Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27380100›Full record

ArticleSports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.)2017

Determining Strength: A Case for Multiple Methods of Measurement.

Samuel L Buckner, Matthew B Jessee, Kevin T Mattocks, J Grant Mouser, Brittany R Counts, Scott J Dankel, Jeremy P Loenneke

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.), 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 66 papers, 12 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
66citing papers in PubMed, 12 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

66 citing papers in PubMed, 12 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Trial
  20. Trial

6 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Samuel L BucknerKevser Ermin Applied Physiology Laboratory, Department of Health, Exercise Science, and Recreation Management, The University of Mississippi, 231 Turner Cente, University, MS, 38677, USA.
Matthew B JesseeKevser Ermin Applied Physiology Laboratory, Department of Health, Exercise Science, and Recreation Management, The University of Mississippi, 231 Turner Cente, University, MS, 38677, USA.
Kevin T MattocksKevser Ermin Applied Physiology Laboratory, Department of Health, Exercise Science, and Recreation Management, The University of Mississippi, 231 Turner Cente, University, MS, 38677, USA.
J Grant MouserKevser Ermin Applied Physiology Laboratory, Department of Health, Exercise Science, and Recreation Management, The University of Mississippi, 231 Turner Cente, University, MS, 38677, USA.
Brittany R CountsKevser Ermin Applied Physiology Laboratory, Department of Health, Exercise Science, and Recreation Management, The University of Mississippi, 231 Turner Cente, University, MS, 38677, USA.
Scott J DankelKevser Ermin Applied Physiology Laboratory, Department of Health, Exercise Science, and Recreation Management, The University of Mississippi, 231 Turner Cente, University, MS, 38677, USA.
Jeremy P LoennekeKevser Ermin Applied Physiology Laboratory, Department of Health, Exercise Science, and Recreation Management, The University of Mississippi, 231 Turner Cente, University, MS, 38677, USA. jploenne@olemiss.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Muscle strength is often measured through the performance of a one-repetition maximum (1RM). However, we that feel a true measurement of 'strength' remains elusive. For example, low-load alternatives to traditional resistance training result in muscle hypertrophic changes similar to those resulting from traditional high-load resistance training, with less robust changes observed with maximal strength measured by the 1RM. However, when strength is measured using a test to which both groups are 'naive', differences in strength become less apparent. We suggest that the 1RM is a specific skill, which will improve most when training incorporates its practice or when a lift is completed at a near-maximal load. Thus, if we only recognize increases in the 1RM as indicative of strength, we will overlook many effective and diverse alternatives to traditional high-load resistance training. We wish to suggest that multiple measurements of strength assessment be utilized in order to capture a more complete picture of the adaptation to resistance training.

Indexed as

Muscle StrengthResistance TrainingAcclimatizationAdaptation, PhysiologicalHumansMuscle, Skeletal

Identifiers

PMID27380100

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.