Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2019 Jul 24:10:864.
doi: 10.3389/fphys.2019.00864. eCollection 2019.

Re-examination of 1- vs. 3-Sets of Resistance Exercise for Pre-spaceflight Muscle Conditioning: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Grant W Ralston  1 , Lon Kilgore  2 , Frank B Wyatt  3 , Frédéric Dutheil  4   5 , Patrick Jaekel  6   7 , Duncan S Buchan  1 , Julien S Baker  1
Affiliations

Re-examination of 1- vs. 3-Sets of Resistance Exercise for Pre-spaceflight Muscle Conditioning: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Grant W Ralston et al. Front Physiol. .

Abstract

Background: Recommendations on resistance training (RT) set-volume protocols in preparation for spaceflight muscular strength conditioning remains equivocal. A meta-analysis was performed on the effects of single-set (S), or three-set (M3) RT on muscular strength per exercise for different body segments and joint types (multi-joint and single-joint). Methods: Computerized searches were performed on PubMed, MEDLINE and SPORTDiscus™. Twelve studies were considered appropriate according to pre-set eligibility criteria. Outcomes analyzed were pre-to-post-muscular strength change on; multi-joint and single-joint combined; upper body only; lower body only; multi-joint exercises only; single-joint exercises only. Results: Upper body exercise analysis on combined subjects and untrained subjects only reported greater but not significant strength gains with M3 (ES 0.37; 95% CI 0.09-0.82; P = 0.11 and ES 0.35; 95% CI-0.49 to 1.19; P = 0.42). Trained only subjects reported superior strength gains with M3 (ES 0.63; 95% CI 0.34-0.92; P = <0.0001). Lower body exercise on combined subjects and untrained subjects only reported superior strength gains with M3 (ES 0.35; 95% CI 0.10-0.60; P = 0.006 and ES 0.49; 95% CI 0.14-0.83; P = 0.005). Trained subjects only observed greater but not significant strength gains with M3 (ES 0.18; 95% CI -0.23 to 0.58; P = 0.39). Multi-joint exercise on combined subjects reported greater strength gains with M3 (ES 0.83; 95% CI 0.14-1.51; P = 0.02). Trained only subjects reported greater strength gains with M3 (ES 0.52; 95% CI 0.10-0.94; P = 0.02). Single-joint exercise on combined subjects and untrained only observed greater strength gains for M3 (ES 0.49; 95% CI 0.26-0.72; P = <0.0001 and ES 0.56; 95% CI 0.21-0.91; P = 0.002). Trained only subjects reported greater but not significant strength gains with M3 (ES 0.37; 95% CI -0.01 to 0.75; P = 0.06). Conclusion: For astronauts in space-flight preparation, the findings suggest that M3 training appears to be preferable over S for developing muscular strength. Nevertheless, depending on the physical conditioning of the crew member or tight pre-flight scheduling, S is still able to provide a positive strength training stimulus.

Keywords: one vs.multiple-sets and muscular strength; one vs.three-sets and muscular strength; resistance training and muscular strength; resistance training and training volume; single vs.multiple-sets.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
The flow of journal articles through the systematic review process.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Galbraith plot used to examine study heterogeneity (pre- vs. post-strength change). Each open circle represents one pre- vs. post-study data.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Forest plot of 1 vs. 3-sets (trained and untrained subjects [upper body exercise] combined) with Humburg et al. (2007) and Radaelli et al. (2014) datum excluded.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Forest plot of 1 vs. 3-sets (untrained and trained subjects [lower body exercise] combined) with Hass et al. (2000) and Humburg et al. (2007) datum excluded.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Forest plot of 1 vs. 3-sets (trained and untrained [multi-joint exercise] combined).
Figure 6
Figure 6
Forest plot of 1 vs. 3-sets (trained and untrained [single-joint exercises] combined).
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Adams G. R., Caiozzo V. J., Baldwin K. M. (2003). Skeletal muscle unweighting: spaceflight and ground-based models. J. Appl. Physiol. 95, 2185–2201. 10.1152/japplphysiol.00346.2003 - DOI - PubMed
    1. American College of Sports Medicine Position Stand (ACSM) (2009). Progression models in resistance training for healthy adults. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 41, 687–708. 10.1249/MSS.0b013e3181915670 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Baker J. S., Davies B., Cooper S. M., Wong D. P., Buchan D. S., Kilgore L. (2013). Strength and body composition changes in recreationally strength-trained individuals: comparison of one versus three sets resistance training programmes. Biomed. Res. Int. 2013:615901. 10.1155/2013/615901 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Bloomberg J. J., Reschke M. F., Clement G. R., Mulavara A. P, Taylor L.C. (2016). Risk of Impaired Control of Spacecraft/Associated Systems and Decreased Mobility Due to Vestibular/Sensorimotor Alterations Associated with Space Flight. Houston, TX: Johnson Space Center. National Aeronautics and Space Administration report TM JSC-CN-36487.
    1. Borst S. E., De Hoyos D. V., Garzarella L., Vincent K., Pollock B. H., Lowenthal D. T., et al. . (2001). Effects of resistance training on insulin-like growth factor-I and IGF binding proteins. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 33, 648–653. 10.1097/00005768-200104000-00021 - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources