Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35476184›Full record

SynthesisSports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.)2022

The Effects of Concurrent Aerobic and Strength Training on Muscle Fiber Hypertrophy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Tommy R Lundberg, Joshua F Feuerbacher, Marvin Sünkeler, Moritz Schumann

Open access · hybridAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing papers in PubMed, 8 pooled it
9.0field-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

35 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 56 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. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Tommy R LundbergDivision of Clinical Physiology, Department of Laboratory Medicine, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0002-6818-6230
Joshua F FeuerbacherInstitute of Cardiovascular Research and Sports Medicine, Department of Molecular and Cellular Sports Medicine, German Sport University, Am Sportpark Müngersdorf 6, 50933, Cologne, Germany.
Marvin SünkelerInstitute of Cardiovascular Research and Sports Medicine, Department of Molecular and Cellular Sports Medicine, German Sport University, Am Sportpark Müngersdorf 6, 50933, Cologne, Germany.
Moritz SchumannInstitute of Cardiovascular Research and Sports Medicine, Department of Molecular and Cellular Sports Medicine, German Sport University, Am Sportpark Müngersdorf 6, 50933, Cologne, Germany. m.schumann@dshs-koeln.de.ORCID 0000-0001-9605-3489
German Sport University Cologne · DEKarolinska University Hospital · SE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWhole muscle hypertrophy does not appear to be negatively affected by concurrent aerobic and strength training compared to strength training alone. However, there are contradictions in the literature regarding the effects of concurrent training on hypertrophy at the myofiber level.

objectiveThe current study aimed to systematically examine the extent to which concurrent aerobic and strength training, compared with strength training alone, influences type I and type II muscle fiber size adaptations. We also conducted subgroup analyses to examine the effects of the type of aerobic training, training modality, exercise order, training frequency, age, and training status.

designA systematic literature search was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) [PROSPERO: CRD42020203777]. The registered protocol was modified to include only muscle fiber hypertrophy as an outcome. DATA SOURCES: PubMed/MEDLINE, ISI Web of Science, Embase, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, and Scopus were systematically searched on 12 August, 2020, and updated on 15 March, 2021. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Population: healthy adults of any sex and age; intervention: supervised, concurrent aerobic and strength training of at least 4 weeks; comparison: identical strength training prescription, with no aerobic training; and outcome: muscle fiber hypertrophy.

resultsA total of 15 studies were included. The estimated standardized mean difference based on the random-effects model was - 0.23 (95% confidence interval [CI] - 0.46 to - 0.00, p = 0.050) for overall muscle fiber hypertrophy. The standardized mean differences were - 0.34 (95% CI - 0.72 to 0.04, p = 0.078) and - 0.13 (95% CI - 0.39 to 0.12, p = 0.315) for type I and type II fiber hypertrophy, respectively. A negative effect of concurrent training was observed for type I fibers when aerobic training was performed by running but not cycling (standardized mean difference - 0.81, 95% CI - 1.26 to - 0.36). None of the other subgroup analyses (i.e., based on concurrent training frequency, training status, training modality, and training order of same-session training) revealed any differences between groups.

conclusionsIn contrast to previous findings on whole muscle hypertrophy, the present results suggest that concurrent aerobic and strength training may have a small negative effect on fiber hypertrophy compared with strength training alone. Preliminary evidence suggests that this interference effect may be more pronounced when aerobic training is performed by running compared with cycling, at least for type I fibers.

Indexed as

Resistance TrainingAdultHumansHypertrophyInfantInfant, NewbornMuscle Fibers, SkeletalMuscle, SkeletalMuscle Strength

Identifiers

PMID35476184
PMCPMC9474354
OpenAlexW4224998771

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.