Sensible advice for aches, pains & injuries
bibliography * The PainScience Bibliography contains plain language summaries of thousands of scientific papers and others sources, like a specialized blog. This page is about a single scientific paper in the bibliography, Carpinelli 2009.

Strong criticism of “more is better” strength training

Tags: exercise, controversy, self-treatment, treatment, debunkery

PainSci summary of Carpinelli 2009?This page is one of thousands in the bibliography. It is not a general article: it is focused on a single scientific paper, and it may provide only just enough context for the summary to make sense. Links to other papers and more general information are provided at the bottom of the page, as often as possible. ★★★★☆?4-star ratings are for bigger/better studies and reviews published in more prestigious journals, with only quibbles. Ratings are a highly subjective opinion, and subject to revision at any time. If you think this paper has been incorrectly rated, please let me know.

Ralph Carpinelli strongly criticized the American College of Sports Medicine’s old position on “more is better” strength training advice, and he does so again with their 2009 position. It’s generally dry reading by necessity — refuting official positions published by major professional organizations requires tedious, thorough academic analysis — but the Discussion and Conclusions sections are almost entertaining. After presenting numerous examples of incredibly sloppy citing, Carpinelli fairly concludes:

Because ACSM Position Stands are so bereft of any science and apparently not open to criticism, 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. Readers can decide on the validity 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.

Zing! Carpinelli also discloses the rather sordid details of the ACSM’s reaction to his criticisms: in 2002, he was “removed from the review process after challenging many of the references” and his criticisms have been ignored ever since, despite the fact that they are clearly substantive.

(This paper is discussed in quite a bit more detail in Strength Training Frequency.)

~ Paul Ingraham

related content

One article on cites Carpinelli 2009 as a source:

This page is part of the PainScience BIBLIOGRAPHY, which contains plain language summaries of thousands of scientific papers & others sources. It’s like a highly specialized blog.