Recent evidence suggests that resistance training with light or heavy loads to failure results in similar adaptations. Herein, we compared how both training modalities affect the molecular, neuromuscular, and recovery responses following exercise. Resistance-trained males (mean ± SE: 22 ± 2 years, 84.8 ± 9.0 kg, 1.79 ± 0.06 m; n = 15) performed a crossover design of four sets of leg extensor exercise at 30% (light RE) or 80% (heavy RE) one repetition maximum (1RM) to repetition failure, and heavy RE or light RE 1 week later. Surface electromyography (EMG) was monitored during exercise, and vastus lateralis muscle biopsies were collected at baseline (PRE), 15 min (15mPOST), and 90 min following RE (90mPOST) for examination of molecular targets and fiber typing. Isokinetic dynamometry was also performed before (PRE), immediately after (POST), and 48 h after (48hPOST) exercise. Dependent variables were analyzed using repeated measures ANOVAs and significance was set at P ≤ 0.05. Repetitions completed were greater during light RE (P < 0.01), while EMG amplitude was greater during heavy RE (P ≤ 0.01). POST isokinetic torque was reduced following light versus heavy RE (P < 0.05). Postexercise expression of mRNAs and phosphoproteins associated with muscle hypertrophy were similar between load conditions. Additionally, p70s6k (Thr389) phosphorylation and fast-twitch fiber proportion exhibited a strong relationship after both light and heavy RE (r > 0.5). While similar mRNA and phosphoprotein responses to both modalities occurred, we posit that heavy RE is a more time-efficient training method given the differences in total repetitions completed, lower EMG amplitude during light RE, and impaired recovery response after light RE.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 91. 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 11 August 2026.
All research outputs
#583,043
of 33,779,198 outputs
Outputs from Physiological Reports
#66
of 3,625 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,252
of 356,908 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Physiological Reports
#1
of 84 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 33,779,198 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 3,625 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 356,908 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 84 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 98% of its contemporaries.
