↓ Skip to main content

Effectiveness of Resistance Circuit-Based Training for Maximum Oxygen Uptake and Upper-Body One-Repetition Maximum Improvements: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Sports Medicine, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (65th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
134 X users
facebook
4 Facebook pages
video
2 YouTube creators

Citations

dimensions_citation
51 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
256 Mendeley
Title
Effectiveness of Resistance Circuit-Based Training for Maximum Oxygen Uptake and Upper-Body One-Repetition Maximum Improvements: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Published in
Sports Medicine, August 2017
DOI 10.1007/s40279-017-0773-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Francisco Antonio Muñoz-Martínez, Jacobo Á. Rubio-Arias, Domingo Jesús Ramos-Campo, Pedro E. Alcaraz

Abstract

It is well known that concurrent increases in both maximal strength and aerobic capacity are associated with improvements in sports performance as well as overall health. One of the most popular training methods used for achieving these objectives is resistance circuit-based training. The objective of the present systematic review with a meta-analysis was to evaluate published studies that have investigated the effects of resistance circuit-based training on maximum oxygen uptake and one-repetition maximum of the upper-body strength (bench press exercise) in healthy adults. The following electronic databases were searched from January to June 2016: PubMed, Web of Science and Cochrane. Studies were included if they met the following criteria: (1) examined healthy adults aged between 18 and 65 years; (2) met the characteristics of resistance circuit-based training; and (3) analysed the outcome variables of maximum oxygen uptake using a gas analyser and/or one-repetition maximum bench press. Of the 100 articles found from the database search and after all duplicates were removed, eight articles were analysed for maximum oxygen uptake. Of 118 healthy adults who performed resistance circuit-based training, maximum oxygen uptake was evaluated before and after the training programme. Additionally, from the 308 articles found for one-repetition maximum, eight articles were analysed. The bench press one-repetition maximum load, of 237 healthy adults who performed resistance circuit-based training, was evaluated before and after the training programme. Significant increases in maximum oxygen uptake and one-repetition maximum bench press were observed following resistance circuit-based training. Additionally, significant differences in maximum oxygen uptake and one-repetition maximum bench press were found between the resistance circuit-based training and control groups. The meta-analysis showed that resistance circuit-based training, independent of the protocol used in the studies, is effective in increasing maximum oxygen uptake and one-repetition maximum bench press in healthy adults. However, its effect appears to be larger depending on the population and training characteristics. For large effects in maximum oxygen uptake, the programme should include ~14-30 sessions for ~6-12 weeks, with each session lasting at least ~20-30 min, at intensities between ~60 and 90% one-repetition maximum. For large effects in one-repetition maximum bench press, the data indicate that intensity should be ~30-60% one-repetition maximum, with sessions lasting at least ~22.5-60 min. However, the lower participant's baseline fitness level may explain the lighter optimal loads used in the circuit training studies where greater strength gains were reported.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 134 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 256 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 256 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 48 19%
Student > Bachelor 32 13%
Researcher 17 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 7%
Professor 15 6%
Other 51 20%
Unknown 76 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 105 41%
Nursing and Health Professions 20 8%
Medicine and Dentistry 10 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 4%
Social Sciences 7 3%
Other 14 5%
Unknown 91 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 99. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 October 2023.
All research outputs
#431,034
of 25,657,205 outputs
Outputs from Sports Medicine
#419
of 2,893 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,055
of 327,776 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Sports Medicine
#11
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,657,205 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,893 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 57.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 327,776 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 32 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its contemporaries.