Dataset Information

The Effect of Load and Volume Autoregulation on Muscular Strength and Hypertrophy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Autoregulation has emerged as a potentially beneficial resistance training paradigm to individualize and optimize programming; however, compared to standardized prescription, the effects of autoregulated load and volume prescription on muscular strength and hypertrophy adaptations are unclear. Our objective was to compare the effect of autoregulated load prescription (repetitions in reserve-based rating of perceived exertion and velocity-based training) to standardized load prescription (percentage-based training) on chronic one-repetition maximum (1RM) strength and cross-sectional area (CSA) hypertrophy adaptations in resistance-trained individuals. We also aimed to investigate the effect of volume autoregulation with velocity loss thresholds ≤ 25% compared to > 25% on 1RM strength and CSA hypertrophy.

Methods

This review was performed in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. A systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and SPORTDiscus was conducted. Mean differences (MD), 95% confidence intervals (CI), and standardized mean differences (SMD) were calculated. Sub-analyses were performed as applicable.

Results

Fifteen studies were included in the meta-analysis: six studies on load autoregulation and nine studies on volume autoregulation. No significant differences between autoregulated and standardized load prescription were demonstrated for 1RM strength (MD = 2.07, 95% CI - 0.32 to 4.46 kg, p = 0.09, SMD = 0.21). Velocity loss thresholds ≤ 25% demonstrated significantly greater 1RM strength (MD = 2.32, 95% CI 0.33 to 4.31 kg, p = 0.02, SMD = 0.23) and significantly lower CSA hypertrophy (MD = 0.61, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.16 cm², p = 0.03, SMD = 0.28) than velocity loss thresholds > 25%. No significant differences between velocity loss thresholds > 25% and 20-25% were demonstrated for hypertrophy (MD = 0.36, 95% CI - 0.29 to 1.00 cm², p = 0.28, SMD = 0.13); however, velocity loss thresholds > 25% demonstrated significantly greater hypertrophy compared to thresholds ≤ 20% (MD = 0.64, 95% CI 0.07 to 1.20 cm², p = 0.03, SMD = 0.34).

Conclusions

Collectively, autoregulated and standardized load prescription produced similar improvements in strength. When sets and relative intensity were equated, velocity loss thresholds ≤ 25% were superior for promoting strength possibly by minimizing acute neuromuscular fatigue while maximizing chronic neuromuscular adaptations, whereas velocity loss thresholds > 20-25% were superior for promoting hypertrophy by accumulating greater relative volume. Protocol Registration The original protocol was prospectively registered (CRD42021240506) with the PROSPERO (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews).

SUBMITTER: Hickmott LM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8762534 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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:BackgroundMaximal strength is a critical determinant of performance in numerous sports. Autoregulation is a resistance training prescription approach to adjust training variables based on the individuals' daily fluctuations in performance, which are a result of training-induced fitness and fatigue, together with readiness from daily non-training stressors.ObjectiveThis review aimed to summarise the effects of different subjective and objective autoregulation methods for intensity and volume on enhancing maximal strength.Materials and methodsA comprehensive literature search was conducted through SPORTDiscus, PubMed and Google Scholar. Studies had to meet the following criteria to be included in the review: (1) estimation of 1-RM or a 1-RM test for both pre-test and post-test to measure progression in strength assessment during the training intervention, (2) a training comparison group, (3) participants were healthy, (4) the article had a detailed description of training intensity, training volume, and training frequency during the training intervention, (5) the training intervention lasted for more than four weeks, (6) studies with objective autoregulation methods utilised a validated measuring tool to monitor velocity, (7) English-language studies.ResultsFourteen studies met the inclusion criteria, comprising 30 training groups and 356 participants. Effect size and percentage differences were calculated for 13 out of 14 studies to compare the effects of different training interventions. All autoregulation training protocols resulted in an increase in 1-RM, from small ES to large ES.ConclusionOverall, our findings suggest that using both subjective autoregulation methods for intensity, such as repetitions in reserve rating of perceived exertion and flexible daily undulation periodisation, together with objective autoregulation methods for autoregulation intensity and volume, such as velocity targets and velocity loss, could be effective methods for enhancing maximal strength. It is speculated that this is because the implementation of autoregulation into a periodised plan may take into account the athletes' daily fluctuations, such as fluctuations in fitness, fatigue, and readiness to train. When training with a validated measuring tool to monitor velocity, this may provide objective augmented intra- and interset feedback during the resistance exercise who could be beneficial for increasing maximal strength. Coaches, practitioners, and athletes are encouraged to implement such autoregulation methods into a periodised plan when the goal is to enhance maximal strength.

Project description:BackgroundResistance 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.ObjectiveOur 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.MethodsA 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".ResultsAll 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).DiscussionBased 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.RegistrationThe review protocol was registered on PROSPERO (ID number and hyperlink: CRD42022365677).

Project description:Background: Muscular dystrophy causes weakness and muscle loss. The effect of muscular exercise in these patients remains controversial. Objective: To assess the effects of muscular exercise vs. no exercise in patients with muscular dystrophy. Methods: We performed a comprehensive systematic literature search in the Medline, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, and Pedro electronic databases, as well as in the reference literature. We included randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that reported the effect of muscular exercise on muscle strength, endurance during walking, motor abilities, and fatigue. Data were extracted independently by two reviewers. Mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were used to quantify the effect associated with each outcome. We performed pairwise meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses (TSA) and used GRADE to rate the overall certainty of evidence. Results: We identified 13 RCTs involving 617 patients. The median duration of exercise interventions was 16 weeks [interquartile range [IQR] 12-24]. In the patients with facio-scapulo-humeral dystrophy and myotonic dystrophy, no significant difference in extensor muscle strength was noted between the exercise and the control groups [four studies, 115 patients, MD 4.34, 95% CI -4.20 to 12.88, I 2 = 69%; p = 0.32; minimal important difference [MID] 5.39 m]. Exercise was associated with improved endurance during walking [five studies, 380 patients, MD 17.36 m, 95% CI 10.91-23.81, I 2 = 0; p < 0.00001; MID 34 m]. TSA excluded random error as a cause of the findings for endurance during walking. Differences in fatigue and motor abilities were small. Not enough information was found for other types of dystrophy. Conclusions: Muscular exercise did not improve muscle strength and was associated with modest improvements in endurance during walking in patients with facio-scapulo-humeral and myotonic dystrophy. Future trials should explore which type of muscle exercise could lead to better improvements in muscle strength. PROSPERO: CRD42019127456.