Test-retest reliability of the 30-15 Intermittent Fitness Test: A systematic review.

PURPOSE: This review aimed to synthesize previous findings on the test-retest reliability of the 30-15 Intermittent Fitness Test (IFT). METHODS: The literature searches were performed in 8 databases. Studies that examined the test-retest reliability of the 30-15 IFT and presented the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and/or the coefficient of variation (CV) for maximal velocity and/or peak heart rate were included. The consensus-based standards for the selection of health measurement instruments (COSMIN) checklist was used for the assessment of the methodological quality of the included studies. RESULTS: Seven studies, with a total of 10 study groups, explored reliability of maximal velocity assessed by the 30-15 IFT. ICCs ranged from 0.80 to 0.99, where 70% of ICCs were ≥0.90. CVs for maximal velocity ranged from 1.5% to 6.0%. Six studies, with a total of 7 study groups, explored reliability of peak heart rate as assessed by the 30-15 IFT. ICCs ranged from 0.90 to 0.97 (i.e., all ICCs were ≥0.90). CVs ranged from 0.6% to 4.8%. All included studies were of excellent methodological quality. CONCLUSION: From the results of this systematic review, it can be concluded that the 30-15 IFT has excellent test-retest reliability for both maximal velocity and peak heart rate. The test may, therefore, be used as a reliable measure of fitness in research and sports practice.

Test-Retest Reliability of the One-Repetition Maximum (1RM) Strength Assessment: a Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: The test-retest reliability of the one-repetition maximum (1RM) test varies across different studies. Given the inconsistent findings, it is unclear what the true reliability of the 1RM test is, and to what extent it is affected by measurement-related factors, such as exercise selection for the test, the number of familiarization trials and resistance training experience. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this paper was to review studies that investigated the reliability of the 1RM test of muscular strength and summarize their findings. METHODS: The PRISMA guidelines were followed for this systematic review. Searches for studies were conducted through eight databases. Studies that investigated test-retest reliability of the 1RM test and presented intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) and/or coefficient of variation (CV) were included. The COSMIN checklist was used for the assessment of the methodological quality of the included studies. RESULTS: After reviewing 1024 search records, 32 studies (pooled n = 1595) on test-retest reliability of 1RM assessment were found. All the studies were of moderate or excellent methodological quality. Test-retest ICCs ranged from 0.64 to 0.99 (median ICC = 0.97), where 92% of ICCs were ≥ 0.90, and 97% of ICCs were ≥ 0.80. The CVs ranged from 0.5 to 12.1% (median CV = 4.2%). ICCs were generally high (≥ 0.90), and most CVs were low (< 10%) for 1RM tests: (1) among those without and for those with some resistance training experience, (2) conducted with or without familiarization sessions, (3) with single-joint or multi-joint exercises, (4) for upper- and lower-body strength assessment, (5) among females and males, and (6) among young to middle-aged adults and among older adults. Most studies did not find systematic changes in test results between the trials. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the results of this review, it can be concluded that the 1RM test generally has good to excellent test-retest reliability, regardless of resistance training experience, number of familiarization sessions, exercise selection, part of the body assessed (upper vs. lower body), and sex or age of participants. Researchers and practitioners, therefore, can use the 1RM test as a reliable test of muscular strength.

The effects of time of day-specific resistance training on adaptations in skeletal muscle hypertrophy and muscle strength: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

The present paper endeavored to elucidate the topic on the effects of morning versus evening resistance training on muscle strength and hypertrophy by conducting a systematic review and a meta-analysis of studies that examined time of day-specific resistance training. This systematic review was performed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines with searches conducted through PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, and SPORTDiscus databases. The Downs and Black checklist was used for the assessment of the methodological quality of the included studies. Studies that examined the effects of time of day-specific resistance training (while equating all other training variables, such as training frequency and volume, between the groups) on muscle strength and/or muscle size were included in the present review. The random effects model was used for the meta-analysis. Meta-analyses explored (1) the differences in strength expression between morning and evening hours at baseline; (2) the differences in strength within the groups training in the morning and evening by using their post-intervention strength data from the morning and evening strength assessments; (3) the overall differences between the effects of morning and evening resistance training (with subgroup analyses conducted for studies that assessed strength in the morning hours and for the studies that assessed strength in the evening hours). Finally, a meta-analysis was also conducted for studies that assessed muscle hypertrophy. Eleven studies of moderate and good methodological quality were included in the present review. The primary findings of the review are as follows: (1) at baseline, a significant difference in strength between morning and evening is evident, with greater strength observed in the evening hours; (2) resistance training in the morning hours may increase strength assessed in the morning to similar levels as strength assessed in the evening; (3) training in the evening hours, however, maintains the general difference in strength across the day, with greater strength observed in the evening hours; (4) when comparing the effects between the groups training in the morning versus in the evening hours, increases in strength are similar in both groups, regardless of the time of day at which strength assessment is conducted; and (5) increases in muscle size are similar irrespective of the time of day at which the training is performed.

Effects of caffeine intake on muscle strength and power: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Caffeine is commonly used as an ergogenic aid. Literature about the effects of caffeine ingestion on muscle strength and power is equivocal. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to summarize results from individual studies on the effects of caffeine intake on muscle strength and power. METHODS: A search through eight databases was performed to find studies on the effects of caffeine on: (i) maximal muscle strength measured using 1 repetition maximum tests; and (ii) muscle power assessed by tests of vertical jump. Meta-analyses of standardized mean differences (SMD) between placebo and caffeine trials from individual studies were conducted using the random effects model. RESULTS: Ten studies on the strength outcome and ten studies on the power outcome met the inclusion criteria for the meta-analyses. Caffeine ingestion improved both strength (SMD = 0.20; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.03, 0.36; p = 0.023) and power (SMD = 0.17; 95% CI: 0.00, 0.34; p = 0.047). A subgroup analysis indicated that caffeine significantly improves upper (SMD = 0.21; 95% CI: 0.02, 0.39; p = 0.026) but not lower body strength (SMD = 0.15; 95% CI: -0.05, 0.34; p = 0.147). CONCLUSION: The meta-analyses showed significant ergogenic effects of caffeine ingestion on maximal muscle strength of upper body and muscle power. Future studies should more rigorously control the effectiveness of blinding. Due to the paucity of evidence, additional findings are needed in the female population and using different forms of caffeine, such as gum and gel.

Effect of Resistance Training Frequency on Gains in Muscular Strength: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Current recommendations on resistance training (RT) frequency for gains in muscular strength are based on extrapolations from limited evidence on the topic, and thus their practical applicability remains questionable. OBJECTIVE: To elucidate this issue, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the studies that compared muscular strength outcomes with different RT frequencies. METHODS: To carry out this review, English-language literature searches of the PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, and SPORTDiscus databases were conducted. The meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model. The meta-analysis models were generated with RT frequencies classified as a categorical variable as either 1, 2, 3, or 4+ times/week, or, if there were insufficient data in subgroup analyses, the training frequencies were categorized as 1, 2, or 3 times/week. Subgroup analyses were performed for potential moderators, including (1) training volume; (2) exercise selection for the 1 repetition maximum (RM) test (for both multi-joint and single-joint exercises); (3) upper and lower body strength gains; (4) training to muscular failure (for studies involving and not involving training to muscular failure); (5) age (for both middle-aged/older adults and young adults); and (6) sex (for men and for women). The methodological quality of studies was appraised using the modified Downs and Black checklist. RESULTS: A total of 22 studies were found to meet the inclusion criteria. The average score on the Downs and Black checklist was 18 (range 13-22 points). Four studies were classified as being of good methodological quality, while the rest were classified as being of moderate methodological quality. Results of the meta-analysis showed a significant effect (p = 0.003) of RT frequency on muscular strength gains. Effect sizes increased in magnitude from 0.74, 0.82, 0.93, and 1.08 for training 1, 2, 3, and 4+ times per week, respectively. A subgroup analysis of volume-equated studies showed no significant effect (p = 0.421) of RT frequency on muscular strength gains. The subgroup analysis for exercise selection for the 1RM test suggested a significant effect of RT frequency on multi-joint (p < 0.001), but not single-joint, 1RM test results (p = 0.324). The subgroup analysis for upper and lower body showed a significant effect of frequency (p = 0.004) for upper body, but not lower body, strength gains (p = 0.070). In the subgroup analysis for studies in which the training was and was not carried out to muscular failure, no significant effect of RT frequency was found. The subgroup analysis for the age groups suggested a significant effect of training frequency among young adults (p = 0.024), but not among middle-aged and older adults (p = 0.093). Finally, the subgroup analysis for sex indicated a significant effect of RT frequency on strength gains in women (p = 0.030), but not men (p = 0.190). CONCLUSIONS: The results of the present systematic review and meta-analysis suggest a significant effect of RT frequency as higher training frequencies are translated into greater muscular strength gains. However, these effects seem to be primarily driven by training volume because when the volume is equated, there was no significant effect of RT frequency on muscular strength gains. Thus, from a practical standpoint, greater training frequencies can be used for additional RT volume, which is then likely to result in greater muscular strength gains. However, it remains unclear whether RT frequency on its own has significant effects on strength gain. It seems that higher RT frequencies result in greater gains in muscular strength on multi-joint exercises in the upper body and in women, and, finally, in contrast to older adults, young individuals seem to respond more positively to greater RT frequencies. More evidence among resistance-trained individuals is needed as most of the current studies were performed in untrained participants.

Leisure-time physical activity and absenteeism.

Regular physical activity has a significant impact on health. There is scientific evidence for prescription of exercise in the treatment of at least 26 different chronic non-communicable diseases. Furthermore, it has an indirect role in the preservation of work capacity. The aim of this study was to review the published results of research on the relationship between leisure-time PA and absenteeism due to sickness. Medline database was searched using the keywords "leisuretime physical activity AND (sick leave OR sickness absence OR absenteeism)". Fifteen studies were included in the final analysis. A negative correlation between leisure-time PA and absenteeism due to sickness in working population was determined in 11 studies. The results support the inclusion of PA promotion in the programmes intended to reduce absenteeism prevalence, the latter being an important public health issue.

The effects of short versus long inter-set rest intervals in resistance training on measures of muscle hypertrophy: A systematic review.

Although the effects of short versus long inter-set rest intervals in resistance training on measures of muscle hypertrophy have been investigated in several studies, the findings are equivocal and the practical implications remain unclear. In an attempt to provide clarity on the topic, we performed a systematic literature search of PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) electronic databases. Six studies were found to have met the inclusion criteria: (a) an experimental trial published in an English-language peer-reviewed journal; (b) the study compared the use of short (≤60 s) to long (>60 s) inter-set rest intervals in a traditional dynamic resistance exercise using both concentric and eccentric muscle actions, with the only difference in resistance training among groups being the inter-set rest interval duration; (c) at least one method of measuring changes in muscle mass was used in the study; (d) the study lasted for a minimum of four weeks, employed a training frequency of ≥2 resistance training days per week, and (e) used human participants without known chronic disease or injury. Current evidence indicates that both short and long inter-set rest intervals may be useful when training for achieving gains in muscle hypertrophy. Novel findings involving trained participants using measures sensitive to detect changes in muscle hypertrophy suggest a possible advantage for the use of long rest intervals to elicit hypertrophic effects. However, due to the paucity of studies with similar designs, further research is needed to provide a clear differentiation between these two approaches.