Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 3 de 3
Filtrar
Más filtros

Banco de datos
Tipo del documento
País de afiliación
Intervalo de año de publicación
1.
Br J Sports Med ; 57(18): 1211-1220, 2023 Sep.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37414459

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: To determine how distinct combinations of resistance training prescription (RTx) variables (load, sets and frequency) affect muscle strength and hypertrophy. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Embase, Emcare, SPORTDiscus, CINAHL, and Web of Science were searched until February 2022. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Randomised trials that included healthy adults, compared at least 2 predefined conditions (non-exercise control (CTRL) and 12 RTx, differentiated by load, sets and/or weekly frequency), and reported muscle strength and/or hypertrophy were included. ANALYSES: Systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis methodology was used to compare RTxs and CTRL. Surface under the cumulative ranking curve values were used to rank conditions. Confidence was assessed with threshold analysis. RESULTS: The strength network included 178 studies (n=5097; women=45%). The hypertrophy network included 119 studies (n=3364; women=47%). All RTxs were superior to CTRL for muscle strength and hypertrophy. Higher-load (>80% of single repetition maximum) prescriptions maximised strength gains, and all prescriptions comparably promoted muscle hypertrophy. While the calculated effects of many prescriptions were similar, higher-load, multiset, thrice-weekly training (standardised mean difference (95% credible interval); 1.60 (1.38 to 1.82) vs CTRL) was the highest-ranked RTx for strength, and higher-load, multiset, twice-weekly training (0.66 (0.47 to 0.85) vs CTRL) was the highest-ranked RTx for hypertrophy. Threshold analysis demonstrated these results were extremely robust. CONCLUSION: All RTx promoted strength and hypertrophy compared with no exercise. The highest-ranked prescriptions for strength involved higher loads, whereas the highest-ranked prescriptions for hypertrophy included multiple sets. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021259663 and CRD42021258902.


Asunto(s)
Entrenamiento de Fuerza , Humanos , Adulto , Femenino , Entrenamiento de Fuerza/métodos , Teorema de Bayes , Metaanálisis en Red , Músculo Esquelético/fisiología , Fuerza Muscular/fisiología , Hipertrofia , Prescripciones
3.
J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle ; 13(5): 2265-2275, 2022 10.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35818771

RESUMEN

The compound ß-hydroxy-ß-methyl butyrate (HMB) is proposed to increase or mitigate the loss of skeletal muscle and improve muscle function. We undertook a review of systematic reviews of HMB supplementation to promote gains or mitigate muscle loss in ageing and clinical populations. Following PRISMA guidelines, we searched for systematic reviews reporting the effect of HMB in our target populations. Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) measured lean soft-tissue mass (LSTM) was accepted as a proxy for muscle. We identified 15 systematic reviews that met our inclusion criteria, which were independently evaluated. The methodological quality of the reviews was assessed using A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR), and standardized effectiveness statements were generated. Five of 15 studies found some evidence that HMB augmented LSTM; the remaining 10 studies reported some evidence favouring no difference (6/10 studies) or insufficient evidence to determine an effect (4/10 studies). Of the 12 studies that evaluated strength, 4/12 found some evidence, 5/12 found some evidence of no effect with one article finding some evidence in favour of patients in peri-hospitalized and no evidence for those that are community-dwelling, 4/12 had insufficient evidence to determine an effect, and 1/12 had insufficient evidence. No]study reported a positive effect of HMB on physical function; however, 2/10 studies found some evidence favouring no effect, and 7/10 studies reported insufficient evidence to determine an effect. The effectiveness of HMB supplementation in augmenting LSTM was heterogeneous, with most reviews finding no effect or inconclusive evidence to determine an effect. Most reviews concluded that HMB supplementation did not affect strength outcome measures or studies were inconclusive. The current evidence is insufficient to assess the impact of HMB supplementation on functional outcome measures. Our analysis shows minor, inconsistent support for HMB as part of an oral nutritional supplement or as a stand-alone supplement (or combined with other amino acids) to increase or promote retention of LSTM, improve strength, and no evidence that it improves physical function in older persons or clinical populations.


Asunto(s)
Envejecimiento , Fuerza Muscular , Anciano , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Aminoácidos , Butiratos , Suplementos Dietéticos , Humanos , Fuerza Muscular/fisiología , Valeratos
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA