CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 21Sports Performance and TrainingMuscle metabolism and nutritionCardiovascular and exercise physiology

Lower-Load is More Effective Than Higher-Load Resistance Training in Increasing Muscle Mass in Young Women

Franco, Cristiane Maria de Castro, Carneiro, Marcelo Augusto da Silva, Alves, Lucas Tatsuo Horinouchi, Júnior, Gersiel Nascimento de Oliveira, de Sousa, Jairo de Freitas Rodrigues, Orsatti, Fábio Lera·2019·Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
DOI 10.1519/jsc.0000000000002970
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Franco, CMdC, Carneiro, MAdS, Alves, LTH, Júnior, GNdO, de Sousa, JdFR, and Orsatti, FL. Lower-load is more effective than higher-load resistance training in increasing muscle mass in young women. J Strength Cond Res 33(7S): S152–S158, 2019—This study was designed to investigate the impact of load (higher vs. lower) performed until or close to volitional fatigue on muscle strength (MS) and fat and bone-free lean mass (FBFM) in young women. To do this, 32 women performed resistance training (RT) in 1 of 2 conditions: lower-load RT (LL; n = 14, age = 24.3 ± 4.8 years and body mass index [BMI] = 23.3 ± 2.8 kg·m −2 ) and higher-load RT (HL; n = 18, age = 23.0 ± 3.3 years and BMI = 22.4 ± 3.3 kg·m −2 ). Leg FBFM (DXA) and MS (1 repetition maximum—unilateral leg extension [LE]) were evaluated before and after 9 weeks (the first week was used for familiarization) of RT. Both groups performed 3 unilateral exercises (LE, leg curl, and leg press), 3 sets per exercise, 60–90 seconds of rest between sets, 2 days per week. In the LL group, the loads used in the exercises were the loads necessary to perform 30–35 repetitions in the first set. For the HL group, the loads used were the loads necessary to perform 8–10 repetitions in the first set. The LL group showed higher RT volume than the HL. Both groups showed leg muscle mass gains ( p < 0.05). However, the LL group was better [ p = 0.032 and effect size (eta 2 = 0.14 [large]) than the HL group in leg FBFM gains (LL = 0.3 kg [IC 95%: 0.4 kg; 0.2 kg] and HL = 0.1 kg [IC 95%: 0.2 kg; 0.0 kg]). Both groups showed MS gains, without any difference between them (LL = 3.4 kg [IC 95%: 4.4 kg; 2.5 kg] and HL = 4.2 kg [IC 95%: 5.1 kg; 3.3 kg]; p = 0.239). Thus, lower-load RT is more effective than higher-load RT in increasing FBFM, but not MS in novice young women.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1519/jsc.0000000000002970

Cites

32 of 32 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • The sex differences in strength benefits may be related to sex differences in prior experience with resistance training and perceived exertion with resistance training sessions, and possible discrepancies between prescribed and complied resistance training dosage.

    “These results may be related to sex differences in prior experience with resistance training and perceived exertion with resistance training sessions as previously suggested (66–68), and possible discrepancies between the prescribed and complied resistance training dosage (35).”

    From Resistance training load effects on muscle hypertrophy and strength gain: systematic review and network meta-analysis. (2021) · cites this paper as [35]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 34 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Franco, C. M. D. C., Carneiro, M. A. D. S., Alves, L. T. H., Júnior, G. N. D. O., de Sousa, J. D. F. R., & Orsatti, F. L.
Affiliations
  • Exercise Biology Research Group (BioEx), Federal University of Triangulo Mineiro (UFTM), Uberaba, Minas Gerais, Brazil; and
  • Universidade Federal do Triângulo Mineiro (BR)
Corresponding author
Orsatti, Fábio Lera
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Publisher
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
Published
2019-07
Volume
33
Issue
1
Pages
S152-S158
ISSN
1064-8011 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1519/jsc.0000000000002970
OpenAlex
W2909419723
Cited by
21
References
34
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 2
FWCI
4.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de Minas Gerais
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Orthopedics and Sports Medicine › Sports Performance and Training
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Cell Biology › Muscle metabolism and nutrition
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Complementary and alternative medicine › Cardiovascular and exercise physiology
Keywords
resistance training, training load, muscle mass, fat-free mass, muscle strength, young women, leg extension, volitional fatigue, training volume, unilateral exercise, leg curl, leg press, body composition, exercise intensity, training duration, exercise progression
MeSH terms
Adult, Body Composition, Female, Humans, Random Allocation, Rest, Muscle, Skeletal, 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