Training & movement
B · Reasonable confidenceWhich training load works best for strength, jumping and speed
Subject: Dose-Response Modelling of Resistance Exercise Across Outcome Domains in Strength and Conditioning: A Meta-analysis
What this means
Load mainly determined the gains. Maximum strength improved most with the heaviest loads, jumping at about 30% of your maximum, and power at 40-70%.
Paul A Swinton, Brad J Schoenfeld, Andrew Murphy · 2024 · Sports Medicine
What does this rating mean?
A solid systematic review with caveats, or consistent indications with a limited scope.
Findings
Across 295 studies, resistance exercise produced a moderate pooled benefit across outcome domains, with additional sets producing diminishing returns. A strength-gain inflection point emerged around 70% 1RM, while jump performance improved most with much lighter loads around 30% 1RM — evidence of outcome-specific optimal loading. Only 5% of participants were highly trained, an important caveat for applying these curves to advanced trainees.
Who this applies to
Healthy adults, trained or untrained. Training experience and sex did not change the results.
Size of the research
295 studies with 535 groups and 6,710 participants in total, conducted between 1962 and 2018.
What to keep in mind
Only periods up to 26 weeks were analysed. Not all studies had a comparison group that did not train.
Practical conclusion for REZA
Important for how REZA selects load per goal: around 70% 1RM is the inflection point for strength, but jump performance improves best with much lighter loads around 30% 1RM — though most underlying data comes from less experienced trainees.
View method and source
Methodology
Meta-analysis
Population
295 studies, 535 training groups, n=6710 participants; 54% untrained, 41% recreationally trained, 5% highly trained
Intervention
Resistance exercise interventions with varying load, volume (sets) and other dose variables, modelled continuously
Outcome measures
Maximal strength, muscle hypertrophy, jump performance and other strength and conditioning outcome domains
Limitations
No risk-of-bias assessment of included studies was performed — a significant limitation for a 295-study synthesis; only 5% of participants were highly trained, so curves are dominated by untrained/recreational response; continuous modelling assumes comparability of very heterogeneous protocols.
Original source
DOI: 10.1007/s40279-024-02006-3 · PMID: 38652410
View on PubMed →This information is general education about scientific research. It is not personal medical advice and does not replace diagnosis or treatment by a doctor or other healthcare professional. If you have symptoms, a medical condition or take medication, consult your GP or treating professional before changing your training or nutrition.