SynthesisFrontiers in physiology2026
Heavy or light: is muscle fiber growth load-specific? A systematic review and meta-regression.
Synthesis in Frontiers in 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Training load, expressed as a percentage of one-repetition maximum (%1RM), is an important variable in resistance training. Prior studies comparing low- and high-load training on muscle fiber hypertrophy reported conflicting findings, and the load-specific relationship has not been analyzed in a continuous manner. This systematic review and meta-regression explored the relationship between training load and muscle fiber hypertrophy. Methods: A systematic search was conducted in PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, and SPORTDiscus databases. Standardized mean changes (SMC) were calculated and analyzed using multilevel meta-regressions with cluster-robust variance estimation, with exploratory sensitivity and interacting moderator analyses. Eight studies involving 195 participants were included. Results: In the fiber-type specific model, pairwise contrast estimates were negative at low loads (20-30% 1RM: -0.147 to -0.088 SMC) and positive at higher loads (60-90% 1RM: 0.089-0.265 SMC). However, the 95% confidence intervals included zero for all pairwise contrasts. Conclusion: The observed model estimates suggested a potential fiber-type specific pattern across loading ranges. However, these findings should be considered preliminary and interpreted with caution given the small number of included studies and wide 95% confidence and prediction intervals, indicating a degree of uncertainty and imprecision.
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.