Dataset Information

Effects of Variable-Resistance Training Versus Constant-Resistance Training on Maximum Strength: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

ABSTRACT: 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.

SUBMITTER: Lin Y

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9317775 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveAcute effects of variable resistance training (VRT) and constant resistance training (CRT) on neuromuscular performance are still equivocal. We aimed to determine the differences between VRT and CRT in terms of force, velocity, and power outcomes.MethodsWe searched PubMed, Web of Science, and SPORTDiscus electronic databases for articles until June 2021. Crossover design studies comparing force, velocity, and power outcomes while performing VRT and CRT were included. Two reviewers independently applied the modified version of the Cochrane Collaboration's tool to assess the risk of bias. A three-level random effects meta-analyses and meta-regressions were used to compute standardized mean differences (SMDs) and 95% confidence intervals.ResultsWe included 16 studies with 207 participants in the quantitative synthesis. Based on the pooled results, VRT generated greater mean velocity (SMD = 0.675; moderate Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) quality evidence) and mean power (SMD = 1.022; low) than CRT. Subgroup analyses revealed that VRT considerably increased the mean velocity (SMD = 0.903; moderate) and mean power (SMD = 1.456; moderate) in the equated loading scheme and the mean velocity (SMD = 0.712; low) in the CRT higher loading scheme. However, VRT marginally significantly reduced peak velocity (SMD = -0.481; low) in the VRT higher loading scheme. Based on the meta-regression analysis, it was found that mean power (p = 0.014-0.043) was positively moderated by the contribution of variable resistance and peak velocity (p = 0.018) and peak power (p = 0.001-0.004) and RFD (p = 0.003) were positively moderated by variable resistance equipment, favoring elastic bands.ConclusionsVRT provides practitioners with the means of emphasizing specific force, velocity, and power outcomes. Different strategies should be considered in context of an individual's needs. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO CRD42021259205.

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: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: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 Variable-Resistance Training Versus Constant-Resistance Training on Maximum Strength: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets