A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE ACSM POSITION STAND ON RESISTANCE TRAINING: INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT RECOMMENDED TRAINING PROTOCOLS

We read with interest the recent critical analysis of the American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM) position stand on progression during resistance training by Carpinelli et al. (1). We would like to comment on the inherent bias in the opinion of our own work that is common to all scientists. Most of us feel that our interpretation of research is correct and others interpretation is incorrect. That is why we have a peer-review process for publishing research studies, so that we must endure the criticisms of other scientists in our area to determine whether our work is legitimate. Review papers, as the authors suggest themselves, are secondary sources and thus may be more afflicted by bias of interpretation than a single research study. So we find it interesting that the authors themselves have decided to write another review paper. A more appropriate review process for assessing research from past investigations in this area is through a statistical meta-analysis. So we have highlighted the findings of some meta-analyses performed recently in the area of resistance training. The following meta-analyses have been performed concerning the issue of dose response for strength development (2,3) and single versus multiple sets (4,5). By providing effect size (ES) and using meta-analytic techniques, these studies have provided evidence that supports the theory of progression in resistance training program design. There appears to be clear dose-response relationships with both novice and more highly trained athletes (3). For example, Rhea et al. (4) demonstrated that three sets of an exercise increased strengt