Effects of training frequency on muscular strength for trained men under volume matched conditions

Efficacy of Split Versus Full-Body Resistance Training on Strength and Muscle Growth: A Systematic Review With Meta-Analysis

ABSTRACT

Ramos-Campo, DJ, Benito-Peinado, PJ, Caravaca, LA, Rojo-Tirado, MA, and Rubio-Arias, JÁ. Efficacy of split versus full-body resistance training on strength and muscle growth: a systematic review with meta-analysis. J Strength Cond Res 38(7): 1330-1340, 2024-No previous study has systematically compared the effect of 2 resistance training routines commonly used to increase muscle mass and strength (i.e., split [Sp] and full-body [FB] routines). Our objective was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis following PRISMA guidelines to compare the effects on strength gains and muscle growth in healthy adults. 14 studies (392 subjects) that compared Sp and FB routines in terms of strength adaptations and muscle growth were included. Regarding the effects of the Sp or FB routine on both bench press and lower limbs strength, the magnitude of the change produced by both routines was similar (bench press: mean difference [MD] = 1.19; [-1.28, 3.65]; p = 0.34; k = 14; lower limb: MD = 2.47; [-2.11, 7.05]; p = 0.29; k = 14). Concerning the effect of the Sp vs. FB routine on muscle growth, similar effects were observed after both routines in the cross-sectional area of the elbow extensors (MD = 0.30; [-2.65, 3.24]; p = 0.84; k = 4), elbow flexors (MD = 0.17; [-2.54, 2.88]; p = 0.91; k = 5), vastus lateralis (MD = -0.08; [-1.82, 1.66]; p = 0.93; k = 5), or lean body mass (MD = -0.07; [-1.59, 1.44]; p = 0.92; k = 6). In conclusion, the present systematic review and meta-analysis provides solid evidence that the use of Sp or FB routines within a resistance training program does not significantly impact either strength gains or muscle hypertrophy when volume is equated. Consequently, individuals are free to confidently select a resistance training routine based on their personal preferences.

Quantifying the Generality of Strength Adaptation: A Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Isotonic exercise is the most common mode of strength training. Isotonic strength is often measured in the movement that was exercised, but isometric and isokinetic movements are also commonly used to quantify changes in muscular strength. Previous research suggests that increasing strength in one movement may not lead to an increase in strength in a different movement. Quantifying the increase in strength in a movement not trained may be important for understanding strength training adaptations and making recommendations for resistance exercise and rehabilitation programs.

OBJECTIVE

To quantify changes in non-specific strength relative to a control.

DESIGN

A systematic review and random effects meta-analysis was conducted investigating the effects of isotonic strength training on isotonic and isokinetic/isometric strength.

SEARCH AND INCLUSION

This systematic review was conducted in Google scholar, PubMed, Academic Search Premier, and MENDELEY. To be included in this review paper the article needed to meet the following criteria: (1) report sufficient data for our variables of interest (i.e., changes in isotonic strength and changes in isokinetic or isometric strength); (2) include a time-matched non-exercise control; (3) be written in English; (4) include healthy human participants over the age of 18 years; (5) the participants had to train and test isotonically; (6) the participants had to be tested isokinetically or isometrically on a device different from that they trained on; (7) the non-specific strength task had to test a muscle involved in the training (i.e., could not have trained chest press and test handgrip strength); and (8) the control group and the experimental group had to perform the same number of strength tests.

RESULTS

We completed two separate searches. In the original search a total of 880 papers were screened and nine papers met the inclusion criteria. In the secondary search a total of 2594 papers were screened and three additional papers were added (total of 12 studies). The overall effect of resistance training on changes in strength within a movement that was not directly trained was 0.8 (Cohen's d) with a standard error of 0.286. This overall effect was significant (t = 2.821, p = 0.01) and the 95% confidence interval (CI) is 0.22-1.4. The overall effect of resistance training on strength changes within a movement that was directly trained was 1.84 (Cohen's d) with a standard error of 0.296. This overall effect was significant (t = 6.221, p < 0.001) and the 95% CI is 1.23-2.4.

CONCLUSION

The results of our meta-analysis suggest that strength increases in both the specific and non-specific strength tests. However, the smaller effect size associated with non-specific strength suggests that it will be difficult for a single study to meaningfully investigate the transfer of strength training adaptions.

Effect of different training frequencies on maximal strength performance and muscle hypertrophy in trained individuals-a within-subject design

Several studies comparing resistance training (RT) frequencies may have been affected by the large between-subject variability. This study aimed to compare the changes in lower limbs maximal dynamic strength (1RM) and quadriceps femoris cross-sectional area (CSA) after a RT with different weekly frequencies in strength-trained individuals using a within-subject design. Twenty-four men participated in a 9-week RT program, being randomly divided into two conditions: resistance training with equalized total training volume (RTEV) and with unequalized total training volume (RTUV). The RT protocol used the unilateral leg press 45° exercise and each subject’s lower limb executed one of the proposed frequencies (one and three times/week). All conditions effectively increased 1RM and CSA (p<0.001); however, no significant differences were observed in the values of 1RM (p = 0.454) and CSA (p = 0.310) between the RT frequencies in the RTEV and RTUV conditions. Therefore, RT performed three times a week showed similar increases in 1RM and CSA to the program performed once a week, regardless of training volume equalization. Nevertheless, when the higher RT frequency allowed the application of a greater TTV (i.e., RTUV), higher effect size (ES) values (0.51 and 0.63, 1RM and CSA, respectively) were observed for the adaptations.

Equal-Volume Strength Training With Different Training Frequencies Induces Similar Muscle Hypertrophy and Strength Improvement in Trained Participants

The main goal of the current study was to compare the effects of volume-equated training frequency on gains in muscle mass and strength. In addition, we aimed to investigate whether the effect of training frequency was affected by the complexity, concerning the degrees of freedom, of an exercise. Participants were randomized to a moderate training frequency group (two weekly sessions) or high training frequency group (four weekly sessions). Twenty-one participants (male: 11, female: 10, age: 25.9 ± 4.0) completed the 9-week whole-body progressive heavy resistance training intervention with moderate (n = 13) or high (n = 8) training frequency. Whole-body and regional changes in lean mass were measured using dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry, while the vastus lateralis thickness was measured by ultrasound. Changes in muscle strength were measured as one repetition maximum for squat, hack squat, bench press, and chest press. No differences between groups were observed for any of the measures of muscle growth or muscle strength. Muscle strength increased to a greater extent in hack squat and chest press than squat and bench press for both moderate (50 and 21% vs. 19 and 14%, respectively) and high-frequency groups (63 and 31% vs. 19 and 16%, respectively), with no differences between groups. These results suggest that training frequency is less decisive when weekly training volume is equated. Further, familiarity with an exercise seems to be of greater importance for strength adaptations than the complexity of the exercise.