Styrketräning bygger mer muskler än konditionsträning

[King Grub]

Background

Currently, there are inconsistencies in the body of evidence for the effects of resistance and aerobic training on skeletal muscle hypertrophy.

Objective

We aimed to systematically review and meta-analyze current evidence on the differences in hypertrophic adaptation to aerobic and resistance training, and to discuss potential reasons for the disparities noted in the literature.

Methods

The PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines were followed for this review. The Downs and Black checklist was used for the assessment of methodological quality of the included studies. A random-effects meta-analysis was employed. In total, three analyses were performed: (1) for whole-muscle knee extensor data; (2) for type I fiber cross-sectional area; and (3) for type II fiber cross-sectional area.

Results

The final number of included studies in the present review is 21. All studies were of good or moderate methodological quality. The meta-analysis for whole-muscle hypertrophy resulted in a significant pooled difference (p < 0.001) in responses between the aerobic training and resistance training interventions. The pooled Hedge’s g, favoring resistance over aerobic training, was 0.66 (95% confidence interval 0.41–90; I2 = 0%). The meta-analysis for type I fiber cross-sectional area data resulted in a significant pooled difference (p < 0.001) between the aerobic training and resistance training groups. The pooled Hedge’s g, favoring resistance training over aerobic training, was 0.99 (95% confidence interval 0.44–1.54; I2 = 24%). The meta-analysis of type II fiber cross-sectional area data resulted in a significant pooled difference (p < 0.001) between the aerobic training and resistance training groups. The pooled Hedge’s g, favoring resistance training over aerobic training, was 1.44 (95% confidence interval 0.93–1.95; I2 = 8%).

Conclusions

The results of this systematic review and meta-analysis suggest that single-mode aerobic training does not promote the same skeletal muscle hypertrophy as resistance training. This finding was consistent with measurements of muscle hypertrophy both at the whole-muscle and myofiber levels. While these results are specific to the knee extensor musculature, it can be hypothesized that similar results would be seen for other muscle groups as well.

Does Aerobic Training Promote the Same Skeletal Muscle Hypertrophy as Resistance Training? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Sports Medicine, 20 October 2018.

[Bob90]

Vilken kioskvältare

[Sheikah]

Relaterat till frågan har jag funderat på hur man ska dieta, både kost-och träningsmässigt, som konditionsidrottare för att behålla så mycket muskler som möjligt?

Styrketräning är, vad jag förstått, nödvändigt för att viktförlusten ska bestå av så lite fettfrimassa som möjligt. Som konditionsidrottare styrketränar man kanske 1-2 ggr/vecka. Proteinintaget är kring 1,8-2g/kg kroppsvikt per dag bland mig och mina konditionskollegor. Sällan högre än så.

[svenbanan]

Undrar vad som bygger mest av styrketräning och skoputsning?

[TotteShaped4Life]

Snart dags för en metaanalys av onödigaste studier någonsin gjorda. Den här är självskriven.

[kaspen]

Sports medicine låter ganska likt American journal of sports medicine.

[King Grub]

Brad Schoenfeld slår till igen.

[kaspen]

Ursprungligen postat av King Grub

Brad Schoenfeld slår till igen.

Jag såg det också, borgar för kvalitet!

Såhär skriver han på sin sida.

”While it might seem obvious that lifting is superior to cardio for promoting muscle hypertrophy, a previous review by Konopka and Harber concluded that: "Collectively, studies observing skeletal muscle growth after aerobic exercise training observe an average increase of over 7%, which is comparable to the hypertrophy after resistance exercise training."

The issue with this paper is that they simply based conclusions on studies that investigated growth from aerobic exercise and compared the findings to results from a few "representative" resistance training studies to determine average RT gains. This isn't a valid method for drawing inferences on the topic. The proper approach is to conduct a meta-analysis that looks only at studies that directly compared aerobic training to lifting. In this way, there are rigid inclusion/exclusion criteria and results are converted to a common effect size for an "apples to apples" comparison of the magnitude of effect. We did so. The previous claims were (no surprise) refuted; it's not even close. Kudos to Jozo Grgić for spearheading the project.

https://link.springer.com/article/10...279-018-1008-z

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24508740”

[King Grub]

Det soliga är att det inte var så länge sedan det faktiskt borgade för kvalitet. Nu har han sitt namn på... vad, 6-10 studier i månaden? Kvantitet över kvalitet.

[TotteShaped4Life]

Tror det kan vara så många som 45 studier/månaden faktiskt. Den optimala volymen.