The Strength Training Research Paradox: Are We Studying the Right People?
- 1Department of Sport Science, Linnaeus University, 391 82 Kalmar, Sweden.
Abstract
Strength training research has expanded considerably, yet the evidence base remains heavily skewed toward individuals with limited training experience. Recent evidence indicates that only 2.3% of participants included in a sample of 26 highly cited systematic reviews and meta-analyses of core strength training programme variables were classified as highly trained, elite, or world-class athletes, whereas 97.7% were sedentary, untrained, or recreationally trained. This imbalance becomes particularly problematic when evaluating advanced strength training methods. Recent evidence illustrates this problem. A systematic review found broadly similar strength and power adaptations across advanced and traditional resistance training methods, while also identifying some method- and outcome-specific benefits. However, many of the underlying studies included participants with limited training experience, raising questions about the applicability of these findings to highly trained populations. Rather than simply reiterating the limited representation of highly trained athletes, this Perspective distinguishes between two research questions: whether an advanced method can produce adaptation and whether it provides additional benefit when conventional training is already producing limited further adaptation. It argues that training status becomes particularly important to external validity when the hypothesised benefit of a method depends on overcoming diminishing adaptation. Findings from novice and moderately trained individuals cannot be assumed to generalise to highly trained athletes, whose potential for further adaptation and need for more specialised training stimuli may differ substantially. To address this issue, a conceptual framework and practical recommendations are presented to improve the alignment between the training methods under investigation, participant training status, and the populations to which findings are intended to generalise. Without greater consideration of training status, strength training research risks producing conclusions that extend beyond the populations in which the evidence was actually established.
Related
- Effects of muscle strength training with blood flow restriction on glomerular function in people with stage 3 chronic kidney disease.
- The training–discovery paradox: Evidence from citizen science
- Trunk Rotation Isokinetic Strength Changes During a 15-Week Periodized Strength Training Program in Three Chinese Elite Paralympic and Deaflympic Throwers.
- Effect of moderate exercise training on T-helper cell subpopulations in elderly people
- Feasibility, Acceptability, and Initial Efficacy of a Wheelchair Exercise Training Program in People With Multiple Sclerosis
BibTeX
@article{augustsson2026strength,
title = {{The Strength Training Research Paradox: Are We Studying the Right People?}},
author = {Jesper Augustsson},
journal = {Sports (Basel, Switzerland)},
year = {2026},
month = oct,
doi = {10.3390/sports14100440},
url = {https://europepmc.org/article/MED/42931577},
note = {CC BY},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - The Strength Training Research Paradox: Are We Studying the Right People?
AU - Jesper Augustsson
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/10/08
JO - Sports (Basel, Switzerland)
DO - 10.3390/sports14100440
UR - https://europepmc.org/article/MED/42931577
AB - Strength training research has expanded considerably, yet the evidence base remains heavily skewed toward individuals with limited training experience. Recent evidence indicates that only 2.3% of participants included in a sample of 26 highly cited systematic reviews and meta-analyses of core strength training programme variables were classified as highly trained, elite, or world-class athletes, whereas 97.7% were sedentary, untrained, or recreationally trained. This imbalance becomes particularly problematic when evaluating advanced strength training methods. Recent evidence illustrates this problem. A systematic review found broadly similar strength and power adaptations across advanced and traditional resistance training methods, while also identifying some method- and outcome-specific benefits. However, many of the underlying studies included participants with limited training experience, raising questions about the applicability of these findings to highly trained populations. Rather than simply reiterating the limited representation of highly trained athletes, this Perspective distinguishes between two research questions: whether an advanced method can produce adaptation and whether it provides additional benefit when conventional training is already producing limited further adaptation. It argues that training status becomes particularly important to external validity when the hypothesised benefit of a method depends on overcoming diminishing adaptation. Findings from novice and moderately trained individuals cannot be assumed to generalise to highly trained athletes, whose potential for further adaptation and need for more specialised training stimuli may differ substantially. To address this issue, a conceptual framework and practical recommendations are presented to improve the alignment between the training methods under investigation, participant training status, and the populations to which findings are intended to generalise. Without greater consideration of training status, strength training research risks producing conclusions that extend beyond the populations in which the evidence was actually established.
SN - 2075-4663
ER -