The Influence of Periodized Resistance Training on Strength Changes in Men and Women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to contrast the response of previously resistance-trained male and female recreational athletes with a traditionally periodized resistance training program. Sixty subjects (age = 22.8 ± 4.5 years) were assigned to 3 groups: male training (MT), n = 20; female training (FT), n = 20; and control, n = 20 (men, n = 10; women, n = 10). The MT and FT groups completed 12 weeks of traditional periodized strength training, with strength testing at baseline and at weeks 8 and 12. The training programs were identical (e.g., rest time, exercises, volume, and intensity) in both groups. In weeks 1 and 2, the FT and MT groups were trained 3 d·wk (324 repetitions [reps]·wk) and thereafter 4 d·wk (mean 642 reps·wk). The mean volume and intensity over the 12 weeks was 571 reps·wk and 69.7% of 1 repetition maximum. Results indicated that the men were significantly (p ≤ 0.05) stronger in absolute terms at baseline and at weeks 8 and 12. The FT group (increase = 26.2% at week 8 and 38.1% at week 12) made significantly (p ≤ 0.05) greater percent increases in strength than the MT group (increase = 17.7% at week 8 and 28.0% at week 12). The FT and MT groups made significant (p ≤ 0.05) changes in relative strength at all time points, but the MT group demonstrated greater relative strength on lateral pull-down and dumbbell shoulder press. In practical terms, the men were absolutely stronger than the women, but the women were more responsive to the periodized resistance training program. Twelve weeks of traditionally periodized resistance training induced meaningful strength gains in women (≥ 30%) and men (≥ 25%) with prior (approximately 11 months) nonperiodized resistance training experience.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".