What is the traditional method of resistance training: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Many resistance studies state that they used the traditional method of resistance training in the intervention. However, there is a wide difference on the characteristics of the training protocols used even though they are labeled as "the traditional method." There is no clear definition and characteristics for the traditional method of resistance training. The aim of this study was to describe the most common definitions and references, and also the main characteristics of the training variables of the studies using the traditional training method for strengthening. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Searches were carried out in Pubmed, Embase, SPORTDiscus and Web of Science. We included randomized controlled trials that included a strengthening program using the "traditional method" and that evaluated hypertrophy and/or maximum strength in healthy individuals. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: The initial search resulted in 26,057 studies, but only 39 studies were eligible and included in this review. The common characteristics of the traditional training protocol were frequency of 3 sessions/week, 3 sets of 9 repetitions, with weight =75% 1RM. The movement time was 2±1 seconds for the concentric and for the eccentric phases. Resting time between sets was 2±1 minutes. The concepts used to define the method as traditional and the characteristics of the intervention protocols were different. The American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM) was the most cited reference. CONCLUSIONS: The "traditional method of resistance training" can be defined as: "Three (±1) sets of 9±6 repetitions of concentric and eccentric exercises using an external load of 75±20% of one maximum repetition, completed 3±1 times/week.
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 | 0.024 | 0.084 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".