Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30341595›Full record

SynthesisSports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.)2019

Does Aerobic Training Promote the Same Skeletal Muscle Hypertrophy as Resistance Training? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Jozo Grgic, Luke C Mcllvenna, Jackson J Fyfe, Filip Sabol, David J Bishop, Brad J Schoenfeld, Zeljko Pedisic

Abstract readComparative StudyMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 46 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
46citing papers in PubMed, 9 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

46 citing papers in PubMed, 9 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. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Supervised resistance exercise for women with ovarian cancer who have completed first-line treatment: a pragmatic study.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2023
    Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  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

7 authors.

Jozo GrgicInstitute for Health and Sport (IHES), Victoria University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia. jozo.grgic@live.vu.edu.au.
Luke C McllvennaInstitute for Health and Sport (IHES), Victoria University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Jackson J FyfeSchool of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Deakin University, Burwood, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Filip SabolFitness Academy, Zagreb, Croatia.
David J BishopInstitute for Health and Sport (IHES), Victoria University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Brad J SchoenfeldDepartment of Health Sciences, Lehman College, Bronx, NY, USA.
Zeljko PedisicInstitute for Health and Sport (IHES), Victoria University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCurrently, there are inconsistencies in the body of evidence for the effects of resistance and aerobic training on skeletal muscle hypertrophy.

objectiveWe aimed to systematically review and meta-analyze current evidence on the differences in hypertrophic adaptation to aerobic and resistance training, and to discuss potential reasons for the disparities noted in the literature.

methodsThe PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines were followed for this review. The Downs and Black checklist was used for the assessment of methodological quality of the included studies. A random-effects meta-analysis was employed. In total, three analyses were performed: (1) for whole-muscle knee extensor data; (2) for type I fiber cross-sectional area; and (3) for type II fiber cross-sectional area.

resultsThe final number of included studies in the present review is 21. All studies were of good or moderate methodological quality. The meta-analysis for whole-muscle hypertrophy resulted in a significant pooled difference (p < 0.001) in responses between the aerobic training and resistance training interventions. The pooled Hedge's g, favoring resistance over aerobic training, was 0.66 (95% confidence interval 0.41-90; I

conclusionsThe results of this systematic review and meta-analysis suggest that single-mode aerobic training does not promote the same skeletal muscle hypertrophy as resistance training. This finding was consistent with measurements of muscle hypertrophy both at the whole-muscle and myofiber levels. While these results are specific to the knee extensor musculature, it can be hypothesized that similar results would be seen for other muscle groups as well.

Indexed as

ExerciseResistance TrainingHumansKneeMuscle, SkeletalMuscle Strength

Identifiers

PMID30341595

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.