Dataset Information

Effects of Variations in Resistance Training Frequency on Strength Development in Well-Trained Populations and Implications for In-Season Athlete Training: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

In-season competition and tournaments for team sports can be both long and congested, with some sports competing up to three times per week. During these periods of time, athletes need to prepare technically, tactically and physically for the next fixture and the short duration between fixtures means that, in some cases, physical preparation ceases, or training focus moves to recovery as opposed to progressing adaptations.

Objective

The aim of this review was to investigate the effect of training frequency on muscular strength to determine if a potential method to accommodate in-season resistance training, during busy training schedules, could be achieved by utilizing shorter more frequent training sessions across a training week.

Methods

A literature search was conducted using the SPORTDiscus, Ovid, PubMed and Scopus databases. 2134 studies were identified prior to application of the following inclusion criteria: (1) maximal strength was assessed, (2) a minimum of two different training frequency groups were included, (3) participants were well trained, and finally (4) compound exercises were included within the training programmes. A Cochrane risk of bias assessment was applied to studies that performed randomized controlled trials and consistency of studies was analysed using I² as a test of heterogeneity. Secondary analysis of studies included Hedges' g effect sizes (g) and between-study differences were estimated using a random-effects model.

Results

Inconsistency of effects between pre- and post-intervention was low within-group (I² = 0%), and moderate between-group (I² ≤ 73.95%). Risk of bias was also low based upon the Cochrane risk of bias assessment. Significant increases were observed overall for both upper (p ≤ 0.022) and lower (p ≤ 0.008) body strength, pre- to post-intervention, when all frequencies were assessed. A small effect was observed between training frequencies for upper (g ≤ 0.58) and lower body (g ≤ 0.45).

Conclusion

Over a 6-12-week period, there are no clear differences in maximal strength development between training frequencies, in well-trained populations. Such observations may permit the potential for training to be manipulated around competition schedules and volume to be distributed across shorter, but more frequent training sessions within a micro-cycle rather than being condensed into 1-2 sessions per week, in effect, allowing for a micro-dosing of the strength stimuli.

SUBMITTER: Cuthbert M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8363540 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundIn resistance training, the role of training frequency to increase maximal strength is often debated. However, the limited data available does not allow for clear training frequency "optimization" recommendations. The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of training frequency on maximal muscular strength and rate of perceived exertion (RPE). The total weekly training volume was equally distributed between two and four sessions per muscle group.MethodsTwenty-one experienced resistance-trained male subjects (height: 1.85 ± 0.06 m, body mass: 85.3 ± 12.3 kg, age: 27.6 ± 7.6 years) were tested prior to and after an 8-week training period in one-repetition maximum (1RM) barbell back squat and bench press. Subjects were randomly assigned to a SPLIT group (n = 10), in which there were two training sessions of squats and lower-body exercises and two training sessions of bench press and upper-body exercises, or a FULLBODY group (n = 11), in which four sessions with squats, bench press and supplementary exercises were conducted every session. In each session, the subjects rated their RPE after barbell back squat, bench press, and the full session.ResultsBoth groups significantly increased 1RM strength in barbell back squat (SPLIT group: +13.25 kg; FULLBODY group: +14.31 kg) and bench press (SPLIT group: +7.75 kg; FULLBODY group: +8.86 kg) but training frequency did not affect this increase for squat (p = 0.640) or bench press (p = 0.431). Both groups showed a significant effect for time on RPE on all three measurements. The analyses showed only an interaction effect between groups on time for the RPE after the squat exercise (p = 0.002).ConclusionWe conclude that there are no additional benefits of increasing the training frequency from two to four sessions under volume-equated conditions, but it could be favorable to spread the total training volume into several training bouts through the week to avoid potential increases in RPE, especially after the squat exercise.

Project description:Background: Heavy strength (HS) and short-sprint (SS) are commonly used training methods for competitive road cyclists, with the aim to improve the anaerobic power and short time cycling performance. Knowledge of how such training methods affects biochemical as well as molecular factors, are particularly important for determining individual recovery and long-term adaptations. The primary aim of the current study was to investigate the expression levels of small non-coding RNAs in response to HS and SS training in elite cyclists as potential biomarkers for individual optimal restitution time. Methods: Eleven well trained cyclists performed one session of HS training and one session of SS training on separate days. Blood samples were taken at baseline and 5 min, 1 h and 21 h post training. Along with physiological measurements and biochemical factors (serum creatine kinase, myoglobin, human growth hormone and plasma lactate), real-time quantitative PCR was used to explore whether HS and/or SS training influenced the abundance of 24 circulating miRNAs, in serum, associated with muscle development, angiogenesis, and/or inflammation. Results: Based on complete miRNA profiles from nine cyclists, the miRNAs showing most altered expression after both training sessions included the three striated muscle-specific miRNAs (myomiRs) miR-1-3p, 133a-3p and 133b-3p. While all three miRNAs showed significantly highest expression at 1 h post HS session, the acute effect of the SS session included a significantly higher level of miR-1-3p alone, at 5 min (highest), as well as at 1 h and 21 h post session. Correlation (negative) with biochemical markers was only shown for miR-133a-3p and CK (r = -0.786, p = 0.041) and between miR-133b-3p and [La-] (r = -0.711, p = .032), at 21 h post SS session. Conclusion: Our findings support that unique myomiRs are regulated by HS and SS training. Such knowledge may be important for individually adjusted restitution times.

Project description:The main purpose of the present study was to investigate the effect of frequency, thereby increasing training volume, of resistance training on body composition, inflammation markers, lipid and glycemic profile in healthy older individuals (age range 65-75 year). Ninety-two healthy participants were randomly assigned to one of four groups; performing strength training one- (EX1), two- (EX2), or three- (EX3) times-per-week and a non-training control (CON) group. Whole-body strength training was performed using 2-5 sets and 4-12 repetitions per exercise and 7-9 exercises per session. All training groups attended supervised resistance training for 6 months. Body composition was measured by dual X-ray absorptiometry and fasting blood samples were taken pre- and post-training. There were significant main effects of time for total fat mass (F = 28.12, P < 0.001) and abdominal fat mass (F = 20.72, P < 0.001). Pre- to post-study, statistically significant reductions in fat mass (? = -1.3 ± 1.4 kg, P < 0.001, n = 26) were observed in EX3. Pre- to post-study reductions in low density lipoprotein (LDL) concentration (? = -0.38 ± 0.44 mmol?L-1, P = 0.003, n = 19) were observed only in EX3, whereas a significant pre- to post-study increases in high density lipoprotein (HDL) concentration (0.14-0.19 mmol?L-1) were observed in all training groups. Most variables at baseline demonstrated a significant (negative) relationship when correlating baseline values with their change during the study including: Interleukin-6 (IL-6) (r = -0.583, P < 0.001), high-sensitivity c-reactive protein (hs-CRP) (r = -0.471, P < 0.001, and systolic blood pressure (r = -0.402, P = 0.003). The present study suggests that having more than two resistance training sessions in a week could be of benefit in the management of body composition and lipid profile. Nevertheless, interestingly, and importantly, those individuals with a higher baseline in systolic blood pressure, IL-6 and hs-CRP derived greatest benefit from the resistance training intervention, regardless of how many times-a-week they trained. Finally, the present study found no evidence that higher training frequency would induce greater benefit regarding inflammation markers or glycemic profile in healthy older adults.

Project description:Accommodation resistance is a training technique that may improve strength and power gains beyond those achieved by traditional free weights. In this method, chains are either added on a free-weight bar and combined with traditional plates or added to the bar as the entire load. Purpose. The aim of the current study was to compare the effectiveness of accommodation and constant resistance training methods during a four-week period on maximal strength and power in trained athletes. Methods. This study was comprised of 24 trained athletes, including 16 trained males [8 Wushu athletes (Kung-Fu) and 8 wrestlers, age: 20.5 ± 2.00 yrs. old]. Participants were initially tested on weight, body circumference, fat percent, upper and lower body maximal strength, determined by the 1-repetition maximum (1RM) test, which determines the greatest amount of weight a person can successfully lift, and upper and lower body power. Participants were equally randomized to either accommodation or constant resistance training groups. Both groups underwent resistance training for a four-week period that consisted of three sessions per week. Multivariate repeated-measures analyses of variance of the data were used to verify significant differences in strength and power between groups. The modified Bonferroni post hoc test was used to compare the obtained results in pre-, mid-, and post test. Results. In the accommodation resistance group, there was a significant difference in lower body maximal strength compared to the constant group (163.12 ± 18.82 kg in the accommodation group vs. 142.25 ± 20.04 kg in the constant group, P = 0.04). No significant differences were found in upper body power, lower body power, and upper body maximal strength between the two groups (P > 0.05). Conclusion. Although there was only a significant difference in lower body maximal strength between groups, accommodation resistance training may induce a physiological training response by improving the strength and power of stabilizing muscle groups required to balance the bar if consistently used over time.

Project description:BackgroundThe effect of concurrent training on the development of maximal strength is unclear, especially in individuals with different training statuses.ObjectiveThe aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis study was to compare the effect of concurrent resistance and endurance training with that of resistance training only on the development of maximal dynamic strength in untrained, moderately trained, and trained individuals.MethodsOn the basis of the predetermined criteria, 27 studies that compared effects between concurrent and resistance training only on lower-body 1-repetition maximum (1RM) strength were included. The effect size (ES), calculated as the standardised difference in mean, was extracted from each study, pooled, and analysed with a random-effects model.ResultsThe 1RM for leg press and squat exercises was negatively affected by concurrent training in trained individuals (ES = - 0.35, p < 0.01), but not in moderately trained ( - 0.20, p = 0.08) or untrained individuals (ES = 0.03, p = 0.87) as compared to resistance training only. A subgroup analysis revealed that the negative effect observed in trained individuals occurred only when resistance and endurance training were conducted within the same training session (ES same session = - 0.66, p < 0.01 vs. ES different sessions = - 0.10, p = 0.55).ConclusionThis study demonstrated the novel and quantifiable effects of training status on lower-body strength development and shows that the addition of endurance training to a resistance training programme may have a negative impact on lower-body strength development in trained, but not in moderately trained or untrained individuals. This impairment seems to be more pronounced when training is performed within the same session than in different sessions. Trained individuals should therefore consider separating endurance from resistance training during periods where the development of dynamic maximal strength is prioritised.