Recent studies have reported that resistance training in hypoxia (RTH) may augment muscle size and strength development. However, consensus on the effects of RTH via systematic review and meta-analysis is not yet available. This work aimed to systematically review studies which have investigated using RTH versus normoxic resistance training (NRT) to improve muscular size and strength, and to perform a meta-analysis to determine the effect of RTH on these adaptive parameters. Searches were conducted in PubMed, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library from database inception until 17 June 2017 for original articles assessing the effects of RTH on muscle size and strength versus NRT. The effects on outcomes were expressed as standardized mean differences (SMD). Nine studies (158 participants) reported on the effects of RTH versus NRT for muscle cross-sectional area (CSA) (n = 4) or strength (n = 6). RTH significantly increased CSA (SMD = 0.70, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.05, 1.35; p = .04) and strength (SMD = 1.88; 95% CI = 1.20, 2.56; p < .00001). However, RTH did not produce significant change in CSA (SMD = 0.24, 95% CI -0.19, 0.68, p = .27) or strength (SMD = 0.20; 95% CI = -0.27, 0.78; p = .23) when compared to NRT. Although RTH improved muscle size and strength, this protocol did not provide significant benefit over resistance training in normoxia. Nevertheless, this paper identified marked differences in methodologies for implementing RTH, and future research using standardized protocols is therefore warranted.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 28. 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 07 January 2022.
All research outputs
#1,530,522
of 27,500,736 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Sport Science
#305
of 1,982 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#28,300
of 342,676 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Sport Science
#7
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 27,500,736 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,982 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% 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 342,676 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 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 72% of its contemporaries.
