↓ Skip to main content

Muscular adaptations in response to three different resistance-training regimens: specificity of repetition maximum training zones

Overview of attention for article published in European Journal of Applied Physiology, August 2002
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • 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)

Citations

dimensions_citation
729 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
1575 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Muscular adaptations in response to three different resistance-training regimens: specificity of repetition maximum training zones
Published in
European Journal of Applied Physiology, August 2002
DOI 10.1007/s00421-002-0681-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gerson E. Campos, Thomas J. Luecke, Heather K. Wendeln, Kumika Toma, Fredrick C. Hagerman, Thomas F. Murray, Kerry E. Ragg, Nicholas A. Ratamess, William J. Kraemer, Robert S. Staron

Abstract

Thirty-two untrained men [mean (SD) age 22.5 (5.8) years, height 178.3 (7.2) cm, body mass 77.8 (11.9) kg] participated in an 8-week progressive resistance-training program to investigate the "strength-endurance continuum". Subjects were divided into four groups: a low repetition group (Low Rep, n = 9) performing 3-5 repetitions maximum (RM) for four sets of each exercise with 3 min rest between sets and exercises, an intermediate repetition group (Int Rep, n = 11) performing 9-11 RM for three sets with 2 min rest, a high repetition group (High Rep, n = 7) performing 20-28 RM for two sets with 1 min rest, and a non-exercising control group (Con, n = 5). Three exercises (leg press, squat, and knee extension) were performed 2 days/week for the first 4 weeks and 3 days/week for the final 4 weeks. Maximal strength [one repetition maximum, 1RM), local muscular endurance (maximal number of repetitions performed with 60% of 1RM), and various cardiorespiratory parameters (e.g., maximum oxygen consumption, pulmonary ventilation, maximal aerobic power, time to exhaustion) were assessed at the beginning and end of the study. In addition, pre- and post-training muscle biopsy samples were analyzed for fiber-type composition, cross-sectional area, myosin heavy chain (MHC) content, and capillarization. Maximal strength improved significantly more for the Low Rep group compared to the other training groups, and the maximal number of repetitions at 60% 1RM improved the most for the High Rep group. In addition, maximal aerobic power and time to exhaustion significantly increased at the end of the study for only the High Rep group. All three major fiber types (types I, IIA, and IIB) hypertrophied for the Low Rep and Int Rep groups, whereas no significant increases were demonstrated for either the High Rep or Con groups. However, the percentage of type IIB fibers decreased, with a concomitant increase in IIAB fibers for all three resistance-trained groups. These fiber-type conversions were supported by a significant decrease in MHCIIb accompanied by a significant increase in MHCIIa. No significant changes in fiber-type composition were found in the control samples. Although all three training regimens resulted in similar fiber-type transformations (IIB to IIA), the low to intermediate repetition resistance-training programs induced a greater hypertrophic effect compared to the high repetition regimen. The High Rep group, however, appeared better adapted for submaximal, prolonged contractions, with significant increases after training in aerobic power and time to exhaustion. Thus, low and intermediate RM training appears to induce similar muscular adaptations, at least after short-term training in previously untrained subjects. Overall, however, these data demonstrate that both physical performance and the associated physiological adaptations are linked to the intensity and number of repetitions performed, and thus lend support to the "strength-endurance continuum".

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 40 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 1,575 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 11 <1%
United States 10 <1%
Germany 4 <1%
United Kingdom 3 <1%
Norway 2 <1%
France 2 <1%
Portugal 2 <1%
Spain 2 <1%
Denmark 2 <1%
Other 9 <1%
Unknown 1528 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 327 21%
Student > Master 282 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 160 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 88 6%
Student > Postgraduate 85 5%
Other 309 20%
Unknown 324 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 647 41%
Medicine and Dentistry 174 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 126 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 100 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 47 3%
Other 135 9%
Unknown 346 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 92. 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 03 March 2024.
All research outputs
#466,143
of 25,628,260 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Applied Physiology
#115
of 4,378 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#305
of 48,195 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Applied Physiology
#1
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,628,260 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,378 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 48,195 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 14 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.