Maximal strength testing is often performed to assess the efficacy of training programs or as a way to prescribe exercise load. Generally, it is believed that high load exercise is superior to low load exercise at increasing absolute strength, however this is not always the case (i.e. strength increases similarly between groups). We hypothesized that some of the discrepancy in the literature may be related to performing the strength test itself. To investigate this further we reviewed the literature looking for studies comparing high load and low load exercise. The included studies were separated into 'no extra practice' and 'practice'. No extra practice means the strength test was only performed at pre and post whereas practice refers to additional strength tests performed throughout the training intervention. Our results indicated that the differences between high load and low load exercise can be reduced when the group training with a low load is allowed additional exposure to the maximal strength test. This suggests that repeated exposure to strength tests may augment low load training adaptations and influence the outcomes. We discuss potential moderators of this relationship (e.g. how low is the low load, complexity of the skill) and offer considerations for future research. Based on this it would be recommended that when investigating the effects of low load training strength tests should be limited to pre and post intervention or if a control group is utilized then the control group should receive the same number of exposures to the strength test.