A randomized trial on the efficacy of split-body versus full-body resistance training in non-resistance trained women.
Full-body
Resistance training
Split-body
Training frequency
Journal
BMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation
ISSN: 2052-1847
Titre abrégé: BMC Sports Sci Med Rehabil
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101605016
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
14 May 2022
14 May 2022
Historique:
received:
26
11
2021
accepted:
04
05
2022
entrez:
15
5
2022
pubmed:
16
5
2022
medline:
16
5
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
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. 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. 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. ISRCTN81548172, registered 15. February 2022.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
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
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
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
BACKGROUND
ISRCTN81548172, registered 15. February 2022.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35568897
doi: 10.1186/s13102-022-00481-7
pii: 10.1186/s13102-022-00481-7
pmc: PMC9107721
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
87Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
J Strength Cond Res. 2003 Feb;17(1):140-7
pubmed: 12580669
J Sports Med Phys Fitness. 2015 Mar;55(3):144-9
pubmed: 24732784
Sports Med. 2016 Nov;46(11):1689-1697
pubmed: 27102172
J Hum Kinet. 2015 Oct 14;47:73-80
pubmed: 26557191
Sports Med. 2018 Apr;48(4):765-785
pubmed: 29372481
J Strength Cond Res. 2008 May;22(3):773-80
pubmed: 18438241
J Strength Cond Res. 2011 Nov;25(11):3142-9
pubmed: 21881534
Nutr Res. 2016 Jul;36(7):663-70
pubmed: 27333957
Sports Med. 2005;35(10):841-51
pubmed: 16180944
Int J Sport Nutr Exerc Metab. 2015 Dec;25(6):559-65
pubmed: 26008801
Sports Med. 2017 May;47(5):799-805
pubmed: 27752983
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2012 Mar 24;12:35
pubmed: 22443312
Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2007 Jun;2(2):159-69
pubmed: 19124903
Br J Sports Med. 2004 Jun;38(3):285-8
pubmed: 15155427
Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2004 Apr;36(4):674-88
pubmed: 15064596
J Strength Cond Res. 2015 Jul;29(7):1821-9
pubmed: 25932981
Can J Appl Physiol. 1994 Jun;19(2):185-99
pubmed: 8081322
J Strength Cond Res. 2005 May;19(2):369-75
pubmed: 15903377
Clin Interv Aging. 2015 Mar 05;10:531-8
pubmed: 25767380
J Sports Sci. 2019 Jun;37(11):1286-1295
pubmed: 30558493
J Sports Med Phys Fitness. 2014 Jun;54(3):317-25
pubmed: 24739294
Sports Med. 2018 May;48(5):1207-1220
pubmed: 29470825
Curr Sports Med Rep. 2002 Jun;1(3):165-71
pubmed: 12831709
Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2009 Mar;41(3):687-708
pubmed: 19204579
J Strength Cond Res. 2007 Feb;21(1):204-7
pubmed: 17313289
J Strength Cond Res. 2010 Oct;24(10):2857-72
pubmed: 20847704