

Muscular endurance, often labeled “strength endurance,” is a common goal in resistance training, yet most endurance-training models rely heavily on expert opinion, mechanistic hypotheses, or incomplete readings of the literature. This is the first comprehensively evidence-based model.
Test Critical Content
Mark As Complete
Evidence-based endurance training recommendations:
This course was developed to answer a simple but surprisingly unsettled question: What does the total body of research actually say about training for muscular endurance (often labeled “strength endurance”)? Rather than relying on expert opinion, mechanistic hypotheses, or trending “guru” beliefs, this course integrates hundreds of peer-reviewed and published studies to develop evidence-based, best-practice recommendations. You will not learn “one magic protocol.” Instead, you will learn how acute variable ranges influence endurance outcomes, and why the most effective recommendation often depends on what load and task you are trying to endure. Our systematic review demonstrates that many programs will “work”; however, “slightly better” options for each acute variable likely add up to significantly better outcomes over months and years.
Throughout the course, we emphasize outcomes over mechanisms. Mechanistic hypotheses (e.g., fiber type shifts, capillary density, metabolite accumulation, buffering capacity, or hormonal signaling) can be useful for generating ideas, but they are only valuable if they lead to recommendations that improve measurable endurance outcomes. Wherever possible, we base recommendations on studies that directly compare practical programming decisions: lighter versus heavier loads, high versus moderate repetition ranges, sets taken to failure versus reps in reserve, short versus long rest intervals, conventional versus circuit formats, single versus multiple sets, drop sets versus traditional set structures, and periodized versus non-periodized routines. We also address a central nuance that is often ignored in endurance discussions: endurance is likely load-specific, and potentially exercise-specific. If the goal is more repetitions with a given load, training must include exposure to that load, not just “higher reps” in general.
We also highlight research that does not support popular trends. For example, we address oversold concepts such as endurance days defined solely by very light loads and short rest, rigid block periodization as a default, rest prescriptions based only on “endurance goals,” and volume targets that exceed recoverable capacity. We also address why some commonly promoted strategies add complexity without reliably improving outcomes, and why certain “endurance phases” may be unnecessary for many trainees when more efficient strategies, such as appropriately applied drop sets and goal-specific loading, can produce equal or superior endurance adaptations.
By the end of this course, you will be able to:
This course is designed for professionals who already understand some basics of resistance training but want to align their endurance programming with the most complete and accurate endurance model available. You will learn not only what to do but also become aware of the research that supports each recommendation, and how to adapt this model to real-world constraints, preferences, and goals.
It is not entirely inaccurate to argue that “strength endurance” is not a distinct training goal. Although certain physiological adaptations can increase fatigue resistance and the ability to sustain force production, evidence suggests that endurance adaptations are load- and velocity-specific, and potentially exercise-specific. “Strength endurance” is often defined as the ability to lift submaximal loads for more repetitions; however, due to the specificity of adaptation, strength endurance cannot be narrowly defined as only performing lighter loads for more repetitions. A more accurate definition may consider “strength” and “endurance” on a continuum of shared acute variables adjusted to match the client’s goal.
Practically, if the goal is to perform more repetitions with a heavy load, training must include attempts to increase repetitions at that load. Increasing maximal strength can contribute to endurance, but optimizing performance with lighter loads requires dedicating some training time to improving repetition performance with those lighter loads. For example, if the goal is to increase bench press performance from 7 reps/set at 225 lb to 12 reps/set at 225 lb, performing sets of 155 lb for 15-20 repetitions is unlikely to result in significant improvements at 225lb. Furthermore, if the goal is to perform 155 for 20 reps/set, it is unlikely that training with 7-10 reps/set at 225 will yield optimal outcomes.
Because of the issues discussed above, this model is not entirely distinct from the evidence-based strength training model .
Last, 3 research findings may imply that "endurance training" as a phase or day should be deprioritized. Namely, strength endurance is not necessarily more beneficial for aerobic endurance athletes; endurance is likely load-specific, and drop sets (starting with heavier loads) may be more effective for improving endurance than conventional sets.
Three research findings that should temper an emphasis on endurance training
What is strength endurance?
What is the difference between muscular endurance and strength endurance?
How do you increase muscular endurance?
What rep range is best for strength endurance?
What weight should I lift for strength endurance?
Should I train to failure for muscular endurance?
How long should I rest between sets for strength endurance?
Are drop sets effective for improving muscular endurance?
Tempo
© 2026 Brookbush Institute. All rights reserved.