ReviewJournal of functional morphology and kinesiology2026
Towards a Conceptual Framework for Mechanical Dose in Skeletal Muscle: Integrating Mechanobiology and Resistance Training.
Review in Journal of functional morphology and kinesiology, 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Despite major advances in exercise physiology, biomechanics, and mechanobiology, exercise science still lacks a clear conceptual definition of the mechanical stimulus experienced by skeletal muscle during resistance training. Current approaches rely on diverse external, internal, and biomechanical variables (e.g., volume-load, force, power, velocity, time under tension, or muscle architecture), yet none individually captures the muscle-specific mechanical exposure relevant to muscular adaptation. This conceptual inconsistency limits comparisons across studies, complicates training prescription, and hinders the development of individualized monitoring strategies. This integrative review critically synthesizes current evidence from mechanobiology, skeletal muscle physiology, biomechanics, and resistance training to examine how mechanical stimuli are currently conceptualized, quantified, and interpreted. Based on this synthesis, we propose a working definition of Mechanical Dose as the cumulative, muscle-specific mechanical exposure experienced over a defined time window, characterized by loading magnitude, rate, duration, frequency, and spatial distribution, and conditioned by contraction mode and muscle-tendon geometry. Rather than representing a directly measurable variable, mechanical dose is presented as a latent conceptual construct that can only be estimated through combinations of biomechanical, physiological, and morphological indicators. Building upon this definition, we introduce an integrative conceptual framework linking external load, movement biomechanics, mechanical dose, mechanotransduction, and tissue adaptation. We further discuss how this framework may guide future research on the interpretation of field-based monitoring, resistance training prescription, recovery management, and future explainable artificial intelligence approaches in sport science. By reframing mechanical dose as the central construct connecting biomechanics and biological adaptation, this review provides a unified conceptual basis for future research and contributes toward a more biologically informed paradigm of exercise prescription and monitoring.
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.