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.

Investigating the impact of exercise type combined with caloric restriction on quality of life-The PRONAF study.

The aim of this study was to analyze the impact of endurance training (E), strength training (S), or combined training (SE), along with caloric restriction diet, compared to only diet and physical activity recommendations (C, control), on the quality of life in individuals with obesity. One hundred and twenty obese participants (61 males), aged 18-50 years, were randomly assigned to the different experimental groups, with ninety-six completing the study. The intervention period spanned 22 weeks (3 times per week). All subjects followed a hypocaloric diet, and quality of life was assessed using the SF36 questionnaire before and after the training program. A significant improvement was observed in emotional role following the S (Baseline: 85.06 ± 30.32; Post: 96.00 ± 11.06; p = 0.030) and SE (Baseline: 76.67 ± 35.18; Post: 91.30 ± 22.96; p = 0.010) programs, but not after E (Baseline: 83.33 ± 29.40; Post: 78.26 ± 35.69; p = 0.318) and C (Baseline: 77.01 ± 34.62; Post: 79.37 ± 37.23; p = 0.516). No significant main effect was observed in any other outcome measured. Overall, all groups demonstrated improvements in quality-of-life outcomes. In conclusion, any physical exercise intervention combined with caloric restriction, physical activity recommendations, and nutritional habits resulted in an enhancement of quality of life.