Cargando…
A randomized trial on the efficacy of split-body versus full-body resistance training in non-resistance trained women
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of a 12-week upper/lower split- versus a full-body resistance training program on maximal strength, muscle mass and explosive characteristics. Fifty resistance untrained women were pair-matched according to baseline strength and randomized...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9107721/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35568897 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13102-022-00481-7 |
_version_ | 1784708544961970176 |
---|---|
author | Pedersen, Helene Fimland, Marius Steiro Schoenfeld, Brad J. Iversen, Vegard Moe Cumming, Kristoffer Toldnes Jensen, Susanne Saeterbakken, Atle Hole Andersen, Vidar |
author_facet | Pedersen, Helene Fimland, Marius Steiro Schoenfeld, Brad J. Iversen, Vegard Moe Cumming, Kristoffer Toldnes Jensen, Susanne Saeterbakken, Atle Hole Andersen, Vidar |
author_sort | Pedersen, Helene |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of a 12-week upper/lower split- versus a full-body resistance training program on maximal strength, muscle mass and explosive characteristics. Fifty resistance untrained women were pair-matched according to baseline strength and randomized to either a full-body (FB) routine that trained all of the major muscle groups in one session twice per week, or a split-body program (SPLIT) that performed 4 weekly sessions (2 upper body and 2 lower body). Both groups performed the same exercises and weekly number of sets and repetitions. Each exercise was performed with three sets and 8–12 repetition maximum (RM) loading. Study outcomes included maximal strength, muscle mass, jump height and maximal power output. RESULTS: No between-group differences were found in any of the variables. However, both FB and SPLIT increased mean 1-RM from pre- to post-test in the bench press by 25.5% versus 30.0%, lat pulldown by 27.2% versus 26.0% and leg press by 29.2% versus 28.3%, respectively. Moreover, both FB and SPLIT increased jump height by 12.5% versus 12.5%, upper-body power by 20.3% versus 16.7% and muscle mass by 1.9% versus 1.7%, p < 0.01, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This study did not show any benefits for split-body resistance-training program compared to full-body resistance training program on measures of maximal- and explosive muscle strength, and muscle mass. Trial registration: ISRCTN81548172, registered 15. February 2022. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9107721 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-91077212022-05-16 A randomized trial on the efficacy of split-body versus full-body resistance training in non-resistance trained women Pedersen, Helene Fimland, Marius Steiro Schoenfeld, Brad J. Iversen, Vegard Moe Cumming, Kristoffer Toldnes Jensen, Susanne Saeterbakken, Atle Hole Andersen, Vidar BMC Sports Sci Med Rehabil Research BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of a 12-week upper/lower split- versus a full-body resistance training program on maximal strength, muscle mass and explosive characteristics. Fifty resistance untrained women were pair-matched according to baseline strength and randomized to either a full-body (FB) routine that trained all of the major muscle groups in one session twice per week, or a split-body program (SPLIT) that performed 4 weekly sessions (2 upper body and 2 lower body). Both groups performed the same exercises and weekly number of sets and repetitions. Each exercise was performed with three sets and 8–12 repetition maximum (RM) loading. Study outcomes included maximal strength, muscle mass, jump height and maximal power output. RESULTS: No between-group differences were found in any of the variables. However, both FB and SPLIT increased mean 1-RM from pre- to post-test in the bench press by 25.5% versus 30.0%, lat pulldown by 27.2% versus 26.0% and leg press by 29.2% versus 28.3%, respectively. Moreover, both FB and SPLIT increased jump height by 12.5% versus 12.5%, upper-body power by 20.3% versus 16.7% and muscle mass by 1.9% versus 1.7%, p < 0.01, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This study did not show any benefits for split-body resistance-training program compared to full-body resistance training program on measures of maximal- and explosive muscle strength, and muscle mass. Trial registration: ISRCTN81548172, registered 15. February 2022. BioMed Central 2022-05-14 /pmc/articles/PMC9107721/ /pubmed/35568897 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13102-022-00481-7 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. |
spellingShingle | Research Pedersen, Helene Fimland, Marius Steiro Schoenfeld, Brad J. Iversen, Vegard Moe Cumming, Kristoffer Toldnes Jensen, Susanne Saeterbakken, Atle Hole Andersen, Vidar A randomized trial on the efficacy of split-body versus full-body resistance training in non-resistance trained women |
title | A randomized trial on the efficacy of split-body versus full-body resistance training in non-resistance trained women |
title_full | A randomized trial on the efficacy of split-body versus full-body resistance training in non-resistance trained women |
title_fullStr | A randomized trial on the efficacy of split-body versus full-body resistance training in non-resistance trained women |
title_full_unstemmed | A randomized trial on the efficacy of split-body versus full-body resistance training in non-resistance trained women |
title_short | A randomized trial on the efficacy of split-body versus full-body resistance training in non-resistance trained women |
title_sort | randomized trial on the efficacy of split-body versus full-body resistance training in non-resistance trained women |
topic | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9107721/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35568897 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13102-022-00481-7 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT pedersenhelene arandomizedtrialontheefficacyofsplitbodyversusfullbodyresistancetraininginnonresistancetrainedwomen AT fimlandmariussteiro arandomizedtrialontheefficacyofsplitbodyversusfullbodyresistancetraininginnonresistancetrainedwomen AT schoenfeldbradj arandomizedtrialontheefficacyofsplitbodyversusfullbodyresistancetraininginnonresistancetrainedwomen AT iversenvegardmoe arandomizedtrialontheefficacyofsplitbodyversusfullbodyresistancetraininginnonresistancetrainedwomen AT cummingkristoffertoldnes arandomizedtrialontheefficacyofsplitbodyversusfullbodyresistancetraininginnonresistancetrainedwomen AT jensensusanne arandomizedtrialontheefficacyofsplitbodyversusfullbodyresistancetraininginnonresistancetrainedwomen AT saeterbakkenatlehole arandomizedtrialontheefficacyofsplitbodyversusfullbodyresistancetraininginnonresistancetrainedwomen AT andersenvidar arandomizedtrialontheefficacyofsplitbodyversusfullbodyresistancetraininginnonresistancetrainedwomen AT pedersenhelene randomizedtrialontheefficacyofsplitbodyversusfullbodyresistancetraininginnonresistancetrainedwomen AT fimlandmariussteiro randomizedtrialontheefficacyofsplitbodyversusfullbodyresistancetraininginnonresistancetrainedwomen AT schoenfeldbradj randomizedtrialontheefficacyofsplitbodyversusfullbodyresistancetraininginnonresistancetrainedwomen AT iversenvegardmoe randomizedtrialontheefficacyofsplitbodyversusfullbodyresistancetraininginnonresistancetrainedwomen AT cummingkristoffertoldnes randomizedtrialontheefficacyofsplitbodyversusfullbodyresistancetraininginnonresistancetrainedwomen AT jensensusanne randomizedtrialontheefficacyofsplitbodyversusfullbodyresistancetraininginnonresistancetrainedwomen AT saeterbakkenatlehole randomizedtrialontheefficacyofsplitbodyversusfullbodyresistancetraininginnonresistancetrainedwomen AT andersenvidar randomizedtrialontheefficacyofsplitbodyversusfullbodyresistancetraininginnonresistancetrainedwomen |