Strength training science: the studies behind RAW
Every default RAW will propose, from weekly sets to rest between sets, comes from a study published in 2025 or 2026. Where there is no study, we mark it as our own decision. Below you have each figure with its source.
On the way
The templates and the recommender that use these numbers are built and arrive with RAW’s first release. This page sets out the criteria behind them.
This page summarises published studies. It is not medical advice and does not replace a professional.
Last reviewed:
Frequently asked questions
How many sets per muscle per week to build muscle?
The minimum effective dose is about 4 weighted sets per week, and efficiency is highest between 5 and 10 (Pelland 2026). The ACSM calls for ≥10 sets per muscle per week (Currier 2026). RAW starts at 10 for beginners and at 12 for intermediates.
How many reps for hypertrophy?
Hypertrophy comes out similar with any load between 30% and 100% of 1RM, as long as the effort is sufficient (Currier 2026). RAW uses 6–10 reps on compound and 8–12 on isolation exercises; that range is a product decision.
Do you need to train to failure?
Training to failure adds no strength, hypertrophy or power: stopping 2–3 reps short is enough (Currier 2026). Stopping short of failure gives slightly more dynamic strength (SMD 0.24) (Wu S 2026).
What is RIR and which one should you use?
RIR is the number of reps you have left in reserve at the end of a set. RAW proposes RIR 2 (RPE 8), and RIR 3 if you are starting out; the ACSM speaks of 2–3 (Currier 2026). You learn to estimate it: the error drops by up to 2.3 reps over six sessions (Wiedenmann 2026).
How long should you rest between sets?
RAW proposes 120 s on compound exercises and 60 s on isolation. A 2026 conference summary asks for at least 60 s and ≥2 min on multi-joint lifts (Roberts 2026); for the ACSM, resting less or more than 1 minute does not change strength (Currier 2026).
How many days a week should you strength train?
At least 2. The ACSM calls for ≥2 sessions a week to gain strength (Currier 2026) and for all major muscle groups to be worked at least twice a week (ACSM 2026 (slides)). With the same volume, training 1 or more than 5 days gives the same hypertrophy (Currier 2026).
Full body or upper/lower split?
No 2025–2026 synthesis compares splits. RAW picks the one that trains every muscle ≥2 times a week: full body with 2–3 days, upper-lower with 4–5 and push-pull-legs with 6.
What is double progression?
You train within a rep range and add weight when you reach the top; RAW waits until all sets get there. In a trial with 8–12 reps, raising the weight on reaching the top grew the triceps more than keeping it (+22.9% vs +11.6%) (Kassiano 2026a).
Do supersets save time without losing results?
Yes: they give the same volume and the same long-term adaptations in ~37% less time. Agonist-antagonist pairs keep the volume; same-muscle pairs lose it (Zhang X 2025).
How should you strength train after 60?
2–3 days a week, 1–3 sets of 8–12 reps and 1–3 minutes of rest, starting with a minimum dose for the first 2–3 weeks (Izquierdo 2025). Machines give the largest effect on strength (Wiedenmann 2025), and training to failure may be inadvisable (Currier 2026).
Should women train differently from men?
Relative muscle gain is similar in women and men (Refalo 2025), and general training guidelines apply to women at any age (Isenmann 2026). RAW uses the same templates.
Does strength training help you lose fat?
Diet alone lowers weight more than exercise alone (Kazeminasab 2025). Adding strength training to a diet does not change how much weight is lost, but it protects lean mass and increases the share of fat in what is lost (Binmahfoz 2025).
The principle
- Only publications from 2025 or 2026, almost all peer reviewed: mostly position stands, consensus statements, meta-analyses and systematic reviews, plus some trials.
- Every figure carries its source, with a DOI that resolves and a verbatim sentence checked against the abstract or the full text.
- What has not been peer reviewed is marked: the preprints and two official ACSM documents.
- A study from before 2025 appears only when a 2025–2026 source cites it, and it says so: “cited by”.
- Three sources went online in 2024 although their issue is from 2025: they are marked “date limit”.
- What has no source is labelled as such: “no 2025–2026 source” or “product decision”.
Checked on 24 September 2026: 114 distinct DOIs, and all 114 resolve (113 in Crossref and the arXiv one at doi.org). The 103 PMIDs match their DOIs. About 340 verbatim English sentences were found word for word in the abstracts or full texts, and about 40 figures were cross-checked by hand. Four sentences from Pelland 2026 could not be verified word for word because its published text is not open access; its figures match those of the preprint (Pelland 2026).
By topic
What we propose for each topic, why, and what has no source. “Weighted sets” means that a set in which the muscle is the prime mover counts as 1, and a set in which it only assists counts as 0.5.
Volume: how many sets per muscle per week
What we propose
RAW counts weighted sets per muscle per week: a set in which the muscle is the prime mover counts as 1, a set in which it only assists (as a synergist) counts as 0.5 (Pelland 2026), and warm-ups do not count.
| Level | Target | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Beginner | 10 | Meets both the ACSM minimum (≥10) and Pelland’s most efficient range (5–10) (Currier 2026; Pelland 2026) |
| Intermediate | Start at 12; band 10–18 | Meets the ACSM’s ≥10, is Pelland’s 11–18 range and matches Roberts’ ~12 (Currier 2026; Pelland 2026; Roberts 2026) |
| Advanced | Start at 16; band 12–20, up to ~25 for priority muscles | Above ~25 sets there are hardly any studies (Pelland 2026) |
- Gain strength: 2–3 sets per exercise on the main lifts. About 4 weighted sets per week of the main lift already give almost all the measurable effect; accessories follow the muscle-building bands (Currier 2026; Pelland 2026).
- Get fit: the minimum dose, with ≥2 sets per exercise and all four body regions (Currier 2026).
- From age 60: the same bands as everyone. The ICFSR consensus starts older adults at 1–2 sets per exercise for the first 2–3 weeks, then 2–3 (Izquierdo 2025). To start that way, remove a set or two from each exercise in your routine.
Why
- More weekly sets bring more muscle and more strength, but each extra set adds less. For hypertrophy, the minimum effective dose is about 4 weighted sets per week, efficiency is highest between 5 and 10, and no clear ceiling appears. Past about 25 there are very few studies, and above 42 there are no useful data (Pelland 2026).
- For strength, diminishing returns arrive much sooner: 1 weekly set already gives a detectable gain, and past about 4 sets of the exercise there are hardly any detectable steps (Pelland 2026).
- The 2026 ACSM position stand, which pools 137 systematic reviews covering more than 30,000 adults, calls for ≥10 sets per muscle per week for hypertrophy and 2–3 sets per exercise for strength (Currier 2026).
- Counting a synergist set as half a set is the method that best predicts outcomes in Pelland’s model comparison. Even so, it remains an assumption (Pelland 2026).
- Relative hypertrophy is similar in women and men, so the table is the same for everyone (Refalo 2025; Isenmann 2026).
- In older adults, low volume already improves physical function and muscle mass; strength needs more volume (Radaelli 2025).
No source, or a product decision
- No 2025–2026 source gives different set numbers by level: the bands are a product decision, placed using Pelland’s ranges, the ACSM’s ≥10 and the figures of the reviews.
- That warm-ups do not count: a product decision, because they are not working sets.
- How drop sets and rest-pause sets count: no 2025–2026 source. The decision is to count them with their parent set, so volume is not inflated.
- How fast to increase volume: no 2025–2026 source. There is no automatic volume increase.
- The warning at about 11 weighted sets per muscle per session comes from a preprint (Remmert 2025): it stays out until it is published with peer review.
Reps, load and RIR
What we propose
- Reps in the build-muscle templates: 6–10 on compound exercises and 8–12 on isolation exercises. In “Express full body”, 8–12 throughout.
- Effort: leave about 2 reps in the tank (RIR 2, which is RPE 8). For beginners, 3 (RIR 3, RPE 7). Never to failure by default, and no RPE asked for on every set.
- Gain strength: loads of ≥80% of 1RM (Currier 2026), with 3–6 reps.
- Estimated 1RM: with the Epley formula, and only from sets of up to 10 reps. The estimate assumes the set went to failure or close to it: if reps were left over, the real 1RM is higher (Marzagão 2026).
Why
- Maximal strength improves most with heavy loads (≥80% of 1RM). Hypertrophy comes out similar with any load between 30% and 100% of 1RM, as long as the effort is sufficient (Currier 2026).
- Training to failure adds no strength, hypertrophy or power: stopping close to it, 2–3 reps short, is enough. And there is not enough evidence to set exact RIR or RPE targets (Currier 2026).
- Stopping short of failure gives slightly more dynamic strength (SMD 0.24), with no difference in hypertrophy. The advantage only shows up in trained people (Wu S 2026).
- RIR is estimated better close to failure, with heavy loads and in short sets (Russo 2025). It is a skill that can be learned: the error drops by up to 2.3 reps over six sessions, the same in younger and older adults (Wiedenmann 2026). Without practice, older adults leave about 2 more reps in reserve than they think (Gómez-Redondo 2025).
- The 2025–2026 sources speak in % of 1RM, not in reps. For rep ranges by goal, the only anchor in reps is a trial that calls 3–5RM “high load” and 20–25RM “low load” (Cumming 2025).
- No 2025–2026 review validates 1RM formulas. The only 2025 validation measured sets of up to 10 reps (Yavuz 2025). A preprint summarises that accuracy worsens above about 10, and in its own analysis, with no measured 1RM, Epley, Brzycki and Wathen come out almost the same (Marzagão 2026).
No source, or a product decision
- The rep range for each goal: a product decision. The 6–12 aims for short sets, in which RIR is estimated better (Russo 2025); the 6–10 and 8–12 split by exercise type is our decision too.
- The 3–6 reps to gain strength: a product decision, based on the 3–5RM that one trial calls “high load” (Cumming 2025).
- The equivalence RPE = 10 − RIR is a convention, not a measure validated in 2025–2026.
How many days to train and which split to choose
What we propose
- Each of the four body regions (upper and lower body, push and pull) at least twice a week (Currier 2026).
- To gain strength, each main lift ≥2 times a week and at the start of the session (Currier 2026; Pelland 2026).
| Days | Split | Why |
|---|---|---|
| 2–3 | Full body | With few days, it is the way to train every muscle ≥2 times a week |
| 4 | Upper-lower | Every muscle twice a week, with more sets per session than a full-body session of the same length |
| 5 | Rotating upper-lower | Every muscle 2–3 times a week; a 5-day push-pull-legs stays at ~1.7 |
| 6 | Push-pull-legs, twice | Every muscle twice a week |
A one-muscle-group-per-day split is never proposed, because it leaves each muscle at once a week. If someone chooses it, it is respected and they get a warning.
Why
- With weekly volume equated, frequency barely changes hypertrophy: the effect is compatible with zero (a 91.3% probability that it is positive) (Pelland 2026). Training 1 or more than 5 days a week with the same volume gives the same hypertrophy (Currier 2026).
- For strength, frequency does add up: going from 1 to 2 weekly sessions of the exercise lifts the gain from 12.7% to 17.3%, and from there each session adds less (Pelland 2026).
- The ACSM calls for ≥2 sessions a week and the exercise at the start of the session to gain strength (Currier 2026). Its health message is to work all major muscle groups at least twice a week (ACSM 2026 (slides)).
- According to the ACSM authors, four regions (upper and lower body, push and pull) are enough to cover the major muscle groups (Currier 2026).
No source, or a product decision
- No 2025–2026 synthesis compares full body, upper-lower, push-pull-legs or one group per day: the table is an inference. If volume drives hypertrophy and frequency adds to strength, the split only serves to achieve both with the days available.
- How long a session should last, and how many hours to leave between two sessions of the same muscle: no 2025–2026 source.
How long to rest between sets, and supersets
What we propose
- Rest between sets: 120 s on compound exercises and 60 s on isolation. To gain strength, 180 s and 90–120 s. You can lengthen or shorten the timer: self-selected rest performs the same as fixed rest (Lv 2026).
- Supersets: only agonist-antagonist (push with pull, biceps with triceps, quads with hamstrings), on accessories and in short-session templates, and never on the day’s main lift (in “Express full body”, only the main leg lift stays apart). No rest between the two exercises and 120 s at the end of the round, the most common setup in the studies (Zhang X 2025).
- Drop sets, rest-pause and clusters: never by default.
- Warm-up: the templates carry no warm-up sets. The default ramp-up scheme (40% × 10 · 60% × 5 · 80% × 3) stays, because it contradicts no source.
Why
- For the ACSM, resting less or more than 1 minute does not change strength, and for hypertrophy there are not enough data. Its search runs to October 2024 (Currier 2026).
- A 2026 conference summary, citing studies from 2024 and earlier, considers resting 60 s or less suboptimal and asks for ≥2 min on multi-joint exercises to maintain volume (Roberts 2026). A 2025 preprint sees slightly more strength with more than 60 s and a trivial difference in hypertrophy, from only 6 studies, all in men (Davidson 2025).
- In strength training studies, fixed rest ranges from 1 to 3 minutes (Lv 2026).
- Supersets give the same volume and the same long-term adaptations in ~37% less time, although they feel harder. Agonist-antagonist pairs keep the volume; same-muscle pairs lose it (Zhang X 2025).
- With volume and effort equated, drop sets, clusters and controlled tempo give the same as normal sets (Tsartsapakis 2026), and a network meta-analysis finds no advanced method better than traditional training (Cowley 2026). Drop sets also cost more perceived effort (Havers 2026).
- With ~10RM loads, doing 0, 1 or 2 ramp-up sets gives practically the same result (Enes 2025a).
No source, or a product decision
- Separate rest for compound and isolation exercises is backed only by a secondary source (the conference summary), not by a 2025–2026 systematic review.
- The 180 s and 90–120 s to gain strength, and the 60 s for isolation within 60–90: a product decision, inside the 1–3 minutes used in the studies.
- How many warm-up sets and at what percentage, and whether warming up prevents injuries: no 2025–2026 source.
Progression: double progression and progressive overload
What we propose
- Double progression: you work within a rep range. When all working sets reach the top of the range with the same weight, the weight goes up and you go back to the bottom of the range; otherwise, you add reps (Kassiano 2026a; Vargas-Molina 2026).
- Increment: the smallest jump the equipment allows. No source gives a figure.
- Never a linear weight increase by default.
- Plateaus and deloads: nothing automatic.
- Periodisation: not needed.
Why
- In an 8-week trial in young untrained women, on the triceps only and with the same 8–12 rep range, raising the weight on reaching the top grew the muscle more than keeping it (+22.9% vs +11.6%), although keeping it also worked (Kassiano 2026a).
- Two earlier studies, cited by a 2026 trial, find that progressing in reps performs similarly to progressing in load when training close to failure (Vargas-Molina 2026).
- Progression is not essential to start improving: only to keep improving in the long term. With progressive overload, periodised programmes do not beat non-periodised ones (Currier 2026), and linear and undulating periodisation give similar effects (Zhang Z 2026).
- Autoregulating with RPE, RIR or velocity performs at least as well as prescribing by % of 1RM, but it has not been shown to be better (Huang 2025; Wang Y 2026; Loaiza-Betancur 2026).
- Deload guidelines for strength and physique athletes (planned every 4–8 weeks, lasting 5–7 days and, with a moderate need for recovery, 40–60% less volume) are coaching practice, and the same review acknowledges that high-quality experimental research is missing (Bell 2025).
No source, or a product decision
- The size of the increment: no 2025–2026 source recommends one, neither in kilos nor in percent.
- That all sets must reach the top, not just one: a product decision, the conservative option. The trial does not say (Kassiano 2026a).
- After how many sessions without progress there is a plateau: no 2025–2026 source.
Goals: build muscle, gain strength, lose fat or get fit
What we propose
Four goals, one of them the main one, plus an “I also do cardio” switch:
- Build muscle: weekly volume leads.
- Gain strength: heavy loads on the key lifts, at the start of the session and often.
- Lose fat while keeping muscle: the build-muscle or get-fit recipe with sustainable volume, and cardio recommended.
- Get fit: the minimum dose, with all major muscle groups.
Muscular endurance falls under “get fit”.
Why
- Strength and muscle have different recipes. Strength improves with ≥80% of 1RM, 2–3 sets per exercise, the exercise at the start and ≥2 sessions a week; hypertrophy, with ≥10 sets per muscle per week and any load between 30% and 100% of 1RM (Currier 2026; Pelland 2026).
- Losing fat depends mostly on diet: diet alone lowers weight more than exercise alone (Kazeminasab 2025). Adding strength training to a diet does not change how much weight is lost, but it protects lean mass and increases the share of fat in what is lost (Binmahfoz 2025). Exercise prevents almost half (45.7%) of the fat-free mass lost through diet (Deller 2026).
- Cardio, alone or with strength, removes more absolute fat than strength alone, and it makes no difference whether it is done on the same day or on different days (Lafontant 2025). Combining strength and cardio does not reduce strength or hypertrophy gains, and the order has no significant effect (Held 2026).
- The protection of lean mass disappears in interventions longer than 5 months, probably because consistency is hard to keep (Binmahfoz 2025). So “lose fat” uses moderate volume.
- To get fit, the ACSM asks for strength training at least 2 days a week with all major muscle groups (Currier 2026), as does the 2020 WHO guideline, cited by a 2026 perspective (Brummer 2026). The 2020 WHO and 2018 US guidelines, cited by a 2025 consensus statement, add 150–300 minutes a week of moderate aerobic activity or 75–150 of vigorous (Yang 2025).
- The ACSM finds no variable that improves muscular endurance more than standard training; only a review without meta-analysis points to low loads and high reps (Currier 2026; Hammert 2025).
No source, or a product decision
- A different strength recipe in a calorie deficit, and how to adjust volume or progression during one: no 2025–2026 source.
- How long a session should last for each goal: no 2025–2026 source.
By person: age, sex, weight and equipment
What we propose
- Age: the same rules at every age from 16, the minimum you confirm when you sign in. RAW does not ask for your year of birth. During setup you can give an age range or skip the question; RAW uses it only for analytics and never to change your plan.
- Sex: no adjustment.
- Weight and height: not used to choose a template, and the recommender neither calculates nor shows BMI.
- Equipment: a hard filter. Without equipment that allows heavy loads (barbell, heavy dumbbells or machines), no strength template is offered.
- 1RM: no template asks for a 1RM test.
Why
- The ACSM recommends the same to all healthy adults, from those who have never trained to experienced lifters, and at any adult age (Currier 2026).
- Strength training can start at age 7–8, with technique first and qualified supervision (Chaabene 2025). RAW does not supervise, and the 15-to-18 age group is the one most affected by fractures from misusing weights (44.1%), with home as the most frequent place (29.6%) (Jain 2026).
- For older adults: 2–3 days a week, 1–3 sets of 8–12 reps, from 50% to 70–80% of 1RM over about two weeks, and 1–3 minutes of rest. Start with a minimum dose for the first 2–3 weeks, and a 1RM test requires close professional supervision (Izquierdo 2025). Machines give the largest and most consistent effect on strength (Wiedenmann 2025), and training to failure may be inadvisable (Currier 2026).
- Relative muscle gain is similar in women and men (Refalo 2025); a narrative review asks for individualised training instead of prescriptions by sex (Cidrais 2026). Periodising by menstrual cycle phase has no solid basis (Ramos-Jiménez 2026).
- With obesity, the approach must be non-stigmatising (Gerber 2026), and if an exercise hurts it is swapped for another (Mesinovic 2025).
- A person without symptoms starting light or moderate activity needs no prior assessment (Haim 2025). Older adults with cardiovascular, kidney or metabolic disease, or with symptoms, need medical clearance, according to the ACSM and AHA guidelines cited by the consensus (Izquierdo 2025).
No source, or a product decision
- The minimum age to train without supervision: no 2025–2026 source. RAW sets 16 for legal and product reasons.
- How to tell beginner, intermediate and advanced apart: there is no validated 2025–2026 definition, and the cut-offs are yet to be decided.
- Height: no 2025–2026 source uses it to individualise training.
The eight templates of the first version
RAW will start with eight templates. Volume is counted with the muscles that RAW’s catalogue assigns to each exercise (prime mover 1, synergist 0.5, warm-up 0), over ten target muscles: chest, lats, upper back, quads, hamstrings, glutes, front delts, side delts, biceps and triceps. Every exercise comes with alternatives of the same movement pattern, to switch equipment.
| Template | For whom | Days × minutes | Weekly volume |
|---|---|---|---|
| Full body A/B | Build muscle · beginner (also fits intermediate) | 3 × 60 | All ten muscles between 10 and 15 weighted sets, and all in the 3 sessions |
| Upper/lower | Build muscle · beginner | 4 × 60 (also works with 5) | Nine muscles at 12 or more, and the front delts at 10, within the 10–18 band. All ≥2 times |
| Express full body | Get fit · beginner | 3 × 30 (also works with 2) | Between 4 and 13 sets per muscle, except the side delts: the minimum dose. Build muscle asks for 10 |
| Push, pull, legs | Build muscle · beginner | 6 × 60 | All ten muscles between 11 and 18 weighted sets, each ≥2 times |
| Full body strength | Gain strength · beginner | 3 × 45 (also works with 2) | The four main lifts in every session, at 3–6 reps. The other muscles stay low on purpose |
| Upper/lower strength | Gain strength · beginner | 4 × 50 (also works with 5) | Each main lift twice a week. Lower body 11.5–14 sets, upper body 5.5–10 |
| Full body at home | Build muscle · beginner · home | 3 × 60 (also works with 2) | Dumbbells, a band and body weight. Quads, hamstrings and glutes at 10 or more, the rest at 6.5–10.5 |
| Express strength | Gain strength · beginner | 3 × 33 (also works with 2) | Two main lifts per session, each once or twice a week. The other muscles stay low on purpose |
How they meet the volume
- Full body A/B. Days A and B alternate: A-B-A one week and B-A-B the next. The main lifts come first, in normal sets: squat and bench press on day A; trap-bar deadlift and barbell row on day B. Several more compound lifts go in push-pull supersets, and the arms in biceps-triceps supersets; the hip thrust, the leg curl and the lateral raises go in normal sets. With 3 days, all ten muscles reach ≥10 in both weeks of the cycle, and several sit exactly at 10. With 2 days they stay at 7–9, below 10, and you get a warning.
- Upper-lower. Upper 1, Lower 1, Upper 2 and Lower 2. The main upper-body lifts carry 4 sets: with 3, neither the chest nor the lats nor the upper back reached 12. There are lateral raises on the lower days too: without them, the side delts stayed at 8. With 5 days, rotating, the week that repeats a lower day takes the hamstrings to 26 sets, above the band, and you get a warning.
- Express full body. Everything is in supersets except the main leg lift, because they save ~37% of the time on average without losing adaptations (Zhang X 2025). Each day covers the four regions. In 30 minutes the volume is the minimum dose: with 3 days, between 4 and 13 sets per muscle (side delts, 1–2); with 2, between 1 and 8. So it goes with the “get fit” goal.
- Push, pull, legs. Push, pull and legs, twice each. Every target muscle gets 11 to 18 sets a week, above a beginner’s 10: RAW takes that 10 as a floor and accepts up to 18, the top of the intermediate band.
- Full body strength and Upper/lower strength. The main lifts go first, in normal sets, at 3–6 reps, each at least twice a week. The other muscles stay under the build-muscle bands on purpose: in the full-body one, the biceps get 3 sets a week and the side delts 3.5–4. With more minutes, RAW adds sets to the accessories only.
- Full body at home. Dumbbells, a band and body weight, with wide rep ranges. As written, the quads, hamstrings and glutes reach 10 sets in both weeks of the cycle; the other seven get 6.5 to 10.5, depending on the week. With 60 minutes RAW adds sets to the accessories, but in a single week the lats do not pass 9 sets and the front delts 9.5.
- Express strength. Every set in normal sets and two main lifts per session, so each one comes once or twice a week. The chest gets a single session in some weeks, and several muscles stay under 4 sets a week, the minimum dose: the price of a 33-minute session.
Common rules
- ≥2 sets per exercise (Currier 2026).
- Effort: RPE 7 (RIR 3) for beginners and RPE 8 (RIR 2) for intermediate and advanced. Never to failure by default.
- Rest: 120 s on compound exercises and 60 s on isolation. In a superset, 0 s after the first exercise and 120 s after the second.
- Supersets only agonist-antagonist, on accessories and never on the day’s main lift. In “Express full body” and “Full body at home” the upper-body main lift also goes in a superset with its antagonist; the strength templates never put a main lift in one (Zhang X 2025).
- Double progression: the weight goes up when all sets reach the top of the range (Kassiano 2026a).
- No warm-up sets in the template, no advanced techniques and no 1RM test.
- No session goes above 9.5 weighted sets for the same muscle, below the ~11 warning from a preprint (Remmert 2025).
What is a product decision
None of this comes from a 2025–2026 source:
- The list of ten muscles with a volume target. The others (calves, rear delts, lower back, traps, forearms…) are reported, but carry no target.
- The split of sets and the specific exercises in each template.
- What “the main lift” of the day is: the first lower-body exercise and the first upper-body compound.
- Reps by type: 6–10 on compound and 8–12 on isolation exercises, 3–6 on the main lifts of the strength templates, and wider ranges in “Full body at home”.
- The 60 s of rest on isolation, the minimum of the 60–90 band, so that sessions fit their time.
- The order of the main lifts for building muscle: the ACSM only gives it for strength.
- The duration assumptions: 5 minutes of warm-up and 1 minute per set, plus the rest. They will be calibrated with real times.
- That double progression waits for all sets to reach the top.
- Machines and free weights treated as interchangeable for building muscle: the source only covers strength.
- That the templates carry no starting weight: you pick it the first time, unless RAW already has your history of that exercise.
When the sources disagree
Where two sources disagree, this is what RAW does:
- The volume “ceiling”. The ACSM speaks of diminishing returns past ~18–20 sets (Currier 2026), a conference summary of ~12 (Roberts 2026) and a narrative review of 10–20 (Vergara Nieto 2026). The meta-analysis they all start from finds no ceiling (Pelland 2026). RAW follows the primary source; the other three cut the same curve at different points.
- How much to leave in the tank. The ACSM proposes 2–3 reps (Currier 2026), the conference summary ≤2 (Roberts 2026) and the narrative review ~0–2 (Vergara Nieto 2026). All three fit “RIR 2 by default”.
- Rest. For the ACSM, less or more than 1 minute does not change strength, and for hypertrophy there are not enough data (Currier 2026); the conference summary considers ≤60 s suboptimal and asks for ≥2 min on multi-joint lifts (Roberts 2026). The proposal stays at 120 s for compound and 60–90 s for isolation exercises, backed by a secondary source.
- Advanced methods. One review sees a moderate advantage for strength (Tsartsapakis 2026); a network meta-analysis and the ACSM see none (Cowley 2026; Currier 2026). They agree that they build no more muscle at the same volume.
- Frequency and strength. A meta-analysis sees an effect that the ACSM cannot quantify (Pelland 2026; Currier 2026). They agree on ≥2 sessions a week.
- Older adults and volume. For one review (at the date limit), low volume is enough for muscle mass (Radaelli 2025); the conference summary, citing earlier studies, asks for more to maintain it (Roberts 2026); and in sarcopenia no variable appears to improve the outcome (Delaire 2025). It stays at “start low and build up” (Izquierdo 2025).
- Beginners: 8 or 10 sets? The ACSM asks for ≥10 sets for “enhanced” hypertrophy (Currier 2026), and Pelland’s most efficient range is 5–10 (Pelland 2026). Starting at 10 meets both.
- A goal of its own for muscular endurance? The ACSM finds no variable that improves it more (Currier 2026); only a review without meta-analysis points to low loads and high reps (Hammert 2025). It merges into “get fit”.
References
118 references with a DOI (120 DOI links, counting the preprint versions) and 3 without one, grouped by the topic in which they are first cited. Each one links to doi.org and, where they exist, to PubMed and PubMed Central.
Volume
Camargo JBB, Bittencourt D, Silva DG, Bergamasco JGA, Max Michel J, Roberts MD, Libardi CA. Is there a volume saturation point for muscle hypertrophy in resistance-trained individuals? A narrative review. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2025;125(11):3065–3081.
Currier BS, D'Souza AC, Singh MAF, Lowisz CV, Rawson ES, Schoenfeld BJ, Smith-Ryan AE, Steen JP, Thomas GA, Triplett NT, Washington TA, Werner TJ, Phillips SM. American College of Sports Medicine Position Stand. Resistance Training Prescription for Muscle Function, Hypertrophy, and Physical Performance in Healthy Adults: An Overview of Reviews. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2026;58(4):851-872. Online: .
Official ACSM position stand (an overview of 137 systematic reviews). It replaces the 2009 position stand.
Also in: Reps, load and effort · Frequency and splits · Rest and techniques · Progression and populations · Goals · Individualisation
Delaire L, Courtay-Breuil A, Humblot J, Vidal H, Bonnefoy M, Meugnier E. Influence of Resistance Training Variables to Improve Muscle Mass Outcomes in Sarcopenia: A Systematic Review With Meta-Regressions. J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle. 2025;16(6):e70162.
Also in: Reps, load and effort · Progression and populations
Isenmann E, Geisler S, Havers T, Siegert F, Hemke F, Held S. It's never too late: The impact of resistance training on strength and body composition in females across the lifespan – A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Sci Med Sport. 2026;29(10):1174–1185.
Also in: Progression and populations
Izquierdo M, de Souto Barreto P, Arai H, Bischoff-Ferrari HA, Cadore EL, Cesari M, et al.. Global consensus on optimal exercise recommendations for enhancing healthy longevity in older adults (ICFSR). J Nutr Health Aging. 2025;29(1):100401.
Carries “2024” in its DOI but was published on 1 January 2025.
Also in: Individualisation
Lyristakis P, Wundersitz D, Cousins S, Huynh M, Zadow E, Gordon BA. The Influence of Individual Resistance Training Variables on Muscle Strength: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Sports Med. 2026;56(8):2001–2015.
Pelland JC, Remmert JF, Robinson ZP, Hinson SR, Zourdos MC. The Resistance Training Dose Response: Meta-Regressions Exploring the Effects of Weekly Volume and Frequency on Muscle Hypertrophy and Strength Gains. Sports Med. 2026;56(2):481–505. Online: .
The published full text is not open access. Its figures were checked against the preprint, which gives the same numbers; four sentences could not be verified word for word.
Also in: Reps, load and effort · Frequency and splits · Progression and populations · Goals
Radaelli R, Rech A, Molinari T, Markarian AM, Petropoulou M, Granacher U, Hortobágyi T, Lopez P. Effects of Resistance Training Volume on Physical Function, Lean Body Mass and Lower-Body Muscle Hypertrophy and Strength in Older Adults: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis of 151 Randomised Trials. Sports Med. 2025;55(1):167–192. Online: .
Also in: Progression and populations · Individualisation
Refalo MC, Nuckols G, Galpin AJ, Gallagher IJ, Hamilton DL, Fyfe JJ. Sex differences in absolute and relative changes in muscle size following resistance training in healthy adults: a systematic review with Bayesian meta-analysis. PeerJ. 2025;13:e19042.
Also in: Progression and populations · Individualisation
Remmert JF, Pelland JC, Robinson ZP, Hinson SR, Zourdos MC. Is There Too Much of a Good Thing? Meta-Regressions of the Effect of Per-Session Volume on Hypertrophy and Strength. SportRxiv. 2025. Online: .
No journal version found in PubMed as of 24 September 2026.
Also in: Frequency and splits
Roberts MD, Bamman MM, Hornberger TA, Mackey AL, Derave W, Atherton PJ, Phillips SM, Schoenfeld BJ, Nader GA, Hecksteden A, Hulmi JJ, Sillanpää E, Libardi CA, Ahtiainen JP. Research into resistance training response heterogeneity: a summary of the 2025 conference at the University of Jyväskylä. J Appl Physiol. 2026;140(6):1761–1776.
Peer-reviewed summary of a 2025 conference: it cites earlier studies.
Also in: Reps, load and effort · Rest and techniques
Tsartsapakis I, Zafeiroudi A, Kouthouris C. Effects of Advanced Resistance Training Systems on Muscle Hypertrophy and Strength in Recreationally Trained Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J Funct Morphol Kinesiol. 2026;11(1):80.
Also in: Frequency and splits · Rest and techniques · Progression and populations
Vergara Nieto ÁA, Halabi Diaz A, Hernández Millán M, Sagredo Oyarzo D. Molecular Basis and Practical Applications of Training, Nutrition and Recovery for Maximum Gains in Lean Muscle Mass: A Narrative Review for Optimizing Muscular Hypertrophy. Sports Health. 2026. Online: .
Reps, load and effort
Bao J, Liu X, Huang Y, Liu X, Wang Z. Relative effectiveness of different resistance training modalities on lower-body strength and explosive power: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Front Physiol. 2026;17:1823323. Online: .
Network meta-analysis of 27 trials (694 participants): lower-body strength and power with the load set by RPE, APRE, bar velocity or a fixed %1RM.
Cumming KT, Elvatun IC, Kalenius R, Divljak G, Raastad T, Psilander N, Horwath O. Divergent strength gains but similar hypertrophy after low-load and high-load resistance exercise training in trained individuals: many roads lead to Rome. J Appl Physiol. 2025;139(3):685-697.
Droguett FAB, Festa RR, Quintana NAT, Gomez-Lopez J, Ojeda ÁH, Farias-Valenzuela C, Giakoni-Ramírez F, Jofré-Saldía E. Objective Accuracy in Estimating Repetitions in Reserve in the Back Squat: An Analysis between Experienced vs. Novice Subjects. J Hum Kinet. 2026;102:145-158. Online: .
Enes A, Nass G, Alves RC, Adam EM, Piñero A, Oneda G, Leonel DF, Schoenfeld BJ, Souza-Junior TP. Exploring the Dose-Response Relationship between Resistance-Training Volume and Psychophysiological Responses in Trained Males. J Hum Kinet. 2026;103:303-318. Online: .
Foster C, Bok D, Cortis C, de Koning JJ, Fusco A, Papale O. Systematic Differences in Mean Rating of Perceived Exertion and Session Rating of Perceived Exertion During Training and Competition. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2026. Online: .
Gómez-Redondo P, Alcazar J, Valenzuela PL, Ara I, Alegre LM, Mañas A. Validity of repetitions in reserve for prescribing resistance exercise in older adults. Exp Gerontol. 2025;210:112884.
Also in: Progression and populations
Hammert WB, Yamada Y, Kataoka R, Song JS, Spitz RW, Wong V, Seffrin A, Loenneke JP. Changes in Absolute and Relative Muscular Endurance After Resistance Training: A Review of the Literature With Considerations for Future Research. J Strength Cond Res. 2025;39(4):474-491.
Also in: Goals
Hammert WB, Kataoka R, Yamada Y, Sallberg RW, Kang A, Buckner SL, Loenneke JP. Non-Specific Strength Changes Between High- and Low-Load Isotonic Resistance Training: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Sports Med. 2026;56(3):763-773. Online: .
Hermann T, Mohan AE, Enes A, Sapuppo M, Piñero A, Zamanzadeh A, Roberts M, Coleman M, Korakakis PA, Wolf M, Refalo M, Swinton PA, Schoenfeld BJ. Without Fail: Muscular Adaptations in Single-Set Resistance Training Performed to Failure or with Repetitions-in-Reserve. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2025;57(9):2021–2031.
Also in: Rest and techniques
Huang Z, Sun J, Li D, Chen C, Wang D. Autoregulated resistance training for maximal strength enhancement: A systematic review and network meta-analysis. J Exerc Sci Fit. 2025;23(4):360–369.
Also in: Progression and populations
Marzagão T. A Weight-Dependent 1RM Prediction Equation Optimized on 303,494 Near-Failure Sets Across 388 Exercises. arXiv (stat.AP). 2026. Online: .
Moriarty B, Watts D, Gastin P, Weakley J, Huyhn M, James L. Practices and Perceptions of Resistance Training Load Quantification. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2026;21(7):806-814.
Petro JL, Ferrari G, Cardozo LA, Vargas-Molina S, Carbone L, Kreider RB, Bonilla DA. Validity of Rating of Perceived Exertion Scales in Relation to Movement Velocity and Exercise Intensity During Resistance-Exercise: A Systematic Review. Sports Health. 2025;17(3):621-628. Online: .
Published online in 2024: used only as context.
Russo F, Marconcin P, Gomes D, Peralta M, Flôres F, Casanova N. Factors influencing the accuracy of the repetition in reserve scale in resistance training: a systematic review. Phys Ther Rev. 2026;31(1):46-63. Online: .
Tan Z, Jiang Y, Candow DG, Castagna C, Wang X, Zheng H. Optimizing prescription of resistance training for body composition, muscle strength, and physical performance in older adults with sarcopenia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Rev Aging Phys Act. 2026;23(1):8.
Varela-Olalla D, Del Campo-Vecino J, Balsalobre-Fernández C. Influence of Proximity to Failure, Relative Intensity, and Volume on Voluntary Performance and Fatigue Symptoms After Resistance Training: A Systematic Review. J Strength Cond Res. 2025;39(9):e1129–e1168.
Also in: Frequency and splits · Rest and techniques
Wiedenmann T, Kunellis D, Rappelt L, Held S, Wicker P, Donath L. Trainability of repetitions-in-reserve estimation in younger and older adults: a parallel-group repeated-measures study. BMC Sports Sci Med Rehabil. 2026;18(1):375.
Also in: Progression and populations
Wu S, Xie L, Zhao Z, Zheng X, Yin X, Hou J, Zhou K, Tang P. Effects of resistance training performed to repetition non-failure on exercise performance in healthy adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Sports Sci Med Rehabil. 2026;18:333. Online: .
Also in: Rest and techniques · Goals
Yavuz M, Dişçeken O, Işıkdemir E, Işık M, Cihan H. Validity of Formulas Used to Estimate One Repetition Maximum Strength of Upper and Lower Extremities. Pamukkale J Sport Sci. 2025;16(2):490-514.
Frequency and splits
Conti F, Marzagão T, Galpin AJ, Schoenfeld BJ. Predictors of long-term resistance exercise adherence: evidence from a large cohort of mobile app users of various experience levels. Front Sports Act Living. 2026;8:1855668.
Observational cohort: product context only, no rule rests on it alone.
Davidson L, Barillas S. Investigating the impact of less than or greater than 60 seconds of inter-set rest on muscle hypertrophy and strength increases in males with >1 year of resistance training experience: systematic review with meta-analysis. medRxiv. 2025. Online: .
Also in: Rest and techniques
Havers T, Micke F, Geisler S, Held S. Acute and Chronic Effects of Drop-Set Training: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review. Sports Med Open. 2026;12:38.
Also in: Rest and techniques
Hermann T, Mohan AE, Piñero A, Enes A, Coleman M, Zamanzadeh A, Sapuppo M, Jia A, Ethier J, Korakakis PA, Wolf M, Swinton PA, Schoenfeld BJ. Front-Loading Fatigue: Does the Pre-exhaustion Method influence Resistance Training-induced Muscular Adaptations? Int J Exerc Sci. 2026;19:1008.
Randomised trial: product context only, no rule rests on it alone.
Hua-Rui L, Shouliang H, Zhengze Y, Ning J, Peihua L, Yifei Z, Fenglin P. Optimal dose of resistance training to improve handgrip strength in older adults with sarcopenia: a systematic review and Bayesian model-based network meta-analysis. Front Physiol. 2025;16:1564988.
Lv L, Chen C, Liu X, Liu H, Wu P. Systematic review and meta-analysis of the acute effects of self-selected rest intervals on exercise performance maintenance, lactate levels, and heart rate. PLoS One. 2026;21(7):e0354594.
Also in: Rest and techniques
Ran J, Yang J, Li N, Yang J, Yang W, Chen J, Sun P, Liao Y. Dose-response effects of resistance training in sarcopenic older adults: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Geriatr. 2025;25(1):849.
Also in: Progression and populations
Wu Y, Zhang Y, Li Y, Tin H, Li Y, Yan X. Effects of Moderate-Frequency Resistance Training on Cardiometabolic Risk Factors in Adults With Overweight or Obesity: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Obes Rev. 2026;27(10):e70130.
Also in: Individualisation
Yan R, Chen Y, Zhang R, He J, Lin W, Sun J, Li D. Optimal resistance training prescriptions to improve muscle strength, physical function, and muscle mass in older adults diagnosed with sarcopenia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Aging Clin Exp Res. 2025;37:320.
Zhang D, Sun S, Ding Y, Chen L, Zhang X, Yin J, Zhang H. Effectiveness of exercise snacks on physical function: a systematic reviews with meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Nutr Health Aging. 2026;30:100837.
Zhang W, Mei J, Li X, Chen K, Zhang D, Liu J. Optimal Resistance Exercise Strategies for Improving Bone Mineral Density in Middle-Aged and Older Adults: A Network Meta-Analysis Based on Exercise Intensity and Frequency. Calcif Tissue Int. 2026;117:127.
Zhang X, Weakley J, Li H, Li Z, García-Ramos A. Superset Versus Traditional Resistance Training Prescriptions: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Exploring Acute and Chronic Effects on Mechanical, Metabolic, and Perceptual Variables. Sports Med. 2025;55(4):953-975.
Also in: Rest and techniques · Goals · Individualisation
Rest and techniques
Bradshaw JT, Sanzo K, Barakat C, Barshun A, Inglima S, Gotla T, Thompson BK, De Souza EO, Walters JA. Similar Strength and Hypertrophic Adaptations in Less Time? Myo-Reps vs. Traditional Straight-Sets in Resistance-Trained Men. J Strength Cond Res. 2026;40(6):638–649.
Brummer J, Herbolsheimer F, Fyfe J, Steindorf K. Meeting the WHO guideline on muscle-strengthening activities does not have to be time-consuming: a discussion of time-saving strategies. Front Public Health. 2026;14:1872337.
Also in: Progression and populations · Goals
Cowley N, Nicholson V, Timmins R, Munteanu G, Weakley J. The Effects of Advanced Resistance Training Prescription Methods on Strength, Power, Hypertrophy, and Performance Adaptations in Healthy Adults: A Systematic Review and Bayesian Network Meta-analysis. Sports Med. 2026;56(8):1955–1977.
Also in: Progression and populations · Individualisation
Cui J, Yu Y, Xu Y, Wu H. Effectiveness of long-term cluster training and traditional resistance training in enhancing maximum strength in young adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Front Physiol. 2025;16:1568247.
Enes A, Mohan AE, Piñero A, Hermann T, Sapuppo M, Coleman M, Androulakis Korakakis P, Wolf M, Souza-Junior TP, Swinton PA, Schoenfeld BJ. Warming up to improved performance? Effects of different specific warm-up protocols on neuromuscular performance in trained individuals. Sports Med Health Sci. 2025.
The published version could not be opened: quotes come from the preprint.
Gür F, Serter B. Comparison of rest redistribution and traditional set configurations in terms of strength, power, and perceived exertion: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials. BMC Sports Sci Med Rehabil. 2026;18(1):269.
Hobein E, Miltner F, Jukic I, Ferrauti A, Wiewelhove T. Acute Responses and Chronic Adaptations to Cluster Versus Traditional Set Resistance Training in Males and Females. Eur J Sport Sci. 2026;26(4):e70160.
Kong Z, Zhang M, Xin X, Chen J, Zeng B, Xie J. Cluster training versus traditional resistance training on lower-limb muscle strength, jumping, and explosive power performance: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Sports Sci Med Rehabil. 2026;18(1):127.
Mang ZA, Beam JR, Kravitz L. The Acute and Chronic Effects of Superset Resistance Training Versus Traditional Resistance Training—A Narrative Review. J Strength Cond Res. 2025;39(11):1216–1234.
Neves PP, Marques DL, Neiva HP, Marinho DA, Ferraz R, Marques MC, Alves AR. Impact of Re-Warm-Up During Resistance Training: Analysis of Mechanical and Physiological Variables. Sports (Basel). 2025;13(5):142.
Rios MJ, Ferreira FA, Chapman DW, Fernandes RJ, Reis VM. Methods and Systems of Resistance Training: A Narrative Review Based on Contemporary Recommendations. Sports (Basel). 2026;14(8):348.
Vargas-Molina S, García-Palumbo A, Petro JL, Bonilla DA, García-Sillero M, Carbone L, Schoenfeld BJ, Benítez-Porres J. Comparison of Repetition-Based Progressive-Overload Strategies in Resistance Training: Rest-Pause Versus Drop Sets. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2026;36(7):e70327.
Also in: Progression and populations
Yamazaki Y, Shimamori K, Takizawa K, Yamaguchi T, Shibata K. Effects of Rest Interval Configuration Between Sets on Volume Load During Five Sets of Bench Press and Back Squat Exercise. J Strength Cond Res. 2025;39(11):1123–1128.
Zhang X, Chen Z, Li H, Weakley J, Li Z, García-Ramos A. Developing a Repetition-Based Inter-Set Rest Adjustment Method in Resistance Training. Sports Health. 2026;18(4):851–860.
Progression and populations
Barnes MJ, Fraser J, Pritchard H, Cochrane DJ. A Comparison of Traditional and Autoregulated Periodized Strength Training in Resistance-Trained Men: A Randomized, Crossover Study. J Strength Cond Res. 2026. Online: .
Bell L, Darragh IAJ, Travis SK, Rogerson D, Nolan D. A Practical Approach to Deloading: Recommendations and Considerations for Strength and Physique Sports. Strength Cond J. 2026;48(4):413–423. Online: .
Published online in May 2025, hence cited as 2025. Read as the accepted manuscript in the Sheffield Hallam University repository.
Borrego ER, Pallarés JG, Martínez-Cava A, Hernández-Belmonte A. A Device-Free Approach to Program Resistance Training in Women: The Level of Effort Method. Int J Sports Med. 2025;46(13):1000–1007.
Reliability study in 24 women: how much the reps to failure at a fixed load vary within a person.
Chopra S, Tornvall I, Reid N, et al.; Australian Frailty Network Working Group. Australian Consensus Statement on the Prevention and Management of Frailty Among Community-Dwelling Older Adults: A Modified Delphi Study. Med J Aust. 2026;224(5):e70182.
Dabbs NC, Binkley H, Bott C, Fragala MS, Herda A, Moeskops S, Moore EWG, Smith-Ryan A, Triplett NT. National Strength and Conditioning Association Position Statement on Strength and Conditioning of Female Athletes. Part II: Training Adaptations and Program Design. J Strength Cond Res. 2026;40(8):895–908.
Only the abstract was read; the full text is paywalled.
Enes A, Correa CL, Bernardo MF, Salles GN, Oneda G, Leonel DF, Fleck SJ, Phillips SM, De Souza EO, Souza-Junior TP. Does increasing the resistance-training volume lead to greater gains? The effects of weekly set progressions on muscular adaptations in females. J Sports Sci. 2025;43(4):381–392.
Fabrício Valério D, Moriggi Júnior R, Damas F, Barroso R. Changes in Upper-Limb Lean Tissue Mass in the Early Stages of Resistance Training: The Role of Volume Progression and Exercise Variation in Young Women and Men. Res Q Exerc Sport. 2026. Online: .
Hickmott LM, Bristol AR, Davidson CE, Chaudry A, Ko J, Butcher SJ, Chilibeck PD. A Comparison of Fixed Percentage of One-Repetition Maximum, Rating of Perceived Exertion, and Last Repetition Velocity-Based Training Load Prescription on Muscular Adaptations in Older Adults. J Strength Cond Res. 2026;40(10):1294–1304.
Jezdimirović Stojanović T, Andrić N, Zenić N, Rincon Perez A, Stojanović MDM. Effects of two versus three weekly sessions of low-load elastic band resistance training on functional fitness and metabolic biomarkers in older adults: a randomized controlled trial. Eur Rev Aging Phys Act. 2026. Online: .
Kassiano W, Santos-Melo V, Manske I, Lisboa F, Miguel A, Gomes F, Prado A, Stavinski N, Costa B, Cyrino ES. Progressive Overload Affects the Magnitude of Muscle Hypertrophy. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2026;58(7):1556–1565.
Kassiano W, Costa B, Kunevaliki G, Lisboa F, Prado A, Alves L, Tricoli I, Stavinski N, Francsuel J, Cyrino ES. Comparison of Muscle Hypertrophy and Strength Adaptations Induced by Back Squat and Leg Extension Resistance Exercises. J Strength Cond Res. 2026;40(4):367–376. Online: .
Lees MJ, Mcleod JC, Morton RW, Currier BS, Fliss MD, McKellar SR, Sidhu RS, Stansfield BN, Webb EK, McGlory C, Burniston JG, Phillips SM. Resistance training load does not determine resistance training-induced hypertrophy across upper and lower limbs in healthy young males. J Physiol. 2025. Online: .
Loaiza-Betancur AF, González-González C, Díaz-Franco A, et al.. A critical appraisal of systematic reviews assessing the effect of chronic velocity-based resistance training on health and athletic performance outcomes: A systematic review. PLoS One. 2026;21(2):e0342992.
Monte A, Baltzopoulos V, Zamparo P, Clarck D, Lucietto N, Maganaris CN. Differential neuromuscular adaptations following multi-joint vs single-joint resistance exercise training. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2026. Online: .
Nieto-Acevedo R, García-Sánchez C, Romero-Moraleda B, Varela D, Cabarkapa D. The Effect of a Short-Term Detraining Period on Neuromuscular Performance in Elite U18 Male Basketball Players. J Strength Cond Res. 2025;39(11):e1305–e1312. Online: .
10 elite under-18 male basketball players: neuromuscular performance after 14 days without training.
Pancar Z, Ilhan MT, Darendeli MK, Karaca B, Ikidag MA, Tasdogan AM, Ulema MS, Alkhamees NH, Al-Mhanna SB, Batrakoulis A. Effects of deload periods in resistance training on muscle hypertrophy and strength endurance in untrained young men using a randomized within subject design. Sci Rep. 2026;16(1):10299.
Räntilä A, Halonen EJ, Tiainen EJ, Kaasinen SO, Hulmi JJ, Ahtiainen JP. Repeated Resistance Training Reveals the Reproducibility of Muscle Strength and Size Responses Within Individuals. Eur J Sport Sci. 2025;25(12):e70095. Online: .
Randomised trial in 20 untrained adults; RAW reads only the strength lost after 10 weeks without training.
Varovic D, Wolf M, Schoenfeld BJ, Steele J, Grgic J, Mikulic P. Does Muscle Length Influence Regional Hypertrophy? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Int J Sports Med. 2025;46(14):1027–1036.
Vasconcelos T, Ruivo A, Refalo MC, Chaves Lucas G, Vasconcelos PR, Brito JP, Vilaça-Alves J, Oliveira R. Comparative Adaptations to Different Leg Extension Set-termination Strategies in Trained Men and Women: A Unilateral Within-Participant Study. J Strength Cond Res. 2026;40(10):1205–1213.
Wang Y, Qiu J, Dai D, Li Q, Wang X, Luo Q. The effects of velocity-based vs. percentage-based resistance training on sports performance in trained individuals: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Sports Sci Med Rehabil. 2026;18(1):57.
Wiedenmann T, Held S, Morat T, Rappelt L, Isenmann E, Berndsen E, Hopp NH, Donath L. The Effects of Different Resistance Training Modalities on Muscle Strength in Community-Dwelling Older Adults: A Network Meta-Analysis. Gerontology. 2025;71(7):576–588.
Also in: Individualisation
Zhang Z, Ya X, Zhao X, Liu Z, Luo J, Liu Y, Bu Y. Comparison of linear and undulating periodization resistance training on athletic capacities and health promotion: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Front Public Health. 2026;14:1707627.
Goals
Binmahfoz A, Dighriri A, Gray C, Gray SR. Effect of resistance exercise on body composition, muscle strength and cardiometabolic health during dietary weight loss in people living with overweight or obesity: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open Sport Exerc Med. 2025;11(3):e002363.
Bishop DJ, Beck B, Biddle SJH, Denay KL, Ferri A, Gibala MJ, Headley S, Jones AM, Jung M, Lee MJ, Moholdt T, Newton RU, Nimphius S, Pescatello LS, Saner NJ, Tzarimas C. Physical Activity and Exercise Intensity Terminology: A Joint ACSM Expert Statement and ESSA Consensus Statement. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2025;57(11):2599-2613.
Busk-Cirera L, Carlsen IØ, Madsen LB, Sandsdal RM, Jensen E, Jensen SBK, Torekov SS. Effects of Incretin-Based Therapies, Diet and Exercise Interventions, and Bariatric Surgery on Fat-Free Mass in Adults With Overweight or Obesity: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2026;28(9):7737-7751.
Two authors declare links with Novo Nordisk.
Deller M, Weiershaus J, Held S, Brinkmann C. Effects of Calorie Restriction With and Without Strength, Endurance or Mixed Training on Fat-Free and Skeletal Muscle Mass in Overweight or Obese Individuals — A Systematic Review With Pairwise Meta-Analysis and Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Studies. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2026;28(8):6810-6823.
Dobbie LJ, Tolvanen L, Alves D, et al.. Nutritional, functional, and psychological considerations for incretin-based therapies in adults — an EASO, EFAD, and ECPO Consensus Statement. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2026;14(9):754-777.
Several authors declare links with the pharmaceutical industry.
Feng Z, Ying W, Jun W. The effects, mechanisms, and influencing factors of concurrent strength and endurance training with different sequences: a semi-systematic review. Front Sports Act Living. 2025;7:1692399. Online: .
Held S, Wolf L, Rappelt L, Bloch W, Donath L, Micke F, Geisler S, Isenmann E. Maximizing Adaptations in Concurrent Training: An Umbrella Review of Meta-analyses. Sports Med. 2026;56(6):1489-1512.
Kazeminasab F, Mohebinejad M, Mahboobi MH, Nojoumi M, Belyani S, Bagheri R, Dutheil F. Combined exercise training and dietary interventions versus independent effect of exercise on ectopic fat in individuals with overweight and obesity: a systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression. J Int Soc Sports Nutr. 2025;22(1):2528534.
Lafontant K, Rukstela A, Hanson A, Chan J, Alsayed Y, Ayers-Creech WA, Bale C, Ohigashi Y, Solis J, Shelton G, Alur I, Resler C, Heath A, Ericksen S, Forbes SC, Campbell BI. Comparison of concurrent, resistance, or aerobic training on body fat loss: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Int Soc Sports Nutr. 2025;22(1):2507949.
Lahav Y, Yavetz R, Gepner Y. Resistance training as a key strategy for high-quality weight loss in men and women. Front Endocrinol. 2025;16:1725500. Online: .
Retrospective cohort, not a randomised trial.
Lowrie FJ, Rahimi MM, Hogan CM, Tran DL, Marshall NS, Phillips CL, Gordon CJ, Yee BJ, Machan EA. The impact of exercise on fat free mass reduction during very low energy diet-induced weight loss in adults with overweight or obesity: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Obes Res Clin Pract. 2025;19(5):380-387.
Salem A, Ammar A, Trabelsi K, Boukhris O, Heydenreich J, Ghazzawi HA, Amawi AT, Grosso G, Zmijewski P, Jahrami H, Husain W, Chtourou H, Schöllhorn WI. Combined diet and physical activity effects on health-related outcomes in people with overweight or obesity: an overview of systematic reviews. Front Nutr. 2026;13:1821389.
Xie Y, Gu Y, Li Z, Zhang L, Hei Y. Comparing exercise modalities during caloric restriction: a systematic review and network meta-analysis on body composition. Front Nutr. 2025;12:1579024.
Yang YS, Ku EJ, Ko SH, Rhee EJ, Ihm SH, Choi SH, Lee WY; Korean Society of Cardio-cerebrovascular Disease Prevention. Physical activity for prevention of cardiovascular disease: consensus statement of Korean Society of Cardio-cerebrovascular Disease Prevention. Korean J Intern Med. 2025;40(5):696-709.
Individualisation
Alaze-Hagemann F, Reiss K, Abou-Dakn M, et al.. Nutrition, Physical Activity and Other Health Aspects Before and During Pregnancy — Recommendations by the Nationwide "Healthy Start Network" (Netzwerk Gesund ins Leben) 2026. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd. 2026;86(6):e60–e97.
Chaabene H, Ramirez-Campillo R, Moran J, Schega L, Prieske O, Sandau I, Negra Y, Behrens M. The Era of Resistance Training as a Primary Form of Physical Activity for Physical Fitness and Health in Youth Has Come. Sports Med. 2025;55(9):2073–2090.
Current Opinion article, not a systematic review.
Cidrais M, Mendonça G. Sex differences in resistance training: a brief narrative review. Sport Sci Health. 2026;22(1):66. Online: .
Conradie-Smit M, Fourie G, May W. Physical activity in obesity management. S Afr Med J. 2025;115(9b):e3603.
Cox ER, Beacroft S, Jansson AK, Wade L, Duncan MJ, Lubans DR, Robards SL, Leitner M, Gutberlet N, Plotnikoff RC. Effects of mHealth interventions to prescribe resistance training: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2025;23(1):7.
D'Souza AC, Van Every DW, Bhinder A, Elango S, Lamont GAC, Lees MJ, Lim C, McKendry J, Newbold JP, Naphin C, Rebalka IA, Roxburgh L, Suthaharan A, Wilson BK, Phillips SM. Menstrual Cycle Phase Does Not Influence Training-Induced Muscle Hypertrophy or Strength: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2026;58(10):2255–2273. Online: .
Randomised within-participant trial in 24 women with natural cycles, about 12 weeks: training adjusted to the cycle phase against regular training.
Davenport MH, Christopher S, Deering RE, Prevett C, Dufour S, Forte M, et al.. International Delphi study of clinical and exercise professionals' opinion of physical activity prescreening and contraindications for participating in postpartum physical activity. Br J Sports Med. 2025;59(8):527–538.
Eisa N, Barood O. Lean Mass Changes With Incretin Therapy Versus Lifestyle Intervention: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2026;28(6):4818–4827.
Gerber PA, Collet TH, Favre L, Bueter M, Ruiz Arana I, Durrer D, Seelig E, Schultes B, Pasi P, Konrad D, Bally L. Swiss obesity clinical practice guidance. Swiss Med Wkly. 2026;156:5415.
Held S, Havers T, Gavanda S, Geisler S, Isenmann E. Strength Gains Across Performance Levels and Sexes: A Meta-Analytical Perspective. Research Square. 2025. Online: .
Meta-analysis of 128 studies (4,357 adults aged 18–40): weekly strength gain on squat, bench press and deadlift by training level and sex.
Jain C, Balachandran U, Valdivia LM, Vicioso C, Koehne NH, Locke AR, Yendluri A, Namiri NK, Ranade SC. Pediatric weight training fractures due to improper use: a review of national injury data, 2014–2023. Phys Sportsmed. 2026;54(3):236–243.
Registry analysis (NEISS), not a systematic review.
Kasapoğlu Aksoy M. Exercise approaches in obese individuals with physical limitations. Turk J Phys Med Rehabil. 2026;72(1):1–11.
Lee HS, Suk MH, Jang HS, Kim JH. Exercise Guidelines for Enhancing Mobility and Stability in Individuals with Severe Obesity. J Obes Metab Syndr. 2026;35(1):1–13.
Meng Y, Hu Y, Yang W, Xue Y, Yang S. Effects of elastic band resistance training on lower limb strength and balance function in older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Front Sports Act Living. 2025;7:1649305.
Mesinovic J, Hurst C, Leung GKW, Ryan JR, Daly RM, Scott D. Exercise and dietary recommendations to preserve musculoskeletal health during weight loss in adults with obesity: A practical guide. Rev Endocr Metab Disord. 2025;26(5):785–803.
Prevett C, Gingerich J, Sivak A, Davenport MH. Resistance training in pregnancy: systematic review and meta-analysis of pregnancy, delivery, fetal and pelvic floor outcomes and call to action. Br J Sports Med. 2025;59(16):1173–1182.
Ramos-Jiménez A, Rubio-Valles M, Güereca-Arvizuo J, Delgadillo-Ramos MG, Hernández-Lepe MA. Menstrual-Cycle Phase-Based Periodization of Resistance Training and Chronic Gains in Strength and Body Composition: A Discordant Evidence Base in Need of an Uncertainty-Aware Synthesis. Women. 2026;6(4):63.
Opinion article; abstract read via Crossref.
Rodríguez MÁ, Quintana-Cepedal M, Cheval B, Thøgersen-Ntoumani C, Crespo I, Olmedillas H. Effect of exercise snacks on fitness and cardiometabolic health in physically inactive individuals: systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Sports Med. 2026;60(2):133–141.
Tanaka H, Ferrari R. Does Resistance Training Provide Benefits that Are Comparable to Aerobic Exercise in Hypertension? Curr Hypertens Rep. 2026;28(1):22.
Tiedemann A, Sturnieks DL, Burton E, Thom JM, Lord SR, Scott S, Sherrington C. Exercise and Sports Science Australia updated position statement on exercise for preventing falls in older people living in the community. J Sci Med Sport. 2025;28(2):87–94. Online: .
Wang J, Guo S, Yang Y, Liang Y, Guo C, Cheng Y, Li Y, Qiu B, Ma S, Chen P, Zhuang J. Exercise modalities for overall and domain-specific balance performance in older adults: A systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis. Ageing Res Rev. 2026;121:103303.
Mentioned, content not used
They appear in the documents, but no figure on this page rests on them.
Alcazar J, Alegre LM, Marquez G, Pareja-Blanco F. Back To Basics: Repetitions in Reserve Is Not Intensity. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2026. Online: .
Commentary with no public abstract: mentioned, its content is not used.
Mang. Minimum-Effective Resistance Training Doses. ACSM's Health & Fitness Journal. 2026;30(1):41–44.
Paywalled, no accessible abstract: not verified and not used.
Neves PP, Marques DL, Neiva HP, Alves AR. Acute Effects of Resistance Training Warm-Up and Re-Warm-Up on Dynamic Strength Performance: A Scoping Review. J Sci Sport Exerc. 2026.
The DOI resolves, but the publisher blocks the abstract and the text: no figure could be checked, so it is not used.
Sources without a DOI
Three sources that have no DOI.
American College of Sports Medicine. Resistance Training Prescription for Muscle Function, Hypertrophy, and Physical Performance: An Overview of Reviews. Official position stand slides, March 2026.
ACSM material that accompanies Currier 2026; not a separate article.
Haim M, Glikson M, Fogelman R, Constantini N, Golan-Ziv R, Navot Mintzer D, Keren G, Wolak A, Keren A, Fuchs S, Scheinowitz M, Milman A, Kazum Beiser S. [Pre-participation screening recommendations for leisure activities aimed at health improvement and non-competitive sports participation — a document on behalf of the Sports Cardiology Forum, the Israeli Cardiology Association]. Harefuah. 2025;164(3):145–149.
Article in Hebrew, no DOI: only the English abstract was read.
American College of Sports Medicine. ACSM Certification Exams to Reflect GETP 12 Effective July 10, 2025. 31 March 2025.
Official note, not peer reviewed.
Cited by other sources
Studies from before 2025 (and one 2026 trial) that appear only because a 2025–2026 source cites them. They are not used as direct sources.
- Androulakis-Korakakis et al. 2021, Front Sports Act Living — cited by Pelland 2026
- Evangelista et al. 2021, Einstein (São Paulo) — cited by Pelland 2026
- Robinson et al. 2024 — cited by Currier 2026
- Zourdos et al. 2016 and Helms et al. 2016 (the RPE–RIR scale) — cited by Marzagão 2026, Currier 2026
- Reynolds et al. 2006 and Mayhew et al. 2008 — cited by Marzagão 2026
- Sødal et al. 2023 — cited by Havers 2026, Currier 2026
- Singer et al. 2024, Front Sports Act Living — cited by Roberts 2026
- Rosa et al. — cited by Roberts 2026
- World Health Organization guideline, 2020 — cited by Currier 2026, Brummer 2026, Yang 2025
- US Physical Activity Guidelines, 2018 — cited by Yang 2025
- ACSM position stand, 2009 — cited by Currier 2026
- Haugen et al. 2023 — cited by Currier 2026
- Moesgaard et al. 2022 — cited by Currier 2026
- Nuzzo et al., Sports Med — cited by Currier 2026
- Niemeijer et al. 2020, Br J Sports Med — cited by Currier 2026
- Fyfe et al. 2022, Sports Med — cited by Currier 2026
- Currier et al. 2023, Br J Sports Med — cited by Currier 2026
- Plotkin et al. 2022 — cited by Vargas-Molina 2026
- Chaves et al. 2024 — cited by Vargas-Molina 2026
- Coleman et al. 2024 — cited by Pancar 2026
- An older study measuring blood pressure during the leg press — cited by Tanaka 2026