Search

While significant progress has been made in understanding the resistance training (RT) strategy for muscle hypertrophy increase, there remains limited knowledge about its impact on fat mass loss. This study aimed to investigate whether full-body is superior to split-body routine in promoting fat mass loss among well-trained males. Twenty-three participants were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 groups: full-body (n = 11, training muscle groups 5 days per week) and split-body (n = 12, training muscle groups 1 day per week). Both groups performed a weekly set volume-matched condition (75 sets/week, 8-12 repetition maximum at 70%-80 % of 1RM) for 8 weeks, 5 days per week with differences only in the routine. Whole-body and regional fat were assessed using DXA at the beginning and at the end of the study. Full-body RT elicited greater losses compared to split-body in whole-body fat mass (-0.775 ± 1.120 kg vs. +0.317 ± 1.260 kg; p = 0.040), upper-limb fat mass (-0.085 ± 0.118 kg vs. +0.066 ± 0.162 kg; p = 0.019), gynoid fat mass (-0.142 ± 0.230 kg vs. +0.123 ± 0.230 kg; p = 0.012), lower-limb fat mass (-0.197 ± 0.204 kg vs. +0.055 ± 0.328 kg; p = 0.040), and a trend in interaction in android fat mass (-0.116 ± 0.153 kg vs. +0.026 ± 0.174 kg; p = 0.051), with large effects sizes (η 2 p  ≥ 0.17). This study provides evidence that full-body is more effective in reducing whole-body and regional fat mass compared to split-body routine in well-trained males., (© 2024 The Authors. European Journal of Sport Science published by Wiley‐VCH GmbH on behalf of European College of Sport Science.)

Gomes, GK, Franco, CM, Nunes, PRP, and Orsatti, FL. High-frequency resistance training is not more effective than low-frequency resistance training in increasing muscle mass and strength in well-trained men. J Strength Cond Res 33(7S): S130-S139, 2019-We studied the effects of 2 different weekly frequency resistance training (RT) protocols over 8 weeks on muscle strength and muscle hypertrophy in well-trained men. Twenty-three subjects (age: 26.2 ± 4.2 years; RT experience: 6.9 ± 3.1 years) were randomly allocated into the 2 groups: low-frequency resistance training (LFRT, n = 12) or high-frequency resistance training (HFRT, n = 11). The LFRT performed a split-body routine, training each specific muscle group once a week. The HFRT performed a total-body routine, training all muscle groups every session. Both groups performed the same number of sets (10-15 sets) and exercises (1-2 exercise) per week, 8-12 repetitions maximum (70-80% of 1 repetition maximum [1RM]), 5 times per week. Muscle strength (bench press and squat 1RM) and lean tissue mass (dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry) were assessed before and at the end of the study. Results showed that both groups improved (p < 0.001) muscle strength {LFRT and HFRT: bench press = 5.6 kg (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.9-9.4) and 9.7 kg (95% CI: 4.6-14.9) and squat = 8.0 kg (95% CI: 2.7-13.2) and 12.0 kg (95% CI: 5.1-18.1), respectively} and lean tissue mass (p = 0.007) (LFRT and HFRT: total body lean mass = 0.5 kg [95% CI: 0.0-1.1] and 0.8 kg [95% CI: 0.0-1.6], respectively) with no difference between groups (bench press, p = 0.168; squat, p = 0.312, and total body lean mass, p = 0.619). Thus, HFRT and LFRT are similar overload strategies for promoting muscular adaptation in well-trained subjects when the sets and intensity are equated per week.

• Resistance training improves body adiposity, metabolic risk, and inflammation in postmenopausal and older females. • High-volume resistance training elicits greater improvements in metabolic risk and inflammation outcomes. • We identified an optimal dosage for resistance training prescription in this population. This meta-analytical study aimed to explore the effects of resistance training (RT) volume on body adiposity, metabolic risk, and inflammation in postmenopausal and older females. A systematic search was performed for randomized controlled trials in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and SciELO. Randomized controlled trials with postmenopausal and older females that compared RT effects on body adiposity, metabolic risk, and inflammation with a control group (CG) were included. Independent reviewers selected the studies, extracted the data, and performed the risk of bias and certainty of the evidence (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE)) evaluations. Total body and abdominal adiposity, blood lipids, glucose, and C-reactive protein were included for meta-analysis. A random-effects model, standardized mean difference (Hedges' g), and 95% confidence interval (95%CI) were used for meta-analysis. Twenty randomized controlled trials (overall risk of bias: some concerns; GRADE: low to very low) with overweight/obese postmenopausal and older females were included. RT groups were divided into low-volume RT (LVRT, ∼44 sets/week) and high-volume RT (HVRT, ∼77 sets/week). Both RT groups presented improved body adiposity, metabolic risk, and inflammation when compared to CG. However, HVRT demonstrated higher effect sizes than LVRT for glucose (HVRT = –1.19; 95%CI: –1.63 to –0.74; LVRT = –0.78; 95%CI:–1.15 to –0.41) and C-reactive protein (HVRT = –1.00; 95%CI: –1.32 to –0.67; LVRT = –0.34; 95%CI, –0.63 to –0.04)) when compared to CG. Compared to CG, HVRT protocols elicit greater improvements in metabolic risk and inflammation outcomes than LVRT in overweight/obese postmenopausal and older females. [Display omitted] [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]