Muscle hypertrophy and strength gains after resistance training with different volume-matched loads: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Level 1 - systematic review of randomized trials
Systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative training trials
PubMed 35015560 · doi:10.1139/apnm-2021-0515
What was done
A systematic review and meta-analysis comparing muscle hypertrophy and 1-repetition maximum (1RM) strength gains between resistance training protocols matched for volume load (sets × repetitions × weight). Protocols were categorized by load magnitude: very low (<30% 1RM or >35RM), low (30%–59% 1RM or 16–35RM), moderate (60%–79% 1RM or 8–15RM), and high (≥80% 1RM or ≤7RM). Pooled standardized mean differences were evaluated across studies.
What was found
The abstract provides no numeric effect sizes, point estimates, confidence intervals, or p-values. It reports directional findings: - Strength (1RM): Pooled standardized mean differences favored high loads over low loads and moderate loads, and favored moderate loads over low loads. Very low and low loads showed little difference. - Hypertrophy: Pooled standardized mean differences showed no differences between load conditions when volume load was matched.
Why it matters
This review clarifies that dynamic strength gains are load-dependent even when total volume load is matched, whereas muscle hypertrophy can be achieved similarly across a wide range of training loads.
Limits
The abstract omits the number of included studies, total participant count, participant training status, sex, intervention duration, measurement methods for hypertrophy, and quantitative effect sizes or confidence intervals.