A randomized trial on the efficacy of split-body versus full-body resistance training in non-resistance trained women.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of a 12-week upper/lower split- versus a full-body resistance training program on maximal strength, muscle mass and explosive characteristics. Fifty resistance untrained women were pair-matched according to baseline strength and randomized to either a full-body (FB) routine that trained all of the major muscle groups in one session twice per week, or a split-body program (SPLIT) that performed 4 weekly sessions (2 upper body and 2 lower body). Both groups performed the same exercises and weekly number of sets and repetitions. Each exercise was performed with three sets and 8-12 repetition maximum (RM) loading. Study outcomes included maximal strength, muscle mass, jump height and maximal power output. RESULTS: No between-group differences were found in any of the variables. However, both FB and SPLIT increased mean 1-RM from pre- to post-test in the bench press by 25.5% versus 30.0%, lat pulldown by 27.2% versus 26.0% and leg press by 29.2% versus 28.3%, respectively. Moreover, both FB and SPLIT increased jump height by 12.5% versus 12.5%, upper-body power by 20.3% versus 16.7% and muscle mass by 1.9% versus 1.7%, p < 0.01, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This study did not show any benefits for split-body resistance-training program compared to full-body resistance training program on measures of maximal- and explosive muscle strength, and muscle mass. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN81548172, registered 15. February 2022.

Effects of one long vs. two short resistance training sessions on training volume and affective responses in resistance-trained women.

The aim of this study was to compare the acute effects of performing a lower body resistance training program in one long or two shorter sessions in 1 day on training volume and affective measures. Employing a randomized-crossover design, 23 resistance-trained women (22 ± 2 years, 166 ± 6 cm, and 66.4 ± 7.5 kg) performed two training days consisting of (i) one long (46 min) or (ii) two short sessions (total of 43 min) separated by 3.5-5 h. Each training day was separated by 4-6 days and consisted of three sets to failure for six exercises. Training volume (number of repetitions lifted) were recorded during the sessions. Rating of perceived exertion for effort (RPE), rating of perceived exertion for discomfort (RPD), session displeasure/pleasure (sPDF) and exercise enjoyment (EES) were measured 10 min after each session. Participants also completed a readiness to train questionnaire (7 questions), 24 h after each session, and which training protocol they preferred, 48 h after the last session. The long session led to higher RPE (+1 point, p < 0.001, ES = 1.07), RPD (+1 point, p = 0.043, ES = 0.53) and sPDF (p = 0.010, ES = 0.59) compared to the short sessions. There was no difference in EES (p = 0.118, ES = 0.33). The short sessions had 3% higher training volume than the long session (p = 0.002, ES = 0.42). There were no differences in perceived readiness to train 24 h after the sessions (range: p = 0.166-0.856 and ES = 0.08-0.32). Twenty-two participants preferred the long session, while one preferred the short sessions. In conclusion, performing a longer, lower body, resistance training session led to greater perceptions of effort, discomfort and session pleasure than splitting the same program into two shorter sessions among resistance-trained women. However, two shorter sessions led to a greater training volume.

A Comparison of Affective Responses Between Time Efficient and Traditional Resistance Training.

The aim of the study was to compare the acute effects of traditional resistance training and superset training on training duration, training volume and different perceptive measures. Twenty-nine resistance-trained participants (27 ± 7 years, 173 ± 9 cm, and 70 ± 14 kg) performed a whole-body workout (i) traditionally and (ii) as supersets of exercises targeting different muscle groups, in a randomized-crossover design. Each session was separated by 4-7 days, and consisted of eight exercises and three sets to failure. Training duration and number of repetitions lifted were recorded during the sessions. Rate of perceived exertion for effort (RPE), rate of perceived exertion for discomfort (RPD), session displeasure/pleasure (sPDF), and exercise enjoyment (EES) were measured 15 min after each session. Forty-eight hours after the final session participants reported which session they preferred. The superset session led to significantly higher values for RPE (1.3 points, p < 0.001, ES = 0.96) and RPD (1.0 points, p = 0.008, ES = 0.47) and tended to be higher for sPDF, i.e., more pleasurable, (p = 0.059, ES = 0.25) compared to the traditional session. There was no difference in EES (p = 0.661, ES = 0.05). The traditional session led to significantly increased training volume (4.2%, p = 0.011, ES = 0.34) and lasted 23 min (66%, p < 0.001, ES = 7.78) longer than the superset session. Eighteen of the participants preferred the superset session, while 11 preferred the traditional session. In conclusion, performing a whole-body workout as a superset session was more time-efficient, but reduced the training volume and was perceived with greater exertion for effort and discomfort than a traditional workout.

Neural adaptations underlying cross-education after unilateral strength training.

The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of 4-week (16 sessions) unilateral, maximal isometric strength training on contralateral neural adaptations. Subjects were randomised to a strength training group (TG, n = 15) or to a control group (CG, n = 11). Both legs of both groups were tested for plantar flexion maximum voluntary isometric contractions (MVCs), surface electromyogram (EMG), H-reflexes and V-waves in the soleus (SOL) and gastrocnemius medialis (GM) superimposed during MVC and normalised by the M-wave (EMG/M(SUP), H(SUP)/M(SUP), V/M(SUP), respectively), before and after the training period. For the untrained leg, the TG increased compared to the CG for MVC torque (33%, P < 0.01), SOL EMG/M(SUP) (32%, P < 0.05) and SOL V/M(SUP) (24%, P < 0.05). For the trained leg, the TG increased compared to the CG for MVC torque (40%, P < 0.01), EMG/M(SUP) (SOL: 38%, P < 0.05; GM: 60%, P < 0.05) and SOL V/M(SUP) (72%, P < 0.01). H(SUP)/M(SUP) remained unchanged for both limbs. No changes occurred in the CG. These results reinforce the concept that enhanced neural drive to the contralateral agonist muscles contributes to cross-education of strength.

What should be the preferred exercise modality for overweight and obese individuals? Protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Obesity is a global epidemic with profound consequences for individuals and societies. Physical exercise is important to weight reduction and weight loss maintenance. However, results on what the most effective type of exercise are unclear. The aim of this systematic review is to evaluate the effects of various exercise modalities with and without caloric restriction on body composition and metabolic health outcomes in overweight and obese adults. METHODS: We will perform a comprehensive literature search in PubMed, Embase (via Ovid) and CENTRAL (through the Cochrane Library). Relevant papers will be screened in two stages: first, by title and abstract and then the full text of the remaining papers. Two reviewers will screen all the studies, and any disagreements will be discussed with and resolved by a third reviewer. Data extraction and risk of bias assessment will be performed using a pre-piloted form. A network meta-analysis combining direct and indirect treatment effect estimates will be conducted if adequate data are available. The quality of the evidence will be judged using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. DISCUSSION: The results of this proposed systematic review and meta-analysis will identify whether any exercise modality should be preferred for overweight and obese adults, as well as assess the quality of the evidence. This knowledge has potential importance for clinicians and patients. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42019103371.

Test-retest reliability of a handheld dynamometer for measurement of isometric cervical muscle strength.

BACKGROUND: There is a lack of test-retest reliability studies of measurements of cervical muscle strength, taking into account gender and possible learning effects. OBJECTIVE: To investigate test-retest reliability of measurement of maximal isometric cervical muscle strength by handheld dynamometry. METHODS: Thirty women (age 20-58 years) and 28 men (age 20-60 years) participated in the study. Maximal isometric strength (neck flexion, neck extension, and right/left lateral flexion) was measured on three separate days at least five days apart by one evaluator. RESULTS: Intra-rater consistency tended to improve from day 1-2 measurements to day 2-3 measurements in both women and men. In women, the intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC) for day 2 to day 3 measurements were 0.91 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.82-0.95) for neck flexion, 0.88 (95% CI, 0.76-0.94) for neck extension, 0.84 (95% CI, 0.68-0.92) for right lateral flexion, and 0.89 (95% CI, 0.78-0.95) for left lateral flexion. The corresponding ICCs among men were 0.86 (95% CI, 0.72-0.93) for neck flexion, 0.93 (95% CI, 0.85-0.97) for neck extension, 0.82 (95% CI, 0.65-0.91) for right lateral flexion and 0.73 (95% CI, 0.50-0.87) for left lateral flexion. CONCLUSION: This study describes a reliable and easy-to-administer test for assessing maximal isometric cervical muscle strength.

Resistance training vs general physical exercise in multidisciplinary rehabilitation of chronic neck pain: A randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether progressive resistance training using elastic resistance bands improves neck-related disability more than general physical exercise in multidisciplinary rehabilitation of chronic neck pain. DESIGN: Researcher-blinded, randomized controlled trial. METHODS: A total of 59 patients with non-specific, chronic neck pain (mean age 46 years, disability (Neck Disability Index 0-100): 35.4, worst neck pain last 2 weeks (numerical pain rating scale 0-10): 6.3) were randomized to 3-week multidisciplinary rehabilitation including either general physical exercise or progressive resistance training with elastic bands. Participants were instructed to continue their respective home-based training programmes for 9 additional weeks. Outcomes were assessed at baseline, after 3 weeks and after 12 weeks. Primary outcome was the between-group difference in change in the Neck Disability Index from baseline to 12 weeks. RESULTS: Thirty-four and 31 participants were followed up at 3 and 12 weeks, respectively. No between-group differences were observed, apart from a greater increase in shoulder abduction strength for the progressive resistance-training group at 12 weeks. CONCLUSION: This study provides no evidence in favour of replacing general physical exercise with progressive resistance training using elastic resistance bands in multidisciplinary rehabilitation of chronic neck pain. We recommend clinicians to advise either of these exercise-types, based on the patient's interests and motivation.

Muscle Activity in Upper-Body Single-Joint Resistance Exercises with Elastic Resistance Bands vs. Free Weights.

Elastic resistance bands require little space, are light and portable, but their efficacy has not yet been established for several resistance exercises. The main objective of this study was to compare the muscle activation levels induced by elastic resistance bands versus conventional resistance training equipment (dumbbells) in the upper-body resistance exercises flyes and reverse flyes. The level of muscle activation was measured with surface electromyography in 29 men and women in a cross-over design where resistance loadings with elastic resistance bands and dumbbells were matched using 10-repetition maximum loadings. Elastic resistance bands induced slightly lower muscle activity in the muscles most people aim to activate during flyes and reverse flies, namely pectoralis major and deltoideus posterior, respectively. However, elastic resistance bands increased the muscle activation level substantially in perceived ancillary muscles, that is deltoideus anterior in flyes, and deltoideus medius and trapezius descendens in reverse flyes, possibly due to elastic bands being a more unstable resistance modality. Overall, the results show that elastic resistance bands can be considered a feasible alternative to dumbbells in flyes and reverse flyes.

Resistance training in addition to multidisciplinary rehabilitation for patients with chronic pain in the low back: Study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Chronic low back pain (LBP) is a major health problem worldwide. Multidisciplinary rehabilitation and exercise is recommended for the management of chronic LBP. However, there is a need to investigate effective exercise interventions that is available in clinics and as home-based training on a large scale. This article presents the design and rationale of the first randomized clinical trial investigating the effects of progressive resistance training with elastic bands in addition to multidisciplinary rehabilitation for patients with moderate to severe chronic LBP. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We aim to enroll 100 patients with chronic LBP referred to a specialized outpatient hospital clinic in Norway. Participants will be randomized equally to either; a) 3 tion including whole-body progressive resistance training using elastic bands - followed by home-based progressive resistance training for 9 weeks, or b) 3 weeks of multidisciplinary rehabilitation including general physical exercise - followed by home-based general physical exercise for 9 weeks. Questionnaires and strength tests will be collected at baseline, weeks 3 and 12, and at 6 and 12 months. The primary outcome is between-group changes in pain-related disability at week 12 assessed by the Oswestry disability index. Secondary outcomes include pain, work ability, work status, mental health, health-related quality of life, global rating of change, general health, and muscular strength and pain-related disability up to 12 months of follow-up. DISCUSSION: This study will provide valuable information for clinicians working with patients with chronic LBP. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02420236.

Test-retest reliability of v-wave responses in the soleus and gastrocnemius medialis.

This study was designed to assess the reliability of the first volitional (V) wave, which can be used as a measure of efferent neural drive, while also reflecting reflex excitability. Ten subjects volunteered for one familiarization session followed by an experimental test session and an identical retest session spaced 3 to 8 days apart. V-waves were evoked in the tibial nerve during plantar flexion maximal voluntary isometric contractions (MVCs). Test-retest reliability was assessed using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), along with standard error of measurement and 95% confidence intervals for the following variables: MVC force, surface electromyogram activity (EMG), and the peak-to-peak V-wave amplitude in soleus (SOL) and gastrocnemius medialis (GM). The superimposed M-wave (MSUP) accompanying V-wave stimulation was also obtained for normalization purposes. Substantial reliability was documented for V/MSUP in both SOL (ICC = 0.86) and GM (0.90), as well as for the non-normalized V-wave in SOL (0.92). Moderate reliability was displayed for the non-normalized V-wave response in GM (0.78). Substantial reliability was also established for EMG/MSUP (>0.82) and MVC force (0.98). This study provides novel evidence that V-wave responses can be consistently measured in the SOL and GM, thus advocating its continued use in future research.