The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Applications of the Dose-Response for Muscular Strength Development: A Review of Meta-Analytic Efficacy and Reliability for Designing Training Prescription
Abstract
There has been a proliferation in recent scholarly discussion regarding the scientific validity of single vs. multiple sets of resistance training (dose) to optimize muscular strength development (response). Recent meta-analytical research indicates that there exist distinct muscular adaptations, and dose-response relationships, that correspond to certain populations. It seems that training status influences the requisite doses as well as the potential magnitude of response. Specifically, for individuals seeking to experience muscular strength development beyond that of general health, an increase in resistance-training dosage must accompany increases in training experience. The purpose of this document is to analyze and apply the findings of 2 meta-analytical investigations that identified dose-response relationships for 3 populations: previously untrained, recreationally trained, and athlete; and thereby reveal distinct, quantified, dose-response trends for each population segment. Two meta-analytical investigations, consisting of 177 studies and 1,803 effect sizes (ES) were examined to extract the dose-response continuums for intensity, frequency, volume of training, and the resultant strength increases, specific to each population. ES data demonstrate unique dose-response relationships per population. For untrained individuals, maximal strength gains are elicited at a mean training intensity of 60% of 1 repetition maximum (1RM), 3 days per week, and with a mean training volume of 4 sets per muscle group. Recreationally trained nonathletes exhibit maximal strength gains with a mean training intensity of 80% of 1RM, 2 days per week, and a mean volume of 4 sets. For athlete populations, maximal strength gains are elicited at a mean training intensity of 85% of 1RM, 2 days per week, and with a mean training volume of 8 sets per muscle group. These meta-analyses demonstrate that the effort-to-benefit ratio is different for untrained, recreationally trained, and athlete populations; thus, emphasizing the necessity of appropriate exercise prescription to optimize training effect. Exercise professionals may apply these dose-response trends to prescribe appropriate, goal-oriented training programs.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“Maximal strength gains for untrained individuals are elicited at a mean training intensity of 60% of 1RM, 3 days per week, and with four sets per muscle group.”
From Minimalist Training: Is Lower Dosage or Intensity Resistance Training Effective to Improve Physical Fitness? A Narrative Review (2024) · cites this paper as Peterson et al. [79]
In the citing paper
“For athletes, 85% of 1RM, 2 days per week, and with eight sets per muscle group, would be optimal to achieve maximal strength gains.”
From Minimalist Training: Is Lower Dosage or Intensity Resistance Training Effective to Improve Physical Fitness? A Narrative Review (2024) · cites this paper as Peterson et al. [79]
In the citing paper
“Recreationally trained individuals can achieve maximal strength gains with 80% 1RM, 2 days per week, with a volume of four sets.”
From Minimalist Training: Is Lower Dosage or Intensity Resistance Training Effective to Improve Physical Fitness? A Narrative Review (2024) · cites this paper as Peterson et al. [79]
Citations
Cites
Still being checked.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 301–304 of 304
Govindasamy, K., Gogoi, H., Jebabli, N., Bediri, S. M., Aljahni, M. A., Parpa, K., Clark, C. C. T., Granacher, U., & Zouhal, H. (2024) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.26717280
Gai, B., Yan, M., Yang, G., Shi, H., Zhu, Y., & Tian, X. (2026) · BMC Sports Science Medicine and Rehabilitation · doi:10.1186/s13102-026-01683-z
Jones, T. W. A. (2014) · Northumbria Research Link (Northumbria University)
Lamprecht, T. (2008) · University of Vienna · doi:10.25365/thesis.2635
Metadata
- Authors
- Peterson, M. D., Rhea, M. R., & Alvar, B. A.
- Affiliations
- Arizona State University (US)
- Southern Utah University (US)
- Venue
- The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
- Published
- 2005
- Volume
- 19
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 950
- ISSN
- 1064-8011 (ISSN-L)
- 1533-4287
- OpenAlex
- W2038693092
- Cited by
- 303
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 27 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 19 · 2018: 21 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 22 · 2014: 24 · 2013: 17 · 2012: 12
- FWCI
- 7.07
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- 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
- dose-response relationship, resistance training, training prescription, training status, untrained individuals, athletes, exercise intensity, exercise frequency, training volume
- MeSH terms
- Humans, Muscle Contraction, Physical Education and Training, Physical Fitness, Sports, Meta-Analysis as Topic, Muscle, Skeletal
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