Jozo Grgic1, Luke C Mcllvenna2, Jackson J Fyfe3,4, Filip Sabol5,6, David J Bishop2,7, Brad J Schoenfeld8, Zeljko Pedisic2. 1. Institute for Health and Sport (IHES), Victoria University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia. jozo.grgic@live.vu.edu.au. 2. Institute for Health and Sport (IHES), Victoria University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia. 3. School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Deakin University, Burwood, Melbourne, VIC, Australia. 4. Centre for Sport Research, Deakin University, Burwood, Melbourne, VIC, Australia. 5. Fitness Academy, Zagreb, Croatia. 6. Faculty of Kinesiology, University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia. 7. School of Medical and Health Sciences, Edith Cowan University, Joondalup, WA, Australia. 8. Department of Health Sciences, Lehman College, Bronx, NY, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Currently, there are inconsistencies in the body of evidence for the effects of resistance and aerobic training on skeletal muscle hypertrophy. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to systematically review and meta-analyze current evidence on the differences in hypertrophic adaptation to aerobic and resistance training, and to discuss potential reasons for the disparities noted in the literature. METHODS: The PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines were followed for this review. The Downs and Black checklist was used for the assessment of methodological quality of the included studies. A random-effects meta-analysis was employed. In total, three analyses were performed: (1) for whole-muscle knee extensor data; (2) for type I fiber cross-sectional area; and (3) for type II fiber cross-sectional area. RESULTS: The final number of included studies in the present review is 21. All studies were of good or moderate methodological quality. The meta-analysis for whole-muscle hypertrophy resulted in a significant pooled difference (p < 0.001) in responses between the aerobic training and resistance training interventions. The pooled Hedge's g, favoring resistance over aerobic training, was 0.66 (95% confidence interval 0.41-90; I2 = 0%). The meta-analysis for type I fiber cross-sectional area data resulted in a significant pooled difference (p < 0.001) between the aerobic training and resistance training groups. The pooled Hedge's g, favoring resistance training over aerobic training, was 0.99 (95% confidence interval 0.44-1.54; I2 = 24%). The meta-analysis of type II fiber cross-sectional area data resulted in a significant pooled difference (p < 0.001) between the aerobic training and resistance training groups. The pooled Hedge's g, favoring resistance training over aerobic training, was 1.44 (95% confidence interval 0.93-1.95; I2 = 8%). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this systematic review and meta-analysis suggest that single-mode aerobic training does not promote the same skeletal muscle hypertrophy as resistance training. This finding was consistent with measurements of muscle hypertrophy both at the whole-muscle and myofiber levels. While these results are specific to the knee extensor musculature, it can be hypothesized that similar results would be seen for other muscle groups as well.
BACKGROUND: Currently, there are inconsistencies in the body of evidence for the effects of resistance and aerobic training on skeletal muscle hypertrophy. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to systematically review and meta-analyze current evidence on the differences in hypertrophic adaptation to aerobic and resistance training, and to discuss potential reasons for the disparities noted in the literature. METHODS: The PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines were followed for this review. The Downs and Black checklist was used for the assessment of methodological quality of the included studies. A random-effects meta-analysis was employed. In total, three analyses were performed: (1) for whole-muscle knee extensor data; (2) for type I fiber cross-sectional area; and (3) for type II fiber cross-sectional area. RESULTS: The final number of included studies in the present review is 21. All studies were of good or moderate methodological quality. The meta-analysis for whole-muscle hypertrophy resulted in a significant pooled difference (p < 0.001) in responses between the aerobic training and resistance training interventions. The pooled Hedge's g, favoring resistance over aerobic training, was 0.66 (95% confidence interval 0.41-90; I2 = 0%). The meta-analysis for type I fiber cross-sectional area data resulted in a significant pooled difference (p < 0.001) between the aerobic training and resistance training groups. The pooled Hedge's g, favoring resistance training over aerobic training, was 0.99 (95% confidence interval 0.44-1.54; I2 = 24%). The meta-analysis of type II fiber cross-sectional area data resulted in a significant pooled difference (p < 0.001) between the aerobic training and resistance training groups. The pooled Hedge's g, favoring resistance training over aerobic training, was 1.44 (95% confidence interval 0.93-1.95; I2 = 8%). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this systematic review and meta-analysis suggest that single-mode aerobic training does not promote the same skeletal muscle hypertrophy as resistance training. This finding was consistent with measurements of muscle hypertrophy both at the whole-muscle and myofiber levels. While these results are specific to the knee extensor musculature, it can be hypothesized that similar results would be seen for other muscle groups as well.
Authors: S A Mazzetti; W J Kraemer; J S Volek; N D Duncan; N A Ratamess; A L Gómez; R U Newton; K Häkkinen; S J Fleck Journal: Med Sci Sports Exerc Date: 2000-06 Impact factor: 5.411
Authors: Mikel Izquierdo; Javier Ibañez; Keijo HAkkinen; William J Kraemer; José L Larrión; Esteban M Gorostiaga Journal: Med Sci Sports Exerc Date: 2004-03 Impact factor: 5.411
Authors: Kevin R Short; Janet L Vittone; Maureen L Bigelow; David N Proctor; K Sreekumaran Nair Journal: Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab Date: 2003-09-23 Impact factor: 4.310
Authors: Vicente Javier Clemente-Suárez; Laura Redondo-Flórez; Alejandro Rubio-Zarapuz; Ismael Martínez-Guardado; Eduardo Navarro-Jiménez; José Francisco Tornero-Aguilera Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-04-11 Impact factor: 4.614
Authors: Gracielle Vieira Ramos; Ivo Vieira de Sousa Neto; Alessandra Choqueta Toledo-Arruda; Rita de Cassia Marqueti; Rodolfo P Vieira; Milton A Martins; Tânia F Salvini; João Luiz Quaglioti Durigan Journal: Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis Date: 2022-01-06
Authors: Hun Jee Choe; Be Long Cho; Yong Soon Park; Eun Roh; Hyeon Ju Kim; Sam-Gyu Lee; Bong Jo Kim; Miji Kim; Chang Won Won; Kyong Soo Park; Hak Chul Jang Journal: J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle Date: 2022-04-01 Impact factor: 12.063
Authors: Georgios Mavropalias; Marc Sim; Dennis R Taaffe; Daniel A Galvão; Nigel Spry; William J Kraemer; Keijo Häkkinen; Robert U Newton Journal: J Cancer Res Clin Oncol Date: 2022-01-27 Impact factor: 4.322
Authors: Chantal A Pileggi; Breana G Hooks; Ruth McPherson; Robert R M Dent; Mary-Ellen Harper Journal: Clin Sci (Lond) Date: 2022-07-29 Impact factor: 6.876