Evidence mapPaperPMID 36199287Full record

Trial reportPeerJ2022

Progressive overload without progressing load? The effects of load or repetition progression on muscular adaptations.

Daniel Plotkin, Max Coleman, Derrick Van Every, Jaime Maldonado, Douglas Oberlin, Michael Israetel, Jared Feather, Andrew Alto, Andrew D Vigotsky, Brad J Schoenfeld

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in PeerJ, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
10.7field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 63 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Daniel PlotkinCity University of New York, Herbert H. Lehman College, Bronx, United States.
Max ColemanCity University of New York, Herbert H. Lehman College, Bronx, United States.
Derrick Van EveryCity University of New York, Herbert H. Lehman College, Bronx, United States.
Jaime MaldonadoCity University of New York, Herbert H. Lehman College, Bronx, United States.
Douglas OberlinCity University of New York, Herbert H. Lehman College, Bronx, United States.
Michael IsraetelRenaissance Periodization, Charlotte, NC, United States.
Jared FeatherRenaissance Periodization, Charlotte, NC, United States.
Andrew AltoCity University of New York, Herbert H. Lehman College, Bronx, United States.
Andrew D VigotskyNorthwestern University, Evanston, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-3166-0688
Brad J SchoenfeldCity University of New York, Herbert H. Lehman College, Bronx, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-4979-5783
Lehman College · USNorthwestern University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Progressive overload is a principle of resistance training exercise program design that typically relies on increasing load to increase neuromuscular demand to facilitate further adaptations. However, little attention has been given to another way of increasing demand-increasing the number of repetitions. Objective: This study aimed to compare the effects of two resistance training programs: (1) increasing load while keeping repetition range constant Methods: Forty-three participants with at least 1 year of consistent lower body resistance training experience were randomly assigned to one of two experimental, parallel groups: A group that aimed to increase load while keeping repetitions constant (LOAD: Results: Rectus femoris growth modestly favored REPS (adjusted effect estimate (CI Conclusion: Both progressions of repetitions and load appear to be viable strategies for enhancing muscular adaptations over an 8-week training cycle, which provides trainers and trainees with another promising approach to programming resistance training.

Indexed as

Muscle, SkeletalResistance TrainingFemaleHumansLegMaleMuscle StrengthQuadriceps MuscleMuscle hypertrophyMuscle strengthMuscular adaptationsProgressive overloadSpecificity

Identifiers

PMID36199287
PMCPMC9528903
OpenAlexW4298143965

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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 Socratic graph.