If you like doing chest and triceps together or alternating them with back and biceps, pick what you enjoy — both ways work just as well to get stronger and bigger.
Scientific Claim
In recreationally trained men, personal preference in resistance training scheme (synergist vs. nonsynergist) may be a valid factor in program selection, as both are associated with comparable improvements in strength and muscle size.
Original Statement
“Therefore, the present study suggests that individuals aiming to increase muscle strength and size may benefit from both training schemes, taking into account personal preferences.”
Evidence Quality Assessment
Claim Status
appropriately stated
Study Design Support
Design supports claim
Appropriate Language Strength
association
Can only show association/correlation
Assessment Explanation
The claim uses 'may benefit' and 'taking into account', which appropriately reflects the associative nature of the findings and avoids causal overreach.
Gold Standard Evidence Needed
According to GRADE and EBM methodology, here is what ideal scientific evidence would look like to definitively prove or disprove this specific claim, ordered from strongest to weakest evidence.
Randomized Controlled TrialLevel 1bWhether adherence and long-term outcomes are better when individuals choose their preferred training scheme.
Whether adherence and long-term outcomes are better when individuals choose their preferred training scheme.
What This Would Prove
Whether adherence and long-term outcomes are better when individuals choose their preferred training scheme.
Ideal Study Design
Double-blind RCT with 200 recreationally trained men randomized to either assigned or self-selected training scheme (synergist or nonsynergist) for 6 months, measuring adherence, satisfaction, strength, and hypertrophy outcomes.
Limitation: Cannot separate preference from placebo or motivation effects.
Prospective Cohort StudyLevel 2bWhether self-selected training schemes lead to better long-term adherence and outcomes.
Whether self-selected training schemes lead to better long-term adherence and outcomes.
What This Would Prove
Whether self-selected training schemes lead to better long-term adherence and outcomes.
Ideal Study Design
2-year cohort of 300 recreationally trained men who choose their own training scheme, tracking adherence, dropout rates, and changes in strength and muscle mass over time.
Limitation: Selection bias may influence results.
Cross-Sectional StudyLevel 3Association between self-reported preference and current training adherence or satisfaction.
Association between self-reported preference and current training adherence or satisfaction.
What This Would Prove
Association between self-reported preference and current training adherence or satisfaction.
Ideal Study Design
Survey of 500 recreationally trained men asking about preferred training scheme and self-reported adherence, satisfaction, and perceived progress.
Limitation: Cannot determine if preference caused better outcomes.
Evidence from Studies
Supporting (1)
A Comparison Between Synergist and Nonsynergist Resistance Training Schemes in Recreationally Trained Men.