Neither repetition duration nor number of muscle actions affect strength increases, body composition, muscle size, or fasted blood glucose in trained males and females
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A key variable within resistance training (RT) is that of repetition duration: the time (seconds) taken to perform the concentric and eccentric muscle actions of a repetition. Research has produced equivocal results with regard to strength and muscle mass increases; many studies have created parity in the number of repetitions, but there has been disparity in the load used and the time under load (TUL). The purpose of this study was to compare load- and TUL-matched groups performing resistance exercise using different repetition durations. Fifty-nine male and female participants were randomized into 3 groups: 2s:4s (n = 18), 10s:10s (n = 20), or a group that performed 30 s of eccentric, 30 s of concentric, and 30 s of eccentric muscle actions (e.g., 1.5 repetitions; n = 21). Participants were supervised in one-on-one RT sessions 2 days/week for 10 weeks. Outcomes were 10 repetitions maximum (RM) and predicted 1RM for chest press, leg press, and pulldown exercises, as well as body composition, upper arm and thigh muscle mass, and fasted blood glucose. Analyses revealed significant increases in strength for all exercises but no between-group differences and no statistically significant time course changes for the other variables. Repetition duration does not affect the increases in strength in trained participants when exercise is performed to momentary failure. Because time constraints and perceived difficulty are often cited as barriers to exercise, it is important to recognize that the low-volume (single-set), machine-based protocol employed herein produced worthwhile strength increases in trained participants.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".