Responses

Resistance training prescription for muscle strength and hypertrophy in healthy adults: a systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis
Compose Response

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests

PLEASE NOTE:

  • A rapid response is a moderated but not peer reviewed online response to a published article in a BMJ journal; it will not receive a DOI and will not be indexed unless it is also republished as a Letter, Correspondence or as other content. Find out more about rapid responses.
  • We intend to post all responses which are approved by the Editor, within 14 days (BMJ Journals) or 24 hours (The BMJ), however timeframes cannot be guaranteed. Responses must comply with our requirements and should contribute substantially to the topic, but it is at our absolute discretion whether we publish a response, and we reserve the right to edit or remove responses before and after publication and also republish some or all in other BMJ publications, including third party local editions in other countries and languages
  • Our requirements are stated in our rapid response terms and conditions and must be read. These include ensuring that: i) you do not include any illustrative content including tables and graphs, ii) you do not include any information that includes specifics about any patients,iii) you do not include any original data, unless it has already been published in a peer reviewed journal and you have included a reference, iv) your response is lawful, not defamatory, original and accurate, v) you declare any competing interests, vi) you understand that your name and other personal details set out in our rapid response terms and conditions will be published with any responses we publish and vii) you understand that once a response is published, we may continue to publish your response and/or edit or remove it in the future.
  • By submitting this rapid response you are agreeing to our terms and conditions for rapid responses and understand that your personal data will be processed in accordance with those terms and our privacy notice.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

Jump to comment:

  • Published on:
    Standardized data collection can lead to more insightful outcomes
    • James Lee, Strategic Initiatives Manager, Personal Trainer & Athletics Coach University of Oxford
    • Other Contributors:
      • David Lowery, Translational Research Manager

    This meta-analysis undertaken by Currier et al. is welcomed to help further understanding of resistance-based training regimen for strength and hypertrophy. Currier et al. identified that future work to identify the optimal protocol and dose for specific exercise prescriptions is needed. While this recommendation is uncontentious, they could have perhaps gone further. The literature is flooded with different types of studies which incorporate strength-related protocols and is reflected in the number of records excluded in this study. For future studies and - where applicable - existing studies should use a harmonized data collection approach which is common in areas of medicine, for example when attempting to characterize infectious diseases (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7266570/). Ensuring that categorical variables such as age, sex, ethnicity, somatotype, exercise experience, and other appropriate biological parameters are all collected in a standardized way, with datasets made available for reuse could lead to better stratification of data, thus resulting in better insights for future analyses and meta-analyses like the one undertaken by Currier et al.

    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.