↓ Skip to main content

The Importance of Muscular Strength: Training Considerations

Overview of attention for article published in Sports Medicine, January 2018
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 (#38 of 2,914)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
26 news outlets
twitter
442 X users
facebook
10 Facebook pages
video
3 YouTube creators

Citations

dimensions_citation
472 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
2248 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The Importance of Muscular Strength: Training Considerations
Published in
Sports Medicine, January 2018
DOI 10.1007/s40279-018-0862-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Timothy J. Suchomel, Sophia Nimphius, Christopher R. Bellon, Michael H. Stone

Abstract

This review covers underlying physiological characteristics and training considerations that may affect muscular strength including improving maximal force expression and time-limited force expression. Strength is underpinned by a combination of morphological and neural factors including muscle cross-sectional area and architecture, musculotendinous stiffness, motor unit recruitment, rate coding, motor unit synchronization, and neuromuscular inhibition. Although single- and multi-targeted block periodization models may produce the greatest strength-power benefits, concepts within each model must be considered within the limitations of the sport, athletes, and schedules. Bilateral training, eccentric training and accentuated eccentric loading, and variable resistance training may produce the greatest comprehensive strength adaptations. Bodyweight exercise, isolation exercises, plyometric exercise, unilateral exercise, and kettlebell training may be limited in their potential to improve maximal strength but are still relevant to strength development by challenging time-limited force expression and differentially challenging motor demands. Training to failure may not be necessary to improve maximum muscular strength and is likely not necessary for maximum gains in strength. Indeed, programming that combines heavy and light loads may improve strength and underpin other strength-power characteristics. Multiple sets appear to produce superior training benefits compared to single sets; however, an athlete's training status and the dose-response relationship must be considered. While 2- to 5-min interset rest intervals may produce the greatest strength-power benefits, rest interval length may vary based an athlete's training age, fiber type, and genetics. Weaker athletes should focus on developing strength before emphasizing power-type training. Stronger athletes may begin to emphasize power-type training while maintaining/improving their strength. Future research should investigate how best to implement accentuated eccentric loading and variable resistance training and examine how initial strength affects an athlete's ability to improve their performance following various training methods.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 442 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 2,248 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 2248 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 399 18%
Student > Master 293 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 136 6%
Researcher 87 4%
Student > Postgraduate 84 4%
Other 376 17%
Unknown 873 39%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 790 35%
Nursing and Health Professions 166 7%
Medicine and Dentistry 120 5%
Unspecified 62 3%
Social Sciences 34 2%
Other 154 7%
Unknown 922 41%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 485. 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 13 May 2024.
All research outputs
#56,206
of 25,931,626 outputs
Outputs from Sports Medicine
#38
of 2,914 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,344
of 453,858 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Sports Medicine
#2
of 54 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,931,626 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 2,914 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 55.5. 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 453,858 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 54 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 96% of its contemporaries.