Effects of Resistance Training Performed with Different Loads in Untrained and Trained Male Adult Individuals on Maximal Strength and Muscle Hypertrophy: A Systematic Review
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Eligibility Criteria
2.2. Information Sources
2.3. Search Strategy
2.4. Selection Process
2.5. Data Collection Process and Data Items
2.6. Methodological Quality Assessment
2.7. Synthesis Methods
3. Results
3.1. Study Selection
3.2. Study Characteristics
Study | Design | Duration (Weeks) | Exercise | Prescription | Frequency (Days) | Movement Tempo | Volume | Outcomes Measures | Findings |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Anderson and Kearney [11] | Between-subject | 9 | Bench press | LL 1: 1 set 100–150RM LL 2: 2 sets 30–40RM ML: 3 sets 6–8RM 2 min interval | 3 | LL 1 and LL 2: 40 reps/min | Not equalized | 1RM strength (bench press) | 1RM: ↑ pre- to post-intervention in all groups (ML > LL 1 and LL 2) |
Campos et al. [29] | Between-subject | 8 | Leg press, squat, and leg extension | LL: 2 sets 20–28RM, 1 min interval ML: 3 sets 9–11RM, 2 min interval HL: 4 sets 3–5RM, 3 min interval | 2 (4 weeks) 3 (4 weeks) | Not reported | Equalized | 1RM strength (squat, leg press, and knee extension) Muscle fCSA (biopsy of VL) | 1RM: ↑ pre- to post-intervention in all groups (leg press and back squat—HL > ML and LL; leg extension—HL > LL) CSA: ↑ pre- to post-intervention in ML and HL |
Fink et al. [38] | Between-subject | 8 | Barbell curl, preacher curl, hammer curl, close grip bench press, french press, and dumbbell extension | LL: 3 sets 20RM, 30 s interval ML: 3 sets 8RM, 3 min interval | 3 | 1 s concentric 2 s eccentric | Not equalized | MVIC strength (elbow flexors) Muscle CSA (MRI of elbow flexors) | MVIC: ↑ pre- to post-intervention in ML CSA: ↑ pre- to post-intervention in all groups |
Fink et al. [39] | Between-subject | 8 | Unilateral bicep preacher curl | LL: 3 sets 30% 1RM to volitional failure ML: 3 sets 80% 1RM to volitional failure | 3 | 1 s concentric 2 s eccentric | Not equalized | MVIC strength (elbow flexors) Muscle CSA (MRI of elbow flexors) | MVIC: ↑ pre- to post-intervention in ML CSA: ↑ pre- to post-intervention in all groups |
Fisher et al. [40] | Within-subject | 6 | Unilateral leg extension | LL: 3 sets 50% MVIT to failure, ML: 3 sets 80% MVIT to failure, 2 min interval | 1 | 2 s concentric 1 s isometric 3 s eccentric | Not equalized | MVIT strength (knee extension) | MVIT: ↑ pre- to post-intervention in all conditions |
Holm et al. [41] | Within-subject | 12 | Unilateral leg extension | LL: 10 sets 36 (15.5% 1RM) ML: 10 sets 8 (70% 1RM) | 3 | LL: 5 s per repetition ML: 3 s per repetition | Equalized | 1RM strength (knee extension) MVIC strength (knee extension) Muscle CSA (MRI of QF) | 1RM: ↑ pre- to post-intervention in all groups (ML > LL) MVIC: ↑ pre- to post-intervention in ML CSA: ↑ pre- to post-intervention in all groups (ML > LL) |
Jenkins et al. [42] | Between-subject | 4 | Dumbbell bicep curls | LL: 3 sets 30% 1RM to failure ML: 3 sets 80% 1RM to failure 2 min interval | 3 | 1 s concentric 1 s eccentric | Equalized | 1RM strength (elbow flexion) MVIC strength (elbow flexion) Muscle thickness (ultrasound of BB and BR) | 1RM: ↑ pre-intervention to post 2 and 4 weeks in ML MVIC: ↑ pre-intervention to post 2 and 4 weeks in ML MT: ↑ pre-intervention to post 2 and 4 weeks in all groups |
Jenkins et al. [43] | Between-subject | 6 | Leg extension | LL: 3 sets 30% 1RM to failure ML: 3 sets 80% 1RM to failure 2 min interval | 3 | 1 s concentric 1 s eccentric | Equalized | 1RM strength (knee extension) MVIC strength (knee extension) Muscle thickness (ultrasound of VL, VM, and RF) | 1RM: ↑ pre- to post-intervention in all groups (ML > LL) MVIC: ↑ pre- to post-intervention in all groups (ML > LL) MT: ↑ pre- to post-intervention in all groups |
Jones et al. [48] | Between-subject | 10 | Squat (olympic style), Romanian dead lift, lunge, half back squat | LL: 4 sets 5–15 (40–60% 1RM) ML: 4 sets 3–10 (70–90% 1RM) Both groups performed 3 sets with full range of motion and one set with partial range of motion | 2 | Not reported | Not equalized | 1RM strength (squat) | 1RM: ↑ pre- to post-intervention in all groups (ML > LL) |
Lasevicius et al. [22] | Within-subject | 12 | Unilateral leg press and unilateral bicep curl | LL (20%): 3 sets at 20% 1RM to concentric muscle failure LL (40%): 4 sets at 40% 1RM to volitional failure LL: 5 sets at 60% 1RM to volitional failure ML: 4 sets at 80% 1RM to volitional failure 2 min interval | 2 | 2 s concentric 2 s eccentric | Equalized | 1RM strength (leg press and elbow flexion) Muscle thickness (ultrasound of elbow flexors and VL) | 1RM bicep curl: ↑ pre- to post-intervention in all conditions (80% > 20, 40, and 60%) 1RM leg press: ↑ pre- to post-intervention in all conditions (60 and 80% > 20 and 40%) CSA: ↑ pre- to post-intervention in all conditions (80, 60, and 40% > 20%) |
Lasevicius et al. [21] | Within-subject | 8 | Unilateral leg extension | LL to failure: 3 sets at 30% 1RM LL not to failure: 3 sets at 30% 1RM ML to failure: 3 sets at 80% 1RM ML not to failure: 3 sets at 80% 1RM 2 min interval | 2 | Not reported | Equalized | 1RM strength (knee extension) Muscle CSA (MRI of QF) | 1RM: ↑ pre- to post-intervention in all conditions (ML failure = ML not to failure > LL failure = LL not to failure) CSA: ↑ pre- to post-intervention in ML failure, ML not to failure, and LL failure |
Lim et al. [23] | Between-subject | 10 | Leg press, leg extension, and leg curl | LL: 3 sets 30% 1RM to volitional failure LL WM: 3 sets 30% 1RM (work matched to HL) ML: 3 sets 80% 1RM to volitional failure Interval not reported | 3 | Not reported | Equalized to LL WM and ML | 1RM strength (leg extension) Muscle fCSA (biopsy of VL) | 1RM: ↑ pre- to post-intervention in all groups CSA: ↑ pre- to post-intervention in type I in LL and ML; ↑ pre- to post-intervention in type II in all groups |
Lopes et al. [13] | Between-subject | 6 | Session A: bench press (flat and inclined), fly, bicep curls (standing and concentrated), squat, leg press, and abdominal; Session B: back lat pull-down, one arm dumbbell row, row (open grip), tricep overhead extension, tricep pushdown, leg curl, calf raise, and abdominal | LL: 3 sets 20RM ML: 6 sets 10RM 1 min interval | 4 | Not reported | Equalized | 1RM strength (bench press and squat) | 1RM: ↑ pre- to post-intervention in bench press and back squat in all groups |
Mitchell et al. [28] | Within-subject | 10 | Unilateral leg extension | LL: 3 sets 30% 1RM to point of fatigue ML: 1 set 80% 1RM to voluntary failure ML: 3 sets 80% 1RM to point of fatigue 1 min interval | 3 | Not reported | Not equalized | 1RM strength (knee extension) MVIC strength (knee extensors) Muscle CSA (MRI of QF) Muscle fCSA (biopsy of VL) | 1RM: ↑ pre- to post-intervention in all conditions (ML 1 and ML 3 > LL) CSA: ↑ pre- to post-intervention in all groups |
Morton et al. [46] | Between-subject | 12 | Monday/Thursday: leg press/seated row, barbell bench press/cable hamstring curl, and front planks; Tuesday/Friday: machine-guided shoulder press/bicep curls, tricep extension/wide-grip pulldown, and machine-guided leg extension | LL: 3 sets 20–25 (30–50% 1RM) volitional failure ML: 3 sets 8–12 (75–90% 1RM) volitional failure 1 min interval | 4 | Not reported | Not equalized | 1RM strength (bench press, leg press, shoulder press, and knee extension) Muscle fCSA (biopsy of VL) | 1RM: ↑ pre- to post-intervention in all groups (ML > LL in bench press) CSA: ↑ pre- to post-intervention in all groups |
Netreba et al. [44] | Between-subject | 8 | Leg press | LL: 7 sets 35–50 (20–25% 1RM), 5–6 min interval ML: 5 sets (2 × 40–50 s (60–70% 1RM), 5–6 min interval HL: 6–10 reps (85–90% 1RM), 5–6 min interval | 3 | LL: high velocity ML: low velocity HL: average velocity | Equalized | 1RM strength (knee extension) Muscle fCSA (biopsy of VL) | 1RM: ↑ pre- to post-intervention in LL and HL in all velocities; ↑ pre- to post-intervention in ML for 180°/s, 300°/s, and isometric strength CSA: ↑ pre- to post-intervention in type I and II in all groups, except type II of the LL groups |
Nóbrega et al. [14] | Within-subject | 12 | Unilateral leg extension | LL to failure and LL to volitional interruption: 3 sets 30% 1RM ML to failure and ML to volitional interruption: 3 sets 80% 1RM 2 min interval | 2 | Not reported | Not equalized | 1RM strength (knee extension) Muscle CSA (ultrasound of VL) | 1RM: ↑ pre- to post-intervention in all groups CSA: ↑ pre- to post-intervention in all groups |
Popov et al. [45] | Between-subject | 8 | Leg press | LL: session 1-3 sets (4 × 50–60 s 50% MVIC) + session 2 and 3-1 set (4 × 50–60 s), 10 min interval ML: session 1-7 sets 6–12 (80% MVIC) 10 min interval + session 2 and 3-3 sets 6-12 (80% MVIC), 10 min interval | 3 | Not reported | Not equalized | MVIC strength (knee extensors) Muscle CSA (MRI of QF and GM) | MVIC: ↑ pre- to post-intervention in all groups CSA: ↑ pre- to post-intervention in all groups |
Schoenfeld et al. [47] | Between-subject | 8 | Flat barbell press, barbell military press, wide-grip lat pulldown, seated cable row, squat, leg press, and leg extension | LL: 3 sets 25–35 (30–50% 1RM) to failure ML: 3 sets 8–12 (70–80% 1RM) to failure 90 s interval | 3 days per week | 1 s concentric 2 s eccentric | Not equalized | 1RM strength (squat and bench press) Muscle thickness (ultrasound of elbow flexors, elbow extensors, and QF) | 1RM: ↑ pre- to post-intervention in all groups, except in bench press in LL CSA: ↑ pre- to post-intervention in all groups |
Schoenfeld et al. [26] | Within-subject | 8 | Seated plantar flexion and standing plantar flexion | LL: 4 sets 20–30RM ML: 4 sets 6–10RM 90 s interval | 2 | Controlled concentric ~2 s eccentric | Not equalized | MVIC strength (plantar flexors) Muscle thickness (ultrasound of medial gastrocnemius, lateral gastrocnemius, and soleus) | MVIC: ↑ pre- to post-intervention in all groups MT: ↑ pre- to post-intervention in all groups |
Tanimoto and Ishii [16] | Between-subject | 12 | Leg extension | LL 1: 3 sets 50% 1RM to failure LL 2: 3 sets 50% 1RM to failure ML: 3 sets 80% 1RM to failure 1 min interval | 3 days per week | LL 1: 3 s eccentric and 3 s concentric with 1 s pause with no relaxation LL 2 and ML: 1 s eccentric and 1 s concentric with 1 s pause | Not equalized | 1RM strength (knee extension) MVIC strength (knee extensors) Muscle CSA (MRI of QF) | 1RM: ↑ pre- to post-intervention in all groups MVIC: ↑ pre- to post-intervention in ML CSA: ↑ pre- to post-intervention in ML |
Tanimoto et al. [17] | Between-subject | 13 | Squat, bench press, lat pulldown, abdominal bend, and back extension | LL: 3 sets ~ 55–60% 1RM to failure ML: 3 sets ~ 80–90% 1RM to failure 1 min interval | 2 | LL: 3 s concentric 3 s eccentric HL: 1 s concentric 1 s eccentric 1 s rest | Not equalized | 1RM strength (squat, chest press, lat pull- down, ab bend, back extension, and knee extension) Muscle thickness (ultrasound of chest, anterior upper arm, posterior upper arm, abdomen, subscapula, anterior thigh, and posterior thigh) | 1RM: ↑ pre- to post-intervention in all groups (back extension ML > LL) MT: ↑ pre- to post-intervention in all groups |
Tanimoto et al. [15] | Between-subject | 13 | Squat | LL: 3 sets ~ 55–60% 1RM to failure ML: 3 sets ~ 85–90% 1RM to failure 1 min interval | 2 | LL: 3 s concentric 3s eccentric HL: 1 s concentric 1 s eccentric 1 s rest | Not equalized | 1RM strength (squat) Muscle thickness (ultrasound of anterior thigh and posterior thigh) | 1RM: ↑ pre- to post-intervention in all groups MT: ↑ pre- to post-intervention in all groups |
3.3. Methodological Quality in the Included Studies
4. Discussion
4.1. Effects of Different Loads on Maximal Strength Development
4.2. Effects of Different Loads on Muscle Hypertrophy Development
5. Conclusions
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Kraemer, W.J.; Ratamess, N.A.; Flanagan, S.D.; Shurley, J.P.; Todd, J.S.; Todd, T.C. Understanding the science of resistance training: An evolutionary perspective. Sports Med. 2017, 47, 2415–2435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ashton, R.E.; Tew, G.A.; Aning, J.J.; Gilbert, S.E.; Lewis, L.; Saxton, J.M. Effects of short-term, medium-term and long-term resistance exercise training on cardiometabolic health outcomes in adults: Systematic review with meta-analysis. Br. J. Sports Med. 2020, 54, 341–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Suchomel, T.J.; Nimphius, S.; Bellon, C.R.; Stone, M.H. The importance of muscular strength: Training considerations. Sports Med. 2018, 48, 765–785. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Westcott, W.L. Resistance training is medicine: Effects of strength training on health. Curr. Sports Med. Rep. 2012, 11, 209–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- ACSM. American College of Sports Medicine position stand. Progression models in resistance training for healthy adults. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 2009, 41, 687–708. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kraemer, W.J.; Ratamess, N.A. Fundamentals of resistance training: Progression and exercise prescription. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 2004, 36, 674–688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- NSCA. Essentials of Strength Training and Conditioning, 4th ed.; Human Kinetics: Champaign, IL, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Schoenfeld, B.J.; Grgic, J.; Van Every, D.W.; Plotkin, D.L. Loading Recommendations for Muscle Strength, Hypertrophy, and Local Endurance: A Re-Examination of the Repetition Continuum. Sports 2021, 9, 32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Henneman, E.; Somjen, G.; Carpenter, D.O. Excitability and inhibitability of motoneurons of different sizes. J. Neurophysiol. 1965, 28, 599–620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Coffey, T.H. Delorme method of restoration of muscle power by heavy resistance exercises. Treat. Serv. Bull. Can. Dep. Veterans’ Aff. 1946, 1, 8–11. [Google Scholar]
- Anderson, T.; Kearney, J.T. Effects of three resistance training programs on muscular strength and absolute and relative endurance. Res. Q. Exerc. Sport 1982, 53, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stone, W.J.; Coulter, S.P. Strength/endurance effects from three resistance training protocols with women. J. Strength Cond. Res. 1994, 8, 231–234. [Google Scholar]
- Lopes, C.R.; Aoki, M.S.; Crisp, A.H.; de Mattos, R.S.; Lins, M.A.; da Mota, G.R.; Schoenfeld, B.J.; Marchetti, P.H. The effect of different resistance training load schemes on strength and body composition in trained men. J. Hum. Kinet. 2017, 58, 177–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Nóbrega, S.R.; Ugrinowitsch, C.; Pintanel, L.; Barcelos, C.; Libardi, C.A. Effect of resistance training to muscle failure vs. volitional interruption at high- and low-intensities on muscle mass and strength. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2018, 32, 162–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tanimoto, M.; Arakawa, H.; Sanada, K.; Miyachi, M.; Ishii, N. Changes in muscle activation and force generation patterns during cycling movements because of low-intensity squat training with slow movement and tonic force generation. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2009, 23, 2367–2376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tanimoto, M.; Ishii, N. Effects of low-intensity resistance exercise with slow movement and tonic force generation on muscular function in young men. J. Appl. Physiol. 2006, 100, 1150–1157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Tanimoto, M.; Sanada, K.; Yamamoto, K.; Kawano, H.; Gando, Y.; Tabata, I.; Ishii, N.; Miyachi, M. Effects of whole-body low-intensity resistance training with slow movement and tonic force generation on muscular size and strength in young men. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2008, 22, 1926–1938. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schoenfeld, B.J.; Fisher, J.P.; Grgic, J.; Haun, C.T.; Helms, E.T.; Phillips, S.M.; Steele, J.; Vigotsky, A.D. Resistance training recommendations to maximize muscle hypertrophy in an athletic population: Position stand of the IUSCA. Int. J. Strength Cond. 2021, 1, 1–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lopez, P.; Radaelli, R.; Taaffe, D.R.; Newton, R.U.; Galvão, D.A.; Trajano, G.S.; Teodoro, J.L.; Kraemer, W.J.; Häkkinen, K.; Pinto, R.S. Resistance Training Load Effects on Muscle Hypertrophy and Strength Gain: Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 2021, 53, 1206–1216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Burd, N.A.; Mitchell, C.J.; Churchward-Venne, T.A.; Phillips, S.M. Bigger weights may not beget bigger muscles: Evidence from acute muscle protein synthetic responses after resistance exercise. Appl. Physiol. Nutr. Metab. 2012, 37, 551–554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lasevicius, T.; Schoenfeld, B.J.; Silva-Batista, C.; Barros, T.S.; Aihara, A.Y.; Brendon, H.; Longo, A.R.; Tricoli, V.; Peres, B.A.; Teixeira, E.L. Muscle failure promotes greater muscle hypertrophy in low-load but not in high-load resistance training. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lasevicius, T.; Ugrinowitsch, C.; Schoenfeld, B.J.; Roschel, H.; Tavares, L.D.; De Souza, E.O.; Laurentino, G.; Tricoli, V. Effects of different intensities of resistance training with equated volume load on muscle strength and hypertrophy. Eur. J. Sport Sci. 2018, 18, 772–780. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lim, C.; Kim, H.J.; Morton, R.W.; Harris, R.; Phillips, S.M.; Jeong, T.S.; Kim, C.K. Resistance exercise-induced changes in muscle phenotype are load dependent. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 2019, 51, 2578–2585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schoenfeld, B.J.; Grgic, J.; Ogborn, D.; Krieger, J.W. Strength and hypertrophy adaptations between low- vs. high-load resistance training: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2017, 31, 3508–3523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grgic, J.; Homolak, J.; Mikulic, P.; Botella, J.; Schoenfeld, B.J. Inducing hypertrophic effects of type I skeletal muscle fibers: A hypothetical role of time under load in resistance training aimed at muscular hypertrophy. Med. Hypotheses 2018, 112, 40–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Schoenfeld, B.J.; Vigotsky, A.D.; Grgic, J.; Haun, C.; Contreras, B.; Delcastillo, K.; Francis, A.; Cote, G.; Alto, A. Do the anatomical and physiological properties of a muscle determine its adaptive response to different loading protocols? Physiol. Rep. 2020, 8, e14427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grgic, J. The effects of low-load vs. high-load resistance training on muscle fiber hypertrophy: A meta-analysis. J. Hum. Kinet. 2020, 74, 51–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mitchell, C.J.; Churchward-Venne, T.A.; West, D.W.; Burd, N.A.; Breen, L.; Baker, S.K.; Phillips, S.M. Resistance exercise load does not determine training-mediated hypertrophic gains in young men. J. Appl. Physiol. 2012, 113, 71–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Campos, G.E.; Luecke, T.J.; Wendeln, H.K.; Toma, K.; Hagerman, F.C.; Murray, T.F.; Ragg, K.E.; Ratamess, N.A.; Kraemer, W.J.; Staron, R.S. Muscular adaptations in response to three different resistance-training regimens: Specificity of repetition maximum training zones. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. 2002, 88, 50–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schoenfeld, B.J.; Wilson, J.M.; Lowery, R.P.; Krieger, J.W. Muscular adaptations in low- versus high-load resistance training: A meta-analysis. Eur. J. Sport Sci. 2016, 16, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liberati, A.; Altman, D.G.; Tetzlaff, J.; Mulrow, C.; Gøtzsche, P.C.; Ioannidis, J.P.; Clarke, M.; Devereaux, P.J.; Kleijnen, J.; Moher, D. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: Explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med. 2009, 6, e1000100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.; Brennan, S.E.; et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. PLoS Med. 2021, 18, e1003583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brown, P.; Brunnhuber, K.; Chalkidou, K.; Chalmers, I.; Clarke, M.; Fenton, M.; Forbes, C.; Glanville, J.; Hicks, N.J.; Moody, J.; et al. How to formulate research recommendations. BMJ 2006, 333, 804–806. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Rhea, M.R. Determining the magnitude of treatment effects in strength training research through the use of the effect size. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2004, 18, 918–920. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Elkins, M.R.; Herbert, R.D.; Moseley, A.M.; Sherrington, C.; Maher, C. Rating the quality of trials in systematic reviews of physical therapy interventions. Cardiopulm. Phys. Ther. J. 2010, 21, 20–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moseley, A.M.; Herbert, R.D.; Sherrington, C.; Maher, C.G. Evidence for physiotherapy practice: A survey of the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro). Aust. J. Physiother. 2002, 48, 43–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Valkenet, K.; van de Port, I.G.; Dronkers, J.J.; de Vries, W.R.; Lindeman, E.; Backx, F.J. The effects of preoperative exercise therapy on postoperative outcome: A systematic review. Clin. Rehabil. 2011, 25, 99–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fink, J.; Kikuchi, N.; Nakazato, K. Effects of rest intervals and training loads on metabolic stress and muscle hypertrophy. Clin. Physiol. Funct. Imaging 2016, 38, 261–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Fink, J.; Kikuchi, N.; Yoshida, S.; Terada, K.; Nakazato, K. Impact of high versus low fixed loads and non-linear training loads on muscle hypertrophy, strength and force development. SpringerPlus 2016, 5, 698. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Fisher, J.P.; Ironside, M.; Steele, J. Heavier and lighter load resistance training to momentary failure produce similar increases in strength with differing degrees of discomfort. Muscle Nerve 2017, 56, 797–803. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Holm, L.; Reitelseder, S.; Pedersen, T.G.; Doessing, S.; Petersen, S.G.; Flyvbjerg, A.; Andersen, J.L.; Aagaard, P.; Kjaer, M. Changes in muscle size and MHC composition in response to resistance exercise with heavy and light loading intensity. J. Appl. Physiol. 2008, 105, 1454–1461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Jenkins, N.D.; Housh, T.J.; Buckner, S.L.; Bergstrom, H.C.; Cochrane, K.C.; Hill, E.C.; Smith, C.M.; Schmidt, R.J.; Johnson, G.O.; Cramer, J.T. Neuromuscular adaptations after 2 and 4 weeks of 80% versus 30% 1 repetition maximum resistance training to failure. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2016, 30, 2174–2185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Jenkins, N.D.M.; Miramonti, A.A.; Hill, E.C.; Smith, C.M.; Cochrane-Snyman, K.C.; Housh, T.J.; Cramer, J.T. Greater neural adaptations following high- vs. low-load resistance training. Front. Physiol. 2017, 8, 331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Netreba, A.; Popov, D.; Bravyy, Y.; Lyubaeva, E.; Terada, M.; Ohira, T.; Okabe, H.; Vinogradova, O.; Ohira, Y. Responses of knee extensor muscles to leg press training of various types in human. Ross. Fiziol. Zhurnal Im. IM Sechenova 2013, 99, 406–416. [Google Scholar]
- Popov, D.V.; Tsvirkun, D.V.; Netreba, A.I.; Tarasova, O.S.; Prostova, A.B.; Larina, I.M.; Borovik, A.S.; Vinogradova, O.L. Hormonal adaptation determines the increase in muscle mass and strength during low-intensity strength training without relaxation. Fiziol. Cheloveka 2006, 32, 121–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Morton, R.W.; Oikawa, S.Y.; Wavell, C.G.; Mazara, N.; McGlory, C.; Quadrilatero, J.; Baechler, B.L.; Baker, S.K.; Phillips, S.M. Neither load nor systemic hormones determine resistance training-mediated hypertrophy or strength gains in resistance-trained young men. J. Appl. Physiol. 2016, 121, 129–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Schoenfeld, B.J.; Peterson, M.D.; Ogborn, D.; Contreras, B.; Sonmez, G.T. Effects of low- vs. high-load resistance training on muscle strength and hypertrophy in well-trained Men. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2015, 29, 2954–2963. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Jones, K.; Bishop, P.; Hunter, G.; Fleisig, G. The effects of varying resistance-training loads on intermediate- and high-velocity-specific adaptations. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2001, 15, 349–356. [Google Scholar]
- Sale, D.G. Neural adaptation to resistance training. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 1988, 20, S135–S145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moritani, T.; de Vries, H.A. Neural factors versus hypertrophy in the time course of muscle strength gain. Am. J. Phys. Med. 1979, 58, 115–130. [Google Scholar]
- Carroll, T.J.; Barry, B.; Riek, S.; Carson, R.G. Resistance training enhances the stability of sensorimotor coordination. Proc. Biol. Sci. 2001, 268, 221–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Škarabot, J.; Brownstein, C.G.; Casolo, A.; Del Vecchio, A.; Ansdell, P. The knowns and unknowns of neural adaptations to resistance training. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. 2021, 121, 675–685. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Balshaw, T.G.; Massey, G.J.; Maden-Wilkinson, T.M.; Folland, J.P. Muscle size and strength: Debunking the “completely separate phenomena” suggestion. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. 2017, 117, 1275–1276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Gabriel, D.A.; Kamen, G.; Frost, G. Neural adaptations to resistive exercise: Mechanisms and recommendations for training practices. Sports Med. 2006, 36, 133–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aagaard, P.; Simonsen, E.B.; Andersen, J.L.; Magnusson, P.; Dyhre-Poulsen, P. Neural adaptation to resistance training: Changes in evoked V-wave and H-reflex responses. J. Appl. Physiol. 2002, 92, 2309–2318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McCall, G.E.; Byrnes, W.C.; Dickinson, A.; Pattany, P.M.; Fleck, S.J. Muscle fiber hypertrophy, hyperplasia, and capillary density in college men after resistance training. J. Appl. Physiol. 1996, 81, 2004–2012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Grgic, J.; Schoenfeld, B.J. Are the hypertrophic adaptations to high and low-load resistance training muscle fiber type specific? Front. Physiol. 2018, 9, 402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ogborn, D.; Schoenfeld, B. The role of fiber types in muscle hypertrophy: Implications for loading strategies. Strength Cond. J. 2014, 36, 20–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Wackerhage, H.; Schoenfeld, B.J.; Hamilton, D.L.; Lehti, M.; Hulmi, J.J. Stimuli and sensors that initiate skeletal muscle hypertrophy following resistance exercise. J. Appl. Physiol. 2019, 126, 30–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Parameters | Inclusion Criteria |
---|---|
Participants | Healthy males aged between 18 and 40 years; resistance trained or untrained; without a history of bone, muscle, or articular injury. |
Intervention | Intervention performed with low loads (<67% 1RM or >12 repetitions). |
Comparators | Intervention performed with moderate loads (67–85% 1RM or 6–12 repetitions) or high loads (>85% 1RM or <6 repetitions). |
Outcomes | Development of maximal strength (dynamic strength or isometric strength) and muscle hypertrophy (cross-sectional area, muscle thickness, or skeletal muscle fiber size). |
Study design | Experimental randomized studies with between- or within-subject parallel designs. |
Study | Participants (n = 563) | Age (years) | Height (cm) | Weight (kg) | Training Status |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Anderson and Kearney [11]—mean ± SD | 43 | 20.7 ± 1.8 | 180.0 ± 13.0 | 75.1 ± 3.9 | UT |
Campos et al. [29]—mean ± SD | 32 | 22.5 ± 5.8 | 178.3 ± 7.2 | 77.8 ± 11.9 | UT |
Fink et al. [38]—mean ± SD | 20 | 19.8 ± 1.0 | 169.3 ± 4.4 | 64.1 ± 7.9 | UT |
Fink et al. [39]—mean ± SD | 21 | 23.2 ± 2.7 | 168.6 ± 4.5 | 63.4 ± 4.7 | UT |
Fisher et al. [40]—mean ± SD | 7 | 20.6 ± 0.5 | 178.9 ± 3.2 | 77.1 ± 2.7 | UT |
Holm et al. [41]—mean ± SE | 11 | 24.7 ± 1.1 | 183.0 ± 2.0 | 79.7 ± 4.0 | UT |
Jenkins et al. [42]—mean ± SD | 15 | 21.7 ± 2.4 | 181.6 ± 7.5 | 84.7 ± 23.5 | UT |
Jenkins et al. [43]—mean ± SD | 26 | 23.1 ± 4.7 | 180.6 ± 6.0 | 80.0 ± 14.1 | UT |
Jones et al. [48]—mean ± SD | 26 | 20.1 ± 1.4 | 183.1 ± 5.3 | 80.5 ± 11.1 | RT |
Lasevicius et al. [22]—mean ± SD | 30 | 24.5 ± 2.4 | 180.0 ± 0.7 | 77.0 ± 16.5 | UT |
Lasevicius et al. [21]—mean ± SD | 25 | 24.0 ± 4.8 | 176.0 ± 6.5 | 74.3 ± 12.6 | UT |
Lim et al. [23]—mean ± SD | 21 | 23.4 ± 1.7 | 174.3 ± 6.5 | 76.7 ± 11.1 | UT |
Lopes et al. [13]—mean ± SD | 16 | 26.6 ± 6.1 | 176.9 ± 6.2 | 81.5 ± 12.6 | RT |
Mitchell et al. [28]—mean ± SE | 18 | 21.0 ± 0.8 | 176.0 ± 4.0 | 73.3 ± 1.4 | UT |
Morton et al. [46]—mean ± SE | 49 | 23.0 ± 1.0 | 181.0 ± 1.0 | 86.0 ± 2.0 | RT |
Netreba et al. [44]—mean ± SE | 30 | 24.8 ± 3.1 | 178.9 ± 6.4 | 74.4 ± 7.3 | UT |
Nóbrega et al. [14]—mean ± SD | 32 (5 dropped out) | 23.0 ± 3.6 | 176.0 ± 0.6 | Not reported | UT |
Popov et al. [45]—mean ± SE | 18 | 21.0 ± 2.0 | 181.0 ± 10.0 | 75.0 ± 3.0 | UT |
Schoenfeld et al. [47]—mean | 24 (6 dropped out) | 23.3 | 175.0 | 82.5 | RT |
Schoenfeld et al. [26]—mean | 30 (4 dropped out) | 22.5 | 175.7 | 77.3 | UT |
Tanimoto and Ishii [16]—mean ± SD | 24 | 19.4 ± 0.7 | 170.3 ± 4.8 | 59.4 ± 5.9 | UT |
Tanimoto et al. [17]—mean ± SD | 36 | 19.4 ± 0.7 | 174.4 ± 5.6 | 63.5 ± 4.2 | UT |
Tanimoto et al. [15]—mean ± SD | 24 | 20.1 ± 1.1 | 175.1 ± 5.7 | 62.7 ± 4.1 | UT |
Study | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | Total | Overall Quality |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Anderson and Kearney [11] | Y | Y | N | Y | N | N | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | 6 | High |
Campos et al. [29] | Y | Y | N | Y | N | N | N | Y | Y | Y | N | 5 | Moderate |
Fink et al. [38] | Y | Y | N | Y | N | N | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | 6 | High |
Fink et al. [39] | Y | Y | N | Y | N | N | N | Y | N | Y | Y | 6 | High |
Fisher et al. [40] | Y | N | N | Y | N | N | N | N | Y | Y | Y | 5 | Moderate |
Holm et al. [41] | Y | Y | N | Y | N | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | 7 | High |
Jenkins et al. [42] | Y | Y | N | Y | N | N | N | N | N | Y | Y | 4 | Moderate |
Jenkins et al. [43] | N | Y | N | Y | N | N | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | 6 | High |
Jones et al. [48] | Y | Y | N | Y | N | N | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | 6 | High |
Lasevicius et al. [22] | Y | Y | N | Y | N | N | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | 6 | High |
Lasevicius et al. [21] | Y | Y | N | Y | N | N | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | 6 | High |
Lim et al. [23] | Y | Y | N | Y | N | N | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | 6 | High |
Lopes et al. [13] | Y | Y | N | Y | N | N | N | Y | Y | Y | N | 6 | High |
Mitchell et al. [28] | Y | Y | N | Y | N | N | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | 6 | High |
Morton et al. [46] | Y | Y | N | Y | N | N | Y | N | N | Y | Y | 5 | Moderate |
Netreba et al. [44] | N | Y | N | N | N | N | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | 5 | Moderate |
Nóbrega et al. [14] | N | Y | N | Y | N | N | N | N | N | Y | Y | 4 | Moderate |
Popov et al. [45] | N | N | N | Y | N | N | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | 5 | Moderate |
Schoenfeld et al. [47] | Y | Y | N | Y | N | N | N | Y | N | Y | Y | 5 | Moderate |
Schoenfeld et al. [26] | Y | Y | N | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | 8 | High |
Tanimoto and Ishii [16] | Y | Y | N | Y | N | N | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | 6 | High |
Tanimoto et al. [17] | Y | Y | N | Y | N | N | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | 6 | High |
Tanimoto et al. [15] | Y | Y | N | Y | N | N | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | 6 | High |
Mean | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 5.7 ± 0.9 | Moderate |
Median | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 6.0 | - |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Lacio, M.; Vieira, J.G.; Trybulski, R.; Campos, Y.; Santana, D.; Filho, J.E.; Novaes, J.; Vianna, J.; Wilk, M. Effects of Resistance Training Performed with Different Loads in Untrained and Trained Male Adult Individuals on Maximal Strength and Muscle Hypertrophy: A Systematic Review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 11237. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182111237
Lacio M, Vieira JG, Trybulski R, Campos Y, Santana D, Filho JE, Novaes J, Vianna J, Wilk M. Effects of Resistance Training Performed with Different Loads in Untrained and Trained Male Adult Individuals on Maximal Strength and Muscle Hypertrophy: A Systematic Review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2021; 18(21):11237. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182111237
Chicago/Turabian StyleLacio, Marcio, João Guilherme Vieira, Robert Trybulski, Yuri Campos, Derick Santana, José Elias Filho, Jefferson Novaes, Jeferson Vianna, and Michal Wilk. 2021. "Effects of Resistance Training Performed with Different Loads in Untrained and Trained Male Adult Individuals on Maximal Strength and Muscle Hypertrophy: A Systematic Review" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 18, no. 21: 11237. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182111237
APA StyleLacio, M., Vieira, J. G., Trybulski, R., Campos, Y., Santana, D., Filho, J. E., Novaes, J., Vianna, J., & Wilk, M. (2021). Effects of Resistance Training Performed with Different Loads in Untrained and Trained Male Adult Individuals on Maximal Strength and Muscle Hypertrophy: A Systematic Review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(21), 11237. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182111237