Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28130627›Full record

Trial reportEuropean journal of applied physiology2017

Crescent pyramid and drop-set systems do not promote greater strength gains, muscle hypertrophy, and changes on muscle architecture compared with traditional resistance training in well-trained men.

Vitor Angleri, Carlos Ugrinowitsch, Cleiton Augusto Libardi

Open access · greenAbstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in European journal of applied physiology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
7.9field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

31 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 92 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Maximizing Muscle Hypertrophy: A Systematic Review of Advanced Resistance Training Techniques and Methods.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2019
    Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Vitor AngleriLaboratory of Neuromuscular Adaptations to Resistance Training, Department of Physical Education, Federal University of São Carlos-UFSCar, Rod. Washington Luiz, km 235-SP 310, CEP 13565-905, São Carlos, SP, Brazil.
Carlos UgrinowitschSchool of Physical Education and Sport, University of São Paulo-USP, Av. Prof. Mello de Morais, 65, 05508-03, São Paulo, SP, Brazil.
Cleiton Augusto LibardiLaboratory of Neuromuscular Adaptations to Resistance Training, Department of Physical Education, Federal University of São Carlos-UFSCar, Rod. Washington Luiz, km 235-SP 310, CEP 13565-905, São Carlos, SP, Brazil. c.libardi@ufscar.br.
Universidade Federal de São Carlos · BRUniversidade de São Paulo · BR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe aim of this study was to compare the effects of crescent pyramid (CP) and drop-set (DS) systems with traditional resistance training (TRAD) with equalized total training volume (TTV) on maximum dynamic strength (1-RM), muscle cross-sectional area (CSA), pennation angle (PA), and fascicle length (FL).

methodsThirty-two volunteers had their legs randomized in a within-subject design in TRAD (3-5 sets of 6-12 repetitions at 75% 1-RM), CP (3-5 sets of 6-15 repetitions at 65-85% 1-RM), and DS (3-5 sets of ~50-75% 1-RM to muscle failure) protocols. Each leg was trained for 12 weeks. Participants had one leg fixed in the TRAD while the contralateral leg performed either CP or DS to allow for TTV equalization.

resultsThe CSA increased significantly and similarly for all protocols (TRAD: 7.6%; CP: 7.5%; DS: 7.8%). All protocols showed significant and similar increases in leg press (TRAD = 25.9%; CP = 25.9%; DS = 24.9%) and leg extension 1-RM loads (TRAD = 16.6%; CP = 16.4%; DS = 17.1%). All protocols increased PA (TRAD = 10.6%; CP = 11.0%; DS = 10.3%) and FL (TRAD = 8.9%; CP = 8.9%; DS = 9.1%) similarly.

conclusionCP and DS systems do not promote greater gains in strength, muscle hypertrophy and changes in muscle architecture compared to traditional resistance training.

Indexed as

Resistance TrainingAdultHumansHypertrophyLegMaleMuscle, SkeletalMuscle StrengthPhysical Education and TrainingWeight LiftingYoung AdultFascicle lengthMuscle cross-sectional areaMuscle strengthPennation angleResistance trainingTotal training volume

Identifiers

PMID28130627
OpenAlexW2581572725

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.