Currier · British journal of sports medicine 2023 · Systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis · n=178 studies (5,097 participants) for strength; 119 studies (3,364 participants) for hypertrophy

Resistance training prescription for muscle strength and hypertrophy in healthy adults: a systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis.

Cited 174 times in the scientific literature.

Level 1 - systematic review of randomized trials

Systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

PubMed 37414459 · doi:10.1136/bjsports-2023-106807 · record verified 2026-08-26

What was done

A systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials in healthy adults was conducted across six databases (MEDLINE, Embase, Emcare, SPORTDiscus, CINAHL, Web of Science) through February 2022. The review compared non-exercise control to 12 distinct resistance training prescriptions varying by load, sets, and weekly frequency. Interventions were ranked using surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) metrics, and confidence was assessed with threshold analysis.

What was found

For muscle strength (178 studies, n = 5,097; 45% women), all resistance training prescriptions exceeded control, with loads >80% of 1-repetition maximum maximizing gains. Higher-load, multiset, thrice-weekly training was the highest-ranked prescription (standardised mean difference [SMD] 1.60, 95% credible interval [CrI] 1.38 to 1.82 vs control). For muscle hypertrophy (119 studies, n = 3,364; 47% women), all prescriptions comparably stimulated muscle growth, though multiset configurations ranked highest. Higher-load, multiset, twice-weekly training was the top-ranked hypertrophy condition (SMD 0.66, 95% CrI 0.47 to 0.85 vs control).

Why it matters

This large-scale comparative analysis confirms that heavy loads are necessary to maximize strength adaptations, whereas muscle hypertrophy is more flexible and can be similarly stimulated across different loading ranges as long as multiple sets are performed.

Limits

The analysis is restricted to healthy adults, so findings may not directly translate to clinical, frail, or rehabilitation populations. The abstract does not provide subgroup analyses regarding training status (untrained vs trained), individual exercise selection, proximity to muscular failure, or adherence and injury rates.

Cited by