Effects of Variable Resistance Training on Maximal Strength: A Meta-analysis

Santos, Wanderson; Gentil, Paulo; Ribeiro, Alexandre Lima de Araújo; Vieira, Carlos Alexandre; Martins, Wagner Rodrigues

doi:10.1519/jsc.0000000000002836

Cited by 7 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Table 1 depicts the findings of the systematic review. We excluded one meta-analysis [46] after determining that it was retracted in 2018 [47] because of statistical errors resulting in an incorrect conclusion [48]. We replaced this retracted meta-analysis with the 21st most cited meta-analysis from our search.…”

Section: Part 2: Frequency Of These Errors In Other Highly Cited Meta...mentioning

confidence: 99%

With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility: Common Errors in Meta-Analyses and Meta-Regressions in Strength & Conditioning Research

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and Objective Meta-analysis and meta-regression are often highly cited and may influence practice. Unfortunately, statistical errors in meta-analyses are widespread and can lead to flawed conclusions. The purpose of this article was to review common statistical errors in meta-analyses and to document their frequency in highly cited meta-analyses from strength and conditioning research. Methods We identified five errors in one highly cited meta-regression from strength and conditioning research: implausible outliers; overestimated effect sizes that arise from confusing standard deviation with standard error; failure to account for correlated observations; failure to account for within-study variance; and a focus on within-group rather than between-group results. We then quantified the frequency of these errors in 20 of the most highly cited meta-analyses in the field of strength and conditioning research from the past 20 years. Results We found that 85% of the 20 most highly cited meta-analyses in strength and conditioning research contained statistical errors. Almost half (45%) contained at least one effect size that was mistakenly calculated using standard error rather than standard deviation. In several cases, this resulted in obviously wrong effect sizes, for example, effect sizes of 11 or 14 standard deviations. Additionally, 45% failed to account for correlated observations despite including numerous effect sizes from the same study and often from the same group within the same study. Conclusions Statistical errors in meta-analysis and meta-regression are common in strength and conditioning research. We highlight five errors that authors, editors, and readers should check for when preparing or critically reviewing meta-analyses.

show abstract

Section: Part 2: Frequency Of These Errors In Other Highly Cited Meta...mentioning

confidence: 99%

With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility: Common Errors in Meta-Analyses and Meta-Regressions in Strength & Conditioning Research

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A recent meta-analysis revealed that VRT and CRT lead to similar gains in maximum strength ( p = 0.88) ( Nilo dos Santos et al, 2018 ). The different VRT methodologies may be an important consideration when interpreting studies on this topic, such as the contribution of variable resistance and loading schemes ( Wallace et al, 2018 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of Variable Resistance Training within Complex Training on Neuromuscular Adaptations in Collegiate Basketball Players

Shi

Lyons

Duncan

et al. 2022

Journal of Human Kinetics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this study was to investigate the differences in neuromuscular performance between variable resistance training and constant resistance training within complex training. Twenty-one well-trained collegiate basketball players were randomly assigned to either an experimental group (variable resistance training) or a control group (constant resistance training) and completed a twice weekly training program over an 8-week period. Training programs were the same except that the experimental group included variable resistance via elastic bands (40% of the total load). Maximum strength, vertical jump, horizontal jump, and sprint performance were assessed pre- and post-intervention. Both groups demonstrated significant increases in the back squat 1RM (experimental group +36.5% and control group +32.3%, both p < 0.001), countermovement jump (experimental group +12.9%, p = 0.002 and control group +5.6%, p = 0.02), and squat jump performance (experimental group +21.4% and control group +12.9%, both p < 0.001), whereas standing broad jump performance improved only in the experimental group (+2.9%, p = 0.029). Additionally, the experimental group showed significant improvement in the squat jump (p = 0.014) compared with the control group. However, no statistically significant differences were found between groups for countermovement jump (p = 0.06) and sprint performance at 10 m (p = 0.153) and 20 m (p = 0.076). We may conclude that both training modalities showed similar improvements in maximum strength. Performing variable resistance training within a complex training program is more efficient to enhance selective power performance in well-trained collegiate basketball players.

show abstract

“…Two recent meta-analyses attempted to address the influential role of VRT over CRT on gaining of muscular strength in different populations. These two studies reported no significant differences in the development of maximum strength between VRT and CRT [ 26 , 27 ]. Furthermore, these studies [ 26 , 27 ] were limited with a smaller number of included articles, inadequate details of subjects/training loads, lack of subgroup analysis, and results seem to be inconsistent with the widely held view.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These two studies reported no significant differences in the development of maximum strength between VRT and CRT [ 26 , 27 ]. Furthermore, these studies [ 26 , 27 ] were limited with a smaller number of included articles, inadequate details of subjects/training loads, lack of subgroup analysis, and results seem to be inconsistent with the widely held view. Thus, whether VRT contributes to maximum-strength improvement and quantifying the dosage of appropriate exercise for optimal strength are problems that need clarification [ 28 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of Variable-Resistance Training Versus Constant-Resistance Training on Maximum Strength: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Lin

Hong

et al. 2022

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Greater muscular strength is generally associated with superior sports performance, for example, in jumping, sprinting, and throwing. This meta-analysis aims to compare the effects of variable-resistance training (VRT) and constant-resistance training (CRT) on the maximum strength of trained and untrained subjects. PubMed, Web of Science, and Google Scholar were comprehensively searched to identify relevant studies published up to January 2022. Fourteen studies that met the inclusion criteria were used for the systematic review and meta-analysis. Data regarding training status, training modality, and type of outcome measure were extracted for the analyses. The Cochrane Collaboration tool was used to assess the risk of bias. The pooled outcome showed improved maximum strength with VRT, which was significantly higher than that with CRT (ES = 0.80; 95% CI: 0.42–1.19) for all the subjects. In addition, trained subjects experienced greater maximum-strength improvements with VRT than with CRT (ES = 0.57; 95% CI: 0.22–0.93). Based on subgroup analyses, maximum-strength improvement with a VRT load of ≥80% of 1 repetition maximum (1RM) was significantly higher than that with CRT (ES = 0.76; 95% CI: 0.37–1.16) in trained subjects, while no significant differences were found between VRT and CRT for maximum-strength improvement when the load was <80% (ES = 0.00; 95% CI: −0.55–0.55). The untrained subjects also achieved greater maximum strength with VRT than with CRT (ES = 1.34; 95% CI: 0.28–2.40). Interestingly, the improved maximum strength of untrained subjects with a VRT load of <80% of 1RM was significantly higher than that with CRT (ES = 2.38; 95% CI: 1.39–3.36); however, no significant differences were noted between VRT and CRT when the load was ≥80% of 1RM (ES = −0.04; 95% CI: −0.89–0.81). Our findings show that subjects with resistance training experience could use a load of ≥80% of 1RM and subjects without resistance training experience could use a load of <80% of 1RM to obtain greater VRT benefits.

show abstract

Effects of Variable Resistance Training on Maximal Strength: A Meta-analysis

Cited by 7 publications

References 8 publications

With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility: Common Errors in Meta-Analyses and Meta-Regressions in Strength & Conditioning Research

With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility: Common Errors in Meta-Analyses and Meta-Regressions in Strength & Conditioning Research

Effects of Variable Resistance Training within Complex Training on Neuromuscular Adaptations in Collegiate Basketball Players

Effects of Variable-Resistance Training Versus Constant-Resistance Training on Maximum Strength: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About