MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Optimal Resistance Training Prescriptions For Skeletal Muscle Hypertrophy: A Systematic Review, Bayesian Network Meta Analysis And Meta Regression

2023· article· en· W4387053122 on OpenAlexaff
Jonathan C. Mcleod, Brad S. Currier, Alysha C. D’Souza, Laura Banfield, Joseph Beyene, Nicky J. Welton, Joshua A.J. Keogh, Lydia Lin, Giulia Coletta, Lauren M. Colenso‐Semple, Kyle J. Lau, Alexandria Verboom, Stuart M. Phillips

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicKnee injuries and reconstruction techniques
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMeta-analysisMedicineMuscle hypertrophyRandomized controlled trialInternal medicineMeta-regressionResistance trainingCredible intervalPhysical therapyCardiologyConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Resistance training prescription (RTx) to achieve muscle hypertrophy involves combining resistance training (RT) variables: load, sets, and training frequency. Evidence-based recommendations on the optimal RTx for hypertrophy are derived from numerous pairwise meta-analyses of individual RT variables. Network meta-analysis allows for the simultaneous comparison of several interventions. PURPOSE: To leverage network meta-analysis to comprehensively compare the impact of several RTx on muscle hypertrophy. METHODS: Eligible studies were randomized controlled trials that included healthy adults (≥18 years old), ≥6 weeks RT, compared at least 2 of 11 predefined interventions, and measured hypertrophy. Predefined interventions were non-exercise control (CTRL) and 10 unique RTx denoted by a three-character acronym - XY# - where X is load (heavy [H] ≥80% 1-repetition maximum [1RM]; light [L] <80% 1RM); Y is sets, (multiple [M] ≥2 sets/exercise; single [S] 1 set/exercise); and # is weekly frequency (3, ≥3 days/wk; 2, 2 days/wk; 1, 1 day/wk), respectively. Six databases were systematically searched up to February 2022. Network meta-analysis was implemented in a Bayesian framework. We conducted univariate network meta-regressions to explore the influence of pre-specified covariates on our findings. RESULTS: 118 articles (n = 3348) were included. The posterior mean (95% credible interval [CrI]) for each RTx versus CTRL was: HM3 = 0.53(0.36,0.69), HM1 = 0.41(0.34, 1.18), HM2 = 0.70(0.50, 0.89), HS3 = 0.35(0.02, 0.72), HS2 = 0.10(0.58, 0.78), LM3 = 0.51(0.39, 0.63), LM1 = 0.57(0.19, 0.95), LM2 = 0.60(0.45, 0.75), LS3 = 0.38(0.17, 0.59), LS2 = 0.50(0.21, 0.80). The top 2 RTx for hypertrophy were (mean rank [95% CrI]): HM2 (2.05 [1 to 5]) and LM2 (3.40 [1 to 7]). Adjusting for pre-specified covariates did not reduce the posterior between-trial standard deviation or result in 95% CrI coefficients that did not cross zero. CONCLUSIONS: All RTx were effective in promoting skeletal muscle hypertrophy, demonstrating that adults can increase skeletal muscle mass by engaging in various RT programs. RT-induced muscle hypertrophy is most effectively accomplished by performing multiple sets/exercise twice weekly, regardless of load. Our analysis yields insight into minimal ‘doses’ of RT to produce hypertrophy.

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)0.026
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.061
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: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.137

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0260.061
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0160.035
Bibliometrics0.0080.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.281 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise→Same topicKnee injuries and reconstruction techniques→French-language works237,207→