↓ Skip to main content

Michigan Publishing

Article Metrics

Effects of Low- vs. High-Load Resistance Training on Muscle Strength and Hypertrophy in Well-Trained Men

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#42 of 4,964)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
6 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
160 tweeters
facebook
37 Facebook pages
googleplus
2 Google+ users
reddit
1 Redditor
video
40 video uploaders

Citations

dimensions_citation
94 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
428 Mendeley
Title
Effects of Low- vs. High-Load Resistance Training on Muscle Strength and Hypertrophy in Well-Trained Men
Published in
Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, October 2015
DOI 10.1519/jsc.0000000000000958
Pubmed ID
Authors

Brad J. Schoenfeld, Mark D. Peterson, Dan Ogborn, Bret Contreras, Gul T. Sonmez

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to compare the effect of low- versus high-load resistance training (RT) on muscular adaptations in well-trained subjects. Eighteen young men experienced in RT were matched according to baseline strength, and then randomly assigned to 1 of 2 experimental groups: a low-load RT routine (LL) where 25-35 repetitions were performed per set per exercise (n = 9), or a high-load RT routine (HL) where 8-12 repetitions were performed per set per exercise (n = 9). During each session, subjects in both groups performed 3 sets of 7 different exercises representing all major muscles. Training was carried out 3 times per week on non-consecutive days, for 8 total weeks. Both HL and LL conditions produced significant increases in thickness of the elbow flexors (5.3 vs. 8.6%, respectively), elbow extensors (6.0 vs. 5.2%, respectively), and quadriceps femoris (9.3 vs. 9.5%, respectively), with no significant differences noted between groups. Improvements in back squat strength were significantly greater for HL compared to LL (19.6 vs. 8.8%, respectively) and there was a trend for greater increases in 1RM bench press (6.5 vs. 2.0%, respectively). Upper body muscle endurance (assessed by the bench press at 50% 1RM to failure) improved to a greater extent in LL compared to HL (16.6% vs. -1.2%, respectively). These findings indicate that both HL and LL training to failure can elicit significant increases in muscle hypertrophy among well-trained young men; however, HL training is superior for maximizing strength adaptations.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 160 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 428 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 4 <1%
Spain 3 <1%
Germany 2 <1%
United States 2 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
Mexico 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Norway 1 <1%
Indonesia 1 <1%
Other 1 <1%
Unknown 411 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 114 27%
Student > Master 87 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 52 12%
Unspecified 42 10%
Researcher 24 6%
Other 109 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 206 48%
Unspecified 58 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 45 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 38 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 34 8%
Other 47 11%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 196. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 September 2019.
All research outputs
#67,956
of 13,500,950 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research
#42
of 4,964 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,474
of 223,992 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research
#1
of 110 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,500,950 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,964 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 223,992 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 110 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.