Why Have We

Complicated

Strength Training?

We are living through a global health crisis that spans communities, ages, and socioeconomic groups. Non-communicable diseases (NCDs) continue to rise, despite a growing list of proposed interventions. Yet among all available strategies, one stands out for its consistency, accessibility, and breadth of benefit: resistance training.

And still, it remains underutilised.

Part of the problem may be perception. Resistance training – once simple in principle – has become entangled in a web of trends, methods, and competing narratives. From High-Intensity Interval Training and HYROX to CrossFit and Velocity-Based Training, the modern landscape presents an overwhelming array of options. Each has its place – but collectively, they risk obscuring a simple truth: effective resistance training does not need to be complicated.

What Resistance Training Actually Does

At its core, resistance training produces predictable and well-documented adaptations.

In untrained individuals, it can significantly improve:

  • Muscular strength
  • Muscle hypertrophy
  • Bone mineral density
  • Balance and coordination
  • Neuromuscular efficiency

In trained individuals, the same adaptations occur – albeit at a slower rate and requiring more precision in programming.

This is not a controversial statement. It is one of the most consistently supported areas in exercise science.

A large body of evidence shows that resistance training improves muscular strength and hypertrophy across a wide range of populations and protocols, provided that fundamental principles – such as sufficient intensity and volume – are met. Similarly, resistance training has been shown to positively influence bone health and reduce the risk of chronic disease and mortality.

When Methods Become Noise

The issue is not the existence of different training methods – it’s the way they are presented and consumed.

Consider the diversity of current approaches:

  • Conditioning-heavy: High-Intensity Interval Training, HYROX
  • Strength science-driven: Velocity-Based Training, cluster sets
  • Power-focused: Contrast Training, plyometrics
  • Muscle-focused: drop sets, time under tension, blood flow restriction
  • Minimalist: calisthenics, resistance bands

Each of these methods can be effective. But none are inherently necessary.

Layer on top of this the language of optimisation – EMOM, AMRAP, hybrid training, “functional” systems – and resistance training begins to look less like a tool, and more like a technical puzzle.

For many, this complexity becomes a barrier to entry or consistency.

A Simpler Framework That Still Works

Stripping away the noise does not mean abandoning science. In fact, it means applying it more clearly.

A practical, evidence-informed approach might look like this:

  • To build strength: Lift relatively heavy loads and progressively increase them over time.
  • To build muscle: Ensure sufficient training volume (sets × reps × load), while still challenging the musculature.
  • Intensity: Training close to failure can be useful, but it is not essential. Leaving ~1–3 repetitions in reserve (RIR) is an effective and sustainable guideline.
  • Exercise selection: Prioritise large muscle groups using multi-joint (compound) movements.

These principles are repeatedly supported in the literature. In other words, effectiveness lies less in the specific method, and more in the consistent application of foundational principles.

Returning to First Principles

There is nothing inherently wrong with advanced methods. They can add variety, target specific adaptations, and enhance performance in trained individuals.

But they should not come at the expense of clarity.

If complexity discourages participation – or undermines consistency – then it has failed in its purpose.

A useful piece of advice from an early coaching experience still holds true:

If you want to be athletic, lift heavy thing – and try to move them faster.

At first glance, it sounds overly simplistic. With time, it proves to be anything but.

Not just for athletic performance, but for health, function, and longevity.

If resistance training is to play the role it should in addressing modern health challenges, the message must be clearer:

It doesn’t need to be complicated. It just needs to be done consistently, and well.

Here are a few pieces worth reading

Cowley N, Nicholson V, Timmins R, Munteanu G, Weakley J. The Effects of Advanced Resistance Training Prescription Methods on Strength, Power, Hypertrophy, and Performance Adaptations in Healthy Adults: A Systematic Review and Bayesian Network Meta-analysis. Sports Medicine. 2026:1–23.

Grgic J, Schoenfeld BJ, Davies TB, Lazinica B, Krieger JW, Pedisic Z. Effect of resistance training frequency on gains in muscular strength: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports Medicine. 2018;48(5):1207–20.

Lyristakis P, Wundersitz D, Cousins S, Huynh M, Zadow E, Gordon BA. The Influence of Individual Resistance Training Variables on Muscle Strength: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Sports Medicine. 2026:1–15.

Currier BS, D’SOUZA AC, Singh MAF, Lowisz CV, Rawson ES, Schoenfeld BJ, 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 and Science in Sports and Exercise. 2026;58(4):851.