Resistance Training In Healthy Adults Research Articles

A randomised controlled trial assessing the potential of palmitoylethanolamide (PEA) to act as an adjuvant to resistance training in healthy adults: a study protocol

BackgroundNon-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and analgesics are used frequently by athletes either prophylactically for the prevention of pain, or to accelerate recovery following an injury. However, these types of pain management strategies have been shown to inhibit signalling pathways (e.g., cyclooxygenase-2) that may hinder muscular adaptations such as hypertrophy and strength. Nutraceuticals such as palmitoylethanolamide (PEA) have analgesic properties that act via different mechanisms to NSAIDS/analgesics. Furthermore, PEA has been shown to have a positive effect on sleep and may contribute positively to muscle hypertrophy via PKB activation. Although PEA has not been widely studied in the athletic or recreationally active population, it may provide an alternative solution for pain management if it is found not to interfere with, or enhance training adaptations. Therefore, the study aim is to investigate the effects of daily PEA supplementation (Levagen + ®) with resistance training on lean body mass, strength, power and physical performance and outcomes of recovery (e.g., sleep) compared to placebo.MethodsThis double-blind, randomised controlled study will take place over an 11-week period (including 8-weeks of progressive resistance training). Participants for this study will be 18–35 years old, healthy active adults that are not resistance trained. Participants will attend a familiarisation (week 0), pre-testing (week 1) and final-testing (week 11). At the pre-testing and final-testing weeks, total lean body mass (dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry; DXA), total mid-thigh cross sectional area (pQCT), maximal muscular strength (1 repetition maximum bench press, isometric mid-thigh pull) and power (countermovement jump and bench throw) will be assessed. Additionally, circulating inflammatory cytokines and anabolic hormones, sleep quality and quantity (ActiGraph), pain and subjective wellbeing (questionnaires) will also be examined.DiscussionThis study is designed to investigate the effects that PEA may have on pre-to post intervention changes in total body and regional lean muscle mass, strength, power, sleep, subjective wellbeing, and pain associated with resistance training and menstruation compared with the placebo condition. Unlike other NSAIDs and analgesics, which may inhibit muscle protein synthesis and training adaptations, PEA which provides analgesia via alternative mechanisms may provide an alternative pain management solution. It is therefore important to determine if this analgesic compound interferes with or enhances training adaptations so that athletes and active individuals can make an informed decision on their pain management strategies.Trial registrationAustralian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR: ACTRN12621001726842p).

Effects of Low-Load Blood Flow Restriction Resistance Training on Muscle Strength and Hypertrophy Compared with Traditional Resistance Training in Healthy Adults Older Than 60 Years: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

There is clinical interest in determining the effects of low-load blood flow restriction (LL-BFR) resistance training on muscle strength and hypertrophy compared with traditional high- and low-load (HL and LL) resistance training in healthy older adults and the influence of LL-BFR training cuff-pressure on these outcomes. A search was performed on the MEDLINE, PEDro, CINHAL, Web of Science, Science Direct, Scopus, and CENTRAL databases. The analysis included 14 studies. HL resistance training produces a small increase in muscle strength (eight studies; SMD, -0.23 [-0.41; -0.05]) but not in muscle hypertrophy (six studies; (SMD, 0.08 [-0.22; 0.38]) when compared with LL-BFR resistance training. Compared with traditional LL resistance training, LL-BFR resistance training produces small-moderate increases in muscle strength (seven studies; SMD, 0.44 [0.28; 0.60]) and hypertrophy (two studies; SMD, 0.51 [0.06; 0.96]). There were greater improvements in muscle strength when higher cuff pressures were applied versus traditional LL resistance training but not versus HL resistance training. LL-BFR resistance training results in lower muscle strength gains than HL resistance training and greater than traditional LL resistance training in healthy adults older than 60 years. LL-BFR resistance training promotes a similar muscle hypertrophy to HL resistance training but is greater than that of traditional LL resistance training. Applying cuff pressures above the limb occlusion pressure could enhance the increases in muscle strength compared with traditional LL resistance training.

Comparing the effects of variable and traditional resistance training on maximal strength and muscle power in healthy adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

The aim of the study was to aggregate different effects between variable resistance training and traditional resistance training on maximal muscle strength and muscle power and identify potential sex- and training program-related moderator variables. Meta-analysis. A systematic literature search was conducted in SPORTDiscus, PubMed, and Web of Science. Interventions were included if they compared variable resistance training and traditional resistance training in healthy adults and examined the effects on measures of maximal muscle strength and/or muscle power of the lower and/or upper body. A random-effects model was used to calculate weighted and averaged standardized mean differences. Additionally, univariate sub-group analyses were independently computed for sex and training-related moderator variables. Seventeen studies comprising a total of 491 participants (341 men and 150 women, age 18-37 years) were included in the analyses. In terms of maximal muscle strength, there were no statistically significant differences between variable resistance training and traditional resistance training for the lower (p = 0.46, standardized mean difference = -0.10) or the upper body (p = 0.14, standardized mean difference = -0.17). Additionally, there were no significant training-related differences in muscle power for the lower (p = 0.16, standardized mean difference = 0.21) or upper body (p = 0.81, standardized mean difference = 0.05). Sub-group analyses showed a significant moderator effect for training period and repetitions per set for maximal muscle strength in the lower body (p = 0.03-0.04) with larger strength gains following traditional resistance training when performing more repetitions per set (p = 0.02, standardized mean difference = 0.43). No other significant sub-group effects were found (p = 0.18-0.82). Our results suggest that variable resistance training and traditional resistance training are equally effective in improving maximal muscle strength and muscle power in healthy adults.

The Effect of Resistance Training in Healthy Adults on Body Fat Percentage, Fat Mass and Visceral Fat: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Resistance training is the gold standard exercise mode for accrual of lean muscle mass, but the isolated effect of resistance training on body fat is unknown. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated resistance training for body composition outcomes in healthy adults. Our primary outcome was body fat percentage; secondary outcomes were body fat mass and visceral fat. Systematic review with meta-analysis. We searched five electronic databases up to January 2021. We included randomised trials that compared full-body resistance training for at least 4weeks to no-exercise control in healthy adults. We assessed study quality with the TESTEX tool and conducted a random-effects meta-analysis, with a subgroup analysis based on measurement type (scan or non-scan) and sex (male or female), and a meta-regression for volume of resistance training and training components. From 11,981 records, we included 58 studies in the review, with 54 providing data for a meta-analysis. Mean study quality was 9/15 (range 6-15). Compared to the control, resistance training reduced body fat percentage by - 1.46% (95% confidence interval - 1.78 to - 1.14, p < 0.0001), body fat mass by - 0.55kg (95% confidence interval - 0.75 to - 0.34, p < 0.0001) and visceral fat by a standardised mean difference of - 0.49 (95% confidence interval - 0.87 to - 0.11, p = 0.0114). Measurement type was a significant moderator in body fat percentage and body fat mass, but sex was not. Training volume and training components were not associated with effect size. Resistance training reduces body fat percentage, body fat mass and visceral fat in healthy adults. osf.io/hsk32.

Changes in Muscle Oxygen Saturation Measured Using Wireless Near-Infrared Spectroscopy in Resistance Training: A Systematic Review

Background: This study aimed to report, through a systematic review of the literature, the baseline and final reference values obtained by near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS) of muscle oxygen saturation (SmO2) during resistance training in healthy adults. Methods: Original research studies were searched from four databases (Scopus, PubMed, WOS, and SportDiscus). Subsequently, three independent reviewers screened the titles and abstracts, followed by full-text reviews to assess the studies’ eligibility. Results: Four studies met the inclusion criteria, data were extracted and methodological quality was assessed using the Downs and Black scale. Muscle oxygen saturation (% SmO2) during reported muscle strength exercises showed a decreasing trend after a muscle strength protocol; that is, before the protocol (range = 68.07–77.9%) and after (range = 9.50–46.09%). Conclusions: The trend of the SmO2 variables is to decrease after a muscle strength protocol. Studies are lacking that allow expanding the use of these devices during this type of training.

Inspiratory Muscle Performance Following Diaphragmatic Resistance Training in Healthy Adults

Background: Diaphragmatic weight training has been found to be as effective as resistive inspiratory muscle training and better than the incentive spirometry training in patients with tetraplegia for improving respiratory muscle function. However a previous research concluded no improvement in inspiratory muscle functions among healthy subjects following diaphragmatic weight training. The present study was conducted to know the effects of diaphragmatic weight training on inspiratory muscle performance in healthy adults. Methods: Study had between- subject experimental design. 20 subjects (8 males and 12 females), having mean age 21.1 + 0.7182 yrs., were randomly allocated into two groups. Group A was experiment and Group B was control group. Diaphragmatic resistance training was given to the experimental groups for 5 weeks. Control group was not given any kind of training. Data for vital capacity and inspiratory capacity was recorded from each subject of both the groups (experimental and control) at baseline as well as after 5 weeks. Data analysis and Results: Dependent t-test was used for within group comparison. Independent ttest was used for comparison between group A and B. Highly significant improvement in vital capacity and inspiratory capacity was found (p=.000 and p=.000 respectively) in experimental group as compared to control group. Conclusion: Diaphragmatic resistance training improves vital capacity and inspiratory capacity.

Reliability of the 8-repetition maximum test in men and women

Objective: The 8-repetition maximum test has been recommended as a method of prescribing an intensity for resistance training in healthy adults, athletes, and patients with health conditions. Yet, limited research related to the reliability of 8-repetition maximum testing has been conducted. The purpose of this study was to determine the reliability of the 8-repetition maximum test in men and women. Design: Test–retest reliability study. Methods: Twenty-eight people (14 males, 14 females, mean age = 23.0 years [standard deviation = 1.3]) with no exercise contraindications participated in this study. After familiarization, each participant underwent 8-repetition maximum testing using 4 different exercises. For all participants, the 8-repetition maximum test was performed during 2 sessions with 2–3 days between sessions. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC [1,2]), typical error as the coefficient of variation (TE CV), and the Bland–Altman plot were used to assess reliability. Unpaired t-test was used to determine the influence of gender on differences between initial test and retest values. Results: Excellent reliability of the 8-repetition maximum test was found for all exercises (ICC [1,2] > 0.9). The range of TE CV values was 3.4–10.4%. The Bland–Altman plot illustrated that 27 out of 28 data points for total 8-repetition maximum scores were within the 95% limits of agreement. Unpaired t-test indicated no significant difference between men and women in variations between initial test and retest 8-repetition maximum scores. Conclusion: The findings of this study suggest that an 8-repetition maximum test protocol that includes familiarization is reliable in men and women.