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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Pedersen, Helene, Fimland, Marius Steiro, Schoenfeld, Brad J., Iversen, Vegard Moe, Cumming, Kristoffer Toldnes, Jensen, Susanne, Saeterbakken, Atle Hole, Andersen, Vidar
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