Muscle Strength and Size Relationships with Unilateral Progressive Resistance Training
Donald D. Deiwert, Sisi MaiD, Christopher Carey, Davin GreenwelliD, Heather Gordish‐DressmaniD, Paul D. ThompsoniD, Thomas B. Price, Theodore J. Angelopoulos, Priscilla M. Clarkson, Paul M. GordoniD, Niall M. MoynaiD, Linda Shannon PescatelloiD, Paul S. VisichiD, Robert F. Zoeller, Eric P. HoffmaniD, Monica J. HubaliD
Abstract
PurposeThis study defines correlative and causal relationships between muscle strength and size before and after unilateral resistance training (RT) in a large cohort of healthy adults, focusing on sex differences within these relationships. MethodsResults from 1233 participants (504 males and 729 females) in a retrospective analysis were included. Maximal voluntary isometric contraction strength (MVC), one-repetition maximum strength (1RM), biceps cross-sectional area (CSA) and elbow flexor volume (VOL) measures of the non-dominant and dominant arm were evaluated from baseline and after 12-wk RT twice per week. Correlations of MVC and VOL and 1RM and VOL were calculated in the whole cohort and within each sex independently. Causal analysis modeling was used to infer mechanistic relationships among variables. ResultsAbsolute muscle strength and size related to one another both at baseline and following training, however correlation strength in each sex were weak. After RT, MVC relative change and VOL relative change correlations were correlated for the whole cohort (r=0.16; p<0.001) and females (r=0.18; p<0.001), but not in males (r=0.11; p=0.07). No significant correlations for relative change in 1RM and VOL were observed for the whole cohort or within sex. Causal discovery determined that change in VOL caused significant change in 1RM (but not MVC) and age was identified as a potential cause. ConclusionsSex differences occur in muscle size and strength relationship adaptations following resistance training, most notably the absence of significant relationships between relative size and strength changes in men. Simpsons paradox bias, where assessing the combined data of males and females (also affecting overall sample size) affects identifies patterns differently than assessing relationships within each sex, may partially explain our findings.
02 /Specification & Classification
Click any tag to browse matching papers- Citations
- 0
- Organism
- Assay
- Research Focus
- Approach
Reproducibility ledger
Nobody has reported trying to reproduce this paper yet. Did you replicate an experiment or run the code? Your report saves the next lab a week.
Sign in to file a reproducibility report.
Related papers
- Muscle activation strategies of the vastus lateralis according to sex
Y. Guo, E. J. Jones, … M. Piasecki·bioRxiv·Nov 1, 2021
- RESISTANCE TRAINING DOES NOT INDUCE UNIFORM ADAPTATIONS TO QUADRICEPS MUSCLES
G. Mangine, M. J. Redd, … J. R. Hoffman·bioRxiv·May 18, 2018
- Sex Differences in Motor Unit Properties and Force Steadiness: Insights from Strength-Matched Elbow Flexion
Parisa Alaei, Kaylee Agnes Larocque, … Jennifer M. Jakobi·bioRxiv·Aug 12, 2026
- The Effect of Resistance Training Volume on Individual-Level Skeletal Muscle Adaptations: A Novel Replicated Within-Participant Unilateral Trial
Zac P. Robinson, James Steele, … Michael Christopher Zourdos·bioRxiv·Jul 24, 2025
- Total testosterone is not associated with muscle mass, function or exercise adaptations in pre-menopausal females
Sarah E. Alexander, Briana Gatto, … Séverine Lamon·The Journal of PhysiologyPeer-reviewed·Oct 11, 2024
- Big Bones Mean Big Muscles: AI Quantifies 71 Individual Muscles Across the Whole Body, Revealing Widespread Links Between Muscle, Bone, and Body Size
Lara Riem, Megan Pinette, … Silvia S. Blemker·bioRxiv·Apr 1, 2025