Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39557664›Full record

Trial reportEuropean journal of applied physiology2025

Increasing set volume relative to baseline does not augment skeletal muscle adaptations when compared to maintenance of baseline training volume in recreationally trained individuals.

Enrique N Moreno, Danielle T Sampson, Elias C Figueroa, Matthew B Jessee, Samuel L Buckner

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in European journal of applied physiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. 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

5 authors.

Enrique N MorenoDepartment of Educational and Psychological Studies, USF Muscle Lab, Exercise Science Program, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, USA.
Danielle T SampsonDepartment of Educational and Psychological Studies, USF Muscle Lab, Exercise Science Program, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, USA.
Elias C FigueroaDepartment of Educational and Psychological Studies, USF Muscle Lab, Exercise Science Program, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, USA.
Matthew B JesseeDepartment of Health, Exercise Science and Recreation Management, Applied Human Health and Physical Function Laboratory, University of Mississippi, Oxford, MS, USA.
Samuel L BucknerDepartment of Educational and Psychological Studies, USF Muscle Lab, Exercise Science Program, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, USA. slbuckner@usf.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2139-7356

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThis study compared the effects of prescribing an increased number of sets relative to baseline (ITV) to a maintenance of baseline training volume (BTV), in previously trained individuals.

methodsForty-two adults with more than 6 months of elbow flexion resistance training experience had each arm randomized to either the ITV or BTV condition. Participants performed 2-weekly sessions of unilateral standing dumbbell elbow flexion exercise for 12 weeks, 8 of which were supervised. Muscle thickness of the elbow flexors at 50, 60, and 70% the distance of the upper arm and one repetition-maximum (1RM) strength for the unilateral standing dumbbell elbow flexion exercise were assessed pre- and post-intervention.

resultsFor the 50% site, there was no evidence that the changes were different between BTV and ITV [∆BTV vs ∆ITV (cm) = 0.022 (95% CI - 0.096, 0.140)]. However, there was evidence that both conditions observed a greater change compared to the control. For the 60% site, there was no evidence that the changes were different between BTV and ITV [∆BTV vs ∆ITV (cm) = - 0.010 (95% CI - 0.155, 0.96)]. However, there was evidence that both conditions observed a greater change compared to the control. For the 70% site, there was no evidence that the changes were different between BTV and ITV [∆BTV vs ∆ITV (cm) = 0.004 (95% CI - 0.092, 0.101)]. However, there was evidence that both conditions observed a greater change compared to the control. For changes in 1RM, there was evidence that the change was greater in the BTV [∆BTV vs ∆Control (kg) = 1.915 (95% CI 1.219, 2.611)] and ITV [∆ITV vs ∆Control (kg) = 1.780 (95% CI 1.084, 2.475)] conditions compared to control.

conclusionPrescribing an increased dose of sets relative to baseline did not augment muscular adaptations when compared to a maintenance of BTV, in recreationally trained individuals. Both training conditions were similarly effective in promoting significant increases in muscle thickness and 1RM strength of the elbow flexors.

Indexed as

Adaptation, PhysiologicalMuscle, SkeletalResistance TrainingAdultElbowFemaleHumansMaleMuscle StrengthYoung AdultBaseline training volumeMaximal strengthMuscle hypertrophyMuscle thickness

Identifiers

PMID39557664

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.