ArticleEuropean journal of applied physiology2026
Load- and velocity-specific adaptations to lower-body maximal strength training (MST), hypertrophy training (HT) and explosive strength training (EST).
Article in European journal of applied physiology, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeWe compared the effects of three strength training methods on squat performance; maximal strength training (MST), hypertrophy training (HT) and explosive strength training (EST). MST and EST were workload-matched, whereas HT was performed at higher volume.
methodsFifty-eight moderately trained males (n = 29) and females (n = 29) were allocated to (1) MST-4 × 4 repetitions squats at ≥ 85% of one repetition maximum (1RM), (2) HT-3 × 8-12 repetitions squats at ∼70–80% of 1RM, (3) EST-4 × 6-7 unloaded squat jumps (SJ), (4) Control (CON). MST, HT and EST performed three sessions/week for eight weeks. Squat 1RM strength, SJ rate of force development (RFD) at 50%, 30% and 0% of squat 1RM (RFDSJ50%, RFDSJ30% and RFDSJ0%), SJ- and counter movement jump (CMJ)-height and leg lean mass were examined.
resultsMST and HT improved squat 1RM (+ 20.7% and + 18.2%) more than EST (+ 10.9%) (all p ≤ 0.01) and CON (all p ≤ 0.001). MST and HT improved RFDSJ50% (+ 21.7% and + 14.3%, all p ≤ 0.001), RFDSJ30% (+ 17.8% and 14.0%, p ≤ 0.001–0.01) and RFDSJ0% (+ 12.3% and + 11.4%, p ≤ 0.01–0.05), while EST and CON did not. EST improved SJ-height (+ 2.2 cm) and CMJ-height (+ 1.7 cm) (all p ≤ 0.001) to a similar extent as MST (+ 2.2 cm and + 2.3 cm, all p ≤ 0.001) and HT (+ 2.0 cm and + 1.6 cm, all p ≤ 0.01).
conclusionMST and HT led to improvements across all measured squat and jumping variables, whereas EST improved jump performance under conditions of low external load and high velocity. Improved jumping performance following MST and HT seems to rely largely on changes in muscle strength, whereas for EST, other mechanisms not assessed in this study may play a greater role.
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.