Effects of Variable-Resistance Training Versus Constant-Resistance Training on Maximum Strength: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Yiguan Lin, Yangyang Xu, Feng Hong, Junbo Li, Weibing Ye and Mallikarjuna Korivi
Additional contact information
Yiguan Lin: Department of Public Instruction, Tourism College of Zhejiang, Hangzhou 311231, China
Yangyang Xu: Student Affairs Office, Medical College, Shandong Yingcai University, Jinan 250104, China
Feng Hong: Department of Sports Operation and Management, Jinhua Polytechnic, Jinhua 321000, China
Junbo Li: Physical Education Department, Zhejiang University of Science and Technology, Hangzhou 310023, China
Weibing Ye: Institute of Human Movement and Sports Engineering, College of Physical Education and Health Sciences, Zhejiang Normal University, Jinhua 321004, China
Mallikarjuna Korivi: Institute of Human Movement and Sports Engineering, College of Physical Education and Health Sciences, Zhejiang Normal University, Jinhua 321004, China

IJERPH, 2022, vol. 19, issue 14, 1-14

Abstract: Greater muscular strength is generally associated with superior sports performance, for example, in jumping, sprinting, and throwing. This meta-analysis aims to compare the effects of variable-resistance training (VRT) and constant-resistance training (CRT) on the maximum strength of trained and untrained subjects. PubMed, Web of Science, and Google Scholar were comprehensively searched to identify relevant studies published up to January 2022. Fourteen studies that met the inclusion criteria were used for the systematic review and meta-analysis. Data regarding training status, training modality, and type of outcome measure were extracted for the analyses. The Cochrane Collaboration tool was used to assess the risk of bias. The pooled outcome showed improved maximum strength with VRT, which was significantly higher than that with CRT (ES = 0.80; 95% CI: 0.42–1.19) for all the subjects. In addition, trained subjects experienced greater maximum-strength improvements with VRT than with CRT (ES = 0.57; 95% CI: 0.22–0.93). Based on subgroup analyses, maximum-strength improvement with a VRT load of ≥80% of 1 repetition maximum (1RM) was significantly higher than that with CRT (ES = 0.76; 95% CI: 0.37–1.16) in trained subjects, while no significant differences were found between VRT and CRT for maximum-strength improvement when the load was <80% (ES = 0.00; 95% CI: −0.55–0.55). The untrained subjects also achieved greater maximum strength with VRT than with CRT (ES = 1.34; 95% CI: 0.28–2.40). Interestingly, the improved maximum strength of untrained subjects with a VRT load of <80% of 1RM was significantly higher than that with CRT (ES = 2.38; 95% CI: 1.39–3.36); however, no significant differences were noted between VRT and CRT when the load was ≥80% of 1RM (ES = −0.04; 95% CI: −0.89–0.81). Our findings show that subjects with resistance training experience could use a load of ≥80% of 1RM and subjects without resistance training experience could use a load of <80% of 1RM to obtain greater VRT benefits.

Keywords: dose–response; training intensity; elastic bands; chain; training load (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: I I1 I3 Q Q5 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2022
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/14/8559/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/14/8559/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:14:p:8559-:d:861958

Access Statistics for this article

IJERPH is currently edited by Ms. Jenna Liu

More articles in IJERPH from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().