Evidence-Based Resistance Training Recommendations
Open accessAbstract
Resistance training produces an array of health benefits, as well as the potential to promote muscular adaptations of strength, size, power and endurance. The American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM) regularly publish a position stand making recommendations for optimal achievement of the desired training goals. However, the most recent position stand (as well as previous ones) has come under heavy criticism for misrepresentation of research, lack of evidence and author bias. Therefore this paper proposes a set of scientifically rigorous resistance training guidelines, reviewing and summarising the relevant research for the purpose of proposing more logical, evidence-based training advice. \nWe recommend that appreciably the same muscular strength and endurance adaptations can be attained by performing a single set of ~8-12 repetitions to momentary muscular failure, at a repetition duration that maintains muscular tension throughout the entire range of motion, for most major muscle groups once or twice each week. All resistance types (e.g. free-weights, resistance machines, bodyweight, etc.) show potential for increases in strength, with no significant difference between them, although resistance machines appear to pose a lower risk of injury. \nThere is a lack of evidence to suggest that balance from free weights or use of unstable surfaces shows any transference to sporting improvement, and explosive movements are also not recommended as they present a high injury risk and no greater benefit than slow, controlled weight training. Finally, we consider genetic factors in relation to body type and growth potential.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
A few reviews have concluded that training to repetition failure may provide greater strength, hypertrophy, and cardiorespiratory fitness adaptations.
“A few reviews have concluded that training to repetition failure may provide greater strength [87], hypertrophy [88], and cardiorespiratory fitness [89] adaptations.”
From Minimalist Training: Is Lower Dosage or Intensity Resistance Training Effective to Improve Physical Fitness? A Narrative Review (2024) · cites this paper as [87]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 166 · Cited by 156
- Authors
- Fisher, J., Steele, J., Bruce-Low, S., & Smith, D.
- Affiliations
- Southampton Solent University (GB)
- Manchester Metropolitan University (GB)
- Venue
- Medicina Sportiva
- Publisher
- Index Copernicus
- Published
- 2011-09-01
- Volume
- 15
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 147-162
- ISSN
- 1429-0022 (ISSN-L)
- 1734-2260
- OpenAlex
- W2065881151
- Cited by
- 156
- References
- 166
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 7
- FWCI
- 8.46
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by
- Locations
- Medicina Sportiva (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- e-space (Manchester Metropolitan University) (submittedVersion)
- Solent University Research Portal (Solent University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Orthopedics and Sports Medicine › Sports Performance and Training
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Complementary and alternative medicine › Cardiovascular and exercise physiology
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Physical Activity and Health
- Keywords
- resistance training, training recommendations, muscle strength, muscular endurance, muscle hypertrophy, free weights, resistance machines, calisthenics, injury risk, balance training, explosive movements, growth potential
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review