Muscular Adaptations in Drop Set vs. Traditional Training: A meta-analysis
The purpose of this paper was to systematically review and meta-analyze the effects of drop set training (DS) vs. traditional training (TRAD) on measures of muscle strength and hypertrophy. We carried out a comprehensive search on PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, and CINAHL databases for stu...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
International Universities Strength and Conditioning Association
2022-11-01
|
| Series: | International Journal of Strength and Conditioning |
| Online Access: | https://journal.iusca.org/index.php/Journal/article/view/135 |
| _version_ | 1798013840401629184 |
|---|---|
| author | Max Coleman Khalil Harrison Roberto Arias Ericka Johnson Jozo Grgic John Orazem Brad Schoenfeld |
| author_facet | Max Coleman Khalil Harrison Roberto Arias Ericka Johnson Jozo Grgic John Orazem Brad Schoenfeld |
| author_sort | Max Coleman |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description |
The purpose of this paper was to systematically review and meta-analyze the effects of drop set training (DS) vs. traditional training (TRAD) on measures of muscle strength and hypertrophy. We carried out a comprehensive search on PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, and CINAHL databases for studies that satisfied the following criteria: (a) had a randomized experimental design (either within- or between-group); (b) directly compared DS versus TRAD; (c) assessed changes in muscular strength and/or hypertrophy; (d) had a training protocol that lasted a minimum of 6 weeks, and; (e) involved apparently healthy participants. We employed a robust variance meta-analysis model, with adjustments for small samples. Study quality was assessed by the Downs and Black checklist. A total of 5 studies met inclusion criteria. Qualitative assessment indicated the included studies were of moderate to good quality. For the strength outcomes results indicated a trivial point estimate of the effect size (ES) with a relatively narrow precision for the confidence interval (CI) estimate (0.07; 95% CI = -0.14, 0.29). Similarly, results for the hypertrophy outcomes indicated a trivial point estimate of the ES with a relatively narrow precision for the CI estimate (0.08; 95% CI = -0.08, 0.24). In conclusion, DS and TRAD appear to have similar effects on muscular strength and hypertrophy. This would seem to indicate that both DS and TRAD are viable options for promoting muscular adaptations; DS may provide a more time-efficient alternative for achieving results.
|
| first_indexed | 2024-04-11T15:07:58Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-11aedadd407647bd869d527e5fdf64a3 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2634-2235 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-04-11T15:07:58Z |
| publishDate | 2022-11-01 |
| publisher | International Universities Strength and Conditioning Association |
| record_format | Article |
| series | International Journal of Strength and Conditioning |
| spelling | doaj.art-11aedadd407647bd869d527e5fdf64a32022-12-22T04:16:43ZengInternational Universities Strength and Conditioning AssociationInternational Journal of Strength and Conditioning2634-22352022-11-012110.47206/ijsc.v2i1.135Muscular Adaptations in Drop Set vs. Traditional Training: A meta-analysisMax ColemanKhalil HarrisonRoberto AriasEricka JohnsonJozo GrgicJohn OrazemBrad Schoenfeld0Lehman College The purpose of this paper was to systematically review and meta-analyze the effects of drop set training (DS) vs. traditional training (TRAD) on measures of muscle strength and hypertrophy. We carried out a comprehensive search on PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, and CINAHL databases for studies that satisfied the following criteria: (a) had a randomized experimental design (either within- or between-group); (b) directly compared DS versus TRAD; (c) assessed changes in muscular strength and/or hypertrophy; (d) had a training protocol that lasted a minimum of 6 weeks, and; (e) involved apparently healthy participants. We employed a robust variance meta-analysis model, with adjustments for small samples. Study quality was assessed by the Downs and Black checklist. A total of 5 studies met inclusion criteria. Qualitative assessment indicated the included studies were of moderate to good quality. For the strength outcomes results indicated a trivial point estimate of the effect size (ES) with a relatively narrow precision for the confidence interval (CI) estimate (0.07; 95% CI = -0.14, 0.29). Similarly, results for the hypertrophy outcomes indicated a trivial point estimate of the ES with a relatively narrow precision for the CI estimate (0.08; 95% CI = -0.08, 0.24). In conclusion, DS and TRAD appear to have similar effects on muscular strength and hypertrophy. This would seem to indicate that both DS and TRAD are viable options for promoting muscular adaptations; DS may provide a more time-efficient alternative for achieving results. https://journal.iusca.org/index.php/Journal/article/view/135 |
| spellingShingle | Max Coleman Khalil Harrison Roberto Arias Ericka Johnson Jozo Grgic John Orazem Brad Schoenfeld Muscular Adaptations in Drop Set vs. Traditional Training: A meta-analysis International Journal of Strength and Conditioning |
| title | Muscular Adaptations in Drop Set vs. Traditional Training: A meta-analysis |
| title_full | Muscular Adaptations in Drop Set vs. Traditional Training: A meta-analysis |
| title_fullStr | Muscular Adaptations in Drop Set vs. Traditional Training: A meta-analysis |
| title_full_unstemmed | Muscular Adaptations in Drop Set vs. Traditional Training: A meta-analysis |
| title_short | Muscular Adaptations in Drop Set vs. Traditional Training: A meta-analysis |
| title_sort | muscular adaptations in drop set vs traditional training a meta analysis |
| url | https://journal.iusca.org/index.php/Journal/article/view/135 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT maxcoleman muscularadaptationsindropsetvstraditionaltrainingametaanalysis AT khalilharrison muscularadaptationsindropsetvstraditionaltrainingametaanalysis AT robertoarias muscularadaptationsindropsetvstraditionaltrainingametaanalysis AT erickajohnson muscularadaptationsindropsetvstraditionaltrainingametaanalysis AT jozogrgic muscularadaptationsindropsetvstraditionaltrainingametaanalysis AT johnorazem muscularadaptationsindropsetvstraditionaltrainingametaanalysis AT bradschoenfeld muscularadaptationsindropsetvstraditionaltrainingametaanalysis |