↓ Skip to main content

Training Monitoring for Resistance Exercise: Theory and Applications

Overview of attention for article published in Sports Medicine, January 2016
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 (97th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
114 X users
facebook
5 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
168 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
717 Mendeley
Title
Training Monitoring for Resistance Exercise: Theory and Applications
Published in
Sports Medicine, January 2016
DOI 10.1007/s40279-015-0454-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Brendan R. Scott, Grant M. Duthie, Heidi R. Thornton, Ben J. Dascombe

Abstract

Resistance exercise is difficult to quantify owing to its inherent complexity with numerous training variables contributing to the training dose (type of exercise, load lifted, training volume, inter-set rest periods, and repetition velocity). In addition, the intensity of resistance training is often inadequately determined as the relative load lifted (% 1-repetition maximum), which does not account for the effects of inter-set recovery periods, repetition velocity, or the number of repetitions performed in each set at a given load. Methods to calculate the volume load associated with resistance training, as well as the perceived intensity of individual sets and entire training sessions have been shown to provide useful information regarding the actual training stimulus. In addition, questionnaires to subjectively assess how athletes are coping with the stressors of training and portable technologies to quantify performance variables such as concentric velocity may also be valuable. However, while several methods have been proposed to quantify resistance training, there is not yet a consensus regarding how these methods can be best implemented and integrated to complement each other. Therefore, the purpose of this review is to provide practical information for strength coaches to highlight effective methods to assess resistance training, and how they can be integrated into a comprehensive monitoring program.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 114 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 717 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 3 <1%
Brazil 2 <1%
Malaysia 1 <1%
Ireland 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 708 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 120 17%
Student > Master 116 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 84 12%
Researcher 46 6%
Student > Postgraduate 37 5%
Other 145 20%
Unknown 169 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 394 55%
Nursing and Health Professions 32 4%
Medicine and Dentistry 30 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 17 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 13 2%
Other 52 7%
Unknown 179 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 72. 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 07 September 2022.
All research outputs
#600,183
of 25,591,967 outputs
Outputs from Sports Medicine
#563
of 2,889 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#10,565
of 401,340 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Sports Medicine
#19
of 63 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,591,967 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,889 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 57.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% 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 401,340 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 63 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.