Sports Medicine ( IF 9.3 ) Pub Date : 2022-11-18 , DOI: 10.1007/s40279-022-01790-0 Robert W Spitz 1 , Ryo Kataoka 1 , Scott J Dankel 2 , Zachary W Bell 1 , Jun Seob Song 1 , Vickie Wong 1 , Yujiro Yamada 1 , Jeremy P Loenneke 1
|
Background
Isotonic exercise is the most common mode of strength training. Isotonic strength is often measured in the movement that was exercised, but isometric and isokinetic movements are also commonly used to quantify changes in muscular strength. Previous research suggests that increasing strength in one movement may not lead to an increase in strength in a different movement. Quantifying the increase in strength in a movement not trained may be important for understanding strength training adaptations and making recommendations for resistance exercise and rehabilitation programs.
Objective
To quantify changes in non-specific strength relative to a control.
Design
A systematic review and random effects meta-analysis was conducted investigating the effects of isotonic strength training on isotonic and isokinetic/isometric strength.
Search and Inclusion
This systematic review was conducted in Google scholar, PubMed, Academic Search Premier, and MENDELEY. To be included in this review paper the article needed to meet the following criteria: (1) report sufficient data for our variables of interest (i.e., changes in isotonic strength and changes in isokinetic or isometric strength); (2) include a time-matched non-exercise control; (3) be written in English; (4) include healthy human participants over the age of 18 years; (5) the participants had to train and test isotonically; (6) the participants had to be tested isokinetically or isometrically on a device different from that they trained on; (7) the non-specific strength task had to test a muscle involved in the training (i.e., could not have trained chest press and test handgrip strength); and (8) the control group and the experimental group had to perform the same number of strength tests.
Results
We completed two separate searches. In the original search a total of 880 papers were screened and nine papers met the inclusion criteria. In the secondary search a total of 2594 papers were screened and three additional papers were added (total of 12 studies). The overall effect of resistance training on changes in strength within a movement that was not directly trained was 0.8 (Cohen’s d) with a standard error of 0.286. This overall effect was significant (t = 2.821, p = 0.01) and the 95% confidence interval (CI) is 0.22–1.4. The overall effect of resistance training on strength changes within a movement that was directly trained was 1.84 (Cohen’s d) with a standard error of 0.296. This overall effect was significant (t = 6.221, p < 0.001) and the 95% CI is 1.23–2.4.
Conclusion
The results of our meta-analysis suggest that strength increases in both the specific and non-specific strength tests. However, the smaller effect size associated with non-specific strength suggests that it will be difficult for a single study to meaningfully investigate the transfer of strength training adaptions.
中文翻译：
量化强度适应的普遍性：荟萃分析
背景
等张运动是最常见的力量训练模式。等张强度通常在运动中测量，但等长和等速运动也常用于量化肌肉力量的变化。先前的研究表明，增加一个动作的力量可能不会导致另一个动作的力量增加。量化未经训练的运动中力量的增加对于理解力量训练的适应性以及为阻力训练和康复计划提出建议可能很重要。
客观的
量化相对于对照的非特异性强度的变化。
设计
进行了一项系统回顾和随机效应荟萃分析，研究等张力量训练对等张和等速/等长力量的影响。
搜索和收录
该系统评价是在 Google 学者、PubMed、Academic Search Premier 和 MENDELEY 中进行的。要包含在这篇评论文章中，文章需要满足以下标准：(1) 为我们感兴趣的变量报告足够的数据（即等渗强度的变化和等速或等长强度的变化）；(2) 包括时间匹配的非运动控制；(3) 用英文书写；(4) 包括18岁以上的健康人类参与者；(5) 参与者必须进行等渗训练和测试；(6) 参与者必须在不同于他们训练的设备上进行等速或等长测试；(7) 非特异性力量任务必须测试参与训练的肌肉（即不能训练胸部推举和测试握力）；
结果
我们完成了两个单独的搜索。原检索共筛选出880篇论文，9篇论文符合纳入标准。在二次检索中，共筛选了 2594 篇论文，并添加了另外三篇论文（总共 12 项研究）。在未直接训练的运动中，阻力训练对力量变化的总体影响为 0.8 (Cohen's d )，标准误差为 0.286。这种总体效果显着 ( t = 2.821, p = 0.01)，95% 置信区间 (CI) 为 0.22–1.4。在直接训练的运动中，阻力训练对力量变化的总体影响为 1.84 (Cohen's d )，标准误差为 0.296。这种整体效果显着（t = 6.221，p < 0.001)，95% CI 为 1.23–2.4。
结论
我们的荟萃分析结果表明，特定和非特定强度测试中的强度都会增加。然而，与非特异性力量相关的较小效应量表明，单项研究很难有意义地研究力量训练适应性的转移。
京公网安备 11010802027423号