2003
DOI: 10.1249/01.mss.0000053727.63505.d4
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A Meta-analysis to Determine the Dose Response for Strength Development

Abstract: The dose-response trends identified in this analysis support the theory of progression in resistance program design and can be useful in the development of training programs designed to optimize the effort to benefit ratio.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

16
313
3
60

Year Published

2008
2008
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
7
2

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 507 publications
(409 citation statements)
references
References 84 publications
16
313
3
60
Order By: Relevance
“…Using 1RM testing at full squat depths to calculate and apply training loads through a full squat range of motion, results in training loads at the top of the range of motion representing less than 70% of maximum lifting capacity in that range of motion. Consistently training at 60-80% of maximum capacity may promote strength gains in less trained populations but would not be considered sufficient for optimal strength development among more highly trained populations [22]. Quarter squats would not be expected to improve full squat strength due to the lack of stress applied in full squat joint angles and the data in the current study supports that assertion.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 47%
“…Using 1RM testing at full squat depths to calculate and apply training loads through a full squat range of motion, results in training loads at the top of the range of motion representing less than 70% of maximum lifting capacity in that range of motion. Consistently training at 60-80% of maximum capacity may promote strength gains in less trained populations but would not be considered sufficient for optimal strength development among more highly trained populations [22]. Quarter squats would not be expected to improve full squat strength due to the lack of stress applied in full squat joint angles and the data in the current study supports that assertion.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 47%
“…The inclusion criteria for this systematic review were the following: i) the trial was randomized and controlled involving at least two groups, treatment and contrast (using placebo or other supplement); ii) the treatment combined prolonged (≥6 weeks) resistancetraining intervention with whey protein containing supplementation; iii) the study measured primary outcome variables related to LBM, FFM or upper and lower body maximal strength, and estimated from the 1 repetition maximum test (1-RM) measurements; iv) participants were healthy participants of at least 18 years old v) in order to be considered as trained individuals, participants had a minimum of 1 year of consistent strength training [23,24]; vi) the study used whey protein isolate, concentrate or hydrolysate, consumed in isolation, or combined with other nutrients (creatine, amino acids, L-carnitine, etc.) or protein sources (casein, soy, bovine colostrum) as a part of a multi-ingredient; vii) the effects of the treatment were compared to the effects of an isoenergetic contrast treatment (carbohydrate) or other supplements containing no whey protein; viii) data on total calories consumed from the whey protein-containing supplement or contrast nutrient were available; ix) dietary intake was monitored x) the publication presented sufficient data to calculate the mean differences; xi) abstract was published.…”
Section: Inclusion and Exclusion Criteriamentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Although several meta-analyses have shown a clear dose-response relationship between RT volume and muscular adaptations, the majority of studies included were not specific to older individuals (Krieger 2009(Krieger , 2010Rhea et al 2003). The lack of specificity to older individuals may compromise the analysis of data because the older person displays an altered response to RT programs compared to the young, thereby limiting generalizability between these populations (Kosek et al 2006).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%