Comparing the Accuracy of Resistance Training Models from Every Personal Trainer Certification with an NCCA-Accredited Exam

by Dr. Brent Brookbush, DPT, MS, PT, CPT, HMS, SPC, IMT

Introduction

Summary: This publication compares the resistance training models published by personal trainer certifications, including NASM , ACE , NSCA , ACSM , ISSA , and other organizations offering an NCCA-accredited personal trainer certification exam. We scored 15 models from 14 organizations on the 13 modifiable variables currently identified as significantly influencing resistance training program outcomes. Organizations that do not publish a model were scored on their most complete public page. Each variable was scored on accuracy: the degree to which the model’s recommendation is “evidence-based,” or aligned with the best available evidence. Each model’s recommendations were compared with reference ranges set by a vote count of the published systematic reviews and meta-analyses that could be located (124 located, 112 counted). Each reference range was then narrowed to an optimal range by a vote count of the available comparative studies. The conclusions of the Brookbush Institute’s reviews were not counted. Each comparative study was counted by its own reported result. Each variable was scored 0, 1, or 2 points, for a maximum of 26 points. The Brookbush Institute’s Evidence-Based Resistance Training Model (EBRTM) scored 26 of 26 (the reasons for this high score are discussed below). The next highest models scored 17 of 26 (the NCSF course handouts and the IPTA textbook). NASM placed 8th with 12 of 26 points.

• Disclosure: The Brookbush Institute authored this review and one of the models it scores. The EBRTM scored 26 of 26, and a high score was expected. The EBRTM is the first model we know of that was built from comprehensive systematic reviews of the comparative research. However, the reference ranges in this article were set by aggregating the results of the published systematic reviews and meta-analyses that could be located at the time of publication, not including the Brookbush Institute reviews. The published reviews likely include most of the peer-reviewed and published research, and the EBRTM was built from all of the comparative original research that could be located, so the two bodies of research likely overlap substantially. Because published reviews often report broad ranges, each reference range was then narrowed to an optimal range using the available comparative studies. Each of these studies is a peer-reviewed study by other authors, and each was counted by its own reported result, not by the conclusions of the Brookbush Institute’s reviews. Because the EBRTM was built from systematic reviews of the same comparative studies, its agreement with the optimal ranges was expected. However, the EBRTM was scored by the same rules as every other model, using the same ranges. The EBRTM was not used as the reference. The EBRTM’s recommendations for novices that differ from some published reviews (sets per muscle group and periodization during the first 6 - 12 weeks of training) are discussed in the section Additional Findings from the Brookbush Institute’s Reviews. We attempted to make the method for rating the accuracy of every model in this article as objective as possible, and we stand by the score of every model. A reader can discount the EBRTM’s score or remove the EBRTM from the comparison entirely. The scores and ranking of the other 14 models still stand, and we hope they help the reader determine the accuracy of each model. The method, reference ranges, and scoring rules in this article can also be used to score any other resistance training model. We welcome feedback, corrections to the values recorded for any model, and additional systematic reviews that may have been missed during our search.

Scoring key:

• Recommendation within the reference range (2 points)
• Recommendation partly overlaps the reference range, or a graded goal has no recommendation (1 point)
• Recommendation outside the reference range (0 points)
• No recommendation published in the model (0 points)
• Table Image (Make sure to list everything in alternate text)

Caption: Scores out of 26 (13 variables, 0 to 2 points each): Brookbush Institute (EBRTM) 26, IPTA 17, NCSF 17, ACSM (2009 position stand) 16, NSCA 16, ACE 15, ACSM (2026 position stand) 15, NASM 12, WITS 11, IFPA 7, ISSA (also the record for NCCPT) 7, NESTA 6, NFPT 6, ACTION 2, NETA 1.

In this article:

• How the Comparison Was Done
• Personal Trainer Certifications Ranked by Model Accuracy
• The Reference Ranges for the 13 Variables
• How Each Model Deviates from the Research
• Additional Findings from the Brookbush Institute’s Reviews
• Position Statement and Recommendations
• Notes on Sources, Availability, and What Was Excluded

Trainers often choose a personal trainer certification by cost , delivery, and reputation. However, trainers and aspiring trainers should probably base their decision on the accuracy of the education, particularly the accuracy of the program design model that the certification teaches. We could not locate a published article that placed the models side by side, determined the best-supported range for each variable based on the available research, and objectively compared one set of program design recommendations with another. This article makes that comparison based on the 13 currently identified modifiable variables of a resistance training program that have a significant effect on outcomes: load, repetition range, repetition tempo, proximity to failure, rest between sets, circuit training and supersets, sets per muscle group, training frequency, set strategies, periodization, range of motion, exercise order, and exercise selection.

For each variable, a reference range was set by a vote count of the published systematic reviews and meta-analyses that could be located (124 located, 112 counted). The published reviews set a range for hypertrophy and strength on all 13 variables, for power on 4 variables, and for endurance on none. Because many of the published reviews reported broad ranges, each reference range was then narrowed to an optimal range by a vote count of the available comparative studies. A value was removed from a range when at least 1 comparative study found that it resulted in smaller improvements than another tested value, and no study found the reverse. The comparative studies also set ranges for power on 4 more variables: load, rest between sets, circuit training and supersets, and exercise order. No resistance training model was scored on a training goal without a reference range. Endurance was not graded because no published review set a range for endurance on any variable. The remaining missing ranges for power (repetition range, sets per muscle group, training frequency, periodization, and range of motion) were not set because no published review or comparative study tested the variable for power, or because the studies did not agree. The endurance recommendations supported by the comparative studies are reported in the section Additional Findings from the Brookbush Institute’s Reviews.

Each model’s stated program design recommendations were then rated as within the reference range, partly within the range, outside the range, or not addressed in the model. The Brookbush Institute’s model was scored by the same rules as every other model, and it is not the reference. The reference is the published systematic reviews and meta-analyses, narrowed by the comparative studies. The conclusions of the Brookbush Institute’s own reviews were not counted in any reference range. Each comparative study is a peer-reviewed study by other authors, and each was counted by its own reported result. The published reviews independently synthesized largely the same literature. None of the 13 variables had a majority of the published reviews disagreeing with its reference range, and for 9 of the 13, no review disagreed.

Only 4 of the 195 ratings fell entirely outside a reference range. Models lost points mostly because variables were not addressed or because stated ranges only partly overlapped the reference range. Of the 195 ratings for the 15 resistance training models, 55 fell within a reference range, 64 partly overlapped a range, 4 fell outside a range, and 72 were not addressed in the model. These findings align with a casual observation we made while developing the systematic reviews for the Brookbush Institute’s Evidence-Based Resistance Training Model (EBRTM): fitness, performance, and physical medicine seem to suffer from a crisis of “accurate adjacent information.” Most models appear to be built on expert opinion and a fraction of the research. The models are often not “completely wrong,” but their recommendations often fall just outside the range supported by the available research. This is referred to as a “crisis” because these small deviations may add up. What happens to outcomes when only 5 recommendations are within the reference range, 6 are only partly within the range, and 2 are not addressed at all (as is the case with the NSCA)? A variable that was not addressed received 0 points because every variable is set by the exerciser, either purposefully or inadvertently. For example, an exerciser will either train to failure or leave reps in reserve, whether or not a model recommends training to failure. The lack of a recommendation does not imply that a decision is not made. Finally, the inaccurate parts of these recommendations leave room for contrarians and critics who intend to cast doubt on educational institutions, experts, and even the research in our fields. This doubt may contribute to the distrust and proliferation of misinformation we are all contending with.

How the Comparison Was Done

Which organizations: The comparison included every organization with an NCCA-accredited personal trainer certification listed in the NCCA directory in October 2026: the Brookbush Institute, ACE, ACSM, ACTION, IFPA, IPTA, NASM, NCCPT, NCSF, NESTA, NETA, NFPT, NSCA, and WITS. NCCPT is a subsidiary of ISSA, and its NCCA-accredited exam is included with ISSA’s personal trainer course. NCCPT’s own pages publish no program design content, so ISSA’s model was scored as the record for both. ACSM’s 2009 position stand was added as a separate record, because many textbooks still reproduce the 2009 recommendations that the 2026 position stand replaced. AFAA, a division of NASM, was not scored because its NCCA-accredited certification is for group fitness instructors, not personal trainers. Two former certifiers were not ranked: the Cooper Institute, whose certification merged into ACE in 2019, and PTA Global, whose content went offline in 2021.

What was scored: Each organization’s published resistance training model was scored, using only the recommendations that anyone can read without a login or a purchase: published model pages, position stands, free program design documents, candidate handbooks, study guides, and public textbook chapters. Where an organization did not publish a model, its most complete public page on program design was scored. No other page added or removed a point, so each score reflects 1 model, not the most favorable or least favorable value found on any page of an organization’s website. Textbooks behind a purchase were not scored, because a reader cannot verify them, and because a model that an organization presents to the public on its own pages is the model it stands behind. Reproducing textbook content could also raise copyright issues. Every value used is linked to the page it came from. Where a model contradicted itself, both values were recorded, and the rating reflected the contradiction.

Which variables: The comparison included every modifiable variable of a resistance training program currently identified as having a significant influence on outcomes, 13 in all: load, repetition range, repetition tempo, proximity to failure, rest between sets, circuit training and supersets, sets per muscle group, training frequency, set strategies (drop sets, rest-pause sets, cluster sets, pyramid sets, and accommodating resistance such as bands and chains), periodization, range of motion, exercise order, and exercise selection. This is the most complete list of modifiable resistance training variables we could locate, and it covers every variable named by the other models. Training volume is the product of sets, repetitions, and frequency. Intensity is load, or proximity to failure when it refers to effort. Repetition velocity and muscle action (concentric, eccentric, and isometric) are repetition tempo. Complex training is a form of circuit training and supersets, and methods such as eccentric overload are set strategies. Exercise type (free weights or machines, multi-joint or single-joint) is exercise selection. Progression is periodization, and session duration follows from sets, rest, and the number of exercises. Forced repetitions and heavy negatives were not scored because the comparative research on them is limited. Training on unstable surfaces was not scored because it is balance training, and the published reviews did not agree on its effects. Nutrition, sleep, and recovery practices were not scored because they are not training variables and each requires its own model. Warm-up, flexibility, and cardiorespiratory training were not scored because they are separate components of a session. Proximity to failure is the clearest example of a variable that published models omit or address unevenly: 8 of the 14 competitor records gave no recommendation for it, and none placed it within the reference range for every graded goal.

The reference ranges: For each variable and training goal, the published reference range was the range supported by the majority of the published systematic reviews and meta-analyses that could be located (124 located, 112 counted). Where no majority of the reviews fully agreed, the range was set where full and partial agreement together were greatest. Where the reviews split between a narrower range and a broader range, the broader range was used. Each published reference range was then narrowed to an optimal range by a vote count of the available comparative studies. A value was removed from a range when at least 1 comparative study found that it resulted in smaller improvements than another tested value, and no study found the reverse. Where the comparative studies split, or favored a value the published reviews did not favor, the broader range was used. Where no published review set a range, the comparative studies set the range by the same rule. The conclusions of the Brookbush Institute’s reviews were not counted in any range. A quick reference of the 13 optimal ranges, and the full description of how each range was set, with every published review and comparative study cited, are in the section The Reference Ranges for the 13 Variables.

The ratings: Each model received 0, 1, or 2 points for each of the 13 modifiable variables, for a total score of 0 to 26. Two points were awarded if every value the model stated for a variable was within the reference range for each graded training goal. One point was awarded if the model’s recommendation partly overlapped the reference range. A recommendation partly overlapped the reference range if the recommended range extended outside the reference range, if the model contradicted itself, or if the model made a recommendation for only some of the graded training goals. One point was also awarded if a model stated that a variable had no effect on outcomes when the majority of the published reviews found an effect, because that statement permits values within and outside the reference range. Zero points were awarded if every value the model stated for a variable was outside the reference range. Zero points were also awarded if the model did not state a recommendation for the variable, or if the variable was named without a value. The recommendation scored for each training goal was the model’s main recommendation, which for most models was the recommendation for experienced exercisers. A value outside the reference range did not cost a point when the model assigned it to a different day or phase of a periodized program, and the model’s main recommendation for that goal was within the range. Where the reference ranges separated novices from experienced exercisers (rest between sets for strength, sets per muscle group, and periodization for strength), the model’s recommendation for novices was scored using the novice range. Where a model is organized by phase rather than by training goal (NASM), each phase was scored on the training goal it most closely matches. A variable was not scored for a training goal if no range was set for that goal. Endurance was not graded on any variable. For power, 5 variables were not graded: repetition range, sets per muscle group, training frequency, periodization, and range of motion. Any tested exercise order and any tested exercise selection were within the power range, so a model was not scored separately on power for those 2 variables.

The Brookbush Institute’s model: Significant effort was made to reduce bias. Although we authored this review, the Brookbush Institute’s Evidence-Based Resistance Training Model (EBRTM) was scored using the same rules as every other model. The EBRTM was compared with the reference ranges, and it was not used as the reference. The conclusions of the Brookbush Institute’s reviews were not counted in any reference range. Each reference range was set by the published systematic reviews and meta-analyses and narrowed by the available comparative studies, and each comparative study was counted by its own reported result. The EBRTM was built from systematic reviews of the same comparative studies, so the Brookbush Institute anticipated that the EBRTM would align with the reference ranges. The published reviews were also expected to include largely the same studies, but the overlap of the included studies was not measured. The EBRTM’s recommendations were within the reference range for all 13 variables, which is consistent with this expectation. During this review, the Brookbush Institute revised 2 recommendations in its strength and power models. Strength and power sets are now stopped short of failure, and a strength exercise and a power exercise for the same muscle group are now separated by 4 to 8 minutes. The EBRTM was scored on the revised recommendations. The recommendations made in training models from other institutions appear to be assembled from expert opinion, mechanistic hypotheses, older textbooks, and a fraction of the available research. The Brookbush Institute anticipated that these models would align less with the reference ranges than the EBRTM. This expectation followed from the casual observation described in the introduction: fitness, performance, and physical medicine seem to suffer from a crisis of “accurate adjacent information.” Admittedly, this review was inspired by that casual observation. The review was an attempt to determine the accuracy of the models in the industry, and the Brookbush Institute expected this result before the comparison was made. However, we were not certain that this expectation was true, how accurate the other models were, or how the models would rank when compared to one another. For this reason, every scoring rule is stated, every value is linked to the page it came from, and every review and comparative study is cited, so that any reader can check each rating and each reference range.

How the EBRTM was built: The EBRTM was intended to be the first outcome-driven, comprehensively evidence-based resistance training model, with greater accuracy and effectiveness than previous models. The Brookbush Institute built the EBRTM in three steps: a comprehensive systematic review of all comparative research that could be located for each modifiable variable (the Acute Variables courses ), a model for each training goal assembled from those reviews (the Training Goal courses ), and a comparison of the goal models to determine which recommendations held for every goal and which changed (the Evidence-Based Resistance Training Model course ). The model was built from approximately 1,500 peer-reviewed and published original research studies, with a focus on comparative research. No meta-analyses, secondary sources, or case studies were used. The EBRTM is the only model in this comparison that reports a systematic review of the comparative research for every modifiable variable. The decision-theoretic framework behind the model is described in the article Best Resistance Training Approach: Evidence-Based Model for Program Design . Five principles of this method explain the result of this comparison:

• Outcomes outrank hypotheses. Where comparative research tested a variable, the recommendation followed the measured outcome rather than the proposed mechanism. For example, super-slow repetitions and pre-exhaustion each rested on a plausible mechanistic rationale, and neither produced better outcomes than conventional training when tested. Repetitions longer than 10 seconds resulted in less hypertrophy.
• Comparative research is best. A study that compares two or more options for one variable answers which option is better. A study of a single program can demonstrate that the program is effective, but not whether a better option exists.
• Accuracy scales with data. The likelihood that a recommendation is accurate increases with the amount of research reviewed. A model built from all of the available comparative research is more likely to identify the optimal range for a variable than a model built from a fraction of that research. Conclusions also become more stable as evidence accumulates. The more research a recommendation is built on, the less likely new studies are to reverse it, and the more likely new studies are to add nuance.
• Completeness reveals what a partial review misses. A review of all available research revealed sub-questions (novice compared with experienced lifters, younger compared with older adults) and relationships between variables. Proximity to failure was not originally identified by a targeted search. It emerged from the reviews of repetition range, load, and set strategies, which repeatedly found that proximity to failure had a larger influence on hypertrophy and endurance outcomes than the load lifted.
• Sorting before counting reveals trends that averaging can hide. For example, periodization research appeared mixed when all studies were pooled. Sorting by training status revealed that only 1 of 13 comparative studies of novices favored periodized programs, whereas 9 of 17 studies of experienced participants did.

Personal Trainer Certifications Ranked by Model Accuracy

Each model received 0, 1, or 2 points for each of the 13 modifiable variables, for a maximum score of 26. Each organization’s published model was scored. Organizations that did not publish a model were scored on their most complete public page. Only 4 recommendations were rated as outside the reference range (1 each for IFPA, IPTA, NASM, and NESTA), so every other 0 in the table is a variable that was not addressed in the model.

Scoring key:

• Recommendation within the reference range (2 points)
• Recommendation partly overlaps the reference range, or a graded goal has no recommendation (1 point)
• Recommendation outside the reference range (0 points)
• No recommendation published in the model (0 points)
• Table Image (Make sure to list everything in alternate text)

Caption: Resistance Training Models Ranked by Accuracy

The Reference Ranges for the 13 Variables

The Brookbush Institute intended to develop the most accurate model currently possible, using an outcome-driven, decision-theoretic approach and all available data. The Evidence-Based Resistance Training Model (EBRTM) was developed from a systematic review of every comparative study that could be located at the time of publication (a comprehensive review) on each of the 13 modifiable variables (acute variables). Those systematic reviews led to a finding the Brookbush Institute did not expect. The acute variable ranges implied by all available, relevant research did not align with the resistance training models previously published by other educational institutions. There appeared to be a crisis of “accurate adjacent information,” and that observation inspired this article. A comparison scored by the Brookbush Institute’s own reviews could be discounted as biased, despite the work that went into those reviews. To reduce that risk, each reference range in this article was set by the published systematic reviews and meta-analyses of other authors, and then narrowed by the available comparative studies. The conclusions of the Brookbush Institute’s reviews were not counted in any reference range.

Every published systematic review and meta-analysis that could be located on each acute variable was included and cited, 124 published reviews in all. Of the 124 reviews, 112 were counted. The other 12 were named but not counted, because they tested a different comparison (for example, the 6 circuit training meta-analyses that compared circuits with no exercise) or because no reference range could be set for the variable they tested. The consensus of most reviews was used as the published reference range (essentially, a vote count of the systematic reviews and meta-analyses). Many of the 112 reviews reported findings for several acute variables or training goals, so a review can be counted more than once. Of the 202 counts of a range from a published review, 147 agreed with the range, 48 partly agreed, and 7 disagreed. No range for any acute variable had most reviews disagreeing.

Many of the published reviews reported broad ranges, so each published reference range was then narrowed to an optimal range by a vote count of the available comparative studies. A comparative study is a study that compared 2 or more values of the same variable, such as 2 minutes of rest compared to 60 seconds of rest. Each comparative study is a peer-reviewed study by other authors, and each was counted by its own reported result. A study was counted only when it reported a difference between groups in the main outcome of the training goal: muscle size for hypertrophy, 1RM or RM strength for strength, and jump, sprint, throw, or peak power for power. For power, the power output of a single session was also counted. Each optimal range started from the optimum reported by the published reviews, where the reviews reported one, and from the published reference range elsewhere. A value was removed from a range when at least 1 comparative study found that it resulted in smaller improvements than another tested value, and no study found the reverse. Studies that found similar outcomes did not count toward either value. Where the comparative studies split, or favored a value the published reviews did not favor, the broader range was used. A value outside the published range was added to the range when a comparative study found that it resulted in larger improvements, and no study found that it resulted in smaller improvements. The optimal range is the reference range used to score each model.

Each bullet below first states the optimal range for a training goal. The findings of the published reviews follow, and then the findings of the comparative studies. The paragraph under the bullets names each published review that partly agreed or disagreed. Three rules were applied where the published reviews did not reach a majority. Where no majority of the reviews fully agreed on a range, the range was set where full and partial agreement together were greatest. Where the reviews split between a narrower range and a broader range, the broader range was used as the published reference range. Where no published review or comparative study tested a variable for a training goal, or the studies did not agree on any range, no range was set, and that goal was not graded for any model. The paragraph for each variable states which rule was applied. The published reviews set a range for hypertrophy and strength on all 13 variables, for power on 4 variables (repetition tempo, proximity to failure, set strategies, and exercise selection), and for local muscular endurance on none. The comparative studies set a range for power on 4 more variables (load, rest between sets, circuit training and supersets, and exercise order). Endurance was not graded, because no published review set a range for endurance on any variable. The endurance ranges supported by the comparative studies, the Brookbush Institute’s narrower recommendations within the graded ranges, and its recommendations for novices are reported in the section Additional Findings from the Brookbush Institute’s Reviews. No model was scored on a goal that was not graded, and no model lost points for omitting a detail that neither the published reviews nor the comparative studies tested.

To clarify further, each of the 4 training goals was defined as follows:

• Endurance: Endurance was measured as how long, or for how many repetitions, a load could be lifted in 1 continuous effort without rest.
• Hypertrophy (general strength): Hypertrophy was measured as muscle growth: an increase in lean mass, or a long-term increase in resting muscle cross-sectional area.
• Strength (max strength): Strength was measured as an increase in 1RM strength, or in low-repetition strength (6RM or heavier).
• Power: Power was measured as an increase in movement velocity, jump height, throwing distance, sprint speed, or peak power output. In human movement, power is not the ability to produce force alone. Power measures speed or explosiveness, and research suggests that the body does not necessarily adapt to speed and strength in the same way. For example, power refers to a vertical jump, not to powerlifting.

The citations under each variable list every published systematic review and meta-analysis counted for that variable, any review that the text names but did not count, and each comparative study named in the text. Each published review that partly agreed or disagreed is named. A review that reported more than 1 outcome was counted once for each outcome, so a variable’s counts can add up to more than the reviews cited.

Quick reference. The optimal range for each variable is listed below without the supporting findings. Endurance was not graded on any variable, so endurance is not listed.

• Load: The optimal range was 6 to 12 RM (about 65 to 85% of 1RM) for hypertrophy, and 3 to 8 RM (about 80 to 90% of 1RM) for strength at every training level. For power, the optimal range was body weight up to about 60% of 1RM in power exercises.
• Repetition range: The optimal range was 6 to 12 reps, with sets performed to failure, for hypertrophy, and 3 to 8 reps for strength at every training level. Power was not graded.
• Repetition tempo: Any repetition duration of 0.5 to 8 seconds was within the range for hypertrophy. For strength, the range was a concentric at maximal intended velocity or a conventional 1 to 2 second concentric. For power, the range was a concentric at maximal intended velocity, with a short eccentric.
• Proximity to failure: Sets performed to failure were optimal for hypertrophy. For strength, the range was sets performed to failure or stopped 1 to 5 reps short of failure. For power, the range was sets stopped well short of failure (a velocity loss of 20% or less, or about 2 or more reps in reserve).
• Rest between sets: The range was more than 60 seconds for hypertrophy, and 2 minutes or more for strength (60 seconds or more for untrained participants). For power, the range was 2 minutes or more between sets of a power exercise.
• Circuit training and supersets: For hypertrophy, the range was supersets or circuits that pair exercises for different muscle groups. For strength, the range was agonist and antagonist supersets or circuits, and upper body and lower body supersets were outside the range. For power, a strength exercise and a power exercise for the same muscle group were separated by about 4 to 8 minutes, and supersets with 30 seconds or less between the 2 exercises were outside the range.
• Sets per muscle group: The range was 2 to 6 sets per exercise or muscle group per session for hypertrophy and strength, and 10 or more sets per muscle group per week for hypertrophy. For novices, 1 to 3 sets in the first 6 to 12 weeks of training were within the range. Power was not graded.
• Training frequency: The optimal range was 2 or more sessions per muscle group per week for hypertrophy and strength. Power was not graded.
• Set strategies: For hypertrophy, any set strategy was within the range, including conventional sets, drop sets, rest-pause sets, cluster sets, and pyramid sets. For strength, the optimal range was conventional sets combined with drop sets, rest-pause sets, or accommodating resistance, and pyramid sets were outside the range. For power, the range was cluster sets (rest between repetitions) or drop sets.
• Periodization: For hypertrophy, a periodized or a non-periodized program was within the range. For experienced exercisers training for strength, the optimal range was undulating periodization. For novices training for strength, a periodized or a non-periodized program was within the range. Power was not graded.
• Range of motion: For hypertrophy, the range was full range of motion, or partial repetitions performed at long muscle lengths. For strength, the range was full range of motion. Power was not graded.
• Exercise order: For hypertrophy and power, any exercise order was within the range. For strength, the range was the exercises most important to the goal first, with resistance training and aerobic exercise in either order.
• Exercise selection: For hypertrophy, the range was free weights or machines, and single-joint or multi-joint exercises. For strength, the range was free weights or machines, with the exercise mode matched to the strength goal. For power, the range was free weights or machines, including Olympic lifts. Stability was not graded.

1. Load

Reference range.

• Endurance: Endurance was not graded, because no published review compared loads on local muscular endurance.
• Hypertrophy (General Strength): The optimal range was 6 to 12 RM (about 65 to 85% of 1RM). In none of the 11 published reviews did the loads compared result in a significant difference in hypertrophy, so the published reviews supported loads of 30 to 85% or more of 1RM. One review found a trend favoring heavier loads that was not statistically significant (Schoenfeld et al., 2016). In the comparative studies, moderate loads resulted in greater hypertrophy than lighter loads of 14 or more reps, or 50% of 1RM, in 3 studies (Taaffe et al., 1996; Kalapotharakos et al., 2004; Vinogradova et al., 2013). Moderate and light loads (13 to 25 RM) resulted in greater thigh hypertrophy than heavy loads (3 to 5 RM) in 1 study (Weiss et al., 2000). No comparative study found greater hypertrophy with a load outside 6 to 12 RM than with a load inside the range.
• Strength (Max Strength): The optimal range was 3 to 8 RM (about 80 to 90% of 1RM) for every training level. In the published reviews, loads of 80% of 1RM or more resulted in greater strength increases than lighter loads in experienced exercisers. The pooled optimum was 80% of 1RM for trained and 60% for untrained participants in Rhea et al. (2003), 85% for athletes in Peterson et al. (2004), 70 - 79% for older adults in Borde et al. (2015), and 80 - 89% for youth athletes in Lesinski et al. (2016). Swinton et al. (2024) modeled the largest strength increases at the heaviest loads, with smaller additional increases beyond about 70% of 1RM. In the comparative studies, loads of 2 RM resulted in smaller bench press 1RM increases than loads of 4 to 8 RM in 2 studies of college students (Berger, 1962a; Berger, 1962b). Loads of 10 to 12 RM resulted in smaller increases than loads of 4 to 8 RM in 1 study (Berger, 1962b). Loads of 3 RM resulted in greater bench press 1RM increases than loads of 10 RM in 1 study of experienced exercisers (Schoenfeld et al., 2014). In 2 studies of novices, loads of 3 to 5 RM resulted in greater squat 1RM increases than loads of 9 RM or more (Weiss et al., 1999; Campos et al., 2002). No comparative study found greater strength increases with loads of 1 to 2 RM, or with loads of 9 RM or more, than with loads of 3 to 8 RM. Because the comparative studies of novices found the same result, the separate range of 60 to 80% of 1RM for novices was not kept.
• Power: The optimal range was body weight up to about 60% of 1RM in power exercises, the loads that allow maximal velocity. The published reviews did not agree on a load for power. The largest increases were modeled at 40 - 70% of 1RM for power and at about 30% of 1RM for jump height in Swinton et al. (2024). Power was similar at each intensity in older adults in Bandeira-Guimarães et al. (2023), and training intensity did not predict jump performance in youth athletes in Lesinski et al. (2016). Because no published review set a range, the comparative studies set the range. Loads of 40 to 60% of 1RM resulted in greater peak velocity and power increases than loads of 70 to 90% of 1RM in 1 study (Jones et al., 2001). Training with the load that produced maximal power output resulted in greater improvements on most performance tests than heavy squats or depth jumps in 1 study (Wilson et al., 1993). No comparative study found greater power increases with loads of 70% of 1RM or more.

Of the 21 published systematic reviews and meta-analyses on strength, 14 agreed with the published reference range (80% of 1RM or more, and 60 to 80% of 1RM for novices), 7 partly agreed (Silva et al., 2014; Csapo and Alegre, 2016; Schoenfeld et al., 2016; Hagstrom et al., 2020; Lopez et al., 2021; Bandeira-Guimarães et al., 2023; Hammert et al., 2026), and none disagreed. All 11 published reviews on hypertrophy agreed with the published reference range (30 to 85% or more of 1RM). No published review tested loads of 95 to 100% of 1RM separately. The comparative studies set the upper limit for strength at 3 RM, because loads of 2 RM resulted in smaller strength increases than loads of 4 to 8 RM. No published review compared loads on local muscular endurance, so endurance was not graded. The published reviews did not agree on a load for power, so the comparative studies set the power range.

• Bandeira-Guimarães, M., Blanco-Rambo, E., Vieira, A. F., Sáez de Asteasu, M. L., Pinto, R. S., Izquierdo, M., & Cadore, E. L. (2023). Chronic effects of different intensities of power training on neuromuscular parameters in older people: A systematic review with meta-analysis. Sports Medicine - Open, 9, 98.
• Berger, R. A. (1962a). Effect of varied weight training programs on strength. Research Quarterly. American Association for Health, Physical Education and Recreation, 33(2), 169-181.
• Berger, R. A. (1962b). Optimum repetitions for the development of strength. Research Quarterly. American Association for Health, Physical Education and Recreation, 33(3), 334-338.
• Bernárdez-Vázquez, R., Raya-González, J., Castillo, D., & Beato, M. (2022). Resistance training variables for optimization of muscle hypertrophy: An umbrella review. Frontiers in Sports and Active Living, 4, 949021.
• Borde, R., Hortobágyi, T., & Granacher, U. (2015). Dose-response relationships of resistance training in healthy old adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports Medicine, 45(12), 1693-1720.
• Campos, G. E. R., Luecke, T. J., Wendeln, H. K., Toma, K., Hagerman, F. C., Murray, T. F., Ragg, K. E., Ratamess, N. A., Kraemer, W. J., & Staron, R. S. (2002). Muscular adaptations in response to three different resistance-training regimens: Specificity of repetition maximum training zones. European Journal of Applied Physiology, 88(1), 50-60.
• Carvalho, L., Moriggi Junior, R., Barreira, J., Schoenfeld, B. J., Orazem, J., & Barroso, R. (2022). Muscle hypertrophy and strength gains after resistance training with different volume-matched loads: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Applied Physiology, Nutrition, and Metabolism, 47(4), 357-368.
• Csapo, R., & Alegre, L. M. (2016). Effects of resistance training with moderate vs heavy loads on muscle mass and strength in the elderly: A meta-analysis. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine and Science in Sports, 26(9), 995-1006.
• Currier, B. S., Mcleod, J. C., Banfield, L., Beyene, J., Welton, N. J., D’Souza, A. C., Keogh, J. A. J., Lin, L., Coletta, G., Yang, A., Colenso-Semple, L., Lau, K. J., Verboom, A., & Phillips, S. M. (2023). Resistance training prescription for muscle strength and hypertrophy in healthy adults: A systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 57(18), 1211-1220.
• Grgic, J. (2020). The effects of low-load vs. high-load resistance training on muscle fiber hypertrophy: A meta-analysis. Journal of Human Kinetics, 74, 51-58.
• Hagstrom, A. D., Marshall, P. W., Halaki, M., & Hackett, D. A. (2020). The effect of resistance training in women on dynamic strength and muscular hypertrophy: A systematic review with meta-analysis. Sports Medicine, 50(6), 1075-1093.
• Hammert, W. B., Kataoka, R., Yamada, Y., Sallberg, R. W., Kang, A., Buckner, S. L., & Loenneke, J. P. (2026). Non-specific strength changes between high- and low-load isotonic resistance training: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports Medicine, 56, 763-773.
• Jones, K., Bishop, P., Hunter, G., & Fleisig, G. (2001). The effects of varying resistance-training loads on intermediate- and high-velocity-specific adaptations. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 15(3), 349-356.
• Kalapotharakos, V. I., Michalopoulou, M., Godolias, G., Tokmakidis, S. P., Malliou, P. V., & Gourgoulis, V. (2004). The effects of high- and moderate-resistance training on muscle function in the elderly. Journal of Aging and Physical Activity, 12(2), 131-143.
• Lacio, M., Vieira, J. G., Trybulski, R., Campos, Y., Santana, D., Elias Filho, J., Novaes, J., Vianna, J., & Wilk, M. (2021). Effects of resistance training performed with different loads in untrained and trained male adult individuals on maximal strength and muscle hypertrophy: A systematic review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(21), 11237.
• Lesinski, M., Prieske, O., & Granacher, U. (2016). Effects and dose-response relationships of resistance training on physical performance in youth athletes: A systematic review and meta-analysis. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 50(13), 781-795.
• Lopez, P., Radaelli, R., Taaffe, D. R., Newton, R. U., Galvão, D. A., Trajano, G. S., Teodoro, J. L., Kraemer, W. J., Häkkinen, K., & Pinto, R. S. (2021). Resistance training load effects on muscle hypertrophy and strength gain: Systematic review and network meta-analysis. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 53(6), 1206-1216.
• Peterson, M. D., Rhea, M. R., & Alvar, B. A. (2004). Maximizing strength development in athletes: A meta-analysis to determine the dose-response relationship. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 18(2), 377-382.
• Peterson, M. D., Rhea, M. R., Sen, A., & Gordon, P. M. (2010). Resistance exercise for muscular strength in older adults: A meta-analysis. Ageing Research Reviews, 9(3), 226-237.
• Raymond, M. J., Bramley-Tzerefos, R. E., Jeffs, K. J., Winter, A., & Holland, A. E. (2013). Systematic review of high-intensity progressive resistance strength training of the lower limb compared with other intensities of strength training in older adults. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 94(8), 1458-1472.
• Refalo, M. C., Hamilton, D. L., Paval, D. R., Gallagher, I. J., Feros, S. A., & Fyfe, J. J. (2021). Influence of resistance training load on measures of skeletal muscle hypertrophy and improvements in maximal strength and neuromuscular task performance: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Sports Sciences, 39(15), 1723-1745.
• Rhea, M. R., Alvar, B. A., Burkett, L. N., & Ball, S. D. (2003). A meta-analysis to determine the dose response for strength development. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 35(3), 456-464.
• Schoenfeld, B. J., Grgic, J., Ogborn, D., & Krieger, J. W. (2017). Strength and hypertrophy adaptations between low- vs. high-load resistance training: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 31(12), 3508-3523.
• Schoenfeld, B. J., Ratamess, N. A., Peterson, M. D., Contreras, B., Sonmez, G. T., & Alvar, B. A. (2014). Effects of different volume-equated resistance training loading strategies on muscular adaptations in well-trained men. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 28(10), 2909-2918.
• Schoenfeld, B. J., Wilson, J. M., Lowery, R. P., & Krieger, J. W. (2016). Muscular adaptations in low- versus high-load resistance training: A meta-analysis. European Journal of Sport Science, 16(1), 1-10.
• Shen, Y.-C., Chen, K.-H., Hou, W.-H., Kang, Y.-N., Shen, W.-T., Hoang, K. D., Huang, Y.-L., & Chen, C. (2026). Effectiveness of high-intensity versus low-to-moderate-intensity resistance training in improving muscle strength and bone mineral density in older adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Geriatrics and Gerontology International, 26(7), e70607.
• Silva, N. L., Oliveira, R. B., Fleck, S. J., Leon, A. C. M. P., & Farinatti, P. (2014). Influence of strength training variables on strength gains in adults over 55 years-old: A meta-analysis of dose-response relationships. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 17(3), 337-344.
• Steib, S., Schoene, D., & Pfeifer, K. (2010). Dose-response relationship of resistance training in older adults: A meta-analysis. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 42(5), 902-914.
• Swinton, P. A., Schoenfeld, B. J., & Murphy, A. (2024). Dose-response modelling of resistance exercise across outcome domains in strength and conditioning: A meta-analysis. Sports Medicine, 54, 1579-1594.
• Taaffe, D. R., Pruitt, L., Pyka, G., Guido, D., & Marcus, R. (1996). Comparative effects of high- and low-intensity resistance training on thigh muscle strength, fiber area, and tissue composition in elderly women. Clinical Physiology, 16(4), 381-392.
• Vinogradova, O. L., Popov, D. V., Netreba, A. I., Tsvirkun, D. V., Kurochkina, N. S., Bachinin, A. V., Bravyi, Ya. R., Lyubaeva, E. V., Lysenko, E. A., Miller, T. F., Borovik, A. S., Tarasova, O. S., & Orlov, O. I. (2013). Optimization of training: new developments in safe strength training. Human Physiology, 39(5), 511-523.
• Weiss, L. W., Coney, H. D., & Clark, F. C. (1999). Differential functional adaptations to short-term low-, moderate-, and high-repetition weight training. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 13(3), 236-241.
• Weiss, L. W., Coney, H. D., & Clark, F. C. (2000). Gross measures of exercise-induced muscular hypertrophy. Journal of Orthopaedic and Sports Physical Therapy, 30(3), 143-148.
• Wilson, G. J., Newton, R. U., Murphy, A. J., & Humphries, B. J. (1993). The optimal training load for the development of dynamic athletic performance. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 25(11), 1279-1286.

2. Repetition Range

Reference range. Repetition range was coupled to load, so most of the comparative studies of repetition range are the studies reported under load.

• Endurance: Endurance was not graded. In the 1 published review, 15 or more reps per set resulted in greater local muscular endurance than fewer reps per set only when endurance was tested at a post-training relative load (Hackett et al., 2022).
• Hypertrophy (General Strength): The optimal range was 6 to 12 reps, with sets performed to failure. The repetition ranges compared resulted in similar hypertrophy in all 4 published reviews, and 8 or fewer reps, 9 - 15 reps, and more than 15 reps per set resulted in similar hypertrophy in Lopez et al. (2021). Of the 18 comparative studies of muscle size, 13 found similar hypertrophy with the repetition ranges compared. Moderate reps (6 to 12) resulted in greater hypertrophy than 14 or more reps in 3 studies (Taaffe et al., 1996; Kalapotharakos et al., 2004; Vinogradova et al., 2013), and moderate and high reps resulted in greater thigh hypertrophy than 3 to 5 reps in 1 study (Weiss et al., 2000). One study reported changes within each group only (Schuenke et al., 2012). No comparative study found greater hypertrophy with a repetition range outside 6 to 12 reps than with a range of 6 to 12 reps.
• Strength (Max Strength): The optimal range was 3 to 8 reps for every training level, the reps allowed by the optimal loads. The pooled optima in the dose-response meta-analyses were about 8RM for trained and about 15RM for untrained participants in Rhea et al. (2003), about 6RM for athletes in Peterson et al. (2004), 7 - 9 reps for older adults in Borde et al. (2015), and 6 - 8 reps for youth athletes in Lesinski et al. (2016). In the comparative studies, 2 to 5 reps resulted in greater 1RM increases than 8 to 12 reps in 2 studies (Campos et al., 2002; Schoenfeld et al., 2014). Fewer reps resulted in greater 1RM increases than 13 or more reps in all 5 studies that compared them (Anderson and Kearney, 1982; Stone and Coulter, 1994; Weiss et al., 1999; Rana et al., 2008; Schoenfeld et al., 2015). In 2 studies of college students, 4 to 8 reps resulted in greater 1RM increases than 2 reps (Berger, 1962a; Berger, 1962b). Because 9 to 12 reps resulted in smaller increases than 2 to 5 reps, and 2 reps resulted in smaller increases than 4 to 8 reps, the optimal range was set at 3 to 8 reps.
• Power: Power was not graded. No published review tested reps per set for power in adults, and in 1 meta-analysis of youth athletes, reps per set did not predict jump improvement (Slimani et al., 2018). No comparative study compared repetition ranges for power exercises.

Of the 9 published systematic reviews and meta-analyses on strength, 7 agreed with the published reference range (8 reps or fewer, and about 8 to 15 reps for novices), 2 partly agreed, and none disagreed. In Androulakis-Korakakis et al. (2020), 1 set of 6 - 12 reps increased 1RM in trained men. In Lopez et al. (2021), 8 or fewer reps and 9 - 15 reps per set resulted in similar strength. All 4 published reviews on hypertrophy agreed with the published reference range (6 to 20 or more reps, near failure). Only 1 published review tested reps per set for local muscular endurance, and it found a benefit under 1 testing condition, so no endurance range was set. No published review or comparative study tested reps per set for power in adults, so power was not graded.

• Anderson, T., & Kearney, J. T. (1982). Effects of three resistance training programs on muscular strength and absolute and relative endurance. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 53(1), 1-7.
• Androulakis-Korakakis, P., Fisher, J. P., & Steele, J. (2020). The minimum effective training dose required to increase 1RM strength in resistance-trained men: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports Medicine, 50(4), 751-765.
• Berger, R. A. (1962a). Effect of varied weight training programs on strength. Research Quarterly. American Association for Health, Physical Education and Recreation, 33(2), 169-181.
• Berger, R. A. (1962b). Optimum repetitions for the development of strength. Research Quarterly. American Association for Health, Physical Education and Recreation, 33(3), 334-338.
• Borde, R., Hortobágyi, T., & Granacher, U. (2015). Dose-response relationships of resistance training in healthy old adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports Medicine, 45(12), 1693-1720.
• Campos, G. E. R., Luecke, T. J., Wendeln, H. K., Toma, K., Hagerman, F. C., Murray, T. F., Ragg, K. E., Ratamess, N. A., Kraemer, W. J., & Staron, R. S. (2002). Muscular adaptations in response to three different resistance-training regimens: Specificity of repetition maximum training zones. European Journal of Applied Physiology, 88(1), 50-60.
• Currier, B. S., Mcleod, J. C., Banfield, L., Beyene, J., Welton, N. J., D’Souza, A. C., Keogh, J. A. J., Lin, L., Coletta, G., Yang, A., Colenso-Semple, L., Lau, K. J., Verboom, A., & Phillips, S. M. (2023). Resistance training prescription for muscle strength and hypertrophy in healthy adults: A systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 57(18), 1211-1220.
• Hackett, D. A., Ghayomzadeh, M., Farrell, S. N., Davies, T. B., & Sabag, A. (2022). Influence of total repetitions per set on local muscular endurance: A systematic review with meta-analysis and meta-regression. Science and Sports, 37(5-6), 405-420.
• Kalapotharakos, V. I., Michalopoulou, M., Godolias, G., Tokmakidis, S. P., Malliou, P. V., & Gourgoulis, V. (2004). The effects of high- and moderate-resistance training on muscle function in the elderly. Journal of Aging and Physical Activity, 12(2), 131-143.
• Lesinski, M., Prieske, O., & Granacher, U. (2016). Effects and dose-response relationships of resistance training on physical performance in youth athletes: A systematic review and meta-analysis. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 50(13), 781-795.
• Lopez, P., Radaelli, R., Taaffe, D. R., Newton, R. U., Galvão, D. A., Trajano, G. S., Teodoro, J. L., Kraemer, W. J., Häkkinen, K., & Pinto, R. S. (2021). Resistance training load effects on muscle hypertrophy and strength gain: Systematic review and network meta-analysis. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 53(6), 1206-1216.
• Peterson, M. D., Rhea, M. R., & Alvar, B. A. (2004). Maximizing strength development in athletes: A meta-analysis to determine the dose-response relationship. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 18(2), 377-382.
• Rana, S. R., Chleboun, G. S., Gilders, R. M., Hagerman, F. C., Herman, J. R., Hikida, R. S., ... & Toma, K. (2008). Comparison of early phase adaptations for traditional strength and endurance, and low-velocity resistance training programs in college-aged women. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 22(1), 119-127.
• Refalo, M. C., Hamilton, D. L., Paval, D. R., Gallagher, I. J., Feros, S. A., & Fyfe, J. J. (2021). Influence of resistance training load on measures of skeletal muscle hypertrophy and improvements in maximal strength and neuromuscular task performance: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Sports Sciences, 39(15), 1723-1745.
• Rhea, M. R., Alvar, B. A., Burkett, L. N., & Ball, S. D. (2003). A meta-analysis to determine the dose response for strength development. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 35(3), 456-464.
• Schoenfeld, B. J., Grgic, J., Ogborn, D., & Krieger, J. W. (2017). Strength and hypertrophy adaptations between low- vs. high-load resistance training: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 31(12), 3508-3523.
• Schoenfeld, B. J., Peterson, M. D., Ogborn, D., Contreras, B., & Sonmez, G. T. (2015). Effects of low- vs. high-load resistance training on muscle strength and hypertrophy in well-trained men. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 29(10), 2954-2963.
• Schoenfeld, B. J., Ratamess, N. A., Peterson, M. D., Contreras, B., Sonmez, G. T., & Alvar, B. A. (2014). Effects of different volume-equated resistance training loading strategies on muscular adaptations in well-trained men. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 28(10), 2909-2918.
• Schuenke, M. D., Herman, J. R., Gliders, R. M., Hagerman, F. C., Hikida, R. S., Rana, S. R., ... & Staron, R. S. (2012). Early-phase muscular adaptations in response to slow-speed versus traditional resistance-training regimens. European Journal of Applied Physiology, 112(10), 3585-3595.
• Slimani, M., Paravlic, A., & Granacher, U. (2018). A meta-analysis to determine strength training related dose-response relationships for lower-limb muscle power development in young athletes. Frontiers in Physiology, 9, 1155.
• Stone, W. J., & Coulter, S. P. (1994). Strength/endurance effects from three resistance training protocols with women. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 8(4), 231-234.
• Taaffe, D. R., Pruitt, L., Pyka, G., Guido, D., & Marcus, R. (1996). Comparative effects of high- and low-intensity resistance training on thigh muscle strength, fiber area, and tissue composition in elderly women. Clinical Physiology, 16(4), 381-392.
• Vinogradova, O. L., Popov, D. V., Netreba, A. I., Tsvirkun, D. V., Kurochkina, N. S., Bachinin, A. V., Bravyi, Ya. R., Lyubaeva, E. V., Lysenko, E. A., Miller, T. F., Borovik, A. S., Tarasova, O. S., & Orlov, O. I. (2013). Optimization of training: new developments in safe strength training. Human Physiology, 39(5), 511-523.
• Weiss, L. W., Coney, H. D., & Clark, F. C. (1999). Differential functional adaptations to short-term low-, moderate-, and high-repetition weight training. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 13(3), 236-241.
• Weiss, L. W., Coney, H. D., & Clark, F. C. (2000). Gross measures of exercise-induced muscular hypertrophy. Journal of Orthopaedic and Sports Physical Therapy, 30(3), 143-148.

3. Repetition Tempo

Reference range.

• Endurance: Endurance was not graded, because no published review tested repetition tempo for local muscular endurance.
• Hypertrophy (General Strength): Any repetition duration of 0.5 to 8 seconds was within the range. In the published reviews, repetition durations of 0.5 to 8 seconds resulted in similar hypertrophy, and durations over 10 seconds resulted in less hypertrophy (Schoenfeld et al., 2015). Fast and slow tempos resulted in similar hypertrophy (Enes et al., 2025), and shorter and longer eccentrics resulted in similar hypertrophy (Amdi and King, 2025). In the comparative studies, tempo resulted in similar hypertrophy when training volume was matched. When sets were performed to failure, a slower tempo resulted in greater hypertrophy in 1 study (Assis-Pereira et al., 2016), and a faster eccentric resulted in greater hypertrophy in 1 study (Shepstone et al., 2005). Because the comparative studies split, the range did not change.
• Strength (Max Strength): The range was a concentric at maximal intended velocity or a conventional 1 to 2 second concentric. In the published reviews, a concentric at maximal intended velocity resulted in greater strength increases than a deliberately slow concentric (Hermes and Fry, 2023), with a trend in the same direction in Davies et al. (2017). A concentric at maximal intended velocity resulted in strength similar to a conventional 1 - 2 second concentric (Balachandran et al., 2022), and strength did not differ by eccentric duration (Amdi and King, 2025). In 5 comparative studies of young adults and athletes, a faster concentric resulted in a greater strength increase in 1 (Liow and Hopkins, 2003), a slower tempo resulted in a greater increase in 1 (Usui et al., 2016), and 3 found similar increases (Morrissey et al., 1998; Blazevich and Jenkins, 2002; Pareja-Blanco et al., 2014). Because the comparative studies split, the range did not change.
• Power: The range was a concentric at maximal intended velocity, with a short eccentric. In the published reviews, high-velocity training resulted in greater power than conventional-velocity training in older adults (Steib et al., 2010; el Hadouchi et al., 2022; Balachandran et al., 2022). Rate of force development improved after high-velocity training and after training with the intent to move fast (Blazevich et al., 2020), and a shorter eccentric resulted in greater jump height than a longer eccentric (Amdi and King, 2025). The comparative studies did not change this range.

Of the 8 published systematic reviews and meta-analyses on hypertrophy, 6 agreed with the published reference range, 1 partly agreed, with muscle-specific findings (Hackett et al., 2018), and 1 disagreed indirectly, with subgroups compared with control in adults over 60 (Tao et al., 2026). Of the 6 published reviews on strength, 2 agreed, 3 partly agreed, and 1 disagreed indirectly (Tao et al., 2026). The 3 reviews that partly agreed reported a trend favoring a fast concentric (Davies et al., 2017), similar strength when a fast concentric was compared with a conventional concentric (Balachandran et al., 2022), and strength that did not differ by eccentric duration (Amdi and King, 2025). Of the 7 published reviews on power and rate of force development, 6 agreed, and 1 partly agreed, reporting function only (Tschopp et al., 2011). No majority of the reviews fully agreed on a strength range, so the strength range was set where full and partial agreement together were greatest: 5 of the 6 reviews agreed or partly agreed. No published review tested tempo for endurance, so endurance was not graded.

• Amdi, C. H., & King, A. (2025). The effect of eccentric phase duration on maximal strength, muscle hypertrophy and countermovement jump height: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Sports Sciences, 43(20), 2447-2464.
• Assis-Pereira, P. E., Motoyama, Y. L., Esteves, G. J., Quinelato, W. C., Botter, L., Tanaka, K. H., & Azevedo, P. (2016). Resistance training with slow speed of movement is better for hypertrophy and muscle strength gains than fast speed of movement. International Journal of Applied Exercise Physiology, 5(2), 37-43.
• Balachandran, A. T., Steele, J., Angielczyk, D., Belio, M., Schoenfeld, B. J., Quiles, N., Askin, N., & Abou-Setta, A. M. (2022). Comparison of power training vs traditional strength training on physical function in older adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Network Open, 5(5), e2211623.
• Blazevich, A. J., & Jenkins, D. G. (2002). Effect of the movement speed of resistance training exercises on sprint and strength performance in concurrently training elite junior sprinters. Journal of Sports Sciences, 20(12), 981-990.
• Blazevich, A. J., Wilson, C. J., Alcaraz, P. E., & Rubio-Arias, J. A. (2020). Effects of resistance training movement pattern and velocity on isometric muscular rate of force development: A systematic review with meta-analysis and meta-regression. Sports Medicine, 50, 943-963.
• da Rosa Orssatto, L. B., Bezerra, E. S., Shield, A. J., & Trajano, G. S. (2020). Is power training effective to produce muscle hypertrophy in older adults? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Applied Physiology, Nutrition, and Metabolism, 45(9), 1031-1040.
• Davies, T. B., Kuang, K., Orr, R., Halaki, M., & Hackett, D. A. (2017). Effect of movement velocity during resistance training on dynamic muscular strength: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports Medicine, 47(8), 1603-1617.
• el Hadouchi, M., Kiers, H., de Vries, R., Veenhof, C., & van Dieën, J. (2022). Effectiveness of power training compared to strength training in older adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis. European Review of Aging and Physical Activity, 19, 18.
• Enes, A., Piñero, A., Hermann, T., Zamanzadeh, A., Hennessy, T., Montenegro, D., Parnell, C., Jia, A., Weitzman, T., Wolf, M., Korakakis, P. A., Swinton, P. A., & Schoenfeld, B. J. (2025). How slow should you go? A systematic review with meta-analysis of the effect of resistance training repetition tempo on muscle hypertrophy. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 39(12), 1331-1339.
• Hackett, D. A., Davies, T. B., Orr, R., Kuang, K., & Halaki, M. (2018). Effect of movement velocity during resistance training on muscle-specific hypertrophy: A systematic review. European Journal of Sport Science, 18(4), 473-482.
• Hermes, M. J., & Fry, A. C. (2023). Intentionally slow concentric velocity resistance exercise and strength adaptations: A meta-analysis. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 37(8), e470-e484.
• Liow, D. K., & Hopkins, W. G. (2003). Velocity specificity of weight training for kayak spring performance. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 35(7), 1232-1237.
• Moreno-Villanueva, A., Pino-Ortega, J., & Rico-González, M. (2022). Effect of repetition duration, total and in different muscle actions, on the development of strength, power, and muscle hypertrophy: A systematic review. Strength and Conditioning Journal, 44(5), 39-56.
• Morrissey, M. C., Harman, E. A., Frykman, P. N., & Han, K. H. (1998). Early phase differential effects of slow and fast barbell squat training. The American Journal of Sports Medicine, 26(2), 221-230.
• Pareja-Blanco, F., Rodríguez-Rosell, D., Sánchez-Medina, L., Gorostiaga, E. M., & González-Badillo, J. J. (2014). Effect of movement velocity during resistance training on neuromuscular performance. International Journal of Sports Medicine, 35(11), 916-924.
• Schoenfeld, B. J., Ogborn, D. I., & Krieger, J. W. (2015). Effect of repetition duration during resistance training on muscle hypertrophy: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports Medicine, 45(4), 577-585.
• Shepstone, T. N., Tang, J. E., Dallaire, S., Schuenke, M. D., Staron, R. S., & Phillips, S. M. (2005). Short-term high- vs. low-velocity isokinetic lengthening training results in greater hypertrophy of the elbow flexors in young men. Journal of Applied Physiology, 98, 1768-1776.
• Steib, S., Schoene, D., & Pfeifer, K. (2010). Dose-response relationship of resistance training in older adults: A meta-analysis. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 42(5), 902-914.
• Tao, M., Liao, K., Yin, M., Chen, Z., Zhong, Y., Zhu, C., Song, Y., Thompson, S., Bishop, C., & Li, Y. (2026). Effects of maximal versus submaximal intended velocity resistance training on muscular fitness adaptations in older adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports Medicine and Health Science, 8(4), 365-376.
• Tschopp, M., Sattelmayer, M. K., & Hilfiker, R. (2011). Is power training or conventional resistance training better for function in elderly persons? A meta-analysis. Age and Ageing, 40(5), 549-556.
• Usui, S., Maeo, S., Tayashiki, K., Nakatani, M., & Kanehisa, H. (2016). Low-load slow movement squat training increases muscle size and strength but not power. International Journal of Sports Medicine, 37(4), 305-312.

4. Proximity to Failure

Reference range.

• Endurance: Endurance was not graded, because no published review tested proximity to failure in endurance training.
• Hypertrophy (General Strength): The optimal range was sets performed to failure. In the published reviews, hypertrophy increased as sets ended closer to failure (Robinson et al., 2024), and higher velocity loss resulted in greater hypertrophy (Hickmott et al., 2022; Jukic et al., 2023). The benefit of failure was trivial in Refalo et al. (2023), with an effect size of 0.19, and appeared only in trained participants in Grgic et al. (2022). The published reviews supported sets performed to failure or within about 3 reps of failure, and the optimum was sets performed to failure. In the comparative studies, sets performed to failure resulted in greater hypertrophy than sets stopped short of failure in 2 studies (Tanimoto and Ishii, 2006; Karsten et al., 2021), and similar hypertrophy in 2 studies (Sampson and Groeller, 2016; Bergamasco et al., 2022). No comparative study found less hypertrophy with sets performed to failure, so the optimal range was set at sets performed to failure.
• Strength (Max Strength): The range was sets performed to failure or stopped 1 to 5 reps short of failure. In the published reviews, failure was not required. Sets stopped short of failure resulted in strength increases similar to sets performed to failure in 6 of the 10 published reviews, and greater in 4. The 4 reviews reported velocity loss of 25% or less (Hickmott et al., 2022; Hernández-Belmonte and Pallarés, 2022), velocity loss of 20 - 30% (Zhang et al., 2023), and non-failure training in older adults (Polito et al., 2021). In the comparative studies, sets performed to failure resulted in greater strength increases in 3 studies (Drinkwater et al., 2005; Izquierdo et al., 2006; Karsten et al., 2021), similar increases in 3 (Tanimoto and Ishii, 2006; Sampson and Groeller, 2016; Vieira et al., 2019), and a smaller increase in 1 (Martorelli et al., 2017). The comparative studies favored failure, and the published reviews favored stopping short of failure, so the broader range was used.
• Power: The range was sets stopped well short of failure, with velocity loss of 20% or less (about 2 or more reps in reserve). Lower velocity loss resulted in greater jump, sprint, or velocity outcomes than higher velocity loss in all 4 published reviews (Held et al., 2022; Hernández-Belmonte and Pallarés, 2022; Jukic et al., 2023; Chen et al., 2024). In the comparative studies, sets stopped short of failure resulted in greater power increases than sets performed to failure in 2 of 3 studies (Izquierdo et al., 2006; Karsten et al., 2021), and sets performed to failure resulted in a greater bench throw increase in 1 study (Drinkwater et al., 2005). Because sets performed to failure resulted in smaller power increases in 2 studies, failure was not added to the range.

The 2 velocity-loss meta-analyses that reported an endurance outcome (Jukic et al., 2023; Hernández-Belmonte and Pallarés, 2022) pooled moderate-to-heavy-load protocols and measured endurance as a secondary outcome at a fixed load, which strength increases inflate (Hackett et al., 2022). These meta-analyses did not test proximity to failure in endurance training. All 10 published systematic reviews and meta-analyses on strength agreed with the published reference range. Of the 5 on hypertrophy, 3 agreed, 2 partly agreed, and none disagreed. The 2 reviews that partly agreed found a trivial benefit of failure (Refalo et al., 2023) and a benefit only in trained participants (Grgic et al., 2022). All 4 published reviews on power agreed. No published review tested proximity to failure in endurance training, so endurance was not graded.

• Bergamasco, J. G. A., da Silva, D. G., Bittencourt, D. F., de Oliveira, R. M., Júnior, J. C. B., Caruso, F. R., ... & Libardi, C. A. (2022). Low-load resistance training performed to muscle failure or near muscle failure does not promote additional gains on muscle strength, hypertrophy, and functional performance of older adults. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 36(5), 1209-1215.
• Chen, B. Y., Chen, W. H., Liu, Y., Fiolo, N. J., Fuchs, P. X., Huang, C. F., & Shiang, T. Y. (2024). The effects of velocity loss thresholds during resistance training on lower-limb performance enhancement: A systematic review with meta-analysis. International Journal of Sports Science and Coaching, 19(4), 1863-1877.
• Davies, T., Orr, R., Halaki, M., & Hackett, D. (2016). Effect of training leading to repetition failure on muscular strength: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports Medicine, 46(4), 487-502.
• Drinkwater, E. J., Lawton, T. W., Lindsell, R. P., Pyne, D. B., Hunt, P. H., & McKenna, M. J. (2005). Training leading to repetition failure enhances bench press strength gains in elite junior athletes. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 19(2), 382-388.
• Grgic, J., Schoenfeld, B. J., Orazem, J., & Sabol, F. (2022). Effects of resistance training performed to repetition failure or non-failure on muscular strength and hypertrophy: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Sport and Health Science, 11(2), 202-211.
• Hackett, D. A., Ghayomzadeh, M., Farrell, S. N., Davies, T. B., & Sabag, A. (2022). Influence of total repetitions per set on local muscular endurance: A systematic review with meta-analysis and meta-regression. Science and Sports, 37(5-6), 405-420.
• Held, S., Speer, K., Rappelt, L., Wicker, P., & Donath, L. (2022). The effectiveness of traditional vs. velocity-based strength training on explosive and maximal strength performance: A network meta-analysis. Frontiers in Physiology, 13, 926972.
• Hernández-Belmonte, A., & Pallarés, J. G. (2022). Effects of velocity loss threshold during resistance training on strength and athletic adaptations: A systematic review with meta-analysis. Applied Sciences, 12(9), 4425.
• Hickmott, L. M., Chilibeck, P. D., Shaw, K. A., & Butcher, S. J. (2022). The effect of load and volume autoregulation on muscular strength and hypertrophy: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports Medicine - Open, 8, 9.
• Izquierdo, M., Ibañez, J., González-Badillo, J. J., Häkkinen, K., Ratamess, N. A., Kraemer, W. J., French, D. N., Eslava, J., Altadill, A., Asiain, X., & Gorostiaga, E. M. (2006). Differential effects of strength training leading to failure versus not to failure on hormonal responses, strength, and muscle power gains. Journal of Applied Physiology, 100(5), 1647-1656.
• Jukic, I., Castilla, A. P., Ramos, A. G., Van Hooren, B., McGuigan, M. R., & Helms, E. R. (2023). The acute and chronic effects of implementing velocity loss thresholds during resistance training: A systematic review, meta-analysis, and critical evaluation of the literature. Sports Medicine, 53(1), 177-214.
• Karsten, B., Fu, Y. L., Larumbe-Zabala, E., Seijo, M., & Naclerio, F. (2021). Impact of two high-volume set configuration workouts on resistance training outcomes in recreationally trained men. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 35(Suppl 1), S136-S143.
• Martorelli, S., Cadore, E. L., Izquierdo, M., Celes, R., Martorelli, A., Cleto, V. A., Alvarenga, J. G., & Bottaro, M. (2017). Strength training with repetitions to failure does not provide additional strength and muscle hypertrophy gains in young women. European Journal of Translational Myology, 27(2), 6339.
• Polito, M. D., Papst, R. R., & Farinatti, P. (2021). Moderators of strength gains and hypertrophy in resistance training: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Sports Sciences, 39(19), 2189-2198.
• Refalo, M. C., Helms, E. R., Trexler, E. T., Hamilton, D. L., & Fyfe, J. J. (2023). Influence of resistance training proximity-to-failure on skeletal muscle hypertrophy: A systematic review with meta-analysis. Sports Medicine, 53(3), 649-665.
• Robinson, Z. P., Pelland, J. C., Remmert, J. F., Refalo, M. C., Jukic, I., Steele, J., & Zourdos, M. C. (2024). Exploring the dose-response relationship between estimated resistance training proximity to failure, strength gain, and muscle hypertrophy: A series of meta-regressions. Sports Medicine, 54(9), 2209-2231.
• Sampson, J. A., & Groeller, H. (2016). Is repetition failure critical for the development of muscle hypertrophy and strength? Scandinavian Journal of Medicine and Science in Sports, 26(4), 375-383.
• Tanimoto, M., & Ishii, N. (2006). Effects of low-intensity resistance exercise with slow movement and tonic force generation on muscular function in young men. Journal of Applied Physiology, 100(4), 1150-1157.
• Vieira, J. G., Dias, M. R., Lacio, M., Schimitz, G., Nascimento, G., Panza, P., ... & Vianna, J. (2019). Resistance Training with Repetition to Failure or Not on Muscle Strength and Perceptual Responses. Journal of Professional Exercise Physiology, 16(3).
• Zhang, X., Feng, S., & Li, H. (2023). The effect of velocity loss on strength development and related training efficiency: A dose-response meta-analysis. Healthcare, 11(3), 337.

5. Rest Between Sets

Reference range.

• Endurance: Endurance was not graded, because no published review tested rest between sets for local muscular endurance.
• Hypertrophy (General Strength): The range was more than 60 seconds between sets. In the published reviews, rest of more than 60 seconds resulted in a small hypertrophy benefit when compared to 60 seconds or less, and rest intervals longer than 90 seconds resulted in no appreciable additional hypertrophy (Singer et al., 2024). Longer rest may result in greater hypertrophy in trained participants (Grgic et al., 2017), and 120 seconds had the largest effect on muscle morphology in older adults (Borde et al., 2015). In the comparative studies, longer rest (2.5 to 3 minutes) resulted in greater hypertrophy than 1 minute in 3 studies (Buresh et al., 2009; Schoenfeld et al., 2016; Longo et al., 2022), similar hypertrophy in 2 (Ahtiainen et al., 2005; Fink et al., 2017), and less hypertrophy in 1 volume-matched study of older men (Villanueva et al., 2015). Because 1 minute of rest resulted in less hypertrophy in 3 studies and greater hypertrophy in 1, the range did not change.
• Strength (Max Strength): The range was 2 minutes or more between sets for trained participants, and 60 seconds or more for untrained participants. In the published reviews, rest of more than 2 minutes resulted in greater strength increases than shorter rest in trained participants, and 60 - 120 seconds was sufficient in untrained participants (Grgic et al., 2018). Sixty seconds had the largest effect on strength in untrained older adults (Borde et al., 2015). In the comparative studies, longer rest resulted in greater strength increases in 2 studies (Schoenfeld et al., 2016; Jambassi Filho et al., 2017), similar increases in 6, and a smaller increase in 1 (Villanueva et al., 2015). In novices, short and long rest resulted in similar strength increases in 2 studies (Gentil et al., 2010; Longo et al., 2022). The comparative studies did not change this range.
• Power: The optimal range was 2 minutes or more between sets of a power exercise. No systematic review or meta-analysis tested rest between sets for power, so the comparative studies set the range. In 3 multi-week studies, rest intervals resulted in similar power increases (Robinson et al., 1995; Pincivero et al., 1997; Ramirez-Campillo et al., 2014). Shorter rest resulted in greater repeated-sprint ability in 1 study of high-repetition resistance training, which did not test rest between sets of a power exercise (Hill-Haas et al., 2007). In 2 single-session studies, 1 minute of rest reduced bench press throw power in sets 2 to 5 when compared to 2 or 3 minutes of rest (Hernández Davó et al., 2016; Hernández Davó et al., 2017). Because the power output of a single session was counted, 1 minute of rest was removed from the range, and the range was set at 2 minutes or more.

Both published systematic reviews and meta-analyses on strength, and all 3 on hypertrophy, agreed with the published reference ranges. Two other reviews were named and not counted. A structured review without a meta-analysis (de Salles et al., 2009) recommended 3 to 5 minutes for strength and power and 30 to 60 seconds for hypertrophy, and tied the hypertrophy recommendation to acute hormone responses. An umbrella review rated the evidence on rest insufficient (Mcleod et al., 2024). No systematic review or meta-analysis tested rest between sets for endurance or power. Endurance was not graded, and the comparative studies set the power range.

• Ahtiainen, J. P., Pakarinen, A., Alen, M., Kraemer, W. J., & Häkkinen, K. (2005). Short vs. long rest period between the sets in hypertrophic resistance training: Influence on muscle strength, size, and hormonal adaptations in trained men. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 19(3), 572-582.
• Borde, R., Hortobágyi, T., & Granacher, U. (2015). Dose-response relationships of resistance training in healthy old adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports Medicine, 45(12), 1693-1720.
• Buresh, R., Berg, K., & French, J. (2009). The effect of resistive exercise rest interval on hormonal response, strength, and hypertrophy with training. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 23(1), 62-71.
• de Salles, B. F., Simão, R., Miranda, F., Novaes, J. S., Lemos, A., & Willardson, J. M. (2009). Rest interval between sets in strength training. Sports Medicine, 39(9), 765-777.
• Fink, J., Schoenfeld, B. J., Kikuchi, N., & Nakazato, K. (2017). Acute and long-term responses to different rest intervals in low-load resistance training. International Journal of Sports Medicine, 38(2), 118-124.
• Gentil, P., Bottaro, M., Oliveira, E., Veloso, J., Amorim, N., Saiuri, A., & Wagner, D. R. (2010). Chronic effects of different between-set rest durations on muscle strength in nonresistance trained young men. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 24(1), 37-42.
• Grgic, J., Lazinica, B., Mikulic, P., Krieger, J. W., & Schoenfeld, B. J. (2017). The effects of short versus long inter-set rest intervals in resistance training on measures of muscle hypertrophy: A systematic review. European Journal of Sport Science, 17(8), 983-993.
• Grgic, J., Schoenfeld, B. J., Skrepnik, M., Davies, T. B., & Mikulic, P. (2018). Effects of rest interval duration in resistance training on measures of muscular strength: A systematic review. Sports Medicine, 48(1), 137-151.
• Hernández Davó, J. L., Botella Ruiz, J., & Sabido, R. (2017). Influence of strength level on the rest interval required during an upper-body power training session. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 31(2), 339-347.
• Hernández Davó, J. L., Sabido Solana, R., Sarabia Marín, J. M., Fernández Fernández, J., & Moya Ramón, M. (2016). Rest interval required for power training with power load in the bench press throw exercise. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 30(5), 1265-1274.
• Hill-Haas, S., Bishop, D., Dawson, B., Goodman, C., & Edge, J. (2007). Effects of rest interval during high-repetition resistance training on strength, aerobic fitness, and repeated-sprint ability. Journal of Sports Sciences, 25(6), 619-628.
• Jambassi Filho, J. C., Gurjão, A. L. D., Ceccato, M., Prado, A. K. G., Gallo, L. H., & Gobbi, S. (2017). Chronic effects of different rest intervals between sets on dynamic and isometric muscle strength and muscle activity in trained older women. American Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, 96(9), 627-633.
• Longo, A. R., Silva-Batista, C., Pedroso, K., de Salles Painelli, V., Lasevicius, T., Schoenfeld, B. J., Aihara, A. Y., Peres, B. A., Tricoli, V., & Teixeira, E. L. (2022). Volume load rather than resting interval influences muscle hypertrophy during high-intensity resistance training. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 36(6), 1554-1559.
• Mcleod, J. C., Currier, B. S., Lowisz, C. V., & Phillips, S. M. (2024). The influence of resistance exercise training prescription variables on skeletal muscle mass, strength, and physical function in healthy adults: An umbrella review. Journal of Sport and Health Science, 13(1), 47-60.
• Pincivero, D. M., Lephart, S. M., & Karunakara, R. G. (1997). Effects of rest interval on isokinetic strength and functional performance after short-term high intensity training. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 31(3), 229-234.
• Ramirez-Campillo, R., Andrade, D. C., Álvarez, C., Henríquez-Olguín, C., Martínez, C., Báez-SanMartín, E., Silva-Urra, J., Burgos, C., & Izquierdo, M. (2014). The effects of interset rest on adaptation to 7 weeks of explosive training in young soccer players. Journal of Sports Science & Medicine, 13(2), 287-296.
• Robinson, J. M., Stone, M. H., Johnson, R. L., Penland, C. M., Warren, B. J., & Lewis, R. D. (1995). Effects of different weight training exercise/rest intervals on strength, power, and high intensity exercise endurance. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 9(4), 216-221.
• Schoenfeld, B. J., Pope, Z. K., Benik, F. M., Hester, G. M., Sellers, J., Nooner, J. L., Schnaiter, J. A., Bond-Williams, K. E., Carter, A. S., Ross, C. L., Just, B. L., Henselmans, M., & Krieger, J. W. (2016). Longer interset rest periods enhance muscle strength and hypertrophy in resistance-trained men. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 30(7), 1805-1812.
• Singer, A., Wolf, M., Generoso, L., Arias, E., Delcastillo, K., Echevarria, E., Martinez, A., Androulakis Korakakis, P., Refalo, M. C., Swinton, P. A., & Schoenfeld, B. J. (2024). Give it a rest: A systematic review with Bayesian meta-analysis on the effect of inter-set rest interval duration on muscle hypertrophy. Frontiers in Sports and Active Living, 6, 1429789.
• Villanueva, M. G., Lane, C. J., & Schroeder, E. T. (2015). Short rest interval lengths between sets optimally enhance body composition and performance with 8 weeks of strength resistance training in older men. European Journal of Applied Physiology, 115(2), 295-308.

6. Circuit Training and Supersets

Reference range.

• Endurance: Endurance was not graded. Supersets resulted in a maximal number of repetitions similar to conventional sets in the 2 studies pooled by Zhang et al. (2025), and no published review compared circuits with conventional sets on local muscular endurance.
• Hypertrophy (General Strength): The range was supersets or circuits that pair exercises for different muscle groups, which did not reduce hypertrophy and shortened sessions. In the published reviews, supersets resulted in muscle cross-sectional area similar to conventional sets, with sessions about 37% shorter (Zhang et al., 2025). Supersets of 2 exercises for the same muscle group reduced the volume load performed (Zhang et al., 2025), and 1 systematic review suggested that supersets may add a stimulus beyond the time saved (Krzysztofik et al., 2019). In 5 comparative studies, supersets and conventional sets resulted in similar strength and hypertrophy, so the hypertrophy range did not change.
• Strength (Max Strength): The optimal range was agonist and antagonist supersets, or circuits. In the published reviews, supersets resulted in 1RM strength similar to conventional sets (Zhang et al., 2025; Cowley et al., 2026). In the comparative studies, upper body and lower body supersets resulted in a smaller squat 1RM increase than conventional sets in 1 study, with 3 minutes between sets of the same exercise (García-Orea et al., 2023). No comparative study found greater strength with upper body and lower body supersets, so they were removed from the range.
• Power: The optimal range was a strength exercise and a power exercise for the same muscle group separated by about 4 to 8 minutes. No published review compared supersets or circuits with conventional sets on power, so the comparative studies set the range. In 8 samples from 7 single-session studies, a power exercise performed 30 seconds or less after a heavy set for the same muscles decreased power in 6 samples, resulted in similar power in 2, and increased power in none (Jensen and Ebben, 2003; Comyns et al., 2006; Kilduff et al., 2007; Kilduff et al., 2008; Mola et al., 2014; Piper et al., 2020; Houlton et al., 2024). In the single-session studies that compared rest intervals of 1 to 20 minutes, the largest increases in power followed about 4 to 8 minutes of rest (Smith et al., 2001; Gilbert and Lees, 2005; Chatzopoulos et al., 2007; Jo et al., 2010; Krčmár et al., 2015; Santos et al., 2015; Maroto-Izquierdo et al., 2020; Krzysztofik et al., 2021; Fontanetti et al., 2025). Because power decreased in 6 samples and increased in none, supersets with 30 seconds or less between a strength exercise and a power exercise for the same muscles were removed from the range.

Of the 3 published systematic reviews and meta-analyses that compared supersets with conventional sets, 2 agreed with the published reference range, 1 partly agreed, suggesting that supersets may add a stimulus beyond the time saved (Krzysztofik et al., 2019), and none disagreed. No published review compared circuit training with conventional sets. The 6 circuit training meta-analyses compared circuits with no-exercise controls and were not counted (Buch et al., 2017; Muñoz-Martínez et al., 2017; Ramos-Campo et al., 2021; Ramos-Campo et al., 2022; Hu et al., 2024; Kahraman and Hocalar, 2024). A circuit sequences exercises with little or no rest between exercises, as a superset does, so the range for circuits was drawn from the superset reviews. No published review tested the rest between exercises, so no rest interval between exercises was graded for hypertrophy or strength. The long-term evidence was limited: Zhang et al. (2025) pooled 3 studies for strength and 2 for hypertrophy. No published review compared supersets or circuits with conventional sets on power, so the comparative studies set the power range.

• Buch, A., Kis, O., Carmeli, E., Keinan-Boker, L., Berner, Y., Barer, Y., Shefer, G., Marcus, Y., & Stern, N. (2017). Circuit resistance training is an effective means to enhance muscle strength in older and middle aged adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Ageing Research Reviews, 37, 16-27.
• Chatzopoulos, D. E., Michailidis, C. J., Giannakos, A. K., Alexiou, K. C., Patikas, D. A., Antonopoulos, C. B., & Kotzamanidis, C. M. (2007). Postactivation potentiation effects after heavy resistance exercise on running speed. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 21(4), 1278-1281.
• Comyns, T. M., Harrison, A. J., Hennessy, L. K., & Jensen, R. L. (2006). The optimal complex training rest interval for athletes from anaerobic sports. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 20(3), 471-476.
• Cowley, N., Nicholson, V., Timmins, R., Munteanu, G., & Weakley, J. (2026). The effects of advanced resistance training prescription methods on strength, power, hypertrophy, and performance adaptations in healthy adults: A systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis. Sports Medicine (published online April 8, 2026).
• Fontanetti, G., Barreto, R. V., Junior, R. C., Marangoni, V., Denadai, B. S., Greco, C. C., & Lima, L. C. R. (2025). The use of the self-selected rest interval method is as effective for optimizing postactivation performance enhancement in elite athletes as employing the best fixed rest interval. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 39(1), 10-15.
• García-Orea, G. P., Rodríguez-Rosell, D., Ballester-Sánchez, Á., Da Silva-Grigoletto, M. E., & Belando-Pedreño, N. (2023). Upper-lower body super-sets vs. traditional sets for inducing chronic athletic performance improvements. PeerJ, 11, e14636.
• Gilbert, G., & Lees, A. (2005). Changes in the force development characteristics of muscle following repeated maximum force and power exercise. Ergonomics, 48(11-14), 1576-1584.
• Houlton, L. J., Moody, J. A., Bampouras, T. M., & Esformes, J. I. (2024). Acute effects of intracontrast rest after back squats on vertical jump performance during complex training. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 38(11), e645-e655.
• Hu, C., Xia, Y., Zeng, D., Ye, M., & Mei, T. (2024). Effect of resistance circuit training on comprehensive health indicators in older adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Scientific Reports, 14, 8823.
• Jensen, R. L., & Ebben, W. P. (2003). Kinetic analysis of complex training rest interval effect on vertical jump performance. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 17(2), 345-349.
• Jo, E., Judelson, D. A., Brown, L. E., Coburn, J. W., & Dabbs, N. C. (2010). Influence of recovery duration after a potentiating stimulus on muscular power in recreationally trained individuals. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 24(2), 343-347.
• Kahraman, Y., & Hocalar, A. (2024). Circuit resistance training strategy on maximal strength, rate of force development and power: A random model meta-analysis. Journal Sport Area, 9(2), 246-254.
• Kilduff, L. P., Bevan, H. R., Kingsley, M. I. C., Owen, N. J., Bennett, M. A., Hore, A. M., Maw, J. R., & Cunningham, D. J. (2007). Postactivation potentiation in professional rugby players: Optimal recovery. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 21(4), 1134-1138.
• Kilduff, L. P., Owen, N., Bevan, H., Bennett, M., Kingsley, M. I., & Cunningham, D. (2008). Influence of recovery time on post-activation potentiation in professional rugby players. Journal of Sports Sciences, 26(8), 795-802.
• Krčmár, M., Šimonek, J., & Vasiľovský, I. (2015). The acute effect of lower-body training on average power output measured by loaded half-squat jump exercise. Acta Gymnica, 45(3), 103-111.
• Krzysztofik, M., Kalinowski, R., Trybulski, R., Filip-Stachnik, A., & Stastny, P. (2021). Enhancement of countermovement jump performance using a heavy load with velocity-loss repetition control in female volleyball players. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(21), 11530.
• Krzysztofik, M., Wilk, M., Wojdała, G., & Gołaś, A. (2019). Maximizing muscle hypertrophy: A systematic review of advanced resistance training techniques and methods. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(24), 4897.
• Maroto-Izquierdo, S., Bautista, I. J., & Martín Rivera, F. (2020). Post-activation performance enhancement (PAPE) after a single bout of high-intensity flywheel resistance training. Biology of Sport, 37(4), 343-350.
• Mola, J. N., Bruce-Low, S. S., & Burnet, S. J. (2014). Optimal recovery time for postactivation potentiation in professional soccer players. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 28(6), 1529-1537.
• Muñoz-Martínez, F. A., Rubio-Arias, J. Á., Ramos-Campo, D. J., & Alcaraz, P. E. (2017). Effectiveness of resistance circuit-based training for maximum oxygen uptake and upper-body one-repetition maximum improvements: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports Medicine, 47(12), 2553-2568.
• Piper, A. D., Joubert, D. P., Jones, E. J., & Whitehead, M. T. (2020). Comparison of post-activation potentiating stimuli on jump and sprint performance. International Journal of Exercise Science, 13(4), 539-553.
• Ramos-Campo, D. J., Andreu Caravaca, L., Martínez-Rodríguez, A., & Rubio-Arias, J. Á. (2021). Effects of resistance circuit-based training on body composition, strength and cardiorespiratory fitness: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Biology, 10(5), 377.
• Ramos-Campo, D. J., Andreu-Caravaca, L., Carrasco-Poyatos, M., Benito, P. J., & Rubio-Arias, J. Á. (2022). Effects of circuit resistance training on body composition, strength, and cardiorespiratory fitness in middle-aged and older women: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Aging and Physical Activity, 30(4), 725-738.
• Santos, J. F. da S., Valenzuela, T. H., & Franchini, E. (2015). Can different conditioning activities and rest intervals affect the acute performance of taekwondo turning kick? Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 29(6), 1640-1647.
• Smith, J. C., Fry, A. C., Weiss, L. W., Li, Y., & Kinzey, S. J. (2001). The effects of high-intensity exercise on a 10-second sprint cycle test. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 15(3), 344-348.
• Zhang, X., Weakley, J., Li, H., Li, Z., & García-Ramos, A. (2025). Superset versus traditional resistance training prescriptions: A systematic review and meta-analysis exploring acute and chronic effects on mechanical, metabolic, and perceptual variables. Sports Medicine, 55, 953-975.

7. Sets per Muscle Group

Reference range (sets per session, and sets per muscle group per week).

• Endurance: Endurance was not graded because no published review tested the number of sets for local muscular endurance.
• Hypertrophy (General Strength): The range was 2 to 6 sets per exercise or muscle group per session, and 10 or more sets per muscle group per week. In the published reviews, multiple sets resulted in about 40% greater hypertrophy than 1 set, and 4 - 6 sets per exercise resulted in hypertrophy similar to 2 - 3 sets (Krieger, 2010). Ten or more weekly sets resulted in greater hypertrophy than fewer than 5 weekly sets (Schoenfeld et al., 2017). The optimum was placed at about 10 weekly sets in Bernárdez-Vázquez et al. (2022), and 12 - 20 weekly sets resulted in hypertrophy similar to more than 20 weekly sets in 2 of 3 muscles in Baz-Valle et al. (2022). Two meta-regressions found hypertrophy still increasing beyond these volumes, with diminishing returns (Swinton et al., 2024; Pelland et al., 2026). In the comparative studies that tested more than about 6 sets per session, the studies split. Moderate volume resulted in greater increases in 3 studies (Amirthalingam et al., 2017; Hackett et al., 2018; Barbalho et al., 2019), higher volume resulted in greater increases in 2 (Heaselgrave et al., 2019; Brigatto et al., 2022), and 3 found similar increases (Ostrowski et al., 1997; Baker et al., 2013; Schoenfeld et al., 2019). Because the comparative studies split, the range did not change.
• Strength (Max Strength): The range was 2 to 6 sets per exercise or muscle group per session. In the published reviews, 2 - 3 sets per exercise resulted in about 46% greater strength than 1 set in trained and untrained participants, and 4 - 6 sets resulted in strength similar to 2 - 3 sets (Krieger, 2009). The pooled optimum was 4 sets per muscle group in untrained and recreationally trained participants in Rhea et al. (2003), 8 sets in athletes in Peterson et al. (2004), and 2 - 3 sets per exercise in older adults in Borde et al. (2015). Three sets resulted in greater strength than more than 3 sets in older adults (Polito et al., 2021). Medium and high weekly set volumes resulted in greater strength than low volumes (Ralston et al., 2017), and strength increases plateaued beyond about 4 weekly sets (Pelland et al., 2026). The comparative studies of strength were the same studies reported for hypertrophy, and the range did not change.
• Power: Power was not graded, because no published review tested the number of sets for power. In the comparative studies, only the sets of strength exercises were compared for power outcomes.

Of the 16 published systematic reviews and meta-analyses on sets per session, 9 agreed with the published reference range, 5 partly agreed, and 2 disagreed. The 5 reviews that partly agreed found that the benefit of multiple sets appeared only in trained participants and longer programs (Wolfe et al., 2004; Fröhlich et al., 2010), that a single set was effective but suboptimal in trained men (Androulakis-Korakakis et al., 2020), that 3 - 4 sets resulted in greater strength than 1 - 2 sets for the upper body only (Hagstrom et al., 2020), and that 3 sets resulted in greater strength than more than 3 sets in older adults only (Polito et al., 2021). The 2 reviews that disagreed found a pooled optimum of 8 sets per muscle group in athletes (Peterson et al., 2004) and no dose-response for sets in adults over 55 (Silva et al., 2014). Of the 8 published reviews on weekly sets, 4 agreed, 4 partly agreed on where returns flatten, and none disagreed. The 4 reviews that partly agreed found an optimum of about 10 weekly sets (Bernárdez-Vázquez et al., 2022), 12 - 20 weekly sets similar to more than 20 in 2 of 3 muscles (Baz-Valle et al., 2022), and no modeled plateau, with diminishing returns (Swinton et al., 2024; Pelland et al., 2026). No majority of the reviews fully agreed on weekly sets, so the weekly range was set where full and partial agreement together were greatest: all 8 reviews agreed or partly agreed. The 6 reviews that reported untrained participants or short programs split. Multiple sets resulted in greater strength or hypertrophy than 1 set in untrained participants in 4 reviews (Rhea et al., 2002; Rhea et al., 2003; Krieger, 2009; Krieger, 2010), and single sets resulted in similar strength in untrained participants or in short programs in 2 (Wolfe et al., 2004; Fröhlich et al., 2010). The comparative studies of novices, older adults, and post-menopausal women found that 1 set and multiple sets resulted in similar increases during an initial training period of 6 to 16 weeks. Because the comparative studies and 2 of the 6 published reviews found similar increases with 1 set, the broader range was used, and 1 to 3 sets were within the range for novices in the first 6 to 12 weeks of training. The reviews reported sets per exercise (Krieger, 2009; Krieger, 2010; Borde et al., 2015) or sets per muscle group (Rhea et al., 2003; Peterson et al., 2004), so each model’s sets per session were graded in the unit the model stated. No published review tested the number of sets for endurance or power, so those goals were not graded.

• Amirthalingam, T., Mavros, Y., Wilson, G. C., Clarke, J. L., Mitchell, L., & Hackett, D. A. (2017). Effects of a modified German volume training program on muscular hypertrophy and strength. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 31(11), 3109-3119.
• Androulakis-Korakakis, P., Fisher, J. P., & Steele, J. (2020). The minimum effective training dose required to increase 1RM strength in resistance-trained men: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports Medicine, 50(4), 751-765.
• Baker, J. S., Davies, B., Cooper, S. M., Wong, D. P., Buchan, D. S., & Kilgore, L. (2013). Strength and body composition changes in recreationally strength-trained individuals: Comparison of one versus three sets resistance-training programmes. BioMed Research International, 2013, 615901.
• Barbalho, M., Coswig, V. S., Steele, J., Fisher, J. P., Paoli, A., & Gentil, P. (2019). Evidence for an upper threshold for resistance training volume in trained women. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 51(3), 515-522.
• Baz-Valle, E., Balsalobre-Fernández, C., Alix-Fages, C., & Santos-Concejero, J. (2022). A systematic review of the effects of different resistance training volumes on muscle hypertrophy. Journal of Human Kinetics, 81, 199-210.
• Bernárdez-Vázquez, R., Raya-González, J., Castillo, D., & Beato, M. (2022). Resistance training variables for optimization of muscle hypertrophy: An umbrella review. Frontiers in Sports and Active Living, 4, 949021.
• Borde, R., Hortobágyi, T., & Granacher, U. (2015). Dose-response relationships of resistance training in healthy old adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports Medicine, 45(12), 1693-1720.
• Brigatto, F. A., de Medeiros Lima, E., Germano, M. D., Aoki, M. S., Braz, T. V., & Lopes, C. R. (2022). High resistance-training volume enhances muscle thickness in resistance-trained men. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 36(1), 22-30.
• Currier, B. S., Mcleod, J. C., Banfield, L., Beyene, J., Welton, N. J., D’Souza, A. C., Keogh, J. A. J., Lin, L., Coletta, G., Yang, A., Colenso-Semple, L., Lau, K. J., Verboom, A., & Phillips, S. M. (2023). Resistance training prescription for muscle strength and hypertrophy in healthy adults: A systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 57(18), 1211-1220.
• Fröhlich, M., Emrich, E., & Schmidtbleicher, D. (2010). Outcome effects of single-set versus multiple-set training: An advanced replication study. Research in Sports Medicine, 18(3), 157-175.
• Hackett, D. A., Amirthalingam, T., Mitchell, L., Mavros, Y., Wilson, G. C., & Halaki, M. (2018). Effects of a 12-week modified German volume training program on muscle strength and hypertrophy: A pilot study. Sports, 6(1), 7.
• Hagstrom, A. D., Marshall, P. W., Halaki, M., & Hackett, D. A. (2020). The effect of resistance training in women on dynamic strength and muscular hypertrophy: A systematic review with meta-analysis. Sports Medicine, 50(6), 1075-1093.
• Heaselgrave, S. R., Blacker, J., Smeuninx, B., McKendry, J., & Breen, L. (2019). Dose-response relationship of weekly resistance-training volume and frequency on muscular adaptations in trained men. International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, 14, 360-368.
• Krieger, J. W. (2009). Single versus multiple sets of resistance exercise: A meta-regression. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 23(6), 1890-1901.
• Krieger, J. W. (2010). Single vs. multiple sets of resistance exercise for muscle hypertrophy: A meta-analysis. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 24(4), 1150-1159.
• Mcleod, J. C., Currier, B. S., Lowisz, C. V., & Phillips, S. M. (2024). The influence of resistance exercise training prescription variables on skeletal muscle mass, strength, and physical function in healthy adults: An umbrella review. Journal of Sport and Health Science, 13(1), 47-60.
• Ostrowski, K. J., Wilson, G. J., Weatherby, R., Murphy, P. W., & Lyttle, A. D. (1997). The effect of weight training volume on hormonal output and muscular size and function. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 11(3), 148-154.
• Pelland, J. C., Remmert, J. F., Robinson, Z. P., Hinson, S. R., & Zourdos, M. C. (2026). The resistance training dose-response: Meta-regressions exploring the effects of weekly volume and frequency on muscle hypertrophy and strength gains. Sports Medicine, 56(2), 481-505.
• Peterson, M. D., Rhea, M. R., & Alvar, B. A. (2004). Maximizing strength development in athletes: A meta-analysis to determine the dose-response relationship. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 18(2), 377-382.
• Peterson, M. D., Sen, A., & Gordon, P. M. (2011). Influence of resistance exercise on lean body mass in aging adults: A meta-analysis. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 43(2), 249-258.
• Polito, M. D., Papst, R. R., & Farinatti, P. (2021). Moderators of strength gains and hypertrophy in resistance training: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Sports Sciences, 39(19), 2189-2198.
• Ralston, G. W., Kilgore, L., Wyatt, F. B., & Baker, J. S. (2017). The effect of weekly set volume on strength gain: A meta-analysis. Sports Medicine, 47(12), 2585-2601.
• Rhea, M. R., Alvar, B. A., & Burkett, L. N. (2002). Single versus multiple sets for strength: A meta-analysis to address the controversy. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 73(4), 485-488.
• Rhea, M. R., Alvar, B. A., Burkett, L. N., & Ball, S. D. (2003). A meta-analysis to determine the dose response for strength development. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 35(3), 456-464.
• Schoenfeld, B. J., Contreras, B., Krieger, J., Grgic, J., Delcastillo, K., Belliard, R., & Alto, A. (2019). Resistance training volume enhances muscle hypertrophy but not strength in trained men. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 51(1), 94-103.
• Schoenfeld, B. J., Ogborn, D., & Krieger, J. W. (2017). Dose-response relationship between weekly resistance training volume and increases in muscle mass: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Sports Sciences, 35(11), 1073-1082.
• Silva, N. L., Oliveira, R. B., Fleck, S. J., Leon, A. C. M. P., & Farinatti, P. (2014). Influence of strength training variables on strength gains in adults over 55 years-old: A meta-analysis of dose-response relationships. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 17(3), 337-344.
• Swinton, P. A., Schoenfeld, B. J., & Murphy, A. (2024). Dose-response modelling of resistance exercise across outcome domains in strength and conditioning: A meta-analysis. Sports Medicine, 54, 1579-1594.
• Wolfe, B. L., LeMura, L. M., & Cole, P. J. (2004). Quantitative analysis of single- vs. multiple-set programs in resistance training. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 18(1), 35-47.

8. Training Frequency

Reference range.

• Endurance: Endurance was not graded, because no published review tested frequency for local muscular endurance.
• Hypertrophy (General Strength): The optimal range was 2 or more sessions per muscle group per week. In the published reviews, frequency had little independent effect on hypertrophy when weekly volume was equated (Schoenfeld et al., 2019, effect size 0.07; Pelland et al., 2026, 0.32% per added session). Frequency had no effect on hypertrophy in women in Hagstrom et al. (2020), or in adults over 60 in Kneffel et al. (2021). Training a muscle group twice per week resulted in greater hypertrophy than once per week in Schoenfeld et al. (2016). In the comparative studies, 2 and 3 sessions per week resulted in greater lean mass increases than 1 session in 1 study (Westcott et al., 2009). No comparative study found greater hypertrophy with 1 session per week, and 1 study reported changes within each group only (Gentil et al., 2018). Because 1 session per week resulted in smaller increases in 1 study and was never found to result in larger increases, the optimal range was set at 2 or more sessions per muscle group per week.
• Strength (Max Strength): The optimal range was 2 or more sessions per muscle group per week. In the published reviews, frequency had little independent effect on strength when weekly volume was equated (Grgic et al., 2018; Ralston et al., 2018, effect size 0.03; Cuthbert et al., 2021, in well-trained participants). The pooled optimum was 2 sessions per week for trained and 3 for untrained participants in Rhea et al. (2003), 2 for athletes in Peterson et al. (2004), and 2 for older adults in Borde et al. (2015). Three analyses found a small independent effect of frequency on strength (Kneffel et al., 2021, +0.14 per training day in adults over 60; Mcleod et al., 2024; Pelland et al., 2026, 12.7% at 1 and 17.3% at 2 sessions per week). In the comparative studies, no study found greater 1RM strength with 1 session per week. Higher frequencies resulted in greater isometric or handgrip strength in 3 studies, with no difference in 1RM strength. Because no comparative study found greater strength with 1 session per week, the optimal range started from the optimum reported by the published reviews and was set at 2 or more sessions per muscle group per week.
• Power: Power was not graded, because no published review tested frequency for power.

Of the 9 published systematic reviews and meta-analyses on hypertrophy, 6 agreed with the published reference range, 3 partly agreed, and none disagreed. The 3 reviews that partly agreed found that twice per week resulted in greater hypertrophy than once per week (Schoenfeld et al., 2016), found an effect in older adults only, with volume not equated (Polito et al., 2021), and did not separate frequency from load and sets (Currier et al., 2023). Of the 14 published reviews on strength, 5 agreed, 9 partly agreed, and none disagreed. The 9 reviews that partly agreed found a pooled optimum of 2 to 3 sessions per week (Rhea et al., 2003; Peterson et al., 2004; Borde et al., 2015), a small independent effect of frequency (Kneffel et al., 2021; Mcleod et al., 2024; Pelland et al., 2026), greater strength with 3 or more days per week, with volume not equated (Hagstrom et al., 2020; Polito et al., 2021), and frequency not separated from load and sets (Currier et al., 2023). The reviews split on strength. Of the 14 reviews, 5 found no independent effect of frequency when weekly volume was equated, or no dose-response for frequency (Silva et al., 2014; Grgic et al., 2018; Ralston et al., 2018; Cuthbert et al., 2021; Swinton et al., 2024), and 6 placed the optimum at 2 to 3 sessions per week or found a small independent effect. Because the reviews split between a narrower range and a broader range, the published reference range was the broader range (1 to 3 or more sessions per muscle group per week). The optimal range was then set at 2 or more sessions per muscle group per week, as stated above. No published review tested frequency for endurance or power, so those goals were not graded.

• Bernárdez-Vázquez, R., Raya-González, J., Castillo, D., & Beato, M. (2022). Resistance training variables for optimization of muscle hypertrophy: An umbrella review. Frontiers in Sports and Active Living, 4, 949021.
• Borde, R., Hortobágyi, T., & Granacher, U. (2015). Dose-response relationships of resistance training in healthy old adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports Medicine, 45(12), 1693-1720.
• Currier, B. S., Mcleod, J. C., Banfield, L., Beyene, J., Welton, N. J., D’Souza, A. C., Keogh, J. A. J., Lin, L., Coletta, G., Yang, A., Colenso-Semple, L., Lau, K. J., Verboom, A., & Phillips, S. M. (2023). Resistance training prescription for muscle strength and hypertrophy in healthy adults: A systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 57(18), 1211-1220.
• Cuthbert, M., Haff, G. G., Arent, S. M., Ripley, N., McMahon, J. J., Evans, M., & Comfort, P. (2021). Effects of variations in resistance training frequency on strength development in well-trained populations and implications for in-season athlete training: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports Medicine, 51(9), 1967-1982.
• Gentil, P., Fisher, J., Steele, J., Campos, M. H., Silva, M. H., Paoli, A., Giessing, J., & Bottaro, M. (2018). Effects of equal-volume resistance training with different training frequencies in muscle size and strength in trained men. PeerJ, 6, e5020.
• Grgic, J., Schoenfeld, B. J., Davies, T. B., Lazinica, B., Krieger, J. W., & Pedisic, Z. (2018). Effect of resistance training frequency on gains in muscular strength: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports Medicine, 48(5), 1207-1220.
• Hagstrom, A. D., Marshall, P. W., Halaki, M., & Hackett, D. A. (2020). The effect of resistance training in women on dynamic strength and muscular hypertrophy: A systematic review with meta-analysis. Sports Medicine, 50(6), 1075-1093.
• Kneffel, Z., Murlasits, Z., Reed, J., & Krieger, J. (2021). A meta-regression of the effects of resistance training frequency on muscular strength and hypertrophy in adults over 60 years of age. Journal of Sports Sciences, 39(3), 351-358.
• Mcleod, J. C., Currier, B. S., Lowisz, C. V., & Phillips, S. M. (2024). The influence of resistance exercise training prescription variables on skeletal muscle mass, strength, and physical function in healthy adults: An umbrella review. Journal of Sport and Health Science, 13(1), 47-60.
• Pelland, J. C., Remmert, J. F., Robinson, Z. P., Hinson, S. R., & Zourdos, M. C. (2026). The resistance training dose-response: Meta-regressions exploring the effects of weekly volume and frequency on muscle hypertrophy and strength gains. Sports Medicine, 56(2), 481-505.
• Peterson, M. D., Rhea, M. R., & Alvar, B. A. (2004). Maximizing strength development in athletes: A meta-analysis to determine the dose-response relationship. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 18(2), 377-382.
• Polito, M. D., Papst, R. R., & Farinatti, P. (2021). Moderators of strength gains and hypertrophy in resistance training: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Sports Sciences, 39(19), 2189-2198.
• Ralston, G. W., Kilgore, L., Wyatt, F. B., Buchan, D., & Baker, J. S. (2018). Weekly training frequency effects on strength gain: A meta-analysis. Sports Medicine - Open, 4, 36.
• Rhea, M. R., Alvar, B. A., Burkett, L. N., & Ball, S. D. (2003). A meta-analysis to determine the dose response for strength development. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 35(3), 456-464.
• Schoenfeld, B. J., Grgic, J., & Krieger, J. (2019). How many times per week should a muscle be trained to maximize muscle hypertrophy? A systematic review and meta-analysis of studies examining the effects of resistance training frequency. Journal of Sports Sciences, 37(11), 1286-1295.
• Schoenfeld, B. J., Ogborn, D., & Krieger, J. W. (2016). Effects of resistance training frequency on measures of muscle hypertrophy: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports Medicine, 46(11), 1689-1697.
• Silva, N. L., Oliveira, R. B., Fleck, S. J., Leon, A. C. M. P., & Farinatti, P. (2014). Influence of strength training variables on strength gains in adults over 55 years-old: A meta-analysis of dose-response relationships. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 17(3), 337-344.
• Swinton, P. A., Schoenfeld, B. J., & Murphy, A. (2024). Dose-response modelling of resistance exercise across outcome domains in strength and conditioning: A meta-analysis. Sports Medicine, 54, 1579-1594.
• Westcott, W. L., Winett, R. A., Annesi, J. J., Wojcik, J. R., Anderson, E. S., & Madden, P. J. (2009). Prescribing physical activity: Applying the ACSM protocols for exercise type, intensity, and duration across 3 training frequencies. The Physician and Sportsmedicine, 37(2), 51-58.

9. Set Strategies

Reference range (counted by strategy).

• Endurance: Endurance was not graded. Drop sets resulted in muscular endurance similar to conventional sets in the 1 meta-analysis that pooled endurance (Havers et al., 2026, effect size 0.53, not significant). The 2 reviews of cluster sets did not agree, with less endurance than conventional sets in Jukic et al. (2021), and no difference in Davies et al. (2021).
• Hypertrophy (General Strength): Any set strategy was within the range, including conventional sets, drop sets, rest-pause sets, cluster sets, and pyramid sets. In the published reviews, drop sets resulted in hypertrophy similar to conventional sets in 30 - 70% less time (Coleman et al., 2022; Sødal et al., 2023; Havers et al., 2026; Tsartsapakis et al., 2026). Pooled advanced methods resulted in hypertrophy similar to conventional sets in trained participants (Fonseca et al., 2023), and cluster sets resulted in hypertrophy similar to conventional sets (Jukic et al., 2021; Davies et al., 2021). In the comparative studies, drop sets and conventional sets resulted in similar hypertrophy in 4 of 4 studies, and pyramid sets and conventional sets resulted in similar hypertrophy in 2 of 2 studies (Ribeiro et al., 2017; Ribeiro et al., 2018). Because every strategy compared resulted in hypertrophy similar to conventional sets in the published reviews and the comparative studies, any set strategy, including pyramid sets, was within the hypertrophy range.
• Strength (Max Strength): The optimal range was conventional sets combined with drop sets, rest-pause sets, or accommodating resistance. In the published reviews, rest-pause and cluster sets resulted in strength similar to conventional sets (Jukic et al., 2021; Davies et al., 2021; Cui et al., 2025; Cowley et al., 2026; Zhao et al., 2026). Accommodating resistance resulted in greater strength increases than constant resistance in 3 of 5 published reviews (Soria-Gila et al., 2015, +5.03 kg; Lin et al., 2022, effect size 0.80, with the benefit in trained participants at loads of 80% of 1RM or more; Shi et al., 2022, 0.25), and in no clear difference in 2 (Andersen et al., 2022; Cowley et al., 2026). Drop sets resulted in similar strength (Coleman et al., 2022; Havers et al., 2026). In the comparative studies, drop sets resulted in greater strength increases than conventional sets in 2 studies (Singh and Kumar, 2021; Fasihiyan et al., 2023), and drop sets or rest-pause sets resulted in similar increases in 2 (Fink et al., 2018; Enes et al., 2021). Pyramid sets resulted in smaller strength increases than conventional sets in 2 studies (Ozrudi et al., 2014; Fischetti et al., 2019) and similar increases in 2 (Ribeiro et al., 2017; Ribeiro et al., 2018). No comparative study found greater strength with pyramid sets, so pyramid sets were removed from the range. Because conventional sets resulted in smaller strength increases than drop sets in 2 studies, and never in greater increases, a model that used conventional sets alone was only partly within the range.
• Power: The range was cluster sets (rest between repetitions) or drop sets. In the published reviews, cluster sets resulted in greater explosive power and sprint performance than conventional sets in athletes (Zhao et al., 2026), and in a small benefit for velocity and power (Jukic et al., 2021). Davies et al. (2021) found no difference. The optimum reported by the published reviews was cluster sets, so the optimal range started from cluster sets. In the comparative studies, rest between repetitions resulted in greater increases in rate of force development, peak velocity, and peak power than conventional sets in 1 multi-week study (Wongsason and Apanukul, 2021), and similar power in 1 single-session study (Jukic and Tufano, 2019). Drop sets resulted in a greater increase in anaerobic power (Wingate test) than conventional sets in 1 study (Keskin and Tokat, 2023). Because no comparative study found smaller power increases with drop sets, drop sets were added to the power range. Conventional sets resulted in smaller power increases than rest between repetitions in 1 study, and never in greater increases, so conventional sets used alone were not within the power range.

The counts are by strategy. Of the 7 published systematic reviews and meta-analyses on drop sets, 6 agreed with the published reference range, and 1 partly agreed, finding a pooled strength benefit for advanced systems (Tsartsapakis et al., 2026). Of the 4 on rest-pause sets, 3 agreed, and 1 partly agreed (Tsartsapakis et al., 2026). All 3 on cluster sets agreed. One systematic review of cluster set structures reported acute effects only and was not counted (Tufano et al., 2017). Of the 5 on accommodating resistance, 3 agreed, and 2 disagreed, finding no clear strength difference (Andersen et al., 2022; Cowley et al., 2026). Supersets were counted under circuit training and supersets. The published reviews did not agree on an endurance outcome, so endurance was not graded.

• Andersen, V., Prieske, O., Stien, N., Cumming, K. T., Solstad, T. E. J., Paulsen, G., van den Tillaar, R., Pedersen, H., & Saeterbakken, A. H. (2022). Comparing the effects of variable and traditional resistance training on maximal strength and muscle power in healthy adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 25(12), 1023-1032.
• Coleman, M., Harrison, K., Arias, R., Johnson, E., Grgic, J., Orazem, J., & Schoenfeld, B. J. (2022). Muscular adaptations in drop set vs. traditional training: A meta-analysis. International Journal of Strength and Conditioning, 2(1).
• Cowley, N., Nicholson, V., Timmins, R., Munteanu, G., & Weakley, J. (2026). The effects of advanced resistance training prescription methods on strength, power, hypertrophy, and performance adaptations in healthy adults: A systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis. Sports Medicine (published online April 8, 2026).
• Cui, J., Yu, Y., Xu, Y., & Wu, H. (2025). Effectiveness of long-term cluster training and traditional resistance training in enhancing maximum strength in young adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Frontiers in Physiology, 16, 1568247.
• Davies, T. B., Tran, D. L., Hogan, C. M., Haff, G. G., & Latella, C. (2021). Chronic effects of altering resistance training set configurations using cluster sets: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports Medicine, 51(4), 707-736.
• Enes, A., Alves, R. C., Schoenfeld, B. J., Oneda, G., Perin, S. C., Trindade, T. B., ... & Souza-Junior, T. P. (2021). Rest-pause and drop-set training elicit similar strength and hypertrophy adaptations compared with traditional sets in resistance-trained males. Applied Physiology, Nutrition, and Metabolism, 46(11), 1417-1424.
• Fasihiyan, M., Forbes, S., Taheri, M., Lopez, J. G., Babaie, M., Dejam, B., & Nourshahi, M. (2023). The effects of a single or multi-step drop-set training compared to traditional resistance training on muscle performance and body composition. Scientific Journal of Sport and Performance, 2(3), 410-422.
• Fink, J., Schoenfeld, B. J., Kikuchi, N., & Nakazato, K. (2018). Effects of drop set resistance training on acute stress indicators and long-term muscle hypertrophy and strength. J Sports Med Phys Fitness, 58(5), 597-605.
• Fischetti, F., Camporeale, F., & Greco, G. (2019). Effects of high-load resistance training versus pyramid training system on maximal muscle strength in well-trained young men: a randomized controlled study. Journal of Physical Education and Sport, 19, 80-86.
• Fonseca, P. A. B., Ide, B. N., Oranchuk, D. J., Marocolo, M., Simim, M. A. M., Roberts, M. D., & Mota, G. R. (2023). Comparison of traditional and advanced resistance training paradigms on muscle hypertrophy in trained individuals: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Translational Sports Medicine, 2023, 9507977.
• Havers, T., Micke, F., Geisler, S., & Held, S. (2026). Acute and chronic effects of drop-set training: A meta-analysis and systematic review. Sports Medicine - Open, 12, 38.
• Jukic, I., & Tufano, J. J. (2019). Shorter but more frequent rest periods: No effect on velocity and power compared to traditional sets not performed to failure. Journal of Human Kinetics, 66, 257-268.
• Jukic, I., Van Hooren, B., Ramos, A. G., Helms, E. R., McGuigan, M. R., & Tufano, J. J. (2021). The effects of set structure manipulation on chronic adaptations to resistance training: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports Medicine, 51(5), 1061-1086.
• Keskin, K., & Tokat, F. (2023). A comparative analysis of the effects of drop set and traditional resistance training on anaerobic power in young men. Turkish Journal of Kinesiology, 9(3), 225-232.
• Krzysztofik, M., Wilk, M., Wojdała, G., & Gołaś, A. (2019). Maximizing muscle hypertrophy: A systematic review of advanced resistance training techniques and methods. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(24), 4897.
• Lin, Y., Xu, Y., Hong, F., Li, J., Ye, W., & Korivi, M. (2022). Effects of variable-resistance training versus constant-resistance training on maximum strength: A systematic review and meta-analysis. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(14), 8559.
• Ozrudi, M. F., Shob, S. F., & Aliabadi, S. R. (2014). Comparison of three methods of weight training to increase the power of the male students of Mazandaran University of Science and Technology. International Journal of Applied Exercise Physiology, 3(1).
• Ribeiro, A. S., Aguiar, A. F., Schoenfeld, B. J., Nunes, J. P., Cavalcante, E. F., Cadore, E. L., & Cyrino, E. S. (2018). Effects of different resistance training systems on muscular strength and hypertrophy in resistance-trained older women. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 32(2), 545-553.
• Ribeiro, A. S., Schoenfeld, B. J., Fleck, S. J., Pina, F. L., Nascimento, M. A., & Cyrino, E. S. (2017). Effects of traditional and pyramidal resistance training systems on muscular strength, muscle mass, and hormonal responses in older women: A randomized crossover trial. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 31(7), 1888-1896.
• Shi, L., Han, D., Cai, Z., Guo, W., & Chen, Z. (2022). Effects of variable resistance training on strength performance: A systematic review and meta-analysis [in Chinese]. Journal of Shanghai University of Sport, 46(9), 90-104.
• Singh, B., & Kumar, S. (2021). Significance of Training on Drop Sets In Various Sports Colleges. Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education (TURCOMAT), 12(12), 4848-4856.
• Soria-Gila, M. A., Chirosa, I. J., Bautista, I. J., Baena, S., & Chirosa, L. J. (2015). Effects of variable resistance training on maximal strength: A meta-analysis. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 29(11), 3260-3270.
• Sødal, L. K., Kristiansen, E., Larsen, S., & van den Tillaar, R. (2023). Effects of drop sets on skeletal muscle hypertrophy: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports Medicine - Open, 9(1), 66.
• Tsartsapakis, I., Zafeiroudi, A., & Kouthouris, C. (2026). Effects of advanced resistance training systems on muscle hypertrophy and strength in recreationally trained adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Functional Morphology and Kinesiology, 11(1), 80.
• Tufano, J. J., Brown, L. E., & Haff, G. G. (2017). Theoretical and practical aspects of different cluster set structures: A systematic review. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 31(3), 848-867.
• Wongsason, P., & Apanukul, S. (2021). Effects of Weighted Jump Squat Using Intra-Set Rest Intervals on Rate of Force Development and Power in Male Rugby Players. Journal of Exercise Physiology Online, 24(6), 11-24.
• Zhao, X., Ya, X., Zhou, H., Liu, G., Liu, Z., Luo, J., Liu, Y., & Bu, Y. (2026). The specificity of cluster training effects in sports: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Frontiers in Physiology, 16, 1722401.

10. Periodization

Reference range.

• Endurance: Endurance was not graded, because no published review pooled an endurance outcome for periodized compared with non-periodized training.
• Hypertrophy (General Strength): A periodized or a non-periodized program, with linear or undulating periodization, was within the range. Periodized and non-periodized programs resulted in similar hypertrophy in both published reviews (Grgic et al., 2018; Moesgaard et al., 2022), and linear and undulating periodization resulted in similar hypertrophy in all 3 (Caldas et al., 2016; Grgic et al., 2017; Moesgaard et al., 2022). The comparative studies did not change this range.
• Strength (Max Strength), experienced exercisers: The optimal range was undulating periodization. Periodized programs resulted in greater strength increases than non-periodized programs in all 3 published meta-analyses that compared them directly (Rhea and Alderman, 2004, effect size 0.84, and 0.25 after volume, intensity, and frequency were controlled; Williams et al., 2017, 0.43; Moesgaard et al., 2022, 0.31, with volume equated). Undulating periodization resulted in greater strength than linear periodization in Caldas et al. (2016, effect size 0.22), in Williams et al. (2017), and in trained participants only in Moesgaard et al. (2022, 0.61 for trained and 0.06 for untrained participants). Linear and undulating periodization resulted in similar strength in Harries et al. (2015) and Fröhlich et al. (2009). The optimum reported by the published reviews was undulating periodization for trained participants. In 17 comparative studies of experienced exercisers, periodized programs resulted in greater strength increases than non-periodized programs in 9, similar increases in 5, and autoregulated pyramid-set programs resulted in greater increases than periodized programs in 3. Daily undulating periodization resulted in greater increases than non-periodized programs in 5 of the 9 studies that compared them, and similar increases in 3. Because non-periodized programs resulted in smaller strength increases in 9 studies, they were not added to the range. A periodized program without undulation was partly within the range.
• Strength (Max Strength), novices: A periodized or a non-periodized program was within the range. The published reviews set no separate range for novices. In 13 comparative studies of novices, 10 found similar strength increases with periodized and non-periodized programs, 2 found greater increases with non-periodized programs, and 1 found greater increases with daily undulating periodization. Because the comparative studies split, the broader range was used.
• Power: Power was not graded, because no published review pooled a power outcome for periodized compared with non-periodized training, and the periodization strategy rarely resulted in a difference in power in the comparative studies.

Of the 4 published systematic reviews and meta-analyses on periodized compared with non-periodized training for strength, 3 agreed with the published reference range, and 1 disagreed indirectly, finding larger strength effects for non-periodized programs in between-study comparisons of 119 controlled trials (Polito et al., 2021). Both published reviews on periodized compared with non-periodized training for hypertrophy agreed. Of the 6 on linear compared with undulating periodization for strength, 2 agreed, 4 partly agreed, and none disagreed. The 4 reviews that partly agreed found an undulating benefit (Caldas et al., 2016; Williams et al., 2017), an undulating benefit in trained participants only (Moesgaard et al., 2022), and discrepant results (Pitta et al., 2019). All 3 on linear compared with undulating periodization for hypertrophy agreed. The reviews split on linear compared with undulating periodization for strength, so the published reference range was the broader range (a periodized program, linear or undulating). The 3 meta-analyses pooled the periodization models used in the original studies, and no published review of block periodization was located. Rhea and Alderman (2004) reported the benefit of periodization for all training backgrounds, and Williams et al. (2017) found greater improvements in untrained participants. Neither meta-analysis required the programs compared to be equated for training volume, and both reported program length as a significant moderator. No published review pooled an endurance or power outcome, so those goals were not graded.

• Caldas, L. C., Guimarães-Ferreira, L., Duncan, M. J., Leopoldo, A. S., Leopoldo, A. P. L., & Lunz, W. (2016). Traditional vs. undulating periodization in the context of muscular strength and hypertrophy: A meta-analysis. International Journal of Sports Science, 6(6), 219-229.
• Fröhlich, M., Müller, T., Schmidtbleicher, D., & Emrich, E. (2009). Outcome-Effekte verschiedener Periodisierungsmodelle im Krafttraining [Outcome effects of different periodization models in strength training]. Deutsche Zeitschrift für Sportmedizin, 60(10), 307-314.
• Grgic, J., Lazinica, B., Mikulic, P., & Schoenfeld, B. J. (2018). Should resistance training programs aimed at muscular hypertrophy be periodized? A systematic review of periodized versus non-periodized approaches. Science and Sports, 33(3), e97-e104.
• Grgic, J., Mikulic, P., Podnar, H., & Pedisic, Z. (2017). Effects of linear and daily undulating periodized resistance training programs on measures of muscle hypertrophy: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PeerJ, 5, e3695.
• Harries, S. K., Lubans, D. R., & Callister, R. (2015). Systematic review and meta-analysis of linear and undulating periodized resistance training programs on muscular strength. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 29(4), 1113-1125.
• Moesgaard, L., Beck, M. M., Christiansen, L., Aagaard, P., & Lundbye-Jensen, J. (2022). Effects of periodization on strength and muscle hypertrophy in volume-equated resistance training programs: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports Medicine, 52(7), 1647-1666.
• Pitta, R. M., de Sá Pinto Montenegro, C. G., Rica, R. L., Bocalini, D. S., Tibana, R. A., Prestes, J., Stone, W. J., & Figueira, A. J., Jr. (2019). Comparison of the effects of linear and non-linear resistance training periodization on morphofunctional capacity of subjects with different fitness levels: A systematic review. International Journal of Exercise Science, 12(4), 666-690.
• Polito, M. D., Papst, R. R., & Farinatti, P. (2021). Moderators of strength gains and hypertrophy in resistance training: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Sports Sciences, 39(19), 2189-2198.
• Rhea, M. R., & Alderman, B. L. (2004). A meta-analysis of periodized versus nonperiodized strength and power training programs. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 75(4), 413-422.
• Williams, T. D., Tolusso, D. V., Fedewa, M. V., & Esco, M. R. (2017). Comparison of periodized and non-periodized resistance training on maximal strength: A meta-analysis. Sports Medicine, 47(10), 2083-2100.

11. Range of Motion

Reference range.

• Endurance: Endurance was not graded, because no published review tested range of motion for local muscular endurance.
• Hypertrophy (General Strength): The range was full range of motion, or partial repetitions performed at long muscle lengths. In the published reviews, full range of motion resulted in greater hypertrophy than partial range of motion (Schoenfeld and Grgic, 2020, for the lower body; Pallarés et al., 2021, effect size 0.88 for the lower limb). Full range of motion and lengthened partials both resulted in greater hypertrophy than shortened partials (Kassiano et al., 2023). The difference was trivial in Wolf et al. (2023, 0.04), with lengthened partials favored over full range of motion (-0.28). The comparative studies did not change this range.
• Strength (Max Strength): The range was full range of motion. In the published reviews, full range of motion resulted in greater strength than partial range of motion (Pallarés et al., 2021, effect size 0.56), and in a trivial difference in Wolf et al. (2023, 0.14). The comparative studies did not change this range.
• Power: Power was not graded, because no published review tested range of motion for power.

Of the 2 published systematic reviews and meta-analyses on strength, 1 agreed with the published reference range, and 1 partly agreed (Wolf et al., 2023), favoring full range of motion by a trivial standardized mean difference of 0.14. Of the 4 on hypertrophy, 3 agreed, and 1 partly agreed (Wolf et al., 2023, 0.04). Both reviews of lengthened partial repetitions agreed. No majority of the reviews fully agreed on strength, so the strength range was set where full and partial agreement together were greatest: both reviews favored full range of motion. No published review tested range of motion for endurance or power, so those goals were not graded.

• Kassiano, W., Costa, B., Nunes, J. P., Ribeiro, A. S., Schoenfeld, B. J., & Cyrino, E. S. (2023). Which ROMs lead to Rome? A systematic review of the effects of range of motion on muscle hypertrophy. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 37(5), 1135-1144.
• Pallarés, J. G., Hernández-Belmonte, A., Martínez-Cava, A., Vetrovsky, T., Steffl, M., & Courel-Ibáñez, J. (2021). Effects of range of motion on resistance training adaptations: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine and Science in Sports, 31(10), 1866-1881.
• Schoenfeld, B. J., & Grgic, J. (2020). Effects of range of motion on muscle development during resistance training interventions: A systematic review. SAGE Open Medicine, 8, 2050312120901559.
• Wolf, M., Androulakis-Korakakis, P., Fisher, J., Schoenfeld, B., & Steele, J. (2023). Partial vs full range of motion resistance training: A systematic review and meta-analysis. International Journal of Strength and Conditioning, 3(1).

12. Exercise Order

Reference range.

• Endurance: Endurance was not graded, because no published review tested exercise order for local muscular endurance.
• Hypertrophy (General Strength): Any exercise order was within the range. Exercise order did not affect hypertrophy in the 3 published reviews that pooled it (Nunes et al., 2021; Bernárdez-Vázquez et al., 2022; Mcleod et al., 2024), and effect sizes favored the first exercise without reaching significance in Simão et al. (2012). The comparative studies did not change this range.
• Strength (Max Strength): The range was the exercises most important to the goal first, and resistance training and aerobic exercise in either order. Exercises performed first in a session resulted in greater strength increases in that exercise in all 3 published reviews (Simão et al., 2012; Nunes et al., 2021; Mcleod et al., 2024). Resistance training before aerobic exercise resulted in greater lower-body strength than the reverse order in 3 of the 7 published reviews (Eddens et al., 2018, +6.91%; Murlasits et al., 2018, +3.96 kg; Gao and Yu, 2023, 0.19), and in similar strength in 4 (Schumann et al., 2022; Markov et al., 2023; Zhang et al., 2026; Held et al., 2026). No review found greater strength with aerobic exercise first. The comparative studies did not change this range.
• Power: Any exercise order was within the range, with the rest between a strength exercise and a power exercise for the same muscles stated under circuit training and supersets. No published review tested the order of exercises within a resistance training session for power, and sequences with strength training first favored explosive power in 1 review of concurrent training (Zhang et al., 2026). In 3 multi-week comparative studies, strength-first, power-first, and alternating orders resulted in similar 1RM strength, squat jump, and countermovement jump increases (Alemdaroğlu et al., 2013; Talpey et al., 2016; Kobal et al., 2017). Jump-squat-first training resulted in a greater running vertical jump increase than squat-first training in 1 of these studies (Talpey et al., 2016), and alternating training resulted in a greater 20-meter sprint improvement than either order in 1 (Kobal et al., 2017). Because every order resulted in similar jump and strength increases in all 3 studies, and each difference was limited to 1 measure in 1 study, any order was within the range.

No published review disagreed with the published reference ranges. All 3 published systematic reviews and meta-analyses on strength agreed with the published reference range. Of the 4 on hypertrophy, 3 agreed, and 1 partly agreed, with effect sizes favoring the first exercise that were not significant (Simão et al., 2012). All 7 on the order of resistance training and aerobic exercise agreed. The 7 reviews split between greater strength with resistance training first (3) and similar strength in either order (4), so the broader range was used, and no model lost points for either order. No published review tested exercise order for endurance, so endurance was not graded.

• Alemdaroğlu, U., Dündar, U., Köklü, Y., Aşci, A., & Findikoğlu, G. (2013). The effect of exercise order incorporating plyometric and resistance training on isokinetic leg strength and vertical jump performance: A comparative study. Isokinetics and Exercise Science, 21(3), 211-217.
• Bernárdez-Vázquez, R., Raya-González, J., Castillo, D., & Beato, M. (2022). Resistance training variables for optimization of muscle hypertrophy: An umbrella review. Frontiers in Sports and Active Living, 4, 949021.
• Eddens, L., van Someren, K., & Howatson, G. (2018). The role of intra-session exercise sequence in the interference effect: A systematic review with meta-analysis. Sports Medicine, 48(1), 177-188.
• Gao, J., & Yu, L. (2023). Effects of concurrent training sequence on VO2max and lower limb strength performance: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Frontiers in Physiology, 14, 1072679.
• Held, S., Wolf, L., Rappelt, L., Bloch, W., Donath, L., Micke, F., Geisler, S., & Isenmann, E. (2026). Maximizing adaptations in concurrent training: An umbrella review of meta-analyses. Sports Medicine. Advance online publication.
• Kobal, R., Loturco, I., Barroso, R., Gil, S., Cuniyochi, R., Ugrinowitsch, C., Roschel, H., & Tricoli, V. (2017). Effects of different combinations of strength, power, and plyometric training on the physical performance of elite young soccer players. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 31(6), 1468-1476.
• Markov, A., Hauser, L., & Chaabene, H. (2023). Effects of concurrent strength and endurance training on measures of physical fitness in healthy middle-aged and older adults: A systematic review with meta-analysis. Sports Medicine, 53(2), 437-455.
• Mcleod, J. C., Currier, B. S., Lowisz, C. V., & Phillips, S. M. (2024). The influence of resistance exercise training prescription variables on skeletal muscle mass, strength, and physical function in healthy adults: An umbrella review. Journal of Sport and Health Science, 13(1), 47-60.
• Murlasits, Z., Kneffel, Z., & Thalib, L. (2018). The physiological effects of concurrent strength and endurance training sequence: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Sports Sciences, 36(11), 1212-1219.
• Nunes, J. P., Grgic, J., Cunha, P. M., Ribeiro, A. S., Schoenfeld, B. J., de Salles, B. F., & Cyrino, E. S. (2021). What influence does resistance exercise order have on muscular strength gains and muscle hypertrophy? A systematic review and meta-analysis. European Journal of Sport Science, 21(2), 149-157.
• Schumann, M., Feuerbacher, J. F., Sünkeler, M., Freitag, N., Rønnestad, B. R., Doma, K., & Lundberg, T. R. (2022). Compatibility of concurrent aerobic and strength training for skeletal muscle size and function: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports Medicine, 52(3), 601-612.
• Simão, R., de Salles, B. F., Figueiredo, T., Dias, I., & Willardson, J. M. (2012). Exercise order in resistance training. Sports Medicine, 42(3), 251-265.
• Talpey, S. W., Young, W. B., & Saunders, N. (2016). Is nine weeks of complex training effective for improving lower body strength, explosive muscle function, sprint and jumping performance? International Journal of Sports Science and Coaching, 11(5), 736-745.
• Zhang, F., Wang, Y., & Wang, J. (2026). The effects, mechanisms, and influencing factors of concurrent strength and endurance training with different sequences: A semi-systematic review. Frontiers in Sports and Active Living, 7, 1692399.

13. Exercise Selection

Reference range.

• Endurance: Endurance was not graded, because no published review tested exercise selection for local muscular endurance.
• Hypertrophy (General Strength): The range was free weights or machines, and single-joint or multi-joint exercises. Free weights and machines resulted in similar hypertrophy in the published reviews (Heidel et al., 2022, a difference of about -0.01; Haugen et al., 2023), and single-joint and multi-joint exercises resulted in a trivial difference in hypertrophy (Rosa et al., 2023). The comparative studies did not change this range.
• Strength (Max Strength): The range was free weights or machines, with the exercise mode matched to the strength goal. In the published reviews, strength increases were specific to the mode trained in free weights compared with machines (Heidel et al., 2022; Haugen et al., 2023), and in unilateral compared with bilateral training (Liao et al., 2022). Elastic and conventional resistance resulted in similar strength (Lopes et al., 2019). The comparative studies did not change this range.
• Power: The range was free weights or machines, including Olympic lifts. In the published reviews, free weights and machines resulted in similar power and jump performance (Heidel et al., 2022; Haugen et al., 2023), and weightlifting training resulted in greater countermovement jump increases than traditional resistance training (Morris et al., 2022). In the comparative studies, Olympic lifts resulted in smaller improvements than free-weight or machine squats on every jump and sprint test in 1 study of athletes (Helland et al., 2017). Because the comparative study and the published meta-analysis disagreed, the broader range was used, and Olympic lifts were within the range.

Both published systematic reviews and meta-analyses on free weights compared with machines agreed with the published reference range. All 3 published reviews of other selection comparisons agreed, finding similar or mode-specific outcomes: elastic compared with conventional resistance (Lopes et al., 2019), unilateral compared with bilateral training (Liao et al., 2022), and single-joint compared with multi-joint exercises (Rosa et al., 2023). The 1 meta-analysis of weightlifting compared with traditional resistance training partly agreed, because it favored weightlifting for power (Morris et al., 2022). Stability was not graded, because the 2 published reviews of unstable compared with stable surfaces did not agree, and the 2 reviews were named and not counted. Power favored stable surfaces, and strength differences were small and inconsistent, favoring unstable surfaces in young adults and stable surfaces in adolescents (Behm et al., 2015). Unstable core training resulted in greater trunk strength and sprint performance in athletes (Gao et al., 2025). No published review tested exercise selection for endurance, so endurance was not graded.

• Behm, D. G., Muehlbauer, T., Kibele, A., & Granacher, U. (2015). Effects of strength training using unstable surfaces on strength, power and balance performance across the lifespan: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports Medicine, 45(12), 1645-1669.
• Gao, J., Liu, D., Zhu, J., Guo, Q., & Wang, X. (2025). Instability core training vs traditional core training on trunk strength and sprint performance among athletes: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PeerJ, 13, e20212.
• Haugen, M. E., Vårvik, F. T., Larsen, S., Haugen, A. S., van den Tillaar, R., & Bjørnsen, T. (2023). Effect of free-weight vs. machine-based strength training on maximal strength, hypertrophy and jump performance: A systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Sports Science, Medicine and Rehabilitation, 15, 103.
• Heidel, K. A., Novak, Z. J., & Dankel, S. J. (2022). Machines and free weight exercises: A systematic review and meta-analysis comparing changes in muscle size, strength, and power. Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness, 62(8), 1061-1070.
• Helland, C., Hole, E., Iversen, E., Olsson, M. C., Seynnes, O., Solberg, P. A., & Paulsen, G. (2017). Training strategies to improve muscle power: Is Olympic-style weightlifting relevant? Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 49(4), 736-745.
• Liao, K., Nassis, G. P., Bishop, C., Yang, W., Bian, C., & Li, Y. (2022). Effects of unilateral vs. bilateral resistance training interventions on measures of strength, jump, linear and change of direction speed: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Biology of Sport, 39(3), 485-497.
• Lopes, J. S. S., Machado, A. F., Micheletti, J. K., de Almeida, A. C., Cavina, A. P., & Pastre, C. M. (2019). Effects of training with elastic resistance versus conventional resistance on muscular strength: A systematic review and meta-analysis. SAGE Open Medicine, 7, 2050312119831116.
• Morris, S. J., Oliver, J. L., Pedley, J. S., Haff, G. G., & Lloyd, R. S. (2022). Comparison of weightlifting, traditional resistance training and plyometrics on strength, power and speed: A systematic review with meta-analysis. Sports Medicine, 52(7), 1533-1554.
• Rosa, A., Vazquez, G., Grgic, J., Balachandran, A. T., Orazem, J., & Schoenfeld, B. J. (2023). Hypertrophic effects of single- versus multi-joint exercise of the limb muscles: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Strength and Conditioning Journal, 45(1), 49-57.

Agreement with Every Published Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review Located

Each published reference range was set by the published meta-analyses and systematic reviews on the same comparison, and then narrowed to an optimal range by the available comparative studies. The conclusions of 124 reviews were verified from a publisher page, a repository copy, or an indexing record. Three reviews whose results could not be read were left out of every count. Each review was coded as agreeing with the published reference range, partly agreeing (overlapping it, finding a trend only, or testing only part of it), disagreeing, or not counted (testing a different comparison, such as exercise compared with no exercise, or testing a question on which no range could be set). The conclusions of the Brookbush Institute’s reviews were not counted. The table gives the counts, and the disagreements are named so that a reader can weigh each disagreement. The last column states what the comparative studies changed.

Four points follow from the table. First, no variable had a majority of published reviews disagreeing with its published reference range, and 9 of the 13 variables had no disagreement. Second, the 7 disagreements were confined to 4 variables, each named in the table: sets per session (2 of 16 reviews: athletes, and adults over 55), accommodating resistance (2 of 5), periodization (1 indirect between-study comparison), and repetition tempo (1 indirect review of adults over 60, counted for hypertrophy and for strength). Of the 6 reviews that disagreed with a range, 4 studied a specific population (athletes, or adults over 55 or 60) or made an indirect comparison. Third, no majority of the reviews fully agreed with the range in 5 comparisons: repetition tempo for strength, weekly sets, training frequency for strength, linear compared with undulating periodization for strength, and range of motion for strength. In each of the 5, the range was set where full and partial agreement together were greatest, or on the broader range where the reviews split, and no review disagreed in 4 of the 5. Fourth, the comparative studies narrowed the range for at least 1 training goal on 7 variables (load, repetition range, proximity to failure, circuit training and supersets, training frequency, set strategies, and periodization), and set a power range on 4 variables (load, rest between sets, circuit training and supersets, and exercise order). The comparative studies also broadened the novice ranges for sets per muscle group and periodization, and added drop sets to the power range.

Caption: There are 13 modifiable variables, and most certifications do not provide recommendations for all of them.

How Each Model Deviates from the Research

This section states where each model departed from the reference ranges, in order of score. Each variable that cost a model points is listed with the model’s recommendation beside the reference range, and each value is linked to the page it came from. Each entry then names the variables the model did not address, which received 0 points, and the variables that were within the reference range.

Six departures were common to many of the models. First, none of the 14 other records placed load within the reference range for every graded goal, and 6 recommended strength loads that included 1 to 2 RM (ACSM 2026, NSCA, ACE, NASM, ISSA, and NFPT). Loads of 2 RM resulted in smaller strength increases than loads of 4 to 8 RM in the comparative studies. Second, 8 of the 14 gave no recommendation for proximity to failure, and none placed it within the reference range for every graded goal. Third, 9 of the 14 gave no set strategy, and only the NSCA’s set strategies were within the reference range. Fourth, 9 of the 14 lost a point on periodization. Seven did not name undulating periodization for experienced exercisers, IPTA offered traditional and undulating periodization without a preference, and the ACSM 2026 position stand concluded that periodization was not superior to non-periodized programs for strength. Fifth, none of the 14 placed circuit training and supersets within the reference range for every graded goal, and 2 (NASM and NESTA) recommended strength and power supersets performed back to back. A power exercise performed 30 seconds or less after a heavy set for the same muscles decreased power in 6 of 8 samples. Sixth, 10 of the 14 gave no recommendation for range of motion.

Brookbush Institute (Evidence-Based Resistance Training Model , with the Hypertrophy Training Model , Strength Training Model , and Power Training Model ): 26 of 26.

The Brookbush Institute’s recommendations were within the reference range for all 13 variables and every graded goal. The models recommended 8 to 12 RM for most hypertrophy sets, 3 to 8 RM for strength, and loads that keep maximal velocity for power. Hypertrophy sets were performed to failure, and strength and power sets were stopped short of failure. Rest was 2 to 3 minutes between sets for hypertrophy and strength, and 2 to 4 minutes between plyometric sets. Strength and power exercises for the same muscles were separated by 4 to 8 minutes. Drop sets were used on the last set for strength, and rest between repetitions was used for power. Strength periodization progressed from true linear periodization to daily undulating periodization, and novices were not periodized for the first 12 weeks.

IPTA (PRIME Method page  and public textbook chapters): 17 of 26.

• Load (1 of 2 points): For hypertrophy, IPTA recommended loads of 5 - 12 RM in Chapter 14: Adaptations to Resistance Training , and loads of 30% of 1RM or more in Chapter 17: Program Design . Both recommendations extended past the reference range (6 to 12 RM, about 65 to 85% of 1RM). For strength, IPTA recommended 80 - 90% of 1RM in the PRIME Method, which was within the reference range (3 to 8 RM, about 80 to 90% of 1RM). For power, IPTA recommended 85 - 100% of 1RM to improve force production and 30 - 40% of 1RM to improve speed (Chapter 17). Only the lighter loads were within the reference range for power (body weight up to about 60% of 1RM).
• Repetition range (1 of 2 points): For hypertrophy, IPTA recommended 8 - 12 reps in Chapter 14, which was within the reference range (6 to 12 reps). Chapter 17 stated that hypertrophy can be elicited with 5 - 30 reps, which extended past the range. For strength, IPTA recommended 1 - 5 reps in Chapter 14, which included 1 to 2 reps, outside the reference range (3 to 8 reps).
• Repetition tempo (1 of 2 points): For hypertrophy, IPTA recommended a 1 - 3 second concentric and a 2 - 4 second eccentric (Chapter 17), which was within the reference range (any repetition duration of 0.5 to 8 seconds). For power, IPTA recommended moving as fast as possible with good form, which was within the reference range. IPTA gave no tempo for strength.
• Proximity to failure (0 of 2 points): For hypertrophy, IPTA recommended leaving 1 - 2 reps in reserve (Chapter 14), which was outside the reference range (to failure). IPTA gave no proximity-to-failure target for strength or power.
• Rest between sets (1 of 2 points): For hypertrophy, IPTA recommended 30 - 60 seconds in Chapter 17, which was outside the reference range (more than 60 seconds), and 60 - 90 seconds in the PRIME Method, which was within the range. For strength, IPTA recommended 2 - 4 minutes in the PRIME Method and 3 - 5 minutes in Chapter 17, and both were within the reference range (2 minutes or more). For power, IPTA recommended 2 - 5 minutes (Chapter 17), which was within the reference range.
• Circuit training and supersets (1 of 2 points): For strength, IPTA recommended supersets of opposing or unrelated muscle groups in Chapter 15: Resistance Training Protocols and Systems . Opposing-muscle pairs were within the reference range (agonist and antagonist supersets or circuits), and unrelated-muscle pairs were outside the range. For hypertrophy, IPTA recommended supersets for the same muscle group, which were outside the reference range (supersets or circuits that pair exercises for different muscle groups).
• Set strategies (1 of 2 points): IPTA described drop sets with parameters (Chapter 15), which were within the reference range. IPTA also described pyramid sets for strength athletes, which were outside the reference range for strength. IPTA gave no cluster set recommendation for power, and the reference range for power was cluster sets or drop sets.
• Periodization (1 of 2 points): IPTA described traditional and undulating periodization without stating a preference in Chapter 18: Periodization . The reference range for experienced exercisers training for strength was undulating periodization.

IPTA stated a recommendation for every variable. IPTA’s recommendations were within the reference range for sets per muscle group, training frequency, range of motion, exercise order, and exercise selection.

NCSF (CEU course handouts and candidate handbooks): 17 of 26.

• Load (1 of 2 points): For hypertrophy, NCSF recommended 70 - 85% of 1RM in How to Develop Muscle Mass , which was within the reference range (6 to 12 RM, about 65 to 85% of 1RM). For strength, NCSF recommended 75 - 95% of 1RM in the same handout, and 6 - 10 reps at 75 - 85% of 1RM in Plyometric Training . Both strength recommendations extended past the reference range (3 to 8 RM, about 80 to 90% of 1RM). For power, NCSF recommended 80 - 95% of 1RM in How to Develop Muscle Mass, which was outside the reference range (body weight up to about 60% of 1RM).
• Repetition range (1 of 2 points): For hypertrophy, NCSF recommended 8 - 12 reps in the text of How to Develop Muscle Mass, which was within the reference range (6 to 12 reps), and 8 - 15 reps in the table of the same handout, which extended past the range. For strength, NCSF recommended 3 - 6 reps in How to Develop Muscle Mass, which was within the reference range (3 to 8 reps), and 6 - 10 reps in Plyometric Training, which extended past the range.
• Proximity to failure (1 of 2 points): NCSF described volitional failure as the point at which overload is reached in The Best Kept Secret to Maximizing Training . This was within the reference ranges for hypertrophy (to failure) and strength (to failure or 1 to 5 reps short of failure). NCSF gave no proximity-to-failure target for power.
• Rest between sets (1 of 2 points): For hypertrophy, NCSF recommended 30 - 90 seconds in How to Develop Muscle Mass, which extended below the reference range (more than 60 seconds). The strength recommendation (2 - 3 minutes) and the power recommendation (more than 3 minutes) were within the reference ranges.
• Circuit training and supersets (1 of 2 points): For strength, NCSF recommended supersets that pair different body segments in Implementing Superset Training . The push and pull pairs were within the reference range (agonist and antagonist supersets or circuits), and the upper body and lower body pairs were outside the range. For hypertrophy, NCSF recommended supersets for the same muscle group, which were outside the reference range (supersets or circuits that pair exercises for different muscle groups). For power, NCSF described complex pairs with 4 - 5 minutes of recovery in Using Contrast and Complex Sets for Improving Strength and Power , which were within the reference range (about 4 to 8 minutes between a strength exercise and a power exercise for the same muscles). NCSF also described contrast sets performed with minimal rest, which were outside the range.
• Set strategies (1 of 2 points): NCSF named pyramids, strip sets, and other training systems without parameters, and gave no drop set, rest-pause set, or accommodating resistance recommendation for strength. The reference range for strength was conventional sets combined with drop sets, rest-pause sets, or accommodating resistance. NCSF gave no cluster set recommendation for power, and the reference range for power was cluster sets or drop sets.
• Periodization (1 of 2 points): NCSF recommended periodized training that cycles through hypertrophy, strength, and endurance programs in periods of 5 - 8 weeks (How to Develop Muscle Mass). NCSF did not name undulating periodization, the reference range for experienced exercisers training for strength.

NCSF did not receive any points for 1 variable it did not list a recommendation for: repetition tempo. NCSF named movement velocity for power without a value. NCSF’s recommendations were within the reference range for sets per muscle group, training frequency, range of motion, exercise order, and exercise selection.

ACSM (2009 position stand , replaced in 2026): 16 of 26.

• Load (1 of 2 points): For hypertrophy, the position stand recommended 70 - 85% of 1RM, which was within the reference range (6 to 12 RM, about 65 to 85% of 1RM). For strength, the position stand recommended 60 - 70% of 1RM for novices, which was outside the reference range (3 to 8 RM, about 80 to 90% of 1RM, for every training level). For power, the position stand recommended 0 - 60% of 1RM, which was within the reference range (body weight up to about 60% of 1RM).
• Repetition range (1 of 2 points): For hypertrophy, the position stand recommended 8 - 12 reps, which was within the reference range (6 to 12 reps). For strength, the position stand recommended 8 - 12 reps for novices and 1 - 6 reps for advanced exercisers, and both extended past the reference range (3 to 8 reps).
• Proximity to failure (1 of 2 points): For power, the position stand recommended sets not performed to failure, which was within the reference range (well short of failure). The position stand gave no proximity-to-failure target for hypertrophy or strength.
• Periodization (1 of 2 points): The position stand recommended periodized training for intermediate and advanced exercisers, but did not name undulating periodization, the reference range for experienced exercisers training for strength.

The ACSM 2009 position stand did not receive any points for 3 variables it did not list a recommendation for. These included circuit training and supersets, set strategies, and range of motion. The position stand recommended circuits for endurance only and did not mention supersets. The position stand’s recommendations were within the reference range for repetition tempo, rest between sets, sets per muscle group, training frequency, exercise order, and exercise selection.

NSCA (Foundations of Fitness Programming , 2015): 16 of 26.

• Load (1 of 2 points): For hypertrophy, the NSCA recommended 67 - 85% of 1RM, which was within the reference range (6 to 12 RM, about 65 to 85% of 1RM). For strength, the NSCA recommended 70% of 1RM or more for beginners, which extended below the reference range (3 to 8 RM, about 80 to 90% of 1RM, for every training level), and 85% of 1RM or more (1 - 6 RM) for experienced exercisers, which included 1 to 2 RM. For power, the NSCA recommended 30 - 70% of 1RM for advanced exercisers, which extended past the reference range (body weight up to about 60% of 1RM).
• Repetition range (1 of 2 points): For hypertrophy, the NSCA recommended 6 - 12 reps, which was within the reference range (6 to 12 reps). For strength, the NSCA recommended 6 or fewer reps, which included 1 to 2 reps, outside the reference range (3 to 8 reps).
• Repetition tempo (1 of 2 points): For power, the NSCA recommended explosive repetitions, which was within the reference range (a concentric at maximal intended velocity, with a short eccentric). The NSCA gave no tempo for hypertrophy or strength.
• Rest between sets (1 of 2 points): For hypertrophy, the NSCA recommended 30 seconds to 1.5 minutes, which extended below the reference range (more than 60 seconds). The strength and power recommendation (2 - 5 minutes) was within the reference ranges.
• Circuit training and supersets (1 of 2 points): The NSCA recommended supersets of opposing muscle groups, which were within the reference ranges for hypertrophy and strength. The NSCA also recommended compound sets of 2 exercises for the same muscle group for hypertrophy, which were outside the reference range (supersets or circuits that pair exercises for different muscle groups). The NSCA described complex sets for power without stating the rest between the strength exercise and the power exercise.
• Periodization (1 of 2 points): The NSCA recommended a linear sequence for beginners, which was within the reference range for novices (a periodized or a non-periodized program). The NSCA did not name undulating periodization for experienced exercisers training for strength.

The NSCA did not receive any points for 2 variables it did not list a recommendation for. These included proximity to failure and range of motion. Failure appeared only in the definitions of training techniques, and partial range of motion was listed as a technique without a recommendation. The NSCA’s recommendations were within the reference range for sets per muscle group, training frequency, set strategies, exercise order, and exercise selection.

ACE (Integrated Fitness Training model pages and Training Variables table): 15 of 26.

• Load (1 of 2 points): For hypertrophy, ACE recommended 67 - 85% of 1RM in the Training Variables table of The ACE Workout Builder for Split Routines , which was within the reference range (6 to 12 RM, about 65 to 85% of 1RM). For strength, ACE recommended 85% of 1RM or more for 6 or fewer reps, which included 1 to 2 RM, and 60 - 70% of 1RM for novice and intermediate exercisers, which was outside the reference range (3 to 8 RM, about 80 to 90% of 1RM, for every training level). For power, ACE recommended 75 - 90% of 1RM, which was outside the reference range (body weight up to about 60% of 1RM).
• Repetition range (1 of 2 points): For hypertrophy, ACE recommended 6 - 12 reps, which was within the reference range (6 to 12 reps). For strength, ACE recommended 6 or fewer reps, which included 1 to 2 reps, and 8 - 25 reps in the rows for novice, intermediate, and experienced exercisers of the same table. Both strength recommendations extended past the reference range (3 to 8 reps).
• Repetition tempo (1 of 2 points): For power, ACE recommended explosive repetitions, which was within the reference range. ACE also recommended a steady tempo of 2 - 3 seconds in each direction in How to Use the ACE IFT Model to Create a Perfect Week of Exercise . This tempo was slower than the reference range for strength (a concentric at maximal intended velocity or a conventional 1 to 2 second concentric).
• Proximity to failure (1 of 2 points): For hypertrophy, ACE recommended sets performed to momentary fatigue in How to Design Body-weight Training Workouts Using the ACE IFT Model , which was within the reference range (to failure). ACE gave no proximity-to-failure target for strength or power.
• Rest between sets (1 of 2 points): For hypertrophy, ACE recommended 30 - 90 seconds in the Training Variables table, which extended below the reference range (more than 60 seconds). The strength and power recommendation (2 - 5 minutes) was within the reference ranges.
• Circuit training and supersets (1 of 2 points): ACE recommended circuits that rotate muscle groups in The ACE Workout Builder for Circuit Training , which were within the reference ranges for hypertrophy and strength. ACE gave no recommendation for pairing a strength exercise with a power exercise. The reference range for power was about 4 to 8 minutes between a strength exercise and a power exercise for the same muscles.
• Exercise order (1 of 2 points): ACE recommended plyometric drills at the beginning of a session in ACE IFT Model for Functional Movement and Resistance Training: Phases 3 and 4 , which was within the reference range for power (any order). ACE gave no exercise order for strength.

ACE did not receive any points for 2 variables it did not list a recommendation for. These included set strategies and range of motion. Range of motion was named in the aims of the model’s phases, without a recommendation. ACE’s recommendations were within the reference range for sets per muscle group, training frequency, periodization, and exercise selection.

ACSM (2026 position stand , an overview of 137 systematic reviews): 15 of 26.

• Load (1 of 2 points): For hypertrophy, the position stand concluded that hypertrophy was not affected by loads from 30 to 100% of 1RM. This conclusion permits loads within and outside the reference range (6 to 12 RM, about 65 to 85% of 1RM). For strength, the position stand recommended 80% of 1RM or more, which included 1 to 2 RM, outside the reference range (3 to 8 RM, about 80 to 90% of 1RM). For power, the position stand recommended 30 - 70% of 1RM, which extended past the reference range (body weight up to about 60% of 1RM).
• Repetition tempo (1 of 2 points): The position stand’s conclusions for hypertrophy and power were within the reference ranges. For strength, the position stand reported no effect of slow contractions (longer than 2 seconds), which permits tempos outside the reference range (a concentric at maximal intended velocity or a conventional 1 to 2 second concentric).
• Proximity to failure (1 of 2 points): The position stand recommended 2 - 3 reps in reserve for every goal. This recommendation was within the reference ranges for strength (to failure or 1 to 5 reps short of failure) and power (well short of failure), and outside the reference range for hypertrophy (to failure).
• Rest between sets (1 of 2 points): The position stand did not recommend a rest duration. For strength, the position stand reported no effect of rest intervals shorter than 1 minute, which permits rest outside the reference range (2 minutes or more).
• Set strategies (1 of 2 points): The position stand concluded that cluster sets and complex sets did not differ from conventional sets, and gave no drop set, rest-pause set, or accommodating resistance recommendation. The reference range for strength was conventional sets combined with drop sets, rest-pause sets, or accommodating resistance, and the reference range for power was cluster sets or drop sets.
• Periodization (1 of 2 points): For hypertrophy, the position stand permitted any periodization strategy, which was within the reference range. For strength, the position stand concluded that periodization was not superior to non-periodized programs. This conclusion permits programs outside the reference range for experienced exercisers (undulating periodization).
• Range of motion (1 of 2 points): For strength, the position stand recommended a complete range of motion, which was within the reference range (full range of motion). For hypertrophy, the position stand reported insufficient data and gave no recommendation.

The ACSM 2026 position stand did not receive any points for 2 variables it did not list a recommendation for. These included repetition range and circuit training and supersets. The position stand’s recommendations were within the reference range for sets per muscle group, training frequency, exercise order, and exercise selection.

NASM (Optimum Performance Training (OPT) model pages): 12 of 26.

• Load (1 of 2 points): For hypertrophy (Phase 3), NASM recommended 75 - 85% of 1RM on the NASM OPT Model page, which was within the reference range (6 to 12 RM, about 65 to 85% of 1RM). For strength (Phase 4), NASM recommended 85 - 100% of 1RM, which included 1 to 2 RM, outside the reference range (3 to 8 RM, about 80 to 90% of 1RM). For power (Phase 5), NASM described the explosive exercise as moving relatively low loads, without a value.
• Repetition range (1 of 2 points): For hypertrophy (Phase 3), NASM recommended 6 - 12 reps, which was within the reference range (6 to 12 reps). For strength (Phase 4), NASM recommended 1 - 5 reps, which included 1 to 2 reps, outside the reference range (3 to 8 reps).
• Repetition tempo (1 of 2 points): For power (Phase 5), NASM recommended moving loads as fast and explosively as possible, which was within the reference range. NASM gave no tempo for hypertrophy or strength.
• Circuit training and supersets (0 of 2 points): For power (Phase 5), NASM recommended supersets of a near-maximal strength exercise and a biomechanically similar explosive exercise performed back to back, such as a bench press followed by a medicine ball chest pass. This recommendation was outside the reference range (about 4 to 8 minutes between a strength exercise and a power exercise for the same muscles), because a power exercise performed 30 seconds or less after a heavy set decreased power in 6 of 8 samples. NASM gave no pairing for hypertrophy or strength.
• Set strategies (1 of 2 points): NASM’s Phase 2 supersets pair a strength exercise with a stability exercise for the same muscles. These pairs were scored as drop sets, which were within the reference range for strength. NASM gave no cluster set recommendation for power, and the reference range for power was cluster sets or drop sets.
• Periodization (1 of 2 points): NASM recommended periodized phases that cycle in The NASM OPT Model: A Trainer’s Guide to Programming Clients , but did not name undulating periodization, the reference range for experienced exercisers training for strength.
• Exercise order (1 of 2 points): NASM’s OPT programming template places core, balance, and plyometric work before resistance training, which was outside the reference range for strength (the exercises most important to the goal first). In Phase 5, NASM placed the strength exercise before the power exercise, which was within the reference range for power (any order).

NASM did not receive any points for 3 variables it did not list a recommendation for. These included proximity to failure, rest between sets, and training frequency. NASM described "minimal" rest for hypertrophy and longer rest for strength, without values. NASM’s recommendations were within the reference range for sets per muscle group, range of motion, and exercise selection.

WITS (A Pro’s Guide to Periodization Training for Clients ): 11 of 26.

• Load (1 of 2 points): WITS recommended 75% of 1RM for hypertrophy and 80% of 1RM for strength, which were within the reference ranges (6 to 12 RM, about 65 to 85% of 1RM, and 3 to 8 RM, about 80 to 90% of 1RM). For power, WITS recommended 85% of 1RM, which was outside the reference range (body weight up to about 60% of 1RM).

WITS did not receive any points for 7 variables it did not list a recommendation for. These included repetition tempo, proximity to failure, rest between sets, circuit training and supersets, set strategies, range of motion, and exercise order. WITS described a circuit style without stating how exercises were paired. WITS’s recommendations were within the reference range for repetition range, sets per muscle group, training frequency, periodization, and exercise selection.

IFPA (Hunting for an Intermediate Fitness Workout Program? ): 7 of 26.

• Load (0 of 2 points): IFPA recommended loads of 15 RM for hypertrophy, 10 - 12 RM for strength, and 5 - 8 RM for power. All 3 loads were outside the reference ranges (6 to 12 RM for hypertrophy, 3 to 8 RM for strength, and body weight up to about 60% of 1RM for power).
• Repetition range (1 of 2 points): For advanced exercisers, IFPA recommended 8 - 20 reps for hypertrophy and 2 - 6 reps for strength, and both extended past the reference ranges (6 to 12 reps, and 3 to 8 reps). For beginners, IFPA recommended 15 reps for hypertrophy and 10 - 12 reps for strength, and both were outside the reference ranges.
• Proximity to failure (1 of 2 points): IFPA’s RM sets were performed to failure. This was within the reference ranges for hypertrophy (to failure) and strength (to failure or 1 to 5 reps short of failure). For power, IFPA’s sets of 5 - 8 RM to failure were outside the reference range (well short of failure).
• Periodization (1 of 2 points): IFPA recommended classic linear periodization for advanced athletes, but did not name undulating periodization, the reference range for experienced exercisers training for strength.

IFPA did not receive any points for 7 variables it did not list a recommendation for. These included repetition tempo, rest between sets, circuit training and supersets, set strategies, range of motion, exercise order, and exercise selection. IFPA’s recommendations were within the reference range for sets per muscle group and training frequency.

ISSA (also the record for NCCPT) (Practical Periodization stage model): 7 of 26.

• Load (1 of 2 points): For hypertrophy, ISSA recommended 60 - 80% of 1RM, which extended below the reference range (6 to 12 RM, about 65 to 85% of 1RM). For strength, ISSA recommended 80 - 100% of 1RM or more, which included 1 to 2 RM, outside the reference range (3 to 8 RM, about 80 to 90% of 1RM). For deconditioned and beginner clients (Stage 1), ISSA recommended 30 - 60% of 1RM, which was outside the reference range for strength.
• Repetition range (1 of 2 points): For hypertrophy, ISSA recommended 6 - 12 reps, which was within the reference range (6 to 12 reps). For strength, ISSA recommended 1 - 5 reps, which included 1 to 2 reps, outside the reference range (3 to 8 reps). For deconditioned and beginner clients (Stage 1), ISSA recommended 10 - 15 reps, which was outside the reference range for strength.
• Rest between sets (1 of 2 points): ISSA recommended 60 - 120 seconds for hypertrophy and 120 - 240 seconds for strength, which were within the reference ranges (more than 60 seconds, and 2 minutes or more). For deconditioned and beginner clients (Stage 1), ISSA recommended 0 - 60 seconds, which was outside the reference range (60 seconds or more for untrained participants).
• Circuit training and supersets (1 of 2 points): ISSA recommended circuits with 1 exercise for each body part, which were within the reference ranges for hypertrophy and strength. ISSA gave no recommendation for pairing a strength exercise with a power exercise.
• Sets per muscle group (1 of 2 points): For large muscle groups, ISSA recommended 4 - 8 sets for hypertrophy and 5 - 10 sets for strength, and both extended above the reference range (2 to 6 sets per exercise or muscle group per session).
• Training frequency (1 of 2 points): ISSA recommended 3 sessions per week for Stage 1 only, which was within the reference range (2 or more sessions per muscle group per week). ISSA gave no frequency for the other stages.
• Periodization (1 of 2 points): ISSA recommended periodized stages, but did not name undulating periodization, the reference range for experienced exercisers training for strength.

ISSA did not receive any points for 6 variables it did not list a recommendation for. These included repetition tempo, proximity to failure, set strategies, range of motion, exercise order, and exercise selection. None of ISSA’s recommendations were within the reference range for every graded goal.

NESTA (Building Strength: Genetics, Geography & Opportunity ): 6 of 26.

• Load (1 of 2 points): NESTA recommended 70 - 80% of 1RM without naming a goal. This load was within the reference range for hypertrophy (6 to 12 RM, about 65 to 85% of 1RM), and extended below the reference range for strength (3 to 8 RM, about 80 to 90% of 1RM).
• Repetition range (1 of 2 points): NESTA recommended sets of 3 reps for strength, which was within the reference range (3 to 8 reps). NESTA recommended 2 sets of 20 reps for hypertrophy, which was outside the reference range (6 to 12 reps).
• Repetition tempo (1 of 2 points): NESTA recommended explosive pull-ups for power, which was within the reference range. NESTA gave no tempo for hypertrophy or strength.
• Circuit training and supersets (0 of 2 points): NESTA paired a pause squat with hurdle jumps as exercises 1A and 1B, a strength and power superset. This pairing was outside the reference range (about 4 to 8 minutes between a strength exercise and a power exercise for the same muscles).
• Periodization (1 of 2 points): NESTA recommended the concurrent method in mini cycles of 2 - 3 weeks, but did not name undulating periodization, the reference range for experienced exercisers training for strength.

NESTA did not receive any points for 7 variables it did not list a recommendation for. These included proximity to failure, rest between sets, training frequency, set strategies, range of motion, exercise order, and exercise selection. NESTA’s recommendations were within the reference range for sets per muscle group.

NFPT (Simplifying Periodization Training for Any Audience ): 6 of 26.

• Load (1 of 2 points): For hypertrophy, NFPT recommended 60 - 80% and 50 - 75% of 1RM, which extended below the reference range (6 to 12 RM, about 65 to 85% of 1RM). For strength, NFPT recommended 80 - 100% of 1RM or more, which included 1 to 2 RM, outside the reference range (3 to 8 RM, about 80 to 90% of 1RM). For beginners (Stage 1), NFPT recommended 30 - 60% of 1RM, which was outside the reference range for strength.
• Repetition range (1 of 2 points): For hypertrophy, NFPT recommended 6 - 12 reps, which was within the reference range (6 to 12 reps), and 8 - 20 reps, which extended past the range. For strength, NFPT recommended 1 - 5 reps, which included 1 to 2 reps, outside the reference range (3 to 8 reps). For beginners (Stage 1), NFPT recommended 10 - 15 reps, which was outside the reference range for strength.
• Rest between sets (1 of 2 points): NFPT recommended 60 - 120 seconds for hypertrophy and 2 - 4 minutes for strength, which were within the reference ranges (more than 60 seconds, and 2 minutes or more). For beginners (Stage 1), NFPT recommended 60 seconds or less, which was outside the reference range (60 seconds or more for untrained participants).
• Sets per muscle group (1 of 2 points): For large muscle groups, NFPT recommended 4 - 8 sets and 5 - 10 sets, which extended above the reference range (2 to 6 sets per exercise or muscle group per session).

NFPT did not receive any points for 8 variables it did not list a recommendation for. These included repetition tempo, proximity to failure, circuit training and supersets, training frequency, set strategies, range of motion, exercise order, and exercise selection. NFPT described a circuit style without stating how exercises were paired. NFPT’s recommendations were within the reference range for periodization.

ACTION (Candidate Handbook exam outline): 2 of 26.

ACTION’s only program design recommendation was an exam outline task, "Know the correct order of exercises (larger muscles 1st, etc.)," which was within the reference range for exercise order. ACTION did not receive any points for 12 variables it did not list a recommendation for. These included load, repetition range, repetition tempo, proximity to failure, rest between sets, circuit training and supersets, sets per muscle group, training frequency, set strategies, periodization, range of motion, and exercise selection.

NETA (Personal Trainer Practice Exam ): 1 of 26.

• Repetition range (1 of 2 points): NETA’s only program design recommendation was a practice exam answer of 8 - 12 reps for novice adults training for strength, attributed to the ACSM. This range extended past the reference range for strength (3 to 8 reps for every training level).

NETA did not receive any points for 12 variables it did not list a recommendation for. These included load, repetition tempo, proximity to failure, rest between sets, circuit training and supersets, sets per muscle group, training frequency, set strategies, periodization, range of motion, exercise order, and exercise selection.

Caption: Clients deserve more than resistance training recommendations that are close to optimal.

Additional Findings, Position Statement, and Notes on Sources

Additional Findings from the Brookbush Institute’s Reviews

The findings in this section were not graded, and none of them changed any model’s score. They include the endurance ranges supported by the available comparative studies, the Brookbush Institute’s recommendations that are narrower than the reference ranges, its recommendations for novices, and its recommendations for the power variables that had no reference range. Each finding names the Brookbush Institute review or model it came from, so that a reader can check the comparative studies behind each finding.

Endurance. Endurance was not graded, because no published review set a range for endurance on any variable. By the same vote-count rule used for the graded goals, the available comparative studies supported endurance ranges on 4 variables:

• Load and repetition range: The comparative studies supported loads of 12 to 25 RM (about 50 to 70% of 1RM). Lighter loads with more reps resulted in greater endurance increases than heavier loads in 6 studies, and 2 of the 6 found a decrease in endurance with heavy loads (3 to 8 RM). Endurance was also specific to the test load. When endurance was tested with a heavier load, training with heavier loads resulted in larger improvements.
• Repetition tempo: Tempo resulted in similar endurance increases when training volume was matched, so any repetition duration of 0.5 to 8 seconds was supported.
• Proximity to failure: Sets performed to failure resulted in a greater endurance increase than sets stopped short of failure in 1 study (Izquierdo et al., 2006).
• Set strategies: Drop sets resulted in greater endurance increases than conventional sets in 2 studies (Singh and Kumar, 2021; Fasihiyan et al., 2023), and similar increases in 1 study (Fisher et al., 2016).

No endurance range was set for the other 9 variables. The Brookbush Institute’s Endurance Training Model recommends light loads of 12 to 25 RM for most sets, sets performed to failure for most, if not all, sets, and drop sets as a progression for advanced exercisers. The model does not recommend pyramid sets.

• Brookbush Institute. Acute Variables: Training Load (Weight and Resistance) .
• Brookbush Institute. Acute Variables: Repetition Range .
• Brookbush Institute. Acute Variables: Repetition Tempo .
• Brookbush Institute. Acute Variables: Performing Sets to Failure .
• Brookbush Institute. Acute Variables: Set Strategies .
• Brookbush Institute. Endurance Training: Evidence-based Model .
• Fasihiyan, M., Forbes, S., Taheri, M., Lopez, J. G., Babaie, M., Dejam, B., & Nourshahi, M. (2023). The effects of a single or multi-step drop-set training compared to traditional resistance training on muscle performance and body composition. Scientific Journal of Sport and Performance, 2(3), 410-422.
• Fisher, J. P., Carlson, L., & Steele, J. (2016). The effects of breakdown set resistance training on muscular performance and body composition in young men and women. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 30(5), 1425-1432.
• Izquierdo, M., Ibañez, J., González-Badillo, J. J., Häkkinen, K., Ratamess, N. A., Kraemer, W. J., French, D. N., Eslava, J., Altadill, A., Asiain, X., & Gorostiaga, E. M. (2006). Differential effects of strength training leading to failure versus not to failure on hormonal responses, strength, and muscle power gains. Journal of Applied Physiology, 100(5), 1647-1656.
• Singh, B., & Kumar, S. (2021). Significance of training on drop sets in various sports colleges. Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education, 12(12), 4848-4856.

Recommendations narrower than the reference ranges. The Brookbush Institute’s models were within every reference range, and on several variables the models were narrower than the range.

• Load: For hypertrophy, the Hypertrophy Training Model recommends moderate loads of 8 to 12 RM (70 to 80% of 1RM) for most sets, heavy loads of 3 to 8 RM for some sets, and light loads of 12 to 25 RM for a small portion of sets, on different days of an undulating program. Loads of 1 to 2 RM and of 25 RM or more are avoided.
• Repetition tempo: For hypertrophy, the models recommend an eccentric of 2 seconds or more, an isometric pause of 0 to 2 seconds, and a concentric at maximal intended velocity or slower. For strength, the models recommend a concentric at maximal intended velocity. For power exercises, the models recommend an explosive tempo with a quick pre-stretch and the shortest possible amortization phase.
• Rest between sets: The models recommend 2 to 3 minutes between sets for similar muscle groups, or 30 to 60 seconds between exercises in a circuit. For plyometric exercises, the models recommend 2 to 4 minutes.
• Sets per muscle group: The models recommend 2 to 5 sets per muscle group per session for experienced exercisers, and 1 to 4 sets when drop sets or supersets are used. Most muscle groups are trained with 1 exercise per session, and no muscle group is trained with more than 2.
• Training frequency: The models recommend 1.5 to 3 sessions per muscle group per week, with 2 to 5 days between sessions. When a new routine is started, the models recommend 3 sessions per muscle group every 2 weeks, with 3 to 7 days between sessions.
• Set strategies: The models recommend drop sets as a progression for advanced exercisers who perform 3 or more conventional sets per muscle group. For strength, the drop set is performed on the last set only, to maintain force production during the earlier sets. For power, the models recommend rest of up to 20 seconds between repetitions. Pyramid sets are not recommended.
• Periodization: For experienced exercisers, the models recommend true linear periodization with frequent, autoregulated load adjustments, progressing to daily undulating periodization. The load is increased when more reps than the upper limit of the repetition range can be performed, and decreased when the lower limit cannot be reached.
• Exercise selection: For hypertrophy, the models recommend moderately stable exercises (4 to 7 on a 10-point stability scale) that allow sufficient loads. For heavy strength training, the models recommend stable exercises (1 to 3 of 10). Exercises are changed about every 4 to 12 weeks as set performance goals are reached.
• Exercise order: When priorities are equal, upper body exercises are performed before lower body exercises, and back exercises are performed before chest exercises.
• Brookbush Institute. Evidence-Based Resistance Training Model .
• Brookbush Institute. Evidence-Based Resistance Training Model (EBRTM) .
• Brookbush Institute. Hypertrophy Training Model .
• Brookbush Institute. Strength Training Model .
• Brookbush Institute. Power Training: Evidence-based Model .

Novices. The Brookbush Institute’s models separate novices from experienced exercisers on 4 variables.

• Sets per muscle group: For the first 6 to 12 weeks, novices perform 1 to 2 sets per upper body muscle group and 2 to 3 sets per lower body muscle group per session.
• Training frequency: During an initial training period of 8 to 12 weeks, novices train each muscle group 1 to 3 sessions per week.
• Periodization: Periodization is not recommended for at least the first 12 weeks. Novices perform moderate loads and repetition ranges with autoregulated load adjustments. Only 1 of 13 comparative studies of novices favored periodized programs.
• Power: Novices perform moderate-load strength training, and high-velocity exercises are introduced gradually.
• Brookbush Institute. Acute Variables: Sets per Muscle Group .
• Brookbush Institute. Acute Variables: Training Frequency .
• Brookbush Institute. Acute Variables: Periodization Training .
• Brookbush Institute. Power Training: Evidence-based Model .

Power variables without a reference range. No published review or comparative study set a power range for 5 variables. The Brookbush Institute’s Power Training Model makes the following recommendations for them:

• Repetition range: The model recommends 3 to 10 reps per set of a power exercise, limited to the number of reps that can be performed at maximal velocity.
• Sets per muscle group: The model recommends 2 to 5 sets per muscle group per session for experienced exercisers.
• Training frequency: The model recommends 2 sessions per muscle group per week, with 2 to 3 days between sessions.
• Periodization: Power training is not periodized. Power exercises are performed throughout a program and progressed with autoregulated strategies: height or speed is increased first, followed by eccentric loading, stability demands, and then external load.
• Range of motion: The model recommends a combination of full range of motion exercises and exercises that allow heavier loads with less range of motion.
• Brookbush Institute. Power Training: Evidence-based Model .
• Brookbush Institute. Acute Variables: Complex Training (Strength and Power) .
• Brookbush Institute. Acute Variables: Post-Activation Potentiation (PAP) .

Position Statement and Recommendations

Position Statement: Research demonstrates that each of the 13 modifiable variables of a resistance training program has an optimal range, set by the published systematic reviews and meta-analyses and narrowed by the available comparative studies. Most of the recommendations published by the industry’s certification organizations were not wrong, but they were incomplete or imprecise. Of the 182 ratings for the other 14 models, 72 were not addressed in the model, 64 only partly overlapped a reference range, and only 4 fell entirely outside a range. ACE and NASM, two of the largest certification organizations in the industry, ranked near the middle (6th and 8th of 15 models). The ACSM and the NSCA, two of the oldest organizations in the industry, placed 4th to 6th with scores of 15 and 16 of 26, 10 or more points below a perfect score. IPTA and NCSF, two organizations founded after the ACSM, the NSCA, ACE, and NASM, received the highest scores of the other 14 models (17 of 26), a surprising result. The Brookbush Institute’s Evidence-Based Resistance Training Model received a perfect score, which was expected in this review. The EBRTM was built with the intent to be the most accurate and effective model developed to date, from systematic reviews of every peer-reviewed and published comparative study that could be located. These are the same comparative studies used to narrow the reference ranges, and the published systematic reviews were expected to include largely the same studies. The inaccuracy of many of the other models was surprising. We believed that the industry was moving toward evidence-based practice, and that every organization would at least attempt to align its model with the available research. We firmly believe that these inaccuracies matter. Small deviations from the optimal range on several variables may add up, and may result in smaller improvements for clients and patients. Cost, delivery, reputation, and other considerations may influence which organization a trainer chooses for an education. However, clients and patients deserve the program most likely to result in the best outcomes. Based on these findings, the Brookbush Institute recommends that trainers and aspiring trainers use the 13 reference ranges in this article to check any model, textbook table, or certification prescription before adopting its recommendations. The Brookbush Institute also recommends that trainers carefully consider the accuracy of a model before investing in a certification built on that model.

Recommendations: The Brookbush Institute recommends the following optimal ranges, which were the reference ranges used in this comparison. Endurance was not graded, so endurance is not listed.

• Load: Use 6 to 12 RM (about 65 to 85% of 1RM) for hypertrophy, and 3 to 8 RM (about 80 to 90% of 1RM) for strength at every training level. For power exercises, use body weight up to about 60% of 1RM.
• Repetition range: Perform 6 to 12 reps per set for hypertrophy, and 3 to 8 reps per set for strength at every training level.
• Repetition tempo: For hypertrophy, use any repetition duration of 0.5 to 8 seconds. For strength, use a concentric at maximal intended velocity or a conventional 1 to 2 second concentric. For power, use a concentric at maximal intended velocity, with a short eccentric.
• Proximity to failure: Perform hypertrophy sets to failure. Perform strength sets to failure or stop them 1 to 5 reps short of failure. Stop power sets well short of failure (a velocity loss of 20% or less, or about 2 or more reps in reserve).
• Rest between sets: Rest more than 60 seconds between sets for hypertrophy, and 2 minutes or more for strength (60 seconds or more for untrained exercisers). Rest 2 minutes or more between sets of a power exercise.
• Circuit training and supersets: For hypertrophy, pair exercises for different muscle groups in supersets or circuits. For strength, use agonist and antagonist supersets or circuits rather than upper body and lower body supersets. For power, separate a strength exercise and a power exercise for the same muscle group by about 4 to 8 minutes, and do not perform the 2 exercises as a superset.
• Sets per muscle group: Perform 2 to 6 sets per exercise or muscle group per session for hypertrophy and strength, and 10 or more sets per muscle group per week for hypertrophy. Novices may perform 1 to 3 sets in the first 6 to 12 weeks of training.
• Training frequency: Train each muscle group 2 or more sessions per week.
• Set strategies: For hypertrophy, use any set strategy. For strength, combine conventional sets with drop sets, rest-pause sets, or accommodating resistance, and avoid pyramid sets. For power, use cluster sets (rest between repetitions) or drop sets.
• Periodization: For hypertrophy, use a periodized or a non-periodized program. For experienced exercisers training for strength, use undulating periodization. For novices training for strength, periodization is not required.
• Range of motion: For hypertrophy, use full range of motion, or partial repetitions performed at long muscle lengths. For strength, use full range of motion.
• Exercise order: For hypertrophy and power, use any exercise order. For strength, perform the exercises most important to the goal first. Resistance training and aerobic exercise may be performed in either order.
• Exercise selection: For hypertrophy, use free weights or machines, and single-joint or multi-joint exercises. For strength, use free weights or machines, with the exercise mode matched to the strength goal. For power, use free weights or machines, including Olympic lifts.

Notes on Sources, Availability, and What Was Excluded

Dates and pages. Every organization’s pages were read between October 28 and November 13, 2026, and every value in this article links to the page it was read from. Where a model gave different values for the same variable, both values are recorded above, and the rating reflects the contradiction. The ACSM 2026 position stand was read from the full text linked from ACSM’s announcement page (Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 58(4), 851-872). The 2009 position stand was read from a university course copy (Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 41(3), 687-708).

What sits behind a purchase and was not scored. The textbooks of NASM, ACE, the NSCA, ISSA, and NCSF were not scored. AFAA’s personal trainer course, WITS’s course, textbook, and Program Design Essentials certificate, and IPTA’s study system were also not scored. A model that an organization presents only inside a purchased textbook is a model a prospective student cannot evaluate, and this article scores what each organization publishes for anyone to read. An organization that publishes a more complete model on a public page may send it to the Brookbush Institute, and the rating will be updated.

The published reviews. A total of 124 published meta-analyses and systematic reviews were located for the 13 variables, and 112 were counted. Each review’s conclusion was read from the publisher’s page, a repository copy, or an indexing record before the review was counted. Three additional reviews whose results could not be read were left out of the counts: Vieira et al. (2021), Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 35(4), 1165-1175, a December 2025 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research meta-analysis of variable resistance (DOI 10.1519/JSC.0000000000005369), and a 2025 Physiological Reports review that could not be identified. The IUSCA 2021 position stand and the Canadian Society for Exercise Physiology 2010 position stand were read but not counted, because they are not meta-analyses or systematic reviews. The ACSM position stands were scored as models and were not counted as reviews.

The comparative studies. The comparative studies were the available peer-reviewed studies that compared 2 or more values of the same variable. Each study was counted by its own reported between-group result, and each comparative study named in this article is cited under the variable it informed.

What was excluded. Two former certifiers were not ranked: the Cooper Institute, whose personal trainer certification merged into ACE in 2019, and PTA Global, whose content went offline in 2021. Published training systems outside the certification organizations were not compared, for example Renaissance Periodization’s volume landmarks, the Muscle and Strength Pyramids, Starting Strength, and the Westside conjugate method. These systems are not certification models and may be the subject of a separate comparison. Endurance was not graded on any variable, because no published review set a range for endurance.

The Brookbush Institute’s own record. The EBRTM was scored on the Brookbush Institute’s 4 goal models (hypertrophy, strength, power, and endurance) by the same rules as every other model. Two recommendations were revised during this comparison. Strength and power sets are now stopped short of failure, and a strength exercise and a power exercise for the same muscle group are now separated by 4 to 8 minutes. Before those revisions, the EBRTM would have scored 24 of 26. A last set to failure for power and a rest of 1 to 10 minutes between a strength exercise and a power exercise each fell partly outside the power range.