Does Strength Training Need to Be Complicated? What ACSM’s New Position Stand Says
5 min read
Strength training can get complicated very quickly.
How heavy should you lift? How many sets should you perform? Should every set go to failure? Do you need free weights? Does repetition speed matter? What about periodization, exercise order, or training frequency?
There is research on virtually every one of these questions, which can make resistance training seem as though it requires constant optimization.
The American College of Sports Medicine recently published a major update to its position stand on resistance training. It replaces the organization's 2009 recommendations and draws from 137 systematic reviews involving more than 30,000 participants.
One of the most interesting conclusions is also one of the simplest:
Resistance training clearly works, but many of the details people argue about appear to matter less than we often assume.
What Did ACSM Actually Review?
The new position stand examined how resistance training affects strength, muscle growth, power, muscular endurance, and physical function. It also looked at whether changing specific training variables produced better results.
Those variables included load, frequency, volume, training to failure, range of motion, exercise order, repetition speed, rest periods, equipment type, periodization, and several other programming strategies.
Across the evidence, resistance training improved strength, muscle size, power, muscular endurance, gait speed, balance, and several measures of physical function.
That part is unsurprising.
What is more interesting is how few programming variables consistently changed the results.
For Muscle Growth, Volume Stood Out
When ACSM examined hypertrophy, higher training volume was one of the clearest variables associated with greater muscle growth.
The position stand identified approximately 10 or more sets per muscle group per week as a level associated with enhanced hypertrophy, while also describing a dose-response relationship between volume and muscle growth.
That does not mean everyone needs exactly 10 sets, or that adding sets indefinitely will continue producing better results. Individual recovery and training experience still matter.
We've discussed that distinction previously in When Does More Volume Stop Producing More Muscle?. More training can provide more stimulus, but eventually the additional work produces diminishing returns and additional fatigue.
The ACSM findings reinforce the importance of performing enough productive training rather than searching for a perfect exercise or training technique.
Heavy Weight Matters More for Strength Than Muscle Growth
The recommendations also highlight an important distinction between getting stronger and getting bigger.
For maximizing strength, heavier loads mattered. ACSM found a dose-response relationship and identified loads of at least 80% of one-repetition maximum as favorable for strength development.
For hypertrophy, however, muscle growth was not consistently different across loads ranging from roughly 30% to 100% of one-repetition maximum.
This does not mean load is irrelevant to hypertrophy. A set still has to provide an adequate training stimulus. But it does mean that muscle growth is not limited to one narrow repetition range.
If maximal strength is the primary objective, practicing the ability to produce force against heavy resistance becomes particularly important. If hypertrophy is the goal, there appears to be considerably more flexibility.
You Don't Have to Train to Failure
ACSM also found that training to muscular failure did not consistently improve strength or hypertrophy compared with stopping before failure.
That aligns closely with the research we recently covered in Do You Need to Train to Failure to Build Muscle? What the Latest Research Shows.
The important distinction is between training hard and taking every set to absolute failure.
A challenging set performed close to failure can provide a substantial stimulus without requiring every repetition to end when another repetition becomes physically impossible.
Failure can still be useful in certain situations. It simply does not appear to be a requirement for building muscle or strength.
Several Popular Debates May Matter Less Than We Think
Some of the most useful findings concern variables that did not consistently improve results.
For hypertrophy, ACSM did not find consistent advantages from heavier versus lighter loads, training to failure, different training frequencies when volume was equated, periodization, exercise order, or deliberately manipulating time under tension.
For strength, free weights were not consistently superior to machines, training to failure did not provide an advantage, and faster versus slower repetitions did not consistently change outcomes.
This does not make those variables meaningless.
Exercise selection can affect comfort and which muscles are trained. Periodization can help organize a long-term program. Exercise order matters when you want to prioritize performance on a particular movement. Machines and free weights each have practical advantages.
But there is a difference between a variable being useful for program design and that variable being required for adaptation.
That distinction gets lost surprisingly often.
What Did Matter for Strength?
Strength showed somewhat more specificity than hypertrophy.
In addition to heavier loads, the position stand found advantages from training at least twice per week, performing multiple sets, using a full range of motion, and placing exercises you want to improve near the beginning of the workout.
This makes sense because strength is not simply a measure of muscle size. It is also a skill.
If you want to become particularly strong at an exercise, performing that movement while relatively fresh and regularly exposing yourself to heavier loads provides a more specific stimulus for that goal.
Muscle growth, by comparison, appears achievable through a wider variety of training approaches.
Simple Doesn't Mean Random
There is a potential mistake in interpreting these findings.
If many training variables produce similar average results, it would be easy to conclude that program design doesn't matter.
That's not what the position stand says.
A productive training program still needs sufficient volume, appropriate effort, progressive resistance, exercises that train the intended muscles, and enough consistency for adaptation to occur.
Progression also remains important. As discussed in Does Progressive Overload Always Require Adding Weight to the Bar?, progression can occur through load, repetitions, volume, range of motion, execution, and other changes in training demand.
The ACSM findings simply suggest that there are multiple effective ways to construct that training.
The Bigger Lesson
Perhaps the most useful message from the new position stand is that resistance training appears remarkably robust.
You can build muscle with relatively light or heavy loads. You can use machines or free weights. You don't need to take every set to failure. You don't need an elaborate periodization model to produce hypertrophy. And you don't need to manipulate every variable simultaneously.
There are certainly ways to optimize training for specific outcomes. Someone primarily pursuing maximal strength should train differently from someone primarily pursuing hypertrophy or power.
But for most people, the largest gains are unlikely to come from obsessing over small programming differences.
They come from performing enough high-quality resistance training, progressing it over time, recovering from it, and continuing long enough for adaptation to occur.
Good resistance training should be structured. It doesn't have to be unnecessarily complicated.
That is a useful distinction—and after more than 30,000 participants worth of evidence, it is increasingly difficult to ignore.
It also reflects the approach behind The Foundation: effective training is built around principles that consistently drive adaptation, while the details should be adjusted to the individual rather than made complicated for their own sake.
Reference
Currier BS, D'Souza AC, Fiatarone Singh MA, et al. American College of Sports Medicine Position Stand. Resistance Training Prescription for Muscle Function, Hypertrophy, and Physical Performance in Healthy Adults: An Overview of Reviews. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise. 2026;58(4):851–872. doi:10.1249/MSS.0000000000003897.
About the Author
AFT Fitness Coaching develops structured, evidence-based training systems for adults who want to build muscle, improve body composition, and train with greater confidence. The Arcos Program combines proven training principles with long-term progression, giving members a clear plan instead of another random workout.