Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30934001›Full record

Trial reportPloS one2019

The short- and long-term effects of resistance training with different stability requirements.

Atle Hole Saeterbakken, Alexander Olsen, David George Behm, Hilde Bremseth Bardstu, Vidar Andersen

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 33 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Muscles (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Atle Hole SaeterbakkenWestern Norway University, Faculty of Education, Arts and Sports, Department of Sport, Food and Natural Sciens, Sogndal, Sogn og Fjordane, Norway.ORCID 0000-0002-5592-6551
Alexander OlsenWestern Norway University, Faculty of Education, Arts and Sports, Department of Sport, Food and Natural Sciens, Sogndal, Sogn og Fjordane, Norway.
David George BehmSchool of Human Kinetics and Recreation, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John's, Newfoundland, Canada.
Hilde Bremseth BardstuWestern Norway University, Faculty of Education, Arts and Sports, Department of Sport, Food and Natural Sciens, Sogndal, Sogn og Fjordane, Norway.
Vidar AndersenWestern Norway University, Faculty of Education, Arts and Sports, Department of Sport, Food and Natural Sciens, Sogndal, Sogn og Fjordane, Norway.
Vestlandsforsking · NOMemorial University of Newfoundland · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The aim of this study was to assess the short- and long-term effects of resistance training (RT) with different stability requirements. Fifty-nine men underwent a 3-week familiarization period followed by a 7-week training period. During familiarization, all participants trained four sessions of squats with a Smith machine, free weights and free weights standing on a wobble board. After week-3, participants were randomized into a low (Smith machine), medium (Free-weight) or high (Wobble board) stability RT program, and Control group. All participants were tested pre-, after week-3 and post-intervention. Ten repetition maximum (10RM), rate of force development (RFD), electromyography (EMG) and maximum voluntary isometric contraction (MVIC) were tested in all three squat conditions in addition to countermovement jump (CMJ) on stable and unstable surfaces, and muscle thickness. After familiarization, greater 10RM loads (21.8-27.3%), MVIC (7.4-13.5%), RFD (29.7-43.8%) and CMJ (4.9-8.5%) were observed in all conditions. Between week 3 and 10, the Free-weight and Wobble board groups similarly improved 10RM in all conditions. Smith machine group demonstrated greater improvement in the trained exercise than the medium and high stability exercises. All training groups showed similar improvement in muscle thickness, RFD and MVIC. There was no CMJ improvement on the stable surface, but the Wobble board group demonstrated significantly greater improvement on the unstable surface. In conclusion, low, medium or high stability RT resulted in similar improvements in trained and non-trained testing conditions except for greater CMJ on the unstable surface in the Wobble group. Greater 10RM strength in trained than non-trained exercise was only observed in low stability group. Familiarization was associated with substantial improvements in 10RM and CMJ, with greater improvement associated with higher stability requirements. These findings suggest that high stability can increase strength, muscle thickness and explosive measurements similar to training with lower stability.

Indexed as

Resistance TrainingBiomechanical PhenomenaElectromyographyHumansIsometric ContractionLocomotionMaleTime FactorsYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID30934001
PMCPMC6443166
OpenAlexW2935406469

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.