Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28447186›Full record

Trial reportEuropean journal of applied physiology2017

Comparison of the recovery response from high-intensity and high-volume resistance exercise in trained men.

Sandro Bartolomei, Eliahu Sadres, David D Church, Eliott Arroyo, Joseph A Gordon, Alyssa N Varanoske, Ran Wang, Kyle S Beyer, Leonardo P Oliveira, Jeffrey R Stout and 1 more

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 39 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
8.3field-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

39 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 104 citations in OpenAlex.

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

11 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Sandro BartolomeiSport and Exercise Science, University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL, 32766, USA. sandro.bartolomei@ucf.edu.
Eliahu SadresThe Nat Holman School for Coaches and Instructors, Wingate Institute for Physical Education and Sport, Netanya, Israel.
David D ChurchSport and Exercise Science, University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL, 32766, USA.
Eliott ArroyoSport and Exercise Science, University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL, 32766, USA.
Joseph A GordonSport and Exercise Science, University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL, 32766, USA.
Alyssa N VaranoskeSport and Exercise Science, University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL, 32766, USA.
Ran WangSport and Exercise Science, University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL, 32766, USA.
Kyle S BeyerSport and Exercise Science, University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL, 32766, USA.
Leonardo P OliveiraCollege of Medicine, University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL, 32766, USA.
Jeffrey R StoutSport and Exercise Science, University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL, 32766, USA.
Jay R HoffmanSport and Exercise Science, University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL, 32766, USA.
University of Central Florida · USWingate Institute · IL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe purpose of this study was to compare the physiological responses of a high-volume (HV; 8 sets of 10 repetitions) versus high-intensity (HI; 8 sets of 3 repetitions) exercise protocol in resistance-trained men.

methodsTwelve men (24.5 ± 4.2 years; 82.3 ± 8.4 kg; 175.2 ± 5.5 cm) with 6.3 ± 3.4 years of resistance training experience performed each protocol in a counterbalanced, randomized order. Performance [counter movement jump peak power (CMJP), isokinetic (ISOK) and isometric leg extension (MVIC), isometric mid-thigh pull (IMTP), and isometric squat (ISQ)] and muscle morphological [cross-sectional area (CSA) of vastus lateralis] assessments were performed at baseline (BL), 30-min (P-30 min), 24-h (P-24 h), 48-h (P-48 h), and 72-h (P-72 h) post-exercise for each testing session. In addition, endocrine (testosterone and cortisol), inflammatory [interleukin-6 (IL-6) and C-reactive protein (CRP)], and markers of muscle damage [creatine kinase (CK), lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), and myoglobin (Mb)] were assessed at the same time points.

resultsSignificantly greater reductions in CMJP (p < 0.001), and peak torque during both ISOK (p = 0.003) and MVIC (p = 0.008) at P-30 min were detected in HV compared to HI protocol. MVIC was still impaired at P-72 h following the HV protocol, while no differences were noted following HI. Markers of muscle damage (LDH, CK, and Mb) were significantly elevated following both HV and HI (p < 0.05), while cortisol and IL-6 concentrations were significantly elevated at P-30 min following HV only (p < 0.001 and p < 0.05, respectively).

conclusionsResults indicate that high-volume resistance exercise results in greater performance deficits, and a greater extent of muscle damage, than a bout of high-intensity resistance exercise.

Indexed as

AdultC-Reactive ProteinCreatine KinaseHigh-Intensity Interval TrainingHumansHydrocortisoneInterleukin-6Isometric ContractionLegL-Lactate DehydrogenaseMaleMuscle, SkeletalMyalgiaMyoglobinRecovery of FunctionResistance TrainingC-Reactive ProteinCreatine KinaseHydrocortisoneInterleukin-6L-Lactate DehydrogenaseMyoglobinTestosteroneCortisolInflammationMuscle damagePerformanceResistance trainingTestosterone

Identifiers

PMID28447186
OpenAlexW2610144295

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.