Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42160459›Full record

ArticleMedicine and science in sports and exercise2026

Menstrual Cycle Phase Does Not Influence Training-Induced Muscle Hypertrophy or Strength: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Alysha C D'Souza, Derrick W Van Every, Anmol Bhinder, Shivani Elango, Grace A C Lamont, Matthew J Lees, Changhyun Lim, James McKendry, James P Newbold, Colter Naphin and 5 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Medicine and science in sports and exercise, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

15 authors.

Alysha C D'SouzaDepartment of Kinesiology, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, CANADA.
Derrick W Van EveryDepartment of Kinesiology, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, CANADA.
Anmol BhinderDepartment of Kinesiology, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, CANADA.
Shivani ElangoDepartment of Kinesiology, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, CANADA.
Grace A C LamontDepartment of Kinesiology, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, CANADA.
Matthew J LeesDepartment of Kinesiology, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, CANADA.
Changhyun LimDepartment of Kinesiology, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, CANADA.
James McKendryDepartment of Kinesiology, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, CANADA.
James P NewboldDepartment of Kinesiology, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, CANADA.
Colter NaphinDepartment of Kinesiology, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, CANADA.
Irena A RebalkaDepartment of Pathology and Molecular Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, CANADA.
Lauren RoxburghDepartment of Kinesiology, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, CANADA.
Anojan SuthaharanDepartment of Kinesiology, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, CANADA.
Brandan K WilsonDepartment of Kinesiology, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, CANADA.
Stuart M PhillipsDepartment of Kinesiology, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, CANADA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimWe investigated the influence of MCPBT on muscle hypertrophy and strength in response to RET over three MCs.

methodsEmploying a randomized, unilateral design, twenty-four healthy, eumenorrheic females completed a within-participant resistance training trial across three consecutive MCs (12.2 ± 1.3 weeks; mean ± SD). Each individual's legs were randomly assigned to one of four conditions: non-exercising control (CON), continuous exercise training (balanced across both MC phases; EX), high-volume in the follicular phase with low volume in the luteal phase (HV-FOL), or the converse (HV-LUT). HV was defined as five sets per exercise twice weekly (≥10 sets·muscle⁻¹·week⁻¹), and low volume comprised one set per exercise twice weekly (≤5 sets·muscle⁻¹·week⁻¹). The primary outcome was thigh lean mass via dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry. Secondary outcomes were vastus lateralis cross-sectional area (VL CSA), leg fat-free mass (FFM) via bioelectrical impedance analysis, one-repetition maximum (1RM) strength and maximal voluntary isometric contraction.

resultsAll RET conditions produced greater gains than CON for thigh lean mass, VL CSA, FFM, and 1RM strength (all, p < 0.001), with no differences (all, p ≥ 0.17) between any of the training conditions (EX, HV-FOL, and HV-LUT).

conclusionsMCPBT confers neither hypertrophy nor strength advantages over traditional continuous RET. Training volume-load, not MCPBT, was associated with several adaptations. MC phase-based adjustments in RET could be based on individual preference but are not necessary to achieve muscular adaptations to RET.

Indexed as

EUMENORRHEAFEMALERESISTANCE EXERCISESKELETAL MUSCLE

Identifiers

PMID42160459
PMCPMC13561106

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.