Background: The role of trunk muscle training (TMT) for physical fitness (e.g., muscle power) and sport-specific performance measures (e.g., swimming time) in athletic populations has been extensively examined over the last decades. However, a recent systematic review and meta-analysis on the effects of TMT on measures of physical fitness and sport-specific performance in young and adult athletes is lacking.Objective: To aggregate the effects of TMT on measures of physical fitness and sport-specific performance in young and adult athletes and identify potential subject-related moderator variables (e.g., age, sex, expertise level) and training-related programming parameters (e.g., frequency, study length, session duration, and number of training sessions) for TMT effects.Data Sources: A systematic literature search was conducted with PubMed, Web of Science, and SPORTDiscus, with no date restrictions, up to June 2021.Study Eligibility Criteria: Only controlled trials with baseline and follow-up measures were included if they examined the effects of TMT on at least one measure of physical fitness (e.g., maximal muscle strength, change-of-direction speed (CODS)/agility, linear sprint speed) and sport-specific performance (e.g., throwing velocity, swimming time) in young or adult competitive athletes at a regional, national, or international level. The expertise level was classified as either elite (competing at national and/or international level) or regional (i.e., recreational and sub-elite).Study Appraisal and Synthesis Methods: The methodological quality of TMT studies was assessed using the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale. A random-effects model was used to calculate weighted standardized mean differences (SMDs) between intervention and active control groups. Additionally, univariate sub-group analyses were independently computed for subject-related moderator variables and training-related programming parameters.Results: Overall, 31 studies with 693 participants aged 11–37 years were eligible for inclusion. The methodological quality of the included studies was 5 on the PEDro scale. In terms of physical fitness, there were significant, small-to-large effects of TMT on maximal muscle strength (SMD = 0.39), local muscular endurance (SMD = 1.29), lower limb muscle power (SMD = 0.30), linear sprint speed (SMD = 0.66), and CODS/agility (SMD = 0.70). Furthermore, a significant and moderate TMT effect was found for sport-specific performance (SMD = 0.64). Univariate sub-group analyses for subject-related moderator variables revealed significant effects of age on CODS/agility (p = 0.04), with significantly large effects for children (SMD = 1.53,p = 0.002). Further, there was a significant effect of number of training sessions on muscle power and linear sprint speed (p ≤ 0.03), with significant, small-to-large effects of TMT for > 18 sessions compared to ≤ 18 sessions (0.45 ≤ SMD ≤ 0.84,p ≤ 0.003). Additionally, session duration significantly modulated TMT effects on linear sprint speed, CODS/agility, and sport-specific performance (p ≤ 0.05). TMT with session durations ≤ 30 min resulted in significant, large effects on linear sprint speed and CODS/agility (1.66 ≤ SMD ≤ 2.42,p ≤ 0.002), whereas session durations > 30 min resulted in significant, large effects on sport-specific performance (SMD = 1.22,p = 0.008).Conclusions: Our findings indicate that TMT is an effective means to improve selected measures of physical fitness and sport-specific performance in young and adult athletes. Independent sub-group analyses suggest that TMT has the potential to improve CODS/agility, but only in children. Additionally, more (> 18) and/or shorter duration (≤ 30 min) TMT sessions appear to be more effective for improving lower limb muscle power, linear sprint speed, and CODS/agility in young or adult competitive athletes.

Background: Aging is associated with reduced muscle mass and strength leading to impaired physical function. Resistance training programs incorporated into older adults’ real-life settings may have the potential to counteract these changes. We evaluated the effectiveness of 8 months resistance training using easily available, low cost equipment compared to physical activity counselling on physical function, muscle strength, and body composition in community-dwelling older adults receiving home care. Methods: This open label, two-armed, parallel group, cluster randomized trial recruited older adults above 70 years (median age 86.0 (Interquartile range 80–90) years) receiving home care. Participants were randomized at cluster level to the resistance training group (RTG) or the control group (CG). The RTG trained twice a week while the CG were informed about the national recommendations for physical activity and received a motivational talk every 6th week. Outcomes were assessed at participant level at baseline, after four, and 8 months and included tests of physical function (chair rise, 8 ft-up-and-go, preferred- and maximal gait speed, and stair climb), maximal strength, rate of force development, and body composition. Results: Twelve clusters were allocated to RTG (7 clusters, 60 participants) or CG (5 clusters, 44 participants). The number of participants analyzed was 56–64 (6–7 clusters) in RTG and 20–42 (5 clusters) in CG. After 8 months, multilevel linear mixed models showed that RTG improved in all tests of physical function and maximal leg strength (9–24%, p = 0.01–0.03) compared to CG. No effects were seen for rate of force development or body composition. Conclusion: This study show that resistance training using easily available, low cost equipment is more effective than physical activity counselling for improving physical function and maximal strength in community-dwelling older adults receiving home care. Trial registration: ISRCTN1067873

The aim of the study was to aggregate different effects between variable resistance training and traditional resistance training on maximal muscle strength and muscle power and identify potential sex- and training program-related moderator variables. Meta-analysis. A systematic literature search was conducted in SPORTDiscus, PubMed, and Web of Science. Interventions were included if they compared variable resistance training and traditional resistance training in healthy adults and examined the effects on measures of maximal muscle strength and/or muscle power of the lower and/or upper body. A random-effects model was used to calculate weighted and averaged standardized mean differences. Additionally, univariate sub-group analyses were independently computed for sex and training-related moderator variables. Seventeen studies comprising a total of 491 participants (341 men and 150 women, age 18-37 years) were included in the analyses. In terms of maximal muscle strength, there were no statistically significant differences between variable resistance training and traditional resistance training for the lower (p = 0.46, standardized mean difference = -0.10) or the upper body (p = 0.14, standardized mean difference = -0.17). Additionally, there were no significant training-related differences in muscle power for the lower (p = 0.16, standardized mean difference = 0.21) or upper body (p = 0.81, standardized mean difference = 0.05). Sub-group analyses showed a significant moderator effect for training period and repetitions per set for maximal muscle strength in the lower body (p = 0.03-0.04) with larger strength gains following traditional resistance training when performing more repetitions per set (p = 0.02, standardized mean difference = 0.43). No other significant sub-group effects were found (p = 0.18-0.82). Our results suggest that variable resistance training and traditional resistance training are equally effective in improving maximal muscle strength and muscle power in healthy adults.

Andersen, V, Paulsen, G, Stien, N, Baarholm, M, Seynnes, O, and Saeterbakken, AH. Resistance training with different velocity loss thresholds induce similar changes in strengh and hypertrophy. J Strength Cond Res XX(X): 000–000, 2021—The aim of this study was to compare the effects of 2 velocity-based resistance training programs when performing resistance training with matched training volume. Ten resistance-trained adults volunteered (age, 23 ± 4.3 years; body mass, 68 ± 8.9 kg; and height, 171 ± 8 cm) with a mean resistance training experience of 4.5 years. A within person, between leg design was used. For each subject, the legs were randomly assigned to either low velocity loss (LVL) threshold at 15% or high velocity loss (HVL) threshold at 30% velocity loss. Leg press and leg extension were trained unilaterally twice per week over a period of 9 weeks. Before and after the intervention, both legs were tested in 1 repetition maximum (RM) (kg), maximal voluntary contraction (MVC) (N), rate of force development (N·s⁻¹), average velocity (m·s⁻¹), and power output (W) at 30, 45, 60, and 75% of 1 RM (all in unilateral leg press). Furthermore, muscle thickness (mm) of the vastus lateralis and rectus femoris, pennation angle (°) of the vastus lateralis, and the fascicle length (mm) of the vastus lateralis were measured using ultrasound imaging. The data were analyzed using mixed-design analysis of variance. No differences between the legs in any of the variables were found; however, both low and HVL were effective for increasing 1 RM (ES = 1.25–1.82), MVC (effect size [ES] = 0.42–0.64), power output (ES = 0.31–0.86), and muscle thickness (ES = 0.24–0.51). In conclusion, performing velocity-based resistance training with low and HVL with equal training volume resulted in similar effects in maximal and explosive strength in addition to muscular adaptations.

Variable, external resistance is proposed to increasingly augment the muscular stress throughout a dynamic movement. However, it is uncertain how different levels of variable resistance affect the activation in the deadlift. The aim of the study was to compare the electromyographic activity of the gluteus maximus, biceps femoris, semitendinosus, vastus lateralis and erector spinae muscles during the barbell deadlift with free weights (FW) alone, with two (FW-2EB), and four elastic bands (FW-4EB) to deload some of the constant external resistance. Fifteen resistance-trained men participated in a cross-over design where resistance loadings were matched using two-repetition maximum loadings in the three different conditions. For the whole movement, both repetitions were analyzed. For the phase-specific analysis, the last repetition was divided into six parts, i.e. the lower, middle and upper phase in both the ascending and descending phase of the movement. The mean deloading contributions from FW-2EB and FW-4EB were 21% and 41%, respectively. In FW-4EB, the erector spinae was activated more in the whole movement (8%, ES = 0.31, p = 0.002) compared to FW-2EB. There was also a tendency towards higher activation in FW-4EB versus FW for the whole movement (5%, ES = 0.18, p = 0.072). There were no significant differences between the conditions in any of the other phases or muscles (p = 0.106–0.926). In summary, a high contribution from variable, external resistance seems to activate the back extensors more than a low contribution.

The aim of the study was to compare the acute effects of traditional resistance training and superset training on training duration, training volume and different perceptive measures. Twenty-nine resistance-trained participants (27 ± 7 years, 173 ± 9 cm, and 70 ± 14 kg) performed a whole-body workout (i) traditionally and (ii) as supersets of exercises targeting different muscle groups, in a randomized-crossover design. Each session was separated by 4–7 days, and consisted of eight exercises and three sets to failure. Training duration and number of repetitions lifted were recorded during the sessions. Rate of perceived exertion for effort (RPE), rate of perceived exertion for discomfort (RPD), session displeasure/pleasure (sPDF), and exercise enjoyment (EES) were measured 15 min after each session. Forty-eight hours after the final session participants reported which session they preferred. The superset session led to significantly higher values for RPE (1.3 points, p < 0.001, ES = 0.96) and RPD (1.0 points, p = 0.008, ES = 0.47) and tended to be higher for sPDF, i.e., more pleasurable, (p = 0.059, ES = 0.25) compared to the traditional session. There was no difference in EES (p = 0.661, ES = 0.05). The traditional session led to significantly increased training volume (4.2%, p = 0.011, ES = 0.34) and lasted 23 min (66%, p < 0.001, ES = 7.78) longer than the superset session. Eighteen of the participants preferred the superset session, while 11 preferred the traditional session. In conclusion, performing a whole-body workout as a superset session was more time-efficient, but reduced the training volume and was perceived with greater exertion for effort and discomfort than a traditional workout.