REF-1638 · Ramos-Campo et al., 2021 · Biology · Paper · PubMed

Across 45 studies (58 circuit groups, n = 897; 34 control groups, n = 474), resistance circuit training raised VO2max by 6.3%, muscle mass by 1.9% and upper- and lower-body strength and cut fat mass by 4.3% after training, but raised maximal aerobic speed or power by only 0.3%; the abstract reports no risk-of-bias assessment and compares circuits only with controls and with baseline

Main caveat: Abstract only: no risk-of-bias or certainty rating, heterogeneity, confidence intervals or publication-bias test.
moderate evidenceMeasured on non-athletes to trained athletesRead from the abstract only

Ramos-Campo and colleagues pooled studies of resistance circuit-based training to estimate what it does for strength, cardiorespiratory fitness and body composition. They searched three databases up to March 2020, found 830 records and included 45 studies, with 58 circuit groups (897 participants) and 34 control groups (474).

They analysed changes from before to after the circuits and differences from controls, with subgroup analyses. After training, muscle mass was up 1.9% and fat mass down 4.3%; VO2max rose 6.3%, maximal aerobic speed or power 0.3% and aerobic performance 2.6%; strength of the arms and legs increased.

Only the size of the strength gain appeared to vary with the number of sessions, the weekly frequency and the participants' training status, and fat loss was larger with low-to-moderate intensities and short rests between exercises. The authors conclude that circuit training improves body composition, cardiorespiratory fitness and upper- and lower-limb strength.

Methods

Search: three databases (not named in the abstract), up to March 2020; 830 records, 45 studies included.
Inclusion: studies of resistance circuit-based training reporting strength, cardiorespiratory fitness or body composition; further criteria not in the abstract.
Groups pooled: 58 circuit groups (n = 897) and 34 control groups (n = 474).
Analysis: meta-analysis of pre-post changes and of differences from controls, with subgroup analyses; the moderators named in the results are the number of sessions, frequency, training status, intensity and rest between exercises.
Quality assessment: not reported in the abstract; nor are heterogeneity, confidence intervals or a publication-bias test.

Key Results

OutcomeChange after circuit trainingp
Muscle mass+1.9%< 0.001
Fat mass−4.3%< 0.001
VO2max+6.3%< 0.001
Maximal aerobic speed or power+0.3%0.04
Aerobic performance+2.6%0.006
Upper- and lower-limb strengthincreasednot given in the abstract
Strength: the size of the gain depended on the number of sessions, frequency and training status; the direction of each moderator is not in the abstract.
Fat mass: larger losses with low and moderate intensities and short rests between exercises.
The abstract reports these figures as changes after training; it does not give the difference from controls as a number.

Practical Application

Circuits are a real fitness stimulus for a general adult, not a VO2max block for an endurance athlete. Pooled over 45 studies, circuits raised VO2max by about 6% and built strength and lean mass, but maximal aerobic speed or power rose only 0.3%. Inference, since the abstract names no endurance athletes: a trained rider or runner can use circuits for strength and to save time, and keep the aerobic work on the bike or on foot.
For fat loss, lighter loads and short rests went with bigger losses. Low-to-moderate intensity with short rests between exercises gave a larger fall in fat mass.
Inference, not tested here: the gap between a 6.3% VO2max rise and a 0.3% rise in maximal aerobic speed or power suggests that little of the measured aerobic gain showed up as top-end speed or power in these samples; a pre-post VO2max change also includes whatever would have happened without the training.
Not settled by this design: whether circuits beat traditional sets or separate strength and endurance sessions (no such comparison in the abstract; heavy circuits vs traditional sets are tested in REF-1639), what they do in trained endurance athletes (runners in REF-1641), and how biased the pooled studies are.

Limitations

Abstract only: no risk-of-bias or certainty rating, heterogeneity, confidence intervals or publication-bias test.
The headline figures read as pre-post changes in the circuit groups, which can include learning the tests and other change unrelated to training.
No comparison with other training types in the abstract; the ages, sex and training status of the pooled samples are not described.
Search closed in March 2020.
Written from the abstract and the PubMed record; full text not read.
How this entry was checked and changed
Why this level

risk of bias not read (abstract only): the abstract reports no risk-of-bias, quality or certainty assessment, no heterogeneity and no confidence intervals; the outcomes (VO2max, aerobic performance, strength, body composition) are not markers

Content correction 2026-11-07
2026-11-07: added from the abstract and the PubMed record; level B+ (meta-analysis of 45 studies; risk of bias not read, abstract only).