Zone 2 training has become one of the most talked-about topics in health and fitness media. Podcasters and popular health commentators have positioned it as the optimal intensity for improving mitochondrial capacity, fat oxidation, and long-term cardiometabolic health. The argument is compelling, and the health effects and benefits of aerobic fitness are undeniable. But, a new narrative review published in Sports Medicine from researchers at Queen's University and McMaster University asks if the science backs it all up?

Subscribe now

Aims and Methods

The researchers set out to critically evaluate the evidence supporting Zone 2 training as the optimal exercise intensity for improving mitochondrial capacity and cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) in the general population, meaning non-elite, non-endurance-trained people.

Zone 2 in this context refers to low-to-moderate intensity exercise performed below the first lactate threshold (LT1), roughly where you can maintain a comfortable conversation. Popular definitions also tie it to the maximal rate of fat oxidation (Fatmax) and blood lactate concentrations just below where the body starts to accumulate lactate more rapidly.

Rather than conducting a systematic review, the authors conducted a narrative review, pulling together studies on low-intensity endurance training, mitochondrial biogenesis signalling, fatty acid oxidative (FAO) capacity, and cardiorespiratory fitness outcomes. They looked at acute exercise studies examining what happens inside the muscle during Zone 2, as well as longer-term training studies measuring actual adaptations.

A notable finding at the outset was that very few studies have actually examined Zone 2 as it is commonly defined. The authors had to work with studies that approximated Zone 2 intensity based on available physiological markers.

Results

The mitochondrial signalling case for Zone 2 is weak. The key driver of mitochondrial biogenesis is metabolic stress inside the muscle, specifically changes in the AMP/ADP:ATP ratio, which activates a signaling molecule called AMPK. Zone 2 exercise produces minimal and inconsistent changes in these intramuscular signals. AMPK activation following Zone 2 exercise is generally absent or negligible, and the downstream gene expression responses that lead to new mitochondrial development, including PGC-1a, are mixed at best. Higher exercise intensities, those above Zone 2, consistently produce greater activation of these pathways.

Read more

There is a longstanding belief in strength training circles that eating more carbohydrates fuels better performance and, over time, leads to more muscle and strength. Sounds like a plan, right? Carbohydrates are the body's preferred fuel source, and more fuel should mean more work done and more muscle built. Say no more! A new crossover trial published in Nutrients put that idea to the test in trained men, with results that challenge some common assumptions about carbohydrate intake and training adaptations.

Subscribe now

Aims and Methods

The researchers wanted to know whether adding a modest amount of supplemental carbohydrate and the extra calories that come with it would improve muscle hypertrophy, strength, or fatigue resistance in men who were already trained and eating normally.

Twenty resistance-trained men with nearly a decade of training experience each took part in a double-blinded crossover trial. For eight weeks at a time, participants consumed either a daily protein-only supplement or a protein-plus-carbohydrate supplement, then switched to the other condition for another eight weeks. Both supplements contained the same amount of protein. The carbohydrate supplement added roughly 50 grams of maltodextrin on top of that. Participants continued their habitual training and diet throughout, without any instruction to change how they were already eating or lifting.

Outcomes measured before and after each phase included lean mass via dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA), muscle thickness and cross-sectional area via ultrasound, back squat one-repetition maximum (1RM), knee extensor peak torque, and a fatigue index measuring how much force participants lost during a set of repeated knee extensions. Training volume was also tracked throughout.

A crossover design was chosen specifically to improve statistical power, since it allows each participant to serve as their own control, which significantly reduces the noise introduced by individual differences in genetics, training history, and lifestyle.

Results

The carbohydrate supplement did what it was supposed to do nutritionally. Participants consuming it took in meaningfully more daily calories and more carbohydrates than during the protein-only phase. Protein and fat intake were the same across both conditions, and training volume did not differ either.

Despite that real dietary difference, none of the primary outcomes showed a meaningful difference between conditions. Lean mass, muscle thickness, vastus lateralis cross-sectional area, squat 1RM, peak torque, and fatigue index all improved similarly regardless of which supplement participants were using. Notably, the measures of muscle size and strength performance, if anything, trended slightly in favour of the protein-only condition, though not to a degree that was meaningful.

A sensitivity analysis looking at only the first phase of the study, before any potential carryover from the first intervention could influence the second, produced the same story. No significant differences between conditions.

The authors point out that standard resistance training does not deplete muscle glycogen to the degree that would be expected to impair performance. Research on glycogen depletion during typical lifting sessions suggests the reduction stays well below the threshold where it starts to compromise neuromuscular function. If glycogen is not getting low enough to matter, then topping it up more does not appear to change the training stimulus.

They also note that mechanical tension, not metabolic substrate availability, is the primary driver of muscle hypertrophy. When extra carbohydrates do not translate into more training volume, there is no clear mechanism by which they would drive more muscle growth.

Noteworthy

For intervention length, eight weeks is on the shorter end for detecting meaningful hypertrophy and strength changes, especially in trained individuals who adapt more slowly than beginners. Most well-designed resistance training studies use ten to sixteen weeks as a minimum to capture reliable adaptations, with twelve weeks being a commonly cited benchmark for hypertrophy research specifically.

For the sample size, twenty participants in a crossover trial is small. A crossover design does improve statistical power compared to a parallel group design, which is why the researchers chose it, but twenty is still a modest number. Parallel group studies typically aim for at least twenty to thirty participants per group to be adequately powered, and many researchers would consider forty or more per group a stronger standard for detecting smaller effect sizes.

The practical implication for readers is that null results from small, short studies should be interpreted as “we did not find an effect under these conditions” rather than “this definitively does not work.” Larger, longer, pre-registered trials with bigger dietary contrasts would be needed to draw firmer conclusions.

Practical Takeaways

• For trained men who are already eating adequate protein and not in a calorie deficit, adding a moderate amount of extra carbohydrates through supplementation does not appear to meaningfully improve muscle growth or strength gains over eight weeks, according to this study.

• The results apply specifically to trained men eating normal diets and performing conventional resistance training. The researchers are careful to note this should not be extrapolated to athletes in significant calorie deficits, those with very low baseline carbohydrate intake, or those performing high-volume training that genuinely depletes glycogen, such as endurance athletes or those with very high training frequencies per muscle group.

• Protein intake matters. The research clearly supports adequate protein for muscle growth. Whether the extra calories and carbohydrates on top of that provide an additional benefit, in already-fed, already-trained individuals, is a much less clear story.

• Being in a calorie deficit is a different situation entirely. The literature does support that energy restriction can impair lean mass gains. This study did not test that scenario. It was asking whether going above maintenance in carbohydrates provides an added benefit, and the answer here was no.

• From a practical standpoint, if a trained person is already hitting their protein targets and training consistently, spending money on extra carbohydrate supplementation specifically to drive more muscle growth is not well supported by this data.

Reference

Henselmans M, Tiede DR, Plotkin DL, Mattingly ML, Harbour ER, Anglin DA, Fruge AD, Vårvik FT, Roberts MD, Izquierdo M. Effects of Modest Carbohydrate–Energy Supplementation on Resistance Training Adaptations in Trained Men: A Crossover Trial. Nutrients. 2026; 18(12):1961. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu18121961

Most of what we know about velocity-based training (VBT) comes from studies on men, which means coaches have largely been applying male-derived velocity loss (VL) guidelines to female lifters. A new study in Biology of Sport set out to test that assumption directly in the bench press, comparing three VL thresholds, 0%, 25%, and 50%, in resistance-trained women. The goal was to see which approach actually produces the best strength, hypertrophy, and neuromuscular results when training is being individualised by sex.

Subscribe now

Aims and Methods

The researchers wanted to know how different VL thresholds affect strength gains, neuromuscular adaptations, and muscle hypertrophy in the bench press for women specifically, since prior research suggests women may respond differently to fatigue and training volume than men.

Forty-nine resistance-trained women were split into three groups and completed an 8-week, twice-weekly bench press program using loads from 70% to 85% of their one-rep max (1RM). The only difference between groups was how much velocity loss they allowed within each set:

• VL0: stopped after one rep per set (no velocity loss allowed)

• VL25: stopped once bar speed dropped 25% from the fastest rep in the set

• VL50: pushed sets until bar speed dropped 50%

Before and after the program, researchers measured triceps brachii muscle thickness via ultrasound, isometric force production, dynamic strength through a progressive loading test, and fatigue resistance, while also tracking muscle electrical activity (EMG) throughout.

Results

All three groups got stronger, which confirms that even minimal training volume produces some benefit. But the groups diverged in meaningful ways:

Read more

Most health advice focuses on one thing at a time. Eat better. Move more. Sleep longer. But what if the real opportunity is in doing all three together, even just a little? A large population cohort study published in eClinicalMedicine set out to find the minimum combined improvements in sleep, physical activity, and nutrition needed to meaningfully extend both lifespan and healthspan, which the researchers define as years lived free of major chronic disease. The scale of the data and the specificity of the findings make this one worth paying attention to. Let’s take a look.

Subscribe now

Aims and Methods

The researchers wanted to know how much improvement across sleep, physical activity, and nutrition (SPAN) is actually needed, when combined, to gain extra years of life and extra years free of cardiovascular disease, cancer, type II diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and dementia.

The study used data from nearly 60,000 adults recruited through the UK Biobank. A key strength here is that sleep and physical activity were measured using wrist-worn accelerometers rather than self-reported questionnaires, which gives far more accurate data than most studies in this space. Diet was assessed using a validated Diet Quality Score (DQS) based on intake of vegetables, fruits, fish, dairy, whole grains, vegetable oils, refined grains, processed meats, unprocessed red meats, and sugar-sweetened beverages.

Moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) was tracked in minutes per day. Sleep was tracked in hours per day. Participants were followed for just over eight years, during which deaths and new diagnoses of the five major chronic conditions were recorded.

The researchers then modelled how different combinations of SPAN behaviours related to both lifespan and healthspan, looking at all 27 possible combinations of low, medium, and high levels of each behaviour. They also built a composite SPAN score to identify the minimum theoretical dose of combined behaviour change associated with meaningful gains.

Results

The main finding is that the three behaviours work better together than any one does alone. Nothing groundbreaking about that one, but what was interesting is that the threshold for seeing a meaningful benefit is far lower than most people would expect.

Even tiny combined changes matter for lifespan. An additional five minutes of sleep per day, under two minutes of extra MVPA per day, and a five-point improvement in DQS, roughly equivalent to adding half a serving of vegetables per day or an extra serving and a half of whole grains, was associated with one additional year of lifespan. That is a very low bar to clear.

Physical activity is the dominant driver. Across both lifespan and healthspan, MVPA had the strongest individual association. The relationship was not linear, though. Benefits plateaued at around 50 minutes per day for lifespan and around 75 minutes per day for healthspan, with the biggest returns coming in the earlier ranges of activity.

Sleep follows a curve. The lifespan benefit from sleep peaked at around seven and a half hours per day. Going beyond that did not continue to add benefit, and sleeping well beyond eight and a half hours appeared to reduce the healthspan association. Too little and too much both appear to carry a cost.

Diet alone was modest and statistically uncertain in isolation. This is worth noting. While diet quality contributed meaningfully when combined with the other two behaviours, its association with lifespan and healthspan on its own was not statistically significant in this study. The researchers suggest this may partly reflect measurement limitations, since dietary data were collected several years before the accelerometer data.

The optimal combination added nearly a decade. Compared to the worst combination of SPAN behaviours, the best combination, roughly seven to eight hours of sleep, more than 42 minutes of MVPA per day, and a high DQS, was associated with over nine additional years of both lifespan and healthspan.

The three behaviours showed a synergistic relationship with lifespan. Achieving the same benefit through a single behaviour alone required substantially larger changes. For example, to gain one additional year of lifespan through sleep alone required 25 extra minutes per day, while diet alone could not achieve that gain at all. In combination, the threshold dropped to a fraction of that.

Practical Takeaways

• The SPAN framework, sleep, physical activity, and nutrition together, is more powerful than any single behaviour in isolation. Programs, coaches, and health practitioners that focus exclusively on one pillar are likely leaving meaningful gains on the table.

• The minimum dose for benefit is genuinely achievable. Adding a short walk, going to bed slightly earlier, and improving diet quality in small ways is associated with real improvements in lifespan when done together. This is not about overhauling everything at once.

• MVPA is the most important lever to pull. Even modest increases in moderate-to-vigorous physical activity, the kind that gets your breathing rate up, had the strongest and most consistent association with both lifespan and healthspan. Prioritising movement first makes sense.

• Sleep quality and duration matter, but more is not always better. The data points clearly to a sweet spot around seven to eight hours. Consistently sleeping under six hours or significantly over eight hours both appear to carry a cost.

• Diet, while less individually significant in this dataset, still plays a supporting role in the combined picture. Small, sustainable improvements, such as an extra serving of vegetables, swapping refined grains for whole grains, and adding fish twice a week, contributed to healthspan gains when combined with the other behaviours.

• The implication for behaviour change is also meaningful. Asking someone to make large improvements in one area is hard to sustain. Asking for small changes across three areas may be both more achievable and, according to this data, more effective.

Reference

Koemel N, Biswas R, Ahmadi M et al.

Minimum combined sleep, physical activity, and nutrition variations associated with lifeSPAN and healthSPAN improvements: a population cohort study. eClinicalMedicine, 2026; 92

The hamstrings are not a single muscle, and they don’t activate uniformly during the leg curl. That much has been suspected for a while. What has been less clear is to what extent hip position changes which part of each hamstring muscle gets targeted. Also, whether what you feel during a set actually reflects what is happening in the muscle. A new study explored this, looking for insights on how leg curl variations could best be programmed.

Subscribe now

Aims and Methods

The researchers wanted to know two things: first, whether changing the hip flexion angle (HFA) during the leg curl shifts activation not just between hamstring muscles, but within specific regions along the length of each muscle. Second, whether the subjective sensation of muscle contraction during the exercise actually lines up with what the MRI is showing.

Nine experienced male bodybuilders performed unilateral leg curl (LC) exercise under three different hip flexion angles: HFA 0° (hip near fully extended, like a prone leg curl), HFA 40° (intermediate), and HFA 80° (conventional seated leg curl). All sessions used the same load relative to each participant’s 1RM for that position.

To measure muscle activation, the researchers used MRI to calculate T2 relaxation times before and after each session. This method detects fluid shifts in activated muscle tissue and is considered a reliable marker of region-specific and longitudinally compartmentalised muscle activation. The hamstrings were divided into proximal, middle, and distal regions for the biceps femoris long head (BF-long), biceps femoris short head (BF-short), semitendinosus (ST), and semimembranosus (SM).

After each session, participants also rated their subjective contraction sensation using a numerical rating scale (NRS) across the same regions, which was then compared against the objective T2 data.

Results

The semitendinosus dominates the leg curl. Across every hip position tested, the ST showed greater activation than the other hamstring muscles. This held across the proximal, middle, and distal regions in most conditions, aligning with prior research showing that the ST contributes disproportionately to knee flexion torque.

Read more

This study looked at whether training volume on its own drives the fatigue, cardiovascular strain, and recovery demands of a bench press session, or whether fatigue accumulation is the real factor at play. Researchers had trained men complete three bench press protocols of different volumes using individualised inter-repetition rest, a method designed to limit velocity loss within the set. The aim was to separate the effect of volume from the effect of fatigue, something previous studies hadn't been able to do well.

Subscribe now

Aims and Methods

The researchers wanted to examine the acute mechanical, metabolic, and cardiovascular responses to different bench press volumes, and how long it took for strength to recover afterwards. Fourteen moderately trained men performed three protocols a week apart, in randomised order, each using a single set at the same relative intensity (70% of one-rep max) but differing in total reps:

• LOW: 3 repetitions

• MOD: 15 repetitions

• HIG: 24 repetitions

To prevent fatigue from building up disproportionately in the higher-volume sets, the researchers used velocity-based training with individualised inter-repetition rest. A linear velocity transducer tracked mean propulsive velocity (MPV) on every rep. If the drop-off between the fastest rep and the following ones stayed small, rest was kept short, around 10 seconds. As velocity loss increased, rest periods were extended in increments, growing to 20 seconds, then 30 seconds, and so on, scaling directly with how much speed was lost on a given rep. This meant rest periods were not fixed in advance. They adjusted in real time based on how each individual was performing, with the goal of keeping velocity loss low and consistent across all three protocols regardless of total reps completed.

Before and after each session, the team measured heart rate, blood pressure, oxygen saturation, and blood lactate. Strength was retested immediately after exercise, then again at 24 and 48 hours, using three reps at 60% of one-rep max, to track how performance recovered over time.

Results

Performance within each session (best, average, and final MPV, along with velocity loss) did not differ between protocols. Heart rate increased during exercise but showed no difference between low, moderate, and high volume. Blood pressure showed a similar pattern across protocols. Oxygen saturation stayed stable in all three. Blood lactate rose after exercise in every protocol, but the increase was comparable regardless of volume.

Strength recovery followed the same trend. The high-volume protocol showed a small drop in performance immediately after exercise, but by 24 and 48 hours, all three protocols had recovered to a similar or improved level compared to baseline, with no meaningful differences between groups.

Practical Takeaways

When fatigue was controlled for using individualised inter-repetition rest, training volume alone did not increase cardiovascular or metabolic strain, and it did not slow recovery. This supports the idea that velocity loss, not rep count, is the primary driver of acute fatigue and recovery demands in resistance training.

For coaches and athletes, this suggests that inter-repetition rest can be used to accumulate higher training volume without the cardiovascular or metabolic cost typically associated with high-rep sets. This may be useful for athletes managing blood pressure sensitivity or needing to control fatigue during periods of high training load. The study was limited to the bench press, used a small sample of moderately trained men, and did not include female participants, so these findings should not yet be generalised to other exercises or populations.

Reference

Páez-Maldonado JA, Lluch ÁC, Ortega-Becerra M, Pareja-Blanco F. Effects of Bench Press Volume on Performance, Recovery, and Physiological Response. Sports. 2026; 14(2):76. https://doi.org/10.3390/sports14020076

We have forever drummed into athletes that warming up properly and training smart can keep injuries away and improve performance. But most of the research backing that advice has been scattered, looking at warm-ups, strength work, or recovery in isolation rather than as one connected system. This review pulls together decades of work on neuromuscular warm-ups (like the well-known FIFA 11+ program), eccentric hamstring training, dynamic stretching, and load management to see how these pieces fit together across the full arc from warm-up to recovery. The goal was to figure out what actually holds up across the evidence pool, and what practical patterns coaches and trainers can lean on with confidence.

Subscribe now

Aims and methods

The researchers set out to map exercise-based strategies across the entire training and competition cycle, not just one phase. Instead of running a meta-analysis, which works best when studies are similar enough to combine into one number, the team did a structured qualitative synthesis. They pulled together 40 studies, a mix of randomised trials, meta-analyses, systematic reviews, and observational research, all focused on athletes doing some kind of exercise-based intervention tied to injury prevention or performance. Two reviewers screened and extracted everything independently, checked study quality using standard tools suited to each design, and grouped findings by intervention type and population rather than averaging them together.

What Do We Really Know About Recovery?

Free to download:

What they found

There were a few obvious patterns. Structured neuromuscular warm-up programs, the kind that blend balance work, landing mechanics, and short bursts of speed, were consistently tied to fewer lower-extremity injuries, especially at the ankle and knee. These same programs often came with a performance bonus too, including better jump height and faster sprint times, suggesting the prevention and performance benefits are not separate; they are intertwined.

Eccentric hamstring training, often delivered through the Nordic hamstring exercise, showed a similar dual benefit. Athletes who did this work regularly tended to have fewer hamstring strains, including fewer repeat injuries, alongside gains in eccentric strength and longer muscle fascicles, a structural change thought to help the muscle absorb force more safely.

Dynamic stretching held up well as a warm-up tool, generally supporting or improving explosive movement, while prolonged static stretching tended to blunt performance right afterwards. This lines up with what most current coaching guidance already recommends.

Load management mattered too. Programs that gradually built training volume, rather than spiking intensity, were associated with fewer strain injuries. The takeaway here is one of a common-sense approach to managing load for your athletes, not just the outcomes you’re hoping to peak for.

Read more

Most exercise advice focuses on cardio, but this study turns the spotlight on strength training and asks:

‘‘How much of it helps you live longer, and is there a point where more stops making a difference?’’

Researchers pulled data from three long-running health studies that followed people for up to three decades, giving them a look at how resistance training habits connect to risk of death over time. Because the majority of us aren't training for a competition, we just want to know what's worth our time. This study dove right in.

Subscribe now

Aims and Methods

The researchers wanted to understand whether resistance training, on its own or combined with aerobic exercise, was linked to lower mortality, and whether that link differed depending on the cause of death. They drew on data from the Health Professionals Follow-up Study and both Nurses’ Health Studies, covering over 147,000 men and women. Every two years, participants reported how much time they spent on strength training and aerobic activity. Strength training included weights and bodyweight movements like push-ups, squats, and lunges. Aerobic activity covered things like brisk walking, running, swimming, and cycling. Researchers then tracked who died over the following decades and from what cause, then adjusted for other lifestyle factors that could muddy the results.

Results

People who did about 90 to 120 minutes of strength training per week had a noticeably lower risk of death overall, with the strongest drops showing up for cardiovascular and neurological disease deaths specifically. Going beyond 120 minutes a week didn’t add any extra benefit, suggesting this isn’t a more-is-better situation.

Interestingly, the relationship wasn’t the same for every cause of death. For cancer-related deaths, the benefit showed up at much smaller amounts of strength training, even just a few minutes a week made a measurable difference, and the benefit didn’t keep climbing with more volume.

Aerobic exercise on its own remained a powerful factor, and combining high amounts of aerobic activity with a moderate dose of strength training produced the lowest mortality risk of any group studied. At the very highest levels of aerobic activity, the benefit was so strong that the amount of strength training someone did almost stopped mattering.

It’s worth noting that this was an observational study. People weren’t randomly assigned to exercise groups, so the findings show a strong association rather than definitive proof of cause and effect. The researchers also relied on self-reported exercise habits and didn’t capture things like workout intensity or duration of individual sessions, which leaves some open questions.

Practical Takeaways

If you’re trying to build a routine around what the evidence supports, here’s what we can tell you. You don’t need to spend hours daily in the gym to get a meaningful longevity benefit from strength training. Somewhere around 90 to 120 minutes a week, or roughly 15 to 20 minutes most days, appears to capture most of the upside, especially for heart and brain-related health. If your main concern is cancer risk specifically, even a small, consistent amount seems to help. And if you’re already doing a solid amount of cardio, adding even modest strength training on top still seems to move the needle. The bigger picture message is that both types of movement complement each other, and a tiny bit of both can add up.

Reference

Zhang Y, Lee DH, Rezende LFM, et al. Long-term resistance training with all-cause and cause-specific mortality: assessing dose-response and joint associations with aerobic physical activity. British Journal of Sports Medicine 2026;60:874-883.

Anyone who follows training science has probably heard how training at "long muscle lengths," the idea that lifting through a deep stretch position grows muscle better than training through a shorter range. This study, out of Florida Atlantic University's Muscle Physiology Lab, put that idea to a direct test in the biceps. Researchers wanted to know if training only at long muscle lengths actually beats a mixed approach that combines long and short positions. This matters because most lifters do not train one single range of motion all day. They use a variety of exercises and angles. If mixing lengths is just as good as staying long, that changes how rigid people need to be when programming their curls.

Subscribe now

Aims and Methods

The researchers recruited seven recreationally trained lifters and used a within-participant design, meaning each person’s two arms were randomly assigned to different conditions, then the whole thing was repeated a second time after a washout period. This gave them statistical power similar to that of fourteen separate participants.

One arm is trained using only a lengthened cable curl, performed from a seated position with the shoulder extended. This is the LONG condition. The other arm split its training volume evenly between that same lengthened curl and a shortened cable curl performed standing with the shoulder flexed. This is the MIXED condition. Total weekly volume was matched between arms.

Over eight weeks, researchers tracked muscle size using ultrasound, dynamic and isometric strength, arm circumference, and how sore and fatigued each arm felt after sessions. Instead of simple yes or no statistics, they used a Bayesian approach that estimates the probability and size of an effect, with researchers and a glossary at the end if you want to dig into how this style of analysis works.

Results

Read more

When lifters or coaches talk about "feeling the muscle work" instead of just moving the weight, what they’re most often referring to is “the mind-muscle connection”, or MMC. The idea is simple. When you deliberately focus your attention on a specific muscle during a lift, trying to ensure you actually feel that particular muscle working, that muscle has greater activity than it otherwise would. Most of the research backing this up has come from people who already lift weights regularly. This new study from Sunmoon University asked a more practical question for the average gym-goer: Does this internal focus cue still work if you've never trained before, and does focusing on one muscle quietly drag other muscles along with it, or even take away from muscles you didn't mean to involve?

Subscribe now

Aims and Methods

The researchers recruited healthy young adults with no resistance training background and had them perform a machine-based shoulder press using a light to moderate load. Each person came in on three separate days and tried three different mental approaches: pressing with no particular focus at all, pressing while concentrating on their deltoid (the shoulder muscle), and pressing while concentrating on their triceps. Surface electrodes tracked the electrical activity of the deltoid, the triceps, and the upper trapezius, which is a muscle near the neck and shoulder blade that often gets dragged into upper-body pushing movements as a stabiliser. The machine was used specifically because it keeps the movement path locked in, removing a lot of the balancing and stabilising work your body would otherwise do with free weights, which makes it easier to isolate what attention alone is doing.

Results

The shift in attention changed things clearly and consistently. When people focused on their deltoid, deltoid activity rose. When they focused on their triceps, triceps activity rose. Each muscle responded specifically to being the target of attention, not to the exercise in general. The upper trapezius, which wasn’t the focus in either condition, stayed steady no matter what the person was thinking about. It didn’t ramp up when attention was elsewhere, which suggests the body wasn’t compensating or recruiting extra stabilising effort just because someone was concentrating harder on the movement overall.

Practical Takeaways

For someone newer to resistance training, this suggests that simply directing your attention to the muscle you’re trying to train, rather than just moving through the motion, can meaningfully change how hard that muscle works, even on your very first attempts at the lift. You don’t need years of training experience for this cue to matter. It also suggests that this focus is genuinely targeted rather than a side effect of generally trying harder, since the muscle that wasn’t part of the instruction didn’t budge. Because this was tested in a single session on a machine using a moderate load, it tells us about activation in the moment rather than guaranteed long-term muscle growth or strength gains, and it’s unclear whether the same focused effect would hold up under heavier loads or in free-weight movements where balance and stability take up more of your attention. Still, for beginners working on a machine press, using an internal focus of attention seems like a reasonable and low-risk thing to try as you learn to navigate this new

Reference

Kim D, Woo J, Lee S, Jung J, Lee D, Hong J, Yu J, Kim J, Nam Y, Jeon J. Effects of Mind–Muscle Connection on Muscle Activity During Machine-Based Shoulder Press in Untrained Individuals. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2026; 15(10):3925. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm15103925

A 24-week trial on elite track and field athletes found that complex training and contrast training both improve explosive power, but they do it in different ways and for different purposes. Complex training built more jump height and eccentric strength. Contrast training made athletes faster off the ground. These findings give coaches a clear, evidence-based framework for choosing the right method based on an athlete's strengths and their sport's demands. Let’s dive in.

Subscribe now

Aim

Researchers from Jimei University in China wanted to know which of two popular training methods, complex training or contrast training, was better for building lower-body explosive power and eccentric strength in elite athletes over the long term. They also examined whether arm swing plays a meaningful role in jump performance and whether eccentric strength could predict jump height.

Methods

Forty-five national-level male track and field athletes were randomly split into three equal groups of 15: a complex training group, a contrast training group, and a control group. All groups trained three 90-minute sessions per week for 24 weeks.

The complex training group paired heavy resistance work with plyometrics using short 1-3 minute rest periods between exercises, designed to take advantage of postactivation potentiation (PAP), the brief window after heavy lifting where the neuromuscular system is primed for explosive output.

The contrast training group used a similar pairing of heavy and explosive work, but with much longer rest periods of 4-10 minutes between exercises. This design targets postactivation performance enhancement (PAPE), a more sustained improvement in voluntary performance after maximal loading.

The control group followed the university’s standard strength and conditioning program, including traditional squats, sled sprints, and core work.

Jump performance was tested at baseline, week 12, and week 24 using a 3D force plate. Athletes were tested in both arm-swing and no-arm-swing conditions to isolate how much the upper body contributes to jump mechanics.

Results

Both training methods produced meaningful gains, but there were important differences.

Read more

Stronger legs mean fewer injuries. That is the finding of a new study on elite sixes lacrosse players, and with the sport making its Olympic debut at the 2028 Los Angeles Games, the timing could not be more relevant.

Researchers from the University of Salford tracked 19 men from the British national sixes lacrosse squad over nine months, through training sessions, European tournaments, a US training camp, and the World Games. Before it all started, every player completed an isometric mid-thigh pull (IMTP) test to measure lower limb strength relative to their body weight. Over the following nine months, every injury was logged by the team physiotherapist.

The question: Does being stronger in the legs protect players from getting hurt?

Subscribe now

What They Found

Players who produced more force relative to their body weight on the IMTP were significantly less likely to sustain lower-limb injuries, both noncontact injuries (think hamstring strains, ligament sprains) and overload injuries (gradual-onset problems like tendinopathies).

For every 1 N/kg increase in relative strength, the risk of a noncontact injury dropped by 67% and the risk of an overload injury dropped by 33%. That is a meaningful protective effect.

The data also pointed to specific strength targets. Players who hit at least 31.3 N/kg on the IMTP saw roughly an 80% reduction in noncontact injury risk. Those who reached 28.7 N/kg saw around a 45% reduction in overload injury risk. The average score across the squad was 28.9 N/kg, meaning most players were sitting right at or below the safer threshold.

Six players sustained noncontact injuries. Nine sustained overload injuries. The injured players consistently showed lower relative strength scores than those who stayed healthy.

Aim and Methods

The study was prospective, meaning researchers measured strength first and then waited to see who got hurt rather than working backwards. All 19 players performed three IMTP trials on portable force plates at the start of the nine-month competition period. Lifting straps were used so grip strength would not be a limiting factor.

Injuries were classified by mechanism: noncontact (no external contact involved) or overload (gradual onset, no single event). All injury data were collected and assessed by the lead physiotherapist in accordance with international injury surveillance standards.

Bayesian statistical methods were used to analyse the relationship between strength and injury, with odds ratios calculated to quantify the protective effect.

Practical Takeaways

Any strength and conditioning coach worth their salt knows that getting stronger helps.

The researchers recommend targeting a relative net peak force above 31.3 N/kg on the IMTP, which covers protection against both injury types. For a player weighing 89 kg, that means producing roughly 2,786 N of net force, which is genuinely demanding for amateur athletes who are largely self-funded and training in decentralised programs without the resources of professional sport.

The squad in this study averaged below that threshold, which is worth noting. These are elite athletes competing at the highest level of their sport internationally, but without professional structures around them, developing and maintaining adequate strength is a real challenge that practitioners need to plan creatively around.

Beyond injury prevention, building lower limb strength is also known to improve sprint speed, acceleration, deceleration, and change of direction, all of which are critical in the high-intensity format of sixes lacrosse.

One important gap the authors flag: this study only included male athletes. Female players face higher rates of ACL injury in lacrosse, and with women’s sixes also heading to the 2028 Olympics, replicating this research in female squads should be a priority.

Reference

Ripley, Nicholas Joel; Collier, Matthew; Fahey, Jack T.; Comfort, Paul. Protective Effect of Lower Limb Strength on Lower Limb Injuries Within International Sixes Lacrosse Players: A Nine-Month Prospective Study. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research ():10.1519/JSC.0000000000005476, June 4, 2026. | DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000005476

You can also find me at dannyleejames.com for stories, personal training insights, and coaching.

Researchers at University College Cork have found that drinking coffee regularly changes the gut microbiome in specific, measurable ways, and those changes are linked to how you think, feel, and behave. The study, published in Nature Communications, also found that coffee drinkers score higher on impulsivity and emotional reactivity than non-drinkers, and that taking a break from coffee can actually improve memory and reduce those behavioural traits. Not only that, decaffeinated coffee produced its own distinct set of effects, suggesting the hundreds of other compounds in coffee also play a real role.

Subscribe now

Aim

The study set out to examine how coffee consumption affects the gut-brain axis — the two-way communication network between the gut microbiome and the brain. Researchers wanted to understand what happens to the microbiome, metabolism, cognition, and mood when people drink coffee, stop drinking it, and then start again. Importantly, they wanted to separate the effects of caffeine from those of coffee as a whole.

Methods

62 healthy adults aged 30 to 50 living in Ireland were recruited. 31 were moderate coffee drinkers (3 to 5 cups per day) and 31 were non-coffee drinkers. The study ran in three phases. First, both groups were compared at baseline. Then coffee drinkers stopped drinking coffee for two weeks. After that, they were randomly assigned to drink either caffeinated or decaffeinated instant coffee for three weeks.

Horrible conditions.

Researchers collected stool, urine, blood, and saliva samples at each stage. They used shotgun metagenomics to analyse the gut microbiome in detail, alongside both targeted and untargeted metabolomics to map the chemical changes happening in the gut and body. Participants also completed a battery of cognitive tests and questionnaires covering stress, anxiety, depression, sleep, impulsivity, and emotional reactivity throughout.

Results

Behaviour and cognition

Coffee drinkers scored higher on impulsivity and emotional reactivity compared to non-coffee drinkers at baseline. After two weeks without coffee, those scores dropped significantly. When coffee was reintroduced, both caffeinated and decaffeinated versions reduced impulsivity and perceived stress. Only caffeinated coffee reduced anxiety and psychological distress. Decaffeinated coffee improved memory performance, sleep quality, and physical activity levels. Caffeinated coffee improved attention and cognitive performance on the PASAT test.

During the two-week washout, withdrawal symptoms were elevated in the first few days but dropped by day four. Fatigue decreased, and energy levels rose across the withdrawal period.

Gut microbiome

Coffee drinkers had higher levels of Cryptobacterium curtum and Eggertheilla species in their gut compared to non-drinkers. These species dropped when coffee was removed and responded again when coffee was reintroduced, regardless of whether it contained caffeine. Overall gut microbial diversity differed between coffee drinkers and non-drinkers, but abstaining from coffee did not significantly change diversity levels. The effects were strain-specific rather than broad.

Metabolites

Coffee drinkers had higher faecal levels of theophylline, caffeine, and hippuric acid, and lower levels of indole-3-propionic acid (IPA), indole-3-carboxyaldehyde (ICA), and GABA. IPA has been linked to improved cognition, and ICA plays a role in gut barrier integrity, so their reduction in coffee drinkers is worth noting. After the washout period, most of those metabolite levels shifted toward levels seen in non-coffee drinkers. Reintroducing caffeine restored caffeine-related metabolites, while (poly)phenol-related metabolites increased with both caffeinated and decaffeinated coffee.

Inflammation and immune response

Coffee drinkers had lower levels of the inflammatory marker CRP and higher levels of the anti-inflammatory cytokine IL-10 compared to non-drinkers. After two weeks without coffee, CRP and TNF-alpha increased, suggesting coffee may have a protective anti-inflammatory role. Both caffeinated and decaffeinated coffee reduced LPS-stimulated IL-6 secretion upon reintroduction.

Blood pressure

Coffee drinkers showed a significant decrease in systolic and diastolic blood pressure during the two-week abstinence period. When caffeine was reintroduced, systolic blood pressure was lower compared to the decaffeinated group.

The integrated picture

Read more

Our older adults don’t need long, high-volume gym sessions to move better and stay independent. This large 2024 review of 151 trials found that low weekly resistance training volume was enough to significantly improve walking, functional tests, lean mass and muscle size in healthy older adults, while higher volume was mainly needed to squeeze out extra strength gains. The takeaway is that for older adults, a small amount of well-structured resistance training goes a long way for healthy ageing.

Subscribe now

Aim

The researchers wanted to find out how much weekly resistance training volume works best for older adults to improve:

• Physical function (walking tests and “get up and go” performance)

• Lean body mass

• Lower-body muscle size

• Lower-body muscle strength

They also checked whether the effects changed based on:

• Program duration (short term under 20 weeks vs 20 weeks or longer)

• Physical health status (physically healthy, physically impaired, or mixed)

Methods

This study was a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials in adults aged 60 and older. It only included supervised resistance training programs.

Programs were split into three groups based on weekly training volume, calculated as frequency × number of exercises × number of sets:

• Low-volume resistance training (LVRT)

• Moderate-volume resistance training (MVRT)

• High-volume resistance training (HVRT)

The main outcomes were:

• Physical function

  • Timed Up and Go

  • 6-minute walk test

  • Fast walking speed

• Muscle mass and size

  • Lean body mass

  • Lower-body muscle hypertrophy

• Strength

  • One-repetition maximum (1RM) knee extension and leg press

  • Isometric strength

  • Isokinetic torque

A random-effects network meta-analysis was used to compare the different training volumes, even when the original trials did not directly compare all three.

Results

The review included 161 articles covering 151 trials and a total of 6,306 older adults.

Low-volume resistance training:

• Was the most effective for improving Timed Up and Go performance

• Produced the largest gains in the 6-minute walk test

• Led to clear increases in lean body mass

• Produced meaningful lower-body muscle hypertrophy

Moderate and high-volume resistance training:

• Were superior for boosting lower-limb strength compared with low volume

• High volume, in particular, was the only approach that clearly improved fast walking speed

Program duration did not meaningfully change the pattern of results. The benefits of low volume and the strength advantage of higher volume were similar in both shorter and longer programs. Most of the evidence came from physically healthy older adults, and there was not enough data to draw strong conclusions for those who were physically impaired.

Takeaways

For healthy older adults, the key practical points are:

• You do not need high weekly training volume to improve function

  • Low volume was enough to improve key markers of independence, such as getting up from a chair, turning, and walking for 6 minutes

• Low volume is also enough to build lean mass and increase lower-body muscle size

• If the main goal is to get as strong as possible, especially in leg press or knee extension, then moderate to high weekly training volume works better

• The benefits of low-volume training appeared regardless of whether the program lasted less than 20 weeks or continued for 20 weeks or more

• For physically impaired older adults, caution is needed because the evidence base is much smaller

In practice, this supports using low-volume resistance training as a default starting point for healthy older adults who want to move better, stay independent, and build or maintain muscle. Higher volume can then be layered on for those who tolerate training well and have specific strength goals.

Wrap-up

This review reinforces that “minimum effective dose” resistance training is a realistic and effective strategy for healthy older adults. Low-volume programs can deliver meaningful improvements in function, lean mass, and muscle size without long, demanding sessions, while higher volume is mainly needed for maximal strength gains.

Reference

Radaelli, R., Rech, A., Molinari, T. et al. 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 55, 167–192 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-024-02123-z

You can also find me at dannyleejames.com for stories, personal training insights, and coaching.

A new randomised controlled trial says no. Researchers from the University of Glasgow put healthy adults through six weeks of training at either 6–10 am or 4–8 pm and measured muscle size, muscle strength, and insulin sensitivity before and after. Both groups improved, but neither group improved more than the other. The verdict: train when you can.

Subscribe now

What They Studied

The debate around exercise timing has been fuelled by the idea that the body’s internal clock, circadian rhythms, might make certain times of day better for building muscle or improving metabolic health. Evening exercise has long been theorised to have an edge for insulin sensitivity, and strength has been known to peak in the late afternoon. This trial was designed to test those theories in healthy adults without diabetes.

How It Was Done

Thirty-six healthy adults, averaging 30 years old and a BMI of around 28 kg/m², were split into three groups: morning training, evening training, and a control group that did nothing structured. Both training groups performed the same eight-exercise resistance training program three times per week for six weeks, working at 80% of their one-rep max to failure each set. The program included bench press, bicep curl, lat pulldown, overhead press, lateral raise, leg extension, leg curl, and calf raise. Attendance was 100% across both groups.

Muscle size was measured using ultrasound on the vastus lateralis (the outer quad muscle). Strength was assessed via knee extensor torque and one-rep max. Insulin sensitivity was tested using an oral glucose tolerance test. Participants also wore continuous glucose monitors for several weeks to track real-world blood sugar responses.

Read more

We spend up to 90% of our time indoors, bathed in artificial light. A new study out of Maastricht University has found that simply swapping that artificial office lighting for natural daylight through a window improved blood sugar control and shifted the body to burn more fat in people with type 2 diabetes. The findings were published in Cell Metabolism in January 2026.

Subscribe now

Aim

The researchers wanted to know whether natural daylight during typical office hours, as opposed to standard artificial lighting, would improve glucose control and whole-body metabolism in people with type 2 diabetes (T2D). The study also aimed to understand why, by looking at changes in skeletal muscle clock genes, circulating metabolites, lipids, and immune cell gene expression.

Methods

Thirteen adults with T2D (8 women, 5 men; average age 70 years; average BMI 30) took part in a randomised crossover trial. Each person completed two 4.5-day stints in a research facility, one under natural daylight through wide windows and one under constant artificial lighting set to around 300 lux. The two periods were separated by at least four weeks

Office hours ran from 8 am to 5 pm. Meals, physical activity, sleep schedules, and evening light exposure were standardised and kept identical across both conditions. Participants wore blue-light-blocking glasses whenever they left their assigned room, ensuring that those in the artificial light condition were never exposed to the short wavelengths of natural daylight the human circadian system is most sensitive to.

Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) ran across the entire 4.5 days. On day 4, researchers used indirect calorimetry to measure how the body burned fuel. Skeletal muscle biopsies, blood samples, and saliva were also collected for deeper molecular analysis.

Results

Glucose control improved under natural daylight. While average glucose levels across the 4.5 days were not statistically different between the two conditions, participants spent significantly more time in the normal glucose range (4.4 to 7.2 mmol/L) under natural light compared to artificial light (51% vs. 43%). The daily swings in baseline glucose levels were also smaller under natural daylight, and those smaller swings were directly linked to more time in the normal range.

The body burned more fat. Under natural daylight, participants showed lower carbohydrate oxidation and higher fat oxidation throughout the waking day, particularly around midday. This pattern held up during a standardised mixed meal test the following morning, with free fatty acid levels also trending higher under natural light.

The muscle clock shifted. Muscle biopsies showed higher expression of the clock genes Per1 and Cry1 after natural light exposure. When muscle cells grown from those biopsies were tested in a lab, their internal circadian rhythm was phase-advanced by about 45 minutes, a sign that the muscle’s internal clock had been genuinely reset by the light environment rather than just temporarily altered.

Melatonin rose higher in the evening. While the timing of melatonin onset did not differ between conditions, melatonin levels in the two hours before bed were meaningfully higher under natural light. This suggests the body’s sleep-wake signal was stronger after a day in natural daylight.

Multi-omic signatures shifted, too. Blood metabolite and lipid profiles also differed between conditions. Levels of ceramides and cholesterol esters, both elevated in T2D and associated with poorer metabolic health, trended lower under natural light. Lipid species linked to better insulin sensitivity were higher. These molecular signals are broadly consistent with the improvements in glucose control and fat burning observed.

Blood pressure, heart rate, core body temperature, physical activity, sleep quality, and mood scores did not differ between conditions, ruling out these factors as drivers of the metabolic differences.

Takeaways

The sample was small. Only 13 participants completed the trial, all older adults (average age 70), so caution is warranted before generalising these findings to younger or broader populations. The researchers note that longer trials are needed to confirm whether these effects hold over weeks or months.

• Getting natural daylight through a window during work hours improved time in the normal blood sugar range in people with T2D, without any changes to diet, medication, or exercise

• The body shifted toward burning more fat during the day under natural light conditions

• The skeletal muscle’s internal clock was measurably reset by daylight, pointing to a plausible biological mechanism

• Evening melatonin levels were higher after daytime natural light exposure, which may benefit sleep quality

• Artificial office lighting set to a typical 300 lux produced measurably worse metabolic outcomes than natural daylight in this group

• The built environment, specifically whether your workplace has windows, may matter more for metabolic health than previously recognised

Reference

Harmsen, J-F., Habets, I., Biancolin, A.D., Lesniewska, A., Phillips, N.E., Metz, L., Sanchez-Avila, J., Kotte, M., Timmermans, M., Hashim, D., de Kam, S.S., Schaart, G., Jörgensen, J.A., Gemmink, A., Moonen-Kornips, E., Doligkeit, D., van de Weijer, T., Buitinga, M., Haans, F., De Lorenzo, R., Pallubinsky, H., Gordijn, M.C.M., Collet, T-H., Kramer, A., Schrauwen, P., Dibner, C., & Hoeks, J. (2026). Natural daylight during office hours improves glucose control and whole-body substrate metabolism. Cell Metabolism, 38, 65–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmet.2025.11.006

You can also find me at dannyleejames.com for stories, personal training insights, and coaching.

A new review published in Sport Sciences for Health set out to explore if and how men and women might respond differently to strength training. The short answer is less than most people assume. While men start with more muscle and produce more absolute force, when both sexes train the same way, they gain strength and muscle at roughly the same relative rate. The review also found that women tend to outlast men in endurance-based efforts, and that the gap in explosive power is larger than the gap in raw strength. For coaches and athletes, the takeaway is that programs should not be based on sex alone and should be based on the individual needs. Let’s dive in.

Subscribe now

Aim

Researchers from the Neuromuscular Research Lab at the University of Lisbon conducted a narrative review of the current literature on sex-based differences in resistance training (RT) adaptations. They focused on four key areas: maximal strength, muscle hypertrophy, speed strength, and strength endurance. A semi-structured search of PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science was conducted, with preference given to studies published between 2020 and 2025.

Methods

This was a narrative review, not a controlled trial. The authors searched sport science databases using terms like “sex differences,” “resistance training,” “muscle hypertrophy,” “speed strength,” and “strength endurance.” Only peer-reviewed studies conducted on human adults and published in English were included. Older studies were pulled in through reference screening of more recent papers.

Results

Maximal Strength

Men produce significantly more absolute strength than women across most exercises. In bench press and chest press, female strength sits around 40 to 55% of male values. In the squat and leg press, that figure rises to around 60 to 65%. The gap is wider for upper-body movements than for lower-body. Among competitive powerlifters, strength-to-bodyweight ratios also favour men, though the margin is smaller in the lower body. The key driver of this gap is greater muscle mass in men, not differences in how well the nervous system activates muscle. Both sexes voluntarily activate their muscles to a similar degree.

When you account for body composition, particularly lean mass, the lower-body strength gap between male and female athletes largely disappears. The upper body gap persists even after that adjustment.

The gap in strength is also smaller during eccentric contractions compared to concentric. Women tend to show a higher eccentric-to-concentric strength ratio, particularly in upper body exercises like the military press and bench press.

Relative Strength Gains

Despite the baseline differences, both men and women improve their relative strength at comparable rates following RT. Percentage gains in maximal strength are largely similar. Some data suggest women may have a slight edge in upper-body relative strength gains, though this finding comes with caveats around training status and study design.

Muscle Hypertrophy

Read more

Resistance training is the best exercise for overall brain health in older adults, beating out aerobic exercise, Tai Chi-style training, and HIIT, according to a new network meta-analysis. But the full picture shows each exercise type has its own cognitive sweet spot.

Subscribe now

The Study

Researchers from Nanjing Normal University pooled data from 37 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) covering 2,585 older adults to compare how different types of exercise affect cognitive function. Using a network meta-analysis, they were able to rank not just exercise types that had been directly compared against each other, but also make indirect comparisons across the full body of evidence.

The exercise types tested were: resistance training, aerobic exercise, high-intensity interval training (HIIT), physical and mental training (like Tai Chi and yoga), and multimodal exercise. Participants were healthy adults aged 55 and older, with an average age of 69.4 years, drawn from 13 countries, including Australia, the US, China, and Italy.

Methods

The research team searched PubMed, Web of Science, and several other databases for studies published up to May 2024. Only randomised controlled trials were included to ensure the highest level of evidence.

Cognitive outcomes were measured across five areas: overall cognitive function, inhibitory control, task-switching ability, working memory, and memory function. Tests used included the Montreal Cognitive Assessment, the Stroop Test, Trail Making Test, and the N-back Test.

Results

The big takeaway: resistance training ranked first for overall cognitive function, with an 83% probability of being the most effective exercise type. It also topped the rankings for inhibitory control.

For memory, aerobic exercise came out on top, with a ranking probability of 80%. Physical and mental training, such as Tai Chi and yoga, was the standout for task-switching ability and working memory, with an 84% probability of being the best for working memory. Those working memory results did not reach statistical significance compared to controls, so they warrant some caution.

Practical Takeaways

Based on subgroup analyses, the researchers identified optimal training prescriptions for each exercise type.

Resistance training (overall brain health and inhibitory control):

• 12 weeks

• 2 to 3 sessions per week

• 45 minutes per session

Aerobic exercise (memory):

• 21 weeks

• 2 sessions per week

• 60 minutes per session

Physical and mental training, e.g. Tai Chi or yoga (task-switching and working memory):

• 12 weeks

• 3 sessions per week

• 60 minutes per session

No single exercise type does everything. If protecting memory is the goal, aerobic exercise is the pick. For overall cognitive sharpness and attention control, resistance training leads. For mental flexibility and working memory, mind-body training is the strongest option.

The researchers also note that Tai Chi-style practices may be easier to promote in older populations due to their lower intensity and strong safety profile, while HIIT carries more feasibility barriers for this age group.

Limitations

Most included studies were rated moderate risk of bias, with only one rated low risk and seven rated high risk. Different cognitive assessment tools were used across studies, which introduces variability. Long-term follow-up data was also scarce, so it remains unclear how long the cognitive benefits last after training ends.

Reference

Zhang, J., Ye, W., Li, W., Zhang, F., & Wu, Z. (2025). Comparative efficacy of exercise interventions for cognitive health in older adults: A network meta-analysis. Experimental Gerontology, 206, 112768. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.exger.2025.112768

You can also find me at dannyleejames.com for stories, personal training insights, and coaching.

A professional bodybuilder preparing for the Mr Olympia loses muscle thickness across every major muscle group during his cut, and new ultrasound data from Italian researchers shows that muscle quality also takes a hit, even as body fat barely moves.

Researchers from the University of Bologna tracked a 38-year-old IFBB Pro League Open bodybuilder (128.7 kg, 176 cm, 25 years of training experience, three-time Mr Olympia competitor) through his bulking phase and into his cutting phase, 10 days before competition. They measured muscle thickness and corrected echo intensity (cEI) — a measure of muscle quality — via ultrasound across nine muscle groups, while also analysing his full food and training logs.

Subscribe now

The Setup

The athlete was assessed during his bulking phase (week 8 of 14) in February 2025, and again during his cutting phase (week 9 of 11) in June 2025.

The training program remained nearly identical across both phases: five training days per week, the same split, the same set-and-rep structure, with every set taken to technical failure. The only addition during the cut was one session per week of 30 minutes of fast walking.

The real change was in the diet. Caloric intake dropped 44%, from roughly 5,620 calories per day in the bulking phase to 3,140 per day during the cut.

Carbohydrates took the biggest hit, cut by 62% from 820 g/day to 320 g/day. Protein was held steady throughout, landing at the upper end of current recommendations for athletes in a caloric deficit at 330 g/day (~2.7 g/kg).

Results: Body Composition

The athlete dropped 6.4 kg total, from 128.7 kg down to 122.3 kg. Fat-free mass fell by 4.72%, while the sum of the three skinfolds decreased by only 0.7 mm. Body fat went from 6.1% to 5.9% — a change of just 0.7 kg of actual fat.

Read more

New research out of James Cook University compared three versions of the barbell back squat: free weights, chains, and elastic bands, and found that the type of resistance you use changes what happens at the hip and spine far more than it changes what happens at the knee. For coaches working with athletes managing lower back issues or those chasing power output, these findings offer a clearer picture of which tool to reach for and when. Let’s look a little closer.

Subscribe now

Aim

Researchers wanted to know how chains (CVR) and elastic bands (EVR) change the forces and movement patterns at each joint during the squat compared to a standard free-weight load. Most prior research had only looked at barbell speed and ground reaction force, and nearly all of it focused on bands only. This study went deeper, examining what happens at the ankle, knee, hip, lumbar spine, and lumbopelvis throughout both the lowering and lifting phases.

Methods

Fifteen trained men with an average squat 1RM of 124 kg completed five sessions over four weeks. After a 1RM test and a familiarisation session, they each performed one testing session per resistance condition in a randomised order. Every session used 80% of 1RM as the total load. For the variable resistance conditions, 20% of that load came from the chains or bands, with the remaining 60% on the bar. Subjects squatted to 115 degrees of knee flexion, and motion capture, along with force plates, collected detailed joint-level data. Kinetic and kinematic data were pulled from the second rep of each set.

Results

Repetitions completed varied considerably. Subjects averaged about 10 reps with free weights, 13 with chains, and 17 with bands. The lower effective load at the bottom of the squat allowed more reps across both variable resistance conditions.

Ground reaction force was highest with free weights. Both bands and chains produced lower peak ground reaction force, which reflects the reduced load at the bottom of the squat in both variable resistance conditions.

Rate of force development during the mid-concentric phase was significantly higher with chains than with free weights. Bands did not differ from free weights on this measure, which was an unexpected finding given that bands are often assumed to offer a power advantage through their elastic recoil effect.

Angular velocity was faster across the ankle, knee, and hip during both the lowering and lifting phases with bands and chains compared to free weights. Both variable resistance conditions moved similarly to each other in terms of speed.

Joint range of motion was the same across all three conditions at every joint. The type of resistance did not change how deep or how far subjects moved.

Joint moments at the ankle and knee were similar across all three conditions. Despite the load differences, the increased speed of movement with variable resistance compensated, producing comparable demand on the quads and calves.

Hip, lumbopelvis, and lumbar spine moments told a different story. Free weights produced significantly greater demand at these joints than both bands and chains during both the lowering and lifting phases. When comparing the two variable resistance types, chains produced greater hip, lumbopelvis, and lumbar spine moments than bands.

Joint power at the knee was greater with both bands and chains compared to free weights. At the hip, only chains produced greater power than free weights. Bands did not significantly increase hip power over free weights.

Practical Takeaways

The most actionable finding here is the split between what happens at the knee versus what happens further up the chain. Both bands and chains maintain similar knee-level stimulus to free weights, while reducing the load on the lower back. For athletes managing spinal injury or those with a history of lower back issues, bands in particular offer a way to keep training the legs hard without adding spinal stress.

For power development, chains appear to be the stronger option. The linear increase in load during the concentric phase with chains produced a greater rate of force development and greater hip power; bands did not match these advantages. The researchers suggest a logical progression for lifters: start with bands, move to chains, then progress to free weights, since each step increases demand further up the kinetic chain.

The study did not find clear evidence that either type of variable resistance augmented the stretch-shortening cycle at the point of the eccentric-to-concentric transition. The faster eccentric velocities with variable resistance may still carry SSC benefits, but the data could not confirm this definitively.

The main limitation is that only men were tested, and women are known to use different movement strategies during the squat, so these findings may not apply universally.

Reference

Alves, Adon V; Leicht, Anthony S; Deakin, Glen B; Doma, Kenji; Singh, Utkarsh; Brice, Sara M. Joint-Level Analysis of the Barbell Back Squat During Chain and Elastic Variable Resistance Use. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 40(5):p 511-518, May 2026. | DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000005353

You can also find me at dannyleejames.com for stories, personal training insights, and coaching.