Strength training: when order matters (and when it doesn’t)

I haven’t always been a scientific researcher and writer. In my earlier years, I worked extensively as a qualified fitness coach and trained a large number of athletes. What I learnt was that most athletes knew the basics of which exercises were needed to enhance their particular sport. Quite a few athletes also knew the correct technical execution of these exercises, and how to set the correct ranges of weight and repetitions. However, what very few athletes understood were the basic principles needed to put a routine together – particularly when it came to the order of exercises. This was especially the case with recreational athletes/self-trained athletes, who hadn’t previously had access to a coach.

Structure and order matters

The structure of a strength workout is very important indeed; ask any really experienced fitness trainer and they’ll tell you that the way the components of a workout are put together is just as important as what those components actually are – a classic case of the whole being bigger than the sum of its parts. Indeed, research has demonstrated that the order of exercises in a strength session can directly affect subsequent strength adaptations⁽¹⁾.

As a simple illustration of this principle, strength exercises completed early on in a session can be performed with higher loading and efficiency because of less local fatigue. In plain English, fresh muscle fibers can perform more work than those that have become fatigued (even partially) as a result of previous exercises in that session where those fibers may have been used⁽²⁾. It follows that since ‘early’ exercises permit higher peak and total force generation, greater strength adaptations are possible in earlier placed exercises compared to sessions where those same exercises are performed late in the session.

Optimum order

As a result of the above principle, most strength training sessions are traditionally designed with the exercises prescribed in predetermined order, with the ‘targeted muscles’ (those deemed key for sport performance) worked early in the session, while other muscle groups deemed of secondary importance are relegated to the later stages of the session. While such a predetermined structure to session planning can deliver clear benefits, implementing it is not always easy.

Athletes who use a gym for strength sessions (most people!) may find that they have to stand around waiting for a piece of equipment to become free, particularly at busy times. This can lead to boredom, an unwanted cool down, and inefficient usage of time, all of which compromise the efficacy of the session. Indeed, new research shows that when inter-set rest periods are extended (eg when waiting around for a piece of equipment or set of dumbbells), the intensity needed to generate strength gains declines markedly (see this article)⁽³⁾. For an athlete in a busy gym or a coach training a group of athletes therefore, this presents a real challenge when structuring strength sessions.

Deviating from the optimum order

In these circumstances, it may actually be better to deviate from the optimum structure rather than hang around in order to overcome logistical challenges associated with busy gyms or when coaching large groups with limited equipment. In a 2020 study, elite hockey players were studied to assess performance when following an optimally structured strength session as determined by accredited strength and conditioning coaches and research scientists in the field compared with the same sets, reps and loadings of exercises but performed in a random order chosen by the players themselves⁽⁴⁾. When the data from the two trials was analyzed, the key finding was that (surprisingly), there were no statistical or practical differences in power outputs, rate of fatigue development or physical activity enjoyment scores!

How important is an optimum order?

From the study above, you might assume that for all the hype, the exact order of exercises performed in a strength workout is actually not that important in practical, real-world day-to-day settings. There’s certainly more than a grain of truth in this assumption, especially given that research has also established that freely choosing exercise order seems to enhance motor learning⁽⁵⁾, motivation⁽⁶⁾, and the likelihood of adhering to a program⁽⁷⁾. Having said this, the hockey players in the study above were assessed for power outputs, perceived fatigue and enjoyment in a one-off workout, No measures of training adaptation over time or subsequent strength gains were carried out, which at the end of the day is what really matters.

Unrelated muscle groups

Earlier on in this article, we said that fresh muscle fibers can perform more work than those that have become fatigued (even partially) as a result of previous exercises in that session⁽²⁾. This obviously implies that where there is any muscle overlap (often the case), exercises ideally need to be arranged according to the athlete’s goal(s), with the key muscle groups to be target taking priority in the training order. But what happens when performing strength exercises where there is absolutely zero overlap between muscle groups – for example squats and bench presses? Is this a true instance where there is no ‘ideal’ exercise order, enabling athletes to perform the exercises in whichever order they wish with the same results following?

Surprisingly, there’s relatively little research into this topic. It’s widely acknowledged that placing multi-joint exercises, which engage large amounts of muscle, early in a workout leads to greater training benefits compared to placing single-joint exercises early in a workout. For example, a study on young men looked at the effects of a 6-week resistance training program where the exercise order was either multi-joint ð single-joint or single-joint ð multi-joint⁽⁸⁾. It found that when it came to leg strength and muscle mass, the multi-joint ð single-joint approach resulted in greater gains, even though the total volume and exercises/reps across the two approaches was identical.