MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3014755573 · doi:10.1139/apnm-2020-0021

Is power training effective to produce muscle hypertrophy in older adults? A systematic review and meta-analysis

2020· review· en· W3014755573 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Lucas B. R. Orssatto, Ewertton de Souza Bezerra, Anthony Shield, Gabriel S. Trajano

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Physiology Nutrition and Metabolism · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSports injuries and prevention
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMuscle hypertrophyResistance trainingMeta-analysisStrength trainingMedicineTraining (meteorology)Confidence intervalPhysical medicine and rehabilitationPhysical therapyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Power training has been suggested to be effective in improving strength, power, and functional capacity in older adults. However, there is still a lack of systematic investigations reporting its effectiveness for muscle hypertrophy. Thus, this study investigated the effect of power training on muscle hypertrophy and compared its magnitude with traditional moderate-velocity resistance training in older adults. A systematic search was conducted to identify clinical trials investigating the effect of power training on muscle hypertrophy (power training vs. control) and/or comparing the effect of power training versus moderate-velocity resistance training for a meta-analytical approach. Ten studies comparing power training to control conditions and 9 studies comparing power training to moderate-velocity resistance training were selected. Three studies were classified as high quality and 2 were preregistered. The meta-analysis showed that power training was superior for muscle hypertrophy compared with control condition (n = 8 studies; standardised mean difference (SMD) = 0.31; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.04, 0.58; p = 0.029), and resulted in similar hypertrophy compared with moderate-velocity resistance training (n = 7 studies; SMD = 0.07; 95% CI = –0.18, 0.32; p = 0.50). No significant heterogeneity was observed (p = 0.46 and 0.54, and I2 = 0% and 0%, respectively). Our data suggest that power training is effective for muscle hypertrophy in older adults, with similar effectiveness as moderate-velocity resistance training. (PROSPERO registration no.: CRD42019128951.) Novelty It is known that power training might be superior to moderate-velocity resistance training for function improvements in older adults, but there was no meta-analysis investigating its effect on muscle hypertrophy. Power training is effective to induce muscle hypertrophy in older adults to a similar extent as moderate-velocity resistance training.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.060

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0150.029
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.288 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations28
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied Physiology Nutrition and MetabolismSame topicSports injuries and preventionFrench-language works237,207