Scientific Rigour: a Heavy or Light Load to Carry?

Steele, James; Fisher, James

doi:10.1007/s40279-013-0113-2

Cited by 7 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Thus, using studies that utilized different assessment methods in the same analysis may produce inaccurate and misleading results. The same is true for in vitro and in vivo methods of assessing change in hypertrophy as discussed previously (Steele and Fisher, 2014; Fisher et al, 2016d). Furthermore, the use of effect sizes in general has recently been challenged (Dankel et al, 2016b), and since meta-analyses calculate overall results from this value we urge caution in meta-analyses which provide conclusions contradictory to a body of research.…”

Section: Impact Of Resistance Training Variablesmentioning

confidence: 72%

Is There Any Practical Application of Meta-Analytical Results in Strength Training?

et al. 2017

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Impact Of Resistance Training Variablesmentioning

confidence: 72%

Is There Any Practical Application of Meta-Analytical Results in Strength Training?

et al. 2017

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…In support of this concern, a study by Mitchell et al [19] included in the meta-analysis conducted both MRI and biopsy measures of hypertrophy in response to different resistance training loads and reported that relative increases appear greater for biopsy measures (mean = ~17-30% type I and ~16-18% type II; favouring low and high load conditions respectively in terms of effect size) compared to MRI (~7%; favouring the high load condition in terms of effect size). McCall et al [20] have also reported differences between muscle biopsy and MRI methods in magnitude of CSA increase (mean =; biopsy = 10% type I fibre and 17% type II vs. 11.2% MRI). It is not clear from the metaanalysis method section how the authors dealt with the inclusion of the different outcome measures for hypertrophy used by Mitchell et al [19], i.e.…”

Section: Hypertrophic Adaptationsmentioning

confidence: 95%

High- and Low-Load Resistance Training: Interpretation and Practical Application of Current Research Findings

2016

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Our current state of knowledge regarding the load (lighter or heavier) lifted in resistance training programmes that will result in 'optimal' strength and hypertrophic adaptations is unclear. Despite this, position stands and recommendations are made based on, we propose, limited evidence to lift heavier weights. Here we discuss the state of evidence on the impact of load and how it, as a single variable, stimulates adaptations to take place and whether evidence for recommending heavier loads is available, well-defined, currently correctly interpreted or has been overlooked. Areas of discussion include electromyography amplitude, in vivo and in vitro methods of measuring hypertrophy, and motor schema and skill acquisition. The present piece clarifies to trainers and trainees the impact of these variables by discussing interpretation of synchronous and sequential motor unit recruitment and revisiting the size principle, poor agreement between whole-muscle cross-sectional area (CSA) and biopsy-determined changes in myofibril CSA, and neural adaptations around task specificity. Our opinion is that the practical implications of being able to self-select external load include reducing the need for specific facility memberships, motivating older persons or those who might be less confident using heavy loads, and allowing people to undertake home- or field-based resistance training intervention strategies that might ultimately improve exercise adherence.

show abstract

“…Recent research supports that similar gains in muscle hypertrophy are attainable by heavy or light external loads when RE is continued to a point of muscular failure ( Mitchell et al, 2012 ; Ogasawara et al, 2013 ; Van Roie et al, 2013 ). Indeed, there appears little evidence that the use of heavy loads produces significantly greater gains in hypertrophy than training with lighter loads ( Fisher et al, 2013 ; Steele et al, 2014 ). The use of different external resistance types (i.e.…”

Section: Recent Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Questioning the Resistance/Aerobic Training Dichotomy: A Commentary on Physiological Adaptations Determined by Effort Rather than Exercise Modality

Fisher

Steele

2014

Journal of Human Kinetics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper discusses and challenges the current opinion that exercise adaptation is generally defined by modality; resistance exercise (RE), or aerobic exercise (AE). In presenting a strong body of recent research which demonstrably challenges these perceptions we suggest alternate hypotheses towards physiological adaptation which is hinged more upon the effort than the exercise modality. Practical implications of this interpretation of exercise adaptation might effect change in exercise adherence since existing barriers to exercise of time, costs, specialized equipment, etc. become nullified. In presenting the evidence herein we suggest that lay persons wishing to attain the health and fitness (including strength and muscle hypertrophy) benefits of exercise can choose from a wide range of potential exercise modalities so long as the effort is high. Future research should consider this hypothesis by directly comparing RE and AE for acute responses and chronic adaptations.

show abstract

Scientific Rigour: a Heavy or Light Load to Carry?

Cited by 7 publications

References 15 publications

Is There Any Practical Application of Meta-Analytical Results in Strength Training?

Is There Any Practical Application of Meta-Analytical Results in Strength Training?

High- and Low-Load Resistance Training: Interpretation and Practical Application of Current Research Findings

Questioning the Resistance/Aerobic Training Dichotomy: A Commentary on Physiological Adaptations Determined by Effort Rather than Exercise Modality

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About