ReviewExperimental physiology2026
The efficacy and physiological bases of small muscle mass exercise in health and disease.
Review in Experimental physiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A comparison of the neuromuscular, cardiopulmonary and muscle oxygenation responses to single- and double-leg cycling in older adults.Experimental physiology · 2026Article
- The efficacy and physiological bases of small muscle mass exercise in health and disease.Experimental physiology · 2026Review
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
The conventional approach to aerobic exercise prescription involves large muscle mass exercise and the manipulation of variables such as training intensity, duration and frequency to promote desired adaptations. However, during whole-body exercise, central limitations (i.e., neural, pulmonary and/or cardiac) constrain exercise tolerance and limit the increase in muscle blood flow and the degree of intramuscular metabolic perturbation incurred. Consequently, even during high-intensity large muscle mass exercise, a substantial peripheral reserve remains, potentially diminishing the adaptive stimuli that drive improvements in peripheral function and, in turn, exercise tolerance. In contrast, these central constraints are markedly attenuated during small muscle mass aerobic exercise, such as single-leg cycling or knee extension. As a result, muscle activation, blood flow, work rate and the magnitude of metabolic perturbation per unit of muscle are considerably greater during small compared with large muscle mass exercise. Because many of these responses are thought to represent key triggers initiating peripheral adaptations, such as angiogenesis and mitochondrial biogenesis, small muscle mass exercise might confer unique advantages for enhancing peripheral vascular and metabolic function. This review outlines the key physiological differences between small and large muscle mass exercise, their relevance to peripheral adaptations, and current evidence on the efficacy of small muscle mass exercise in improving peripheral function and exercise tolerance in performance, health and disease.
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.