Background <p>Advanced resistance training methods are commonly promoted as superior for long-term improvements in physical qualities and performance capacities. However, at present, there is no clear evidence that advanced resistance training methods are better than traditional approaches, or than one another, in promoting adaptation in healthy adults.</p> Objectives <p>This systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis aimed to (1) compare advanced methods of resistance training prescription and their effects on strength, power, hypertrophy, and performance adaptations in healthy adults; (2) identify variables that may influence adaptations following specific resistance training methods; and (3) provide a rank order of advanced resistance training methods in their effectiveness for developing each physical capacity.</p> Methods <p>This review was conducted using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension statement for network meta-analyses (PRISMA-NMA). Five databases were searched, with studies included if they were peer-reviewed investigations, written in English, and compared at least two of eight resistance training methods (i.e. traditional resistance training or one of seven advanced methods). Furthermore, studies must have assessed strength, power, hypertrophy, jump, or sprint adaptations. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool V.2. Bayesian network meta-analyses and meta-regressions were performed to quantify the differences between resistance training methods and identify any variables that may moderate adaptations.</p> Results <p>Strength and power adaptations were similar across all resistance training methods, with all relative effects from Bayesian network meta-analyses having 95% credible intervals (CrIs) that crossed zero. Consequently, rankings of resistance training methods for strength and power adaptations should be interpreted cautiously due to the lack of any meaningful differences across the separate networks—although network meta-regressions revealed that rest redistribution schemes may be more beneficial for the development of strength in females in comparison to males. Flywheel training resulted in superior jump adaptations, with a greater benefit seen from shorter interventions and lower training volume load. However, rest redistribution schemes resulted in greater jump adaptations than flywheel training with a higher frequency of sessions. A systematic review of the literature also revealed no resistance training method that consistently induces superior adaptations for hypertrophy and sprint performance.</p> Conclusions <p>When aiming to develop a range of physical capacities, there is no clear benefit from using advanced methods over traditional resistance training for inducing adaptation in untrained to moderately trained individuals. However, advanced methods can still be beneficial for practitioners to implement. If practitioners prescribe advanced resistance training methods, it is important for them to consider individual athlete needs, the training cycle, and other training variables that may affect short-term responses as well as chronic adaptations. Future research should target the limitations of the current literature and recruit participants with a greater training age and relative strength, across a range of outcome measures.</p>