| Title |
Strength Training for Female Athletes
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Sports Medicine, November 2012
|
| DOI | 10.2165/00007256-199009040-00003 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jean Barrett Holloway, Thomas R. Baechle |
| Abstract |
Women and men respond to strength training in very similar ways from their individual pretraining baselines. Women on the average have smaller bodies than men, have less absolute muscle mass and smaller individual muscle fibers, and display approximately two-thirds of the absolute overall strength and power of men. In addition, children are enculturated to view strength as masculine, an outlook which has depressed the pursuit and performance of strength activities by women. However, unit for unit, female muscle tissue is similar in force output to male muscle tissue, and there is some evidence to support similar, proportional increases for the sexes in strength performance and hypertrophy of muscle fibre relative to pretraining status. Strength training can also provide beneficial alterations in bone, body fat and self-concept in women. There is no evidence that women should train differently than men, and training programmes should be tailored for each individual. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 64 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 64 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 6 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 5 | 8% |
| Researcher | 4 | 6% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 15 | 23% |
| Unknown | 24 | 38% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Sports and Recreations | 16 | 25% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 6% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 5% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 5% |
| Engineering | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 9 | 14% |
| Unknown | 26 | 41% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 20 January 2015.
All research outputs
#7,204,326
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Sports Medicine
#2,142
of 2,875 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#69,375
of 285,549 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Sports Medicine
#296
of 525 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,875 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 56.8. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 285,549 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 525 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.