ReviewJournal of neurology2026
High-load resistance training and FSHD: harmful mixture or a silver bullet combination?
Review in Journal of neurology, 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Facioscapulohumeral muscular dystrophy (FSHD) is a progressive neuromuscular disorder characterized by asymmetric loss of muscle mass and strength, as well as fatty infiltration, inflammation, oxidative stress, and fibrosis. Unfortunately, as the disease progresses, these features can lead to the loss of mobility and independence. High-load resistance training (RT) is a well-established therapeutic strategy for increasing muscle mass and strength, and emerging evidence suggests it may also attenuate fatty infiltration, inflammation, oxidative stress, and fibrosis in other populations. Despite this therapeutic potential, high-load RT has long been approached with caution in FSHD, and current recommendations largely discourage its use. In this review, we critically examine the historical and scientific basis for this dogma and find that it rests on a small number of poorly substantiated and largely unreplicated studies. We further show that the limited RT trials conducted in individuals with FSHD have consistently reported good tolerability and, in several cases, moderate improvements in strength and function. Critically, no study to date has implemented a true high-load RT protocol alongside validated markers of muscle damage, a design that accounts for the asymmetry of the disease, and imaging that is sensitive enough to detect disease-modifying effects (e.g., MRI). We argue that the current consensus against high-load RT in FSHD reflects an absence of evidence rather than evidence of no benefit. Thus, we hope this narrative review encourages the FSHD community to revisit fundamental questions about the safety and therapeutic potential of high-load RT, and to create practical guidelines based on rigorous studies.
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.