Matthew D Jones1,2, Michael A Wewege1,2, Daniel A Hackett3, Justin W L Keogh4,5,6,7, Amanda D Hagstrom8. 1. School of Medical Sciences, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia. 2. Centre for Pain IMPACT, Neuroscience Research Australia, Sydney, NSW, Australia. 3. Physical Activity, Lifestyle, Ageing and Wellbeing Faculty Research Group, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Lidcombe, NSW, Australia. 4. Faculty of Health Sciences and Medicine, Bond University, Gold Coast, QLD, Australia. 5. Human Potential Centre, AUT University, Auckland, New Zealand. 6. Cluster for Health Improvement, Faculty of Science, Health, Education and Engineering, University of the Sunshine Coast, Sunshine Coast, QLD, Australia. 7. Kasturba Medical College, Mangalore, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, Karnataka, India. 8. School of Medical Sciences, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia. m.hagstrom@unsw.edu.au.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Reductions in muscle size and strength occur with aging. These changes can be mitigated by participation in resistance training. At present, it is unknown if sex contributes to differences in adaptation to resistance training in older adults. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this systematic review was to determine if sex differences are apparent in adaptations to resistance training in older adults. DESIGN: Systematic review with meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: Web of Science; Science Direct; SPORTDiscus; CINAHL; and MEDLINE were searched from inception to June 2020. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Studies where males and females older than 50 years of age performed identical resistance training interventions and had outcome measures of muscle strength or size. RESULTS: We initially screened 5337 studies. 30 studies (with 41 comparison groups) were included in our review (1410 participants; 651 males, 759 females). Mean study quality was 14.7/29 on a modified Downs and Black checklist, considered moderate quality. Females gained more relative lower-body strength than males (g = - 0.21 [95% CI - 0.33, - 0.10], p = 0.0003) but there were no differences in relative change for upper-body strength (g = - 0.29 [95% CI - 0.62, 0.04], p = 0.08) or relative muscle size (g = 0.10 [95% CI - 0.04, 0.23], p = 0.16). Males gained more absolute upper-body strength (g = 0.48 [95% CI 0.09, 0.88], p = 0.016), absolute lower-body strength (g = 0.33 [95% CI 0.19, 0.47], p < 0.0001), and absolute muscle size (g = 0.45 [95% CI 0.23, 0.66], p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Our results indicate that sex differences in adaptations to resistance training are apparent in older adults. However, it is evident that the interpretation of sex-dependent adaptations to resistance training is heavily influenced by the presentation of the results in either an absolute or relative context. STUDY REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework (osf.io/afn3y/).
BACKGROUND: Reductions in muscle size and strength occur with aging. These changes can be mitigated by participation in resistance training. At present, it is unknown if sex contributes to differences in adaptation to resistance training in older adults. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this systematic review was to determine if sex differences are apparent in adaptations to resistance training in older adults. DESIGN: Systematic review with meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: Web of Science; Science Direct; SPORTDiscus; CINAHL; and MEDLINE were searched from inception to June 2020. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Studies where males and females older than 50 years of age performed identical resistance training interventions and had outcome measures of muscle strength or size. RESULTS: We initially screened 5337 studies. 30 studies (with 41 comparison groups) were included in our review (1410 participants; 651 males, 759 females). Mean study quality was 14.7/29 on a modified Downs and Black checklist, considered moderate quality. Females gained more relative lower-body strength than males (g = - 0.21 [95% CI - 0.33, - 0.10], p = 0.0003) but there were no differences in relative change for upper-body strength (g = - 0.29 [95% CI - 0.62, 0.04], p = 0.08) or relative muscle size (g = 0.10 [95% CI - 0.04, 0.23], p = 0.16). Males gained more absolute upper-body strength (g = 0.48 [95% CI 0.09, 0.88], p = 0.016), absolute lower-body strength (g = 0.33 [95% CI 0.19, 0.47], p < 0.0001), and absolute muscle size (g = 0.45 [95% CI 0.23, 0.66], p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Our results indicate that sex differences in adaptations to resistance training are apparent in older adults. However, it is evident that the interpretation of sex-dependent adaptations to resistance training is heavily influenced by the presentation of the results in either an absolute or relative context. STUDY REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework (osf.io/afn3y/).
Authors: Wm C Chumlea; M Cesari; W J Evans; L Ferrucci; R A Fielding; M Pahor; S Studenski; B Vellas Journal: J Nutr Health Aging Date: 2011-06 Impact factor: 4.075
Authors: Roger A Fielding; Bruno Vellas; William J Evans; Shalender Bhasin; John E Morley; Anne B Newman; Gabor Abellan van Kan; Sandrine Andrieu; Juergen Bauer; Denis Breuille; Tommy Cederholm; Julie Chandler; Capucine De Meynard; Lorenzo Donini; Tamara Harris; Aimo Kannt; Florence Keime Guibert; Graziano Onder; Dimitris Papanicolaou; Yves Rolland; Daniel Rooks; Cornel Sieber; Elisabeth Souhami; Sjors Verlaan; Mauro Zamboni Journal: J Am Med Dir Assoc Date: 2011-03-04 Impact factor: 4.669
Authors: Suey S Y Yeung; Esmee M Reijnierse; Vivien K Pham; Marijke C Trappenburg; Wen Kwang Lim; Carel G M Meskers; Andrea B Maier Journal: J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle Date: 2019-04-16 Impact factor: 12.910
Authors: Rafael Pinedo-Villanueva; Leo D Westbury; Holly E Syddall; Maria T Sanchez-Santos; Elaine M Dennison; Sian M Robinson; Cyrus Cooper Journal: Calcif Tissue Int Date: 2018-09-22 Impact factor: 4.333
Authors: Briana Clifford; Sean Koizumi; Michael A Wewege; Hayley B Leake; Lauren Ha; Eliza Macdonald; Ciaran M Fairman; Amanda D Hagstrom Journal: Sports Med Date: 2021-09-09 Impact factor: 11.928
Authors: Danilo A Massini; Flávio H Nedog; Thiago P de Oliveira; Tiago A F Almeida; Caroline A A Santana; Cassiano M Neiva; Anderson G Macedo; Eliane A Castro; Mário C Espada; Fernando J Santos; Dalton M Pessôa Filho Journal: Healthcare (Basel) Date: 2022-06-17
Authors: Kaspar Staub; Nicole Bender; Turgut Ekingen; Cynthia Sob; Christina Hartmann; Frank J Rühli; Katarina L Matthes Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2022-05-05 Impact factor: 4.135
Authors: Steven J O'Bryan; Catherine Giuliano; Mary N Woessner; Sara Vogrin; Cassandra Smith; Gustavo Duque; Itamar Levinger Journal: Sports Med Date: 2022-05-24 Impact factor: 11.928
Authors: Silvia Pérez-Piñero; Vicente Ávila-Gandía; Jacobo A Rubio Arias; Juan Carlos Muñoz-Carrillo; Pilar Losada-Zafrilla; Francisco Javier López-Román Journal: Nutrients Date: 2021-12-06 Impact factor: 5.717