Ccomparison of traditional and advanced resistance-training paradigms on muscle hypertrophy in trained individuals: a systematic review, meta-analysis, and critical evaluation of the literature

Abstract

Trained individuals may require higher variations in training stimuli and advanced resistance training paradigms (ADV) to increase muscle hypertrophy. However, no meta-analysis has examined how ADV, and traditional (TRAD) approaches may differentially affect hypertrophic outcomes in trained populations. The aim of this review was to determine whether the skeletal muscle hypertrophy responses induced by TRAD differ from ADV in resistance-trained individuals, and analyzing the studies regarding the dietary control, participants' training status, and quantification of training loads. Search for peer-reviewed studies randomized controlled trials, published in English, conducted with healthy adults, resistance-trained individuals performing a period of TRAD and ADV with Pre-to-Post measurement of muscle hypertrophy. Pubmed, Web of Science, SPORTdiscus, and MEDLINE databases were searched up to October 2022. Meta-analysis was conduct in Revman5 and risk of bias was assessed by RoB2. Ten studies met the inclusion criteria. Meta-analysis showed no difference between ADV and TRAD in any muscle hypertrophy assessment: muscle thickness (SMD = 0.05, 95%CI:-0.20 0.29, [p = 0.70]), lean mass (SMD = - 0.01, 95%CI:-0.26 0.23, [p = 0.92]), muscle crosssectional area (SMD = -0.07, 95%CI:[-0.36 0.22] , [p = 0.64]), or all measurements analyzed together (SMD = -0.00, 95%CI:[-0.15 0.14], [p = 0.95]). Short-term ADV does not induce superior skeletal muscle hypertrophy responses when compared with TRAD in trained individuals. Independently of the use of ADV or TRAD systems, performing similar volume loads appears to induce similar hypertrophic responses. Therefore, coaches and athletes programing a period of resistance training should consider monitoring this metric.