Meta-regression of data from 25 studies revealed that a resistance training (RT) program with the goal to increase healthy old adults’ muscle strength is characterized by a training period of 50–53 weeks, a training intensity of 70–79 % of the one-repetition maximum (1RM), a time under tension of 6 s per repetition, and a rest in between sets of 60 s. Selecting a training frequency of two sessions per week, a training volume of two to three sets per exercise, seven to nine repetitions per set, and a rest of 4.0 s between repetitions could also improve efficacy of training. |
The meta-regression revealed that none of the examined training variables of volume (e.g., period, frequency, number of sets, number of repetitions) predicted the effects of RT on measures of muscle morphology. Yet, RT to improve muscle morphology seems to be effective using the following independently computed training variables: a training period of 50–53 weeks, a training frequency of three sessions per week, a training volume of two to three sets per exercise, seven to nine repetitions per set, a training intensity from 51 to 69 % of the 1RM, a total time under tension of 6.0 s, a rest of 120 s between sets, and a 2.5-s rest between repetitions. |
This meta-analysis provides preliminary data for therapists, practitioners, and clinicians regarding relevant RT variables and their dose–response relationships to improve muscle strength and morphology in healthy old adults. |
1 Introduction
2 Methods
2.1 Search Strategy
2.2 Selection Criteria/Study Eligibility
2.3 Coding of Studies
2.4 Data Extraction
2.5 Assessment of Methodological Study Quality
2.6 Statistical Analyses
3 Results
Study | Sex | Age (years) |
N
| Muscles/functional movement | Period (weeks) | Strength gain (%) | Gain in measure of muscle morphology (%) | Within subject SMD (SMDws) | Between subject SMD (SMDbs) | Training variables |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Beneka et al. [31] | M/F | 66–72 Mean age: 69 | M: 8/8/8/8 HI/MI/LI/CG F: 8/8/8/8 HI/MI/LI/CG | Knee extension | 16 | 1RM male HI: 11 MI: 8 LI: 4 CG: −2 n.s. 1RM female HI: 15 MI: 7 LI: 3 CG: −1 n.s. | 1RM male HI: 1.36 MI: 1.14 LI: 0.43 CG: −0.16 1RM female HI: 3.58 MI: 0.71 LI: 0.69 CG: −0.13 | 1RM male HI vs. CG: 1.17 MI vs. CG: 0.77 LI vs. CG: 0.25 HI vs. MI: 0.33 HI vs. LI: 1.03 MI vs. LI: 0.60 1RM female HI vs. CG: 1.92 MI vs. CG: 0.62 LI vs. CG: 0.83 n.s. HI vs. MI: 3.18 HI vs. LI: 3.49 MI vs. LI: −0.10 | RT: 3×/week; 3 sets HI: 4–6 reps; 90 % 1RM MI: 8–10 reps; 70 % 1RM LI: 12–14 reps; 50 % 1RM; TUT: 6 s; 2 s con, 2–3 s iso, 2–3 s ecc; RIS: 120 s; RIR: 5 s; weight machines CG: no intervention | |
Charette et al. [92] | F | 64–86 Mean age: 68 | 13/6 | Leg press | 12 | 1RM RT: 27–106 CG: −2 to 11 n.s. | 1RM RT: 5.92–11.00 CG: −0.12 to 1.17 | 1RM RT vs. CG: 1.98–7.42 | RT: 3×/week; 3–6 sets; 6 reps; 1–5 weeks: 65 % 1RM 6–9 weeks: 70 % 1RM 10–12 weeks: 75 % 1RM; TUT: 5 s; 2 s con, 3 s ecc; weight machines CG: no intervention | |
Daly et al. [93] | M/F | Mean age: 75 | 8/8 | Upper extremity | 6 | 1RM RT: −33 to 14 NPA CG: −19 to 28 NPA | MRI/MV RT: 1–4 NPA CG: −3 to −1 NPA | 1RM RT: −0.07 to 1.00 CG: −0.41 to 0.11 MV RT: −0.11 to 0.13 CG: −0.02 to −0.08 | 1RM RT vs. CG: −0.17 to 0.50 MV RT vs. CG: 0.36–0.52 | RT: 3×/week; 1 week: 3 sets; 8 reps; 60 % 1RM 2 weeks: 3 sets; 8 reps; 70 % 1RM 3–6 weeks: 2 sets; 8 reps; 75 % 1RM; RIS: 60–90 s; weight machines and free weight CG: no intervention |
DeBeliso et al. [94] | M/F | 63–83 Mean age: 72 | 13/17/13 FR/PER/CG | Lower extremity | 18 | 1RM FR: 50–67 PER: 70–81 CG: −5 to 25 | 1RM FR: 1.40–2.33 PER: 1.08–2.09 CG: −0.10 to 0.72 | 1RM FR vs. CG: 1.33–1.80 PER vs. CG: 1.22–1.37 FR vs. PER: 0.07–0.21 | RT: 2×/week; FR: 3 sets; 9RM PER: 1–6 weeks; 2 sets; 15RM 7–12 weeks; 3 sets; 9RM 13–18 weeks; 4 sets; 6RM; 60 min; RIS: 120–180 s; weight machines CG: no intervention | |
Fatouros et al. [95] | M | 65–78 Mean age: 70 | 8/8 | Upper/lower extremity | 16 | IS RT: 14 CG: −1 n.s. 1RM upper RT: 114 CG: 1 n.s. 1RM lower RT: 77 CG: 3 n.s. | IS RT: 1.71 CG: −0.08 1RM upper RT: 6.65 CG: 0.02 1RM lower RT: 7.23 CG: 0.20 | IS RT vs. CG: 1.38 1RM upper RT vs. CG: 3.65 1RM lower RT vs. CG: 4.88 | RT: 3×/week; 1–4 weeks: 2 sets; 13 reps; 55–60 % 1RM 5–8 weeks: 3 sets; 12 reps; 60–70 % 1RM 9–12 weeks: 3 sets; 10 reps; 70–80 % 1RM 13–16 weeks; 3 sets; 8 reps; 80 % 1RM; 45–50 min; TUT: 7.5 s; 2–3 s con, 2 s iso, 2–3 s ecc; RIS: 120 s; RIR: 5 s; weight machines CG: no intervention | |
Fatouros et al. [33] | M | 65–78 Mean age: 71 | 14/12/14/10 HI/MI/LI/CG | Upper/lower extremities | 24 | 1RM upper HI: 73 MI: 48 LI: 34 CG: 2 n.s. 1RM lower HI: 63 MI: 53 LI: 38 CG: −2 n.s. | 1RM upper HI: 3.52 MI: 2.25 LI: 1.77 C: 0.10 1RM lower HI: 4.94 MI: 5.45 LI: 4.86 C: −0.18 | 1RM upper HI vs. CG: 2.71 MI vs. CG: 1.93 LI vs. CG: 1.38 HI vs. MI: 0.78 HI vs. LI: 1.44 MI vs. LI: 0.63 1RM lower HI vs. CG: 4.10 MI vs. CG: 3.75 LI vs. CG: 3.34 HI vs. MI: 0.62 HI vs. LI: 1.81 MI vs. LI: 1.22 | RT: 3×/week; 2–3 sets; 8–15 reps HI: 80 % 1RM MI: 60 % 1RM LI: 40 % 1RM; TUT: 7.5 s; 2–3 s con, 2–3 s iso, 2–3 s ecc; HI RIS: 360 s MI RIS: 240 s LI RIS: 120 s; RIR: 3–5 s; weight machines CG: no intervention | |
Granacher et al. [36] | M/F | 60–80 Mean age: 67 | 20/20 | Lower extremity | 13 | MVC RT: 27 CG: −4 n.s. | MVC RT: 1.24 CG: −0.16 | MVC RT vs. CG: 1.15 | RT: 3×/week; 3 sets; 10 reps; 80 % 1 RM; 60-min sessions; RIS: 120 s; weight machines; CG: no intervention | |
Henwood and Taaffe [40] | M/F | 65–84 Mean age: 70 | 22/22 | Upper/lower extremities | 8 | 1RM upper RT: 2 n.s. –25 CG: −3 to −14 n.s. 1RM lower RT: 11–27 CG: −10 to 3 n.s. | 1RM upper RT: 0.06–0.54 CG: −0.30 to −0.09 1RM lower RT: 0.35–1.06 CG: −0.22 to 0.07 | 1RM upper RT vs. CG: 3.62–5.02 1RM lower RT vs. CG: 4.30–7.66 | RT: 2×/week; 3 sets; 8 reps; 75 % 1RM; 60-min sessions; RIS: 60 s; TUT: 6 s; con: 3 s, ecc: 3 s; weight machines CG: no intervention | |
Hortobagyi et al. [34] | M/F | 66–83 Mean age: 72 | 9/9/9 HI/LI/CG | Leg press | 10 | MVC HI: 24 n.s. LI: 28 n.s. CG: 2 n.s. IS HI: 38 n.s. LI: 29 n.s. CG: 1 n.s. 1RM HI: 35 n.s. LI: 33 n.s. CG: 3 n.s. | MVC HI: 1.06 LI: 1.00 CG: −0.10 IS HI: 1.17 LI: 0.84 CG: −0.02 1RM HI: 1.05 LI: 0.78 CG: −0.10 | MVC HI vs. CG: 0.89 LI vs. CG: 0.67 HI vs. LI: 0.03 n.s. IS HI vs. CG: 0.86 LI vs. CG: 0.37 HI vs. LI: 0.45 n.s. 1RM HI vs. CG: 1.05 LI vs. CG: 0.52 HI vs. LI: 0.41 n.s. | RT: 3 ×/week; HI: 5 sets; 4–6 reps; 80 % 1RM LI: 5 sets; 8–12 reps; 40 % 1RM; TUT: 3 s; 1–2 s con, 1–2 s ecc; RIS: 120 s; weight machines CG: no intervention | |
Hunter et al. [96] | M/F | 61–77 Mean age: 66 | 14/14/14 HI/VI/CG | Knee extension/elbow flexion | 25 | 1RM HI: 13–24 VI: 10–28 CG: −6 to −2 n.s. | BP/FFM HI: 4 VI: 4 CG: 1 n.s. | 1RM HI: 0.43–0.74 VI: 0.21–0.75 CG: −0.18 to −0.04 FFM HI: 0.19 VI: 0.17 CG: 0.03 | 1RM HI vs. CG: 0.85–1.13 VI vs. CG: 0.05–0.67 HI vs. VI: 0.61–0.96 n.s. FFM HI vs. CG: 0.38 VI vs. CG: −0.23 HI vs. CG: 0.71 n.s. | RT: 3 ×/week; 2 sets; 10 reps; 45-min session; RIS: 120 s; weight machines HI: 80 % 1RM VI: 50, 65, 80 % 1RM across the 3 sessions per week CG: no intervention |
Judge et al. [43] | M/F | ≥75 Mean age: 80 | 28/27 | Lower extremity | 13 | 1RM RT: 12 CG: −3 n.s. | 1RM RT: 0.64 CG: −0.05 | 1RM RT vs. CG: 0.11 | RT: 3×/week; 3 sets; 12 reps; 75 % RM; 45-min session; TUT: 4 s; 2 s con, 2 s ecc; RIS: 120–180 s; RIR: 1–2 s; weight machines CG: no intervention | |
Kalapotharakos et al. [35] | M/F | 60–74 Mean age: 65 | 11/12/10 HI/MI/CG | Upper/lower extremities | 12 | 1RM upper HI: 66 MI: 43 CG: −1 n.s. 1RM lower HI: 78 MI: 44 CG: 0 n.s | CT/CSA HI: 10 MI: 7 CG: −1 n.s. | 1RM upper HI: 2.73 MI: 1.62 CG: −0.04 1RM lower HI: 3.13 MI: 1.45 CG: 0.02 CSA HI: 0.34 MI: 0.37 CG: −0.02 | 1RM upper HI vs. CG: 2.11 MI vs. CG: 1.47 HI vs. MI: 0.50 1RM lower HI vs. CG: 2.51 MI vs. CG: 1.51 HI vs. MI: 0.97 CSA HI vs. CG: 0.38 MI vs. CG: 0.34 HI vs. MI: 0.10 | RT: 3×/week; 3 sets; HI: 8 reps; 80 % 1RM MI: 15 reps; 60 % 1RM; TUT: 6 s; 2 s con, 2 s iso, 2 s ecc; RIS: 120 s; RIR: 2–3 s; weight machines CG: no intervention |
Kalapotharakos et al. [71] | M | 61–75 Mean age: 68 | 9/9 | Lower extremity | 10 | 1RM RT: 24 CG: 0 n.s. | 1RM RT: 0.83 CG: 0.01 | 1RM RT vs. CG: 1.50 | RT: 3×/week; 3 sets; 15 reps; 60 % 1RM; 60-min session; RIS: 120 s; weight machines CG: no intervention | |
Lovell et al. [97] | M/F | 70–80 Mean age: 74 | 12/12 | Leg extension | 16 | 1RM RT: 90 CG: −1 n.s. | CT/LM RT: 7 CG: 1 n.s. | 1RM RT: 5.97 CG: −0.07 LM RT: 0.14 CG: 0.03 | 1RM RT vs. CG: 4.33 LM RT vs. CG: 0.10 | RT: 3×/week; 3 sets; 6–10 reps; 70–90 % 1RM; RIS: 120 s; weight machines CG: no intervention |
Miszko et al. [98] | M/F | 65–90 Mean age: 72 | 13/15 | Lower extremity | 16 | 1RM upper RT: 14 CG: −1 n.s. 1RM lower RT: 23 CG: 5 n.s. | 1RM upper RT: 0.28 CG: 0.01 1RM lower RT: 0.43 CG: 0.11 | 1RM upper RT vs. CG: 0.33 1RM lower RT vs. CG: 0.53 | RT: 3×/week; 3 sets; 6–8 reps; 1–8 weeks: 50–70 % 1RM 9–16 weeks: 80 % 1RM; TUT: 4 s; 4 s con; weight machines + free weights CG: no intervention | |
Morse et al. [99] | M | 70–82 Mean age: 74 | 13/8 | Lower extremity (ankle) | 52 | MVC RT: 0 n.s.−25 CG: −2 to 5 n.s. | MRI/MV RT: 15 CG: 2 n.s. | MVC RT: 0.00–1.29 CG: −0.09 to 0.35 MV RT: 1.53 CG: 0.22 | MVC RT vs. CG: 0.89 BD−1.51 MV RT vs. CG: 1.03 | RT: 3×/week (2 × group based, 1 × home based); 2 − 3 sets; 8 − 10 reps; 80 % 1RM; rubber bands, weight machines CG: no intervention |
Pinto et al. [41] | F | 60–69 Mean age: 66 | 19/17 | Lower extremity | 6 | 1RM RT: 22 CG: −1 n.s. | US/MT RT: 11–21 CG: −5 to 7 n.s. | 1RM RT: 1.16 CG: −0.04 MT RT: 0.59–0.90 CG: −0.38 to 0.24 | 1RM RT vs. CG: 1.33 MT RT vs. CG: 0.52–0.99 | RT: 2×/week; 1–3 weeks: 2 sets; 15–20 reps 4–6 weeks: 3 sets; 12–15 reps; RIS: 120 s CG: no intervention |
Pyka et al. [39] | M/F | 61–78 Mean age: 68 | 8/6 | Upper/lower extremities | 52 | 1RM upper RT: 23–51 CG: −4 to −12 n.s. 1RM lower RT: 27–62 CG: −3 to −12 n.s. | 1RM upper RT: 3.30–5.38 CG: −1.35 to −0.63 1RM lower RT: 4.50–9.51 CG: −1.45 to −0.32 | 1RM upper RT vs. CG: 4.69–6.12 1RM lower RT vs. CG: 5.87–7.67 | RT: 3×/week; 3 sets; 8 reps; 65–75 % 1RM; 60-min sessions; TUT: 5 s; 2 s con, 3 s ecc; RIS: 60 s; weight machines CG: no intervention | |
Raso et al. [42] | F | 60–77 Mean age: 68 | 14/9 | Trunk/lower extremity | 52 | 1RM RT: 48 CG: 5 n.s. | N/A/FFM RT: −3 n.s CG: −2 n.s. | 1RM RT: 4.73 CG: 0.67 FFM RT: −0.22 CG: −0.20 | 1RM RT vs. CG: 2.20 FFM RT vs. CG: 0.20 | RT: 3×/week; 3 sets; 12 reps; 55 % 1RM; 60-min sessions; TUT: 4 s; 1–2 s con, 2–3 s ecc; RIS: 120 s; weight machines CG: no intervention |
Reeves et al. [37] | M/F | 65–79 Mean age: 71 | 9/9 | Lower extremity | 14 | MVC RT: 15 CG: −12 n.s. | MVC RT: 0.32 CG: −0.45 | MVC RT vs. CG: 0.52 NPA | RT: 3×/week; 2 sets; 10 reps; 70–75 % 1RM; TUT: 5 s; 2 s con, 3 s ecc; RIS: 180 s; weight machines CG: no intervention | |
Rhodes et al. [100] | F | 65–75 Mean age: 69 | 20/18 | Upper/lower extremity | 52 | 1RM upper RT: 9 n.s. –25 CG: 0–2 n.s. 1RM lower RT: 19–54 CG: −4 to 1 n.s. | 1RM upper RT: 0.55–1.70 CG: 0.02–0.09 1RM lower RT: 0.83–2.62 CG: −0.21 to 0.06 | 1RM upper RT vs. CG: 0.60–1.25 1RM lower RT vs. CG: 1.28–2.85 | RT: 3 ×/week; 3 sets; 8 reps; 75 % 1RM; 60-min sessions; TUT: 6 s; 2–3 s con, 3–4 s ecc CG: no intervention | |
Strasser et al. [72] | M/F | ≥70 Mean age: 74 | 15/14 | Upper/lower extremities | 26 | 1RM upper RT: 24–31 CG: 3 n.s. 1RM lower RT: 15 CG: 9 n.s. | 1RM upper RT: 0.61–0.76 CG: 0.10–0.12 1RM lower RT: 0.47 CG: 0.35 | 1RM upper RT vs. CG: 1.00–1.40 1RM lower RT vs. CG: 0.77 BD | RT: 3×/week; 3–6 sets; 10–15 reps; 60–70 % 1RM CG: no intervention | |
Tracy et al. [38] | M/F | 65–80 Mean age: 74 | 11/9 | Knee extension | 16 | MVC RT: 26 CG: −1 n.s. 1RM RT: 27 CG: 2 n.s. | MVC RT: 0.81 CG: −0.05 1RM RT: 0.67 CG: 0.05 | MVC RT vs. CG: 0.27 1RM RT vs. CG: 0.53 | RT: 3×/week; 3 sets; 10 reps; 80 % 1RM CG: no intervention | |
Vincent et al. [32] | M/F | 60–83 Mean age: 68 | 22/24/16 HI/LI/CG | Upper/lower extremities, trunk (total strength) | 24 | 1RM HI: 18 LI: 17 CG: −1 n.s. | CT/FFM HI: 0.4 n.s. LI: −3.6 n.s. CG: −1 n.s. | 1RM HI: 0.42 LI: 0.45 CG: −0.04 FFM HI: 0.02 LI: −0.12 CG: −0.05 | 1RM HI vs. CG: 0.66 LI vs. CG: 0.49 HI vs. LI: 0.25 n.s. FFM HI vs. C: 0.17 LI vs. C: 0.22 HI vs. LI: −0.06 NPA | RT: 3×/week; 1 set; HI: 8 reps; 80 % 1RM LI: 13 reps; 50 % 1RM; RIS: 120 s; weight machines CG: no intervention |
Vincent et al. [73] | M/F | 60–72 Mean age: 69 | 10/10 | Total body strength | 24 | 1RM RT: 16 CG: −2 n.s. | CT/FFM RT: 4 n.s. CG: 1 n.s. | 1RM RT: 1.35 CG: −0.15 FFM RT: 0.57 CG: 0.13 | 1RM RT vs. CG: 0.08 FFM RT vs. CG: 1.30 | RT: 3×/week; 1 set; 8–13 reps; 50–80 % 1RM; weight machines CG: no intervention |
3.1 Overall Findings
3.1.1 Effects of Resistance Training (RT) on Measures of Muscle Strength
3.1.2 Effects of RT on Measures of Muscle Morphology
3.2 Methodological Study Quality
3.3 Dose–Response Relationships of RT on Measures of Muscle Strength
Authors | Eligibility criteria | Random allocation | Concealed allocation | Baseline comparability | Blind subjects | Blind therapists | Blind assessor | Adequate follow-up dropout <15 % | Intention-to-treat analysis | Between-group comparisons | Point estimates and variability | Score |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Beneka et al. [31] | − | + | − | + | − | − | − | + | − | + | + | 5 |
Charette et al. [92] | + | + | − | + | − | − | − | − | − | + | + | 4 |
Daly et al. [93] | − | + | + | − | − | − | + | + | − | + | − | 5 |
DeBeliso et al. [94] | − | + | − | + | − | − | − | − | − | + | + | 4 |
Fatouros et al. [95] | − | + | − | + | − | − | − | + | − | + | + | 5 |
Fatouros et al. [33] | − | + | − | + | − | − | − | + | − | + | + | 5 |
Granacher et al. [36] | − | + | − | − | − | − | − | − | − | − | + | 2 |
Henwood and Taaffe [40] | + | + | − | + | − | − | − | + | − | + | + | 5 |
Hortobagyi et al. [34] | − | + | − | + | − | − | − | + | − | + | + | 5 |
Hunter et al. [96] | + | + | − | + | − | − | − | + | − | + | + | 5 |
Judge et al. [101] | + | + | − | + | − | − | + | + | + | + | + | 7 |
Kalapotharakos et al. [71] | − | + | − | + | − | − | − | − | − | + | + | 4 |
Kalapotharakos et al. [35] | − | + | − | + | − | − | + | + | − | + | + | 6 |
Lovell et al. [97] | + | + | − | + | − | − | − | + | − | + | + | 5 |
Miszko et al. [98] | − | + | − | − | − | − | − | − | − | + | + | 3 |
Morse et al. [99] | − | + | − | − | − | − | − | − | − | + | + | 3 |
Pinto et al. [41] | + | + | − | + | − | − | + | + | + | + | + | 7 |
Pyka et al. [39] | − | + | − | + | − | − | − | + | − | + | + | 5 |
Raso et al. [42] | + | + | − | + | − | − | − | − | − | + | + | 4 |
Reeves et al. [37] | − | + | − | + | − | − | − | − | − | − | + | 3 |
Rhodes et al. [100] | + | + | − | + | − | − | − | + | − | + | + | 5 |
Strasser et al. [72] | + | + | − | + | − | − | − | − | − | + | + | 4 |
Tracy et al. [38] | − | + | − | + | − | − | + | − | − | + | + | 5 |
Vincent et al. [73] | − | + | − | + | − | − | − | + | − | + | + | 5 |
Vincent et al. [32] | − | + | − | + | − | − | − | − | − | + | + | 4 |
Mean score | 4.6 |
3.3.1 Meta-Regression Analysis for Training Variables of Muscle Strength
Coefficient | Standard error | 95 % lower CI | 95 % upper CI | Z value |
P value | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Training volume | ||||||
Training period | 0.0316 | 0.0155 | 0.0012 | 0.0619 | 2.04 | 0.04 |
Training frequency | 0.0900 | 0.3315 | −0.5598 | 0.7397 | 0.27 | 0.79 |
Number of sets | 0.1142 | 0.1810 | −0.2406 | 0.4690 | 0.63 | 0.53 |
Number of repetitions per set | 0.0219 | 0.0585 | −0.0927 | 0.1366 | 0.37 | 0.71 |
Training intensity | ||||||
Training intensity | 0.0182 | 0.0052 | 0.0084 | 0.0288 | 3.57 | 0.01 |
Time under tension | 0.3154 | 0.1094 | 0.1010 | 0.5297 | 2.88 | 0.01 |
Rest | ||||||
Rest in between sets | 0.0095 | 0.0051 | −0.0006 | 0.0196 | 1.85 | 0.06 |
Rest in between repetitions | 0.1600 | 0.2255 | −0.282 | 0.6019 | 0.71 | 0.48 |
3.3.2 Training Period
3.3.3 Training Frequency
3.3.4 Number of Sets and Repetitions
3.3.5 Training Intensity
3.3.6 Time Under Tension per Repetition
3.3.7 Rest Time (Rest in Between Sets and Repetitions)
3.4 Dose–Response Relationships of RT on Measures of Muscle Morphology
3.4.1 Meta-Regression Analyses for Training Variables of Muscle Morphology
3.4.2 Training Period
3.4.3 Training Frequency
3.4.4 Number of Sets and Repetitions
3.4.5 Training Intensity
3.4.6 Time Under Tension per Repetition
3.4.7 Rest Time (Rest in Between Sets and Repetitions)
4 Discussion
Training variables | Measures of muscle strength | Measures of muscle morphology | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Highest value | Mean SMDbs
| Highest value | Mean SMDbs
| |
Training period [weeks] | 50–53 | 2.34 | 50–53 | 0.59a
|
Training frequency [sessions per week] | 2 | 2.13 | 3 | 0.38 |
Number of sets per exercise | 2–3 | 2.99 | 2–3 | 0.78a
|
Number of repetitions [per set] | 7–9 | 1.98 | 7–9 | 0.49 |
Training intensity [% of 1RM] | 70–79 | 1.89 | 51–69 | 0.43 |
Time under tension (total) [s] | 6.0 | 3.61 | 6 | 0.36a
|
Time under tension (isometric mode) [s] | 2.0 | 2.70a
| 2.0 | 0.36a
|
Time under tension (concentric mode) [s] | 2.5 | 3.44 | 2.0 | 0.36a
|
Time under tension (eccentric mode) [s] | 3.0 | 2.98 | 2.0 | 0.36a
|
Rest in between sets [s] | 60 | 4.68a
| 120 | 0.30 |
Rest in between repetitions [s] | 4 | 3.72a
| 2.5 | 0.36a
|