Just because certain muscle traits make someone strong right now doesn’t mean those same traits will help them get stronger from training—what matters for improvement is different.
Scientific Claim
In previously untrained men, changes in muscle size and architecture measured in cross-sectional studies do not predict changes in strength following 10 weeks of resistance training, indicating that factors influencing peak strength differ from those driving training-induced gains.
Original Statement
“The best models previously identified for predicting maximum torque within a population... were unable to predict the changes in torque with chronic training (r = 0.00–0.07)”
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 correctly states that cross-sectional predictors are not associated with training-induced changes, which is directly supported by the non-significant correlations (R² ≤ 0.07) reported. No causal language is used.
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.
Longitudinal Cohort StudyLevel 2bIn EvidenceWhether baseline anatomical/neuromuscular traits that predict peak strength are unrelated to the magnitude of strength gains during training.
Whether baseline anatomical/neuromuscular traits that predict peak strength are unrelated to the magnitude of strength gains during training.
What This Would Prove
Whether baseline anatomical/neuromuscular traits that predict peak strength are unrelated to the magnitude of strength gains during training.
Ideal Study Design
A prospective cohort of 300+ untrained adults with pre-training measurements of CSA, fascicle angle, EMG:M, and moment arm, followed by 10 weeks of standardized resistance training, comparing baseline predictors of peak strength (from prior cross-sectional norms) with actual strength gains.
Limitation: Cannot determine if the lack of association is due to measurement error or true biological dissociation.
Randomized Controlled TrialLevel 1bThat individuals with high baseline strength predictors do not gain more strength than those with low predictors when given identical training.
That individuals with high baseline strength predictors do not gain more strength than those with low predictors when given identical training.
What This Would Prove
That individuals with high baseline strength predictors do not gain more strength than those with low predictors when given identical training.
Ideal Study Design
A double-blind RCT of 150+ untrained men, stratified by baseline strength predictors (e.g., high vs. low CSA, EMG:M), randomized to identical 10-week training, measuring strength gains to test if baseline predictors correlate with response.
Limitation: Training uniformity may mask individual variability in adaptation mechanisms.
Cross-Sectional StudyLevel 3Whether the same variables predict peak strength and training response in the same population.
Whether the same variables predict peak strength and training response in the same population.
What This Would Prove
Whether the same variables predict peak strength and training response in the same population.
Ideal Study Design
A cross-sectional analysis of 200+ trained individuals measuring both their peak strength and their rate of strength gain over prior training, testing whether predictors of peak strength also predict rate of gain.
Limitation: Relies on retrospective self-report of training history, introducing recall bias.
Evidence from Studies
Supporting (1)
The study found that just getting bigger muscles doesn't explain why people get stronger after lifting weights—neural changes like better brain-to-muscle signals matter more, which matches the claim.