Sports Med

DOI 10.1007/s40279-017-0779-y

SPECIAL ARTICLE

Understanding the Science of Resistance Training:

An Evolutionary Perspective
William J. Kraemer1 • Nicholas A. Ratamess2 • Shawn D. Flanagan3 •

Jason P. Shurley4 • Janice S. Todd5 • Terry C. Todd5

 Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Abstract The history of resistance training research began scientific study of resistance training and provides a liter-
with anecdotal ideas and a slow growth of research from ature base analysis for greater quantification of the origins
the late 1890s through the 1970s. The mid-1970s were a and expanse of such investigations.
nexus point when resistance training studies evolved from
just strength assessments to importance in physiological
systems, physical health, and physical performance capa-
Key Points
bilities for individuals interested in physical fitness through
to those seeking elite athletic performances. The pursuit of
In the absence of true scientific inquiry, resistance
understanding program design and what mediated suc-
training advice was anecdotal and given primarily by
cessful programs continues today as new findings, repli-
practitioners for many years. In some cases, the
cation of old concepts, and new visions with the latest
practitioners were medical professionals or educators
technologies fuel both our understanding and interest in
but often it was the stronger or fitter segment of the
this modality. This brief review highlights some of the
population.
important scientific contributions to the evolution of our
The first studies began in the 1890s and continued
steadily through the 1970s. The mid-1970s appeared
to be a nexus point where resistance training studies
evolved into the study of physiological responses and
mechanisms of adaptations as opposed to strength
assessment and physical performance enhancement.
& William J. Kraemer
kraemer.44@osu.edu Direct citation analysis revealed ten major areas of
1
study: performance adaptations to resistance
Department of Human Sciences, The Ohio State University,
training, physiologic, and molecular responses with
Columbus, OH 43210, USA
2
reference to skeletal muscle and hormonal responses,
Department of Health and Exercise Science, The College of
metabolic disorders, aging, cardiorespiratory
New Jersey, Ewing, NJ, USA
3
function, neurological conditions, women’s health,
Neuromuscular Research Laboratory/Warrior Human
respiratory function and disease, neuromuscular
Performance Research Center, Department of Sports
Medicine and Nutrition, School of Health and Rehabilitation disorders, and pelvic floor exercise and disabilities.
Sciences, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
The scientific evolution will continue as
4
Department of Health, Physical Education, Recreation and investigators find they can use resistance training to
Coaching, University of Wisconsin-Whitewater, Whitewater,
prevent disease, fight aging, improve health and
WI, USA
5
physiological functions, and elevate human
Department of Kinesiology and Health Education, The H.J.
performance.
Lutcher Stark Center for Physical Culture and Sports, The
University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA

123

1 Introduction
Reflecting on the history of resistance training (RT), it is
apparent that the evolution of our scientific understand-
ing has been influenced by many different dynamics. The
fascination with muscle strength has historically existed
in many forms including feats of significant or repetitive
strength that intrigued people from an entertainment
perspective. Although modern technology has reduced
the need for strength for many daily activities, absolute
muscular strength is still a critical health-related fitness
component. Resistance training, a general term referring
to exercise requiring one to exert force against a resis-
tance, has been demonstrated to be a superior modality
for increasing muscle strength, local muscular endur-
ance, power, hypertrophy, and motor performance [1–3].
Reports of individuals using some form of resistance
exercise (RE) date back thousands of years, as a histor-
ical timeline has developed for this modality (see
Table 1).
A discussion of the evolution of RT science must
include some key historical and social events. In most
cases, RT research has lagged behind practitioner’s anec-
dotal recommendations. Before the 1890s, information on
RT was largely anecdotal and the ‘experts’ in the field were
practitioners. In some cases, the practitioners were medical
professionals or educators (who also participated in RT),
but most early authorities on strength were gymnasium
owners or professional strongmen/entertainers, not scien-
tists. The popularity of circus and Vaudeville strongmen
such as Eugen Sandow in the latter decades of the 1800s
and the incorporation of RT in many school physical
education programs in that same era created some famil-
iarity with RT and its many benefits. However, misinfor-
mation and myths also existed and dissuaded some
individuals from lifting weights and discouraged scientists
from researching RT.
Eventually, practitioner-based books and magazines
were developed. For example, between 1894 and 1935,
prominent strength athletes such as Eugen Sandow, George
Jowett, Earl Liederman, Arthur Saxon, Professor Attila,
Bernarr MacFadden, Thomas Inch, George Hacken-
schmidt, and Alan Calvert wrote books on methods of
strength training or ‘physical culture’. Bernarr MacFad-
den’s magazine Physical Culture was first published in
1899 and others, like Calvert’s Strength, soon followed.
Thereafter, the torch passed to Bob Hoffman and Joe
Weider who became leading authoritative figures in the
field. Thus, it was practitioners, publishers, and barbell
manufacturers who largely filled the void of knowledge
about RT until RT research began to formally take shape in
the mid-20th century.
123
W. J. Kraemer et al.
2 Early Origins of Resistance Training Research
2.1 Research Prior to 1940
In 1931, an undergraduate physical education major at
Ohio State University, John Capretta, sent a questionnaire
to 45 of the leading physiologists in USA [4]. The subject
of the short survey was a condition, purportedly acquired
by individuals who lifted heavy weights, called ‘muscle-
bound’, thought to be characterized by excessive muscular
growth that came at the expense of diminished quickness
and flexibility. Capretta hoped physiologists would shed
some light on alterations in the neuromuscular system that
led to one becoming so-called muscle-bound. Of the 22
responses received, only seven ventured an opinion and
others claimed no knowledge. Of the seven who would
comment, some speculated that the excessive muscular
strain of heavy weight lifting resulted in ‘‘a preponderance
of fibrous linen in muscle bundles.’’ Capretta singled out
the opinion of a physiologist named W.O. Fenn, whom he
described as one of the country’s leading physiologists.
Fenn thought the condition might result from a change in
the size of the muscle fibers relative to their motor nerve.
‘‘Hypertrophy of the muscle,’’ Fenn asserted, ‘‘involves an
increase in the number of fibres’’ and thus increased
muscular size meant more muscle fibers innervated by one
nerve with a consequent decrease in fine motor skills.
In some ways, the physiologists’ misunderstanding of
the effects of RT is surprising. Americans had been training
with weights since the country’s founding, including none
other than Benjamin Franklin, who wrote about the supe-
riority of dumbbell swinging as a form of exercise [5].
Athletes had been using weight training to improve their
performance since the mid-19th century when New York
gym owner William Wood trained rowers, boxers, wres-
tlers, and many others [6]. Wood would go on to design a
conditioning program for the Yale rowing team, allowing
them to beat arch-rival Harvard in one of the earliest
intercollegiate athletic contests [7]. Despite interest from
athletes and the general public, little research was actually
done on the effects of strength training until the middle
decades of the 20th century.
Among many scientists, there was a disinterest in
studying RT. Some of this disinterest was owing to a
misapplication of the law of the conservation of energy
and the consequent concern that overdevelopment of the
musculature would lead to under-development of the rest
of the body, including the brain [8]. For many, RT had an
unsavory reputation as the domain of charlatans, owing
to strongmen who often performed their amazing feats
more through trickery rather than brute strength and
promised spectacular gains through minimal training.
Evolution of Resistance Training Science

Table 1 Brief historical timeline of key events in the history of resistance training
776 BCE: Ancient Olympics begin
Circa 500 BCE: Boxing, wrestling, and pankration added to Olympics, which raises interest in strength training. Throwing and lifting stones
and use of halteres become part of athletic training
550 BCE: Champion wrestler and renowned strongman Milo of Crotona is born
129 CE: Galen is born. This Roman physician is considered the first sports medicine specialist because of his work with gladiators and his
exercise treatises
1569: Publication of Hieronymous Mercurialis’ De Art Gymnastica and the 1573 illustrated edition that shows training with dumbbells,
plummets, and heavy iron plates
1711: Joseph Addison writes about training with a dumbbell in The Spectator
1772: Ben Franklin discusses the benefits of dumbbell training
1825: German Gymnastics arrives in the USA and becomes a form of school physical education
1829: James Chiosso builds the first multi-station pulley machine in England
Circa 1830: Indian Club Training is introduced to England
1835: William Wood opens the first commercial gym in New York
1860s and 1870s: Dr. George Barker Windship begins promoting the ‘‘health lift’’ (a heavy partial deadlift) and inspires the USA’s first
‘‘chain gyms’’. His motto is ‘‘Strength is Health’’
1861: The first USA weightlifting contest is held in Chicago
1893: Strongman Eugen Sandow tours the USA and is described by Harvard’s Dudley Allen Sargent as ‘‘physically perfect’’
1896: Weightlifting is included in the inaugural Olympic Games in Athens, Greece
1902: Milo Barbell Company opens for business, selling USA’s first manufactured barbells
1914: USA’s first muscle magazine Strength is launched by Alan Calvert of Milo Barbell Company
1932: Bob Hoffman begins publishing Strength & Health and presses home the message that weight training builds better athletes
1935: Muscle Beach begins as a gymnastic hang-out for local Santa Monica teenagers who are inspired by the 1932 Los Angeles Olympics.
Barbells arrive at Muscle Beach in the 1940s
1939: The first unofficial Mr. America contest is held. The first real Mr. America contest in 1940 is won by John Grimek
1947: Joe Weider begins Your Physique, his first magazine
1951: Dr. Thomas DeLorme publishes Progressive Resistance Exercise: Technic and Medical Application
1956: Weight Training in Athletics is published by Peter Karpovich and Jim Murray
1958: Ciba Pharmaceutical releases the first anabolic steroid—Dianabol
1959: The movie Hercules, starring bodybuilder Steve Reeves, is released
1965: The Amateur Athletic Union (AAU) holds the first men’s senior national championships in powerlifting
1965: The Mr. Olympia Contest is held for the first time
1968: Arnold Schwarzenegger moves to California and ushers in a new era for bodybuilding, making Gold’s Gym and Venice, California popular
1977: Women’s powerlifting holds it first meet in Nashua, New Hampshire
1977: The first World’s Strongest Man contest is shown on television
1978: The National Strength and Conditioning Association (NSCA) is formed by Boyd Epley
1980: The first Ms. Olympia body building contest is held
1981: The first Amateur Athletic Union-sanctioned National Women’s Weightlifting Contest is held
1987: The first Women’s World Weightlifting Championships is held
2000: CrossFit rises in popularity. The College Strength and Conditioning Coaches Administration (CSCCa) creates a new strength coaching
association

Interestingly, scientific advances in the study of RT often
came through its practitioners who were or became
scientists.
One of the earliest practitioner scientists was Austin
Flint, a medical doctor and professor of physiology at New
York’s Bellevue Hospital Medical College in the 1870s. At
the age of 40 years and weighing 183 pounds, Flint claimed
he was able to lift a 180-pound dumbbell overhead with
one arm. More importantly, through observations of his
own training, he noted that lifting weights resulted in
enhanced muscular endurance and increased efficiency [9].
At the time of Flint’s writing, there was only rudimentary
knowledge of muscular function. Microscopists, starting
with Leeuwenhoek in 1682, had described the striated
nature of skeletal muscles and the A-band of each sar-
comere [10]. However, owing to the limitations of the
wavelength of visible light, little more could be gleaned
about the microscopic make-up of muscle.

123

The electron microscope, which would ultimately help
reveal the sliding filament action involved in muscular
contraction, would not appear until the 1930s, and it was
not until 1954, with the advance of specimen preparation
techniques, that two sets of scientists working indepen-
dently laid out the sliding filament theory of muscular
contraction [11, 12]. In the interim between reaching the
limits of the light microscope and the use of the electron
microscope, scientists filled in the gaps through gross and
chemical observations of the neuromuscular system.
Lactic acid was first observed in the muscles of hunted
stags by 1807 and its source, glycogen, was identified in
1859 [10]. The discovery of phosphocreatine and adeno-
sine triphosphate (ATP) occurred 7 decades later, when the
former was discovered in 1927 and the latter in 1929 [10].
Their role in muscle contraction, however, would not really
be understood until 1943 when the work of Szent-Gyorgyi
showed that bathing the myofilaments in ATP initiated
muscle contraction [13]. Regarding function and adapta-
tions of the neuromuscular system, Morpugo demonstrated
in 1897 that the sartorius muscles of dogs grew following a
running program and that the primary mechanism of
growth was hypertrophy of individual cells, rather than a
proliferation of muscle cells [14]. Siebert performed sim-
ilar research on rats in 1928, noting that the rats that ran at
higher speeds had heavier muscles on autopsy than those
that trained at slower speeds [15].
By the time of Siebert’s work, Sir Charles Sherrington
of Oxford had come to the realization that one motor nerve
supplied many muscle cells. In 1929, he described this
arrangement as a ‘‘motor unit’’ and described different size
and force production capacities of those motor units in cat
muscles [16]. In the same year, one of Sherrington’s con-
temporaries at Oxford, Denny-Brown and Liddell demon-
strated that cat muscle also had different muscle types, red
and white, which had different contraction times [17]. The
application of either of these sets of findings to human
muscles would wait until the 1950s.
In 1894, Scripture and colleagues [18] performed one of
the first real RT experiments when they studied the neural
effects or cross-education that occurred when training one
limb impacted the contralateral limb. Most early RT
research stemmed from the development of strength testing
dynamometers and the assessment of muscular strength.
An influential individual was Dudley Sargent, a Harvard-
trained medical doctor who invented several exercise
machines and developed methods to assess muscular
strength and power (i.e., Sargent vertical jump test). Some
other studies were published examining strength, primarily
isometric strength using hand grip dynamometers in
industrial settings. However, progressive lines of RT
research did not develop until the 1940s.
123
W. J. Kraemer et al.
2.2 Research from 1940 to 1980
From the gap in the understanding of muscle function or
adaptation in the mid-1940s emerged one of the most
important practitioner scientists in the field of RT, Dr.
Thomas L. DeLorme. DeLorme’s accomplishments have
been extensively reviewed [19, 20]. Briefly, he was a first
lieutenant and physician in the US Army who became
inspired to help wounded soldiers or injured patients recover
and regain muscle strength through RT. Being a knowl-
edgeable and serious weightlifter himself, DeLorme realized
his patients might benefit if he adapted weight training
movements for more therapeutic application. In a series of
studies between 1945 and 1952, he developed a protocol he
referred to as ‘‘progressive resistance exercise’’, a term ini-
tially coined by his wife. DeLorme first recommended seven
sets of a ten repetition maximum (10RM) loading for each
exercise. However, he later modified it to three sets of ten
repetitions where the first set was performed with 50% of
10RM, the second set with 75% of 10RM, and the third set
with 100% of the 10RM load, which he thought was more
appropriate as the first two sets better prepared the indi-
vidual for the final set. He believed it better to ‘‘restore
muscle strength and then build endurance through low
resistance, high-repetition exercise rather than develop
endurance in atrophied, weakened muscle’’ [20].
DeLorme’s use of a ‘‘repetition max,’’ as a reference
point for loading was an innovation for both sport and
rehabilitation. His recommendation of three sets of ten
repetitions per exercise quickly moved beyond rehabilita-
tion and became a norm for fitness and sports training [20].
Other scientists, primarily interested in rehabilitation, used
his approach in additional studies that confirmed his
results.
In 1948, McCloy [21] stated that ‘‘increased muscle size
reduces the need to recruit the same amount of motor units
when lifting the same load’’ and suggested that ‘‘cardio-
vascular improvements could take place when strength
increased and muscle blood supply increased’’ during RT.
In 1946, Houtz et al. [22] reported increased muscle
strength gains following RT using DeLorme’s system in
healthy women and concluded ‘‘strength may more than
double in four weeks of systematic training.’’ Additionally,
in the 1940s, Morris calculated strength per cross-section
of muscle and reported women had 78% of strength as men
with equal cross-section and leverage [23]. Furthermore, of
interest in the late 1940s was the first study on the psy-
chology of weightlifters by Thune [24], and Dr. Arnold
Kegel’s isometric exercises for the pelvic floor that are still
used today [25].
During the 1950s and 1960s, many other RT studies
followed DeLorme’s lead in evaluating program efficacies.
Numerous studies showed that RT increased muscle
Evolution of Resistance Training Science
strength, power, endurance, and speed [26–29]. A new
paradigm, the Oxford technique, was studied by Zinovieff
[30] and McMorris and Elkins [29] in which training was
based on the reverse of progressive RE when weight was
reduced over three sets to account for fatigue. This decade
also marked the initial era where scientists began to study
and dispel the myth of being ‘musclebound’. For example,
Chui [26], Zorbas and Karpovich [31], Wilkin [28], and
Massey and Chaudet [32] collectively showed that RT
increased limb velocity and did not restrict joint range of
motion, which was a prevailing thought at the time. In
1954, MacQueen presented some bodybuilding techniques
(i.e., ‘‘cheating, pump, pyramids, peak contraction’’) in a
scientific journal and characterized bodybuilders at that
time as training with three to seven sets of 9–16RM [33].
Strength assessment continued (used mostly in medical
workers, physical education, and for vocational guidance)
and reports showed correlations between muscle strength
and endurance [34, 35]. In 1953, Hettinger and Muller
reported maximal strength was produced by once-daily
isometric contraction lasting 6 s at two-thirds maximum
effort [36].
This paved the way for other subsequent studies exam-
ining isometric training. Physiologically, Hellebrandt [37]
discussed that intensity was critical for strength increase
during overload and that increased cadence also increased
strength and endurance. Hellebrandt stated ‘‘Even the
trained athlete requires considerable warming up through
progressive mobilization of easily accessible motor units
before output approaches maximal capacity by virtue of the
recruitment of higher threshold neurons’’ [37]. As Henne-
man in 1957 was working on orderly recruitment of motor
units, it became clear during this time that intensity was
critical during recruitment [38]. In addition, Hellebrandt
stated that rapid strength increases were mostly neuro-
muscular (motor learning) and hypertrophy became more
critical with time [37]. Last, Adamson [39] reported that
circuit training (with free weight and body weight exer-
cises) increased strength and endurance.
In the 1960s, further advances were made in RT pro-
gram design, examination of the strength and speed rela-
tionship, and sport-specific improvements via RT. Studies
showed that RT could improve various elements of sports
performance [40] including sprint speed [41] and vertical
jump ability [42]. Several comparative RT studies were
conducted by Barney and Bamgerter [43], Berger [44–47],
Chui [27], and O’Shea [42]. The studies by Drs. Richard
Berger and Patrick O’Shea are regarded as seminal works
in their examination of the best set, repetition, and loading
configurations [48, 49]. Both men were avid weightlifters
whose personal involvement invigorated their research
interest. This decade also paved the way for some early
studies examining anabolic steroid use and physical
performance [50]. Although interest in testicular extracts
(and subsequently androgens) dates back to 1849 (for
review see Hoffman et al. [50]), scientific study on its
ergogenic potential began in the mid-1960s.
Isokinetic dynamometers were first used in research in
1967. Since that time, numerous studies have used isoki-
netics as either testing or training tools. The use of surface
electromyography (EMG) as a diagnostic tool to quantify
muscle electrical activity increased during the 1950s and
1960s, culminating in a study by deVries [51] using RE to
investigate the efficiency of electrical activity. The use of
EMG would be critical to future RT studies and kinesiol-
ogy studies that investigated muscular activation during
different exercise performances and variations. Another
significant development was the percutaneous needle
biopsy technique, developed by Bergstrom in 1962, used to
collect muscle samples in humans [52]. Although biopsies
date back to the late 1800s, Bergstrom’s technique allowed
for greater muscle sampling and set the stage for future
studies examining fiber typing and histochemical/bio-
chemical changes to skeletal muscle.
The mid-to-late 1970s can be viewed as a strength nexus
in several respects. The rise of strength coaching as a
profession and the creation of a research-focused associa-
tion (The National Strength and Conditioning Association)
in this decade stimulated the growth of both applied and
laboratory-based research on strength. Included in this
body of work were a series of studies that addressed
physiological adaptations to RT as well as detraining. In
1970, Ikai and Fukunaga measured RT-induced muscle
hypertrophy via ultrasound [53]. Muscle action studies
were common as isometric and isokinetic studies contin-
ued. Investigations comparing differential responses of
concentric- and eccentric-only muscle action RT effects
began as well as examination of variable RT. The mid-
1970s marked a time when RT studies demonstrated pos-
itive strength and body composition benefits to women
[54]. In addition, the development of Nautilus machines led
to an increase in circuit RT studies (especially those using
machine-based exercises) and the examination of single-set
training as proposed by Nautilus. Controversy ensued and
this led to numerous studies over the years comparing
various single- to multiple-set RT programs.
In 1976, Fahey et al. [55] showed that testosterone was
elevated during RE, a study that would set the stage for
future acute hormonal studies. Critical to the decade was
the increase in studies examining muscle fiber type and
biochemical changes within skeletal muscle. Seminal
studies from Costill et al. [56], Thorstensson et al. [57, 58],
MacDougall et al. [59–62], and Komi et al. [63, 64]
showed fiber-type transitions, yet later it would be found
such transitions were within a type not between types.
Additionally, anaerobic enzyme, mitochondrial density,
123

and substrate (creatine phosphate and glycogen) changes
all occurred with RT. Furthermore, fiber-type phenotypes
in athletes and fiber-type specific hypertrophy (i.e., so-
called preferential fast-twitch fiber hypertrophy) were
shown. The latter part of the decade showed progress using
EMG to study neural activation during RT culminating
with a seminal study by Moritani and deVries [65] inves-
tigating the neural vs. hypertrophic factors in mediating
strength gains early in a RT program.
3 Lines of Research from the 1980s: Branches
of the Scientific Tree Grow Dramatically
The evolution of RT research can be viewed almost as
analogous to a tree where information at the time (i.e., the
roots) gave rise to the body (i.e., trunk). For example, the
‘roots’ were characteristic of general scientific knowledge
and technology, practitioner knowledge, claims, and atti-
tudes towards exercise, and social dogma at the time. The
‘trunk’ is representative of the body of research that
amassed between the late 1800s and the early 1970s. That
early corpus of RT research comprised mostly studies
investigating muscle strength assessment with progressions
towards examination of strength, power, size, speed, and
endurance gains from various types of RT programs.
Since the 1980s, the major categories of research studies
have been those designed to examine training adaptations
(performance and physiological) and those designed to
identify mechanisms of physiologic adaptations. From
here, the branches from the trunk evolved examining
unique elements of RT, primarily physiologic responses
and adaptations of key systems, nutritional elements and
other ergogenic aids, exercise biomechanics, kinesiology
of muscle involvement, overtraining/detraining, equipment
development and strength implements, vibration stimulus,
psychological components, integration with plyometric,
speed, flexibility, and agility training, sports performance,
recovery, and injury prevention and rehabilitation.
Of great importance was the expansion of our knowl-
edge in the field of genetics, especially the Human Genome
Project between 1990 and 2003 that led to the determina-
tion of the DNA sequence of the human genome. This has
aided the discovery of numerous genes affected by RT and
the identification of more than 210 polymorphisms of
candidate genes, leading to more pronounced strength,
endurance, and hypertrophic phenotypes. Thus, the genetic
influence over each branch of the tree must be considered.
Although complete analysis of all branches is beyond the
scope of this review, some key physiological branches
include neuromuscular, metabolic, cardiovascular, endo-
crine, connective tissue, immune, compatibility with other
types of aerobic exercise, and RT prescription and
123
W. J. Kraemer et al.
periodization. These branches form the basis for study of
RT in different populations such as untrained individuals,
athletes, children, older people, male vs. female individu-
als, and special clinical populations.
3.1 Muscle Fibers
Muscle size is a concomitant adaptation to RT as strength
increases over time. With the improvement of muscle
biopsy techniques in the 1960s, skeletal muscle fiber
characterizations resulting from RT were possible. Some of
the first indications of long-term training effects came from
cross-sectional comparisons of different types of lifters. In
the 1970s and 1980s, it was observed that differences exist
in the lifting sports of bodybuilding, powerlifting, and
Olympic weightlifting. Clarkson et al. [66] reported sig-
nificant relationships between muscle fiber type and force
production. Tesch et al. [67] observed that potential dif-
ferences can exist in the muscle fiber profiles among the
different competitive groups of lifters. Bodybuilders could
have lower fast-twitch fiber percentages and smaller fast-
twitch fiber areas when compared with power/weightlifters
at the time. This difference was attributed to the potential
influences of different training volumes and intensities. A
classic study by Häkkinen et al. [68] showed that elite
weightlifters made very small non-significant changes in
total mean muscle fiber size after 2 years of competitive
training, thus indicating other factors were involved in
changes in lifting performances including neural or endo-
crine signaling. Fry [69] concluded the use of heavier loads
(80–95% of 1 RM) by powerlifters and weightlifters
appeared to explain the greater comparative cross-sectional
hypertrophy observed when compared with bodybuilders.
For the most part, research on various lifting populations
focused on men. Even with the increased popularity of the
modality in sports training, health clubs, and gyms, limited
data existed in women. This most likely reflected the fear
of RT by many women of ‘getting big.’ Data began to
appear around 1980 quantifying women’s skeletal muscle
fiber response to RT. Krotkiewski et al. [70] reported
increases in type IIB (now termed IIX) fiber size with 5
weeks of isokinetic training in middle-aged women.
In 1990, a line of classic studies of RT and muscle fiber
changes in men and women were conducted by Dr. Robert
Staron’s group at Ohio University in Athens, Ohio. Ana-
lyzing both fiber types and their hybrid isoforms, they
showed that women performing heavy RT twice per week
over a 20-week duration could stimulate hypertrophy in all
fibers [I (15%), IIA (45%), and IIAB ? IIB (57%)] and
increase 1RM strength similar to men if intensity and
duration were sufficient [71]. In 1991, the concept of
muscle memory was postulated when women who had
trained for 20 weeks detrained for 30–32 weeks and upon a
Evolution of Resistance Training Science
6-week retraining period gained muscle fiber size more
quickly than women who had just begun. This study
showed that retraining could achieve more rapid recovery
to the trained state (possibly owing to the retention of
myonuclei needed for hypertrophic expansion). The
mechanisms of detraining and retraining of skeletal muscle
still pose many questions.
Staron’s group continued seminal work on heavy RT
and muscle fibers adaptations as the first to demonstrate
several important adaptive concepts [71–73]:
• Heavy RT ([18 weeks) results in a proportional
increase in all intracellular components of all fiber
types while increasing oxidative phosphorylation with
an increase in fiber size. This group was the first to
demonstrate that the Type IIB (now classified as IIX)
percentage decreased, indicating a transition of Type
IIB toward the IIA ATPase phenotype with RT.
• A relationship exists between the histochemically
assessed percentage fiber type area and the elec-
trophoretically assessed myosin heavy chain (MHC)
content in skeletal muscle.
• Early-phase adaptations to heavy RT caused reductions
in Type IIB percentages in 2–4 weeks in women and
men, respectively. These showed changes in the quality
of the proteins take place during the early phase of RT.
• Muscle fiber size distributions were different in
untrained men and women for area occupied by each
specific fiber type: IIA [ I [ IIB for the men and
I [ IIA [ IIB for the women.
• Mitochondrial content (number and form) of detrained
fibers remain constant, but as the volume of the fiber
decreases the mitochondrial volume percent increases.
• Heavier resistances (B11 RM) increase hypertrophy of
all fiber types whereas light loads (20–28 RM) result in
no significant hypertrophy during short-term RT of
8 weeks.
• The best approach to accurately determine fiber-type
composition is the combination of myofibrillar ATPase
histochemical and myosin heavy chain immunohisto-
chemical methods.
Since then, many studies have been conducted exam-
ining some aspect of muscle hypertrophy following RT.
Both mechanical (loading) and hypoxic (metabolic stress)
stimuli have been investigated and play major roles in
hypertrophy. The mechanotransduction (i.e., the transduc-
tion of mechanical force/strain to biochemical signaling) of
skeletal muscle undergoing RT is of great interest in
understanding mechanisms of muscle hypertrophy. A
number of studies have investigated anabolic pathways
leading to greater muscle protein synthesis including
endocrine signaling, growth factor up-regulation, myogenic
factor up-regulation (and the activity of myostatin) and the
importance of satellite cells, and mammalian target of
rapamycin pathway up-regulation. Although future studies
will continue to elucidate mechanisms involved in muscle
hypertrophy, a key area of focus should be examining how
the manipulation of acute program variables influences the
hypertrophic response.
3.2 Neural
Research has shown that neural adaptations to RT can
occur anywhere along the chain from supraspinal structures
of the brain and descending corticospinal tracts to the
spinal nerves and interneurons, motor neurons, and, at the
neuromuscular junction, to sensory receptors and spinal
reflexes. The adaptations create a greater ‘neural drive’ to
skeletal muscles or improved electrical efficiency of ago-
nist muscle activation while limiting extensive co-stimu-
lation of antagonists. Adrian and Bronk [74], using needle
electrodes, first characterized motor unit recruitment and
rate coding during movement.
Pioneering studies during the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s
examined mechanisms of neural drive including motor unit
recruitment, firing rate, and synchronization of agonist
muscles and demonstrated their importance during the
production of higher levels of force [38, 75, 76], as well as
antagonist co-contraction. Studies investigating the
responses of single motor units have been challenging
because of technical difficulties associated with high-in-
tensity contractions [77], and evidence of enhanced neural
drive with RT via EMG cannot differentiate the mecha-
nisms of increase. Studies using twitch-interpolation tech-
niques have shown a deficit in strength upon stimulation,
indicating that central neural drive is a limiting factor
during a maximal contraction [78].
Subsequently, numerous studies by many pioneering
exercise scientists including Digby Sale, Paavo Komi, and
Keijo Häkkinen have used EMG technology to indirectly
quantify RT-induced changes in electrical activity [79].
Although surface EMG does have limitations, EMG studies
were critical to understanding cross-education and bilateral
deficits (unilateral vs. bilateral training) and studying the
neural effects of fatigue; RT intensity, velocity, and vol-
ume, different muscle actions (concentric, eccentric, iso-
metric) and isokinetics; and the effects of detraining and
overtraining as well as time courses for neural vs. hyper-
trophic mechanisms affecting strength gains.
Since the mid-1970s [76], several studies have examined
potential reflex potentiation during RT thereby examining
potential neural changes at the spinal level [80]. Evoked
reflexes provide indications of synaptic efficacy of Ia
afferents to the alpha motor neuron pool, changes in firing
rate, and intrinsic properties of the motor neuron pool [81].
As reviewed by Carroll et al. [77], the majority of studies
123

have shown enhanced V-wave and H-reflex values
obtained during maximal contractions following RT, indi-
cating 19–77% increases in reflex potentiation. Another
potential site of adaptation is the neuromuscular junction.
Seminal work from Deschenes and colleagues [82, 83] has
shown high-intensity training in rats produces more pro-
nounced changes in terminal branch dispersion; longer,
asymmetrical, and irregularly shaped branches; and that RT
results in a greater terminal area and greater dispersion of
acetylcholine receptors. These changes in the neuromus-
cular junction are conducive to enhanced neural transmis-
sion to skeletal muscle, which increases force and power
production.
During the last 15 years, the use of transcranial magnetic
stimulation has been used non-invasively to study neural
adaptations to RT [77, 81]. Stimulation of corticospinal
neurons in the motor cortex produces a motor evoked
potential detected by surface EMG. Although there is no
clear pattern of change in motor evoked potentials and the
interpretation of the motor evoked potential response is
complex and dependent upon many factors including the
muscle group tested, force level produced, and RT training
program, studies have confirmed the significant presence of
neural adaptations during RT [77, 81]. Other recent studies
have confirmed neural adaptations following RT via func-
tional magnetic resonance imaging and electroencephalogy
[77]. Flanagan et al. [84] examined the squat exercise under
different protocols, i.e., power (6 9 3 repetitions with 30%
of 1RM), force (6 9 3 repetitions with 95% of 1RM), and
volume (6 9 10 repetitions with 80% of 1RM) and reported
greater cortical activity during the volume protocol. Thus,
these technologies have provided some new insights into
examination of neural responses to RT.
3.3 Metabolic
Metabolic training adaptations include changes in anaero-
bic (or aerobic) enzyme activity, increases in resting sub-
strate (ATP, phosphocreatine, glycogen, muscle
triglycerides) concentrations, reduced metabolite formation
(i.e., lactate), and improvements in acid buffering capacity.
Metabolic adaptations to RT were shown in the late 1970s
and 1980s when Costill et al. [56], MacDougall et al. [59],
Thorstensson et al. [57], and Tesch et al. [85] reported
either no change or increased anaerobic enzyme activity
and increased substrate content following 5–8 weeks of
RT. Although enzyme activity is expressed relative to
muscle mass and may be ‘diluted’ with significant hyper-
trophy, these early studies were indicative of the ability of
RT to enhance the metabolic profile of skeletal muscle. The
1980s also marked a time when studies first began to
examine the positive effects of RT on improving insulin
sensitivity [86].
123
W. J. Kraemer et al.
Research in the 1990s studied the influence of RT
intensity on glycogen breakdown [87] and subsequent
glycogen resynthesis following RE [88], as well as nutri-
tional interventions to optimize glycogen storage. Resis-
tance training was shown to produce high lactate values
with the magnitude dependent on intensity, rest interval
length, muscle mass involvement, and volume, i.e., those
metabolic or bodybuilding type programs producing the
highest values. In particular, it was shown that RT could
reduce the lactate response [89] and increase lactate
threshold [89], thereby increasing local muscular endur-
ance. Studies in the 1990s identified lactate monocar-
boxylate transporters in skeletal muscle and showed RT
up-regulated lactate/H? transport [90]. In addition, a ple-
thora of studies were published in the 1990s and beyond
examining the ergogenic effects of creatine supplementa-
tion on muscle performance [91–93].
Interest increased in the 2000s investigating the acute
effects of RE on lipolysis [94]. Last, in 1960, Clarke [95]
first examined the energy cost of isometric exercise and
later, in 1969, McArdle and Foglia [96] examined the
energy cost of isometric and dynamic RE. Since then, a
large number of studies investigating oxygen consumption
and energy expenditure of various types of RT programs
and modalities have been conducted, thereby showing
variables such as muscle mass involvement (exercise
selection and sequence), intensity, volume, and rest interval
length significantly affect the acute metabolic response to
RE [2, 3].
3.4 Cardiovascular
Interest in cardiovascular responses to exercise focused
mostly on aerobic exercise initially. Only a few studies
examined cardiovascular responses to RT prior to 1980.
Kusinitz and Keeney [97] showed that RT increased car-
diovascular endurance in boys. Nagle and Irwin [98]
compared high-repetition, low-intensity RT (2 9 12–15) to
low-repetition, high-intensity RT (2 9 5) over 8 weeks and
reported that RT had limited cardiovascular effects in
response to cycle ergometry exercise. Some studies in the
late 1960s and early 1970s addressed heart rate and blood
pressure responses to isometric and dynamic RE [96]. In
the late 1970s, a series of studies were conducted exam-
ining maximum oxygen uptake assessment consequent to
circuit and traditional RT showing limited to small
increases [99].
Subsequently, the 1980s and beyond marked a time
when greater interest was generated in studying acute
cardiovascular responses to RE [100] as well as maximum
oxygen uptake changes and resting or submaximal exercise
responses following a period of RT [101–103]. The acute
response was significant, particularly for blood pressure,
Evolution of Resistance Training Science
with the magnitude dependent on muscle mass involve-
ment, Valsalva maneuvers, muscle action used, intensity,
and position in exercise, i.e., sticking point [62, 104].
Cross-sectional studies in powerlifters showed similar or
augmented cardiovascular function at rest or during sub-
maximal exercise [104]. In 1987, Fleck and Dean [105]
showed that the blood pressure response in weight-trained
individuals (bodybuilders) was attenuated compared with
control subjects during RE, thereby demonstrating the key
finding that RT improves tolerance to cardiovascular stress
or an augmented ‘pressure overload’ response, a critical
finding that has ramifications for populations beyond
athletes.
Echocardiographic and magnetic resonance imaging
studies in the early 1980s and beyond showed that strength-
trained individuals had increased left ventricular and septal
wall thickness and mass [103, 106, 107]. Numerous studies
have since been published examining acute and chronic
cardiovascular responses and adaptations under many
conditions, especially examination of the safety of RT in
special populations such as individuals with cardiovascular
disease. More recent research has addressed potential
mechanisms of adaptation including changes in sympa-
thetic nervous system activity during exercise, alterations
in microvascular function and blood flow, and arterial wall
diameter and stiffness.
3.5 Endocrine
No one can deny the importance of the endocrine system’s
role in molecular signaling and communication with many
cellular processes modulated by nuclear and non-nuclear
receptor interfaces. An extensive number of hormones arise
from endocrine glands and function in endocrine, para-
crine, and autocrine mechanisms. This massive communi-
cation network extends to cytokines and molecular
signaling molecules that make up an integrated web of
homeostatic response capabilities with inherent redundancy
often observed. With the development and availability of
radioimmunoassays in the 1970s, the effects of RE on the
endocrine system became of interest to scientists owing to
its inherent importance to cellular homeostasis, metabo-
lism, and tissue remodeling [55]. As scientists moved away
from bioassays, the focus of hormonal study became nar-
rowed to immune receptor interactions that were the basis
of radioimmunoassays and enzyme-linked immunosorbent
assays. Unfortunately, some pertinent endocrine informa-
tion was lost as these assays were unable to detect certain
isoforms (especially during the study of the growth hor-
mone superfamily), thereby underrepresenting a segment
of the responses to RE.
Initial research in RE and RT focused on hormones that
reflected the ‘anabolic-catabolic’ status of the body. In part,
this was based on the known anabolic effects that ‘steroids’
had on the development of muscle size and strength [50].
Thus, there was an inherent interest in trying to understand
how the body’s own endogenous anabolic and catabolic
systems interacted to assist the target goals of RT. Ana-
bolic hormones such as testosterone, growth hormone
(GH), and somatomedins [later called insulin-like growth
factors (IGFs)] and the catabolic hormone cortisol were
examined with others (e.g., insulin, thyroid hormones, and
catecholamines).
Initial studies in the 1980s and 1990s attempted to track
these hormones over a training period or determine how
these hormones responded to different acute RE protocols.
Resting levels were examined to determine RT effects. A
classic study by Häkkinen et al. [108] showed that the
resting ‘testosterone-cortisol ratio’ was increased and the
changes correlated with strength following 24 weeks of RT
while detraining reduced the relationship. This interaction
was seen in other studies but was dependent upon mea-
suring the regulatory signals in unison. While reflecting on
what most scientists believed was consistent with anabolic
exercise, it also led to experimental issues and misinter-
pretations of endocrine mechanisms. For example, the
extrapolation of a few blood sample points to reflect hor-
monal activity over an entire training period may not
reflect the true nature of the hormone without assessment
of other parameters such as receptor interaction and up-
regulation and its interactions with other hormone-receptor
activity.
The dynamic nature of hormones makes the stability of
their relationship to strength or size unstable, especially
because the effects depend entirely on receptors and their
interactions with nuclear DNA mechanisms of target cells.
Nevertheless, from the late 1980s to the modern day,
interest in the acute effects of RE on serum hormonal
responses grew. In the early 1990s, Kraemer et al.
[109, 110] showed that different types of workouts pro-
duced different responses, suggesting that varying the acute
program variables was reflected in the hormonal responses.
Additionally, expected sexual dimorphism of testosterone
responses was observed [111]. Volume, intensity, and rest
periods between sets and exercises were shown to affect
the anabolic and catabolic hormonal responses. Heavy
loads with long rest periods showed little change in
testosterone, indicating that hormonal signals in the blood
may not be necessary for size or strength gains. It is
important to note that hormones act only as a signal. It is
the hormone-receptor interactions that drive the physio-
logic responses. Acute RE studies sought to examine
glandular and circulatory processes.
Deschenes et al. [112] showed that androgen receptor
(AR) expression was differentially modulated in rat mus-
cles by endurance or RE. No hypertrophy was shown with
123

endurance training but RT produced hypertrophy in the
soleus but not the extensor digitorum longus, thus showing
that maximal receptor binding was the primary measure.
Kadi et al. [113] showed that AR content containing
myonuclei per fiber cross-sectional area was higher in the
trapezius than in the vastus lateralis. Interestingly, AR
content containing myonuclei was significantly higher in
powerlifters compared with untrained subjects and pow-
erlifters who used anabolic steroids and no differences
between the groups were observed in the vastus lateralis.
Other studies subsequently examined the AR response and
potential acute up-regulation to RE and associated factors
influencing the response [114–117], e.g., initial catabolic
down-regulation after RE followed by up-regulation, par-
ticularly after nutritional intervention [115, 117].
Insulin-like growth factors and aggregate bioactive GH
appear to use changes in resting levels to maintain home-
ostatic function [118]. Our understanding of GH and the
secretion of a host of different isoforms of GH is far from
complete. Bioactive GH made of aggregates of the 22 kD
monomer as well as a novel peptide called the tibial line
peptide has shown the limited view we have of the pituitary
gland’s function [119]. This identifies a significant gap in
our understanding of the RE-mediating mechanisms. Short
rest periods of 1 min dramatically increased radioim-
munoassay GH levels in men and women [109, 110].
However, 22 kD makes up such a small level of GH
(highest level is GH aggregates) in the blood that its role
might be questioned [120]. This could expand a new line of
work in anterior pituitary hormone release and function.
Training appears to augment resting IGF-I levels in the
blood and, combined with the IGF binding proteins, create
a superfamily of biologically active peptides. In 1990 and
1993, it was seen that IGF-I was altered by each of the
various RE protocols examined in men and women
[109, 110]. Several studies by Nindl et al. [121] have
identified mechanisms and attributes of this superfamily of
hormones and binding proteins. Examining the IGF
superfamily over the past 10 years in regard to RE has led
to many new findings and continues to be an important line
of research in endocrine mechanisms mediating RT effects.
3.6 Connective Tissue
In 1971, Nilsson and Westin [122] showed that the bone
density of weightlifters was greater than the bone densities
of athletes from some other sports. Further research into
bone adaptations to RT would not occur until the late
1980s. These studies confirmed higher bone mineral den-
sities (BMD) in strength-trained athletes [123], significant
relationships between BMD and strength or loads lifted
[123, 124], and higher circulating levels of osteocalcin
[125]. Although mechanisms of mechanotransduction of
123
W. J. Kraemer et al.
bone were studied relative to aerobic exercise, RT proved
to be an effective stimulus for bone modeling. Long-term
longitudinal studies showed increased BMD from RT [125]
and short-term studies confirmed previous data showing
elevated serum levels of bone biomarkers [126]. Intensity
[127] and loading rate [128] were shown to play significant
roles in bone development. Since the mid-1990s, numerous
studies investigating BMD and bone modeling changes in
response to RT with a variety of populations have been
undertaken. Other pharmaceutical and nutritional inter-
ventions accompanying RT have also been studied.
Initial studies investigating various ligament and tendon
responses to exercise date back to the 1960s [129]. It has
been known for many years that mechanical loading affects
tendon function. The use of magnetic resonance imaging
and ultrasound has expanded the ability to examine tendon
size in vivo in humans. Early studies that examined tendon
adaptations to exercise focused mostly on aerobic exercise
where cross-sectional studies showed a 30% greater
Achilles tendon cross-sectional area in runners compared
with non-runners [130]. Great strides have been made over
the last 15 years in examining tendon adaptations to RT.
Studies have shown that some short-term regional hyper-
trophy but primarily long-term tendon hypertrophy occurs
in response to RT [131, 132]. Short-term adaptations
include mostly increases in stiffness with subsequent
hypertrophy occurring over the long term with the mag-
nitude dependent on the type and degree of loading
[132–134].
Subsequently, studies investigating the underlying
mechanisms involved in regulating stiffness and hypertro-
phy were undertaken. Using microdialysis, stable isotope-
labeled proline infusion, and messenger RNA expression, a
series of studies has shown increased collagen synthesis via
mechanotransduction of tendons undergoing mechanical
loading [132]. Subsequent studies have suggested the
loading-related up-regulation of growth factors (i.e.,
transforming growth factor-b, connective tissue growth
factor, IGF-1, and interleukin-6) may mediate collagen
synthesis [132]. Many studies have been published linking
tendinopathies to injury, examining exercise (especially
eccentric) and RT in the rehabilitation of tendon injuries,
and investigating the ability of RT-induced strength
increases to prevent injury.
3.7 Immune
The immune system is part of the body’s complex
molecular signaling system. It works in tandem with hor-
mones and cytokines and is regulated, in part, by
pathologies, nutrition, and exercise. The dramatic traf-
ficking of immune cells in and out of the circulation to
different biocompartments makes its study very
Evolution of Resistance Training Science
challenging. Investigators in the late 1980s and early 1990s
began the daunting task of examining how the immune
system interacts with exercise. Several hypotheses
appeared to make sense as to its importance in relationship
to exercise including upper respiratory illness, immune
suppression after exercise, and the breakdown (and
recovery) of skeletal muscle post-exercise. Yet, data have
been elusive. Even more unclear was how RT modulated
immune function in healthy individuals.
Nieman et al. [135] observed that squat exercise (sets of
65% of 1RM) to failure reflected similar immune responses
(i.e., leukocytosis, lymphocytosis, and lymphocytopenia)
as endurance exercise albeit RE was performed at lower
oxygen consumption. However, hormonal elevations in
norepinephrine and epinephrine but not cortisol were
observed. They also showed decreases in natural killer cell
cytotoxic activity. Rall et al. [136] examined 12 weeks of
RT in younger and older subjects but no changes in cyto-
kine and immune adaptations were documented. This
raised a question regarding the type of observable adaptive
changes that could be seen during RT. Was it just the rapid
immune response to the exercise stress and its associated
need for ‘clean up’ of damaged proteins or did it in fact
enhance immune cell function? Nieman [137] delineated
some of the basic facts pertinent to exercise and the
immune system in a review where he theorized that acute
immune cell increases occurred, but activation levels were
yet not clearly established. Additionally, natural killer cell
activity was increased but there was limited evidence that
upper respiratory illness with training increased and limited
work had been done on the immune system and RT.
Flynn et al. [138] found no evidence for exercise-in-
duced immune suppression or any changes in the immune
system after 10 weeks of RT in older women. Miles et al.
[139] demonstrated that 6 months of RT in young women
only induced a transient increase in natural killer cells but
had little effect on lymphocyte trafficking or proliferation.
Raso et al. [140] examined 12 months of RT in older
women but found no provocative immune function chan-
ges. Additionally, the immune suppression shown with
extreme athletic competition was not present after RT.
However, this might have been owing to the lack of ele-
vation in cortisol. Maybe it would occur in a local bio-
compartment such as the mouth and salivary
immunoglobulins may be compromised and lead to illness.
To date, conflicting results exist because of the level of
cortisol increases and the type of bacterial or viral
exposure.
Fragala et al. [141] demonstrated that heavy RE (5 9
5RM heavy squats) resulted in dramatic b-2 adrenergic and
glucocorticoid receptor up-regulation in immune cell
populations in men and women, thereby showing a dra-
matic immune-endocrine interface with RE that would
provide the basis for affecting immune cell function. Fur-
ther research into the activation of immune cells with RT is
a fertile line of study as the body remodels glands and
tissues with training. In their review, Fragala et al. [141]
noted as did Nieman years earlier the limited data on RT
and immune function beyond similar responses to endur-
ance exercise and training. Research is needed on the
activation status of immune cells and their trafficking and
involvement in the repair and remodeling processes during
acute and chronic RT.
4 Compatibility with Aerobic Training
In 1980, Hickson [142] showed that combining endurance
and RT modalities in the same training program may
compromise strength development. This opened up a line
of research on simultaneous training and compatibility of
training modalities. Hickson’s work [142] was followed by
Dudley and Djamil’s [143] demonstration that power may
be compromised, leading to growth of this branch. By
1995, studies by Kraemer et al. [144] and McCarthy et al.
[145] provided some initial insights. Kraemer et al. [144]
showed that strength may be compromised when two high-
intensity training programs were undertaken 4 days a week
as type I fibers showed no hypertrophy when both pro-
grams were simultaneously performed. Owing to the fact
that high-intensity endurance training in that study had
shown reductions in type I muscle fiber size, oxidative
stress appeared to limit overall muscle size increases,
potentially mediating strength gains. McCarthy et al. [145]
used a more conservative 3 day-a-week program, which did
not result in a strength decrement, indicating that problems
with simultaneous training may well be the result of a type
of ‘overtraining’, now called non-functional overreaching.
Subsequent studies appeared to support this concept that
frequency of training, level of starting fitness, intensity of
training, and use of periodization concepts are vital when
combining training modalities.
Concerns about simultaneous training led to more
research on the sequence of modalities within the same
workout. The acute fatigue hypothesis postulates endur-
ance performed prior to RE prematurely fatigues active
musculature involved in RE, thereby leading to reduced
effort and intensity and strength and power development
over time [146]. Performing endurance exercise prior to RE
has been shown to limit various measures of strength gains
compared with performing RE prior to aerobic exercise in
some [147] but not all [148] studies. Thus, it has been
shown that RE performance may be compromised fol-
lowing different types of endurance training protocols,
especially high-intensity protocols. The impact on recovery
responses of molecular and hormonal signaling leading to
123

gains in muscular size and strength remains a topic of study
and there is a gap in our understanding of integrated
workouts using both modalities. The type of workouts used
plays a dramatic role in the interpretation of the results.
5 Resistance Training Prescription
Scientific prescription of RT involves the appropriate
manipulation of the acute program variables: intensity
(load), volume (repetitions and set structures), exercise
selection (and muscle action) and performance sequence,
rest intervals, lifting velocity, and frequency. Throughout
RT history, it is fair to say that practitioners set the
guidelines to a large extent and researchers subsequently
studied their techniques mostly for either justification of
use or quantification of the expected outcomes. Research
studies from the 1940s through the 1980s were instru-
mental in establishing some basic concepts of RT, espe-
cially the studies from DeLorme, Berger, Capen, Chui, and
O’Shea, and initial research into RT periodization
[26, 27, 44–47, 149–151] discussed in previous sections.
Studies also began to address mode specificity of adapta-
tions. For example, while many researchers examined
dynamic forms of RT, Hettinger and Muller reported
strength gains following isometric training [36]. Later
studies from Anderson and Kearney [152] demonstrated
greater strength increases with heavy compared with
moderate and light loading schemes and Stone and col-
leagues [153] showed the importance of RT periodization
by demonstrating greater strength gains using the classic
model of periodization.
Still, much confusion existed as athletes and practi-
tioners with different training goals ultimately structured
their programs differently and many early studies were
conducted in lesser-trained populations (college students)
where there is a large potential ‘window of adaptation.’
The most influential studies were those that were either
comparative (i.e., investigation of the results of two or
more programs simultaneously studied) or those that iso-
lated a specific variable. Many of these studies were con-
ducted throughout the 1980s and 1990s. An issue for some
researchers, however, was that there was not always a
market for these studies. For example, most exercise sci-
ence journals during the 1980s were more likely to publish
studies that addressed some physiological question. A
critical evolution in the science of RT exercise prescription
was the development of the Journal of Strength and Con-
ditioning Research (initially known as the Journal of
Applied Sport Science Research) in 1987. From 1987
through to the current day, the journal has been instru-
mental in publishing RT research, especially studies that
have addressed programming issues [154].
123
W. J. Kraemer et al.
Fig. 1 Evolution of resistance exercise research and publication base. c
a Co-citation analysis identified five subdomains within the resistance
exercise literature base. Each node represents a journal (source), with
node size proportional to the number of co-citations, location based
on relational strength, and color indicative of cluster membership (see
Fig. 3). b Formalized resistance exercise research can be traced to the
late 1800s. The field began a gradual growth phase in the 1970s,
followed by rapid growth that began in the late 1990s and continues
today. The number of publications and journals has increased steadily
with an average yearly publication growth of 11% since 2000. From
2011 to 2016, over 7500 articles appeared in more than 550 journals,
continuing the trend of decreasing source concentration. c The five
journals with the largest publication volume have changed over time.
From 2001 to today, the Journal of Strength and Conditioning
Research has published the most papers. APMR Archives of Physical
Medicine and Rehabilitation, EJAP European Journal of Applied
Physiology, IJSM International Journal of Sports Medicine, JAP
Journal of Applied Physiology, JAPMR Journal of the Association for
Physical and Mental Rehabilitation, JSMPT Journal of Sports
Medicine and Physical Fitness, MSSE Medicine and Science in
Sports and Exercise, PTR Physical Therapy Reviews, Res Q Research
Quarterly, Sports Med Sports Medicine
Although some studies led to favorable programmatic
changes in some training facilities, anecdotal information
and philosophies of strength athletes, coaches, and other
practitioners governed the types of RT programs pre-
scribed. Thus, there was a great need by the scientific
community to develop RT guidelines and recommenda-
tions. In 1990 and again in 1998, the American College of
Sports Medicine published a position stand entitled ‘‘The
recommended quantity and quality of exercise for devel-
oping and maintaining cardiorespiratory and muscular
fitness, and flexibility in healthy adults’’ [155, 156]. The
initial recommendation was set for RT program design in
1990 and modified in 1998 to suggest the performance of
one set of 8–12 repetitions for eight to ten exercises,
including one exercise for all major muscle groups; and
10–15 repetitions for older and more frail persons
[155, 156]. Ironically, these initial recommendations were
based more on philosophy rather than science, even
though there was a plethora of information available at the
time. This initial starting program targeted novice indi-
viduals and was shown to be effective during the first 3–4
months of training. However, it did not address the need
for progression or recommendations for different training
goals. In 2002 and again in 2009, the American College of
Sports Medicine [3, 157] revised the document to include
recommendations for progression for novice, intermedi-
ate, and advanced trainees with different training goals,
e.g., muscle strength, power, hypertrophy, endurance, and
motor performance. The document provided scientific
guidelines on manipulating the muscle actions/contraction
type (e.g., concentric, eccentric, and isometric as well as
unilateral and bilateral contractions), exercise selection
and sequence, intensity, volume, repetition velocity, rest
intervals, and frequency to specifically target each of the
Evolution of Resistance Training Science
aforementioned training goals. The 2002 document [157]
was well received and, ironically, the body of scientific
literature did support much of the practitioner training
advice given throughout the years. The 2009 [3] docu-
ment was updated to expand the recommendations but
also was evidence based, meaning that every recommen-
dation was given a rating based on the level of research
supporting it or if it was more practitioner based because
of a lack of research. Currently, RT research is conducted
by many exercise scientists and the number of studies is
growing exponentially. Updates will continue as research
uncovers new phenomena. Of particular interest currently
is the expansion of RT exercise selection (i.e., body
weight, implements, vibration, and other equipment), the
123

loading/volume interaction (i.e., heavy vs. light loading
with and without vascular occlusion), and integration with
other exercise modalities, as other variables such as
sequence, velocity, frequency, and rest intervals continue
to be extensively studied. Future studies need to address
these variable manipulations especially in different
populations.
6 Analysis of the Resistance Training Research
To quantify the structure and development of RT research,
we visualized the direct citation relationships between
nearly 20,000 publications with network analysis
[158, 159]. Relevant articles were identified in the Web of
Science Core Collection [160] using key terms such as RE,
RT, strength training, strength exercise, weight lifting,
weight exercise, weight training, and load exercise. We
identified 12,117 articles, and the list was further refined by
limiting qualifying publications to articles (7858) and
reviews (458). The final capture included 8316 publications
spanning dozens of research areas and over 500 journals.
The five leading research areas included: sport sciences
(51.7%), physiology (18.7%), rehabilitation (9.2%), nutri-
tion/dietetics (6.1%), and endocrinology metabolism
(6.1%).
The full bibliographic record for each article was
imported into network analysis software (CitNetExplorer
and VOSviewer). Source and term maps were constructed
to provide two-dimensional visualizations of the RT
research field [161] with emphasis on the identification of
subfields. Source maps were generated using co-citation
analysis. At least 50 cited references were required for
inclusion. Modularity normalization was applied and
clusters were calculated with a resolution of 1.0, and
default attraction/repulsion factors of 2 and 1, respectively.
Term maps were created using a co-occurrence analysis
based on author keywords [162]. Search terms and related
variants, confounders, and general/irrelevant terms were
removed. Fractionalization was used for normalization and
clusters were calculated with a resolution of 0.75, mini-
mum size of 10, and default attraction/repulsion factors of
2 and 1, respectively. In CitNetExplorer, direct citation
relations were generated by matching DOI data, first author
name, publication year, volume number, and page number
[159].
The results are shown in Figs. 1–3. Co-citation analysis
resulted in a network of 500 journals with 87,374 links
across five clusters (CX) sports science (C1, n = 192),
clinical and basic physiology (C2, n = 168), rehabilitation
sciences and neurophysiology (C3, n = 90), cardiovascular
health (C4, n = 37), and bone health (C5, n = 13). Direct
citation analysis detected 19,751 publications with 160,493
123
W. J. Kraemer et al.
citation links spanning 123 years (1894–2017) and ten
communities. To examine the size, topical area(s), history,
and contributions of each subfield, the constituent publi-
cations were reviewed. Group 1 (n = 4743; 35,243 links)
emphasized the physical consequences and characteristics
of RE, beginning with Scripture [163] and Wissler [164]
examining cross-education. The top article (#2 out of
19,751) was Moritani and deVries [65]. The first group had
six of the top 10 and 39 of the top 100 publications (by
citation score).
Publications in Group 2 (n = 4314; 31,904 links)
examined cellular, molecular, and physiological aspects of
RE; with emphasis on hormonal responses and properties
of skeletal muscle including #9 paper by Staron et al. [71]
and 24 of the top 100. The first papers identified were in
1900 [165] and 1918 [166]. Group 3 (n = 3023; 17,003
links) concentrated on metabolic disorders with ten publi-
cations in the top 100 with the top paper (#26) from
Jackson et al. [167] and the oldest paper from Zuntz [168].
Group 4 (n = 2759; 16,618 links) focused on aging with
three of the top ten publications by #1 Fiatarone et al.
[169], #3 Frontera et al. [170], and #7 Fiatarone et al. [171]
and 20 of the top 100. Group 5 (n = 1752; 9244 links)
focused on cardiorespiratory function. Five publications
were in the top 100 (top paper #23 was the American
Medical Association statement on RE in cardiovascular
disease [172].
Group 6 (n = 1090; 5900 links) studied neurological
conditions affecting ambulation with no articles in the
top 100. Group 7 (n = 958; 5066 links) focused on
women’s health and the effects of unloading. The ear-
liest entry was published in 1948 by Deitrick [173]. One
article made the top 100 (#29 by Nelson et al. [174]).
Group 8 (n = 464; 1640 links) studied respiratory
function and disease with one article in the top 100 (#15
by Borg [175]) and the earliest publication by Briscoe
[176]. Group 9 (n = 83; 295 links) targeted neuromus-
cular disorders with a special emphasis on muscular
dystrophy. None of the articles in this group reached the
top 1000. Group 10 (n = 67; 210 links) focused on
pelvic floor strength, incontinence, and populations with
mental disability. None of the articles made the top 1000
with the first by Kegel [25].
For term co-occurrences, 8926 terms were identified and
908 terms with at least five co-occurrences were included
to determine the top 500 terms. The final network included
460 terms with 6070 links and five topical clusters. The top
ten terms were strength, aging, rehabilitation, skeletal
muscle, obesity, hypertrophy, body composition, elderly,
testosterone, and fatigue. Cluster hubs included the terms
strength, aging, rehabilitation, obesity, and blood pressure
(Fig. 2). The largest cluster (C1; n = 148) included topics
generally related to the prescription, assessment, and
Evolution of Resistance Training Science

Fig. 2 One hundred of the most influential publications in resistance publication to other core publications. The color of each node reflects
exercise. Each node represents a publication, with position on the cluster membership
y axis indicative of year, and position on the x axis relating the

physical properties of RE. The most used terms were variables, athletics, macroscopic aspects of muscle struc-
strength, fatigue, power, electromyography, endurance, ture, neurophysiology, and psychology. The second sub-
performance, periodization, recovery, and concurrent field (C2; n = 105) focused on chronic disease. The most
training. Distinct topical areas included acute program used terms were obesity, body composition, quality of life,

123

Fig. 3 Resistance exercise clusters. a The most strongly linked hubs
within and across the five identified clusters. b Normalized citation
impact for the most cited terms in each cluster. Normalized citation
scores were calculated by dividing publication citation count by the
average number of citations for all publications in the same year. The
average citation score was then calculated for the publications that
used each term. Basic scientific publications are cited more often than
insulin resistance, inflammation, women, physical fitness,
osteoporosis, and weight loss. Distinct topics areas inclu-
ded adiposity, diabetes mellitus, cardiorespiratory health,
and bone health. The third cluster (C3; n = 96) targeted
RE biology with emphasis on cellular and molecular fac-
tors, macronutrients, nutrition, muscle physiology, and
atrophy. The most used terms were: aging, skeletal muscle,
hypertrophy, testosterone, cortisol, GH, muscle damage,
insulin, nutrition, and oxidative stress. The fourth cluster
(C4; n = 87) targeted the rehabilitation sciences. The most
used terms were: rehabilitation, elderly, stroke, balance,
gait, exercise therapy, walking, multiple sclerosis,
osteoarthritis, and pain. The fifth group (C5; n = 24)
focused on cardiovascular and hemodynamic function. The
123
W. J. Kraemer et al.
translational and clinical publications. c Author keyword term map
with community detection. Each node represents a keyword, with
node size proportional to occurrence, location based on relational
strength, and color reflecting cluster membership. Cluster-colored
edges indicate the 1000 strongest links, with edge thickness propor-
tional to linkage strength
most used terms were: blood pressure, heart rate, hyper-
tension, arterial stiffness, vascular occlusion, autonomic
nervous system, blood flow, nitric oxide, and heart rate
variability.
7 Conclusions
The study of RT has substantially progressed after many
years of practitioner use. The first studies began appearing
in the 1890s and there was a steady continuation through
the 1970s. The mid-1970s appeared to be a nexus point
where RT studies evolved into the study of physiological
responses and mechanisms of adaptations as opposed to the
Evolution of Resistance Training Science
study of RT for strength assessment and physical perfor-
mance. Understanding of the evolution of the science will
continue to interact with sports, grant opportunities, com-
mercial development, technology, culture, and investigator
interests. Studies targeting some form of RT have increased
greatly throughout the years. The scientific evolution will
continue as investigators find they can use the modality to
prevent disease, fight aging, improve health and physio-
logical functions, and elevate human performance.
Acknowledgements Parts of this review originated from the 2015
J.B. Wolffe Memorial Lecture presented by William Kraemer at the
annual meeting of the American College of Sports Medicine.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Funding No sources of funding were used to assist in the preparation
of this article.
Conflict of interest William Kraemer, Nicholas Ratamess, Shawn
Flanagan, Jason Shurley, Janice Todd, and Terry Todd have no
conflicts of interest directly relevant to the content of this article.
References
1. Fleck SJ, Kraemer WJ. Designing resistance training programs.
2nd ed. Champaign (IL): Human Kinetics; 1997.
2. Kraemer WJ, Ratamess NA. Fundamentals of resistance train-
ing: progression and exercise prescription. Med Sci Sport Exerc.
2004;36:674–8.
3. Medicine ACoS. Position stand: progression models in resis-
tance training for healthy adults. Med Sci Sports Exerc.
2009;41:687–708.
4. Capretta J. The condition called muscle-bound. J Health Phys
Ed. 1932;3(2):43–54.
5. Benjamin Franklin to his son, 19 August 1771, quoted in Henry
Albert Smyth, eds. The writings of Benjamin Franklin,. vol. 5.
New York (NY); 1905. p. 411–412.
6. William Wood Dead. New York Times. 22 Sept 1900.
7. Smith RA. Sports and freedom: the rise of big time college
athletics. New York: Oxford University Press; 1988.
8. Shurley J. Strength for sport: the development of the profes-
sional strength and conditioning coach. PhD dissertation,
University of Texas, Austin (TX); 2013. pp. 28–30.
9. Flint A. On the source of muscular power: arguments and
conclusions drawn from observations upon the human subject,
under conditions of rest and muscular exercise. Appleton (NY);
1878.
10. Needham D. Machina Carnis: the biochemistry of muscular
contraction in its historical development. Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press; 1971.
11. Huxley AF, Niedergerke R. Structural changes in muscle during
contraction: interference microscopy of living muscle fibres.
Nature. 1954;173:971–3.
12. Huxley H, Hanson J. Changes in the cross-striations of muscle
during contraction and stretch and their structural interpretation.
Nature. 1954;173:973.
13. Huxley AF. Review lecture: muscular contraction. J Physiol.
1974;243(1):1–43.
14. Steinhaus A. Physiology at the service of physical education:
muscle hypertrophy. J Health Phys Ed. 1932;3(2):36–7.
15. Siebert WW. Studies of hypertrophy of skeletal muscle. J Clin
Med. 1928;109:550–9.
16. Sherrington C. Ferrier lecture: some functional problems
attaching to convergence. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci.
1929;105:332–62.
17. Denny-Brown DE, Liddell EG. Observations on the motor
twitch and on reflex inhibition of the tendon-jerk of m.
supraspinatus. J Physiol. 1927;63(1):70–80.
18. Scripture EW, Smith TL, Brown EM. On the education of
muscular control and power. Yale Psychol Lib. 1894;2:114–9.
19. Todd J, Shurley J, Todd T, Thomas L. DeLorme and the science
of progressive resistance exercise. J Strength Cond Res.
2012;26:2913–23.
20. Todd J, Shurley J, Todd T, Thomas L. Science from strength:
DeLorme and the medical acceptance of progressive resistance
exercise. Iron Game History 68. 2014;80 SRC -
GoogleScholar:12–3.
21. McCloy CH. Endurance. Phys Educ. 1948;5:9–10.
22. Houtz S, Parrish A, Hellebrandt F. The influence of heavy
resistance exercises on strength. Physiother Rev.
1946;26:299–304.
23. Morris CB. The measurement of the strength of muscle relative
to the cross section. Res Q. 1948;19:295–303.
24. Thune JB. Personality of weightlifters. Res Q.
1949;20:296–306.
25. Kegel A. Progressive resistance exercise in functional restora-
tion of the perineal muscles. Am J Obstet Gynec.
1948;56(2):244–5.
26. Chui E. The effect of systematic weight training on athletic
power. Res Q. 1950;21:188–94.
27. Chui EF. Effects of isometric and dynamic weight-training
exercises upon strength and speed of movement. Res Q.
1964;35:246–57.
28. Wilkin BM. The effect of weight training on speed of move-
ment. Res Q. 1952;23:361–9.
29. McMorris RO, Elkins EC. A study of production and evaluation
of muscular hypertrophy. Arch Phys Med Rehabil.
1954;35:420–6.
30. Zinovieff AN. Heavy-resistance exercises the ‘‘Oxford tech-
nique’’. Br J Phys Med. 1951;14:129–32.
31. Zorbas WS, Karpovich PV. The effect of weight lifting upon the
speed of muscular contraction. Res Q. 1951;22:145–8.
32. Massey BH, Chaudet NL. Effects of systematic, heavy resistive
exercise on range of joint movement in young male adults. Res
Q. 1956;27:41–51.
33. MacQueen IJ. Recent advances in the technique of progressive
resistance exercise. BMJ. 1954;11:1193–8.
34. Clarke HH. Recent advances in measurement and understanding
of volitional muscular strength. Res Q. 1956;27:263–75.
35. Hunsicker P, Greey G. Studies in human strength. Res Q.
1957;28:109–22.
36. Hettinger T, Muller EA. Muscle capacity and muscle training.
Arbeitsphysiologie. 1953;15(2):111–26.
37. Hellebrandt FA. Application of the overload principle to muscle
training in man. Am J Phys Med. 1958;37:278–83.
38. Henneman E. Relation between size of neurons and their sus-
ceptibility to discharge. Science. 1957;126:1345–7.
39. Adamson GT. Circuit training. Ergonomics. 1959;2:183–6.
40. Jensen CR. Effects of five training combinations of swimming
and weight training on swimming the front crawl. Res Q.
1963;34:471–7.
41. Dintiman GB. Effects of various training programs on running
speed. Res Q. 1964;35:456–63.
42. O’Shea P. Effects of selected weight training programs on the
development of strength and muscle hypertrophy. Res Q.
1966;37:95–102.
123

43. Barney VS, Bamgerter BL. Comparison of three programs of
progressive resistance exercise. Res Q. 1961;32:138–46.
44. Berger RA. Comparison of static and dynamic strength increa-
ses. Res Q. 1962;33:329–33.
45. Berger RA. Effect of varied weight training programs on
strength. Res Q. 1962;33:168–81.
46. Berger RA. Optimum repetitions for the development of
strength. Res Q. 1962;33:334–8.
47. Berger RA. Comparative effects of three weight training pro-
grams. Res Q. 1963;34:396–8.
48. Todd T, Todd J. Pioneers in strength research: the legacy of Dr.
Richard A. Berger. J Strength Cond Res. 2001;15(3):275–8.
49. Todd T, Todd J. Dr. Patrick O’Shea: a man for all seasons.
J Strength Cond Res. 2001;15(4):401–4.
50. Hoffman JR, Kraemer S, Bhasin T, Storer NA, Ratamess GG,
Haff DS, et al. Position stand on androgen and human growth
hormone use. J Strength Cond Res. 2009;23(5):S1–59.
51. deVries HA. Efficiency of electrical activity as a physiological
measure of the functional state of muscle tissue. Am J Phys
Med. 1968;47:10–22.
52. Bergstrom J. Muscle electrolytes in man. Scand J Clin Lab
Invest. 1962;68:1–110.
53. Ikai M, Fukunaga T. A study on training effect on strength per
unit cross-sectional area of muscle by means of ultrasonic
measurement. Int Z Angew Physiol. 1970;28:173–80.
54. Mayhew JL, Gross PM. Body composition changes in young
women with high resistance training. Res Q. 1974;45:433–40.
55. Fahey TD, Rolph R, Moungmee P, Nagel J, Mortara S. Serum
testosterone, body composition, and strength of young adults.
Med Sci Sports. 1976;8:31–4.
56. Costill DL, Coyle EF, Fink WF, Lesmes GR, Witzmann FA.
Adaptations in skeletal muscle following strength training.
J Appl Physiol. 1979;46:96–9.
57. Thorstensson A, Hulten B, von Dolben W, Karlsson J. Effect of
strength training on enzyme activities and fibre characteristics in
human skeletal muscles. Acta Physiol Scand. 1976;96:392–8.
58. Thorstensson A, Sjodin B, Tesch P, Karlsson J. Actomyosin
ATPase, myokinase, CPK and LDH in human fast and slow
twitch muscle fibres. Acta Physiol Scand. 1977;99:225–9.
59. MacDougall JD, Ward GR, Sale DG, Sutton JR. Biochemical
adaptation of human skeletal muscle to heavy resistance training
and immobilization. J Appl Physiol. 1977;43:700–3.
60. MacDougall JD, Sale DG, Moroz JR, Elder GCB, Sutton JR,
Howald H. Mitochondrial volume density in human skeletal
muscle following heavy resistance training. Med Sci Sports.
1979;11:164–6.
61. MacDougall JD, Tuxen D, Sale DG, Moroz JR, Sutton JR.
Arterial blood pressure response to heavy resistance exercise.
J Appl Physiol (1985). 1985;58:785–90.
62. MacDougall JD, McKelvie RS, Moroz DE, Sale DG, McCartney
N, Buick F. Factors affecting blood pressure during heavy
weight lifting and static contractions. J Appl Physiol (1985).
1992;73:1590–7.
63. Komi PV, Viitasalo JHT. Signal characteristics of EMG at dif-
ferent levels of muscle tension. Acta Physiol Scand.
1976;96:267–76.
64. Komi PV, Viitasalo JT, Rauramaa R, Vihko V. Effect of iso-
metric strength training on mechanical, electrical, and metabolic
aspects of muscle function. Eur J Appl Physiol. 1978;40:45–55.
65. Moritani T, deVries HA. Neural factors versus hypertrophy in
the time course of strength gain. Am J Phys Med.
1979;58:115–30.
66. Clarkson PM, Kroll W, McBride TC. Maximal isometric
strength and fiber type composition in power and endurance
athletes. J Eur Physiol. 1980;44:35–42.
123
W. J. Kraemer et al.
67. Tesch PA, Thorsson A, Kaiser P. Muscle capillary supply and
fiber type characteristics in weight and power lifters. J Appl
Physiol. 1984;56:35–8.
68. Häkkinen K, Pakarinen A, Alen M, Kauhanen H, Komi PV.
Neuromuscular and hormonal adaptations in athletes to strength
training in two years. J Appl Physiol (1985). 1988;65:2406–12.
69. Fry AC. The role of resistance exercise intensity on muscle fibre
adaptations. Sports Med. 2004;34:663–79.
70. Krotkiewski M, Aniansson A, Grimby G, Björntorp P, Sjöström
L. The effect of unilateral isokinetic strength training on local
adipose and muscle tissue morphology, thickness, and enzymes.
Eur J Appl Physiol. 1979;42:271–81.
71. Staron RS, Karapondo DL, Kraemer WJ, Fry AC, Gordon SE,
Falkel JE, et al. Skeletal muscle adaptations during early phase
of heavy-resistance training in men and women. J Appl Physiol
(1985). 1994;76:1247–55.
72. Staron RS, Malicky ES, Leonardi MJ, Falkel JE, Hagerman FC,
Dudley GA. Muscle hypertrophy and fast fiber type conversions
in heavy resistance-trained women. Eur J Appl Physiol.
1989;60:71–9.
73. Staron RS, Leonardi MJ, Karapondo DL, Malicky ES, Falkel JE,
Hagerman FC, et al. Strength and skeletal muscle adaptations in
heavy-resistance-trained women after detraining and retraining.
J Appl Physiol (1985). 1991;70:631–40.
74. Adrian ED, Bronk DW. Discharge of impulses in motor nerve
fibres, part II. J Physiol. 1929;67:119–51.
75. Bigland B, Lippold OCJ. Motor unit activity in the voluntary
contraction of human muscle. J Physiol. 1954;125:322–35.
76. Milner-Brown HS, Stein RB, Lee RG. Synchronization of
human motor units: possible roles of exercise and supraspinal
reflexes. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol.
1975;38:245–54.
77. Carroll TJ, Selvanayagam VS, Riek S, Semmler JG. Neural
adaptations to strength training: moving beyond transcranial
magnetic stimulation and reflex studies. Acta Physiol.
2011;202:119–40.
78. Enoka R. Neural adaptations with chronic physical activity.
J Biomech. 1997;30:447–55.
79. Sale DG. Neural adaptation to resistance training. Med Sci
Sports Exerc. 1988;20(5 Suppl.):S135–45.
80. Aagaard P, Simonsen EB, Andersen JL, Magnusson P, Dyhre-
Poulsen P. Neural adaptation to resistance training: changes in
evoked V-wave and H-reflex responses. J Appl Physiol (1985).
2002;92:2309–18.
81. Kidgell DJ, Pearce AL. What has transcranial magnetic stimu-
lation taught us about neural adaptations to strength training? A
brief review. J Strength Cond Res. 2011;25:3208–17.
82. Deschenes MR, Judelson DA, Kraemer WJ, Meskaitis VJ, Volek
JS, Nidnl BC, et al. Effects of resistance training on neuro-
muscular junction morphology. Muscle Nerve.
2000;23(10):1576–81.
83. Deschenes MR, Maresh CM, Crivello JF, Armstrong LE,
Kraemer WJ, Covault J. The effects of exercise training of
different intensities on neuromuscular junction morphology.
J Neurocytol. 1993;22:603–15.
84. Flanagan SD, Dunn-Lewis C, Comstock BA, Maresh CM, Volek
JS, Denegar CR, et al. Cortical activity during a highly-trained
resistance exercise movement emphasizing force, power or
volume. Brain Sci. 2012;20:649–66.
85. Tesch PA, Colliander EB, Kaiser P. Muscle metabolism during
intense, heavy-resistance exercise. Eur J Appl Physiol.
1986;55:362–6.
86. Miller WJ, Sherman WM, Ivy JL. Effect of strength training on
glucose tolerance and post-glucose insulin response. Med Sci
Sports Exerc. 1984;16:539–43.
Evolution of Resistance Training Science
87. Robergs RA, Pearson DR, Costill DL, Fink WJ, Pascoe DD,
Benedict MA, et al. Muscle glycogenolysis during different
intensities of weight-resistance exercise. J Appl Physiol (1985).
1991;70:1700–6.
88. Pascoe DD, Costill DL, Fink WJ, Robergs RA, Zachwieja JJ.
Glycogen resynthesis in skeletal muscle following resistive
exercise. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1993;25:349–54.
89. Edge J, Hill-Haas S, Goodman C, Bishop D. Effects of resis-
tance training on H? regulation, buffer capacity, and repeated
sprints. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2006;38:2004–11.
90. Pilegaard H, Domino K, Noland T, Juel C, Hellsten Y, Halestrap
AP, et al. Effect of high-intensity exercise training on lactate/
H? transport capacity in human skeletal muscle. Am J Physiol.
1999;276:E255–61.
91. Volek JS, Kraemer WJ. Creatine supplementation: its effect on
human muscular performance and body composition. J Strength
Cond Res. 1996;10:200–10.
92. Volek JS, Boetes M, Bush JA, Putukian M, Sebastianelli WJ,
Kraemer WJ. Response of testosterone and cortisol concentra-
tions to high-intensity resistance exercise following creatine
supplementation. J Strength Cond Res. 1997;11:182–7.
93. Volek JS, Duncan ND, Mazzetti SA, Staron RS, Putukian M,
Gomez AL, et al. Performance and muscle fiber adaptations to
creatine supplementation and heavy resistance training. Med Sci
Sports Exerc. 1999;31:1147–56.
94. Goto K, Ishii N, Sugihara S, Yoshioka T, Takamatsu K. Effects
of resistance exercise on lipolysis during subsequent submaxi-
mal exercise. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2007;39:308–15.
95. Clarke DH. Energy cost of isometric exercise. Res Q.
1960;31:3–6.
96. McArdle WD, Foglia GF. Energy cost and cardiorespiratory
stress of isometric and weight training exercises. J Sports Med
Phys Fitness. 1969;9:23–30.
97. Kusinitz I, Keeney CE. Effects of progressive weight training on
health and physical fitness of adolescent boys. Res Q.
1958;29:294–301.
98. Nagle FJ, Irwin LW. Effects of two systems of weight training
on cardiorespiratory endurance and related physiological fac-
tors. Res Q. 1960;31:607–15.
99. Hickson RC, Rosenketter MA, Brown MM. Strength training
effects on aerobic power and short-term endurance. Med Sci
Sports Exerc. 1980;12:336–9.
100. Greer M, Dimick S, Burns S. Heart rate and blood pressure
response to several methods of strength training. Phys Ther.
1984;64:179–83.
101. Stone MH, Wilson GD, Blessing D, Rozenek R. Cardiovascular
responses to short-term Olympic style weight training in young
men. Can J Appl Sport Sci. 1983;8:134–9.
102. Hurley BF, Seals DR, Ehsani AA, Cartier LJ, Dalsky GP,
Hagberg JM, et al. Effects of high-intensity strength training on
cardiovascular function. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1984;16:483–8.
103. Kanakis C, Hickson RC. Left ventricular responses to a program
of lower-limb strength training. Chest. 1980;78:618–21.
104. Fleck SJ. Cardiovascular adaptations to resistance training. Med
Sci Sports Exerc. 1988;20:S146–51.
105. Fleck SJ, Dean LS. Previous resistance-training experience and
the pressor response during resistance exercise. J Appl Physiol
(1985). 1987;63:116–20.
106. Longhurst JC, Kelly AR, Gonyea WJ, Mitchell JH. Echocar-
diographic left ventricular masses in distance runners and
weight lifters. J Appl Physiol. 1980;8:154–62.
107. Fleck SJ, Pattany PM, Stone MH, Kraemer WJ, Thrush J, Wong
K. Magnetic resonance imaging determination of left ventricular
mass: junior Olympic weightlifters. Med Sci Sports Exerc.
1993;25:522–7.
108. Häkkinen K, Pakarinen A, Alen M, Komi PV. Serum hormones
during prolonged training of neuromuscular performance. Eur J
Appl Physiol. 1985;53:287–93.
109. Kraemer WJ, Marchitelli L, Gordon SE, Harman E, Dziados JE,
Mello R, et al. Hormonal and growth factor responses to heavy
resistance exercise protocols. J Appl Physiol (1985).
1990;69:1442–50.
110. Kraemer WJ, Fleck SJ, Dziados JE, Harman EA, Marchitelli LJ,
Gordon SE, et al. Changes in hormonal concentrations after
different heavy-resistance exercise protocols in women. J Appl
Physiol (1985). 1993;75:594–604.
111. Kraemer WJ, Gordon SE, Fleck SJ, Marchitelli LJ, Mello R,
Dziados JE, et al. Endogenous anabolic hormonal and growth
factor responses to heavy resistance exercise in males and
females. Int J Sports Med. 1991;12:228–35.
112. Deschenes MR, Maresh CM, Armstrong LE, Covault J, Kraemer
WJ, Crivello JF. Endurance and resistance exercise induce
muscle fiber type specific responses in androgen binding
capacity. J Biochem Mol Biol. 1994;50(3–4):175–9.
113. Kadi F, Bonnerud P, Eriksson A, Thornell LE. The expression of
androgen receptors in human neck and limb muscles: effects of
training and self-administration of androgenic-anabolic steroids.
Histochem Cell Biol. 2000;113:25–9.
114. Willoughby DS, Taylor L. Effects of sequential bouts of resis-
tance exercise on androgen receptor expression. Med Sci Sports
Exerc. 2004;36:1499–506.
115. Vingren JL, Kraemer WJ, Hatfield DL, Volek JS, Ratamess NA,
Anderson JM, et al. Effect of resistance exercise on muscle
steroid receptor protein content in strength-trained men and
women. Steroids. 2009;74:1033–9.
116. Spiering BA, Kraemer WJ, Vingren JL, Ratamess NA, Ander-
son JM, Armstrong LE, et al. Elevated endogenous testosterone
concentrations potentiate muscle androgen receptor responses to
resistance exercise. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol.
2009;114:195–9.
117. Ratamess NA, Kraemer WJ, Volek JS, Maresh CM, Vanheest
JL, Sharman MJ, et al. Androgen receptor content following
heavy resistance exercise in men. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol.
2005;93:35–42.
118. Kraemer WJ, Nindl BC, Marx JO, Gotshalk LA, Bush JA,
Welsch JR, et al. Chronic resistance training in women poten-
tiates growth hormone in vivo bioactivity: characterization of
molecular mass variants. Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab.
2006;291:E1177–87.
119. Hymer W, Kirshnan K, Kraemer WJ, Welsch JR, Lanham W.
Mammalian pituitary growth hormone: applications of free flow
electrophoresis. Electrophoresis. 2000;21(2):311–7.
120. Kraemer WJ, Dunn-Lewis C, Comstock BA, Thomas GA, Clark
JE, Nindl BC. Growth hormone, exercise, and athletic perfor-
mance: a continued evolution of complexity. Curr Sports Med
Rep. 2010;9:242–52.
121. Nindl BC, Pierce JR. Insulin-like growth factor I as a biomarker
of health, fitness, and training status. Med Sci Sports Exerc.
2010;42:39–49.
122. Nilsson BE, Westlin NE. Bone density in athletes. Clin Orthop
Relat Res. 1971;77:179–82.
123. Conroy BP, Kraemer WJ, Maresh CM, Fleck SJ, Stone MH, Fry
AC, et al. Bone mineral density in elite junior Olympic
weightlifters. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1993;25:1103–9.
124. Granhed H, Jonson R, Hansson T. The loads on the lumbar spine
during extreme weight lifting. Spine. 1987;12:146–9.
125. Lohman T, Going S, Pamenter R, Hall M, Boyden T, Hout-
kooper L, et al. Effects of resistance training on regional and
total bone mineral density in premenopausal women: a ran-
domized prospective study. J Bone Miner Res.
1995;10:1015–24.
123

126. Bemben DA, Fetters NL, Bemben MG, Nabavi N, Koh ET.
Musculoskeletal responses to high-and low-intensity resistance
training in early postmenopausal women. Med Sci Sports Exerc.
2000;32:1949–57.
127. Tsuzuku S, Shimokata H, Ikegami Y, Yabe K, Wasnich RD.
Effects of high versus low-intensity resistance training on bone
mineral density in young males. Calcif Tissue Int.
2001;68:342–7.
128. von Stengel S, Kemmler W, Kalender WA, Engelke K, Lauber
D. Differential effects of strength versus power training on bone
mineral density in postmenopausal women: a 2-year longitudinal
study. Br J Sports Med. 2007;41:649–55.
129. Tipton CM, Matthes RD, Maynard JA, Carey RA. The influence
of physical activity on ligaments and tendons. Med Sci Sports.
1975;7:165–75.
130. Rosager S, Aagaard P, Dyhre-Poulsen P, Neergaard K, Kjaer M,
Magnusson SP. Load-displacement properties of the human
triceps surae aponeurosis and tendon in runners and non-runners.
J Med Sci Sports. 2002;12:90–8.
131. Kjaer M, Magnusson P, Krogsgaard M, Boysen Møller J, Olesen
J, Heinemeier K, et al. Extracellular matrix adaptation of tendon
and skeletal muscle to exercise. J Anat. 2006;208(4):445–50.
132. Heinenmeier KM, Kjaer M. In vivo investigation of tendon
responses to mechanical loading. J Musculoskelet Neuronal
Interact. 2011;11:115–23.
133. Kongsgaard M, Reitelseder S, Pedersen TG, Holm L, Aagaard
PL, Kjaer M, et al. Region specific patellar tendon hypertrophy
in humans following resistance training. Acta Physiol.
2007;191:111–21.
134. Kubo K, Kanehisa H, Fukunaga T. Effects of resistance and
stretching training programmes on the viscoelastic properties of
human tendon structures in vivo. J Physiol. 2002;538:219–26.
135. Nieman DC, Henson DA, Sampson CS, Herring JL, Suttles J,
Conley M, et al. The acute immune response to exhaustive
resistance exercise. Int J Sports Med. 1995;16:322–8.
136. Rall LC, Roubenoff R, Cannon JG, Abad LW, Dinarello CA,
Meydani SN. Effects of progressive resistance training on
immune response in aging and chronic inflammation. Med Sci
Sports Exerc. 1996;28:1356–65.
137. Nieman DC. Immune response to heavy exertion. J Appl Physiol
(1985). 1997;82:1385–94.
138. Flynn MG, Fahlman M, Braun WA, Lambert CP, Bouillon LE,
Brolinson PG, et al. Effects of resistance training on selected
indexes of immune function in elderly women. J Appl Physiol
(1985). 1999;86:1905–13.
139. Miles MP, Kraemer WJ, Grove DS, Leach SK, Dohi K, Bush
JA, et al. Effects of resistance training on resting immune
parameters in women. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2002;87:506–8.
140. Raso V, Benard G, Silva Duarte DA, Natale VM. Effect of
resistance training on immunological parameters of healthy
elderly women. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2007;39(12):2152–9.
141. Fragala MS, Kraemer WJ, Mastro AM, Denegar CR, Volek JS,
Anderson JM, et al. Leukocyte b2-adrenergic receptor expres-
sion in response to resistance exercise. Med Sci Sports Exerc.
2011;43(8):1422–32.
142. Hickson RC. Interference of strength development by simulta-
neously training for strength and endurance. Eur J Appl Physiol.
1980;45:255–63.
143. Dudley GA, Djamil R. Incompatibility of endurance-and
strength-training modes of exercise. J Appl Physiol (1985).
1985;59:1446–51.
144. Kraemer WJ, Patton JF, Gordon SE, Harman EA, Deschenes
MR, Reynolds K, et al. Compatibility of high-intensity strength
and endurance training on hormonal and skeletal muscle adap-
tations. J Appl Physiol (1985). 1995;78:976–89.
123
W. J. Kraemer et al.
145. McCarthy JP, Agre JC, Graf BK, Pozniak MA, Vailas AC.
Compatibility of adaptive responses with combining strength
and endurance training. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1995;27:429–36.
146. Craig BW, Lucas J, Pohlman R, Stelling H. The effects of
running, weightlifting and a combination of both on growth
hormone release. J Sport Sci Res. 1991;5:198–203.
147. Bell GJ, Petersen SR, Quinney HA, Wenger HA. Sequencing of
endurance and high-velocity strength training. Can J Sport Sci.
1988;13:214–9.
148. Gravelle BL, Blessing DL. Physiological adaptation in women
concurrently training for strength and endurance. J Strength
Cond Res. 2000;14:5–13.
149. Matveyev L. Fundamentals of sports training. Moscow: Pro-
gress; 1981.
150. DeLorme TL. Technics of progressive resistance exercise. Arch
Phys Med Rehabil. 1948;29(5):263–73.
151. Capen E. Study of four programs of heavy resistance exercises
for development of muscular strength. Res Q.
1954;27(2):132–42.
152. Anderson T, Kearney JT. Effects of three resistance training
programs on muscular strength and absolute and relative
endurance. Res Q Exerc Sport. 1982;53:1–7.
153. Stone MH, O’Bryant H, Garhammer J. A hypothetical model for
strength training. J Sports Med. 1981;21:342–51.
154. Shurley JP, Todd J, Rodd T. The science of strength: reflections
on the National Strength and Conditioning Association and the
emergence of research-based strength and conditioning.
J Strength Cond Res. 2017;31(2):517–30.
155. Medicine ACoS. Position stand: the recommended quantity and
quality of exercise for developing and maintaining cardiorespi-
ratory and muscular fitness and flexibility in healthy adults. Med
Sci Sports Exerc. 1998;30:975–91.
156. Medicine ACoS. Position stand: the recommended quantity and
quality of exercise for developing and maintaining cardiorespi-
ratory and muscular fitness, and flexibility in healthy adults.
Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1990;22:265–74.
157. Medicine ACoS. Position stand: progression models in resis-
tance training for healthy adults. Med Sci Sports Exerc.
2002;34:364–80.
158. Garfield E. Historiographic mapping of knowledge domains
literature. J Inf Sci. 2004;30(2):119–45.
159. Van Eck NJ, Waltman L. CitNetExplorer: a new software tool
for analyzing and visualizing citation networks. J Informetr.
2014;8(4):802–23.
160. Moed HF. Citation analysis in research evaluation. Berlin:
Springer; 2005.
161. van Eck NJ, Waltman L, van Raan AF, Klautz RJ, Peul WC.
Citation analysis may severely underestimate the impact of
clinical research as compared to basic research. PLoS One.
2013;8(4):e62395.
162. Van Eck NJ, Waltman L, Dekker R, Van den Berg J. A com-
parison of two techniques for bibliometric mapping: multidi-
mensional scaling and VOS. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol.
2010;61(12):2405–16.
163. Scripture EWS, Smith TL, Brown EM. On the education of
muscular control and power. Studies Yale Psychol Lab.
1894;2:114–9.
164. Wissler C. Diffusion of the motor impulse. Psychol Rev.
1900;36:29–38.
165. Hough T. Ergographic studies in muscular fatigue and soreness.
J Boston Soc Med Sci. 1900;5(3):81–92.
166. Harris J, Benedict FG. A biometric study of human basal
metabolism. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1918;4(12):370–3.
167. Jackson A, Pollock M. Generalized equations for predicting
body density of men. Br J Nutr. 1978;40(3):497–504.
Evolution of Resistance Training Science
168. Zuntz N. Ueber die Bedeutung der verschiedenen Nährstoffe als
Erzeuger der Muskelkraft. N Pflugers Arch. 1901;83:557–71.
169. Fiatarone M, Marks E, Ryan N, Meredith C, Lipsitz L, Evans W.
High-intensity strength training in nonagenarians effects on
skeletal muscle. JAMA. 1990;263(22):3029–34.
170. Frontera W, Meredith C, O’Reilly K, Knuttgen H, Evans WJ.
Strength conditioning in older men: skeletal muscle hypertrophy
and improved function. J Appl Physiol (1985).
1988;64:1038–44.
171. Fiatarone M, O’Neill E, Ryan N, Clements K, Solares G, Nelson
M, et al. Exercise training and nutritional supplementation for
physical frailty in very elderly people. N Engl J Med.
1994;330(25):1769–75.
172. Williams M, Haskell W, Ades P, Amsterdam E, Bittner V,
Franklin B, et al. American Heart Association Council on
Clinical Cardiology, American Heart Association Council on
Nutrition, Physical Activity and Metabolism. Resistance
exercise in individuals with and without cardiovascular disease:
2007 update: a scientific statement from the American Heart
Association Council on Clinical Cardiology and Council on
Nutrition, Physical Activity, and Metabolism. Circulation.
2007;116(5):572–84.
173. Deitrick JE, Whedon GD, Shorr E. Effects of immobilization
upon various metabolic and physiologic functions of normal
men. Am J Med. 1948;4(1):3–36.
174. Nelson M, Fiatarone M, Morganti C, Trice I, Greenberg R,
Evans W. Effects of high-intensity strength training on multiple
risk factors for osteoporotic fractures: a randomized controlled
trial. JAMA. 1994;272(24):1909–14.
175. Borg GA. Psychophysical bases of perceived exertion. Med Sci
Sports Exerc. 1982;14(5):377–81.
176. Briscoe W, Dubois A. The relationship between airway resis-
tance, airway conductance and lung volume in subjects of dif-
ferent age and body size. J Clin Invest. 1958;37(9):1279–85.
123