View

The Study

Volume-equated high- and low-repetition daily undulating programming strategies produce similar hypertrophy and strength adaptations.

In simple terms

This study says two different ways of lifting weights made people about equally stronger and bigger — but we don’t know if the groups were picked randomly, so we can’t say one way definitely causes better results. It’s like saying two different diets made two groups of kids gain the same weight — but we don’t know if they were chosen fairly.

45%

Analysis score

45/ 90

Maximum 90 for a randomized controlled trial.

Where the score came from

Reporting0
Methodology33
Publication100
Statistical54
Study type (basis of the score)
Randomized Controlled Trial
Level 1b - Individual RCT
What’s the bottom line?

Two groups lifted weights differently—one used lighter weights with more reps, the other heavier weights with fewer reps—but both lifted the same total amount of weight over 8 weeks.

Where does this study sit?

Reviews of RCTs (Meta-analyses)

Max 100

Randomized Trials

Max 90

Reviews of Cohort Studies

Max 85

Cohort Studies

Max 72

Reviews of Case-Control Studies

Max 63

Case-Control Studies

Max 58

Cross-Sectional & Case Series

Max 50

Expert Opinion

Max 5
StrongerWeaker
Randomized Trials
Level 1b
45

45 / 100

Quality score

Participants are randomly assigned to treatment or control groups, minimizing bias. The gold standard for testing whether an intervention causes an effect.

Cannot establish causation

Save studies & get personalized insights

Create a free account to save this study, track new evidence as it comes in, and get breakdowns of studies in the topics you care about.

Key takeaways

Summary

Based on the study abstract and findings.

  1. 1Yes—how you structure reps (high vs low) doesn't matter as much as total volume when you're already trained.
  2. 2Both groups got 10-20% stronger and their chest and front-thigh muscles grew.
  3. 3Middle-thigh muscle didn't grow.
  4. 4Endurance didn't improve much, but the high-rep group had a moderate boost in squat endurance.

Score breakdown, methodology, conflicts of interest, evidence analysis & raw study data

Publication

Journal

Applied physiology, nutrition, and metabolism = Physiologie appliquee, nutrition et metabolisme

Year

2016

Authors

Alex O Klemp, C. Dolan, Justin M. Quiles, Rocky Blanco, R. Zoeller, B. Sue Graves, Michael C. Zourdos

62 citations
Analysis v5

Related Content

Claims (10)

Assertion

When the total amount of work and effort are the same, exercises that use multiple muscle groups do not cause more muscle growth in the target muscles than exercises that focus on one muscle group.

Causal
Read analysis
Assertion

Current scientific evidence does not show that some people consistently gain more muscle from lifting heavy weights with few repetitions versus lifting lighter weights with many repetitions.

Descriptive
Read analysis
Assertion

After 8 weeks of different types of weight training with the same total workload, muscle thickness in the middle of the outer thigh does not change in young men who are already trained in resistance exercise.

Descriptive
Read analysis
Assertion

In young men who regularly lift weights, two different training programs—one using high repetitions and one using low repetitions—produce the same amount of muscle growth in the chest and thighs when the total workload is kept equal.

Descriptive
Read analysis
Assertion

In young adult males with prior weight training experience, eight weeks of either high-repetition or low-repetition resistance training programs, matched for total workload, produced identical gains in maximal strength and muscle thickness in the squat, bench press, chest, and quadriceps muscles.

Descriptive
Read analysis
Assertion

After eight weeks of a specific weight training program, muscle thickness increased in some parts of the legs and chest but not in other parts of the legs in young men who had previously trained with weights.

Descriptive
Read analysis
Fit Body Science verdict — we translate health studies into clear verdicts backed by peer-reviewed research.

Not medical advice. For informational purposes only. Always consult a qualified healthcare professional before making health decisions.