A new systematic review and meta-analysis of 25 randomised controlled trials has found that resistance training significantly improves muscle strength, walking ability, and body composition in older adults with sarcopenia, and for the first time, it has identified specific training volume targets that appear to maximise those benefits.

The study, published in 2025, pooled data from 1,302 older adults across 11 countries, aged 60 to 87, all diagnosed with sarcopenia. Researchers applied the FITT-VP framework, a structured model covering Frequency, Intensity, Time, Type, Volume, and Progression, to determine how much and at what dose of strength training is most effective.

Subscribe now

Aim

Sarcopenia affects 10–16% of older adults globally and up to 50% of those over 80. It is linked to falls, fractures, cognitive decline, reduced quality of life, and higher mortality. While resistance training is already endorsed by the American College of Sports Medicine as a first-line treatment, previous research had not established clear dose thresholds — practitioners have largely been working from general guidelines rather than evidence-based volume targets. This review aimed to fill that gap using non-linear dose-response modelling.

Methods

Researchers searched five major databases, including PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, SPORTDiscus, and Web of Science, identifying 7,919 studies initially. After removing duplicates and screening for eligibility, 25 randomised controlled trials were included in the final analysis.

All 25 trials used resistance training as the primary intervention, covering modalities including free weights, elastic bands, kettlebells, body-weight training, and chair-based strength training. Only studies involving adults aged 60 or older with a confirmed sarcopenia diagnosis were included.

Cumulative training volume was calculated as session duration multiplied by weekly frequency multiplied by total weeks. Restricted cubic spline regression was then used to model the non-linear relationship between total training volume and outcomes.

Results

Resistance training produced significant improvements across all major outcome categories:

Read more

Every winter, vitamin D levels in people living at northerly latitudes drop sharply. The sun simply does not get high enough in the sky to trigger the skin to make it. For people carrying excess weight, the problem is even worse. Fat tissue traps vitamin D, pulling it out of circulation and leaving less available for the body to use.

Researchers from the University of Bath wanted to know: could regular exercise protect vitamin D levels over winter, even if people did not lose any weight? The answer, published in Advanced Science in 2025, was yes — and in a way that a vitamin D supplement cannot replicate.

Subscribe now

Aim

The VitaDEx randomised controlled trial recruited 41 sedentary, overweight or obese adults (average BMI 34, average age 49) and ran entirely across the UK winter (October through April) when there is no meaningful UVB sunlight at northerly latitudes. The goal was to isolate the effect of exercise on vitamin D metabolism, free from the confounding effects of sunlight, weight loss, or supplementation. Participants were banned from taking vitamin D supplements and were required to maintain their body weight throughout. Those in the exercise group were instructed to eat more to offset the extra calories burned.

Methods

Participants were randomly assigned to either an exercise group or a control group. The control group maintained their usual lifestyle. The exercise group completed four indoor cardiovascular sessions per week for 10 weeks — roughly 166 minutes of exercise per week. Sessions included treadmill walking, steady-state cycling, and low-volume high-intensity interval training on a bike. All exercise took place indoors to prevent any sun exposure.

Adherence was high, with participants completing 88% of sessions on average. Body weight was successfully maintained in both groups — no one lost meaningful body fat.

Vitamin D metabolites in blood and fat tissue were measured using gold-standard liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS), a more accurate method than the immunoassays typically used in earlier research. Researchers measured not just the standard marker (25(OH)D), but also the biologically active form, 1,25(OH)2D3, as well as a catabolic breakdown product and fat tissue concentrations.

Related

Results

Both groups lost some vitamin D over winter — that was expected. But the two groups diverged in important ways.

The control group saw a total of 25(OH)D (the standard marker) drop by about 25% from baseline. The exercise group dropped only 15%. The difference was moderate in size, though it did not reach conventional statistical significance.

The more striking finding was in the active form of vitamin D — 1,25(OH)2D3. This is the form that actually binds to the vitamin D receptor, which is found in almost every cell in the body. In the control group, 1,25(OH)2D3 fell by 15% over the winter. In the exercise group, it was completely preserved — no decline at all. This difference was statistically significant.

This matters because vitamin D supplementation, according to the authors and existing literature, does not raise circulating 1,25(OH)2D3. Supplements raise the precursor (25(OH)D), but not the active metabolite. Exercise, in this study, did something supplements do not.

Vitamin D stored in fat tissue declined in both groups over winter, with no difference between them. The half-life of vitamin D in circulation also did not differ between groups. The mechanism behind the preservation of active vitamin D with exercise remains unclear.

Practical Takeaways

• Regular exercise over winter — roughly four sessions per week — appears to slow the seasonal decline in circulating vitamin D and may fully protect the biologically active form, 1,25(OH)2D3, even without weight loss or supplementation.

• This effect on active vitamin D is something oral supplementation does not appear to achieve, according to the authors.

• The exercise prescribed was moderate and multimodal: treadmill walking, steady-state cycling, and short interval sessions. It was personalised but not extreme.

• The participants were overweight or obese adults, a group at higher risk of vitamin D deficiency. Whether these results apply to leaner people is not known from this study.

• Extrapolating the rates of decline observed, the researchers estimate the control group would have ended the full winter vitamin D deficient, while the exercise group would have ended insufficient, a worse outcome than optimal, but meaningfully better.

• Supplementation may still have a role, but this study suggests exercise works through a different pathway, and the two strategies may be complementary.

Related

Perkin, O. J., Davies, S. E., Hewison, M., Jones, K. S., Gonzalez, J. T., Betts, J. A., Jenkinson, C., Lindsay, M. A., Meadows, S. R., Parkington, D. A., Koulman, A., & Thompson, D. Exercise without Weight Loss Prevents Seasonal Decline in Vitamin D Metabolites: The VitaDEx Randomized Controlled Trial. Advanced Science, 2416312. https://doi.org/10.1002/advs.202416312

Some older adults build far more muscle from weight training than others, even on the same program. A new study published in GeroScience looked at why, and found the answer may lie in the chemistry happening inside the muscle itself.

Researchers from the University of São Paulo and the University of Liverpool took muscle biopsies from 67 healthy older adults before and after 10 weeks of resistance training, then compared the metabolic profiles of those who gained the most muscle against those who gained the least. What they found points to amino acid metabolism, particularly tryptophan, and mitochondrial energy production as key factors that separate big responders from small ones.

Subscribe now

Aim

The study set out to identify whether distinct metabolic profiles in skeletal muscle could explain why some older adults respond far better to resistance training than others. Researchers specifically examined the upper and lower tertiles of hypertrophic response to see if their muscle chemistry looked different after the same training program.

Methods

67 healthy older adults (average age 68) completed 10 weeks of supervised resistance training, three days per week, using unilateral knee extensions. All participants consumed 20g of whey protein twice daily throughout the intervention.

Quadriceps muscle size was measured by MRI before and after training. Muscle biopsies were taken from the vastus lateralis before and 48 hours after the final training session. Participants were split into two groups based on how much their muscle cross-sectional area (CSA) changed:

• UPPER group: grew more than 7.7% in CSA

• LOWER group: grew less than 5.6% in CSA

• 25 participants in each group; the middle tertile was excluded from analysis

Muscle samples were analysed using untargeted liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS), mapping over 2,500 metabolites across 104 metabolic pathways.

Results

Both groups built muscle. The LOWER group gained 3.3% in quadriceps CSA, while the UPPER group gained 10.3%, a roughly three-fold difference. The groups were matched at baseline for age, body mass, BMI, strength, and clinical conditions, meaning the difference in response was not explained by who they were going in.

The metabolomics analysis correctly classified UPPER vs. LOWER responders with about 75% accuracy using polar metabolite profiles. Pathway enrichment analysis revealed several key differences in the UPPER group compared with the LOWER group:

• Tryptophan metabolism was the most significantly enriched pathway. The UPPER group showed higher levels of tryptophan, kynurenine, kynurenic acid, indole derivatives, and serotonin (5-HT). Kynurenic acid and NAD+ have been linked to improved respiratory fitness and oxidative capacity in muscle.

• Branched-chain amino acids (BCAAs) — leucine, valine, and isoleucine — were elevated in UPPER. Importantly, BCAA breakdown products (catabolites) were not detected, which the researchers suggest may reflect more efficient BCAA utilisation rather than excessive breakdown.

• TCA cycle intermediates such as citrate, glutamic acid, glutamine, proline, and arginine were higher in UPPER, indicating more active mitochondrial energy production.

• Carnosine and acylcarnitines were elevated in UPPER, pointing to better capacity for pH buffering, ATP regeneration, and fatty acid transport into the mitochondria.

• Energy-related metabolites, including adenosine diphosphate (ADP) and adenosine monophosphate (AMP) were also increased in the UPPER group, consistent with greater energy turnover.

Read more

Two groups of young female handball players got stronger and jumped higher after just six weeks of resistance training, whether they lifted heavy or snatched moderately. But neither approach changed their force-velocity profile.

Researchers from the Hungarian University of Sport Science put 27 teenage female handball players through two different in-season strength programs to find out which worked better: heavy back squats or moderate-load Olympic weightlifting. They also wanted to know whether either method would shift the athletes’ force-velocity (FV) profile — a measure of whether an athlete is more force-limited or velocity-limited in their power output.

Both programs resulted in gains. Neither was clearly superior.

Subscribe now

Aim

The study set out to compare the effects of a short-term heavy-load squat program versus a moderate-load Olympic weightlifting program on maximal strength and the FV profile in young female handball players. Researchers also included a control group doing only bodyweight work to serve as a reference point.

Methods

Players from three handball clubs were assigned to one of three groups for a six-week, in-season training block with two sessions per week:

• SQUAT group (n=7): Linearly periodized back squats starting at 80% of estimated 1RM, progressing to 92% by the final week, for 5 sets of 3 reps

• Olympic Weightlifting group (OWG, n=12): Hang power snatch, power cleans, and push presses at roughly 60-65% of 1RM back squat, 3 sets of 2 reps per movement

• Control group (CG, n=8): Bodyweight and light resistance band work, 8-10 reps per set

All three groups continued their regular handball training — five sessions of 120 minutes per week plus weekend matches. Before and after the intervention, players were tested on their 5-repetition maximum (5RM) back squat and countermovement jump (CMJ) height. The FV profile was built using loaded CMJ testing at 25%, 50%, and 75% of body mass on a force platform, following the Samozino method.

Results

Both the SQUAT and OWG groups improved significantly in maximal strength and jump height. The control group did not.

The OWG showed a slightly larger strength gain despite training at lower relative loads. Researchers suggest this may be because the weightlifting group performed more squat variations — including front squats and overhead squats, engaging the core musculature differently than a standard back squat program.

The FV profile, however, did not change significantly in any group. Theoretical maximal force (F0) nudged up just 2% in both the SQUAT and OWG groups. Theoretical maximal power (Pmax) held steady in the OWG, but declined in the SQUAT and control groups. FV imbalance dropped 14% in the OWG, inching toward a more optimal balance, while it stayed flat in the SQUAT group and slightly worsened in the control group. None of these FV changes reached statistical significance.

Key Takeaways

For coaches working with young female handball players who have limited lifting experience, here is some clear and practical direction:

• Both heavy squats and Olympic weightlifting work. Six weeks of either program is enough to build meaningful strength and improve jump height during the competitive season

• Bodyweight-only training doesn’t cut it. The control group saw no improvement in any measure — a strong case for adding resistance training to the program, even in-season

• Olympic weightlifting may have a slight edge. The OWG produced larger strength gains and was the only group to maintain maximal power and reduce FV imbalance, even at lower loads

• The FV profile is stubborn. Neither training approach shifted it significantly, which suggests that six weeks is likely too short, and that targeting the FV profile may require knowing each athlete’s individual profile beforehand and programming accordingly

• Novice lifters respond broadly. Because these players had limited strength training experience, both programs likely produced similar neuromuscular adaptations regardless of load type

One important limitation worth noting: the Olympic weightlifting group was coached by a weightlifting specialist, but the athletes were beginners. The researchers acknowledged that the intended maximal bar speed was probably not fully achieved, which likely blunted the velocity-side adaptation the program was designed to produce. Hormonal factors such as menstrual cycle phase and contraceptive use were also not controlled for, which could influence how individuals responded to training.

Reference

Pálinkás G, Ökrös C, Tróznai Z, Utczás K, Petridis L. The Effects of Short-Term Heavy Load Squat vs. Moderate Load Olympic Weightlifting Training on Maximal Strength and Force–Velocity Profile in Young Female Handball Players. Journal of Functional Morphology and Kinesiology. 2025; 10(2):187. https://doi.org/10.3390/jfmk10020187

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

A new meta-analysis has found that water-based training can meaningfully improve speed, explosive power, and agility in competitive athletes and help them recover faster from injury. Here is the breakdown.

Subscribe now

Aquatic training gets athletes faster, more explosive, and back on the field sooner. A 2026 meta-analysis from Beijing Normal University pooled data from 13 controlled studies and 392 competitive athletes to determine what water-based training actually does for sports performance. The answer: it works, but not for everything.

What They Studied

Researchers from the College of Physical Education and Sports at Beijing Normal University searched the Web of Science and Scopus databases up to February 2025, looking for controlled trials that tested aquatic training on land-based competitive athletes. They screened 1,564 articles, narrowed them down to 13 studies, and analysed the effects of water-based training on six physical qualities: explosive power, speed, agility, strength, aerobic capacity, and balance, plus physical recovery. All included subjects were competitive athletes with a systematic training background, mostly from team sports like football and volleyball.

Methods

The researchers used standardised mean differences (SMDs) to compare results across studies, with effect sizes interpreted using Cohen’s benchmarks: below 0.2 is trivial, 0.2–0.5 is small, 0.5–0.8 is moderate, and above 0.8 is large. A random-effects model was applied where studies showed high variability; otherwise, a fixed-effects model was used. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool across seven dimensions, with most studies rated at moderate risk of bias.

Results

The main findings across the six performance categories:

Read more

In a new study, researchers tested whether front squats with light or heavy loads work better as a pre-activation primer before a maximum clean attempt in well-trained weightlifters. They found that lighter loads moved faster than heavy loads every time, and the heavy squat group actually trended down in performance. Let’s get into it.

Subscribe now

Aim

The study aimed to compare three pre-activation conditions — no front squat, a light front squat (LS), and a heavy front squat (HS) — on 1RM clean performance, barbell kinematics during the pull, and rated perceived exertion (RPE) in well-trained weightlifters. A secondary aim was to measure whether any changes in clean performance could be detected through changes in peak and mean barbell velocity during the pull.

Methods

Twelve well-trained weightlifters participated: nine males (age: 28.9 ± 2.5 years; body mass: 87.7 ± 7.2 kg; 1RM clean: 123.3 ± 15.6 kg) and three females (age: 25.0 ± 3.6 years; body mass: 65.0 ± 8.5 kg; 1RM clean: 86.7 ± 5.8 kg), with an average training history of 9.4 ± 3.5 years. All were active competitors recruited from three different weightlifting clubs.

The study used a randomised, counterbalanced crossover design over a 20-day window with at least 5 days between conditions. All athletes completed all three conditions:

• Control (C): Standard warm-up, no front squat

• Light Squat (LS): 3 sets x 3 reps at 75% of front squat 1RM

• Heavy Squat (HS): 2 sets x 1 rep at 95% of front squat 1RM

In both squat conditions, athletes were instructed to move each rep with maximum intentional velocity. Eight minutes after each condition, they completed a full 1RM clean assessment, progressing from 50% of 1RM up to a maximum attempt, with a 103% attempt available if 100% was successful.

Barbell kinematics during the pull were tracked using the Weightlifting Analysis Bar Path Tracker app on an iPhone 15 Pro Max, recording at 1080p slow motion with 240fps, from a fixed position 3 metres to the side of the barbell on a tripod 1 metre off the ground. Peak velocity (PV) and mean velocity (MV) were recorded for both the first and second pull at 85%, 95%, and 100% of 1RM. RPE was collected 20 minutes after each condition on a 1–10 scale.

Results

Overall, 1RM clean performance did not significantly differ across the three conditions (p = 0.142). Athletes lifted 113.2 ± 22.6 kg in control, 113.8 ± 22.1 kg after LS, and 109.7 ± 22.0 kg after HS

When the percentage change from control was compared, however, LS significantly outperformed HS (+0.61 ± 3.3% vs. −3.0 ± 5.6%; p = 0.032). Light squats held or slightly raised the bar. Heavy squats dropped it. Nine athletes completed their 1RM clean after LS, compared to only four after HS. Two hit 103% after LS; only one did after HS.

RPE was significantly lower after LS compared to HS (4.95 ± 1.09 vs. 7.58 ± 0.97; p = 0.001), a large effect (g = 2.331).

For barbell kinematics, no statistically significant differences were found across conditions, but trends emerged at 100% of 1RM during the first pull.

When percentage changes were compared, PV at 100% of 1RM during the first pull was significantly higher for LS vs. HS (+4.63 ± 9.5% vs. −1.8 ± 12.5%; p = 0.025). Six athletes improved their first pull PV after LS; only three did after HS. No meaningful differences were found in second pull velocities across any condition or load.

Practical Takeaways

• Use light front squats before max clean attempts. Three sets of 3 reps at 75% of front squat 1RM, performed with maximum intentional bar speed and followed by 8 minutes of rest, appears to be the optimal pre-activation strategy.

• Avoid near-maximal front squats immediately before a max clean. The HS condition (95%, 2x1) was associated with a ~3% drop in performance and near-maximal RPE. On competition day or during a testing session, this is a meaningful difference.

• Speed in the warm-up drives the PAPE effect, not load. Moving the bar fast at moderate intensity likely activates type II motor units and enhances neuromuscular readiness more effectively than slow, heavy singles.

• Watch the first pull. The trend toward higher peak and mean barbell velocity at 100% of 1RM during the first pull after LS suggests the warm-up load influences how the lift starts — and a strong, technically correct first pull is a known driver of clean success. Coaches should be aware, though, that faster is not always better here; a hurried first pull can disrupt technique and ultimately reduce second pull velocity.

• Use RPE as a readiness gauge. An RPE of around 5 after the squat primer appears to be the sweet spot. If athletes are reporting an 8 out of 10 after their warm-up squat, that is a red flag.

• Trial both conditions in training first. Due to individual variation in PAPE response, coaches are advised to test both light and heavy pre-activation conditions with their athletes during regular training before applying them in a competition or testing context.

• Keep the results in context. The sample was 12 well-trained national-level competitors, not elite international athletes. App-based kinematics tracking also carries known measurement error (mean underestimation of ~6–10% for lower loads), though the 240fps recording used here likely improved accuracy. Future studies using force plates, linear position transducers, and EMG are needed to confirm these findings.

Reference

Bampos, Z., Zaras, N., Kavvoura, A., Foteinakis, P., Avloniti, A., Stamboulis, T., Smilios, I., Terzis, G., Hadjicharalambous, M., & Chatzinikolaou, A. (2026). Effect of the front squat as a pre-activation exercise on clean performance in well-trained weightlifters. Journal of Physical Education and Sport, 26(2), Article 034. https://doi.org/10.7752/jpes.2026.02034

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

A new randomised controlled trial from the University of Bath found that pairing a step-tracking wearable with a 30-day digital mindfulness program helped insufficiently active university students become more motivated to exercise, though it did not produce greater gains in physical activity than a step tracker alone.

Subscribe now

The study, published in Mental Health and Physical Activity in April 2025, is the first to test a mindfulness intervention specifically designed and tailored to promote physical activity engagement and enjoyment. Physical activity nearly doubled in both groups over 30 days, and sitting time fell significantly. But the group using mindfulness came away with an edge: stronger intentions to be active going forward. A key psychological indicator of long-term behaviour change.

Aim

University students are among the least active and most mentally vulnerable segments of the population. Physical inactivity and poor mental health tend to emerge and worsen around the same time in early adulthood, making students a prime group for intervention. Enjoyment, self-efficacy, and intrinsic motivation are known psychological predictors of sustained physical activity, and mindfulness training is thought to build exactly those skills.

This trial set out to test whether adding a tailored digital mindfulness program to a wearable-based step goal produced greater improvements in physical activity, mental health, and exercise-related cognitions compared to the step goal alone.

Methods

109 university students across three universities in England were recruited between January and April 2024. All participants were insufficiently active (less than 60 minutes of physical activity per week) and were given a wrist-worn activity monitor with a daily target of 8,000 steps.

Half were also enrolled in a 30-day digital mindfulness program delivered through the free Medito app. Each session ran for 10 minutes and combined mindfulness exercises (breathing, body scans, present-moment awareness) with psychoeducation on topics like goal setting, self-compassion, and managing setbacks. The other half received only the step tracker and the goal.

Participants completed surveys before and after the 30 days and filled in a brief daily diary each evening throughout the trial. Outcomes included self-reported physical activity, sitting time, wellbeing, mental health, exercise enjoyment, motivation, self-efficacy, and behavioural intentions to be active.

Book a call with me here.

We’ll sit down and upgrade or build out your entire training and performance program in one session.

Results

Physical activity more than doubled in both groups over the 30 days. The mindfulness-plus-activity group (MPA) increased weekly physical activity by an average of 1,492 MET-min per week and cut sitting time by 18.6 hours per week. The step-tracker-only group increased by 1,187 MET-min per week and reduced sitting by 9.1 hours per week. The difference between groups was not statistically significant.

The standout finding was in behavioural intentions: the MPA group reported a significantly greater increase in their intentions to be physically active compared to the step-tracker-only group. This matters because intention to exercise is one of the strongest predictors of whether people keep moving after an intervention ends.

Read more

Researchers have found that resistance-trained lifters can build muscle and lose fat simultaneously without cutting calories. A new study published in the European Journal of Applied Physiology put three groups of trained lifters through 10 weeks of the same four-day-a-week program, but varied their diets. The groups eating high protein, whether at maintenance calories or in a small 250-calorie deficit, both gained close to a kilogram of muscle and lost meaningful amounts of fat. The group that just trained without dietary guidance changed almost nothing. The finding suggests that maybe you don’t need a calorie surplus to build muscle or a deficit to lose fat. All it took was 2.5 grams of protein per kilogram of bodyweight per day, and a structured program. Let’s break it down.

Subscribe now

Aim

The study tested whether a calorie deficit produces better body recomposition results than eating at maintenance when protein intake is the same across both groups, and how both compare to training with no dietary supervision.

Methods

Thirty resistance-trained men and women (average age 23, average weight 80 kg, at least one year of training experience) were split into three groups of ten for 10 weeks:

• ISO (isocaloric): Ate at maintenance calories (~2,565 kcal/day) with 2.5 g/kg/day of protein

• DEF (deficit): Ate 250 kcal below maintenance (~2,262 kcal/day) with the same 2.5 g/kg/day of protein

• Control: Followed the same training program with no dietary supervision

Both intervention groups were supervised by a sports nutrition doctor and followed individualised meal plans across five meals per day. The training program was identical for all groups: four days per week, three sets of 10 reps per exercise, with loads adjusted to keep 1 to 2 repetitions in reserve. Exercises included squats, deadlifts, hip thrusts, bench press, rows, and pull-ups. Body composition was assessed by DXA before and after the 10 weeks.

Results

Both the ISO and DEF groups achieved body recomposition. The control group did not.

The DEF group's fat loss was statistically significant (p<0.001). The ISO group's fat loss trended in the same direction but fell just short of significance (p=0.051). Both groups gained nearly identical amounts of lean mass, with effect sizes that were virtually the same between them. The control group showed essentially zero change in fat or muscle despite completing the full training program.

The ISO group accumulated significantly more total training volume than both other groups by the end of the study, which the authors suggest may have contributed to their recomposition results despite eating at maintenance calories.

Takeaways

• Protein is the non-negotiable. Both groups ate 2.5 g/kg/day, above most hypertrophy thresholds of 1.6 to 2.2 g/kg/day, and both recomped. The control group trained just as hard and got nothing.

• A small deficit accelerates fat loss without costing muscle. The DEF group cut just 250 kcal per day and lost nearly twice as much fat as the ISO group while gaining the same amount of muscle.

• Eating at maintenance can still produce fat loss. The ISO group lost 1.41 kg of fat eating at maintenance calories, provided protein was high, and training was progressive.

• Training without dietary guidance produces no recomposition. Diet was the clear differentiator across all groups.

• This applies best to those with room to improve. Participants averaged moderate body fat levels at baseline. Leaner, more advanced lifters may see a smaller effect and may be better served focusing on one goal at a time.

The study has limitations worth noting. The sample was small at 10 per group, the trial ran only 10 weeks, food intake was not verified by weighed records, and the sample was predominantly male (26 men, 4 women). Longer trials with more advanced athletes would be interesting.

Book a call with me here.

We’ll sit down and upgrade or build out your entire training and performance program in one session.

Reference

Vargas-Molina, S., García-Palumbo, A., García-Sillero, M. et al. Comparison of two nutritional protocols in body re-composition of resistance-trained participants. Eur J Appl Physiol (2026). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00421-026-06209-6

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

Six female shot put athletes at a club in Medan, Indonesia, were struggling to generate enough arm power to compete. Coaches noticed it. The numbers confirmed it. So researchers put a simple fix to the test: eight weeks of press-ups and pull-ups, three days a week. The result was a statistically significant jump in arm muscle power, with the average medicine ball throw distance rising from 2.05 metres to 2.74 metres.

Subscribe now

The study, published in Competitor: Jurnal Pendidikan Kepelatihan Olahraga (Vol. 17, No. 2, 2025), set out to determine whether a structured press-up and pull-up training program could significantly improve arm muscle power in female shot put athletes from the Dumpang Athletic Club (KDA) in Medan, North Sumatra, Indonesia.

The problem was identified at a real competition. At the 2024 Student Athletic Championship held at Medan State University on October 7, 2024, only one of the club's six athletes performed well. The rest fell short, and preliminary testing with a two-hand medicine ball throw confirmed that most athletes rated in the "lacking" or "average" categories for arm power. Researchers concluded that training had been too heavily focused on technique, with explosive power work largely neglected.

Methods

The study used a two-group pre-test/post-test experimental design. Six female athletes aged 16 to 17 were selected via purposive sampling from a club population of 11.

• Group 1 completed press-up training

• Group 2 completed pull-up training

• Training ran from January to April 2025, three sessions per week (Monday, Wednesday, Friday), for 18 sessions total across 6 weeks of active treatment

• Sessions ran from 3:00 pm to 6:00 pm at SMA Negeri 13 Medan

• Arm muscle power was measured using the two-hand medicine ball throw test at both pre- and post-test

• Data was analysed with a paired sample t-test using SPSS version 22

Results

The numbers told a clear story. Every single athlete improved their medicine ball throw distance after the program.

Read more

A 2024 study recruited 30 advanced-to-elite male climbers and split them into four groups: eccentric training, plyometric training, isometric training, and a control group that received no additional training to improve climbing performance. For five weeks, twice a week, each group performed pull-ups on a force-sensing hangboard using their assigned method. Before and after, every climber was tested for maximum strength, power output, body coordination, and muscular endurance.

The findings were pretty clear. Eccentric training - slow, controlled lowering at 95% of 1-rep max, produced the biggest gains in power and range of motion. Plyometric training - explosive, consecutive pull-ups with brief hand releases off the bar- was the only method that significantly improved muscular endurance. Isometric training, the lock-off drills beloved by climbers worldwide, largely disappointed, most likely because bodyweight loads are too light to drive the adaptations that isometric training is theoretically capable of producing.

Every training group got stronger. But what that strength looked like, and how useful it would be on the wall, depended entirely on how they trained to build it. Let’s get into it.

Subscribe now

Aim

Sport climbing demands a unique combination of finger endurance, explosive arm power, and the ability to resist fatigue through repeated lock-offs and dynamic moves. While finger-specific training has been studied extensively, arm-specific training has never been properly quantified or compared by contraction type.

This study looked at which of three contraction-based pull-up training methods (eccentric, isometric, or plyometric) produced the greatest improvements across the key pull-up capabilities relevant to climbing: maximum strength, concentric muscle power, body coordination, stretch-shortening cycle (SSC) performance, and muscular endurance.

Methods

Thirty male climbers (mean age 24.7 years, body mass 66 kg, IRCRA climbing grade ~23) completed the study after 11 of the original 41 dropped out due to illness or personal issues. They were randomly assigned to one of four groups:

• Eccentric (ECC, n=8): Slow lowering phase at 95% of 1-rep max (1-RM), taking 5 seconds per descent, followed by explosive concentric jumps at bodyweight. Six sets per session, 10-second rest between reps, 3-minute rest between sets.

• Plyometric (PLYO, n=6): Explosive, consecutive pull-ups at bodyweight with brief hand releases off the bar at the top — small rebounds to maximise stretch-shortening cycle contribution. 7 to 11 reps per set, six sets, 3-minute rest.

• Isometric (ISO, n=7): Lock-offs held for 7 seconds at three different elbow angles (60°, 90°, and 120°), combined with explosive concentric jumps, all at bodyweight. Six sets, 3-minute rest between sets.

• Control (CTRL, n=9): No arm-specific training added.

All training was done on a SmartBoard force-sensing hangboard using the largest holds to eliminate finger strength as a limiting factor. Sessions ran twice a week for five weeks.

Pre- and post-testing used three pull-up variations — Strict (arms only), Normal (with hip/leg coordination), and Countermovement (adding a downward phase before pulling) — along with incremental weighted pull-ups to establish the force-velocity (F-V) relationship, and a pull-up exhaustion test for endurance.

Results

Maximum Strength

All three training groups improved 1-RM compared to the CTRL group (p<0.001), with the ECC group showing the largest gain (+5.0 ± 2.4 kg), followed by PLYO (+3.2 ± 2.2 kg) and ISO (+2.2 ± 3.6 kg). The CTRL group barely moved (+1.5 ± 3.2 kg).

Power and Velocity (Strict Pull-Up)

The ECC group significantly outperformed the CTRL group in mean power (+12.0%), mean velocity (+9.7%), peak velocity (+5.7%), and range of motion (+12.1%). The PLYO group showed a significant increase in mean velocity (+7.7%) but no change in range of motion. The ISO group produced no significant changes in the Strict pull-up at all.

Body Coordination (Normal Pull-Up)

Here the picture sharpened considerably. Both the ECC and PLYO groups showed much larger peak power gains during the Normal pull-up (which allows hip and leg coordination) than in the Strict pull-up alone — +21.1% and +25.3% respectively — suggesting meaningful improvements in whole-body coordination during the pull, not just raw arm strength. The ISO group again showed minimal benefit.

Stretch-Shortening Cycle (Countermovement Pull-Up)

No group produced statistically significant SSC improvement, though the ISO group showed the largest peak power tendency here (+15.6%), suggesting it may have some application for neuromuscular pre-activation and SSC development over a longer training timeline. The authors note that five weeks is likely too short to see meaningful SSC adaptation.

Muscular Endurance (Exhaustion Test)

The PLYO group significantly increased total energy expended during the exhaustion test by 21.9 ± 16.6% — more than the ECC (+10.1%) and ISO (+13.3%) groups (p=0.015). The consecutive, explosive nature of plyometric pull-ups — performed with minimal rest between reps within a set — appears to be the key driver of this endurance adaptation.

Key Takeaways

Here is how each method stacks up for different training goals:

Eccentric training led all methods for power output and range of motion, while plyometric training was the only approach to significantly improve muscular endurance.

• If power is the priority, eccentric training at high load (95% 1-RM) is the clear choice. It improved both raw strength and coordinated power across a full pull-up range of motion, which is directly relevant to real climbing movement.

• If endurance is the priority, plyometric training wins decisively, likely because consecutive explosive reps with short intra-set rest better replicate the fatigue demands of climbing.

• Plyometric training has a trade-off: it tends to reduce the pull-up range of motion, because climbers keep a slight elbow bend at the bottom to optimise rebound efficiency. For climbing, where full arm extension is often required, this is worth monitoring.

• Isometric training underperformed — most likely because bodyweight lock-offs only load the muscles at roughly 55 to 75% of 1-RM. The existing literature suggests 80 to 100% of 1-RM is needed to drive meaningful isometric strength gains. At the right load, isometric training may prove more valuable, particularly for SSC and neuromuscular pre-activation.

• Five weeks is enough to see real changes. Gains of 5 to 21.9% were achieved across measures in just 10 sessions total — a strong return for a relatively short block of arm-specific work.

• High inter-individual variability was observed, meaning initial strength level, climbing history, and individual recovery all influence how much someone responds to any given method. Coaches should treat these results as a framework, not a formula. The key principles of specificity, overload, and fatigue management always apply.

Reference

Vigouroux L, Devise M. Pull-Up Performance Is Affected Differently by the Muscle Contraction Regimens Practised during Training among Climbers. Bioengineering. 2024; 11(1):85. https://doi.org/10.3390/bioengineering11010085

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

Older men with Type 2 diabetes who added whey protein to a 12-week resistance training program saw a significant improvement in insulin resistance, according to a new triple-blind randomised controlled trial published in Aging Clinical and Experimental Research. The training boosted strength across the board, but neither protein nor carbohydrate supplementation added extra muscle size or improved blood sugar markers beyond what training alone produced.

For the nearly 800 million people projected to have Type 2 diabetes by 2045, finding low-cost, drug-free ways to manage the disease is becoming urgent. This study is one of the few to test supplementation strategies specifically in older men with the disease.

Subscribe now

Aim

Researchers wanted to know whether adding whey protein or maltodextrin to a structured resistance training program would improve muscle strength, muscle size, blood sugar control, and blood lipid levels in older men with Type 2 diabetes.

Methods

60 men aged 65 to 79 with Type 2 diabetes were split into three groups:

• Whey protein group: 20 g of whey protein after each session

• Maltodextrin group: 20 g of maltodextrin after each session

• Control group: colored water (placebo)

All participants followed the same resistance training program for 12 weeks, training twice per week. Each session included six exercises (leg press, calf raise, leg curl, chest press, rowing, and abdominal machine), performed as 3 sets of 8 to 12 reps. Load progression was guided by the OMNI perceived exertion scale, and a 1RM test was used to set starting loads.

The study was triple-blind: the participants, the trainers, and the assessors did not know which supplement each participant was taking. Only the nutritionist who administered the supplements knew the group assignments.

Key measurements taken before and after the 12 weeks included:

• Insulin resistance via HOMA-IR

• Glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) and fasting glucose

• Blood lipid levels (cholesterol, HDL, LDL, triglycerides)

• Muscle thickness of the biceps brachii and vastus lateralis via ultrasound

• Strength progression tracked through training loads

Results

The standout finding was that the whey protein group showed a significant reduction in HOMA-IR, the marker of insulin resistance, while the maltodextrin and control groups did not. This suggests early improvements in insulin sensitivity in the protein group.

Other key results:

Read more

The leg press builds a lot more muscle than most lifters realise, but it has one notable issue. A study published in Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise by Maeo and colleagues put the knee extension machine against the leg press in the most rigorous comparison so far. Let’s dive in.

Subscribe now

Aim

The aim was to figure out if single-joint and multi-joint exercises are equally effective for building the quadriceps, and whether it matters which one you choose. Specifically, the researchers wanted to compare knee extension (KE) and leg press (LP) for their ability to grow not just the quads overall, but each muscle within the quadriceps femoris (QF), along with the glutes, hamstrings, and adductors.

Methods

Seventeen untrained adults participated in a within-subject, contralateral design, meaning each person trained one leg with knee extensions and the other leg with leg press simultaneously, eliminating the usual confounds of between-group studies. Both legs were trained at 70% of one-repetition maximum (1RM), 10 reps per set, 5 sets per session, twice per week for 12 weeks. MRI was used before and after the intervention to measure the volumes of 17 individual muscles, including all four quadriceps heads (rectus femoris, vastus lateralis, vastus medialis, vastus intermedius), the gluteus muscles, hamstrings, and adductors. A follow-up experiment using surface electromyography (EMG) was conducted to examine whether muscle activation during each exercise mirrored the hypertrophic outcomes.

Results

The headline finding is this: both exercises grew the quadriceps overall, but they did so differently depending on which muscle you look at.

Rectus Femoris

• Knee extension: +13.2% volume increase

• Leg press: +1.1% volume increase (non-significant, p = 0.379)

• The difference between conditions was statistically significant (p ≤ 0.001)

Vasti Muscles (vastus lateralis, medialis, intermedius)

• Knee extension: +5.0–7.2%

• Leg press: +4.4–6.2%

• No significant difference between conditions (p ≥ 0.319)

Whole Quadriceps Femoris

• Knee extension: +7.1%

• Leg press: +4.9%

• No significant difference between conditions

Glutes and Adductors (leg press only)

• Gluteus maximus: +15.4% (leg press only, p ≤ 0.001)

• Adductor magnus: +6.2% (leg press only, p ≤ 0.001)

• Neither muscle changed significantly with knee extension

The EMG follow-up confirmed that muscle activation patterns closely matched these hypertrophy outcomes — muscles that grew more also showed greater electrical activity during the exercise that produced the growth.

Takeaways

• The leg press is highly time-efficient. In a single exercise, it builds comparable vasti and overall quad size to the knee extension, while also substantially growing the glutes (+15.4%) and adductor magnus (+6.2%). For anyone short on time, the leg press delivers more muscle development per session than many lifters give it credit for.

• The knee extension is non-negotiable for the rectus femoris. The leg press essentially failed to grow the rectus femoris (+1.1%, non-significant), while the knee extension grew it by 13.2%. This is not a small margin — it is a functionally different outcome.

• Clinical relevance is significant. The rectus femoris is the quadriceps head most susceptible to strain injuries in sport, meaning targeted knee extension work may matter for injury prevention and rehabilitation, not just aesthetics.

• Neither exercise is superior overall — they are complementary. The leg press covers the hip-dominant lower body; the knee extension fills the gap the leg press leaves at the rectus femoris.

• This was conducted in untrained adults, so results may differ in trained lifters who may already have adapted neural patterns and muscle activation strategies.

The practical recommendation: if you are only doing leg press and skipping the knee extension machine, you are likely leaving meaningful rectus femoris development on the table. For a complete quad training program, both belong in the program.

Nothing new to see here.

Reference

Kinoshita M, Maeo S, Kobayashi Y, Eihara Y, Nishizawa N, Kusagawa Y, Sugiyama T, Wakahara T, Kanehisa H, Isaka T. Hypertrophic Effects of Single- versus Multi-Joint Exercise: A Direct Comparison Between Knee Extension and Leg Press. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2026 Feb 5. doi: 10.1249/MSS.0000000000003957. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 41630124.

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

A new thesis from Appalachian State University put two of the most common squat tools head-to-head in the lab and found that while the safety squat bar (SSB) changes how the hips and ankles work, it does not change how hard the quads and hamstrings fire. That distinction matters more than most lifters realise, and the findings have implications for anyone managing shoulder issues, mobility limits, or training variety.

Subscribe now

The study, completed by Emily C. Bauer in May 2024, compared back squats using a straight barbell (SB) and a Titan SSB across two training intensities — 65% and 85% of one-repetition maximum (1RM). They tracked three outcomes: maximum strength, power output at the ankle, knee, and hip, and muscle activation of the quadriceps (vastus lateralis) and hamstrings (semitendinosus). Twelve resistance-trained men, all with prior SSB experience, performed a three-session protocol in a biomechanics lab using motion capture and electromyography (EMG).

The found lifters moved 14.48% less weight on the SSB than the straight barbell, power output at the hips and ankles differed significantly between bars, and yet the quads and hamstrings fired at the same level with both. For lifters who cannot comfortably use a straight bar due to shoulder restrictions or an inability to create a stable "shelf" on the upper back, the SSB allows them to keep training the squat with the same muscle stimulus, but a different joint demand.

Aim

The squat is one of the most studied exercises in strength and conditioning, but there’s surprisingly little data on the safety bar squat. Does it produce the same power outputs as a straight barbell? Prior research had looked at trunk angles, bar velocity, and muscle activation with mixed results, but no study had measured ankle, knee, and hip joint power between the two bars. This study set out to fill that gap, while also revisiting the open question of whether muscle activation differs between the two variations.

Methods

Twelve resistance-trained males aged 18 to 30 volunteered from the Boone, North Carolina community. All had at least one year of back squat experience, prior SSB exposure, and were actively training three or more days per week in the six months before the study. Participants visited the lab three times: once to establish their 1RM on the straight barbell, once for their SSB 1RM, and a third session where they squatted at 65% and 85% of 1RM with each bar, performing three reps per condition.

Joint power at the ankle, knee, and hip was captured using an eight-camera VICON 3D motion analysis system with force plates sampling at 1,000 Hz. EMG electrodes were placed on the vastus lateralis and semitendinosus of both legs during the submaximal testing session to record muscle activation. Bar order was randomised across sessions to control for bias, and all squats were performed to a depth of 90 degrees of knee flexion as confirmed by a researcher.

Results

1RM values

Eleven of the 12 participants lifted more with the straight barbell than the SSB. The group average 1RM for the straight barbell was 392.04 ± 79.46 lbs., compared to 339.12 ± 72.51 lbs. on the SSB — a statistically significant difference of 14.48% (p < 0.05). Only one participant bucked the trend, lifting more with the SSB than the straight bar.

Read more

A nine-month randomised controlled trial published in PLOS One in March 2026 has found that a smartphone-assisted coaching program targeting diet and physical activity produced significant, lasting reductions in stress, comparable to a program that directly targeted stress itself, and also meaningfully improved sleep duration, even though neither stress nor sleep was explicitly addressed. The study, a secondary analysis of the Make Better Choices 2 (MBC2) trial, offers strong evidence that improving lifestyle behaviours like exercise and diet creates powerful "ripple effects" across the entire spectrum of health risk factors, potentially making it a scalable and cost-effective first-line approach for people carrying multiple lifestyle-related disease risks

Subscribe now

Aim

Researchers wanted to know whether a behaviour change program explicitly targeting diet and physical activity would also produce collateral, “tag-along” improvements in stress and sleep — two domains the program never directly addressed.

This was a secondary analysis of the MBC2 trial data, designed to compare the cross-domain effects of a diet and activity intervention against a purpose-built stress and sleep intervention, to understand which program produced broader health gains.

Methods

The MBC2 trial was a 9-month, three-arm randomised controlled trial conducted across the Chicago area, enrolling 212 adults (mean age 40.8 years; 76% female; 59% non-white minority) who all displayed multiple lifestyle risk behaviours — specifically low moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA), low fruit and vegetable intake, high saturated fat intake, and high sedentary screen time.

All three arms used the same core delivery infrastructure: a custom smartphone app for daily self-monitoring and behavioural feedback, psychoeducational materials, telephone health coaching (weekly for the first 12 weeks, tapering to monthly by the end), and small monetary incentives for hitting goals. What differed was the target behaviour:

• Diet/Activity group (two arms merged for this analysis): Targeted fruit and vegetable intake (≥5 servings/day), sedentary screen time (≤90 minutes/day), and MVPA (≥150 minutes/week)

• Stress/Sleep group: Targeted a 30% reduction in perceived stress and achieving >7.5 hours of sleep per night, with daily relaxation exercises

Participants self-reported stress (11-point Likert scale, three times daily) and sleep duration (via morning smartphone questionnaire) across 7-day assessment windows at baseline, 3, 6, and 9 months. Data were analysed using linear mixed models to evaluate how each group’s outcomes changed over time.

Results

Stress: Both programs drove substantial, statistically significant reductions in daily stress over the 9 months, and critically, those reductions were statistically comparable between the two groups — meaning the diet and activity program reduced stress just as effectively as the program specifically designed to do so.

• Stress/Sleep group: average stress score dropped by 2.08 points on the 11-point scale (P < 0.001)

• Diet/Activity group: average stress score dropped by 1.68 points on the 11-point scale (P < 0.001)

• The difference between groups was not statistically significant (P = 0.177)

Sleep: Both programs produced clinically meaningful improvements in sleep duration, but the Stress/Sleep program outperformed on this measure, which is expected, given that it directly targeted sleep.

• Stress/Sleep group: estimated sleep duration increased by 92.65 minutes over 9 months (P < 0.001)

• Diet/Activity group: estimated sleep duration increased by 26.39 minutes over 9 months (P = 0.002)

That 26-minute gain in the diet/activity group is notable in its own right: it was enough to shift the average participant from below the recommended 7–9 hours per night to within it, and was maintained across the full 9 months. The two groups followed different trajectories — the stress/sleep group improved rapidly from baseline to 3 months and then plateaued, while the diet/activity group showed a more gradual, sustained upward trend over the full study period.

Practical Takeaways

These findings have implications for anyone serious about long-term health and not just cardiovascular fitness:

• Getting your exercise and diet in order may reduce your stress without trying. The diet/activity program matched the dedicated stress program for stress reduction. If you are managing stress, improving your food quality and moving more could be just as effective as specific stress-management techniques.

• Cleaning up your lifestyle habits can add meaningful sleep time. An extra 26 minutes of nightly sleep from a diet and exercise program alone is a clinically significant gain — and it was sustained for nine months. You do not need a dedicated sleep program to meaningfully improve your sleep.

• One intervention, multiple wins. Rather than stacking multiple intensive interventions (one for stress, one for sleep, one for diet), the data suggest a well-designed diet and activity program can deliver broad-spectrum improvements across several risk factors simultaneously, reducing burden, cost, and complexity.

• Technology can make it scalable. Coaching was delivered remotely via smartphone and phone calls, which means this kind of approach is accessible well beyond a clinic setting - an important consideration given that half of American adults carry two or more lifestyle risk factors.

• Sleep and stress were not required entry criteria. Participants were not selected because they had clinically severe sleep disorders or anxiety. Their baseline stress was moderate, and sleep was near the lower boundary of the recommended range. These results are most applicable to the broad, general population carrying subclinical lifestyle risks.

A key limitation worth noting: all outcomes relied on self-reported data via smartphone. No objective biomarkers (e.g., actigraphy for sleep, cortisol for stress) were used, which introduces some potential for reporting bias. Additionally, the sample was predominantly female (76%) and college-educated (69%), which may limit how broadly the findings apply.

Reference

Battalio, S. L., Spring, B., Wilson, E., Hedeker, D., & Pfammatter, A. F. (2026). Behavior change intervention targeting physical activity and diet improves stress and sleep. PLOS ONE, 21(3), e0343397. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0343397

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

The American College of Sports Medicine has released its most comprehensive resistance training Position Stand, and the findings are very cool if you want an evidence-based round-up of what we know and what works in strength.

In a nutshell: To build strength, lift heavy loads at 80% of your one-rep max (1RM) or above, train at least twice a week, use a full range of motion, and do 2 to 3 sets per exercise. To build muscle, accumulate at least 10 sets per muscle group per week and incorporate eccentric overload. To develop power, use moderate loads between 30% and 70% 1RM, keep volume low to moderate, and train explosively. As for training to failure, periodisation, free weights versus machines, time under tension, and blood flow restriction? The evidence says none of them makes a meaningful difference consistently.

Published in Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise in 2026, the Position Stand is led by Brad Currier and Stuart Phillips at McMaster University, alongside a 13-person author team spanning institutions across North America and Australia. It synthesises 137 systematic reviews covering more than 30,000 people, and formally updates the ACSM's 2009 Position Stand on resistance training prescription, which was previously criticised for lacking methodological rigour.

Subscribe now

Aim

The purpose of this overview of reviews was to determine which resistance training prescription variables, the specific details of how a program is designed, actually drive improvements in muscle strength, hypertrophy, power, endurance, and physical function, such as gait speed, balance, and chair-stand performance in healthy adults.

A secondary aim was to distinguish between two different questions: does resistance training work compared to doing nothing, and within resistance training, which specific variables produce superior outcomes when compared head-to-head. Those are two very different questions, and the paper addresses both.

Methods

The researchers conducted what is known as an umbrella review, a systematic review of existing systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Trained librarians searched six major databases, including Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane, and SPORTDiscus, with searches current to October 2024.

To be included, a review had to cover randomised trials of healthy adults (18 years or older) who completed at least six weeks of resistance training, compared against either a no-exercise control group or a distinctly different training program. Four independent reviewers screened 5,751 records after duplicate removal, ultimately including 137 systematic reviews. Quality of individual reviews was assessed using the AMSTAR tool (scored out of 11), and quality of evidence was graded using a GRADE-based approach, expressed as a percentage score from 0% to 100%

The prescription variables examined were extensive, covering training frequency, load (%1RM), sets and volume, training to failure, time under tension, rest periods, exercise order, range of motion, contraction type (eccentric vs. concentric), set structures such as drop sets and cluster sets, blood flow restriction, periodisation, and more.

Results

Resistance training versus no exercise at all. Compared to doing nothing, resistance training significantly improved strength (26 reviews, n = 23,204; quality of evidence 73%), hypertrophy (12 reviews, n = 14,924; quality of evidence 79%), power (4 reviews, n = 1,001; quality of evidence 63%), muscular endurance, gait speed, balance, chair stand performance, and timed up-and-go scores. This held across multiple training modalities, including standard free-weight and machine training, elastic band training, circuit training, home-based training, and velocity-based training.

For strength, the variables that matter:

• Load at 80% 1RM or above, with a clear dose-response relationship (6 reviews, n = 6,574; quality of evidence 79%)

• Frequency of at least 2 sessions per week (4 reviews, n = 3,531; quality of evidence 69%)

• Full range of motion versus partial range (2 reviews, n = 1,262; quality of evidence 50%)

• 2 to 3 sets per exercise, with more sets clearly beating fewer (7 reviews, n = 5,633; quality of evidence 71%)

• Performing priority exercises at the start of a session rather than the end (4 reviews, n = 941; quality of evidence 88%)

For hypertrophy, the variables that matter:

• Volume of at least 10 sets per muscle group per week, with a dose-response relationship up to approximately 18 to 20 sets per week (5 reviews, n = 2,267; quality of evidence 50%)

• Eccentric-only contractions versus concentric-only contractions (1 review, n = 868; quality of evidence 75%)

• Load was not a significant factor for hypertrophy. From 30% 1RM to 100% 1RM, muscle growth outcomes were comparable when effort was sufficient

For power, the variables that matter:

Read more

The question of whether machines or free weights produce superior muscle growth has persisted in gyms longer than it deserves to. Most coaches already operate on the assumption that both tools work, finding first, through experience, that specificity and context are the linchpins first and foremost.

A new randomised within-subject trial by Painelli and colleagues, published in the Journal of Bodywork and Movement Therapies, adds more direct empirical weight to that position. Using ultrasound to track regional hypertrophy across four sites in the vastus lateralis and rectus femoris over 9 weeks, the researchers found no statistically significant difference in quad growth between a free weight lunge and a machine-based inclined leg press. Both legs grew. When volume and effort are matched, the implement is largely irrelevant to the hypertrophic outcome, including, at least in the knee extensors of untrained women.

Subscribe now

Aim

The study’s central question was whether free weights and machines drive comparable regional hypertrophy in the knee extensors, or whether one modality preferentially targets specific portions of the muscle. The researchers were interested in where growth occurred, not just whether it occurred, since proximal and distal hypertrophy patterns have practical relevance for programming and rehabilitation contexts.

Methods

The trial used a within-subject contralateral design: each participant trained one leg with free weights and the other with a machine, which neatly controls for the between-subject noise that typically complicates comparisons like this.

• Participants: 8 previously untrained women

• Free weight exercise: Lunge

• Machine exercise: Inclined leg press

• Duration: 9 weeks, 3 sessions per week

• Measurements: Ultrasound assessed muscle thickness of the vastus lateralis (VL) and rectus femoris (RF) at two femur length sites each: 50% (proximal) and 70% (distal)

• Analysis: Mixed model, significance set at p ≤ 0.05

Results

Muscle thickness increased significantly from pre- to post-training at every measured site in both legs. No statistically significant between-condition differences were found at any site.

The distal rectus femoris site produced the largest gains under both conditions, which is a detail worth noting for those specifically targeting the lower quad.

Takeaways

• Equipment access is not a limiting factor for quad hypertrophy. A leg press and a lunge produced virtually identical results over 9 weeks. Program what you have and what the athlete will execute well.

• Regional growth patterns were consistent across both conditions. Neither modality preferentially loaded the proximal or distal quad to a degree that would meaningfully influence programming decisions at this stage of the evidence.

• For rehab and clinical settings, machines offer a controlled loading environment without any apparent compromise to the hypertrophic stimulus. That is a useful data point when working around technique limitations or post-injury load management.

• Combining both modalities remains a sensible approach for managing volume and variety without sacrificing outcomes.

• Know the sample. These were 8 untrained women. Applying these findings directly to trained lifters, male populations, or sport-specific contexts requires caution. More research in those groups is needed before drawing firm conclusions.

Reference

Painelli, V. D. S., Silva, M. V. D. S., Justino, J. C., et al. (2025). Comparable regional hypertrophy of the knee extensor muscles in response to resistance training with machines versus free weights: A randomized within-subject approach. Journal of Bodywork and Movement Therapies, 45, 562–568. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbmt.2025.S1360859225003742

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

Researchers from the University of Seville and Universidad Pablo de Olavide recruited 49 intermediate-trained women and put them through an 8-week bench press program, training twice a week at heavy loads (70–85% of 1RM). The women were split into three groups that trained identically in every way, only differing in when a set was terminated. One group did just a single rep per set. A second group stopped when bar speed had dropped 25% from their first rep. The third pushed until bar speed had dropped 50%, getting close to muscular failure.

The researchers measured everything: 1RM strength, explosive force production, muscle size in the triceps, bar velocity across the full load spectrum, and electrical muscle activation. What they found confirmed a growing suspicion in the field. Women appear to need more volume and more within-set fatigue than men to maximise strength and hypertrophy gains, and the right fatigue threshold depends entirely on what you are training for. Pushing harder built more muscle and strength. Stopping at a moderate threshold built the best explosive and neural qualities. And doing just one rep per set, while not useless, left significant gains on the table.

Subscribe now

Aim

Most VBT research has been conducted on men, yet we routinely apply those findings to female athletes and lifters. Prior work had already hinted that women may need higher velocity loss (VL) thresholds than men to drive the same adaptations, particularly in the bench press. This study set out to directly compare three VBT conditions in the bench press using heavy loads (70–85% of 1RM), testing whether training to different levels of within-set fatigue would produce meaningfully different outcomes in strength, hypertrophy, and neuromuscular function in women.

Methods

Forty-nine intermediate-trained women (average age 21.4 years, body mass 61.3 kg, bench press relative strength ~0.53 kg/kg of bodyweight) were randomly assigned to one of three training groups:

• VL0: One repetition per set (0% velocity loss)

• VL25: Sets taken to ~25% velocity loss (roughly 40–50% of possible repetitions)

• VL50: Sets taken to ~50% velocity loss (roughly 75–85% of possible repetitions)

All groups trained twice per week for 8 weeks (16 sessions total), using the same load range of 70–85% 1RM and three sets per session, with four minutes’ rest between sets. A linear velocity transducer tracked bar speed in real time, so intensity was adjusted each session to maintain the prescribed velocity, keeping load relative to each participant’s current level.

Before and after the intervention, researchers assessed triceps brachii (TB) muscle thickness via ultrasound, maximal isometric force and rate of force development (RFD), a progressive loading test to estimate 1RM and load-velocity profiles, and a repetitions-to-failure fatigue test. Surface electromyography (EMG) recorded muscle activation throughout.

The volume performed by each group differed substantially. VL0 completed just 48 total repetitions across the program, VL25 completed 182, and VL50 completed 309.

Results

Every group got stronger. All three groups showed significant improvements in 1RM, velocity against all loads, and muscular endurance, confirming that even minimal-volume training (one rep per set) builds strength in trained women.

Read more

Your muscles are made up of different types of fibres. The type I fibres are slow and fatigue-resistant. The type II fibres are fast, powerful, and tire quickly. For simplicity's sake, we’ll only focus on these two.

For decades, lifters have wondered how the weight on the bar determines which fibre types actually grow. A new systematic review and meta-regression, published in March 2026 on SportRxiv, is the most statistically rigorous attempt yet to offer some clarity. Eight studies, 195 participants, and a purpose-built multilevel model later, they found that load probably does matter at the fibre level, but the evidence is far from concrete.

Subscribe now

Aim

Researchers set out to map the relationship between training load (expressed as a % of 1-repetition maximum, or 1RM) and muscle fibre hypertrophy, treating load as a continuous variable rather than a simple “heavy vs. light” binary. A secondary goal was to examine whether factors like training status, volume, and proximity to failure influenced that relationship.

Methods

The team searched PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, and SPORTDiscus for relevant studies, ultimately including eight that met their criteria. To qualify, a study had to measure actual muscle fibre cross-sectional area via biopsy (not just whole-muscle size via ultrasound or MRI), use a randomised design lasting at least four weeks, and compare at least two groups training at different loads.

The pooled sample across all eight studies was 195 participants, mostly untrained young adult males, with study samples ranging from 12 to 49 people and training interventions averaging around 9.5 weeks. All biopsies were taken from the vastus lateralis (the outer quad).

Rather than simply comparing "low load" to "high load" as previous meta-analyses had done, the researchers modelled load as a continuous variable using multilevel meta-regression with cluster-robust variance estimation, which better accounts for the complexity and dependencies within and between studies.

Results

When both fibre types were lumped together in a single model, there was no clear relationship between load and hypertrophy. That finding aligns with the existing body of work showing that whole-muscle growth is broadly similar across a range of loads when sets are taken to failure.

The more telling picture emerged from the fibre-type specific model. At low loads (20% 1RM and 30% 1RM), type I fibre hypertrophy was favoured over type II. At moderate loads (40 to 50% 1RM), the two fibre types grew at roughly similar rates. Above 50% 1RM, the pattern flipped, with the effect estimates increasingly favouring type II fibre growth as load rose from 60% through to 90% 1RM.

The load-by-fibre-type interaction estimate was consistent across leave-one-out sensitivity analyses, ranging from 0.247 to 0.351 across the eight models, suggesting the finding was not driven by any single study.

That said, the confidence and prediction intervals were wide throughout, and for all load anchors above 30% 1RM, the confidence intervals crossed zero, meaning the differences between fibre types at those loads were not conclusive. The authors are explicit about this: these findings are exploratory, not definitive.

Key Takeaways

• Light loads (roughly 20 to 30% 1RM) may preferentially grow type I fibres. These are your slow-twitch endurance fibres, and they appear to respond best to lighter, higher-rep work.

• Heavy loads (above 50% 1RM, and especially toward 80 to 90% 1RM) lean toward type II fibre growth. Type II fibres are your primary drivers of strength and power, and heavier loading appears more aligned with their development.

• For whole-muscle size, load likely does not matter much, as long as you train close to or to failure. The fibre-level differences appear to wash each other out when viewed from the outside.

• All biopsies were from the quads (vastus lateralis), all participants were mostly untrained young males, and there are zero data points between 53% and 70% 1RM in this dataset. Generalising these findings to trained lifters, women, or upper-body muscles is not yet supported.

• Proximity to failure matters. When the one study that did not train participants to failure was removed, the load-by-fibre-type interaction grew stronger, hinting that training hard enough to recruit all available motor units may be a prerequisite for this effect to show up.

• The evidence base is thin. Eight studies and 195 participants are a small pool. The findings are a signal worth watching, not a rule worth programming around with confidence.

Reference

Varovic, D., Larsen, S., & Grgic, J. (2026). Heavy or Light: Is Muscle Fiber Growth Load-Specific? A Systematic Review and Meta-Regression. SportRxiv. https://osf.io/wgze9/overview?view_only=cb5a10d25a5e485c9329ace3580c97ab

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

Hitting your bench 1RM every single day for over a month sounds like a recipe for injury, and not at all a legitimate training strategy. But, a study published in the Journal of Exercise Physiology Online did exactly that, and the seven participants who followed the protocol saw an average 29% increase in bench press strength in just 38 days. The gains were consistent across men and women, raising serious questions about how often lifters should be pushing true maximal effort.

Subscribe now

Aim

To determine whether daily one-repetition maximum (1RM) bench press training could produce meaningful strength improvements in physically active men and women. The researchers also wanted to assess whether time spent training, measured in days, correlated with ongoing strength progress and whether the approach was practical for general use.

Methods

Seven physically active participants took part: 3 men and 4 women, none of whom had serious injuries before the study. Each day for 34 consecutive days, participants worked up to their daily 1RM on the bench press, then completed 5 volume sets of either 3 reps at 85% or 2 reps at 90% of that day’s max, depending on the participant.

On day 35, a short taper was performed: 5 sets of 1 rep at 90-100% of their original day-one 1RM. Days 36 and 37 were full rest days, and the final 1RM test was conducted on day 38. Participants also supplemented daily with 10g of creatine monohydrate, consumed caffeine before each session, and took 20g of protein post-workout.

Results

Read more

A 2024 narrative umbrella review published in Sport Sciences for Health systematically evaluates the full spectrum of post-training and post-competition recovery strategies used by elite winter sport athletes to determine what works, what is overhyped, and what the evidence-based hierarchy of recovery should look like. The verdict: sleep and nutrition sit at the top, cold water immersion is the standout physical tool, and some widely used methods, including stretching, sauna, and contrast water therapy, have little to no robust evidence supporting their use. Let’s dive in.

Subscribe now

Aim

The review aimed to critically evaluate the clinical and scientific validity of post-training and post-competition recovery methods, compare their effectiveness across the specific physiological demands of different winter sports, and produce ranked, actionable recommendations. The authors also addressed a gap in the literature: despite widespread use of recovery tools among elite athletes, few studies had comprehensively compiled and compared these strategies within the high-stakes context of Olympic preparation.

Methods

The team performed a systematic PubMed search using a broad set of keywords spanning nutrition, sleep, cold therapies, massage, compression, stretching, electrical stimulation, and more. One author screened all titles and abstracts, while the full research team selected papers for detailed review. Inclusion required studies to be conducted on athletes or healthy participants, focused on fatigue, DOMS, performance, illness, or injury prevention, and published in English. Studies involving injured or clinical populations were excluded. Where no meta-analyses existed on a specific method, original research papers were included to fill the gap.

Results

Sleep and Nutrition: The Non-Negotiables

The two most strongly supported recovery tools are not found in an ice bath or a massage gun. They are sleep and nutrition, and the review is explicit that without these two foundations in place, almost no other method shows convincing evidence of meaningfully accelerating recovery.

On sleep, the research is stark: over half the athletes at the 2016 Rio Olympics reported poor sleep quality, athletes tend to achieve less actual sleep than non-athletes despite similar time in bed due to longer sleep latency and lower sleep efficiency, and those sleeping fewer than 5 hours per night were found to be three times more likely to catch a cold than those sleeping more than 7 hours. Young athletes sleeping fewer than 8 hours had nearly double the injury risk compared to those sleeping longer. The review recommends athletes aim for 8 to 9 hours of sleep nightly, with strategic naps of 20 to 90 minutes between 13:00 and 16:00 to top up total sleep, waking at least 30 minutes before training to avoid sleep inertia.

For nutrition, carbohydrate management sits at the core. Optimal glycogen storage requires 7 to 10 g of carbohydrate per kilogram of body mass daily, and the immediate post-exercise window demands 25 to 35 g per hour. A higher intake of 1 g/kg/hour can speed up glycogen replenishment when recovery time is short. Protein intake of more than 20 g per meal and more than 1.6 g per kilogram of body mass per day is recommended to support muscle repair and synthesis. Post-exercise rehydration should replace 150 to 200% of sweat loss within 4 to 8 hours, potentially with sodium-containing solutions to aid fluid retention.

Cold Water Immersion

Among all physical recovery methods, cold water immersion (CWI) at 10 to 15°C for 10 to 15 minutes emerged as the most consistently supported option for reducing muscle soreness and aiding recovery of muscle power. Reducing muscle temperature is identified as the key mechanism, with muscle temperature remaining low for up to 30 minutes post-immersion, provided athletes stay seated without towel drying. The review recommends starting CWI within 30 minutes of finishing intense exercise, avoiding towel drying afterwards, and sitting in a cool environment for up to 30 minutes to extend the cooling effect.

There is, however, an important caveat: regular CWI use during resistance-focused training may blunt gains in muscle mass and maximum strength, though it does not appear to impair aerobic performance or mitochondrial function. Athletes in strength-based training blocks should weigh this trade-off carefully.

Whole-body cryotherapy (WBC) at temperatures of -60 to -140°C showed DOMS improvements in roughly 80% of reviewed cases, but only about half the studies showed performance recovery benefits. CWI was rated as superior to WBC for reducing blood flow, tissue temperature, and DOMS, as well as being more practical and cost-effective.

Massage: Best for Soreness, Not Performance

Traditional massage showed consistent evidence for reducing post-exercise DOMS, particularly at the 48-hour mark when soreness is most pronounced, but its contribution to physical performance recovery was limited. The review recommends massaging each muscle group for 2 to 5 minutes (totalling 20 to 60 minutes), beginning at least 2 hours after intense exercise. Foam rolling demonstrated similar effectiveness for DOMS reduction. Massage guns with low-frequency vibrations under 40 Hz may ease muscle stiffness, but showed no significant effect on DOMS, fatigue, or lactate levels.

Active Recovery: Timing Is Everything

Brief sessions of 6 to 10 minutes of light active recovery (at roughly 65 to 75% of maximum heart rate) were more effective than passive rest for maintaining performance when recovery time between bouts was under 30 minutes. However, for recovery periods longer than 30 minutes, including next-day performance, active recovery showed no meaningful benefits over rest for DOMS, muscle damage, or metabolic markers. A notable caveat: active recovery may partially impair glycogen resynthesis, particularly in slow-twitch type I muscle fibers, so athletes need to be mindful not to compromise refuelling.

The Methods That Disappoint

Several widely used tools showed weak or inconclusive evidence:

• Stretching had no significant effect on DOMS or injury risk across meta-analyses and reviews, and cannot be broadly recommended for recovery or injury prevention.

• Sauna (both Finnish and infrared) lacks systematic reviews or meta-analyses on post-exercise recovery, with one study finding no recovery benefit after resistance training, and another showing sauna use impaired swim performance due to added thermal stress.

• Contrast water therapy (CWT) yielded mixed and inconclusive results, with methodological limitations and uncontrolled placebo effects undermining confidence in the findings.

• Neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) showed limited effectiveness compared to light active recovery, with some evidence it may even impair performance recovery in certain contexts.

• Hyperoxia (supplemental oxygen) offers at best a marginal short-term benefit during intermittent exercise, with no evidence for supporting longer-term recovery beyond 12 hours, and cannot be recommended as a general recovery tool between training sessions.

• Compression garments showed small to moderate effects on DOMS and are reasonable to use for up to 24 hours post-exercise, though their impact on performance recovery remains inconclusive.

Key Takeaways

The review’s overarching message is that most recovery gadgets and trendy modalities are outperformed by the basics. The hierarchy matters:

• Prioritise 8 to 9 hours of sleep nightly, with strategic napping between 13:00 and 16:00 if needed.

• Hit carbohydrate targets (7 to 10 g/kg/day) and protein targets (more than 1.6 g/kg/day), and rehydrate with 150 to 200% of sweat losses post-exercise.

• Use CWI (10 to 15°C, 10 to 15 minutes) as the primary physical recovery tool for sports that generate high muscle soreness loads, but moderate its use during strength-focused training blocks.

• Add massage (20 to 60 minutes, starting at least 2 hours post-exercise) for sports involving significant DOMS, such as alpine skiing and ice hockey.

• Use brief active recovery (6 to 10 minutes of light exercise) between short-rest-period bouts, but don’t rely on it for next-day recovery.

• Personalise. Different winter sports disciplines create different physiological demands, and recovery strategies should be tailored accordingly.

The authors also flag a key limitation: most underlying studies involved well-rested participants recovering from a single exercise bout, which doesn't reflect the more congested reality of Olympic athletes training multiple times daily. Some methods dismissed here might still hold value in elite contexts not yet well studied.

Reference

Edholm, P., Ørtenblad, N., Holmberg, HC. et al. Optimizing recovery strategies for winter athletes: insights for Milano-Cortina 2026 Olympic Games. Sport Sci Health 20, 1169–1182 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11332-024-01245-1

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