Advanced strength training: facts vs. fiction

Comparisons matter

To be included, studies needed to directly compare advanced training strategies, such as those mentioned above, with a traditional resistance training protocol. One group performed the advanced protocol(s) and the other performed traditional, straight-set protocols using conventional intensity and volume prescriptions. Interventions involving blood flow-restriction training were not included. While blood flow restriction training is commonly used and can be considered an advanced strategy, it focuses on creating a training effect through changes in blood flow rather than directly influencing mechanical tension. The researchers wanted to stay focused on advanced strategies that primarily manipulated how the muscles were mechanically loaded.

For a study to be included, one of the primary outcomes of the study needed to be a measure of muscle hypertrophy or strength. For strength, maximal voluntary contraction or one-repetition maximum were considered appropriate outcomes. For hypertrophy, valid measurements included cross-sectional area, muscle thickness or lean mass. For meaningful changes in these measurements to emerge, each study was required to include at least two weeks of training. The studies included ranged from 5-12 weeks in duration, with subjects training 2-3 times per week.

Ultimately, 24 studies met the inclusion criteria and were used in the analysis. All 24 of those studies were included in the review and 20 were included in the quantitative analysis. As with all meta-analyses, the studies were assessed for their risk of ‘bias’ Bias in a scientific study arises from flaws in the design, conduct, or analysis of a scientific study that can lead to a systematic error resulting in an overestimation or underestimation of the actual effect from an intervention. Approximately half the studies were considered low risk of bias and ‘some concerns’ were present for the other half. Overall, this is considered an acceptable level of bias.

Finally, when conducting the analysis, the researchers compared advanced strategies and traditional protocols for their overall effects, combining strength and hypertrophy outcomes, as well as for separate strength and hypertrophy outcomes. This provided clarity as to for those interested in overall outcomes, as well as those more interested in either strength or hypertrophy outcomes, respectively.

What they found

When the numbers were crunched, there was a small but significant advantage for advance strategies over traditional training in terms of overall (muscle strength plus growth) outcomes. For those interested in maximizing resistance training outcomes, this is a meaningful finding. More specifically, it was found that eccentric overload training, velocity-based training, and rest-pause training had the largest positive impact. In contrast, tempo-controlled protocols and manipulating rest lengths (strategy #3 in the list above) did not have statistically significant impacts on overall outcomes.

When just strength adaptations were analyzed, there was a significantly positive impact of the advanced strategies compared to the traditional ones, and in this case, the effect was moderate rather than small (see figure 1). However, a deeper analysis did not demonstrate that any of the specific types of advanced resistance training had a particularly large effect, although rest-pause training had the biggest impact on strength of all the advanced strategies.

In contrast, there was no positive impact on hypertrophy when comparing advanced strategies overall to traditional training interventions. However, as an individual strategy, rest-pause training did have a statistically significantly impact on hypertrophy, indicating that it may be a viable option for improving hypertrophy to a greater extent than traditional resistance training protocols.

Figure 1: Forest plot of strength gains in traditional vs. advanced resistance training

Each line with its square = an individual study. The size of the square reflects the study weight (relative importance). The further to the right of the 0-dotted line, the greater the extra benefit from advanced training over traditional. The square on the bottom line depicts the overall effect size.

Applying the findings to your own training

Advanced resistance training strategies can be effective, especially when it comes to improving strength. So with these results in mind, it then becomes a question of what to do. If improving strength is your primary training outcome, there is solid evidence that eccentric overload training, velocity-based training, and rest-pause training can deliver a small degree of extra benefit relative to traditional approaches, and in competitive sports, these small differences can be very important. When it comes to improving hypertrophy, the evidence is less clear, although rest pause training can lead to greater increases in muscle size. If that is a critical outcome, rest pause training is worth considering.

There are further considerations that are worth mentioning however. First, traditional training interventions still worked, resulting in improvements in strength and hypertrophy. It’s just that, in certain situations, advanced strategies may work better.  However, the reason they work better is because they are intensification strategies and they make training more difficult. If you chose to use them, expect to create more fatigue, which may then need to be managed, especially if there are other types of training you need to perform in the hours and days that follow.

If maximizing strength and hypertrophy is currently a primary goal, it may be worthwhile using advanced strategies despite the potentially greater fatigue. If not, consider sticking with traditional strategies that lead to similar outcomes with less fatigue, even though the improvements may be smaller. If you are continuing to see progress while using traditional approaches, it may make sense to continue to use these approaches, saving the more advanced strategies for when progress stops and they become necessary.

An important criticism of the study is that the subjects were only ‘recreationally trained’. This is important because they may not have been sufficiently trained to fully experience enhanced improvements from advanced strategies. At their current levels of fitness, any intervention may have been effective. While this is true, it’s important to remember that many athletes - especially endurance athletes - have relatively modest strength training backgrounds, even if they are highly trained in other areas. For this reason, applying the results of this study to these athletes can make a lot of sense.

However, for those who already advanced strength capabilities, there may be a greater need to use advanced resistance training strategies to allow for continued progress over time. If that describes you or your athletes, it may be necessary to use advanced strategies more regularly. Ultimately, resistance training improves strength and hypertrophy, and in specific circumstances, advanced strategies may lead to greater improvements. Whether those added improvements are relevant, necessary, and ‘worth it’, will ultimately come down to the discretion of the athlete and the coach.

References

1. J Funct Morphol Kinesiol. 2026 Feb 16;11(1):80. doi: 10.3390/jfmk11010080