Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29470825›Full record

SynthesisSports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.)2018

Effect of Resistance Training Frequency on Gains in Muscular Strength: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Jozo Grgic, Brad J Schoenfeld, Timothy B Davies, Bruno Lazinica, James W Krieger, Zeljko Pedisic

Registry-linked trialOpen access · greenAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07484646 (Effects of Electrical Muscle Stimulation Combined With Resistance Training on Muscle Mass, Strength, Body Composition, and Power in Weight Lifters), which is not on this map. Cited by 159 papers, 38 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
159citing papers in PubMed, 38 pooled it
22.4field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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.

NCT07484646 narecruitingnot on this mapstarted 2025, after this paper: background citation

Effects of Electrical Muscle Stimulation Combined With Resistance Training on Muscle Mass, Strength, Body Composition, and Power in Weight Lifters

TypeinterventionalSponsorRiphah International UniversityRan2025 to 2026Enrolled34ConditionsBody Composition, Muscle Mass, Muscle StrengthArmsEMS + Resistance Training, Resistance Training Only
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

159 citing papers in PubMed, 38 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 344 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Adjunctive Ashwagandha (Nutrients · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Multimodal interventions for cachexia management.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025
    Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Pooled it
  18. Pooled it
  19. Pooled it
  20. Pooled it

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

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

6 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.

Jozo GrgicInstitute of Sport, Exercise and Active Living (ISEAL), Victoria University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Brad J SchoenfeldDepartment of Health Sciences, Lehman College, Bronx, NY, USA.
Timothy B DaviesFaculty of Health Sciences, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Bruno LazinicaDepartment of Kinesiology, Faculty of Education, J.J. Strossmayer University, Osijek, Croatia.
James W KriegerWeightology, LLC, Redmond, WA, USA.
Zeljko PedisicInstitute of Sport, Exercise and Active Living (ISEAL), Victoria University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia. zeljko.pedisic@vu.edu.au.
Victoria University · AULehman College · USUniversity of Osijek · HRUniversity of Sydney · AUWashington Center for Weight Management and Research · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCurrent recommendations on resistance training (RT) frequency for gains in muscular strength are based on extrapolations from limited evidence on the topic, and thus their practical applicability remains questionable.

objectiveTo elucidate this issue, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the studies that compared muscular strength outcomes with different RT frequencies.

methodsTo carry out this review, English-language literature searches of the PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, and SPORTDiscus databases were conducted. The meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model. The meta-analysis models were generated with RT frequencies classified as a categorical variable as either 1, 2, 3, or 4+ times/week, or, if there were insufficient data in subgroup analyses, the training frequencies were categorized as 1, 2, or 3 times/week. Subgroup analyses were performed for potential moderators, including (1) training volume; (2) exercise selection for the 1 repetition maximum (RM) test (for both multi-joint and single-joint exercises); (3) upper and lower body strength gains; (4) training to muscular failure (for studies involving and not involving training to muscular failure); (5) age (for both middle-aged/older adults and young adults); and (6) sex (for men and for women). The methodological quality of studies was appraised using the modified Downs and Black checklist.

resultsA total of 22 studies were found to meet the inclusion criteria. The average score on the Downs and Black checklist was 18 (range 13-22 points). Four studies were classified as being of good methodological quality, while the rest were classified as being of moderate methodological quality. Results of the meta-analysis showed a significant effect (p = 0.003) of RT frequency on muscular strength gains. Effect sizes increased in magnitude from 0.74, 0.82, 0.93, and 1.08 for training 1, 2, 3, and 4+ times per week, respectively. A subgroup analysis of volume-equated studies showed no significant effect (p = 0.421) of RT frequency on muscular strength gains. The subgroup analysis for exercise selection for the 1RM test suggested a significant effect of RT frequency on multi-joint (p < 0.001), but not single-joint, 1RM test results (p = 0.324). The subgroup analysis for upper and lower body showed a significant effect of frequency (p = 0.004) for upper body, but not lower body, strength gains (p = 0.070). In the subgroup analysis for studies in which the training was and was not carried out to muscular failure, no significant effect of RT frequency was found. The subgroup analysis for the age groups suggested a significant effect of training frequency among young adults (p = 0.024), but not among middle-aged and older adults (p = 0.093). Finally, the subgroup analysis for sex indicated a significant effect of RT frequency on strength gains in women (p = 0.030), but not men (p = 0.190).

conclusionsThe results of the present systematic review and meta-analysis suggest a significant effect of RT frequency as higher training frequencies are translated into greater muscular strength gains. However, these effects seem to be primarily driven by training volume because when the volume is equated, there was no significant effect of RT frequency on muscular strength gains. Thus, from a practical standpoint, greater training frequencies can be used for additional RT volume, which is then likely to result in greater muscular strength gains. However, it remains unclear whether RT frequency on its own has significant effects on strength gain. It seems that higher RT frequencies result in greater gains in muscular strength on multi-joint exercises in the upper body and in women, and, finally, in contrast to older adults, young individuals seem to respond more positively to greater RT frequencies. More evidence among resistance-trained individuals is needed as most of the current studies were performed in untrained participants.

Indexed as

ExerciseMuscle StrengthResistance TrainingRestAgedFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedMuscle, SkeletalYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID29470825
OpenAlexW2792557164

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.