Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33433148›Full record

SynthesisMedicine and science in sports and exercise2021

Resistance Training Load Effects on Muscle Hypertrophy and Strength Gain: Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis.

Pedro Lopez, Régis Radaelli, Dennis R Taaffe, Robert U Newton, Daniel A Galvão, Gabriel S Trajano, Juliana L Teodoro, William J Kraemer, Keijo Häkkinen, Ronei S Pinto

Erratum issuedOpen access · greenAbstract readSystematic ReviewNetwork Meta-Analysis
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Medicine and science in sports and exercise, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 142 papers, 24 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
142citing papers in PubMed, 24 pooled it
20.2field-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

142 citing papers in PubMed, 24 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 298 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. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Pooled it
  18. Pooled it
  19. Pooled it
  20. Pooled it

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

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 5 institutions in 5 countries.

Pedro Lopez
Régis RadaelliExercise Research Laboratory, School of Physical Education, Physiotherapy and Dance, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, RS, BRAZIL.
Dennis R Taaffe
Robert U Newton
Daniel A Galvão
Gabriel S TrajanoSchool of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Faculty of Health, Queensland University of Technology (QUT), Brisbane, Queensland, AUSTRALIA.
Juliana L TeodoroExercise Research Laboratory, School of Physical Education, Physiotherapy and Dance, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, RS, BRAZIL.
William J KraemerDepartment of Human Sciences, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH.
Keijo HäkkinenNeuromuscular Research Center, Biology of Physical Activity, Faculty of Sport and Health Sciences, University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, FINLAND.
Ronei S PintoExercise Research Laboratory, School of Physical Education, Physiotherapy and Dance, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, RS, BRAZIL.
Edith Cowan University · AUUniversidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul · BRNutrition Sciences (Belgium) · BEThe Ohio State University · USUniversity of Jyväskylä · FI

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThis study aimed to analyze the effect of resistance training (RT) performed until volitional failure with low, moderate, and high loads on muscle hypertrophy and muscle strength in healthy adults and to assess the possible participant-, design-, and training-related covariates that may affect the adaptations.

methodsUsing Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, SPORTDiscus, and Web of Science databases were searched. Including only studies that performed sets to volitional failure, the effects of low- (>15 repetitions maximum (RM)), moderate- (9-15 RM), and high-load (≤8 RM) RTs were examined in healthy adults. Network meta-analysis was undertaken to calculate the standardized mean difference (SMD) between RT loads in overall and subgroup analyses involving studies deemed of high quality. Associations between participant-, design-, and training-related covariates with SMD were assessed by univariate and multivariate network meta-regression analyses.

resultsTwenty-eight studies involving 747 healthy adults were included. Although no differences in muscle hypertrophy between RT loads were found in overall (P = 0.113-0.469) or subgroup analysis (P = 0.871-0.995), greater effects were observed in untrained participants (P = 0.033) and participants with some training background who undertook more RT sessions (P = 0.031-0.045). Muscle strength improvement was superior for both high-load and moderate-load compared with low-load RT in overall and subgroup analysis (SMD, 0.60-0.63 and 0.34-0.35, respectively; P < 0.001-0.003), with a nonsignificant but superior effect for high compared with moderate load (SMD, 0.26-0.28, P = 0.068).

conclusionsAlthough muscle hypertrophy improvements seem to be load independent, increases in muscle strength are superior in high-load RT programs. Untrained participants exhibit greater muscle hypertrophy, whereas undertaking more RT sessions provides superior gains in those with previous training experience.

Indexed as

Muscle StrengthSkeletal Muscle EnlargementAdultFemaleHumansMaleResistance Training

Identifiers

PMID33433148
PMCPMC8126497
OpenAlexW3119537491

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.