Cited by 70Sports Performance and TrainingCardiovascular and exercise physiologyMuscle metabolism and nutrition

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The Effects of 4 and 10 Repetition Maximum Weight-Training Protocols on Neuromuscular Adaptations in Untrained Men

CHESTNUT, JAMES L., DOCHERTY, DAVID·1999·Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to identify and compare the strength, cross-sectional area, specific tension, and anthropometric changes elicited by 4 repetition maximum (RM) and 10RM weight-training protocols in untrained subjects. Twenty-four men (24.17 ± 1.76 years) volunteered to participate and were randomly assigned to either the 4RM group or the 10RM group. Training was performed 3 times per week for 10 weeks; free weights were used to exercise the forearm extensors and flexors. The 4RM group performed 6 sets of 4 repetitions to failure and the 10RM group performed 3 sets of 10 repetitions to failure. Strength (1RM) was measured at 0, 6, and 10 weeks, and muscle cross-sectional area (determined through magnetic resonance imagery), specific tension (kilograms per square centimeter), and relaxed-and flexed-arm girth (corrected for skinfolds) were measured at 0 and 10 weeks. Significant (p < 0.05) increases in both forearm extensor and flexor 1RM strength, muscle cross-sectional area, specific tension, and flexed-arm girth occurred in both groups. The 4RM and 10RM loading intensities elicited significant and equal increases in strength, cross-sectional area, specific tension, and flexed girth. These results suggest that 4RM and 10RM weight-training protocols equated for volume produce similar neuromuscular adaptations over 10 weeks in previously untrained subjects.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1519/00124278-199911000-00009

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
CHESTNUT, J. L., & DOCHERTY, D.
Affiliations
University of Victoria (CA)
Venue
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Published
1999-11
Volume
13
Issue
4
Pages
353-359
ISSN
1064-8011 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2090820764
Cited by
70
References
1
Citations by year
2022: 1 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 2 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 3
FWCI
1.46
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • University of Victoria
  • Victoria University
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Orthopedics and Sports Medicine › Sports Performance and Training
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology (medical) › Cardiovascular and exercise physiology
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Muscle metabolism and nutrition
Keywords
weight training, repetition maximum, training volume, neuromuscular adaptation, muscle strength, muscle cross-sectional area, specific tension, forearm extensors, forearm flexors, untrained men, arm circumference, exercise intensity

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review