Comparison of Traditional and Advanced Resistance Training Paradigms on Muscle Hypertrophy in Trained Individuals: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Trained individuals may require variations in training stimuli and advanced resistance training paradigms (ADV) to increase skeletal muscle hypertrophy. However, no meta-analysis has examined how ADV versus traditional (TRAD) approaches may differentially affect hypertrophic outcomes in trained populations. The aim of this review was to determine whether the skeletal muscle hypertrophy responses induced by TRAD differed from ADV in resistance-trained individuals. Furthermore, we sought to examine potential effects of dietary factors, participants' training status, and training loads. We searched for peer-reviewed, randomized controlled trials (published in English) conducted in healthy resistance-trained adults performing a period of TRAD and ADV with pre-to-post measurement(s) of muscle hypertrophy in PubMed, Web of Science, SPORTDiscus, and MEDLINE databases up to October 2022. A formal meta-analysis was conducted in Revman5, and risk of bias was assessed by ROB2. Ten studies met the inclusion criteria. Results indicated no difference between ADV and TRAD for muscle thickness (SMD = 0.05, 95% CI: -0.20 0.29, p = 0.70), lean mass (SMD = -0.01, 95% CI: -0.26 0.23, p = 0.92), muscle cross-sectional area (SMD = -0.07, 95% CI: -0.36 0.22, p = 0.64), or all measurements analyzed together (SMD = -0.00, 95% CI: -0.15 0.14, p = 0.95). No heterogeneity or inconsistencies were observed; however, unclear risk of bias was present in most of the studies. Short-term ADV does not induce superior skeletal muscle hypertrophy responses when compared with TRAD in trained individuals. This review was not previously registered.

Is There Any Non-functional Training? A Conceptual Review.

This conceptual review investigates whether functional training (FT) is a different approach from traditional strength, power, flexibility, and endurance (aerobic or cardiorespiratory) training already adopted in the physical training plan of professional, recreational athletes, healthy, and older adults. The 20 most recent papers published involving FT were searched in the PubMed/Medline database. Definition, concepts, benefits, and the exercises employed in FT programs were analyzed. The main results were: (a) there is no agreement about a universal definition for FT; (b) FT programs aim at developing the same benefits already induced by traditional training programs; (c) exercises employed are also the same. The inability to define FT makes the differentiation from traditional training programs difficult. Physical training programs can be easily described and classified as strength, power, flexibility, endurance, and the specific exercises employed (e.g., traditional resistance training, ballistic exercises, plyometrics and Olympic-style weightlifting, continuous and high-intensity interval training). This apt description and classification may provide consistent and clear communication between students, coaches, athletes, and sports scientists. Based on the current evidence and to avoid confusion and misconceptions, we recommend that the terms FT, high-intensity FT, and functional fitness training no longer describe any physical training program.

Comparison of drop jump force-time profiles of team sport athletes and active controls

Abstract Aim: Lower-body non-contact injuries in team sport athletes (TSAs) are associated when absorbing force, during cutting and landing movements due to a lack of eccentric strength and decreased neuromuscular control leading to excessively higher joint forces. Thus, this project aimed to identify if TSAs had different acceleration and deceleration force profiles compared to a control group (non-TSA) when performing drop jumps (DJs). Methods: University TSAs (n = 15) and non-TSAs (n = 10) performed a series of DJs from a 39 cm box onto a force-plate. All data were normalized to the individual's body mass. Between-group differences in ground reaction force (GRF), rate of force development (RFD), and propulsive and breaking impulses were compared via t-tests and standardized differences. Results: TSAs had significantly, and meaningfully greater RFD than the non-TSAs (p < 0.01, Hedges' g (ES) = 1.24, 53%). While not statistically significant, the non-TSA group produced practically larger mean GRFs than TSAs (p = .09, ES = 0.72, 12.1%). No significant or meaningful between-group differences were detected for propulsive impulse (p = 0.08, ES = 0.41, 9.1%), braking impulse (p = 0.85, ES = 0.25, 4.6%), or impulse ratio (p = 0.35, ES = 0.21, 6.7%). Conclusions: This study shows the presence of significant RFD differences during the DJ in TSAs compared to non-TSAs. Furthermore, this investigation also showed there was no difference between TSA and students in GRF and impulse metrics. Implications from these findings suggest that TSAs can produce force rapidly, but deceleration metrics were not different from untrained students.

Comparison of High-Volume and High-Intensity Upper Body Resistance Training on Acute Neuromuscular Performance and Ratings of Perceived Exertion.

The assessment of neuromuscular fatigue is important for minimizing the risks of nonfunctional overreaching, and monitoring training loads has rapidly grown in recent years. The objective of the study was to compare the acute upper body performance and rating of perceived exertion (RPE) responses to high-volume (HV) and high-intensity (HI) resistance-training loads. Sixteen young resistance-trained men (4 repetition maximum [RM] bench press = 105.8 ± 15.9 kg) were divided into two groups of eight subjects each that performed a HI (3 sets of 4RM with 180 s of rest), and a HV (4 sets of 12RM with 90 s of rest) training sessions. Session RPE was obtained 30 min Post. The medicine-ball throw (MBT) performance was measured at pre, and 10 min post. Training volume load (movements × load), and intensity (volume load ÷ movements) were calculated. Volume load was significantly higher for HV (10890 ± 1241 kg) than HI (2718 ± 413 kg) protocol (p < 0.001). Intensity was significantly higher for HI (100.7 ± 15.3 kg) than HV (75.6 ± 8.6 kg) protocol (p = 0.002). MBT performance was significantly reduced from pre- to post- HV (p < 0.001; Δ = -11%), but not in HI (p = 0.15; Δ = -5%). RPE was significantly higher Post-HI (9.9 ± 0.4) than Post HV (8.9 ± 0.8) (p = 0.01). We conclude that higher volume loads induce greater upper body neuromuscular fatigue in young resistance-trained men. Session RPE may reflect training intensity, but not the performance impairments.

Transient Hypokalemic Quadriplegia After a Lumbar Transforaminal Epidural Dexamethasone Injection: A Case Report.

A 30-year-old man with no significant medical history presented with hypokalemic quadriplegia 4 hours after he received a lumbar transforaminal epidural steroid injection (ESI) containing dexamethasone and lidocaine. A comprehensive workup ruled out acquired and hereditary causes of hypokalemic paralysis. Symptoms gradually resolved within hours after potassium restoration with no residual neurologic deficits. Paralysis after transforaminal ESI is uncommon but has been associated with particulate steroids that can coalesce into aggregates and occlude vessels. To our knowledge, there have been no case reports of paralysis after ESI with dexamethasone, a nonparticulate steroid. This transient paralysis is possibly caused by the effects of glucocorticoids on Na-K channels and insulin resistance resulting in hyperglycemia and subsequent hypokalemia. We reviewed the differential diagnosis of transient paralysis after epidural steroid injection in this report. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.

The acute hypotensive effect of resistance training performed with machines vs free weights in normotensive men

Abstract AIMS To analyze if different resistance training (machine vs free weight) would have different acute hypotensive effect in active and normotensive individuals. METHODS Fifteen male volunteers (39.2±2.5 years) performed two different resistance exercise protocols, one on machinery and one with free weights for the similar muscle groups and volume (sets x repetitions). Systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) were measured at rest and during 60 minutes after the sessions. RESULTS There was no interaction between (treatments vs time) for SBP (F 70, 84 = 0.9445, p = 0.595) and DBP (F 70, 84 = 0.5743, p = 0.991). However, significant differences for time for SBP (F 14, 84 = 7.058, p = 0.001) and DBP (F 14, 84 = 3.296, p = 0.001), and treatment for SBP (F 5, 6 = 291.1, p = 0.001) and DBP (F 5, 6 = 13.29, p = 0.003) were varified. CONCLUSION Our findings indicate that both resistance training (machine or free weight) induce a similar hypotensive response for SBP in normotensive men.