Supramaximal Eccentrics Versus Traditional Loading in Improving Lower-Body 1RM: A Meta-Analysis

Andrew N.L. Buskard, Heath R. Gregg, Soyeon Ahn

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Guidelines for improving maximal concentric strength through resistance training (RT) have traditionally included large muscle-group exercises, full ranges of motion, and a load approximating 85% of the 1-repetition maximum (1RM). Supramaximal eccentric training (SME; controlled lowering of loads above the concentric 1RM) has also been shown to be effective at increasing concentric 1RM in the lower body, but concerns regarding injury risk, postexercise soreness, and null benefit over traditional methods (TRAD) may limit the practical utility of this approach. Purpose: The purpose of this study was to determine whether SME elicits greater lower-body strength improvements than TRAD. Method: Key inclusion criteria were regular exercise modalities typical of nonspecialized exercise facilities (e.g., leg press; key exclusion: isokinetic dynamometer) and at least 6 weeks of RT exposure, leading to 5 studies included in the current meta-analysis. Unbiased effect-size measures that quantify the mean difference in lower-body 1RM between SME and TRAD were extracted. Results: Supramaximal eccentric training did not appear to be more effective than TRAD at increasing lower-body 1RM ((Formula presented.) = .33, SE = .26, z = 1.26, 95% CI [–0.20, 0.79], p = .20, I2 = 56.78%) under a random-effects model where between-study variance was estimated using maximum likelihood estimation ((Formula presented.) 2 = .25). Conclusion: The selection of SME over TRAD in RT programs designed to increase lower-body 1RM does not appear warranted in all populations. Further research should clarify the merit of periodic SME in TRAD-dominant RT programs as well as whether a differential effect exists in trained individuals.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1-7
Number of pages7
JournalResearch Quarterly for Exercise and Sport
DOIs
StateAccepted/In press - Jun 10 2018

Fingerprint

Meta-Analysis
Resistance Training
Education
Articular Range of Motion
Leg
Guidelines
Muscles
Wounds and Injuries
Research
Population

Keywords

  • Resistance training
  • sport performance

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Orthopedics and Sports Medicine
  • Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation
  • Nephrology

Cite this

Supramaximal Eccentrics Versus Traditional Loading in Improving Lower-Body 1RM : A Meta-Analysis. / Buskard, Andrew N.L.; Gregg, Heath R.; Ahn, Soyeon.

In: Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 10.06.2018, p. 1-7.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{4ba1878f03b34c5c97b262080bdde836,
title = "Supramaximal Eccentrics Versus Traditional Loading in Improving Lower-Body 1RM: A Meta-Analysis",
abstract = "Guidelines for improving maximal concentric strength through resistance training (RT) have traditionally included large muscle-group exercises, full ranges of motion, and a load approximating 85{\%} of the 1-repetition maximum (1RM). Supramaximal eccentric training (SME; controlled lowering of loads above the concentric 1RM) has also been shown to be effective at increasing concentric 1RM in the lower body, but concerns regarding injury risk, postexercise soreness, and null benefit over traditional methods (TRAD) may limit the practical utility of this approach. Purpose: The purpose of this study was to determine whether SME elicits greater lower-body strength improvements than TRAD. Method: Key inclusion criteria were regular exercise modalities typical of nonspecialized exercise facilities (e.g., leg press; key exclusion: isokinetic dynamometer) and at least 6 weeks of RT exposure, leading to 5 studies included in the current meta-analysis. Unbiased effect-size measures that quantify the mean difference in lower-body 1RM between SME and TRAD were extracted. Results: Supramaximal eccentric training did not appear to be more effective than TRAD at increasing lower-body 1RM ((Formula presented.) = .33, SE = .26, z = 1.26, 95{\%} CI [–0.20, 0.79], p = .20, I2 = 56.78{\%}) under a random-effects model where between-study variance was estimated using maximum likelihood estimation ((Formula presented.) 2 = .25). Conclusion: The selection of SME over TRAD in RT programs designed to increase lower-body 1RM does not appear warranted in all populations. Further research should clarify the merit of periodic SME in TRAD-dominant RT programs as well as whether a differential effect exists in trained individuals.",
keywords = "Resistance training, sport performance",
author = "Buskard, {Andrew N.L.} and Gregg, {Heath R.} and Soyeon Ahn",
year = "2018",
month = "6",
day = "10",
doi = "10.1080/02701367.2018.1472365",
language = "English (US)",
pages = "1--7",
journal = "Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport",
issn = "0270-1367",
publisher = "AAHPERD",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Supramaximal Eccentrics Versus Traditional Loading in Improving Lower-Body 1RM

T2 - A Meta-Analysis

AU - Buskard, Andrew N.L.

AU - Gregg, Heath R.

AU - Ahn, Soyeon

PY - 2018/6/10

Y1 - 2018/6/10

N2 - Guidelines for improving maximal concentric strength through resistance training (RT) have traditionally included large muscle-group exercises, full ranges of motion, and a load approximating 85% of the 1-repetition maximum (1RM). Supramaximal eccentric training (SME; controlled lowering of loads above the concentric 1RM) has also been shown to be effective at increasing concentric 1RM in the lower body, but concerns regarding injury risk, postexercise soreness, and null benefit over traditional methods (TRAD) may limit the practical utility of this approach. Purpose: The purpose of this study was to determine whether SME elicits greater lower-body strength improvements than TRAD. Method: Key inclusion criteria were regular exercise modalities typical of nonspecialized exercise facilities (e.g., leg press; key exclusion: isokinetic dynamometer) and at least 6 weeks of RT exposure, leading to 5 studies included in the current meta-analysis. Unbiased effect-size measures that quantify the mean difference in lower-body 1RM between SME and TRAD were extracted. Results: Supramaximal eccentric training did not appear to be more effective than TRAD at increasing lower-body 1RM ((Formula presented.) = .33, SE = .26, z = 1.26, 95% CI [–0.20, 0.79], p = .20, I2 = 56.78%) under a random-effects model where between-study variance was estimated using maximum likelihood estimation ((Formula presented.) 2 = .25). Conclusion: The selection of SME over TRAD in RT programs designed to increase lower-body 1RM does not appear warranted in all populations. Further research should clarify the merit of periodic SME in TRAD-dominant RT programs as well as whether a differential effect exists in trained individuals.

AB - Guidelines for improving maximal concentric strength through resistance training (RT) have traditionally included large muscle-group exercises, full ranges of motion, and a load approximating 85% of the 1-repetition maximum (1RM). Supramaximal eccentric training (SME; controlled lowering of loads above the concentric 1RM) has also been shown to be effective at increasing concentric 1RM in the lower body, but concerns regarding injury risk, postexercise soreness, and null benefit over traditional methods (TRAD) may limit the practical utility of this approach. Purpose: The purpose of this study was to determine whether SME elicits greater lower-body strength improvements than TRAD. Method: Key inclusion criteria were regular exercise modalities typical of nonspecialized exercise facilities (e.g., leg press; key exclusion: isokinetic dynamometer) and at least 6 weeks of RT exposure, leading to 5 studies included in the current meta-analysis. Unbiased effect-size measures that quantify the mean difference in lower-body 1RM between SME and TRAD were extracted. Results: Supramaximal eccentric training did not appear to be more effective than TRAD at increasing lower-body 1RM ((Formula presented.) = .33, SE = .26, z = 1.26, 95% CI [–0.20, 0.79], p = .20, I2 = 56.78%) under a random-effects model where between-study variance was estimated using maximum likelihood estimation ((Formula presented.) 2 = .25). Conclusion: The selection of SME over TRAD in RT programs designed to increase lower-body 1RM does not appear warranted in all populations. Further research should clarify the merit of periodic SME in TRAD-dominant RT programs as well as whether a differential effect exists in trained individuals.

KW - Resistance training

KW - sport performance

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85048367750&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85048367750&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1080/02701367.2018.1472365

DO - 10.1080/02701367.2018.1472365

M3 - Article

C2 - 29889618

AN - SCOPUS:85048367750

SP - 1

EP - 7

JO - Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport

JF - Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport

SN - 0270-1367

ER -