The Snapshot: Resistance training is linked to meaningful health outcomes in large observational evidence, but participation is low—The American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM) notes that while ~50% of people meet aerobic guidelines, fewer than one-third meet resistance exercise recommendations.
So the core problem is not “do we know whether strength training works?” We do. The problem is execution—people get lost in noise, complexity, and novelty that feels productive but isn’t (ACSM, 2009).
“Muscle-strengthening activities were associated with a 10–17% lower risk of all-cause mortality…
The maximum risk reduction…was obtained at approximately 30–60 min/week of muscle-strengthening activities…”
The Featured Resource
Definitions you can actually use
What is “enough weekly work”?
In practice, “weekly work” is usually best tracked as weekly hard sets per muscle group (Schoenfeld et al., 2017).
A set = one bout of repetitions (e.g., 10 reps of squats).
A hard set = a set performed with meaningful effort, typically ending close to the point where another rep with good form would be very difficult (Grgic et al., 2021).
Weekly volume = how many hard sets you accumulate for a muscle group across the week (Schoenfeld et al., 2017).
Because reps depend on load and effort. Counting “hard sets” captures what matters most for most lifters most of the time (Schoenfeld et al., 2017).
What is “failure” in layman terms?
Training to failure means you reach the point where you cannot complete another rep with good technique (Grgic et al., 2021).
A practical way to talk about this without gym jargon is:
“Could you have done 2–3 more reps with good form?”
If yes → you were not near failure.
If no → you were close to failure.
If you truly couldn’t do another rep without cheating form → that’s failure.
This “how many reps did you have left?” idea is commonly operationalized as reps in reserve (RIR) in coaching practice; the evidence question is whether failure is required (Grgic et al., 2021).
The Research:
What the Evidence Actually Supports
Progressive overload is the engine
If you want your body to adapt, training demands have to increase over time—more load, more reps, more sets, or harder execution (ACSM, 2009).
This is the single biggest “content vs. results” gap: content sells novelty; physiology responds to progression (ACSM, 2009).
Practical takeaway (applied): pick a small number of movements you can repeat weekly (or stable variations) so you can actually measure whether you’re progressing.
Weekly volume is a major lever (especially for muscle size)
A classic meta-analysis found a dose–response relationship between weekly resistance-training volume and hypertrophy: more weekly sets tended to produce greater gains (Schoenfeld et al., 2017).
This does not mean “more is always better.” It means volume is a lever with diminishing returns and recovery costs (Schoenfeld et al., 2017).
Practical takeaway (applied): start with a volume you can recover from consistently, then adjust only if you’ve plateaued while still progressing load/reps.
Hard sets matter—but failure is not mandatory
A systematic review and meta-analysis found that training to failure is not universally superior to training short of failure; outcomes depend on context, volume matching, and programming (Grgic et al., 2021).
In other words: you need hard sets, but you do not need to “redline” every set, every session, forever (Grgic et al., 2021).
❝Practical takeaway (applied): most sets should be close to failure, with occasional strategic failure (especially on safer isolation exercises), rather than making failure your default
(Grgic et al., 2021)
Two myths that keep people stuck
Myth 1
“You need a new program constantly.”
Novelty can create soreness and engagement, but progression models emphasize systematic progression, not constant program hopping (ACSM, 2009).
If the plan changes every week, you often lose the ability to see whether anything is improving (ACSM, 2009).
Myth 2
“If you’re not sore, it didn’t work.”
Delayed-onset muscle soreness (DOMS) is a poor reflector of eccentric exercise-induced muscle damage and inflammation, and it does not reliably track training quality (Nosaka et al., 2002).
Also, early increases in muscle protein synthesis after training can reflect repair/remodeling from damage rather than growth—especially early in a program—meaning “wrecked” does not equal “better” (Damas et al., 2018).
The Literacy Lesson:
Strength content vs. strength science
A lot of the fitness internet is optimized for engagement: novelty, hacks, “secrets,” and identity signaling. But evidence-based training is optimized for measurable adaptation: repeatable inputs and trackable outputs (ACSM, 2009).
If you want a quick filter for misinformation-by-marketing, ask:
What will I track? (load, reps, sets, or performance) (ACSM, 2009).
What will change over time? (the progression plan) (ACSM, 2009).
What’s the minimum I can do consistently for months? (adherence is the real bottleneck) (Phillips et al., 2023).
The Framework:
An evidence-weighted 12-week default
This is deliberately simple. The goal is to build a system you can actually follow.
Step 1 Pick your weekly frequency | Step 2 Define “enough weekly work” in sets | Step 3 Define “hard enough” using failure language | Step 4 Pick progression method |
|---|---|---|---|
Start with 2–3 strength sessions per week (ACSM, n.d.; ACSM/CDC guidance). Pick split: | Use weekly hard sets per muscle group as your anchor (Schoenfeld et al., 2017). Pick a pragmatic starting range (Schoenfeld et al., 2017): | Rather than stopping with lots left in the tank, or forcing sloppy reps to hit failure, aim for most sets to finish where you could maybe do (Grgic et al., 2021): | Pick one primary progression method for 4–6 weeks (ACSM, 2009): |
- upper/lower -push/pull/legs | - Maintenance / “minimum effective”: lower weekly set counts can maintain and still improve vs. zero, especially in newer lifters . - Growth-focused: increase sets gradually if recovery is solid and progress stalls. | - 1–3 more good reps - 0 additional good reps | - add reps until you hit the top of your range, then add load -add load in small jumps while keeping technique stable |
Verify This
Every major claim above is traceable to primary or high-level synthesis sources:
Mortality association and dose-response pattern for muscle-strengthening activity (Momma et al., 2022).
Volume–hypertrophy dose-response (Schoenfeld et al., 2017).
Failure vs. non-failure synthesis (Grgic et al., 2021).
ACSM progression principles and guideline baselines (ACSM, 2009; ACSM, n.d.).
DOMS not a reliable proxy (Nosaka et al., 2002) and damage vs. hypertrophy signaling nuance (Damas et al., 2018).
Coming Next Week
Week 6: Sleep
This series will continue to move through Physical Wellness, as we make our way through all of the dimensions of wellness. Next week we will cover the topic of sleep, and why most sleep advice fails when it ignores timing, not just duration.
Editor's Note
The most underrated strength variable isn’t a split or rep range—it’s whether you can still be doing it 12 weeks from now. The internet is optimized for attention. Your body is optimized for consistency.
So this issue isn’t about the “perfect” program. It’s about a sustainable one that progresses.
—Brian
References
American College of Sports Medicine. (2009). Progression models in resistance training for healthy adults. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise. https://doi.org/10.1249/MSS.0b013e3181915670
American College of Sports Medicine. (n.d.). Physical activity guidelines. https://acsm.org/education-resources/trending-topics-resources/physical-activity-guidelines/
Damas, F., et al. (2018). The development of skeletal muscle hypertrophy through resistance training: the role of muscle damage and muscle protein synthesis. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29282529/
Grgic, J., et al. (2021). Effects of resistance training performed to repetition failure or non-failure on muscular strength and hypertrophy: A systematic review and meta-analysis. https://vuir.vu.edu.au/42420/
Momma, H., et al. (2022). Muscle-strengthening activities are associated with lower risk and mortality in major non-communicable diseases: A systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies. British Journal of Sports Medicine.https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9209691/
Nosaka, K., & Newton, M. (2002). Delayed-onset muscle soreness does not reflect the magnitude of eccentric exercise-induced muscle damage and inflammation. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12453160/
Phillips, S. M., Ma, J. K., & Rawson, E. S. (2023). The coming of age of resistance exercise as a primary form of exercise for health. ACSM’s Health & Fitness Journal. https://journals.lww.com/acsm-healthfitness/fulltext/2023/11000/the_coming_of_age_of_resistance_exercise_as_a.7.aspx
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.https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27433992/
About the author: Brian S. Dye, Ed.D., is the founder of Applied Wellness, an evidence-based wellness education platform focused on helping people cut through wellness noise and apply credible guidance in real life. Learn more →