Responsiveness of functional performance and muscle strength, power, and size to resistance training: A systematic review

IF 2.3 Q2 SPORT SCIENCES Sports Medicine and Health Science Pub Date : 2023-12-22 DOI:10.1016/j.smhs.2023.12.003
Tomé Edson dos Reis Moda , Ricardo Borges Viana , Rayra Khalinka Neves Dias , Eduardo Macedo Penna , Victor Silveira Coswig
{"title":"Responsiveness of functional performance and muscle strength, power, and size to resistance training: A systematic review","authors":"Tomé Edson dos Reis Moda ,&nbsp;Ricardo Borges Viana ,&nbsp;Rayra Khalinka Neves Dias ,&nbsp;Eduardo Macedo Penna ,&nbsp;Victor Silveira Coswig","doi":"10.1016/j.smhs.2023.12.003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>There is a recent and growing interest in assessing differential responders to resistance training (RT) for diverse outcomes. Thus, the individual ability to respond to an intervention for a specific measurement, called responsiveness, remains to be better understood. Thus, the current study aimed to summarize the available information about the effects of RT on functional performance and muscle strength, power, and size in healthy adults, through the prevalence rate in different responsiveness classifications models. A systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and was registered at the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO, CRD42021265378). PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, and Embase databases were systematically searched in October 2023. A total of 13 studies were included, totaling 921 subjects. Only two studies presented a low risk of bias. Regarding the effectiveness of RT, the prevalence rate for non-responders ranged from 0% to 44% for muscle strength, from 0% to 84% for muscle size, and from 0% to 42% for functional performance, while for muscle power, the only study found showed a responsiveness rate of 37%. In conclusion, a wide range of differential responders is described for all variables investigated. However, the evidence summarized in this systematic review suggested some caution while interpreting the findings, since the body of evidence found seems to be incipient, and widely heterogeneous in methodological and statistical aspects.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":33620,"journal":{"name":"Sports Medicine and Health Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666337623000951/pdfft?md5=2535c0cc888661d3a8a1fd6bbd25f80e&pid=1-s2.0-S2666337623000951-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sports Medicine and Health Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666337623000951","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SPORT SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

There is a recent and growing interest in assessing differential responders to resistance training (RT) for diverse outcomes. Thus, the individual ability to respond to an intervention for a specific measurement, called responsiveness, remains to be better understood. Thus, the current study aimed to summarize the available information about the effects of RT on functional performance and muscle strength, power, and size in healthy adults, through the prevalence rate in different responsiveness classifications models. A systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and was registered at the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO, CRD42021265378). PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, and Embase databases were systematically searched in October 2023. A total of 13 studies were included, totaling 921 subjects. Only two studies presented a low risk of bias. Regarding the effectiveness of RT, the prevalence rate for non-responders ranged from 0% to 44% for muscle strength, from 0% to 84% for muscle size, and from 0% to 42% for functional performance, while for muscle power, the only study found showed a responsiveness rate of 37%. In conclusion, a wide range of differential responders is described for all variables investigated. However, the evidence summarized in this systematic review suggested some caution while interpreting the findings, since the body of evidence found seems to be incipient, and widely heterogeneous in methodological and statistical aspects.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
功能表现以及肌肉力量、功率和大小对阻力训练的反应:系统回顾
最近,人们对评估阻力训练(RT)不同反应者的不同结果越来越感兴趣。因此,人们仍需更好地了解个人对特定测量干预的反应能力,即反应性。因此,本研究旨在通过不同反应性分类模型中的流行率,总结有关阻力训练对健康成年人功能表现和肌肉力量、功率和尺寸影响的现有信息。研究根据系统综述和元分析首选报告项目(PRISMA)进行了系统综述,并在国际系统综述前瞻性注册中心(PROSPERO,CRD42021265378)进行了注册。2023 年 10 月,对 PubMed/MEDLINE、Scopus 和 Embase 数据库进行了系统检索。共纳入 13 项研究,受试者总数为 921 人。只有两项研究的偏倚风险较低。关于 RT 的有效性,肌肉力量方面的无应答率从 0% 到 44%,肌肉大小方面的无应答率从 0% 到 84%,功能表现方面的无应答率从 0% 到 42%,而在肌肉力量方面,唯一发现的研究显示有应答率为 37%。总之,在所有调查变量中,差异反应者的范围很广。然而,本系统综述中总结的证据表明,在解释研究结果时需要谨慎,因为所发现的证据似乎刚刚起步,而且在方法学和统计学方面存在很大差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Sports Medicine and Health Science
Sports Medicine and Health Science Health Professions-Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation
CiteScore
5.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
36
审稿时长
55 days
期刊最新文献
Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on cardiovascular health in sedentary and athletes: Consensus, uncertainties, and ways for mitigation The effects of prolonged sitting behavior on resting-state brain functional connectivity in college students post-COVID-19 rehabilitation: A study based on fNIRS technology Effects of COVID-19 on the cardiovascular system: A mendelian randomization study Exercise self-efficacy in older adults with metabolic-associated fatty liver disease: a latent profile analysis Failed Single-Leg Assessment of Postural Stability After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injuries and Reconstruction: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1