ArticleSports (Basel, Switzerland)2025
A Muscle Physiology-Based Framework for Quantifying Training Load in Resistance Exercises.
Article in Sports (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Abstract
backgroundObjective training load (TL) indexes used in resistance training lack physiological significance. This study was aimed to provide a muscle physiology-based approach for quantifying TL in resistance exercises (REs).
methodsFollowing individual torque-velocity profiling, fifteen participants (11 healthy males, stature: 178.36 ± 3.95 cm, and body mass (BM): 77.48 ± 7.74 kg; 4 healthy females, stature: 169.25 ± 5.03 cm, and body mass: 60.62 ± 3.91 kg) performed isokinetic leg extension exercise sessions at low, moderate, and high intensities (LI, MI, and HI, respectively). Systemic and local physiological responses were measured, and sessions were volume-equated according to the "volume-load" (VL) method.
resultsSignificant differences were found between sessions in terms of mechanical work (p<0.05 and p<0.001, for LI-MI and MI-HI, respectively), averaged normalised torque (p<0.001), mechanical impulse (p<0.001), and rate of force development (RFD, p<0.001 for LI-MI). RFD was mainly impacted by the accumulation of repetitions. Muscle function impairments mainly occurred at low intensities-long series, and high intensities, supported by greater RFD rate decay and changes in electromyographic activity. Therefore, accounting for muscle fatigue kinetics within objective TL indexes and using dimension reduction methods better described physiological responses to RE.
conclusionsA generic equation of muscle fatigue rise could add value to TL quantification in RE. Considering other training-related information and TL indexes stands essential, applicable to field situations and supports the multidimensional facet of physiological responses to RE.
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.