Comparação do treinamento resistido tradicional a outros protocolos de treinamento resistido no aumento da massa muscular e força dinâmica máxima: uma revisão sistemática com metanálise

• Ano de defesa: 2021
• Autor(a) principal: Santos, Cleyton Salvego
• Tipo de documento: Dissertação
• Tipo de acesso: Acesso aberto
• Idioma: por
• Instituição de defesa: Universidade Cidade de São Paulo; Brasil; Pós-Graduação; Programa de Pós-Graduação de Mestrado em Fisioterapia; UNICID
• Palavras-chave em Português: Treinamento resistido tradicional; Treinamento de força; Métodos avançados de treinamento; Hipertrofia; CNPQ::CIENCIAS DA SAUDE::FISIOTERAPIA E TERAPIA OCUPACIONAL
• Link de acesso: https://repositorio.cruzeirodosul.edu.br/handle/123456789/4120

Background: Resistance training is currently considered an important tool for maintaining health through numerous benefits.However, there are several training methods, which through the manipulation of training variables aim to enhance the results for hypertrophy and strength.It is not yet clear whether these methods are actually more effective than the traditional method. Despite many studies considering the application of the traditional method of training, there is no definition and characteristics of what should really be considered as traditional.Study Design: Systematic Review. Objective: To verify if there is a difference for hypertrophy and maximum strength between the traditional method and other advanced protocols. Describe the definitions and references used by the studies to classify resistance training as traditional. Present the main characteristics of the criteria considered as traditional resistance training. Outcomes: hypertrophy and maximum strength. Database: The search was carried out without restriction of language or year of publication in the following databases: Pubmed, Embase, SPORTDiscus and Web of Science. Study Selection: Randomized clinical trials that classified at least one of the groups as traditional and that assessed muscle hypertrophy and / or maximum strength in healthy individuals were part of this review.Result: The initial search resulted in 26,057 studies but only 39 studies were part of this review, 33 of which were used in the meta analysis. The risk of bias assessment using the PEDro scale obtained an average score of 5 ± 0.70 / 10. The quality of evidence assessed through GRADE was considered low for both the analysis for hypertrophy and maximum strength (two-level reduction due to: risk of high bias and imprecision). There was no statistically significant difference for both the hypertrophy outcome (SMD = 0.02; 95% CI - 0.11; 0.16) and maximum strength (SMD = 0.03; 95% CI -0.12; 0.18) when compared to the traditional method with other resistance training protocols. The characteristics of the traditional protocol were frequency of 3 sessions per week, 3 series of 9 repetitions with an intensity of 75% 1RM. The movement execution was 2±1 seconds for each concentric and eccentric phases. Resting time between sets was 2±1 minutes. The concepts used to define the method as traditional and the characteristics of the intervention protocols were different. ACSM was the most used reference. Conclusion:There is low quality of evidence that there is no difference between the traditional method and other protocols for the outcomes hypertrophy and maximum strength.The traditional method of resistance training can be defined as: The practice of physical exercises by concentric and eccentric actions generating a constant tension in the musculature through an external load.Multiple consecutive series should be used, preferably be multiarticular and for large muscle groups. For each exercise perform 3 ± 1 series between 2 to 15 repetitions with intensity between 40-90% 1RM and an average frequency of 3 ± 1 sessions per week.