Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30076500›Full record

ReviewSports medicine - open2018

Weekly Training Frequency Effects on Strength Gain: A Meta-Analysis.

Grant W Ralston, Lon Kilgore, Frank B Wyatt, Duncan Buchan, Julien S Baker

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Sports medicine - open, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 43 papers, 15 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
43citing papers in PubMed, 15 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

43 citing papers in PubMed, 15 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  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. Pooled it
  15. Maximizing Muscle Hypertrophy: A Systematic Review of Advanced Resistance Training Techniques and Methods.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2019
    Pooled it
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Trial
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Grant W RalstonInstitute for Clinical Exercise and Health Science, Applied Physiology Research Laboratory, School of Science and Sport, University of the West of Scotland, Hamilton, Lanarkshire, ML3 0JB, Scotland, UK. grant.ralston@forthvalley.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8789-6345
Lon KilgoreKilgore Academy, Azle, TX, USA.
Frank B WyattDepartment of Athletic Training and Exercise Physiology, Midwestern State University, Wichita Falls, TX, USA.
Duncan BuchanInstitute for Clinical Exercise and Health Science, Applied Physiology Research Laboratory, School of Science and Sport, University of the West of Scotland, Hamilton, Lanarkshire, ML3 0JB, Scotland, UK.
Julien S BakerInstitute for Clinical Exercise and Health Science, Applied Physiology Research Laboratory, School of Science and Sport, University of the West of Scotland, Hamilton, Lanarkshire, ML3 0JB, Scotland, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe current recommendations for resistance training (RT) frequency range from 2 to 5 days per week (days week

methodsComputerised searches were performed using the terms 'strength training frequency', 'resistance training frequency', 'training frequency', and 'weekly training frequency'. After review, 12 studies were deemed suitable according to pre-set eligibility criteria. Primary data were pooled using a random-effects model. Outcomes analysed for main effects were pre- to post strength change with volume-equated studies that combined multi-joint and isolation exercise; isolation-only exercise and untrained subjects only. Heterogeneity between studies was assessed using I

resultsPre- versus post-training strength analysis comprised of 74 treatment groups from 12 studies. For combined multi-joint and isolation exercises, there was a trend towards higher RT frequency compared with lower frequency [mean effect size (ES) 0.09 (95% CI - 0.06-0.24)] however not significant (p = 0.25). Volume-equated pre- to post-intervention strength gain was similar when LF was compared to HF [mean ES 0.03 (95% CI - 0.20-0.27); p = 0.78]. Upper body pre- to post-intervention strength gain was greater when HF was compared with LF [mean ES 0.48 (95% CI 0.20-0.76)] with significant differences between frequencies (p < 0.01). Upper body pre- to post-intervention strength gain was similar when MF was compared with LF (ES 0.12; 95% CI - 0.22-0.47); p = 0.48]. There was no significant difference in lower body mean ES between HF and LF [mean ES 0.21(95% CI - 0.55-0.13); p = 0.22]. There was a trend towards a difference in mean ES between MF and HF [mean ES 0.41(95% CI - 0.26-1.09); however, the effect was not significant (p = 0.23).

conclusionsThe existing data does not provide a strong correlation between increased weekly training frequency (HF) and maximal strength gain in upper and lower body resistance exercises for a mixed population group. When RT is volume-equated for combined multi-joint and isolation exercises, there is no significant effect of RT frequency on muscular strength gain. More investigations are required to explore the effects of varying weekly training frequencies adequately.

Indexed as

Resistance training frequency for strength developmentStrength training frequency

Identifiers

PMID30076500
PMCPMC6081873

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.