ArticleBiology of sport2016
A comparison of low volume 'high-intensity-training' and high volume traditional resistance training methods on muscular performance, body composition, and subjective assessments of training.
Article in Biology of sport, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Accuracy in Predicting Repetitions to Task Failure in Resistance Exercise: A Scoping Review and Exploratory Meta-analysis.Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2022Pooled it
- Effects of photobiomodulation on muscle strength in post-menopausal women submitted to a resistance training program.Lasers in medical science · 2020Trial
- Effects of canagliflozin on body composition and hepatic fat content in type 2 diabetes patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease.Journal of diabetes investigation · 2019Trial
- The Favorable Effects of a High-Intensity Resistance Training on Sarcopenia in Older Community-Dwelling Men with Osteosarcopenia: The Randomized Controlled FrOST Study.Clinical interventions in aging · 2019Trial
- Protein Supplementation to Augment the Effects of High Intensity Resistance Training in Untrained Middle-Aged Males: The Randomized Controlled PUSH Trial.BioMed research international · 2017Trial
- Article
- Single- and Multi-Joint Maximum Weight Lifting Relationship to Free-Fat Mass in Different Exercises for Upper- and Lower-Limbs in Well-Trained Male Young Adults.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Article
- High Intensity Resistance Exercise Training vs. High Intensity (Endurance) Interval Training to Fight Cardiometabolic Risk Factors in Overweight Men 30-50 Years Old.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2020Article
- "Just One More Rep!" - Ability to Predict Proximity to Task Failure in Resistance Trained Persons.Frontiers in psychology · 2020Article
- Article
- Variability in Strength, Pain, and Disability Changes in Response to an Isolated Lumbar Extension Resistance Training Intervention in Participants with Chronic Low Back Pain.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2017Article
- Article
- The Effects of 6 Months of Progressive High Effort Resistance Training Methods upon Strength, Body Composition, Function, and Wellbeing of Elderly Adults.BioMed research international · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Most studies of resistance training (RT) examine methods that do not resemble typical training practices of persons participating in RT. Ecologically valid RT programs more representative of such practices are seldom compared. This study compared two such approaches to RT. Thirty participants (males, n = 13; females, n = 17) were randomised to either a group performing low volume 'High Intensity Training' (HIT; n = 16) or high volume 'Body-building' (3ST; n = 14) RT methods 2x/week for 10 weeks. Outcomes included muscular performance, body composition, and participant's subjective assessments. Both HIT and 3ST groups improved muscular performance significantly (as indicated by 95% confidence intervals) with large effect sizes (ES; 0.97 to 1.73 and 0.88 to 1.77 respectively). HIT had significantly greater muscular performance gains for 3 of 9 tested exercises compared with 3ST (p < 0.05) and larger effect sizes for 8 of 9 exercises. Body composition did not significantly change in either group. However, effect sizes for whole body muscle mass changes were slightly more favourable in the HIT group compared with the 3ST group (0.27 and -0.34 respectively) in addition to whole body fat mass (0.03 and 0.43 respectively) and whole body fat percentage (-0.10 and -0.44 respectively). Significant muscular performance gains can be produced using either HIT or 3ST. However, muscular performance gains may be greater when using HIT. Future research should look to identify which components of ecologically valid RT programs are primarily responsible for these differences in outcome.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.