of maximal aerobic capacity and body fat percentage ( p > 0.05). Conclusion: These results indicate that the practice of concurrent training with a resistance followed by an endurance exercise order is beneficial for the outcome of lower-body dynamic strength, while alternating the order of stimuli offers no benefit for training outcomes associated with the interference effect. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The athlete's heart is associated with physiological remodeling as a consequence of repetitive cardiac loading. The effect of exercise training on left ventricular (LV) cardiac strain and twist mechanics are equivocal, and no meta-analysis has been conducted to date. Objective: The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to review the literature pertaining to the effect of different forms of athletic training on cardiac strain and twist mechanics and determine the influence of traditional and contemporary sporting classifications on cardiac strain and twist mechanics. Methods: We searched PubMed/MEDLINE, Web of Science, and ScienceDirect for controlled studies of aged-matched male participants aged 18-45 years that used two-dimensional (2D) speckle tracking with a defined athlete sporting discipline and a control group not engaged in training programs. Data were extracted independently by two reviewers. Random-effects meta-analyses, subgroup analyses, and meta-regressions were conducted. Results: Our review included 13 studies with 945 participants (controls n = 355; athletes n = 590). Meta-analyses showed no athlete-control differences in LV strain or twist mechanics. However, moderator analyses showed greater LV twist in high-static low-dynamic athletes ( d = -0.76, 95% confidence interval [CI] -1.32 to -0.20; p < 0.01) than in controls. Peak untwisting velocity (PUV) was greater in high-static low-dynamic athletes ( d = -0.43, 95% CI -0.84 to -0.03; p < 0.05) but less than controls in high-static high-dynamic athletes ( d = 0.79, 95% CI 0.002-1.58; p = 0.05). Elite endurance athletes had significantly less twist and apical rotation than controls ( d = 0.68, 95% CI 0.19-1.16, p < 0.01; d = 0.64, 95% CI 0.27-1.00, p = 0.001, respectively) but no differences in basal rotation. Meta-regressions showed LV mass index was positively associated with global longitudinal ( b = 0.01, 95% CI 0.002-0.02; p < 0.05), whereas systolic blood pressure was negatively associated with PUV ( b = -0.06, 95% CI -0.13 to -0.001; p = 0.05). Conclusion: Echocardiographic 2D speckle tracking can identify subtle physiological differences in adaptations to cardiac strain and twist mechanics between athletes and healthy controls. Differences in speckle tracking echocardiography-derived parameters can be identified using suitable sporting categorizations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Studies examining resistance training are of importance given that increasing or maintaining muscle mass aids in the prevention or attenuation of chronic disease. Within the literature, it is common practice to administer a set number of target repetitions to be completed by all individuals (i.e. 3 sets of 10) while setting the load relative to each individual's predetermined strength level (usually a one-repetition maximum). This is done under the assumption that all individuals are receiving a similar stimulus upon completing the protocol, but this does not take into account individual variability with regard to how fatiguing the protocol actually is. Another limitation that exists within the current literature is the reporting of exercise volume in absolute or relative terms that are not truly replicable as they are both load-dependent and will differ based on the number of repetitions individuals can complete at a given relative load. Given that the level of fatigue caused by an exercise protocol is a good indicator of its hypertrophic potential, the most appropriate way to ensure all individuals are given a common stimulus is to prescribe exercise to volitional fatigue. While some authors commonly employ this practice, others still prescribe an arbitrary number of repetitions, which may lead to unfair comparisons between exercise protocols. The purpose of this opinion piece is to provide evidence for the need to standardize studies examining muscle hypertrophy. In our opinion, one way in which this can be accomplished is by prescribing all sets to volitional fatigue. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Resistance exercises can be considered to be multi-joint (MJ) or single-joint (SJ) in nature. Many strength coaches, trainers, and trainees believe that adding SJ exercises to a resistance training (RT) program may be required to optimize muscular size and strength. However, given that lack of time is a frequently cited barrier to exercise adoption, the time commitment resulting from these recommendations may not be convenient for many people. Therefore, it is important to find strategies that reduce the time commitment without negatively affecting results. The aim of this review was to analyze and discuss the present body of literature considering the acute responses to and long-term adaptations resulting from SJ and MJ exercise selection. Studies were deemed eligible for inclusion if they were experimental studies comparing the effects of MJ, SJ, or MJ + SJ on dependent variables; studies were excluded if they were reviews or abstracts only, if they involved clinical populations or persons with articular or musculoskeletal problems, or if the RT intervention was confounded by other factors. Taking these factors into account, a total of 23 studies were included. For the upper and lower limbs, analysis of surface electromyographic (sEMG) activation suggests that there are no differences between SJ and MJ exercises when comparing the prime movers. However, evidence is contrasting when considering the trunk extensor musculature. Only one study directly compared the effects of MJ and SJ on muscle recovery and the results suggest that SJ exercises resulted in increased muscle fatigue and soreness. Long-term studies comparing increases in muscle size and strength in the upper limbs reported no difference between SJ and MJ exercises and no additional effects when SJ exercises were included in an MJ exercise program. For the lumbar extensors, the studies reviewed tend to support the view that this muscle group may benefit from SJ exercise. People performing RT may not need to include SJ exercises in their program to obtain equivalent results in terms of muscle activation and long-term adaptations such as hypertrophy and strength. SJ exercises may only be necessary to strengthen lumbar extensors and to correct muscular imbalances. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Resistance training is an integral component of physical preparation for athletes. A growing body of evidence indicates that eccentric strength training methods induce novel stimuli for neuromuscular adaptations. Objective: The purpose of this systematic review was to determine the effects of eccentric training in comparison to concentric-only or traditional (i.e. constrained by concentric strength) resistance training. Methods: Searches were performed using the electronic databases MEDLINE via EBSCO, PubMed and SPORTDiscus via EBSCO. Full journal articles investigating the long-term (≥4 weeks) effects of eccentric training in healthy (absence of injury or illness during the 4 weeks preceding the training intervention), adult (17-35 years), human participants were selected for the systematic review. A total of 40 studies conformed to these criteria. Results: Eccentric training elicits greater improvements in muscle strength, although in a largely mode-specific manner. Superior enhancements in power and stretch-shortening cycle (SSC) function have also been reported. Eccentric training is at least as effective as other modalities in increasing muscle cross-sectional area (CSA), while the pattern of hypertrophy appears nuanced and increased CSA may occur longitudinally within muscle (i.e. the addition of sarcomeres in series). There appears to be a preferential increase in the size of type II muscle fibres and the potential to exert a unique effect upon fibre type transitions. Qualitative and quantitative changes in tendon tissue that may be related to the magnitude of strain imposed have also been reported with eccentric training. Conclusions: Eccentric training is a potent stimulus for enhancements in muscle mechanical function, and muscle-tendon unit (MTU) morphological and architectural adaptations. The inclusion of eccentric loads not constrained by concentric strength appears to be superior to traditional resistance training in improving variables associated with strength, power and speed performance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The principle of progressive overload must be adhered to for individuals to continually increase muscle size with resistance training. While the majority of trained individuals adhere to this principle by increasing the number of sets performed per exercise session, this does not appear to be an effective method for increasing muscle size once a given threshold is surpassed. Opposite the numerous studies examining differences in training loads and sets of exercise performed, a few studies have assessed the importance of training frequency with respect to muscle growth, none of which have tested very high frequencies of training (e.g., 7 days a week). The lack of studies examining such frequencies may be related to the American College of Sports Medicine recommendation that trained individuals use split routines allowing at least 48 h of rest between exercises that stress the same muscle groups. Given the attenuated muscle protein synthetic response to resistance exercise present in trained individuals, it can be hypothesized that increasing the training frequency would allow for more frequent elevations in muscle protein synthesis and more time spent in a positive net protein balance. We hypothesize that increasing the training frequency, as opposed to the training load or sets performed, may be a more appropriate strategy for trained individuals to progress a resistance exercise program aimed at increasing muscle size. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Our current state of knowledge regarding the load (lighter or heavier) lifted in resistance training programmes that will result in 'optimal' strength and hypertrophic adaptations is unclear. Despite this, position stands and recommendations are made based on, we propose, limited evidence to lift heavier weights. Here we discuss the state of evidence on the impact of load and how it, as a single variable, stimulates adaptations to take place and whether evidence for recommending heavier loads is available, well-defined, currently correctly interpreted or has been overlooked. Areas of discussion include electromyography amplitude, in vivo and in vitro methods of measuring hypertrophy, and motor schema and skill acquisition. The present piece clarifies to trainers and trainees the impact of these variables by discussing interpretation of synchronous and sequential motor unit recruitment and revisiting the size principle, poor agreement between whole-muscle cross-sectional area (CSA) and biopsy-determined changes in myofibril CSA, and neural adaptations around task specificity. Our opinion is that the practical implications of being able to self-select external load include reducing the need for specific facility memberships, motivating older persons or those who might be less confident using heavy loads, and allowing people to undertake home- or field-based resistance training intervention strategies that might ultimately improve exercise adherence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: A number of resistance training (RT) program variables can be manipulated to maximize muscular hypertrophy. One variable of primary interest in this regard is RT frequency. Frequency can refer to the number of resistance training sessions performed in a given period of time, as well as to the number of times a specific muscle group is trained over a given period of time. Objective: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the effects of resistance training frequency on hypertrophic outcomes. Methods: Studies were deemed eligible for inclusion if they met the following criteria: (1) were an experimental trial published in an English-language refereed journal; (2) directly compared different weekly resistance training frequencies in traditional dynamic exercise using coupled concentric and eccentric actions; (3) measured morphologic changes via biopsy, imaging, circumference, and/or densitometry; (4) had a minimum duration of 4 weeks; and (5) used human participants without chronic disease or injury. A total of ten studies were identified that investigated RT frequency in accordance with the criteria outlined. Results: Analysis using binary frequency as a predictor variable revealed a significant impact of training frequency on hypertrophy effect size ( P = 0.002), with higher frequency being associated with a greater effect size than lower frequency (0.49 ± 0.08 vs. 0.30 ± 0.07, respectively). Statistical analyses of studies investigating training session frequency when groups are matched for frequency of training per muscle group could not be carried out and reliable estimates could not be generated due to inadequate sample size. Conclusions: When comparing studies that investigated training muscle groups between 1 to 3 days per week on a volume-equated basis, the current body of evidence indicates that frequencies of training twice a week promote superior hypertrophic outcomes to once a week. It can therefore be inferred that the major muscle groups should be trained at least twice a week to maximize muscle growth; whether training a muscle group three times per week is superior to a twice-per-week protocol remains to be determined. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aging process is characterized by several physiological, morphological, and psychological alterations that result in a decreased functional and health status throughout the life span. Among these alterations, the loss of muscle mass and strength (sarcopenia) is receiving increased attention because of its association with innumerous age-related disorders, including (but not limited to) osteoporosis, osteoarthritis, low back pain, risk of fall, and disability. Regular participation in resistance training programs can minimize the musculoskeletal alterations that occur during aging, and may contribute to the health and well-being of the older population. Compelling evidence suggest that regular practice of resistance exercise may prevent and control the development of several musculoskeletal chronic diseases. Moreover, resistance training may also improve physical fitness, function, and independence in older people with musculoskeletal disorders, which may result in improved quality of the years lived. In summary, regular participation in resistance training programs plays an important role in aging and may be a preventive and therapeutic tool for several musculoskeletal disorders. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Over the last 30+ years, it has become axiomatic that performing aerobic exercise within the same training program as resistance exercise (termed concurrent exercise training) interferes with the hypertrophic adaptations associated with resistance exercise training. However, a close examination of the literature reveals that the interference effect of concurrent exercise training on muscle growth in humans is not as compelling as previously thought. Moreover, recent studies show that, under certain conditions, concurrent exercise may augment resistance exercise-induced hypertrophy in healthy human skeletal muscle. The purpose of this article is to outline the contrary evidence for an acute and chronic interference effect of concurrent exercise on skeletal muscle growth in humans and provide practical literature-based recommendations for maximizing hypertrophy when training concurrently. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Figures 2 and 3 were transposed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]