Compare Fitness Equipment Compare Fitness Equipment

Author: Compare Fitness Equipment

  • Velocity-Based Training: What Bar-Speed Sensors Measure and What the Evidence Supports

    A bar-speed sensor clipped to a barbell, or a smartphone camera tracking a lift, gives a number traditional percentage-based programming cannot: how fast the bar actually moved on that specific repetition, today, with today’s fatigue and readiness. Velocity-based training (VBT) uses that number to adjust load or stop a set, instead of relying purely on a pre-planned percentage of a one-rep max worked out weeks earlier. A systematic review of the clinical trial evidence shows the approach genuinely works, with real limits on how far the evidence currently reaches.

    What velocity-based training measures and how it is used

    Rather than prescribing a fixed percentage of a lifter’s one-rep max for every session regardless of how they feel that day, velocity-based training sets load or stops a set based on how much bar speed has dropped within it, velocity loss, treating that drop as a direct, session-specific readout of accumulating fatigue rather than something estimated in advance. A lifter training with the same percentage load on a fatigued day will show a faster velocity drop than on a fresh day, and VBT programming responds to that directly rather than pushing through a fixed, pre-planned number of repetitions regardless of the signal.

    What the trial evidence actually shows

    A systematic review following PRISMA methodology analysed 22 randomised clinical trials on velocity-based resistance training, published from 2009 onward, in trained subjects. On maximum strength, the review’s conclusion was direct: “VBRT is an effective method to improve 1-RM,” with most included studies showing gains similar to, or better than, traditional percentage-based training, though the review noted partial range-of-motion exercises showed reduced effectiveness within a VBT framework specifically. The review also found positive effects on countermovement jump and sprint performance, outcomes relevant to general athletic conditioning as well as pure strength.

    A specific, and genuinely useful, sub-finding concerned how much velocity loss to allow within a set before stopping. The review found lower velocity-loss thresholds, stopping a set once bar speed had dropped by only 5 to 10% from the first repetition, proved most effective, supporting the review’s broader conclusion that “it is not necessary to reach high muscle failure in order to achieve the best training results.” In practice this means VBT-guided training can produce comparable or better strength outcomes while accumulating meaningfully less fatigue per session than training every set to a fixed, pre-planned repetition count regardless of bar-speed drop-off.

    Where the evidence base is thinner

    The review rated the overall risk of bias across included studies as low to moderate, a reasonably favourable rating, but flagged specific gaps worth taking seriously before assuming the findings generalise fully. Included studies “mainly included male participants,” with the review’s authors explicitly stating that “more research is needed to evaluate the effects of this methodology in the female population.” Most participants across the pooled trials were recreationally trained rather than elite or highly specialised athletes, and the research concentrated on a narrow set of exercises, principally the squat, bench press and pull-up, so the evidence for VBT’s effectiveness on other lifts rests on considerably less direct trial data.

    What this means for choosing a home VBT device

    The evidence supports the underlying method, adjusting load or stopping a set based on measured velocity loss, rather than any specific brand or sensor technology. Linear position transducers are treated in the wider sports-science literature as the most consistently accurate measurement method, though the review itself did not compare specific consumer devices against each other; camera-based apps and lower-cost accelerometer sensors have become common lower-price alternatives, and separate validity research not covered directly in this review is the more relevant place to check any specific device’s measurement accuracy before relying on it for programming decisions.

    Frequently asked questions

    Does VBT guarantee better strength gains than a fixed percentage-based programme? The review found VBT training generally produced similar or superior 1-RM gains compared with percentage-based training, but “similar or superior” reflects the range across the 22 included trials, not a guaranteed advantage in every case.

    Is a cheaper VBT sensor as reliable as a linear position transducer? This review did not directly compare device accuracy; that is a separate, device-specific validity question rather than something the training-outcome trials themselves addressed.

    Does the evidence apply equally to women and men? Not confirmed by this review. The included trials mainly involved male participants, and the review’s own authors call for further research specifically in women.

    The bottom line

    Across 22 randomised clinical trials, velocity-based training produced strength gains comparable to or better than traditional percentage-based training, with lower velocity-loss thresholds of 5 to 10% appearing to deliver strong results with less accumulated fatigue. The evidence is rated low-to-moderate risk of bias overall, but is concentrated in male, recreationally trained lifters using a narrow set of core exercises, gaps worth factoring in rather than assuming the method transfers identically to every population and lift.

    Sources

  • Cluster Sets: What the Evidence Shows About Breaking Up Sets With Short Rest Periods

    Cluster sets break a normal set into smaller chunks separated by brief 10 to 30 second rest periods, rather than performing every repetition back-to-back before a longer rest between whole sets. The pitch is that shorter rest points within a set allow better bar speed and less accumulated fatigue on each repetition. A recent meta-analysis of long-term cluster training gives a genuinely mixed answer, one that depends heavily on how long a programme actually runs.

    What the pooled evidence shows overall

    A systematic review and meta-analysis of 21 studies, covering 583 participants across training programmes lasting 4 to 12 weeks, compared cluster training (CT) against traditional resistance training (TRT) for gains in maximum strength. Pooled across all included studies, the overall result showed no significant difference between the two approaches, a genuinely even outcome rather than a win for either method.

    The finding that actually matters: training duration flips the result

    The headline “no difference” result masks a clear pattern once studies are split by how long the training programme actually ran. In programmes lasting 4 to 8 weeks, cluster training was significantly superior (standardised mean difference: 0.24), which the review’s authors attribute to cluster training reducing “accumulated fatigue during training” and helping to “maximize individual repetition efficiency” over that shorter window. In programmes lasting 9 to 12 weeks, the result reversed sharply, with traditional resistance training significantly superior (standardised mean difference: -1.54), a large enough swing that cluster training’s short-programme advantage should not be assumed to hold, or even continue in the same direction, over a longer block of training.

    Age also moderated the result: adults aged 23 to 35 showed a clearer benefit from cluster training, while no meaningful difference emerged for younger adults aged 18 to 23. The review found no meaningful differences by sex or by whether participants were athletes or non-athletes.

    Why the evidence needs a cautious reading

    The review’s authors flagged several limitations that argue for caution in how firmly these specific numbers should be treated. Statistical testing detected significant publication bias (P < 0.05), meaning studies with negative or null results may be under-represented in the published literature the meta-analysis could draw on, which risks overstating the effectiveness of both training approaches, not just one. Heterogeneity across the included studies was high (I² = 70.7%), which the authors attribute to differences in participant type, training duration, age range and sample size between individual studies, a signal that the pooled averages sit on top of considerable underlying variation rather than a uniform effect. The authors also noted that only one included study used an equal work-to-rest ratio design, limiting what the review can say about that specific variant of cluster training, and that findings are restricted to young adults, with applicability to minors, older adults or people with disabilities left unclear.

    What this means for programming at home

    Given the duration-dependent reversal, cluster sets are best treated as a genuinely useful tool for a shorter training block, a 4 to 8 week phase focused on maintaining bar speed and reducing per-repetition fatigue, rather than a default structure to run for a longer 9 to 12 week programme, where the pooled evidence actually favours traditional set structure. A separate six-week randomised controlled trial of home-based online training found a related, practical advantage: cluster and traditional training produced similar gains in maximal voluntary contraction, functional balance and sit-to-stand performance, but the cluster group reported meaningfully lower perceived exertion (4.4 against 5.6 on a 10-point scale), a difference the study’s authors linked to better sustainability for home training specifically.

    Frequently asked questions

    Are cluster sets simply better than traditional sets? No. The overall pooled result across all 21 studies showed no significant difference, and the picture only becomes clearer once studies are separated by training duration, where the two approaches actually favour different outcomes.

    Is a 4 to 8 week cluster training block guaranteed to outperform traditional training? The meta-analysis found a significant advantage for cluster training specifically in that duration window, but the review’s authors flag significant publication bias and high heterogeneity, both reasons to treat the specific effect size as a reasonable estimate rather than a guarantee.

    Should older adults use cluster sets based on this evidence? The review’s findings are restricted to young adults; it does not provide evidence either way for older adults, minors or people with disabilities.

    The bottom line

    Cluster sets and traditional sets produced statistically equal strength gains when pooled across all 21 studies in this meta-analysis, but that average hides a real, duration-dependent reversal: cluster training ahead in 4 to 8 week programmes, traditional training ahead in 9 to 12 week programmes. Given the review’s own caveats about publication bias and study heterogeneity, cluster sets are best used as a shorter-block tool rather than assumed to outperform, or be outperformed by, traditional sets across every programme length.

    Sources

  • Blood Flow Restriction Training: What the Evidence Shows About Low-Load Training With Restriction Cuffs

    Blood flow restriction (BFR) training uses a cuff, wrapped around the top of an arm or leg, to partially restrict blood flow while lifting light loads, typically 20 to 40% of a one-rep max, far below the loads normally needed to build strength. The pitch is compelling for home training: strength and size gains closer to heavy lifting, using weight a shoulder, knee or lighter piece of home equipment can tolerate. The evidence supports part of that claim, with meaningful caveats around how it is applied.

    What a direct comparison against heavy training found

    A systematic review and meta-analysis pooled 13 randomised controlled trials, published between 2011 and 2023, involving 336 untrained male participants, comparing low-load BFR training (20 to 40% of one-rep max) against high-load resistance training (70 to 90% of one-rep max) over training periods of 4 to 12 weeks. On muscle mass specifically, the result was close to identical between methods: “no significant difference in muscle mass gains was observed between LL-BFR and HL-RT” (standardised mean difference: 0.01, P = 0.94), among the clearest “no meaningful difference” results in this area of strength research.

    Strength told a different story. Across the full pooled sample, heavy load training produced superior strength gains overall. BFR training only matched heavy training on strength under specific conditions: when cuff pressure was individually prescribed rather than set at a fixed standard pressure, when cuffs were released intermittently between sets rather than kept continuously inflated, and in studies using a higher total number of training sessions, more than 18 sessions across the study period.

    Why the conditions matter as much as the method

    This pattern, equivalent muscle growth but strength gains dependent on how BFR was actually applied, points to BFR being sensitive to implementation detail in a way heavy lifting is not. A cuff tightened by feel rather than to an individually calibrated pressure, or left inflated continuously through a whole session rather than released between sets, appears to blunt the strength benefit specifically, even where the muscle-growth stimulus remains intact. This is a meaningful practical distinction for home use: a basic BFR cuff without pressure calibration is not automatically equivalent to the protocols that produced comparable strength results in the trials reviewed.

    The evidence quality itself is a limiting factor

    The review’s authors were direct about the quality of the underlying studies: “the overall quality of studies included in this analysis was generally low,” attributing this partly to the practical difficulty of blinding participants to which load, and which sensation of restricted blood flow, they are training with in a real-world setting. The authors also flagged that “the repeated citation of multiple related outcomes from the same study may have affected the homogeneity of results,” a statistical caveat that argues for treating the pooled effect sizes as a reasonable summary of current evidence rather than a precise, final figure.

    The reviewed trials were also conducted specifically on untrained males aged roughly 18 to 45; the review’s conclusions should not be assumed to transfer directly to trained lifters, older adults, or women without separate confirming evidence in those populations.

    Who BFR training is actually a reasonable option for

    Given that the strongest, cleanest finding is equivalent muscle growth at much lower loads, BFR is most clearly useful where loading heavily is not currently possible or advisable, returning from a period of reduced training capacity, working around a joint that cannot tolerate heavy load, or a home setup where the available equipment tops out well below what heavy training would require. Where heavy loading is genuinely available and tolerated, this review does not show BFR training producing superior outcomes to it; the realistic best case shown here is a comparable outcome using much lighter loads, achieved reliably only with the more carefully controlled protocols described above.

    Frequently asked questions

    Does BFR training build more muscle than heavy lifting? No. The meta-analysis found equivalent muscle mass gains between the two methods, not a BFR advantage.

    Is any BFR cuff as effective as a clinical or individually calibrated one? The review’s strength findings were strongest specifically in trials using individualised pressure prescriptions and intermittent cuff release, so a basic, uncalibrated cuff protocol may not reproduce the same strength results shown here.

    Is BFR training studied well enough to be considered settled science? Not yet. The review’s own authors describe the overall quality of included studies as generally low, which is a reason for cautious rather than settled confidence in the specific effect sizes reported.

    The bottom line

    Low-load blood flow restriction training produced muscle growth statistically indistinguishable from heavy resistance training in this 13-trial meta-analysis of untrained men, a genuinely useful finding for anyone who cannot currently load heavily. Strength gains, however, only matched heavy training under specific, more carefully controlled protocols, individualised pressure and intermittent cuff release among them, and the review’s authors rate the overall evidence quality as low, which argues for treating BFR as a well-supported option for muscle growth specifically, rather than a fully proven substitute for heavy training across the board.

    Sources

  • Stretch-Mediated Hypertrophy: What the Evidence Says About Training Muscles at Long Lengths

    “Lengthened partials,” reps performed in the stretched portion of a movement rather than through a full range of motion, have become a popular claim in home strength training content: train the muscle stretched, and it supposedly grows faster than training it through a complete range. The actual meta-analysis behind this idea shows a real but genuinely modest signal, not the settled advantage the claim is often presented as.

    What the meta-analysis actually found

    A 2023 systematic review and meta-analysis published in the International Journal of Strength and Conditioning compared partial range-of-motion (ROM) training against full ROM training across multiple outcomes. The headline result favoured full ROM overall, but only trivially: “a trivial SMD (0.12; 95% CI: -0.02, 0.26) in favour of full ROM compared to partial ROM,” with every individual outcome measure also favouring full ROM by a trivial to small margin.

    Inside that overall result, a specific sub-group comparison looked only at studies where the partial-ROM condition specifically targeted the long, stretched end of a muscle’s range, “lengthened partials,” rather than partial reps taken anywhere in the range. Here the direction flipped: “there may be a muscle hypertrophy benefit to partial ROM training at long muscle lengths compared to using a full ROM (-0.28; 95% CI: -0.81, 0.16).”

    Why this specific number needs a careful reading

    That confidence interval, -0.81 to 0.16, crosses zero, which means the result is not statistically significant: the pooled data cannot rule out no difference at all between lengthened partials and full ROM training for hypertrophy. A trend favouring lengthened partials is present in the pooled effect size, but it falls short of the evidence needed to call the effect established. This sub-group analysis was also built from a small number of the studies in the broader review, not the full evidence base, which narrows how much weight it can reasonably carry on its own.

    The review’s own overall conclusion reflects this balance rather than overclaiming in either direction: “full or long ROM may enhance results for most outcomes,” while adding that “partial ROM resistance training might present an efficacious alternative for variation and personal preference, or where injury prevents full-ROM resistance training.” That is a description of a plausible, promising direction of research, not a proven training principle ready to replace full-range training.

    What this means for programming at home

    Given a trend that has not reached statistical significance, replacing full-range training entirely with lengthened partials is not supported by this evidence. A more proportionate reading is that occasionally emphasising the stretched position of an exercise, a deep dumbbell fly, a bottom-position leg extension, a stretched-position cable curl, alongside full-range training rather than instead of it, is a reasonable variation to try, particularly where a joint or piece of equipment already limits full range of motion for another reason.

    Equipment that allows genuine loading at a muscle’s longest safe length, cable stations with a long travel path, adjustable pin-loaded machines, or resistance bands that maintain tension through a deep stretch, is what actually enables this kind of partial-rep work; a standard fixed dumbbell exercise often cannot reach or safely load the same stretched position without a change of equipment or angle.

    Separating this from general “train through full range” advice

    This lengthened-partials evidence sits alongside, and should not be confused with, the broader and better-supported finding that full range of motion training generally outperforms partial range of motion training taken through the middle or shorter portion of a movement, which is what the meta-analysis’s trivial overall SMD in favour of full ROM actually reflects. The specific, less certain claim is narrower: that partial reps taken deliberately at the long end of the range may match or slightly exceed full-range training for hypertrophy, not that partial reps in general are superior to full-range training.

    Frequently asked questions

    Is stretch-mediated hypertrophy a proven training principle? Not yet, based on this meta-analysis. The lengthened-partials sub-group result trended toward a benefit but was not statistically significant, meaning the evidence cannot currently distinguish it from no effect.

    Should I replace full-range sets with lengthened partials? The evidence does not support full replacement; full ROM training showed a trivial overall advantage across outcomes, with lengthened partials as a plausible, promising addition rather than a proven substitute.

    Does this apply equally to every muscle group? The meta-analysis’s sub-group finding was pooled across the exercises studied rather than broken down muscle by muscle in the results available, so it should not be read as equally established for every muscle group.

    The bottom line

    The meta-analysis behind “stretch-mediated hypertrophy” shows a real but statistically non-significant trend favouring lengthened partials for muscle growth, built from a small sub-group of the available studies, alongside a trivial, still-standing advantage for full range of motion training overall. Treating lengthened partials as a useful variation worth adding to full-range training, rather than a proven replacement for it, matches what the evidence currently supports.

    Sources

  • Unilateral vs Bilateral Training: What Two Meta-Analyses Show About Single-Limb and Two-Limb Exercises

    Whether a leg press should be done two legs at a time or one leg at a time is a genuinely debated question in strength training, not a settled one. Two recent systematic reviews and meta-analyses, one focused on muscle growth and strength, one on athletic performance measures, give a consistent answer: the choice matters less for muscle size than many equipment marketers imply, and more for exactly which kind of strength or power you are training.

    What the evidence shows on muscle growth

    A 2025 systematic review and meta-analysis in Sports Medicine, led by Witalo Kassiano and colleagues, searched three databases and, after screening 703 studies, included 9 that directly compared unilateral (one limb at a time) against bilateral (both limbs together) resistance training. The result on hypertrophy was clear: “we found no evidence of differential muscle hypertrophy between the two exercise selections” (effect size: -0.21, 95% CI: -3.56 to 3.13, P = 0.57), a confidence interval wide enough, and centred close enough to zero, to rule out a meaningful difference either way rather than merely failing to detect one. The review rated the overall risk of bias across included studies as moderate.

    Strength gains follow the principle of specificity

    Where the same review did find a clear difference was in strength testing, and the pattern was exactly what training specificity would predict. Bilateral training produced a significantly larger increase in bilateral strength (effect size: 0.56, 95% CI: 0.16 to 0.96, P = 0.01), while unilateral training produced a significantly larger increase in unilateral strength (effect size: -0.65, 95% CI: -0.93 to -0.37, P = 0.001). The authors’ conclusion is direct: “strength gains appear to follow the principle of specificity,” meaning the way you test strength, on one limb or two, tends to favour whichever way you trained it, independent of any underlying difference in muscle growth.

    Performance measures: jump, sprint and change of direction

    A separate systematic review and meta-analysis of 14 studies (392 participants, aged 16 to 26) looked specifically at athletic performance outcomes rather than hypertrophy or basic strength testing. It found unilateral training produced a large effect on unilateral jump performance (effect size: 0.89) and bilateral training produced a small effect advantage on bilateral strength (effect size: -0.43), broadly consistent with the specificity pattern in the Sports Medicine review. It found no significant differences between unilateral and bilateral training for unilateral strength, bilateral jump performance, change-of-direction speed, or linear sprint speed, outcomes where the training method used did not clearly determine the result either way.

    This second review carries real limitations worth stating plainly: every included study used lower-body exercises, so the authors note “whether the present findings…can be applied to the upper limbs remains unclear,” the participant age range was restricted to 16 to 26, and the authors rated overall study quality as moderate. Because several subgroups contained fewer than 10 studies, the authors could not run a meta-regression to investigate why individual results varied.

    What this means for choosing equipment and exercises

    Neither review supports the idea that switching a training programme heavily toward unilateral work, single-leg presses, single-arm rows, split squats, will produce more muscle growth than bilateral equivalents at matched effort and volume. What the evidence does support is choosing the training pattern that matches your actual goal: bilateral movements for bilateral strength (most standard lifts, and most gym machines), unilateral movements specifically where unilateral strength or unilateral jump performance is the target, relevant to sports involving single-leg take-offs or change of direction, or to correcting a known side-to-side imbalance.

    For home equipment specifically, this also has a practical footprint implication: a single adjustable bench and a pair of dumbbells can deliver both unilateral and bilateral versions of most exercises without needing separate specialised machines for each, since the difference between the two approaches is how an exercise is performed rather than which piece of equipment is strictly required to perform it.

    Frequently asked questions

    Does unilateral training build more muscle because of extra stabiliser demand? The Sports Medicine meta-analysis found no significant hypertrophy difference between unilateral and bilateral training, so this common claim is not supported by the pooled evidence, though the number of included studies (9) remains limited.

    Should athletes in sports with single-leg actions train unilaterally? The performance-focused review found unilateral training produced a large effect specifically on unilateral jump performance, which is relevant to single-leg-dominant sports, though the evidence is drawn from a young (16 to 26), lower-body-only sample.

    Is bilateral training better for general strength training at home? Bilateral training showed a clear advantage for bilateral strength specifically, which is what most home strength goals and standard equipment (barbells, most machines) are built around, but this does not make unilateral work unnecessary if single-limb strength or balance is also a goal.

    The bottom line

    Across two systematic reviews and meta-analyses, unilateral and bilateral resistance training produced no detectable difference in muscle growth, while strength and jump gains followed the principle of specificity: training bilaterally builds bilateral strength, training unilaterally builds unilateral strength and unilateral jump ability. The practical choice is a matching exercise, not a superior one.

    Sources

  • Stability Balls, Balance Boards and Unstable Surfaces: What Three Reviews Say About Instability Resistance Training

    Stability balls, balance boards and similar devices are sold on the idea that an unstable surface makes each exercise harder for the core and stabilising muscles. Three published reviews have examined this idea, which the literature calls instability resistance training. This article summarises what they report about muscle activation, force output and trunk stability, and where the evidence remains unsettled. It covers general findings on healthy people and is not advice for anyone with an injury or health condition. None of the three abstracts reports a pooled meta-analytic effect size, so the findings are described as reviews of the literature.

    What is being compared

    Behm and Colado (Sports Health, 2013) define instability resistance training as the use of unstable surfaces and devices to strengthen the core or trunk muscles, and describe it as popular in fitness facilities. In practice the devices include stability balls and balance boards, and the comparison is with the same exercise on a stable surface. The three reviews come from different years: Behm and Anderson in 2006, Behm and Colado in 2013 and Zemkov in 2017.

    Muscle activation is higher, force output is lower

    Behm and Anderson (Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 2006) report that instability can decrease the externally measured force output of a muscle while maintaining high muscle activation, and attribute the high activation of limbs and trunk to increased stabilisation functions. Zemkov (Journal of Traditional and Complementary Medicine, 2017) reports that electromyography studies show significantly greater activity of trunk-stabilising muscles during exercises under unstable than stable conditions, and that it has been established that peak isometric force and rate of force development are significantly lower under unstable conditions. Power output was also compromised on unstable surfaces, though Zemkov notes this depends on the type of exercise, the device, the weight lifted and the person’s training background.

    Effects on trunk stability and strength gains

    Zemkov reports that intervention studies show a greater improvement in trunk stability after programmes using unstable devices than after floor exercises, and interprets this as instability training facilitating neural adaptation of trunk-stabilising muscles. He adds that both acute and long-term responses of the primarily activated muscles to exercises on unstable surfaces remain a matter of debate.

    Behm and Anderson state that the lower force output may be detrimental to absolute strength gains. They report that some studies found increased co-contractions with unstable training, and that the positive effects of instability resistance training on sports performance had yet to be quantified. Behm and Colado report that studies document adaptations similar to stable resistance training in recreationally active individuals, and that similar progressions with lower resistance may improve balance and stability, increase core activation and improve motor control. They also note contradictory recommendations across the literature.

    What the three reviews agree on

    • Unstable conditions raise the activity of stabilising muscles.
    • Unstable conditions lower the force or power a person can produce with the same exercise, so the loads used are typically lower.
    • Recommendations differ on how useful the approach is, and the effect on sports performance was not established.
    • Behm and Anderson conclude that a resistance programme aimed at musculoskeletal health should include both stable exercises, which emphasise higher force, and unstable ones, which emphasise balance stress.

    Reading the evidence with care

    Higher stabiliser activity does not by itself show a better training result. The reviews describe measurements of activation and intervention studies, and they contain no head-to-head comparison of specific products, such as one type of balance board against another. They also do not address the cost or space cost of a device. Findings from recreationally active adults should not be assumed for beginners or for athletes.

    The lower force output has a practical consequence for loading. If the aim is to train the legs or chest with heavy weights, the reviews suggest unstable surfaces reduce the load that can be lifted, which is why the authors advise combining stable and unstable work. This site’s article on free weights against machines covers a related question about stabiliser demand.

    Where equipment enters

    Buying decisions can be framed by these findings without going beyond them. A device designed to add instability is relevant to a goal such as trunk stability or balance practice, and less relevant to a goal of lifting as heavy as possible. The article on mobility and balance equipment for home use compares this kind of kit as a product category.

    Frequently asked questions

    Do unstable surfaces build more core strength?

    Zemkov reports greater activity of trunk-stabilising muscles and greater improvement in trunk stability compared with floor exercises, though he describes the responses of the main muscles as debated.

    Can heavy lifting be done on an unstable surface?

    The reviews report lower peak force and power on unstable surfaces, so lower loads are typically used.

    The bottom line

    Three reviews indicate that unstable devices increase stabiliser activity and trunk stability while lowering force and power output, which limits their usefulness for maximal strength. Recommendations in the literature differ and a benefit for sports performance was not established. The reviews support unstable work as an addition to, not a replacement for, stable exercises, and they do not compare individual products.

    Sources

  • Push-Ups Against the Bench Press: What Three Small Trials Show About Strength and Muscle Thickness

    A bench and a loaded barbell are among the larger purchases in a home gym, and push-ups need neither. Three published trials have compared push-up training with bench press training directly. This article reports what each found, how they matched the load between the exercises, and why the results cannot be stretched into a general verdict. It covers general findings in healthy adults and is not advice for anyone with an injury or health condition. No pooled analysis of these trials is cited here, since the sources are three separate small studies.

    Trial one: bench press against elastic-band push-ups in experienced trainees

    Calatayud and colleagues (Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 2015) first measured muscle activity by electromyography (EMG) during a six-repetition-maximum (6RM) bench press and a push-up with an elastic band adding resistance. At baseline the EMG amplitude showed no significant difference between the two. Thirty university students with advanced resistance training experience were then randomly allocated to a 6RM bench press group, a 6RM elastic-band push-up group or a control group for five weeks, using the same loads as in the EMG measurements.

    Both training groups improved their 1RM and 6RM significantly and by similar amounts, while the control group did not change. The authors conclude that when EMG values are comparable and conditions are reproduced, the two exercises can provide similar strength gains.

    Trial two: low-load bench press against load-matched push-ups

    Kikuchi and Nakazato (Journal of Exercise Science and Fitness, 2017) recruited 18 men aged 19 to 22 and randomly assigned them to bench press at 40% of one-repetition maximum or to push-ups with the position adjusted, for example kneeling, to match the same load. Both groups trained twice a week for eight weeks.

    The authors report significant increases in 1RM and in muscle thickness of the triceps and the pectoralis major in both groups. Biceps thickness increased significantly only in the bench press group. Medicine-ball throw power and the maximum-repetition test showed no significant change in either group, and the change in muscle thickness did not differ significantly between the groups. The authors conclude that push-ups at a load similar to 40% of 1RM bench press are comparably effective for hypertrophy and strength over eight weeks. They also note that push-up intensity can be altered with variations such as bent knees or hand and foot elevation, and raised further using an elastic band or a weight plate on the back.

    Trial three: progressive calisthenic push-ups against bench press

    Kotarsky, Christensen, Miller and Hackney (Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 2018) studied 23 healthy, moderately trained men, randomly assigned to a progressive push-up group (n = 14) or a bench press group (n = 9), training three days a week for four weeks. They measured muscle thickness, a seated medicine ball put, bench press 1RM and a push-up progression. The abstract reports significant increases in 1RM, and the authors describe the study as the first to show that calisthenics, using progressive variations to maintain programming variables, can improve upper-body muscle strength.

    What the trials have in common

    • All were short (four to eight weeks) and small, with between 18 and 30 participants in total. Two explicitly enrolled men, and the abstract of the third does not state participants’ sex.
    • All matched load between the exercises by design, through EMG matching, a fixed percentage of 1RM or progressive variations. Push-ups performed at whatever load a person happens to choose were not tested.
    • All reported comparable strength improvement between push-up and bench press training.
    • Kikuchi and Nakazato is the only one of the three whose abstract reports thickness at several sites, and it found a difference at the biceps that favoured the bench press group.

    What the trials cannot show

    None of the trials followed participants for longer than eight weeks, so they say nothing about long-term progress once a person can do many push-ups with a body weight that cannot easily be increased. Kikuchi and Nakazato themselves note that further studies are needed in highly trained subjects. The trials are also small enough that the absence of a significant difference between groups is not proof of equivalence. Findings in the male participants cannot be assumed for women, and none of the abstracts reports separate results for women.

    The trials do not compare cost, space or convenience. They say nothing about the range of exercises a bench and barbell make possible, such as heavy loading of the chest at higher intensities. Kikuchi and Nakazato state that push-ups can be loaded further with a band or plate, which means some equipment can still be relevant to push-up training.

    What this means for a buying decision

    The evidence supports a narrow conclusion: in short trials with matched loads, push-up variations produced upper-body strength gains and pectoral and triceps thickness gains similar to bench press training. It does not show that push-ups replace the bench press for someone seeking to lift heavy loads, or that a bench is unnecessary. For readers weighing this against other options, related articles on this site cover resistance bands and suspension trainers as equipment substitutes and weight benches.

    Frequently asked questions

    Can push-ups build the same strength as the bench press?

    In these three trials, with matched loads and short durations in male participants, both exercises improved bench press strength by similar amounts.

    Do push-ups build the biceps?

    In the trial that measured it, biceps thickness increased significantly only in the bench press group.

    The bottom line

    Three small randomised trials found that push-up training and bench press training, at matched loads, produced similar strength gains and similar gains in chest and triceps thickness over four to eight weeks. They were short, small, mostly in men, and did not test push-ups at self-selected loads, so they support cautious substitution and not a general claim that push-ups make a bench unnecessary.

    Sources

  • Isometric Training: What Two Reviews Say About Muscle Length, Intensity and Intent

    Isometric training means producing force without the muscle changing length. Two 2019 reviews summarise what is known about its long-term effects. This article reports what each says, notes how their methods differ, and identifies what remains uncertain. It covers general findings on training in healthy people and is not advice for anyone with an injury or health condition.

    Two different kinds of review

    The reviews are not equivalent in strength of evidence. Oranchuk, Storey, Nelson and Cronin (Scandinavian Journal of Medicine and Science in Sports) conducted a systematic review of medium- to long-term adaptations, searching MEDLINE, PubMed, SPORTDiscus and CINAHL. It included 26 research outputs of at least three weeks. Lum and Barbosa (International Journal of Sports Medicine) describe their paper as a brief review with a narrative summary of findings on isometric strength training and its effects on strength and dynamic performance. A narrative summary does not pool results statistically, so its training figures are the authors’ synthesis and not a measured optimum.

    Muscle length: the systematic review’s clearest signal

    Oranchuk and colleagues report that isometric training at longer muscle lengths produced greater muscular hypertrophy than equal volumes of training at shorter muscle lengths. The figures they give are weekly gains of 0.86 to 1.69% at longer lengths, against 0.08 to 0.83% at shorter lengths. They also report that long-muscle-length training resulted in greater transference to dynamic performance. The review says relatively few studies met its inclusion criteria, so these figures come from a small evidence base.

    Intensity and intent

    The systematic review reports several other findings:

    • ballistic intent, meaning trying to produce force as quickly as possible, gave greater neuromuscular activation and greater rapid force production than non-ballistic intent, for example weekly gains in rapid force production of 1.2 to 13.4% against 1.01 to 8.13%;
    • substantial improvements in muscular hypertrophy and maximal force production were reported regardless of training intensity;
    • high-intensity contractions, at about 70%, were required to improve tendon structure and function.

    The intensity result is worth reading carefully: it says intensity was not critical for hypertrophy or maximal force in the included studies, while the tendon finding is specific to the tendon outcome measured.

    Practical figures from the narrative review

    Lum and Barbosa state that isometric training has been shown to induce less fatigue and to give superior joint-angle-specific strength compared with dynamic strength training, and to benefit sports-related dynamic performance such as running, jumping and cycling. Their suggested parameters are:

    • To increase muscle hypertrophy: contractions at 70 to 75% of maximum voluntary contraction, held for 3 to 30 seconds per repetition, with a total contraction duration of more than 80 to 150 seconds per session, for more than 36 sessions;
    • To increase maximum strength: contractions at 80 to 100% of maximum voluntary contraction, held for 1 to 5 seconds, with total contraction time of 30 to 90 seconds per session, using multiple joint angles or a targeted angle;
    • To improve rate of force development: performing the contractions in a ballistic manner.

    Because the two reviews are different kinds of evidence, the second set of figures should be read as the authors’ summary of the literature and not as prescriptions tested against one another. The two reviews agree on a general direction: ballistic intent helps rapid force production, and the joint angle used matters.

    What the reviews do not say about equipment

    Neither review evaluates products, and neither compares isometric holds against dynamic training as an equipment strategy. Any suggestion that isometric work saves money or space is outside what these papers show. The reviews are relevant mainly as a guide to how isometric sessions might be structured for someone who already has an anchor point or a loaded position to hold against. For readers comparing isometric holds with lifting through a range of motion, the related article on this site about full against partial repetitions covers a neighbouring question.

    Limits of the evidence

    • The systematic review found relatively few studies, so its hypertrophy and transfer figures rest on small numbers.
    • The narrative review does not pool data and its parameter ranges are wide.
    • Both concern healthy training populations and neither replaces individual medical or coaching advice.
    • Comparisons of isometric training with dynamic training on equal terms are limited in these papers, which is why they do not support claims that one is superior.

    Frequently asked questions

    Does isometric training build muscle?

    The systematic review reports substantial improvements in muscular hypertrophy across the included studies, with larger gains at longer muscle lengths.

    Does the joint angle matter?

    Both reviews indicate it does: the systematic review found greater hypertrophy and transfer at longer muscle lengths, and the narrative review recommends multiple or targeted joint angles for maximum strength.

    The bottom line

    Two 2019 reviews indicate that isometric training can produce meaningful gains in size and force, that longer muscle lengths appear to favour hypertrophy and transfer, and that ballistic intent favours rapid force production. The systematic review is based on 26 research outputs and the narrative review supplies broad, non-pooled parameter ranges. Neither compares products or establishes that isometric work is better than dynamic training.

    Sources

  • Morning or Evening Strength Training: What the Reviews Say About Time of Day, Strength and Muscle Size

    Home training removes many scheduling limits, so the question of whether to train in the morning or the evening is a practical one. Two published reviews address it directly: a 2019 systematic review with meta-analysis of resistance training studies, and a 2012 review of training at a specific time of day. This article summarises what each reports and what the evidence does not settle. It covers general findings in healthy adults and is not advice for anyone with a health condition.

    The 2019 systematic review and meta-analysis

    Grgic, Lazinica, Garofolini, Schoenfeld, Saner and Mikulic searched PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus and SPORTDiscus for studies of time-of-day-specific resistance training. To be included, a study had to equate other training variables, such as frequency and volume, between the groups, so that time of day was the difference being tested. Eleven studies of moderate and good methodological quality were included, assessed with the Downs and Black checklist.

    The authors report five main findings:

    • at baseline, strength is significantly greater in the evening than in the morning;
    • training in the morning may raise strength measured in the morning to levels similar to those measured in the evening;
    • training in the evening maintains the general difference across the day, with greater strength in the evening;
    • when morning and evening training groups are compared, increases in strength are similar in both, whatever time of day the strength test is done;
    • increases in muscle size are similar regardless of the time of day at which training is performed.

    What the 2012 review adds

    Chtourou and Souissi reviewed performance after training at a specific time of day. They report that the effect of time of day on aerobic performance appears to be equivocal, while for anaerobic exercise the effect is well established, with early-morning lows and peak performance in the late afternoon. Regular training in the morning may raise the lower morning performances to the same or even a higher level than the usual late-afternoon peak, through a greater increase in evening performance. Regular evening training may widen the morning-to-evening difference through a greater increase in late-afternoon performance. The authors conclude that adaptations to training are greater at the time of day at which training is regularly performed than at other times. They add that changes in resting hormone concentrations could explain the time-of-day-specific adaptations, but that precise information on the underlying mechanisms is lacking.

    Putting the two reviews together

    The two reviews describe a consistent picture. Performance tends to vary across the day, with lower values in the early morning and higher values later. The body appears to adapt to the time at which it is trained, which is why morning training narrows the gap. Yet the 2019 meta-analysis, which isolates time of day by equating other variables, finds similar gains in strength and similar increases in muscle size whichever time of day is used. The specificity effect therefore affects how strength presents at a given hour more than the total amount gained.

    What this means for testing and tracking

    One practical implication follows directly from the reported findings. Strength is measured higher in the evening than in the morning at baseline, and training at a given time raises performance at that time. Comparing a morning test with an evening test can therefore mix a genuine change in strength with a time-of-day difference. Tests of maximum lifts, and the loads used to set progression, are more informative when repeated at a consistent time. This is relevant to any schedule that uses one-repetition-maximum estimates, covered on this site in One-Rep Max Testing and Percentage-Based Training.

    Limits of the evidence

    • The 2019 review includes only 11 studies, so subgroup comparisons rest on small numbers.
    • The 2012 review does not report a pooled analysis in its abstract and states that mechanisms are unknown.
    • The reviews cover time-of-day effects on average, not individual chronotype. Neither abstract reports results for early-riser and late-riser groups separately.
    • The findings concern strength and muscle size. They do not address other goals such as sleep, adherence or aerobic performance, for which the 2012 review notes that the evidence on time of day is equivocal.

    Where equipment enters

    These reviews say nothing about products. Their relevance to buying is indirect: a home setup that can be used at the same time every day, or at whichever time fits a household, makes it easier to hold training time constant. Choices that affect when a machine can be used, such as noise, are treated in articles on this site about treadmill noise and vibration in upstairs rooms.

    Frequently asked questions

    Is evening training better for strength?

    The 2019 meta-analysis finds similar strength gains from morning and evening training. Strength is higher in the evening at baseline, but the gains from training do not differ between the two groups.

    Does the time of day matter for muscle growth?

    According to the same review, increases in muscle size are similar irrespective of when training is done.

    The bottom line

    Reviews of time-of-day training find that strength tends to be higher in the evening, that the body adapts to the time it is trained, and that morning and evening training deliver similar gains in strength and muscle size when other variables are equal. The best time is therefore the one that can be kept consistent, and tests are most comparable when repeated at the same hour. The evidence base is small and does not address individual differences.

    Sources

  • Training to Failure or Stopping Short: What Three Meta-Analyses Say About Strength and Muscle Size

    Whether each set should be pushed until no further repetition can be completed is one of the most argued questions in home training. Three published systematic reviews with meta-analysis have compared training to failure with training that stops short. This article summarises what each reports and where the evidence stops. It covers general findings about resistance training in healthy adults and is not advice for anyone with an injury or health condition.

    Why the definition matters

    The reviews do not use one definition. The 2023 review by Refalo and colleagues separates momentary muscular failure from “set failure”, which it defines as anything other than momentary muscular failure, because the included studies used different definitions of failure. It also compares training to different velocity loss thresholds. A finding about one definition cannot be assumed to hold for another.

    Strength: the 2016 meta-analysis

    Davies, Orr, Halaki and Hackett pooled eight studies comparing failure with non-failure training for strength. Four controlled training volume and four did not. The main results were:

    • non-failure training produced a 0.6 to 1.3% greater strength increase, with a small pooled effect favouring non-failure training (effect size 0.34, p = 0.02);
    • small effects favouring non-failure training were also found for compound exercises (0.37 to 0.38) and for trained participants (0.37);
    • in the four volume-controlled studies there was no significant effect, although the trend favoured non-failure training;
    • the methodological quality of the included studies was rated as moderate.

    The authors conclude that the small percentage improvement is unlikely to be meaningful, so similar strength gains appear achievable with or without failure. They add that it seems unnecessary to train to failure to maximise strength and suggest that, if it is used, it should be used sparingly to limit the risks of injury and overtraining.

    Strength and size: the 2022 meta-analysis

    Grgic, Schoenfeld, Orazem and Sabol included 15 studies, all in young adults. The results were:

    • no significant difference between training conditions for strength (effect size -0.09, 95% confidence interval -0.22 to 0.05) or for hypertrophy (0.22, 95% confidence interval -0.11 to 0.55);
    • in studies that did not equate training volume, a significant effect favouring non-failure training on strength (-0.32, confidence interval -0.57 to -0.07);
    • in resistance-trained participants, a significant effect favouring training to failure for hypertrophy (0.15, confidence interval 0.03 to 0.26).

    The authors conclude that training to muscle failure does not seem to be required for gains in strength and muscle size, but does not seem to have detrimental effects on these adaptations either. They call for more studies among older adults and highly trained individuals.

    Muscle size: the 2023 meta-analysis

    Refalo, Helms, Trexler, Hamilton and Fyfe pooled 15 studies that measured hypertrophy in healthy adults of any age or training experience. They report:

    • a trivial advantage for training to set failure over non-failure (effect size 0.19, 95% confidence interval 0.00 to 0.37, p = 0.045), with no moderating effect of volume load or relative load;
    • no advantage for momentary muscular failure over non-failure (0.12, confidence interval -0.13 to 0.37, p = 0.343);
    • no advantage for higher over moderate velocity loss thresholds (0.08, confidence interval -0.16 to 0.32, p = 0.529).

    The authors conclude there is no evidence that momentary muscular failure is superior to non-failure training for hypertrophy, and that closer proximity to failure does not always produce more growth. They suggest a possible non-linear relationship between proximity to failure and hypertrophy.

    Reading the three reviews together

    The reviews point the same way. For strength, neither of the two analyses that measured it finds a benefit for failure, and the 2016 analysis leans slightly towards stopping short. For muscle size, the effects near zero are small: the 2022 review reports a benefit for training to failure only in the resistance-trained subgroup, and the 2023 review reports a trivial advantage under a broad definition of set failure that disappears for momentary failure. The confidence intervals in several results touch or cross zero, so these findings describe averages across studies and not a rule for any individual.

    Limits apply to all three. The studies in the 2022 review were all in young adults, and that review calls for more work in older adults and highly trained people. The numbers of trials are modest, at 8 to 15 per review, and protocols differ. None of them can say how stopping short, by a fixed number of repetitions or by an effort rating, should be prescribed. That question is covered on this site in RPE and RIR: Using Perceived Effort to Set Your Training Load.

    Where equipment enters

    These reviews do not evaluate products. Equipment matters in a practical sense: going close to failure with a loaded barbell is easier to do safely where the setup includes pins, straps or spotter arms, which are compared in Safety Systems on Racks. Stopping short of failure reduces how often that hardware is needed, and the reviews suggest little is lost in doing so on average.

    Frequently asked questions

    Does training to failure build more muscle?

    Across the 2022 and 2023 meta-analyses, the average difference in muscle size is small and often not statistically significant. The 2022 review found an advantage for failure among resistance-trained participants.

    Is it harmful to train to failure?

    The 2022 authors report that training to failure does not seem to have detrimental effects on strength and size adaptations. The 2016 authors suggest using it sparingly to limit injury and overtraining risk, which is a suggestion and not a finding of the pooled data.

    The bottom line

    Three meta-analyses find that stopping short of failure produces, on average, similar strength gains (two analyses) and similar or slightly lower muscle growth (two analyses) than training to failure, with a possible small edge for failure among trained lifters in one review. None supports treating failure as a requirement. The trials pooled are modest in number, one review covers only young adults, and none can dictate an exact number of repetitions to leave in reserve.

    Sources

Shopping regionLocal retailers, prices and availability