Content uploaded by Ralph Carpinelli
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Ralph Carpinelli on Sep 05, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
Medicina Sportiva
Med Sport 13 (2): 131–137, 2009
DOI: 10.2478/v10036-009-0020-7
Copyright © 2009 Medicina Sportiva
REVIEW ARTICLE
131
CHALLENGING THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF
SPORTS MEDICINE 2009 POSITION STAND
ON RESISTANCE TRAINING
Ralph N. Carpinelli
Human Performance Laboratory, Adelphi University, Garden City, New York, USA
Abstract
The new ACSM Position Stand on resistance training is very similar to the 2002 Position Stand, which based the ma-
jority of its claims and recommendations on misinterpretation of resistance training studies and selective referencing. The
addition of a few new references published since the previous Position Stand was supposed to enhance the credibility of
the ACSM’s recommendations for resistance training. Unfortunately, the ACSM’s new Position Stand contains all the flaws
that were pervasive in their previous Position Stand; that is, the authors cited references that failed to support their opinions
and recommendations.
Key words: muscular strength, load, volume, exercises
Introduction
The American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM)
released a new Position Stand entitled Progression
Models in Resistance Training for Healthy Adults
(1). The 2009 Position Stand replaces the 2002 ACSM
Position Stand on resistance training (2) and has some
additional references that allegedly serve “…to bolster
the scientific integrity of the RT [resistance training]
knowledge base” (p.687). However, the failure of the
ACSM to support their claims and recommendations
with resistance training studies is pervasive thro-
ughout the 2009 Position Stand, as it was in the 2002
Position Stand (3).
The comments below are several specific examples
from six sub-sections (Loading, Volume, Exercise Se-
lection, Free Weights and Machines, Exercise Order,
and Rest Periods) of one primary section entitled
Muscular Strength. There are ten primary sections in
the new Position Stand (1). The rationale for choosing
these six sub-sections is that they contain a few new
references that were not cited in the 2002 Position
Stand (2). Nevertheless, these examples are typical of
what is systemic throughout the Position Stand; that
is, many of the references cited failed to support the
ACSM’s claims or recommendations.
Loading
The authors of the Position Stand (1) claimed that
at least 80% 1RM is required to produce neural ada-
ptations in experienced lifters (p.690). A 1RM is the
amount of resistance that can be lifted for only one
repetition. They cited one reference (4) to support that
claim. Hakkinen and colleagues (4) trained the knee
extensors with the barbell squat exercise in 11 young
males three times a week for 24 weeks. The amount of
resistance varied every four weeks (70-80%, 80-90%,
80-110%, 70-90%, 80-115%, and 85-120% 1RM, re-
spectively). Electromyographic activity was measured
during maximal knee extensor muscle actions on a
dynamometer. Although maximal electromyographic
activity significantly increased when the resistance
was greater than 80% 1RM (weeks 4-12), there was
no significant difference between the pre-training
and post-training mean maximal electromyographic
activity in the three muscles tested (rectus femoris,
vastus medialis and vastus lateralis).
Hakkinen and colleagues (4) speculated that
strength gains (~27% isometric knee extension force)
were accompanied by an increase in neural activation
during very intense training. However, there was no
data showing the strength gains during each four-week
cycle and, most importantly, no data for the 1RM squ-
at, which was measured every four weeks. There was
only one training group and consequently no random
assignment of subjects to train at different percentages
of the 1RM squat (e.g., 70% 1RM versus 80% 1RM) or
a specific range of RM (e.g., 3-6RM versus 7-10RM).
Hakkinen and colleagues’ Figure 2 (p.577) depicted
a progressive increase in maximal isometric force
during the first 20 weeks of training. However, this
reported increase does not rule out the confounding
variable of a typical increase in force production with
the duration (20 weeks) of training. Therefore, the
increase in force during the first 20 weeks of training
may have no relationship to the amount of resistance
used in training.
132
Carpinelli R.N./ Medicina Sportiva 13 (2): 131-137, 2009
Hakkinen and colleagues (4) noted that the number
of repetitions varied from one to 10 per set but they did
not report the number of repetitions at each percent
1RM. This was the only information regarding the
number of repetitions that Hakkinen and colleagues
provided. Because motor unit activation is depen-
dent on the degree of effort (5) and was not reported
by Hakkinen and colleagues, the level of motor unit
activation during the 24 weeks of squat training is
unknown. Consequently, Hakkinen and colleagues
did not report enough information in this study to
support the claim in the Position Stand that at least
80% 1RM is required to produce neural adaptations
in experienced trainees.
The Position Stand (1) also claimed that 1-6RM
loads were most conducive to increasing maximal
strength (p.690). The authors cited two training stu-
dies (6-7) in an attempt to support their claim. Berger
(6) trained 199 male college students three times a
week for 12 weeks. They performed one set of the
barbell bench press exercise for 2RM, 4RM, 6RM,
8RM, 10RM, or 12RM. Berger’s Table 2 (p.337) showed
that the increase in 1RM bench press was significantly
greater for the 4RM, 6RM, and 8RM groups compared
with the 2RM group, and significantly greater in the
8RM group compared with the 2RM, 10RM and 12RM
groups. There was no significant difference in strength
gains among the 4RM, 6RM and 8RM groups, nor
between the 2RM group (heaviest resistance) and the
10RM or 12RM groups (lightest resistance).
O’Shea (7) trained 30 previously untrained male
college students who performed barbell squats three
times a week for six weeks. They used one of three re-
petition protocols: 2-3RM, 5-6RM or 9-10RM. There
was a significant increase in 1RM barbell squat, static
strength on a lower-body dynamometer, and thigh
girth. However, there was no significant difference
among the groups for any of the outcomes as a result
of training with 2-3RM, 5-6RM, or 9-10RM.
Heavier resistance did not produce greater strength
gains in either of these studies (6-7). Therefore, these
resistance training studies, which were cited by the
authors of the Position Stand (1), failed to support their
claim that 1-6RM loads produce superior strength
gains.
The Position Stand (1) claimed that 80% 1RM
produced the largest effect size for strength gains in
trained subjects. They also claimed that 85% 1RM
was most effective for athletes (p.690). The authors
did not explain how they classified trained subjects,
which should have been a requisite when attempting to
differentiate from those subjects whom they classified
as athletes. The Position Stand cited two meta-analy-
ses (8-9) in an attempt to support those claims. The
meta-analysis by Rhea and colleagues (8) reported
that training with 80% 1RM resulted in an effect size
of 1.8 (E.S. = 1.8), which was almost three times larger
than training with 85% 1RM (E.S. = 0.65). The reason
that such a small difference in resistance (80% 1RM
compared with 85% 1RM) resulted in such a large
difference in strength gains was not addressed by Rhea
and colleagues. In other words, why would training
with a slightly lighter resistance for a couple of extra
repetitions produce such markedly superior strength
gains? There is no known physiological hypothesis to
explain such large differences in outcomes as a result of
such small differences in resistance. Consequently, the
conclusions of Rhea and colleagues and the Position
Stand have no logical foundation and have no practical
application to resistance training.
The meta-analysis by Peterson and colleagues (9)
reported that the effect size for strength gains in athle-
tes was almost double as a result of training with 85%
1RM (E.S. = 1.12) compared with training with 80%
1RM (E.S. = 0.57). They also claimed that training
with 75% 1RM (E.S. = 0.73) was 10 times as effective
as training with 70% 1RM (E.S. = 0.07). For example,
if the 1RM bench press is 100kg and an individual
trains to muscular fatigue with a 75 kg barbell, the
strength gains would be (according to Peterson and
colleagues) 10 times greater than training to muscular
fatigue with a 70kg barbell. In addition, their data
(E.S. = 0.07) erroneously suggest that training with
70% 1RM to muscular fatigue has basically no effect
on strength gains.
Most of the studies included in the meta-analysis
by Peterson and colleagues (9) did not have a control
group. The lack of a control group required the use
of a pooled standard deviation as opposed to the pre-
training standard deviation employed by Peterson
and colleagues. This statistical error apparently was
not questioned by the reviewers of the publishing
journal or the authors and reviewers of the Position
Stand (1).
As with the aforementioned meta-analysis by Rhea
and colleagues (8), Peterson and colleagues (9) did not
hypothesize how such a small difference in resistance
could elicit such a large difference in strength gains.
Readers should question how these data were simply
accepted as valid evidence to support a concept that
is bereft of any physiological explanation. Shouldn’t
it have it occurred to the reviewers of the respective
journals (Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise,
and the Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research)
to challenge these data? And equally importantly,
shouldn’t the reviewers of the Position Stand (1) have
challenged the claims?
Neither Rhea and colleagues (8) nor Peterson and
colleagues (9) distinguished between trained sub-
jects and athletes. They provided no explanation for
differentiating between highly-motivated advanced
trainees, whose goals are to attain the greatest strength
133
Carpinelli R.N./ Medicina Sportiva 13 (2): 131-137, 2009
gains and muscular hypertrophy, and competitive col-
legiate or professional athletes—who may have very
limited resistance training experience. For example,
are competitive collegiate or professional basketball
players trained individuals if they do not perform re-
sistance training? As athletes, would they be classified
differently in a meta-analysis if they regularly perfor-
med resistance training? Why would a 5% difference
in resistance result in such dramatic differences in
strength gains, regardless of whether the trainees were
classified as trained or as athletes? The absence of an
objective physiological difference between these arbi-
trarily defined groups precludes any conclusion about
different responses to a specific intensity or volume
of resistance training. The credibility of both these
highly-flawed meta-analyses (8-9) has been previously
refuted (10). Nevertheless, the authors of the Position
Stand (1) cited Rhea and colleagues at least 12 times
and Peterson and colleagues at least six times.
None of these training studies (4, 6-7) or meta-
analyses (8-9) supports the claim in the Position Stand
(1) that a heavier resistance produces superior strength
gains. That claim is based on a misinterpretation of the
size principle. Motor unit activation is dependent of
the level of effort at the end of a set of repetitions—not
the amount of resistance or percent 1RM (5).
Volume
The Position Stand (1) claimed that a meta-ana-
lysis of 37 studies reported that eight sets per muscle
group produced the greatest effect size in athletes
(p.690). They cited two references (9, 11) in attempt
to support that claim. As previously discussed, the
meta-analysis by Peterson and colleagues (9) does
not meet scientific standards and has previously been
refuted in detail (10).
Specifically related to the volume of exercise,
Peterson and colleagues (9) claimed that the dose-
response for resistance training in athletes differs
from lesser-trained populations. One of the criteria
for inclusion of studies in their meta-analysis was
that study participants must have been competitive
collegiate or professional athletes. However, at least
nine of the studies included by Peterson and colleagues
involved subjects who had not performed resistance
training prior to the specific study, had no prior resi-
stance training experience, or there was no indication
of prior resistance training (see reference 10 for list of
specific studies).
Peterson and colleagues (9) claimed that maximal
strength gains were elicited as a result of performing
eight sets per muscle group during each training ses-
sion. However, they did not indicate how they coded
the number of sets per muscle group and they did not
indicate which muscles they were coding or explain
the rationale for their choice.
Peterson and colleagues (9) also claimed that their
data unequivocally demonstrate the added strength
benefits of higher training volumes. However, their
Table 2 (p.379) failed to support any pattern or conti-
nuum for the effectiveness of the number of sets per
muscle group. The effect sizes for four, five, six and
eight sets per muscle group were 0.90, 0.64, 0.68, and
1.22, respectively. In their Methods section (p.378)
Peterson and colleagues claimed that an analysis of va-
riance was used to compare differences in effect sizes.
However, they did not report any statistical differences
between effect sizes. In addition, their Table 2 (p.379)
revealed that the mean effect size was 1.22 for eight
sets per muscle group but that mean was generated
from only six effect sizes. Unfortunately, they did not
specify the source of those effect sizes or how many
studies produced those data. They did not attempt
to explain their reported pattern of a fluctuating
mean effect size (high, low, high) as training volume
increased. Peterson and colleagues concluded that
their meta-analytic procedure showed a continuum
of quantified strength increases that were elicited by a
continuum of training intensities, frequencies, and vo-
lumes. They also claimed that their data unequivocally
demonstrated the added benefits with higher training
volumes compared with lower-volume training. In
fact, because they failed to demonstrate a continuum
of strength gains related to volume, their own data do
not support their conclusions.
In the second reference cited in the Position Stand
(1), Peterson and colleagues (11) reported no new
data. It was merely a rehash of their previous meta-
analysis (9).
Exercise Selection
The Position Stand (1) claimed that multiple-joint
exercises are more effective than single-joint exercises
for increasing muscular strength because a greater
amount of resistance can be lifted (p.691). A similar
claim was made in the previous Position Stand (2) and
the same reference was cited, which was a review by
Stone and colleagues (12). Stone and colleagues me-
rely expressed their opinion—without any resistance
training studies for support—about the superiority of
multiple-joint exercises, and revealed their apparent
misinterpretation of the size principle of motor unit
activation. Inquisitive readers may find it difficult to
find this review because it was incorrectly cited as the
National Strength & Conditioning Association Journal
(NSCA J) in both the 2002 and 2009 Position Stand.
The name of the NSCA J was changed to Strength &
Conditioning in 1994 and since 1999 has been known
as Strength & Conditioning Journal.
The authors of the Position Stand (1) recommen-
ded that that there should be an emphasis on multi-
ple-joint exercises to maximize muscular strength in
134
Carpinelli R.N./ Medicina Sportiva 13 (2): 131-137, 2009
novice, intermediate and advanced trainees (p.691).
They cited 28 references to support that recommenda-
tion. However, none of those references reported that
strength gains were greater with multiple-joint exer-
cises nor did they compare single-joint and multiple-
joint resistance training. Consequently, the claim for
superiority of multiple-joint exercises in the Position
Stand is not substantiated with any science.
Free Weights and Machines
The Position Stand (1) claimed: “…machine
exercises have demonstrated less neural activation
when matched for intensity for most comparisons to
free weight exercises” (p.691). The authors cited one
study (13) to support their claim. McCaw and Friday
(13) tested five young resistance trained males who
performed the bench press exercise with free weights
(barbell) and a machine. Subjects performed several
trials on both modalities with 60% and 80% of the
respective 1RMs. Surface electromyographic activity
was recorded for the triceps brachii, anterior deltoid,
medial deltoid, pectoralis major, and biceps brachii.
The only significant difference in electromyographic
activity was greater neural activation in the anterior
and medial deltoid during lifting and lowering the
barbell with 60% 1RM. There was no significant
difference in electromyographic activity for any of
the five muscle groups when lifting or lowering 80%
1RM. McCaw and Friday concluded that the high
individual variability in electromyographic activity in
their subjects suggests that factors other than the mode
of exercise (free weights or machines)—such as joint
and muscle mechanics specific to the individual—are
responsible for neural activity (muscle involvement)
during a bench press. This study does not support
the claim in the Position Stand that there is lower
neural activation in most comparisons of machines
and free weights. The authors of the Position Stand
apparently selected one piece of data from this study,
cited the study in an attempt to support their opinion
regarding free weights, and ignored the overall results
and conclusions of McCaw and Friday.
The Position Stand (1) also claimed: “unlike machi-
nes, free weights may result in a pattern of intra- and
intermuscular coordination that mimics the move-
ment requirements of a specific task” (p.691). There
is no reference cited to support that opinion.
Exercise Order
The authors of the Position Stand (1) claimed that
it is necessary to perform multiple-joint exercises
early in a workout session in order to produce optimal
strength gains (p.692). They cited one study (14) to
support their claim. Spreuwenberg and colleagues
recruited nine healthy young males who had appro-
ximately seven years of resistance training experience
to perform four sets of free weight squats with 85%
1RM during one visit to the laboratory. The same
squat protocol (4 sets with 85% 1RM) was performed
during another session but was executed at the end of a
resistance training workout that consisted of three sets
of 8-10RM for seven other lower-body and upper-body
exercises. During the first set of the four sets of squats,
there were significantly fewer repetitions performed
when the squat was preceded by the other exercises
compared with performing only the squat exercise (5.4
and 8.0 repetitions, respectively). However, there was
no significant difference in the number of repetitions
during the second, third, and fourth sets of squats.
The difference in the number of repetitions was only
during the first set of squats. Most importantly, the
rating of perceived exertion (RPE) was not significan-
tly different between the two experimental protocols.
As previously noted, because the activation of motor
units is dependent on the degree of effort and not the
amount of resistance or number of repetitions (5),
and the effort (RPE) was similar for both experimen-
tal protocols, one may infer that there was similar
activation of motor units. Therefore, the comment
by Spreuwenberg and colleagues that trainees should
perform multiple-joint large muscle group exercises
at the beginning of an exercise session to achieve
maximal strength gains is without foundation. Their
comment also reveals a misinterpretation of the size
principle by Spreuwenberg and colleagues as well as
by the authors of the Position Stand.
Rest Periods
The Position Stand (1) claimed that the amount
of rest between sets and exercises significantly affects
training adaptations (p.692). They cited two referen-
ces (15-16) in an attempt to support their opinion.
Pijnappels et al. (15) reported the association between
lower body strength and the prevention of falls in el-
derly participants. They did not attempt to compare
different rest intervals—probably because this was not
a training study. Consequently, this reference does not
support the claim in the Position Stand.
In the other reference cited, Robinson and colleagu-
es (16) compared inter-set rest intervals of 180 seconds,
90 seconds and 30 seconds in moderately trained
young males. There was no random assignment of
groups and no control group. The increase in 1RM
squat was significantly greater in the 180-second rest
group (7%) compared with the 30-second rest group
(2%). With the exception of circuit weight training,
there are very few—if any—resistance training pro-
tocols that recommend rest intervals be limited to 30
seconds. In addition, the accuracy of determining the
differences in the miniscule strength gains (5%) after
performing five sets of 10RM squats two times a week
for five weeks is questionable at best. More impor-
135
Carpinelli R.N./ Medicina Sportiva 13 (2): 131-137, 2009
tantly, there was no significant difference in strength
gains between the 180-second (7%) and 90-second
rest groups (6%); that is, when comparing reasonable
rest intervals, longer inter-set rest intervals did not
produce superior strength gains.
The Position Stand (1) concluded: “However, most
longitudinal training studies have shown greater
strength increases with long versus short rest periods
(e.g., 2-5 min vs. 30-40s)” (p.692). The authors cited
three references (16-18). The study by Robinson et
al. (16) has been previously discussed. Pincivero
and colleagues (17) compared 40-second and 160-
second inter-set rest intervals in previously untrained
young participants who trained three times a week
for four weeks. Pincivero and colleagues reported
no significant difference between groups for 12 out
the 14 variables measured on a dynamometer and no
significant difference in the functional performance
measure. In the Results section (p. 231) they claimed
that quadriceps average power and peak torque
showed a significantly greater improvement in the
longer rest group. However, the claim in their Results
section regarding quadriceps torque is antithetical to
the claim in their Conclusions section: “It was also
evident that isokinetic quadriceps torque improved
after training, as did functional performance. These
improvements however, do not appear to be affected
by rest interval manipulation” (p.234). Both of these
studies (16-17) were the only references cited in an
attempt to support the same opinion regarding rest
intervals in the 2002 Position Stand on resistance
training (2). They failed to support that opinion in
2002 and again in 2009.
The new reference in the 2009 Position Stand (1)
is a training study by Ahtiainen and colleagues (18)
that compared two-minute and five-minute inter-
set rest intervals in 13 young males with 6.6 years
of continuous resistance training. Ahtiainen and
colleagues concluded: “The present study shows that,
in hypertrophic heavy-resistance exercise, the 2- vs. 5-
minute length of rest periods between sets did not lead
to systematic differences in the acute exercise-induced
metabolic, hormonal, or neuromuscular responses.
Furthermore, training–induced adaptations over the
3-month period in muscle mass and strength were
similar in magnitude in both the short- and long-rest
protocols” (p.581). In addition, one important clini-
cally significant aspect of this study was that seven
out of the original 20 participants in this study had
to drop out during the experimental period because
of training-induced aches in the knees and back. It
is highly questionable if 4-5 sets of squats and leg
presses constitute a safe, effective resistance training
protocol (First Do No Harm).
Because William Kraemer is a co-author of the stu-
dy by Ahtiainen and colleagues (18) and a co-author of
the 2009 Position Stand (1), one should question how
his study—which reported results that are antithetical
to the claim in the Position Stand—was incorrectly ci-
ted by the authors for support, and why it was accepted
as supporting evidence by the reviewers, the ACSM
Pronouncements Committee, and the Editor-in-Chief
of Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise.
The Position Stand (1) also claimed (p.692) that
it is important to note that inter-set rest is dependent
on the complexity of the exercise. For example, the
authors claimed that Olympic lifts require longer
inter-set rest. There is no reference cited to support
this opinion.
In a study published in 2008, Williardson & Bur-
kett (19) trained young males who were consistently
performing the squat exercise for a minimum of four
years prior to the investigation with the primary
purpose of increasing maximal strength and muscle
mass. The participants were randomly assigned to a
2-minute or 4-minute inter-set rest interval, with both
groups performing the same squat training protocol
two times a week for 12 weeks. The 2-minute and 4-
minute groups showed significant increases in squat
strength. Williardson and Burkett concluded: “The
primary finding of this study was that squat strength
gains were not significantly different between groups
that rested 2 minutes or 4 minutes between sets” (p.149).
This study is curiously missing from the new Position
Stand (1). One should question why one of the co-
authors of the Position Stand (William Kraemer), who
is the Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Strength and
Conditioning Research where the study by Williardson
& Burkett was published, neglected to cite this study in
the Position Stand. If this failure to cite contradictory
evidence was intentional, it exposes a condition known
as selective referencing.
Discussion
There were 139 references examined in the Cri-
tical Analysis of the 2002 ACSM Position Stand on
resistance training (2). Only eight of these studies
actually supported the claims in the Position Stand
(3) and 16 other studies contained serious flaws in
methodology or data. More importantly, 59 studies
failed to support the claims and 56 studies that were
not cited in the Position Stand actually refuted the cla-
ims or recommendations. This was not only a failure
in the ACSM’s writing and peer-review processes but
was a misrepresentation of the studies conducted by
dedicated researchers who devoted countless hours
performing resistance training research; that is, their
studies were being used—incorrectly—by the ACSM
in an attempt to support their own opinions.
The complex resistance training recommendations
in the 2009 Position Stand’s (1) Table 2 (p.700) are ba-
sed on the unsubstantiated opinion that the obsessive
136
Carpinelli R.N./ Medicina Sportiva 13 (2): 131-137, 2009
manipulation and specific combinations of training
variables such as loading (amount of resistance),
the number of repetitions, number of sets, inter-set
rest intervals, repetition duration, time under load,
frequency of exercise, modality of exercise, order of
exercise, and exercise selection (single or multiple
joint) results in significantly different specific outco-
mes. Most resistance training studies do not support
that opinion (3).
If people were to assume that the ACSM’s recom-
mendations in the Position Stand (1) have any vali-
dity (scientific support), they can actually calculate
how many hours are required in the gym to attain
or maintain the essential components of muscular
fitness (strength, hypertrophy, power and enduran-
ce). Trainees would be required to spend a minimum
of 20 hours per week performing resistance exercise
(according to Table 2 in the Position Stand); that is,
approximately five hours a day four times per week.
This does not include the time required to improve or
maintain aerobic capacity or engage in other forms of
physical activity. Competitive athletes would have little
time to practice their specific sport activity. Further-
more, the ACSM’s recommendations in Table 2 should
have been challenged by the reviewers of the Position
Stand, the ACSM’s Pronouncements Committee, and
the editorial staff of Medicine & Science in Sports &
Exercise.
Conclusions
It is important for readers to understand what is
required for a clear, succinct specific refutation of
an unsubstantiated opinion versus what is simply
required to state an opinion. For example, the afore-
mentioned claims in the Position Stand (1) regarding
the Loading sub-section required only three senten-
ces and approximately 80 words. To refute those
claims required eight paragraphs consisting of over
1100 words. The time and effort involved to retrieve
and peruse the references are much more difficult
to estimate. It is beyond the scope of this review to
address every reference in the Position Stand. That
task was the obligation of the authors and reviewers,
which was apparently unfulfilled. However, many
of the same studies were cited in the 2002 Position
Stand (2) and the validity of the ACSM’s attempt
to use these studies to support their opinions and
recommendations has been previously challenged
and refuted (3).
Science dictates that the burden of proof is on the
writers of the Position Stand (1) to support their claims
and recommendations with peer-reviewed resistance
training studies. The challenge for the reviewers,
members of the ACSM’s Pronouncements Committee,
and editorial staff was actually to read the Position
Stand and see if any of the references cited support
the claims and recommendations. They all failed to
meet these obligations.
An editorial by the current Editor-in-Chief (Andrew
Young) of Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise (20)
emphatically stated that he will not consider letters criti-
cizing the ACSM’s process for deriving a pronouncement
(e.g., a Position Stand). Because the ACSM Position
Stands (1-2) are so bereft of any science (resistance
training studies that actually support their claims and
recommendations) and apparently not open to criti-
cism (according to the Editor-in-Chief), there is very
little expectation that the ACSM or its Position Stands
will gain any respect from those who carefully read the
studies and evaluate all the evidence.
The ACSM claims: “Position Stands are based on
solid research and scientific data and serve as a valued
resource for professional organizations and governmen-
tal agencies” (21). The ACSM also claims: “A ‘Position
Stand’ is developed when enough research has been
completed to support the position on scientific grounds.
An ‘Opinion Statement’ is developed when available
scientific data do not permit the development of a formal
position stand, but provide support for a given position
on a crucial issue” (22). Readers can decide on the va-
lidity of the ACSM’s claims and recommendations and
whether those claims and recommendations belong in
a Position Stand supported by science or perhaps in an
Opinion Statement supported by opinions.
Disclosure
In the interest of full disclosure, I was one of eight
reviewers for the 2002 Position Stand (2). None of
the other reviewers challenged a single reference.
Two colleagues and I were designated as Reviewer #5
and we were removed from the review process after
challenging many of the references. This remains a
highly questionable ethical maneuver by the ACSM.
In addition, I am the primary author of the critical
analysis (3) of that Position Stand.
I sent similar comments and questions to the 26
ACSM members responsible for this highly-flawed
2009 Position Stand (1): The ACSM President and
Executive Vice-President, Editor-in-Chief of Medici-
ne & Science in Sports & Exercise, the seven Position
Stand authors and five reviewers, and the 11 members
of ACSM’s Pronouncements Committee. The only
response that I received was from the ACSM President
(Mindy Millard-Stafford, Ph.D.): “The Position Stand
represents a broad scientifically validated consensus
that the College has determined will represent its cur-
rent position on an issue.” She failed to address any of
the specific aforementioned issues.
Acknowledgement
I gratefully acknowledge Arty Conliffe for his criti-
cal feedback on previous drafts of this manuscript.
137
Carpinelli R.N./ Medicina Sportiva 13 (2): 131-137, 2009
References
1. Ratamess NA, Alvar BA, Evetoch [sic] TK, et al. Progres-
sion models in resistance training for healthy adults. Med
Sci Sports Exerc 2009; 41: 687-708. (Available at: http://
www.acsm.org/Content/NavigationMenu/News/Pronounce-
ments_Statements/PositionStands/Position_Stands1.htm)
2. Kraemer WJ, Adams K, Cafarelli E, et al. Progression models
in resistance training for healthy adults. Med Sci Sports Exerc
2002; 34: 364-80.
3. Carpinelli RN, Otto, RM, Winett RA. A critical analysis
of the ACSM position stand on resistance training: insuffi-
cient evidence to support recommended training protocols.
J Exerc Physiol 2004; 7: 1-64. (Available at: http://www.
asep.org/files/OttoV4.pdf)
4. Hakkinen K, Alen M, Komi PV. Changes in isometric force
and relaxation time, electromyographic and muscle fibre char-
acteristics of human skeletal muscle during strength training
and detraining. Acta Physiol Scand 1985; 125: 573-85.
5. Carpinelli RN. The size principle and a critical analysis of
the unsubstantiated heavier-is-better recommendation for
resistance training. J Exerc Sci Fit 2008; 6: 67-86. (Available
at: http://www.scsepf.org/doc/291208/Paper1.pdf)
6. Berger RA. Optimum repetitions for the development of
strength. Res Q 1962; 33: 334-8.
7. O’Shea P. Effects of selected weight training programs on
the development of strength and muscle hypertrophy. Res
Q 1966; 37: 95-102.
8. Rhea MR, Alvar BA, Burkett LN, et al. A meta-analysis to
determine the dose response for strength development. Med
Sci Sports Exerc 2003; 35: 456-64.
9. Peterson MD, Rhea MR, Alvar, BA. Maximizing strength
development in athletes: a meta-analysis to determine the
dose-response relationship. J Strength Cond Res 2004; 18:
377-82.
10. Otto RM, Carpinelli RN. A critical analysis of the single
versus multiple set debate. J Exerc Physiol 2006; 9: 32-57.
(Available at: http://faculty.css.edu/tboone2/asep/OttoV2.
pdf)
11. Peterson MD, Rhea MR, Alvar BA. Applications of the dose-
response for muscular strength development: a review of
meta-analytic efficacy and reliability for designing training
prescription. J Strength Cond Res 2005; 19: 950-8.
12. Stone MH, Plisk SS, Stone ME, et al. Athletic performance
development: volume load – 1 set vs. multiple sets, training
velocity and training variation. Strength Cond 1998; 20: 22-31.
13. McCaw ST, Friday JJ. A comparison of muscle activity betwe-
en a free weight and machine bench press. J Strength Cond
Res 1994; 8: 259-64.
14. Spreuwenberg LPB, Kraemer WJ, Spiering BA, et al. Influen-
ce of exercise order in a resistance-training exercise session.
J Strength Cond Res 2006; 20: 141-4.
15. Pijnappels M, Van der Burg JCE, Reeves ND, et al. Identi-
fication of elderly fallers by muscle strength measures. Eur
J Appl Physiol 2008; 102: 585-92.
16. Robinson JM, Stone MH, Johnson RL, et al. Effects of dif-
ferent weight training exercise/rest intervals on strength,
power, and high intensity exercise endurance. J Strength
Cond Res 1995; 9: 216-21.
17. Pincivero DM, Lephart SM, Karunakara RG. Effects of rest
intervals on isokinetic strength and functional performance
after short term high intensity training. Br J Sports Med 1997;
31: 229-34.
18. Ahtiainen JP, Pakarinen A, Alen M, et al. Short vs. long-rest
period between the sets in hypertrophic resistance training:
influence on muscle strength, size, and hormonal adaptations
in trained men. J Strength Cond Res 2005; 19: 572-82.
19. Williardson JM, Burkett LN. The effect of different rest
intervals between sets on volume components and strength
gains. J Strength Cond Res 2008; 22: 146-52.
20. Young A. Editorial. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2008; 40: 1-2.
21. American College of Sports Medicine. Position Stands.
(Available at: http://www.acsm.org/Content/NavigationMe-
nu/News/Pronouncements_Statements/PositionStands/Po-
sition_Stands1.htm).
22. American College of Sports Medicine. Pronouncements.
(Available at: http://www.acsm.org/Content/Navigation-
Menu/News/Pronouncements_Statements/Pronounce-
ments_Cons.htm)
Received: June 06, 2009
Accepted: June 15, 2009
Published: June 18, 2009
Address for correspondence:
Ralph N. Carpinelli
P.O. Box 241,
Miller Place,
NY 11764 USA
e-mail: ralphcarpinelli@optonline.net
Authors’ contribution
A – Study Design
B – Data Collection
C – Statistical Analysis
D – Data Interpretation
E – Manuscript Preparation
F – Literature Search
G – Funds Collection
