Dataset Information

Effects of training with elastic resistance versus conventional resistance on muscular strength: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT: Given the practicality and low cost of using elastic resistance in training for different populations and its effectiveness in a range of outcomes, a comparison with conventional devices could clarify and quantify the benefits provided by both mode. To compare the effects of resistance training with elastic devices (tubes and Thera-Bands) and conventional devices (weight machines and dumbbells) on the outcome muscular strength. A search was performed in the databases PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, PEDro (Physiotherapy Evidence Database), and CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) from the earliest records up to 20 December 2017. Data were pooled into a meta-analysis and described as standardized mean difference with a 95% confidence interval (registration number: CRD42016042152). Eight studies were included. The results of the meta-analysis demonstrated no superiority between the methods analyzed for upper limb (standardized mean difference?=?-0.011; 95% confidence interval?=?-0.40, 0.19; p?=?0.48) or lower limb muscular strength (standardized mean difference?=?0.09; 95% confidence interval?=?-0.18, 0.35; p?=?0.52). Elastic resistance training is able to promote similar strength gains to conventional resistance training, in different population profiles and using diverse protocols.

SUBMITTER: Lopes JSS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6383082 | biostudies-literature | 2019

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Effects of training with elastic resistance versus conventional resistance on muscular strength: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Lopes Jaqueline Santos Silva JSS Machado Aryane Flauzino AF Micheletti Jéssica Kirsch JK de Almeida Aline Castilho AC Cavina Allysiê Priscila AP Pastre Carlos Marcelo CM

SAGE open medicine 20190219

Given the practicality and low cost of using elastic resistance in training for different populations and its effectiveness in a range of outcomes, a comparison with conventional devices could clarify and quantify the benefits provided by both mode. To compare the effects of resistance training with elastic devices (tubes and Thera-Bands) and conventional devices (weight machines and dumbbells) on the outcome muscular strength. A search was performed in the databases PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, PEDr ...[more]

PMID: 30815258

Similar Datasets

Project description:Greater muscular strength is generally associated with superior sports performance, for example, in jumping, sprinting, and throwing. This meta-analysis aims to compare the effects of variable-resistance training (VRT) and constant-resistance training (CRT) on the maximum strength of trained and untrained subjects. PubMed, Web of Science, and Google Scholar were comprehensively searched to identify relevant studies published up to January 2022. Fourteen studies that met the inclusion criteria were used for the systematic review and meta-analysis. Data regarding training status, training modality, and type of outcome measure were extracted for the analyses. The Cochrane Collaboration tool was used to assess the risk of bias. The pooled outcome showed improved maximum strength with VRT, which was significantly higher than that with CRT (ES = 0.80; 95% CI: 0.42-1.19) for all the subjects. In addition, trained subjects experienced greater maximum-strength improvements with VRT than with CRT (ES = 0.57; 95% CI: 0.22-0.93). Based on subgroup analyses, maximum-strength improvement with a VRT load of ≥80% of 1 repetition maximum (1RM) was significantly higher than that with CRT (ES = 0.76; 95% CI: 0.37-1.16) in trained subjects, while no significant differences were found between VRT and CRT for maximum-strength improvement when the load was <80% (ES = 0.00; 95% CI: -0.55-0.55). The untrained subjects also achieved greater maximum strength with VRT than with CRT (ES = 1.34; 95% CI: 0.28-2.40). Interestingly, the improved maximum strength of untrained subjects with a VRT load of <80% of 1RM was significantly higher than that with CRT (ES = 2.38; 95% CI: 1.39-3.36); however, no significant differences were noted between VRT and CRT when the load was ≥80% of 1RM (ES = -0.04; 95% CI: -0.89-0.81). Our findings show that subjects with resistance training experience could use a load of ≥80% of 1RM and subjects without resistance training experience could use a load of <80% of 1RM to obtain greater VRT benefits.

Project description:ObjectiveThe aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to determine the overall effect of resistance training (RT) on measures of muscular strength in people with Parkinson's disease (PD).MethodsControlled trials with parallel-group-design were identified from computerized literature searching and citation tracking performed until August 2014. Two reviewers independently screened for eligibility and assessed the quality of the studies using the Cochrane risk-of-bias-tool. For each study, mean differences (MD) or standardized mean differences (SMD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for continuous outcomes based on between-group comparisons using post-intervention data. Subgroup analysis was conducted based on differences in study design.ResultsNine studies met the inclusion criteria; all had a moderate to high risk of bias. Pooled data showed that knee extension, knee flexion and leg press strength were significantly greater in PD patients who undertook RT compared to control groups with or without interventions. Subgroups were: RT vs. control-without-intervention, RT vs. control-with-intervention, RT-with-other-form-of-exercise vs. control-without-intervention, RT-with-other-form-of-exercise vs. control-with-intervention. Pooled subgroup analysis showed that RT combined with aerobic/balance/stretching exercise resulted in significantly greater knee extension, knee flexion and leg press strength compared with no-intervention. Compared to treadmill or balance exercise it resulted in greater knee flexion, but not knee extension or leg press strength. RT alone resulted in greater knee extension and flexion strength compared to stretching, but not in greater leg press strength compared to no-intervention.DiscussionOverall, the current evidence suggests that exercise interventions that contain RT may be effective in improving muscular strength in people with PD compared with no exercise. However, depending on muscle group and/or training dose, RT may not be superior to other exercise types. Interventions which combine RT with other exercise may be most effective. Findings should be interpreted with caution due to the relatively high risk of bias of most studies.

Project description:BackgroundThe 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.PurposeThe 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.MethodsA 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.ResultsA 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)].ConclusionThis 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.

Project description:BackgroundThe current recommendations on resistance training involving older adults have reported an improvement of body composition variables. Despite this, there is a lack of knowledge on how elastic resistance training (ERT) affects the muscle mass in older adults population. The purpose of this study was to determine the effects of a short-term ERT on muscle mass of health and untrained older adults.MethodsForty older adults were randomized into two groups of 20 individuals each: Control Group (CG = 66.2 ± 6.6 years) and Training Group (TG = 69.1 ± 6.3 years). TG underwent an ERT twice a week during 8 weeks and control group did not receive any specific intervention. The primary outcome was the upper and lower limbs muscle mass, measured by Dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry. The secondary outcomes were knee isokinetic peak torque (PT) at 60°/s and 120°/s speeds and isometric handgrip strength. A 2×2 mixed model (group [TG and CG] × time [pre and post]) analysis of variance (ANOVA) was applied to determine the effect on primary and secondary outcomes.ResultsThe results of the ANOVA showed no significant effects in group x time interaction for (1) upper limbs fat free mass (F [1.38] = 1.80, p = 0.19, effect size [ES] = 0.1) and for (2) lower limbs fat free mass (F [1.38] = 0.03, p = 0.88, ES = 0.02). Regarding muscle strength, the ANOVA showed no significant effects in group x time interaction for (3) PT at 60°/s (F [1.38] = 0.33, p = 0.56, ES = 3.0), for (4) PT at 120°/s (F [1.38] = 0.80, p = 0.38, ES = 4.1) and for handgrip strength (F [1.38] = 0.65, p = 0.42-value, ES = 0.9). Analysis of PT in TG showed a significant change of 4.5%, but only at 120°/s (p = 0.01) when comparing pre and post-training (time interaction).ConclusionsEight weeks of ERT did not show significant changes in muscle mass and strength of untrained older adults.Trial registrationNCT02253615 (09/25/14).

Project description:Strength training is an important means for performance development in young rowers. The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of a 9-week equal volume heavy-resistance strength training (HRST) versus strength endurance training (SET) in addition to regular rowing training on primary (e.g., maximal strength/power) and secondary outcomes (e.g., balance) in young rowers. Twenty-six female elite adolescent rowers were assigned to an HRST (n = 12; age: 13.2 ± 0.5 yrs; maturity-offset: +2.0 ± 0.5 yrs) or a SET group (n = 14; age: 13.1 ± 0.5 yrs; maturity-offset: +2.1 ± 0.5 yrs). HRST and SET comprised lower- (i.e., leg press/knee flexion/extension), upper-limbs (i.e., bench press/pull; lat-pull down), and complex exercises (i.e., rowing ergometer). HRST performed four sets with 12 repetitions per set at an intensity of 75-95% of the one-repetition maximum (1-RM). SET conducted four sets with 30 repetitions per set at 50-60% of the 1-RM. Training volume was matched for overall repetitions × intensity × training per week. Pre-post training, tests were performed for the assessment of primary [i.e., maximal strength (e.g., bench pull/knee flexion/extension 1-RM/isometric handgrip test), muscle power (e.g., medicine-ball push test, triple hop, drop jump, and countermovement jump), anaerobic endurance (400-m run), sport-specific performance (700-m rowing ergometer trial)] and secondary outcomes [dynamic balance (Y-balance test), change-of-direction (CoD) speed (multistage shuttle-run test)]. Adherence rate was >87% and one athlete of each group dropped out. Overall, 24 athletes completed the study and no test or training-related injuries occurred. Significant group × time interactions were observed for maximal strength, muscle power, anaerobic endurance, CoD speed, and sport-specific performance (p ? 0.05; 0.45 ? d ? 1.11). Post hoc analyses indicated larger gains in maximal strength and muscle power following HRST (p ? 0.05; 1.81 ? d ? 3.58) compared with SET (p ? 0.05; 1.04 ? d ? 2.30). Furthermore, SET (p ? 0.01; d = 2.08) resulted in larger gains in sport-specific performance compared with HRST (p < 0.05; d = 1.3). Only HRST produced significant pre-post improvements for anaerobic endurance and CoD speed (p ? 0.05; 1.84 ? d ? 4.76). In conclusion, HRST in addition to regular rowing training was more effective than SET to improve selected measures of physical fitness (i.e., maximal strength, muscle power, anaerobic endurance, and CoD speed) and SET was more effective than HRST to enhance sport-specific performance gains in female elite young rowers.

Dataset Information

Effects of training with elastic resistance versus conventional resistance on muscular strength: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Publications

Effects of training with elastic resistance versus conventional resistance on muscular strength: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets