ArticleScientific reports2025
Knowledge of gym goers on myths and truths in resistance training.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Sex-specific changes in appetite and energy intake in response to chronic resistance training in rats.Physiological reports · 2026Article
- Investigating the Differences in the Simple Reaction Time and Muscle Stiffness Between Gym Users and Open-Skills Sport Practitioners: An Exploratory Study.Brain sciences · 2026Article
- Effects of foam rolling and the knowledge-to-action gap: are practitioners' beliefs supported by the evidence? An international survey study.BMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation · 2026Article
- Training competence questionnaire for endurance and strength training: development and validation.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Over the last decades, resistance training (RT) has experienced a surge in popularity, and compelling evidence underpins its beneficial effects on health, well-being, and performance. However, sports and exercise research findings may translate poorly into practice. This study investigated the knowledge of Austrian gym-goers regarding common myths and truths in RT. Based on topical systematic reviews (n = 45), a digital questionnaire with 14 statements on RT methods and practices, randomly phrased as myths or truths, was administered to Austrians exercising in local fitness centres. Chi-squared tests were used to check if a majority correctly identified true and false statements. A total of n = 721 (30.1 ± 14 years, 454 males) out of n = 790 contacted individuals completed the survey (response rate: 91.2 percent). Five out of fourteen statements (truth: protein augments strength and hypertrophy, creatine augments strength, superiority of full- vs. partial-ROM RT for hypertrophy; myth: RT reduces flexibility, low-load, high-volume RT is as effective as high-load RT with regard to maximal strength) were identified correctly by a majority (p < .01). The awareness of the scientific evidence on RT is low among gym-goers. Upcoming studies should be geared to improve science communication.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.