Should resistance training programs aimed at muscular hypertrophy be periodized? A systematic review of periodized versus non-periodized approaches (original) (raw)
Review
Should resistance training programs aimed at muscular hypertrophy be periodized? A systematic review of periodized versus non-periodized approachesLes entraînements en résistance pour hypertrophier le muscle doivent-ils être fractionnés ? Une revue systématique des approches fractionnées versus non fractionnées
Summary
Objectives
Our goal was to systematically review the current literature and interpret the findings regarding the effects of periodized (PER) versus non-periodized (NP) resistance training programs aimed at muscular hypertrophy.
News
Controversy exists as to whether a (PER) approach to resistance training is superior to a (NP) approach for maximizing muscular hypertrophy, or vice-versa, or if no differences exist between the approaches.
Prospect and projects
Following a search of the PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science electronic databases, 12 studies comprising a total of 31 treatment groups met predetermined inclusion criteria.
Conclusion
Based on the results of our review, we conclude that similar hypertrophic effects may be achieved using either a PER or a NP approach. Importantly, the findings are specific to short-term training interventions, as the average duration of programs across studies amounted to ∼15
weeks; and to untrained individuals, as only two studies involved resistance-trained participants. A limitation of the reviewed literature also pertains to the small number of studies (n
=
- using direct measures of hypertrophy (i.e., magnetic resonance imaging or ultrasound). Further research is needed to fill in the gaps in the current literature.
Résumé
Notre objectif était de réaliser une revue systématique de la littérature actuelle et d’interpréter les résultats concernant les effets hypertrophiants musculaires des entraînements en résistance fractionnés (FR) versus non-fractionnés (NF). En effet, il existe une controverse quant à savoir si une approche (FR) des entraînements en résistance est supérieure à une approche (NF) pour maximiser l’hypertrophie musculaire ou vice versa ou si aucune différence n’existe entre les approches.
Méthodologie
À la suite d’une recherche dans les bases de données électroniques PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus et Web of Science, 12 études comprenant 31 groupes de traitement répondent à des critères d’inclusion prédéterminés.
Résultats
Sur la base de l’analyse de ces études, nous concluons que des effets hypertrophiques similaires peuvent être atteints en utilisant une approche FR ou NF. Il faut noter que ces résultats ne concernent que des entraînements à court terme (la durée moyenne des programmes étant d’environ 15 semaines) et des sujets préalablement non entraînés (à l’exception de deux études portant sur des sujets déjà entraînés en résistance). Une autre limitation de la littérature étudiée est qu’elle ne comprend qu’un faible nombre d’études (n
=
- qui utilisent des mesures directes de l’hypertrophie (imagerie par résonance magnétique ou échographie). D’autres recherches sont donc nécessaires pour combler les lacunes de la littérature actuelle.
Introduction
The inclusion of resistance training as a part of a well-designed exercise program is recommended by many public health organizations, including World Health Organization, American College of Sports Medicine, and American Heart Association. Resistance training offers multiple health benefits including improvements in physical performance, longer functional independence, and increases in cognitive abilities and self-esteem [1]. A common goal of individuals participating in resistance training is to increase muscle mass. The current body of literature provides empirical evidence regarding a majority of resistance training variables (i.e., intensity, volume, exercise selection, etc.) oriented towards achieving such a goal [2]. However, there is a paucity of evidence regarding how to manipulate these variables for optimal results. This strategy referred to as periodization is regarded as a fundamental component of the training process as it may provide a conceptual structure for devising a training plan [3].
A training program may be periodized (PER) using one or more conventional periodization models. These models include:
- •
linear periodization (LP), characterized by increases in training intensity and decreases in training volume over time, or, reverse linear (RL), characterized by decreases in intensity and increases in volume; - •
daily undulating periodization (DUP) characterized by undulation in intensity and volume each training day, weekly undulating periodization (WUP) or the undulating model (UP), characterized by weekly or biweekly fluctuation in intensity and volume, respectively; - •
the block periodization (BP) model that divides the training program into several blocks that focus on specific training goals.
Some authors [4] have proposed that the use of a DUP resistance training program provides greater benefits for achieving increases in muscle mass than the utilization of an LP resistance training program. However, it is currently unknown if a resistance training program aimed at muscular hypertrophy should be periodized using either of the above-discussed models or a non-periodized (NP) program with high levels of training volume and progressive overload is sufficient to elicit hypertrophic effects.
By synthesizing the available data and conducting a systematic review, it is possible to glean further insights into the topic and thus draw evidence-based conclusions for resistance training program design. In accordance, the objective of this paper is: to evaluate the effects of PER versus NP resistance training programs on measures of muscle hypertrophy by systematically reviewing the current body of literature and present practical information for individuals striving to optimize resistance training programs aimed at increases in muscle mass.
Section snippets
Inclusion criteria
The guidelines from PRISMA were followed for the systematic literature search [5]. The criteria for inclusion were the following:
- •
an experimental trial published in an English-language refereed peer-review journal; - •
the study included a comparison of any form of a PER resistance training program to an NP resistance training program using dynamic exercise with both concentric and eccentric muscle actions; - •
the researchers used at least one method of assessing changes in muscle mass; - •
the training
Results
A total of 1483 studies were evaluated based on the results of the search. Initially, the titles of the articles were examined. Then, the abstracts were read. Finally, the entire article was perused. In total, 12 studies were included [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19] with a total of 337 participants (258 males and 79 females) involved either in a PER or in a NP resistance training program. The search process is depicted by a flow diagram in Fig. 1.
Eight
Discussion
The present review article is the first to have systematically evaluated the effects of these two training approaches on measures of muscular hypertrophy. By observing the results of each study included in this review, it may be suggested that both PER and NP approaches to resistance training can be used to achieve muscular hypertrophy and that similar hypertrophic effects may be achieved using either approach. However, as we elaborate in further text, there are limitations to the current body
Disclosure of interest
The authors declare that they have no competing interest.
References (24)
- et al.
The training process: planning for strength–power training in track and field. Part 2: practical and applied aspects
J Sport Health Sci
(2015)
- S. Ahmadizad et al.
Effects of short-term nonperiodized, linear periodized and daily undulating periodized resistance training on plasma adiponectin, leptin and insulin resistance
Clin Biochem
(2014)
- W.L. Westcott
Resistance training is medicine: effects of strength training on health
Curr Sports Med Rep
(2012)
- American College of Sports Medicine
American College of Sports Medicine position stand. Progression models in resistance training for healthy adults
Med Sci Sports Exerc
(2009)
- R. Simão et al.
Comparison between nonlinear and linear periodized resistance training: hypertrophic and strength effects
J Strength Cond Res
(2012)
- D. Moher et al.
Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement
Ann Intern Med
(2009)
- C.G. Maher et al.
Reliability of the PEDro scale for rating quality of randomized controlled trials
Phys Ther
(2003)
- J. Grgic et al.
The effects of short versus long inter-set rest intervals in resistance training on measures of muscle hypertrophy: a systematic review
Eur J Sport Sci
(2017)
- D. Baker et al.
Periodization: the effect on strength of manipulating volume and intensity
J Strength Cond Res
(1994)
- J.A. Conlon et al.
Periodization strategies in older adults: impact on physical function and health
Med Sci Sports Exerc
(2016)
- J. Fink et al.
Impact of high versus low fixed loads and non-linear training loads on muscle hypertrophy, strength and force development
Springerplus
(2016)
- G.R. Hunter et al.
High-resistance versus variable-resistance training in older adults
Med Sci Sports Exerc
(2001)
Cited by (7)
2024, Journal of Sport and Health Science
There were 407 records removed on title/abstract screening, 2 records could not be retrieved, and 23 records were excluded on full-text screening. Fourty-four14–57 reviews (5 systematic reviews, 2 meta-regressions, 35 meta-analyses, 1 network meta-analysis, and 1 umbrella review) met the eligibility criteria and were included (Fig. 1). The AMSTAR scores and QoE for the included systematic reviews range from 2 to 10 and 1 to 4, respectively (Supplementary Fig. 1, Table 2).
View all citing articles on Scopus
© 2017 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.