Article Text

other Versions

PDF
Resistance training interventions across the cancer control continuum: a systematic review of the implementation of resistance training principles
  1. C M Fairman,
  2. P N Hyde,
  3. B C Focht
  1. Exercise and Behavioral Medicine Laboratory, Kinesiology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, USA
  1. Correspondence to Ciaran Fairman, Exercise and Behavioral Medicine Laboratory, Kinesiology, The Ohio State University, 305 W 17th Avenue, Columbus, OH 43201, USA; Fairman.13{at}osu.edu

Abstract

Objectives The primary purpose of this systematic review is to examine the extant resistance training (RT) cancer research to evaluate the proportion of RT interventions that: (1) implemented key RT training principles (specificity, progression, overload) and (2) explicitly reported relevant RT prescription components (frequency, intensity, sets, reps).

Design A qualitative systematic review was performed by two reviewers (CMF and PNH) who inspected the titles and abstracts to determine eligibility for this systematic review. Identified papers were obtained in full and further reviewed. Data were extracted to evaluate the application of principles of training, along with specific RT components.

Data sources Electronic databases (PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane, PEDro, PsychInfo, Cancer Lit, Sport Discus, AMED, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) and reference lists of included articles from inception to May 2016.

Results 37 studies were included. The principle of specificity was used appropriately in all of the studies, progression in 65% and overload in 76% of the studies. The most common exercise prescription (∼50%) implemented in the studies included in this review were 2–3 days/week, focusing on large muscle groups, 60–70% 1 repetition maximum (RM), 1–3 sets of 8–12 repetitions.

Conclusions Reporting of RT principles in an oncology setting varies greatly, with often vague or non-existent references to the principles of training and how the RT prescription was designed.

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Footnotes

  • Correction notice This article has been corrected since it was published Online First. Table 3 has been replaced with a new version.

  • Contributors CMF and BCF conceptualised the review. CMF and PNH performed the review. CMF, BCF and PNH wrote the manuscript.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Request permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.