IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v19y2022i14p8559-d861958.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • 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)

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Yiguan Lin & Yangyang Xu & Feng Hong & Junbo Li & Weibing Ye & Mallikarjuna Korivi, 2022. "Effects of Variable-Resistance Training Versus Constant-Resistance Training on Maximum Strength: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(14), pages 1-14, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:14:p:8559-:d:861958
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/14/8559/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/14/8559/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:14:p:8559-:d:861958. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.