Have we made strength training too complicated?

Seventeen years after its last major guidance on resistance training, the American College of Sports Medicine has reviewed evidence involving more than 30,000 people. Its findings do not do away with intelligent programming – but they might prompt gyms and fitness professionals to reconsider where the complexity begins

Walk into almost any gym and there is no shortage of information about how to lift weights. Members can debate rep ranges, tempo, exercise order, training splits, machines versus free weights, training to failure, periodisation and optimal rest periods before they have even picked up a dumbbell. For committed lifters, much of that detail has its place. For the considerably larger population that either does little resistance training or none at all, however, it raises an interesting question: have we made strength training more complicated than it needs to be?

UPDATING GUIDANCE

That is one of the themes emerging from the American College of Sports Medicine’s (ACSM) first major update to its resistance training guidance since 2009. Published in Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise , the new ACSM Position Stand is an umbrella review: rather than analysing one new experiment, researchers brought together 137 systematic reviews encompassing more than 30,000 participants. The underlying interventions lasted from six to 52 weeks and examined healthy adults aged 18 and over. Much of the evidence involved people with relatively little previous resistance-training experience.

Its central finding is hardly revolutionary: resistance training works. Compared with no exercise, it improves strength, muscle size, power and muscular endurance, as well as measures including gait speed, balance and other aspects of physical function. What is potentially more disruptive is how many different routes appear capable of producing those benefits.

EFFECTIVE AND OPTIMAL – TWO DIFFERENT THINGS The ACSM paper makes a distinction that could be particularly relevant to the sector: achieving a worthwhile improvement is not the same thing as optimising that improvement. Its authors found that many different forms of resistance training produced meaningful benefits. Conventional weight training worked, but so did circuit training, resistance bands and home-based programmes. The researchers’ primary recommendation is for healthy adults to perform resistance training with a high level of effort at least twice a week, involving all major muscle groups.

For people seeking to maximise strength, the evidence favoured heavier loads of 80% of one- repetition maximum (1RM) or above, training at least twice weekly, using a full range of motion and around two to three sets, with the exercises being prioritised towards the beginning of a workout.

For hypertrophy, greater weekly volume mattered, with the review identifying at least 10 sets per muscle group per week as enhancing muscle growth. For developing power, the evidence favoured moderate loads of around 30–70% of 1RM, relatively low-to-moderate training volume and power-focused resistance training in which the concentric, or lifting, phase is performed as quickly as possible. In other words, programming still matters when a particular outcome matters. But for a member whose starting position is no strength training whatsoever, the difference between a theoretically optimal programme and a merely very effective one may be considerably less important than whether they actually do either.

ACSM author Stuart Phillips, professor of kinesiology at McMaster University, summarised it simply: “The best resistance training programme is the one you’ll actually stick with.”

RETHINKING THE FIRST PROGRAMME A traditional gym induction can sometimes behave as though every new member is beginning a training career. They are shown numerous exercises, given sets and repetitions, introduced to different pieces of equipment and perhaps provided with a programme requiring several weekly sessions. The new guidance does not say that approach is wrong. It does, however, provide evidence for a much wider range of starting points.

The authors explicitly suggest that individualising programmes to increase participation may be more important for many people than conforming rigidly to specific prescription criteria. They also point to evidence that relatively small doses of resistance training can produce substantial gains. That might encourage operators to think about onboarding in terms of building a resistance-training habit first and refining it later.

Strength training has moved rapidly towards the centre of conversations around healthy ageing, physical function and long-term health. Yet it remains one of the parts of a fitness facility most capable of intimidating an inexperienced member

For some members, two relatively simple full-body sessions each week could be enough of a starting framework. Someone nervous about a free-weights area could begin with selectorised machines. Another member might prefer a small-group strength circuit. Bands, bodyweight movements and guided exercises could provide another entry route.

None needs to be presented as the inferior version of “proper” strength training. Once someone is comfortable, attending consistently and developing clearer objectives, programming can become more specific.

For PTs, this does not necessarily reduce the importance of expertise. It might instead change where that expertise is most valuable. Knowing the technically “best” programme remains useful; knowing when a client actually needs it may be equally important.

NOT EVERYTHING NEEDS TO GO TO FAILURE One finding likely to generate discussion on gym floors concerns muscular failure. Training until another repetition cannot be completed has become a prominent feature of strength-training culture, particularly around hypertrophy. ACSM’s review found that completing sets to momentary muscular failure did not enhance gains in strength, hypertrophy or power consistently enough to make it necessary.

The authors instead suggest that sufficient effort can be achieved by training close to failure, including leaving around two to three repetitions in reserve. They also note that repeatedly training to failure may be inappropriate for some populations, including some older exercisers.

Again, this is not evidence that nobody should ever train to failure. Nor does it mean effort is unimportant. It suggests something subtly different: failure is a tool rather than a prerequisite. For members who already associate strength training with discomfort, grunting, maximal effort and intimidating gym environments, that distinction could be valuable.

MACHINES VERSUS FREE WEIGHTS? The equipment finding may be equally interesting for operators. Across the evidence reviewed by ACSM, equipment type – including machines versus free weights – did not consistently affect the main training outcomes. Exercise complexity, set structure and time under tension also failed to show consistent superiority.

There are obvious qualifications. Training remains specifi c. Someone wanting to become proficient at a barbell squat needs to practise squatting with a barbell. Athletes, powerlifters and advanced trainees will have requirements very different from those of a general-health member. But for an operator buying equipment for a broad membership base, the findings could support a slightly different question. Rather than asking which type of resistance equipment is inherently “best”, it might be more useful to ask which equipment enables the greatest number of members to train effectively and repeatedly.

That could strengthen the case for variety: free-weight areas for those who want them; easily understood resistance machines; cable stations; functional equipment; approachable beginner areas and circuits. The evidence does not appear to require members to graduate from machines to free weights for their training to become legitimate.

WHAT ABOUT PERIODISATION?

There is similar nuance around periodisation. ACSM found that periodised programmes were not consistently superior to non-periodised training for healthy adults when appropriate progressive overload was present. That does not make periodisation redundant. The paper itself notes its usefulness for managing fatigue, preparing for specific goals and peaking performance, while acknowledging that these applications may be underrepresented in the evidence reviewed.

For an athlete preparing for competition, structured variation could therefore remain fundamental. For a previously inactive 48-year-old trying to become stronger and remain physically capable as they age, a meticulously periodised 16-week programme might not be the first issue that needs solving.

INSIGHT

SIMPLE DOES NOT MEAN STATIC

None of this means resistance training should never progress. Progressive overload remains an important principle, particularly for someone wishing to continue improving over the long term. As strength increases, the stimulus can increase through load, volume, frequency or other variables. But the ACSM authors make another useful distinction: progression may not be essential simply to gain a benefit from resistance training; increasing the stimulus becomes increasingly relevant when continued progress is the objective.

Volume also appears to produce diminishing returns. The review found that additional sets generally produced greater strength and hypertrophy, but the benefit of each additional set became progressively smaller. The authors identify diminishing returns beyond roughly two to three sets per exercise for strength and around 18–20 weekly sets for hypertrophy.

There is, therefore, still considerable science behind designing a programme well. The new guidance is not an argument for random workouts. It is perhaps an argument against making the perfect the enemy of the useful.

The new guidance is not an argument for random workouts. It is perhaps an argument against making the perfect the enemy of the useful

MAKING STRENGTH FEEL ACCESSIBLE That could be the most important industry implication. Strength training has moved rapidly towards the centre of conversations around healthy ageing, physical function and long-term health. Yet it remains one of the parts of a fitness facility most capable of intimidating an inexperienced member.

The ACSM evidence gives operators permission to think broadly about how that first experience might look. It could mean simpler programmes. More visible introductory strength offers. Small-group sessions teaching basic movements. Better signposting around resistance machines. Strength inductions built around confidence rather than information overload. Or programming that initially measures success by whether somebody returns next week rather than whether every variable has been optimised.

None of those conclusions is prescribed by ACSM, but one finding running throughout its Position Stand is difficult to ignore – many forms of resistance training work, while the difference between doing some and doing none is substantial.

For fitness professionals who spend considerable time discussing how to optimise strength training, the next opportunity might therefore lie somewhere slightly different. It may be in making strength training feel simple enough for millions more people to start.

Primary sources: the full ACSM Position Stand was published in the April 2026 edition of Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise. Read the full Position Stand here: [https://bit.ly/46PTiEz](https://bit.ly/46PTiEz)