ArticleBiology of sport2024
Effects of light- vs. heavy-load squat training on velocity, strength, power, and total mechanical work in recreationally trained men and women.
Article in Biology of sport, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Resistance Training for Cyclists: Scientific Evidence and Practical Recommendations.Scandinavian journal of medicine & science in sports · 2026Review
- Effects of movement velocity in squat training with and without blood flow restriction.Biology of sport · 2026Article
- Jump Squats Performed with Both Light and Heavy Loads Have Similar Effects on the Physical Performance of Elite Rugby Players during the Initial Phase of the Competitive Period.Journal of human kinetics · 2024Article
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
The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of light and heavy loads in the squat exercise on kinematics and mechanical variables in recreationally trained men and women. Twenty-two men and sixteen women were assigned to 4 groups: 40% and 80% one-repetition maximum (1RM) male (M40 and M80) and female (F40 and F80). Over 6 weeks, participants performed twice a week the full back-squat (SQ) exercise with initially equated relative volume load (Sets*Repetitions/Set*%1RM). All groups performed different amounts of work (p < 0.05), while relative work (work/1RM) only differed between load groups (p < 0.001). There was no significant Time*Sex*Load interaction. Based on the magnitude of effect sizes: M80 achieved small improvements in the SQ maximum isometric force (MIF; ES = 0.43, 95% CI [0.16, 0.81]); small gains in squat estimated 1RM strength were observed in the 80%-1RM groups (M80: 0.42 [0.18, 0.77]; F80: 0.44 [0.26, 0.76]) and the F40 group (0.42 [0.17, 0.81]); all groups made moderate to large gains in the average velocity attained against heavy loads (> 60%1RM; F40: 1.20 [0.52, 2.27]; F80: 2.20 [1.23, 3.93]; M40: 0.85 [0.29, 1.59]; M80: 1.03 [0.55, 1.77]), as well as small to moderate improvements in the average velocity against light loads (< 60%1RM; F40: 0.49[-0.24, 1.68]; F80: 1.10 [0.06, 3.16]; M40: 0.80 [0.41, 1.35]; M80: 0.93 [0.25, 1.84]). Lastly, only the F40 group showed small improvements in countermovement jump (CMJ) height (ES = 0.65 [0.14, 1.37]). In conclusion, light and heavy loads produced similar strength gains in men and women when initially equated by relative volume load, although the standardized mean differences suggest nuances depending on the sample and task.
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.