The role of volume-load in strength and absolute endurance adaptations in adolescent’s performing high- or low-load resistance training
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study compared high- (HL) and low-load (LL) resistance training (RT) on strength, absolute endurance, volume-load, and their relationships in untrained adolescents. Thirty-three untrained adolescents of both sexes (males, n = 17; females, n = 16; 14 ± 1 years) were randomly assigned into either (i) HL (n = 17): performing 3 sets of 4-6 repetitions to momentary concentric failure; or (ii) LL (n = 16): performing 2 sets of 12-15 repetitions to momentary concentric failure. RT was performed for 2×/week for 9 weeks. Change in maximum strength (1 repetition maximum) and absolute muscular endurance for barbell bench press was assessed. Weekly volume-load was calculated as sets (n) × repetitions (n) × load (kg). Ninety-five percent confidence intervals (CIs) revealed that both groups significantly increased in strength and absolute endurance with large effect sizes (d = 1.51-1.66). There were no between-group differences for change in strength or absolute endurance. Ninety-five percent CIs revealed that both groups significantly increased in weekly volume-load with large effect sizes (HL = 1.66, LL = 1.02). There were no between-group differences for change in volume-load though average weekly volume-load was significantly greater for LL (p < 0.001). Significant Pearson's correlations were found for the HL group between average weekly volume-load and both strength (r = 0.650, p = 0.005) and absolute endurance (r = 0.552, p = 0.022) increases. Strength and absolute endurance increases do not differ between HL and LL conditions in adolescents when performed to momentary concentric failure. Under HL conditions greater weekly volume-load is associated with greater strength and absolute endurance increases.
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) | 0.001 | 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".