Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28497285›Full record

SynthesisSports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.)2017

Comparison of Periodized and Non-Periodized Resistance Training on Maximal Strength: A Meta-Analysis.

Tyler D Williams, Danilo V Tolusso, Michael V Fedewa, Michael R Esco

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.), 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 66 papers, 13 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
66citing papers in PubMed, 13 pooled it
13.7field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

66 citing papers in PubMed, 13 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 196 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Can 3 mg·kgNutrients · 2021
    Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Trial
  20. Article

6 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Tyler D WilliamsDepartment of Kinesiology, The University of Alabama, 1013 Moore Hall, Box 870312, Tuscaloosa, AL, 35487-0231, USA. tdwilliams4@crimson.ua.edu.
Danilo V TolussoDepartment of Kinesiology, The University of Alabama, 1013 Moore Hall, Box 870312, Tuscaloosa, AL, 35487-0231, USA.
Michael V FedewaDepartment of Kinesiology, The University of Alabama, 1013 Moore Hall, Box 870312, Tuscaloosa, AL, 35487-0231, USA.
Michael R EscoDepartment of Kinesiology, The University of Alabama, 1013 Moore Hall, Box 870312, Tuscaloosa, AL, 35487-0231, USA.
University of Alabama · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPeriodization is a logical method of organizing training into sequential phases and cyclical time periods in order to increase the potential for achieving specific performance goals while minimizing the potential for overtraining. Periodized resistance training plans are proposed to be superior to non-periodized training plans for enhancing maximal strength.

objectiveThe primary aim of this study was to examine the previous literature comparing periodized resistance training plans to non-periodized resistance training plans and determine a quantitative estimate of effect on maximal strength.

methodsAll studies included in the meta-analysis met the following inclusion criteria: (1) peer-reviewed publication; (2) published in English; (3) comparison of a periodized resistance training group to a non-periodized resistance training group; (4) maximal strength measured by 1-repetition maximum (1RM) squat, bench press, or leg press. Data were extracted and independently coded by two authors. Random-effects models were used to aggregate a mean effect size (ES), 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and potential moderators.

resultsThe cumulative results of 81 effects gathered from 18 studies published between 1988 and 2015 indicated that the magnitude of improvement in 1RM following periodized resistance training was greater than non-periodized resistance training (ES = 0.43, 95% CI 0.27-0.58; P < 0.001). Periodization model (β = 0.51; P = 0.0010), training status (β = -0.59; P = 0.0305), study length (β = 0.03; P = 0.0067), and training frequency (β = 0.46; P = 0.0123) were associated with a change in 1RM. These results indicate that undulating programs were more favorable for strength gains. Improvements in 1RM were greater among untrained participants. Additionally, higher training frequency and longer study length were associated with larger improvements in 1RM.

conclusionThese results suggest that periodized resistance training plans have a moderate effect on 1RM compared to non-periodized training plans. Variation in training stimuli appears to be vital for increasing maximal strength, and longer periods of higher training frequency may be preferred.

Indexed as

Muscle StrengthHumansMuscle, SkeletalResistance TrainingWeight LiftingBench PressMaximal StrengthResistance TrainingTraining VolumeUntrained Individual

Identifiers

PMID28497285
OpenAlexW2612618167

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.