Influence of Resistance Training Variables to Improve Muscle Mass Outcomes in Sarcopenia: A Systematic Review With Meta‐Regressions
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Resistance training (RT) is the first-line treatment to improve sarcopenia features. However, increasing muscle mass with RT remains challenging and displays inconsistent results. Manipulating training variables may present a novel approach to improve muscle mass gain in sarcopenic individuals. The present study aimed to measure the effectiveness of RT alone on muscle mass outcomes in older adults with sarcopenia and determine the influence of RT variables on muscle mass improvement. METHOD: We conducted a systematic review according to PRISMA standards to gather studies that conducted a supervised RT without nutritional intervention in sarcopenia-diagnosed older adults with a muscle mass outcome versus a control group. A search strategy was performed on PubMed, Medline, Cochrane and Google Scholar in the last 14 years, from the publication of the first agreement on the diagnosis (EWGSOP, 2010). Along with sample characteristics, we extracted and analysed the following training variables: frequency (number of sessions per week), intensity (in rating perceived effort and in % of the one repetition maximal load), duration (weeks), volume (number of sets per week), periodization (yes/no) and muscle failure (yes/no). First, we standardized the outcome with Hedge's g and pooled the effect size (ES) of each study in a univariate meta-analysis adjusted for risk of bias. Then, we performed training composition comparisons between 'effective interventions' and 'ineffective interventions', which were previously classified based on the 95% confidence interval (CI) effect size. Finally, relevant variables were regressed as moderators of the weighted ES in a mixed-effects model. RESULTS: A total of 14 studies representing 528 individuals (73.1 ± 6.6 years, 385 women [73%] and 143 men [27%]) were included for analysis. A significant effect of RT to improve muscle mass was found with a small weighted ES estimate (g = 0.38 [0.18; 0.58] 95% CI, p ≤ 0.001). There was no publication bias across studies (p = 0.7). 'Ineffective interventions' included significantly older individuals (p ≤ 0.01). Training composition was homogenous between the groups. The final model showed that age was the only significant moderator of the ES (estimate = -0.06 [-0.08; -0.03] 95% CI, p ≤ 0.001). CONCLUSION: In sarcopenic older adults, designing an evidence-based RT induces significant gains in muscle mass, but training variables manipulation does not yield greater outcomes. This study also unveils that ageing with sarcopenia negatively affects the significant improvement of muscle mass induced by RT.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,008 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».