Participation in resistance exercise is encouraged throughout the lifetime, offering such benefits as improved strength and muscle mass accretion. Considerable research has been completed on this topic within the past several decades, with the current narrative dictating that increased muscle size yields further increases in muscle strength. However, there remain unanswered questions relating to the observation that certain training interventions yield only one specific adaptation (strength or size). Studies investigating resistance training often include either bilateral or unilateral exercise programs. Unilateral exercise programs are often used as they allow for comparison between two separate training interventions within the same individual. This is viewed as an advantage, relating to statistical power, but a limitation insofar as one intervention could be confounded by the intervention within the opposing limb. For example, when only one limb is trained both limbs often get stronger (albeit to differing magnitudes), termed the cross-education effect. However, we propose that when both limbs are trained that the cross-education effect may not occur and that the adaptations produced are reflective of the contraction history of the muscle. Herein, we discuss ways to test the idea that strength change may be dictated by the contraction history of the muscle. If each limb responds only to the contraction history within each limb (as opposed to the opposite limb), then this would have immediate ramifications for research design. Furthermore, this would certainly be of importance among injured populations undergoing rehabilitation, seeking to find the most efficacious exercise regimens.