Cited by 418Sports Performance and TrainingMuscle metabolism and nutritionCardiovascular and exercise physiology

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 67 of the 67 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Effects of Low- vs. High-Load Resistance Training on Muscle Strength and Hypertrophy in Well-Trained Men

Schoenfeld, Brad J., Peterson, Mark D., Ogborn, Dan, Contreras, Bret, Sonmez, Gul T.·2015·Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to compare the effect of low- versus high-load resistance training (RT) on muscular adaptations in well-trained subjects. Eighteen young men experienced in RT were matched according to baseline strength and then randomly assigned to 1 of 2 experimental groups: a low-load RT routine (LL) where 25-35 repetitions were performed per set per exercise (n = 9) or a high-load RT routine (HL) where 8-12 repetitions were performed per set per exercise (n = 9). During each session, subjects in both groups performed 3 sets of 7 different exercises representing all major muscles. Training was performed 3 times per week on nonconsecutive days, for a total of 8 weeks. Both HL and LL conditions produced significant increases in thickness of the elbow flexors (5.3 vs. 8.6%, respectively), elbow extensors (6.0 vs. 5.2%, respectively), and quadriceps femoris (9.3 vs. 9.5%, respectively), with no significant differences noted between groups. Improvements in back squat strength were significantly greater for HL compared with LL (19.6 vs. 8.8%, respectively), and there was a trend for greater increases in 1 repetition maximum (1RM) bench press (6.5 vs. 2.0%, respectively). Upper body muscle endurance (assessed by the bench press at 50% 1RM to failure) improved to a greater extent in LL compared with HL (16.6 vs. -1.2%, respectively). These findings indicate that both HL and LL training to failure can elicit significant increases in muscle hypertrophy among well-trained young men; however, HL training is superior for maximizing strength adaptations.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1519/jsc.0000000000000958

Cites

67 of 67 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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 418

Metadata

Authors
Schoenfeld, B. J., Peterson, M. D., Ogborn, D., Contreras, B., & Sonmez, G. T.
Affiliations
Lehman College (US)
Corresponding author
Schoenfeld, Brad J.
Venue
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Published
2015-10
Volume
29
Issue
10
Pages
2954-2963
ISSN
1064-8011 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1995833662
Cited by
418
References
67
Citations by year
2026: 24 · 2025: 40 · 2024: 40 · 2023: 41 · 2022: 43 · 2021: 40 · 2020: 45 · 2019: 40 · 2018: 35 · 2017: 38 · 2016: 24 · 2015: 8
FWCI
35.93
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Orthopedics and Sports Medicine › Sports Performance and Training
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Muscle metabolism and nutrition
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology (medical) › Cardiovascular and exercise physiology
Keywords
resistance training, training load, muscle hypertrophy, muscle strength, trained men, training to failure, muscular endurance, back squat, bench press, elbow flexors, elbow extensors, quadriceps
MeSH terms
Adaptation, Physiological, Adult, Humans, Hypertrophy, Male, Physical Fitness, Random Allocation, Muscle, Skeletal, Upper Extremity, Lower Extremity, Muscle Strength, Resistance Training, Young Adult

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