Sødal Lena Kristiansen, Kristiansen Eirik, Larsen Stian, van den Tillaar Roland
Department of Sport Sciences and Physical Education, Nord University, Levanger, Norway.
Sports Med Open. 2023 Jul 31;9(1):66. doi: 10.1186/s40798-023-00620-5.
One of the most popular time-efficient training methods when training for muscle hypertrophy is drop sets, which is performed by taking sets to concentric muscle failure at a given load, then making a drop by reducing the load and immediately taking the next set to concentric or voluntary muscle failure. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the effects of drop sets over traditional sets on skeletal muscle hypertrophy.
This systematic review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. The SPORTDiscus and MEDLINE/PubMed databases were searched on April 9, 2022, for all studies investigating the effects of the drop set training method on muscle hypertrophy that meets the predefined inclusion criteria. Comprehensive Meta-Analysis Version 3 (Biostat Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA) was used to run the statistical analysis. Publication bias was assessed through visual inspection of the funnel plots for asymmetry and statistically by Egger's regression test with an alpha level of 0.10.
Six studies met the predefined inclusion criteria. The number of participants in the studies was 142 (28 women and 114 men) with an age range of 19.2-27 years. The average sample size was 23.6 ± 10.9 (range 9-41). Five studies were included in the quantitative synthesis. Meta-analysis showed that both the drop set and traditional training groups increased significantly from pre- to post-test regarding muscle hypertrophy (drop set standardized mean difference: 0.555, 95% CI 0.357-0.921, p < 0.0001; traditional set standardized mean difference: 0.437, 95% CI 0.266-0.608, p < 0.0001). No significant between-group difference was found (standardized mean difference: 0.155, 95% CI - 0.199 to - 0.509, p = 0.392).
The results of this systematic review and meta-analysis indicate that drop sets present an efficient strategy for maximizing hypertrophy in those with limited time for training. There was no significant difference in hypertrophy measurements between the drop set and traditional training groups, but some of the drop set modalities took half to one-third of the time compared with traditional training.
在进行肌肉肥大训练时,最流行的省时训练方法之一是递减组训练,即先在给定负荷下进行多组训练至肌肉向心收缩力竭,然后降低负荷并立即进行下一组训练,直至肌肉向心收缩或自主收缩力竭。本系统评价和荟萃分析的目的是比较递减组训练与传统组训练对骨骼肌肥大的影响。
本系统评价遵循系统评价和荟萃分析的首选报告项目指南。于2022年4月9日在SPORTDiscus和MEDLINE/PubMed数据库中检索所有符合预定义纳入标准的、研究递减组训练方法对肌肉肥大影响的研究。使用综合荟萃分析第3版(美国新泽西州恩格尔伍德克利夫斯的Biostat公司)进行统计分析。通过直观检查漏斗图的不对称性以及采用α水平为0.10的Egger回归检验进行统计学分析,评估发表偏倚。
六项研究符合预定义的纳入标准。研究中的参与者有142名(28名女性和114名男性),年龄范围为19.2至27岁。平均样本量为23.6±10.9(范围9至41)。五项研究纳入了定量合成分析。荟萃分析表明,递减组训练组和传统训练组在测试前至测试后肌肉肥大方面均有显著增加(递减组训练标准化均数差值:0.555,95%可信区间0.357至0.921,p<0.0001;传统组训练标准化均数差值:0.437,95%可信区间0.266至0.608,p<0.0001)。未发现组间有显著差异(标准化均数差值:0.155,95%可信区间 -0.199至 -0.509,p = 0.392)。
本系统评价和荟萃分析的结果表明,递减组训练是一种有效的策略,可使训练时间有限的人群实现最大程度的肌肉肥大。递减组训练组和传统训练组在肥大测量方面无显著差异,但与传统训练相比,一些递减组训练方式所需时间仅为其一半至三分之一。