Author: Compare Fitness Equipment

Weightlifting shoes with a raised, firm heel are among the most common accessories sold alongside squat racks, and cheaper heel wedges and plates are marketed for the same purpose. It is often claimed that a raised heel produces a more upright trunk. This article summarises the abstracts of one review and two small laboratory studies of the barbell back squat. It covers what was measured, not which product to buy, and none of the abstracts assessed how much weight lifters could squat or how their strength changed over time.

The 2021 review: what 14 studies found

Pangan and Leineweber, in a 2021 review, examined how different types of footwear affect full-body kinematics (movement), joint loads, muscle activity and ground reaction forces in athletes of varying experience performing the weighted back squat. They searched three databases and included fourteen full-text articles. The abstract reports that the majority of studies showed footwear choice directly affects kinematics and kinetics. Weightlifting shoes were shown to decrease trunk lean and produce more plantarflexion (pointing of the foot at the ankle) than running shoes and barefoot lifting. The abstract also says that elevating the heel with external squat wedges, described as a popular method, produced similar effects to weightlifting shoes.

The reviewers state what remains unknown: further research with a broader range of people, particularly novice and female weightlifters, is needed to generalise the results to people who are not athletes, and more work is needed on the effects of sole stiffness and heel height on squat mechanics. In other words, the review supports the idea that raised heels change body position, but it does not identify an ideal height or shoe.

A 2019 study: 14 recreational lifters, three foot conditions

Lee and colleagues studied 14 recreational weightlifters (seven men and seven women, aged 18 to 50) in the Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. Each performed barbell back squats at 80% of their one-repetition maximum in three conditions: barefoot on a flat surface, barefoot on a heel-raised platform and wearing heel-raised weightlifting shoes. The researchers measured the activation of the knee extensors and of the paraspinal muscles at two spinal levels using surface electromyography, and used motion capture to record the movement of the thoracic spine, lumbar spine and knee.

None of the heel-raised conditions significantly affected muscle activation or trunk angles. The authors concluded that heel-raised foot postures do not significantly affect spinal and knee extensor muscle activation or trunk and knee kinematics in this group of recreational lifters. The study began from the claim that raised-heel shoes may lead to a more upright trunk posture, and it did not find that effect.

A 2020 study: does raising the heels even out left and right?

Sayers and colleagues, in BMC Sports Science, Medicine and Rehabilitation, tested whether raising the heels changed how symmetrically the two legs work in the high-bar back squat. They recruited ten novice lifters and ten regular weight trainers, who squatted with a load of 50% of body weight, standing on either a flat floor or an inclined board while motion capture and force platforms recorded each leg.

Joint movement and joint-moment symmetry data were largely unaffected by raising the heels. The regular trainers showed greater left-right asymmetry in these data than the novices. The single significant result in the discrete data was that raising the heels reduced maximum knee extension moment asymmetry, and only in the novice group. The authors concluded that some asymmetry is common in back squats and is largely unaffected by raising the heels.

Why the three do not simply agree

• The review found less trunk lean in weightlifting shoes than in running shoes or barefoot, but the 2019 study, which compared barefoot flat, barefoot on a platform and weightlifting shoes, found no significant change in trunk angles.
• The studies used different loads: 80% of one-repetition maximum in one study and 50% of body weight in another.
• The samples were small (14 and 20 people), and the review calls for more work on novices and female lifters.

The differing comparisons matter. A shoe compared with running shoes is a different test from a shoe compared with a platform.

What this means when buying equipment

The evidence summarised here neither confirms the marketing claims for raised heels nor rules out benefits for particular lifters. A firm-soled shoe and a wedge changed some measures in the review and had little effect in two small studies. The competition rules that govern shoes for powerlifting are covered in this site’s guide to lifting belts, knee sleeves, wraps and shoes, and the effect of bar position and stance is covered in bar position, stance width and depth in the back squat.

Frequently asked questions

Do weightlifting shoes make a person squat heavier?

None of the three abstracts measured the weight lifted or strength gains, so they cannot answer that.

Is a wedge the same as a weightlifting shoe?

The 2021 review reports that external squat wedges provided similar effects to weightlifting shoes, but it also calls for work on the effects of heel height and sole stiffness.

The bottom line

A review of 14 studies reports that raised-heel shoes change trunk lean and ankle position compared with running shoes or bare feet, and that wedges have similar effects. Two small laboratory studies found little change in muscle activation, trunk angles or left-right symmetry when the heels were raised. Buyers should treat raised-heel footwear as a positioning choice with modest evidence, not a proven route to a better squat.

Sources

• Pangan AM, Leineweber M, “Footwear and Elevated Heel Influence on Barbell Back Squat: A Review,” 2021
• Lee SP, Gillis CB, Ibarra JJ, Oldroyd DF, Zane RS, “Heel-Raised Foot Posture Does Not Affect Trunk and Lower Extremity Biomechanics During a Barbell Back Squat in Recreational Weight lifters,” J Strength Cond Res, 2019
• Sayers MGL, Hosseini Nasab SH, Bachem C, Taylor WR, “The effect of increasing heel height on lower limb symmetry during the back squat in trained and novice lifters,” BMC Sports Sci Med Rehabil, 2020

A Smith machine guides the bar along fixed rails, and buyers of home racks often ask whether it can replace a free-weight setup. This article summarises the abstracts of three studies from the same research group, Marcos-Frutos and colleagues, published in 2025 and 2026. Two are eight-week training trials and one is a single-session force study. Each is small and used sport-science students or young volunteers, so the results describe those groups and do not settle the question for every lifter.

Study one: eight weeks of squat and bench press training

The first study, in the International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance in 2025, assigned 37 sport-science students (14 female) to train with free weights or a Smith machine for eight weeks. Participants trained twice a week, doing four sets of back squat and bench press at 70% of their one-repetition maximum (1RM) with a moderate effort target of 20% to 25% velocity loss. The researchers measured load-velocity profile parameters, the cross-sectional areas of the vastus lateralis (a thigh muscle) and pectoralis major (a chest muscle), and repetitions to failure in the bench press, testing on both free weights and the Smith machine.

All variables improved in both groups, with the exception of the squat velocity-axis intercept. Two measures, the load-axis intercept and the area under the load-velocity line, improved more when the training and testing conditions matched. Repetitions to failure in the bench press and the muscle cross-sectional areas improved by comparable amounts in both groups. The authors concluded that people not concerned with the specificity of strength adaptations can choose between free weights and a Smith machine on personal preference.

Study two: does the machine change how force is applied?

The second study, published in the same journal in 2025, began from the observation that force is applied more in the backward direction in Smith machine squats than in free-weight squats. It asked whether eight weeks of training on either would change the horizontal forces later recorded in each squat type. Twenty sport-science students (nine female) trained twice a week with four sets of back squats at 70% of 1RM, and ground-reaction forces were recorded before and after during sets of 10 repetitions at about 45% and 70% of 1RM.

The abstract reports that squat type had minimal influence on longitudinal impulse, its components or the angle of the resultant force. The only significant difference was in the propulsive phase at about 70% of 1RM in the Smith machine squat: the free-weight group showed a reduction after training while the Smith machine group showed an increase. The authors concluded that eight weeks of squat training does not modify the effectiveness of force application, so both squat types can be used interchangeably without systematically changing the direction of force production.

Study three: force direction in a single session

The third study, in the Journal of Sports Sciences in 2026, involved 35 young volunteers (14 female) who completed two randomised sessions of one set of 10 back squat repetitions, at about 45% and 70% of 1RM, with a free-weight bar in one session and a Smith machine in the other. Force plates recorded the ground-reaction forces. Participants generated a larger posterior impulse in the Smith machine squat, during both the braking phase (-64.9 versus -8.1 newton-seconds) and the propulsive phase (-143.8 versus -18.0 newton-seconds), and the horizontal angle of the force differed between the two squat types. The differences grew with load and through the set.

The authors suggested that free-weight squats may be favoured over Smith machine squats for coaches aiming to improve vertical jump performance. That is an inference from the force data; the study did not measure jump performance.

How the three fit together

• In the short term, the Smith machine squat moves the body differently from the free-weight squat, with a larger backward force on the ground.
• After eight weeks of training, neither the choice of machine nor free weights changed how force was applied in the second study, apart from one measure at the higher load.
• In the first study, strength and muscle size in the thigh and chest improved in both groups, and the results were most specific when the training and testing setup matched.

What the studies cannot show

All three came from one research group and used young, mostly sport-science participants. The training trials lasted eight weeks with two sessions a week, so they say nothing about longer periods, older lifters or people with very different training histories.

What this means for choosing equipment

For a buyer, the practical reading is limited but useful. Where the goal is general strength and muscle, the first study found both options improved outcomes and treated the choice as one of preference. Where the goal is to be tested or to compete on a free-weight lift, matching the training tool to the testing tool gave larger changes in two measures. This site’s pages on Smith machines and multi-gyms and free weights against machines for home training cover space, cost and layout.

Frequently asked questions

Did the Smith machine group get smaller muscle gains?

Not in the first study, which reported comparable improvements in the cross-sectional areas of the vastus lateralis and pectoralis major in both groups.

Do these studies show which is safer?

No. None of the three abstracts measured injury or safety outcomes.

The bottom line

Three small studies from one group suggest that Smith machine and free-weight squats differ in the direction of force applied in a single session, but that eight weeks of training on either produced similar strength and muscle-size gains in the first trial and similar force application in the second. Lifters who want the specific skill of a free-weight lift are better served by training it, while those who simply want to get stronger can reasonably choose on preference, space and budget.

Sources

• Marcos-Frutos D, Miras-Moreno S, Marquez G, et al., “Comparative Effects of the Free Weights and Smith Machine Squat and Bench Press: The Important Role of Specificity for Strength Adaptations,” Int J Sports Physiol Perform, 2025
• Marcos-Frutos D, Miras-Moreno S, Marquez G, et al., “Free-Weight and Smith-Machine Squats: Do They Produce Selective Chronic Adaptations in the Effectiveness of Force Application?,” Int J Sports Physiol Perform, 2025
• Marcos-Frutos D, Miras-Moreno S, Morenas-Aguilar M, et al., “Anterior-posterior ground reaction forces in free-weight vs. Smith machine squats: Are differences modulated by load and volume?,” J Sports Sci, 2026

Push and pull sleds have moved from athletics tracks into home and garage gyms, where they are sold as one-piece conditioning and speed equipment. Whether a loaded sled makes sprinting faster than sprinting unloaded, and how heavy it needs to be, are questions for controlled trials rather than product listings. This article summarises the abstracts of three systematic reviews with meta-analysis, published in 2025 and 2026, and states what they can and cannot support. Most participants were male athletes, so the results should be read with that in mind. It is general information about training and equipment, not medical advice.

Review one: 49 studies and the question of load

Xu and colleagues, in Scandinavian Journal of Medicine and Science in Sports (2025), included 49 studies of resisted sprint training (RST) with 1,281 participants, of whom 1,153 were male and 160 female, with 64 unclear. Studies used horizontal resistance such as sleds and were included when RST was the main difference between training groups. Pooled results showed RST was more effective than unresisted sprint training (UST) at improving sprint performance (effect size -0.30, rated moderate certainty).

The details on load mattered. Moderate loads, defined as 20% to 50% of body mass or a 10% to 30% velocity decrement, and very heavy loads were more effective than UST, whereas light loads and heavy loads (over 50% to 80% of body mass) were not. The benefit was linked to the early acceleration phase, especially the first 0 to 5 metres. The authors reported that effects were more pronounced in trained and highly trained individuals, with negligible improvements in recreationally active participants, and concluded that light RST or unresisted sprinting is probably sufficient for recreational groups. They also described an inverted U-shaped relationship between total sprint distance and training effect.

Review two: 16 studies in athletes

Li and colleagues, in Frontiers in Physiology (2025), pooled 16 studies with 404 athletes. Resisted sprint training improved linear sprint performance, vertical jump and change-of-direction ability, while unresisted training improved sprinting and change of direction but not vertical jump. Compared with unresisted training, resisted training gave a greater gain in change of direction, with no significant difference for linear sprint or vertical jump overall, and larger benefits for the first 0 to 10 metres and in youth athletes. The authors suggested prioritising resisted work when initial acceleration and direction change are the goal, and pairing it with vertically oriented strength or plyometric work for broader explosive power.

Review three: resisted movement and change of direction

Zhang and colleagues, in the Journal of Sport and Health Science (2026), examined 24 studies with 744 recreationally active and trained individuals. Their network meta-analysis covered vertically resisted plyometric and sprint training, such as wearing weighted vests, horizontally resisted sprinting such as sleds, and combinations. Resisted movement training improved change-of-direction speed compared with active controls (Hedges’ g -0.28, 95% confidence interval -0.40 to -0.16), and it outperformed unresisted versions of the same exercises. Vertically resisted plyometric training ranked highest, and the turning angle of the test did not appear to matter. The size of the average effect is small.

What the reviews agree on

• The clearest gain is early acceleration. Two of the three reviews tie the benefit to the first few metres.
• Load matters, but not simply more. Light and heavy loads did not beat unresisted sprinting in the first review, while moderate and very heavy loads did.
• Training status changes the answer. The largest review reported little benefit for recreational participants.

What the evidence cannot show

The included studies are mostly of male athletes in team sports and athletics, so the findings do not automatically apply to someone using a sled for general conditioning in a garage. None of the abstracts compared surfaces, harness types, brands or models, so no sled can be recommended over another from this evidence. The reviews measured sprint times, jumps and direction change, not fat loss, general fitness or muscle growth. A recreational user may find the exercise valuable for conditioning, but the reviews do not test that use.

What this means when buying a sled

The research is about resistance loads and sprint outcomes, so the buying questions are practical ones. A sled needs a suitable surface and a straight run of space, and the load range on offer should cover the light-to-moderate loads discussed above. The guide to weighted vests and wearable resistance covers the vertical alternative, while the article on small-space home gyms helps judge whether a bulky item earns its floor area.

Frequently asked questions

Does sled training make you faster? The 49-study review found resisted sprint training more effective than unresisted sprinting for sprint performance, mainly in early acceleration.

How heavy should a sled be? In that review, moderate loads of 20% to 50% of body mass and very heavy loads outperformed unresisted training, while light and heavy loads did not.

Does it help recreational lifters? The same review found negligible improvement in recreationally active participants and suggested light resistance or unresisted sprinting is probably enough.

Does it help with changing direction? Two reviews reported improved change-of-direction performance, with small to moderate effects.

The bottom line

Three meta-analyses agree that resisted sprint work with sleds can improve early acceleration and change of direction beyond unresisted sprinting, but the largest review found the benefit concentrated in trained athletes and negligible in recreational participants. Load matters, and more is not always better. For a home gym, a sled is a specialist speed tool whose value depends on the user’s goal, and the evidence does not support paying for one as a general fitness upgrade.

Sources

• Xu K et al., “Effects of Resisted-Sprint Training on Sprint Performance and Mechanics: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Focusing on Load Magnitude,” Scandinavian Journal of Medicine and Science in Sports, 2025
• Li C, Chen L, Zhang Q, “Effects of resisted sprint training on sprint, jump, and change-of-direction performance in athletes: a systematic review and meta-analysis,” Frontiers in Physiology, 2025
• Zhang M et al., “Effects of resisted movement training on change-of-direction speed in recreationally active and trained individuals: a systematic review with network meta-analysis and meta-regression,” Journal of Sport and Health Science, 2026

Battle ropes, heavy ropes anchored at one end and whipped into waves, are sold as compact conditioning kit that suits small home gyms. Marketing tends to promise fat loss, power and core strength together. This article summarises the abstracts of one 2026 systematic review and meta-analysis, one 2015 muscle-activity study and one 2018 randomised trial, and states what they support. Most participants were young athletes or students, so the results describe that group. It is general information about training and equipment, not medical advice.

Meta-analysis: 21 controlled studies, ages 11 to 25

Cao and colleagues, in BMC Sports Science, Medicine and Rehabilitation (2026), searched six databases for controlled studies of battle rope training. They included 21 studies with 590 participants aged 11 to 25 years, of whom 433 were male and 120 female where sex was reported. Compared with control conditions, battle rope training improved:

• Upper-limb explosive power (Hedges’ g 1.59, 95% confidence interval 0.77 to 2.42);
• Grip strength (g 0.99, interval 0.30 to 1.67);
• Upper-limb muscular endurance (g 1.17, interval 0.04 to 2.30);
• Core endurance (g 1.67, interval 0.30 to 3.03).

The effect on lower-limb explosive power did not reach statistical significance (g 1.17, interval -0.21 to 2.55), so it remains uncertain. The authors reported substantial heterogeneity between studies and described their subgroup analyses, by training status, type of control and duration, as exploratory. They stated that the findings need confirmation. Several intervals are wide and one lower bound sits close to zero, so the size of the effects is imprecise even where they are statistically significant.

EMG study: 21 volunteers and two wave styles

Calatayud and colleagues, in the Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research (2015), recorded surface electromyography in 21 volunteers doing bilateral waves, both arms together, and unilateral alternating waves. Activity in the anterior deltoid, the external oblique and the lower-back muscles ranged from 51% to 73% of maximum voluntary isometric contraction, while gluteus medius activity was only 14% to 18%. The oblique muscles were more active with alternating waves, by 20 percentage points, while the lumbar muscles were more active with bilateral waves, by 16 percentage points. The authors concluded that both wave styles give moderate to high activation of the shoulder and trunk muscles.

Trial: 30 basketball players and eight weeks

Chen and colleagues, in the same journal (2018), randomly assigned 30 male collegiate basketball players to eight weeks of interval training, three sessions a week, using either battle ropes or shuttle runs, with matched sets, work time and rest. The rope group improved on aerobic capacity, upper-body anaerobic power, upper-body and lower-body power, agility, core endurance and shooting accuracy, while the shuttle-run group improved on aerobic capacity and upper-body power only. The rope group showed larger gains than the shuttle-run group in fatigue index during upper-body power testing and in dynamic shooting accuracy. With 15 players per group, this is a small trial in one sport.

What the three sources agree on

• Upper body and trunk are the target. Both the muscle-activity study and the meta-analysis point to shoulders, grip and core rather than the legs.
• Legs are less certain. The meta-analysis did not find a significant pooled effect on lower-limb power, and the EMG study found low glute activity.
• Wave style shifts emphasis. Alternating waves worked the obliques harder, and paired waves the lower back.

What the evidence cannot show

The meta-analysis covered children, teenagers and young adults, and its studies varied, so it does not describe middle-aged or older exercisers. The EMG study measured activity in four muscles during short efforts and did not measure strength change. The trial compared ropes with one alternative, shuttle running, in athletes, so it does not show that ropes beat other equipment such as kettlebells or a heavy bag. None of the sources measured fat loss, so any body-composition claim on a product page is unsupported by them. Rope length, diameter and weight were not compared, so no specification can be recommended from this evidence.

Buying and setting up a battle rope

The research supports ropes as an upper-body and core conditioning option rather than a replacement for a full programme. Practical points for buyers concern the setting rather than the rope. A rope needs a secure anchor point and clear space along its length, and the guide to anchoring and wall-mounted equipment explains how to think about fixings. The article on small-space home gyms covers where compact kit fits, and the comparison of HIIT and steady-state cardio at home puts interval-style rope work in context. Another compact option is covered in the guide to sandbag training.

Frequently asked questions

Do battle ropes build upper-body power? The 2026 meta-analysis found a large pooled improvement in upper-limb explosive power, but in participants aged 11 to 25 with heterogeneous studies.

Do they work the legs? The pooled effect on lower-limb power was not significant, and glute activity in the EMG study was low.

Are alternating waves better than double waves? Neither is better overall: alternating waves gave more oblique activity and double waves more lower-back activity.

Will they burn fat? None of the three sources measured fat loss.

The bottom line

A 2026 meta-analysis found battle rope training improved upper-limb power, grip strength and core endurance in young people, with uncertain effects on leg power and substantial variation between studies. An EMG study and an eight-week trial are consistent with a shoulder-and-trunk emphasis. Battle ropes are reasonable compact conditioning kit where a secure anchor and space exist, but the evidence is short-term, in athletes and students, and says nothing about fat loss or about one rope specification over another.

Sources

• Cao Y et al., “Effects of battle rope training on sporting performance: a systematic review and meta-analysis,” BMC Sports Science, Medicine and Rehabilitation, 2026
• Calatayud J et al., “Muscle Activity During Unilateral vs. Bilateral Battle Rope Exercises,” Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 2015
• Chen WH et al., “Eight-Week Battle Rope Training Improves Multiple Physical Fitness Dimensions and Shooting Accuracy in Collegiate Basketball Players,” Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 2018

Cold plunge tubs, chiller units and ice-bath barrels are now sold to home exercisers as recovery equipment, some at the price of a treadmill. Before spending, it is worth knowing what controlled research says the practice does after training. This article summarises the abstracts of a 2026 meta-analysis of 22 trials, a 2026 systematic review of hot and cold immersion, and a 2026 narrative review of cold-water immersion (CWI) and muscle adaptation. It covers what the studies measured, not the safety of cold-water exposure, and is general information rather than medical advice.

Meta-analysis: one cold immersion against passive recovery

Zhu and colleagues, in PeerJ (2026), pooled 22 randomised controlled trials in healthy people comparing a single bout of CWI with passive recovery after exercise, and asked how the effect changed with time after the bout.

• Maximal strength. There was no significant overall or time-dependent effect on maximal voluntary isometric contraction (effect size 0.08, 95% confidence interval -0.11 to 0.26), rated moderate certainty.
• Jump power. The overall effect on countermovement jump height was not significant, but a difference between time points was detected, and it was no longer evident by 24 to 48 hours. The authors concluded that CWI transiently impaired immediate explosive performance.
• Soreness. Soreness scores were lower after CWI (-0.58, interval -0.99 to -0.16), but heterogeneity was substantial and certainty was very low.
• Creatine kinase. An apparent reduction in this muscle-damage marker was not robust after adjusting for publication bias.

The authors suggested that CWI may suit situations where next-day readiness matters most, but that timing deserves care when another power-dependent task follows soon after.

Systematic review: cold against hot immersion

Bustos Carvajal and colleagues, in Frontiers in Sports and Active Living (2026), reviewed eight randomised or crossover studies in athletes or physically active people comparing cold and hot water immersion with controls. Neither consistently reduced delayed-onset muscle soreness or improved perceived recovery compared with control. Hot immersion improved sleep quality and acute anaerobic power in the included studies, while cold immersion impaired immediate power output. The authors concluded that effects depend on water temperature and context, and that a recovery method should be matched to the athlete’s goal. With only eight studies, these findings are tentative.

Narrative review: repeated cold immersion and muscle growth

Tornero-Aguilera and colleagues, in Experimental Physiology (2026), wrote a narrative review, meaning an expert synthesis rather than a systematic search with a fixed protocol, so it carries less weight than a meta-analysis. It described protocols of 10 to 15 degrees Celsius for 10 to 15 minutes as consistently reducing soreness over 24 to 72 hours, citing a network meta-analysis, while repeated use across resistance-training blocks was linked to blunted growth signalling and smaller type II fibre size, with a modest impairment of strength gain (effect size -0.23). It proposed using CWI when fast turnaround between sessions matters and withholding it after resistance training when muscle growth is the main aim of a training block.

What the sources agree on

• Soreness is the most favourable outcome. Ratings tend to improve, but with very low certainty in the meta-analysis and no consistent effect in the hot-and-cold review.
• Power is not helped and may dip briefly. Two sources reported impaired immediate explosive output.
• Timing relative to training matters. The narrative review links repeated post-lifting use to weaker adaptation, though it is a narrative source.

What the evidence cannot show

The abstracts describe healthy participants and short protocols. None tested a home tub of a particular brand, water temperature or size, so nothing here ranks products. None examined long-term habitual use by recreational lifters over months, and the review linking cold immersion to smaller gains is a narrative synthesis rather than a head-to-head trial of a tub against no tub. The strongest single finding, no effect on maximal strength, has moderate certainty, and everything else is lower.

Reading a cold plunge product claim

• Is the benefit measured or perceived? Soreness is a rating, and the evidence for it is the weakest of the outcomes above.
• Is the tub the intervention or the temperature? A chiller keeps water at a set temperature, but the studies varied temperature and duration, so a spec sheet with a lower minimum temperature is not a proven advantage.
• Running costs. A powered chiller uses electricity, and the article on reading a power rating and doing the sum shows how to estimate it for a powered machine.

The guide to delayed-onset muscle soreness explains what that soreness is, and the piece on fitness gadgets and gimmicks covers how to weigh marketing claims. The related article on compression garments finds a similar pattern for another recovery product.

Frequently asked questions

Does a cold plunge help me recover strength faster? The 22-trial meta-analysis found no significant effect on maximal voluntary strength, with moderate certainty.

Can it hurt training gains? A narrative review links repeated use after resistance training with modest strength and muscle-growth impairments, but it is not a systematic review.

Does it reduce soreness? The meta-analysis found lower soreness ratings, at very low certainty, while the hot-and-cold review found no consistent reduction.

Is a hot bath better? The eight-study review found hot immersion improved sleep quality and anaerobic power in the included studies, but the evidence base is small.

The bottom line

Recent reviews find that cold-water immersion after exercise does not restore maximal strength faster, can briefly reduce explosive power, and gives an uncertain soreness benefit. A narrative review suggests repeated use after lifting may blunt adaptation. Because no source tested a particular tub or chiller, the evidence does not justify paying a premium for one as a recovery tool, and anyone who does buy one should avoid using it immediately before power-dependent training.

Sources

• Zhu Y et al., “Temporal dynamics of muscle strength recovery following acute cold-water immersion: a systematic review and meta-analysis,” PeerJ, 2026
• Bustos Carvajal J et al., “Effects of post-exercise hot and cold-water immersion on performance recovery and physiological markers in athletes: a systematic review,” Frontiers in Sports and Active Living, 2026
• Tornero-Aguilera JF et al., “The cold-water immersion recovery-adaptation paradox: Reconciling acute parasympathetic and analgesic benefits with chronic hypertrophy attenuation,” Experimental Physiology, 2026

Compression tights, sleeves and socks are marketed to home exercisers as a recovery aid, often at prices well above ordinary sportswear. Whether they speed recovery is a question for controlled trials, not product listings. This article summarises the abstracts of two 2026 systematic reviews and one small 2026 crossover trial, and states what each can and cannot support. All three studied athletes, so the results should not be stretched to every home exerciser. It is general information about training and equipment, not medical advice.

Review one: post-exercise compression and endurance athletes

Hagner-Derengowska and colleagues, in Frontiers in Physiology (2026), searched three databases for controlled trials in adult endurance athletes that compared compression garments worn after exercise with no compression, usual clothing, a placebo, passive recovery or lower-pressure garments. Nine studies with 158 participants were included, six of them crossover trials. Risk of bias was rated high in ten of 11 assessments.

About 24 hours after exercise, soreness leaned in favour of compression, but the estimate was uncertain: the pooled effect was 0.62, with a 95% confidence interval running from -0.57 to 1.82, so it included no effect at all. Soreness or discomfort in the first two hours was also uncertain, and results were very different from study to study. Performance was not pooled because the studies were too dissimilar. The authors rated certainty as very low and noted that limited or poorly credible blinding leaves the findings open to expectation effects, because a wearer knows whether they are in compression.

Review two: recovery methods against doing nothing

Jin and colleagues, in Frontiers in Sports and Active Living (2026), ran a network meta-analysis of 16 randomised trials with 273 competitive endurance athletes, comparing physical recovery methods with passive recovery. No method outperformed passive recovery for delayed-onset muscle soreness, the muscle-damage marker creatine kinase or sport-specific performance. Certainty was very low for 31 of the 47 comparisons and low for 15. The only moderate-certainty finding was that compression garments do not improve performance, with an effect of 0.04 and an interval from -0.37 to 0.45. A sham immersion condition ranked at or above every active method on the three outcomes, which points to expectation as a possible contributor.

A small trial: 12 youth footballers and full-leg sleeves

Engel and colleagues, in Physiological Reports (2026), tested 12 male youth football players in a randomised crossover design. After a fatiguing protocol, the players rested for 90 minutes in either full-leg compression sleeves rated 19 to 25 mmHg or ordinary gym trousers, then repeated a set of five 30-metre sprints. Sprint times did not differ between conditions, and the reported soreness scores at 14 and 24 hours were not significantly different either. The authors said the effectiveness of compression garments for recovery remains inconclusive.

What the three studies agree on

• No reliable performance benefit. The network review put the performance effect close to zero, and the sprint trial found none.
• Soreness signals are weak. The first review found a favourable direction but an interval that included no effect.
• Expectation is a live problem. Wearers cannot easily be blinded, so perceived benefit may reflect belief.

What the evidence cannot show

All three sources studied endurance or team-sport athletes rather than recreational lifters, so no finding here extends to strength training at home, and none covers people with a medical condition. The pressure ratings, wear times and garment types differed between studies, so no product, brand or pressure level can be recommended on this evidence. Very low certainty means later trials could change the picture in either direction. The absence of a proven effect is also not proof that compression does nothing, and some people may simply find it comfortable.

Reading a compression claim on a product page

A few questions help when comparing garments:

• Is a pressure figure stated? The trial above cited a range in mmHg. A listing that promises “graduated compression” without a figure gives nothing to compare.
• Who was tested? A claim built on elite athletes or a manufacturer’s own study does not transfer to home workouts.
• What outcome is claimed? Soreness is a feeling, and the evidence above is weakest for objective performance.

The guide to delayed-onset muscle soreness covers what that soreness is, while the article on sleep, rest days and recovery covers the factors with a stronger evidence base. For judging product claims, the article on fitness gadgets and gimmicks is relevant to garment claims too.

Frequently asked questions

Do compression garments improve performance? In the network review the effect on performance was estimated at 0.04, essentially none, with moderate certainty.

Do they reduce muscle soreness? One 2026 review found a direction favouring compression at 24 hours, but the interval included no effect and certainty was very low.

Were the studies about weightlifters? No. They involved endurance athletes and youth footballers.

Could the benefit be a placebo effect? The first review flagged limited blinding and expectation effects, and in the network analysis a sham immersion condition ranked at or above every active method.

The bottom line

Two 2026 reviews and a small crossover trial found no reliable performance benefit from compression garments, and only an uncertain, very low-certainty hint of less soreness. Because every study used athletes and none used recreational lifters, the findings say little about home training. Compression clothing is better treated as an optional comfort purchase than as a proven recovery tool, and spending is better directed at equipment that affects training itself.

Sources

• Hagner-Derengowska M et al., “Effects of post-exercise compression garments on subsequent endurance performance and delayed-onset muscle soreness in endurance athletes: a systematic review and meta-analysis,” Frontiers in Physiology, 2026
• Jin Y et al., “Physical recovery modalities in competitive and elite endurance athletes: a systematic review and network meta-analysis finding limited evidence of benefit over passive recovery,” Frontiers in Sports and Active Living, 2026
• Engel FA et al., “Do full leg compression sleeves improve repeated sprint performance after soccer-specific exercise in adolescent male soccer players?” Physiological Reports, 2026

Anyone buying a barbell and rack for home has to decide how to squat: bar high on the shoulders or lower across the back, feet narrow or wide, shallow or deep. Advice online often assigns each choice to a muscle. This article summarises the abstracts of two 2026 studies that recorded muscle activity during the back squat and states what they can and cannot support. Both are small experiments in healthy adults measuring electrical activity, not muscle growth or strength gains over time. It is general information about training, not medical advice.

Study one: 18 people, four technique variables

Lee, Crossman and Kedgley, in PLOS ONE (2026), recorded surface electromyography (EMG) and movement data from 18 healthy participants, 12 men and 6 women. They compared a high-bar with a low-bar position, a wide with a narrow stance, and two loads: a light set of ten repetitions at 50% of maximum and a heavy set of three repetitions at 80%. Seven muscles were measured across the thigh, hamstring, calf and glute regions.

A wide stance increased both peak and total activation of the vastus medialis, one of the quadriceps muscles. A heavier load increased total activation of the vastus lateralis and the semitendinosus, a hamstring muscle. Peak activation of the biceps femoris, another hamstring, was higher when a high bar and wide stance were combined with the heavy load than with the light load. Movement differences were modest: a narrow stance produced 3.7 degrees more peak knee flexion and 8.2 degrees less hip abduction, and a low bar produced 3.4 degrees more hip flexion.

The authors concluded that consistent muscle activation did not favour any combination of stance, bar position and load. Lifters wanting to build strength can choose among several combinations, guided by comfort.

Study two: 22 experienced men and three depths

Park and colleagues, in Medicina (2026), tested 22 adult men with at least two years of back-squat experience. Each performed high-bar and low-bar squats to knee-flexion angles of 50, 90 and 130 degrees, using a load equal to 80% of the man’s usual one-repetition maximum, in randomised order. EMG was recorded from the quadriceps, glutes, hamstrings, abdominal wall and lower back, and analysed separately for the lowering and lifting phases.

Squatting deeper most consistently increased activation of the quadriceps and the erector spinae, the muscles running along the spine. Gluteus maximus activation changed only a little with depth. Bar position produced selective effects that depended on depth and phase: the low bar showed greater hamstring and erector spinae activation in specific comparisons, while the high bar showed greater knee-extensor activation at selected depths, most clearly in the rectus femoris. The authors concluded that bar position and depth adjust relative demand on the knee extensors, trunk stabilisers and back of the leg, rather than targeting one muscle alone.

What the two studies agree on

• Effects are shifts in emphasis. Neither study found that a technique switches one muscle on and another off.
• Depth and load matter. Both found that changing how deep or how heavy the squat is altered activation, in some cases more than bar position did.
• Some differences were isolated. Many of the reported bar-position differences were confined to particular muscles, depths or phases of the lift.

What the studies cannot show

Electrical activity recorded at the skin is an indirect measure of how hard a muscle is working. Higher activity in a session is not the same thing as more muscle or strength after weeks of training, and neither study followed lifters over time. The first study had a small mixed sample, and the second tested only men who were already experienced, so neither can be assumed to describe beginners, older adults or women. Neither compared injury rates, so no conclusion about which position is safer can be drawn from them.

Because the studies tested different loads, depths and muscles, they cannot be pooled into a single ranking. The site’s summary of hip thrust and back squat evidence for glutes shows how much further apart short EMG results and longer training trials can sit.

What this means when choosing equipment

The bar position decision does not change what needs to be bought. Either variation uses the same barbell and rack, and the equipment questions are about the rack’s uprights, hook or safety-arm height and whether a bar can be racked and unracked comfortably at a chosen depth. The comparison of power racks, squat stands and half racks covers those differences, and the note on steel gauge and upright dimensions covers the build.

A practical reading of the research is to pick the variation that feels stable and repeatable for a given body, keep depth consistent from session to session so progress can be tracked, and treat any muscle-emphasis claim as modest.

Frequently asked questions

Does a low-bar squat work the hamstrings more? In the 22-man study the low bar showed greater hamstring activation in specific comparisons, not across every depth, so the effect was selective.

Does a wide stance work the inner thigh muscle more? In the 18-person study a wide stance increased activation of the vastus medialis, a quadriceps muscle on the inner thigh.

Is a deeper squat better for the glutes? In the 22-man study gluteus maximus activation changed only a little with depth, while quadriceps and lower-back activation rose more consistently.

Is there a best squat technique? The first study concluded that no combination was consistently favoured and that comfort can guide the choice.

The bottom line

Two 2026 experiments found that bar position, stance width, depth and load change which muscles work hardest in the back squat, but only modestly and often in isolated comparisons. Neither measured muscle growth, strength over time or injury, so neither can rank the techniques. Choosing a stable, repeatable squat that suits the lifter, with a rack set up to match, is better supported than choosing a technique to target a single muscle.

Sources

• Lee CXY, Crossman AJ, Kedgley AE, “The effects of bar positioning, stance width, repetition, and load on muscle activity during the barbell back squat,” PLOS ONE, 2026
• Park JH et al., “Effects of Barbell Position and Squat Depth on Trunk and Lower-Extremity Muscle Activation During the Back Squat in Healthy Adult Men,” Medicina, 2026

Speakers on a treadmill console, wireless headphones and playlist-driven exercise bikes all rest on one assumption: that music makes cardio easier or better. That assumption can be tested. This article summarises two recent meta-analyses, one published in 2026 that examined performance, effort and physiological measures during aerobic exercise, and one published in 2025 that examined how exercise feels, and states how strong each finding is. It is about training and equipment choice, not injury prevention or treatment, and it is general information, not medical advice.

Performance and effort: the 2026 meta-analysis

Yang and colleagues, in Frontiers in Sports and Active Living (2026), searched eight databases up to 3 March 2026 for experimental studies that compared music with no-music or other non-musical conditions during aerobic exercise in physically active adults. They pooled 15 studies with 339 participants and rated certainty of evidence with the GRADE system. The results, with standardised mean differences (SMD) or mean differences (MD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI), were:

• Fixed-duration performance was better with music (SMD 0.39; CI 0.08 to 0.70). GRADE certainty was low.
• Time to exhaustion was longer in the primary analysis (SMD 1.89; CI 0.44 to 3.33), but with very high heterogeneity (I² 95%), meaning the studies varied widely in what they found, and very low certainty.
• Rating of perceived exertion was lower (SMD -0.36; CI -0.67 to -0.04), with moderate certainty, the highest of the outcomes reported.
• Blood lactate was lower (MD -0.86 mmol/L; CI -1.45 to -0.26), with low certainty.
• Heart rate was not significantly affected (MD -1.16 beats per minute; CI -3.57 to 1.26).

The authors concluded that music appears most consistently associated with reduced perceived exertion, and that performance and physiological effects were more outcome-dependent and should be interpreted cautiously. The evidence is drawn from 339 people in 15 studies, which is a small base, and the certainty ratings for most outcomes are low or very low.

How exercise feels: the 2025 meta-analysis

He and colleagues, in Applied Psychology: Health and Well-Being (2025), pooled 507 effect sizes from 59 studies using a multilevel meta-analysis of music’s effect on affective responses to a single exercise session. Music had a positive effect on affective valence (how pleasant the exercise felt; g = 0.403; CI 0.317 to 0.489) and on arousal (g = 0.391; CI 0.252 to 0.530). Exercise intensity, music tempo and motivational quality moderated the effect on both valence and arousal, and exercise habits moderated the effect on valence. Sex, type of exercise, whether the music was selected by the exerciser, and the way it was delivered were not significant moderators. The 507 effect sizes came from 59 studies, so several outcomes were taken from each study, which is why the authors used a multilevel model. The authors suggested that music may help create conditions for long-term exercise engagement, which is a proposal for further study, not a demonstrated outcome of that review.

What the two reviews cannot show

• They do not show better fitness over weeks. The first review analysed short-term performance and physiological measures, and the second analysed responses to acute exercise.
• They do not rank products. Neither compared machine speakers with headphones or one brand with another, so equipment choice cannot be drawn from them.
• They do not cover strength training. The 2026 review is restricted to aerobic exercise.
• Delivery mode and selection were not significant moderators of affective response in the 2025 review, which means the evidence does not favour either headphones or room speakers or self-chosen playlists.

Practical reading for a home cardio setup

The clearest finding, lower perceived exertion, links to the guides on perceived effort scales and console metrics: if perceived exertion is used to judge intensity, music may lower the rating without a change in heart rate, which the 2026 review found was not significantly affected. That is worth knowing when using effort to set training zones; the guides to zone 2 cardio and age-based maximum heart rate formulas discuss heart-rate-based approaches.

For noise, the guide to decibel claims on fitness equipment explains what a machine’s noise rating measures.

Frequently asked questions

Does music make cardio workouts more effective?

The 2026 meta-analysis found better fixed-duration performance and lower perceived exertion, with low to moderate certainty, and no significant effect on heart rate.

Does the type of music matter?

The 2025 meta-analysis reported that music tempo and motivational quality moderated the effect on how exercise felt.

The bottom line

A 2026 meta-analysis of 15 studies found that music during aerobic exercise was most consistently linked to lower perceived exertion, with moderate certainty, while performance and blood lactate results were low certainty and heart rate was not significantly changed. A 2025 meta-analysis of 59 studies found that music made acute exercise feel better and more arousing. Music is a low-cost addition to a cardio setup with modest, short-term effects, and neither review supports choosing equipment by its speakers.

Sources

• Yang et al., “Effects of listening to music during aerobic exercise on performance, fatigue, and psychological responses in physically active adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis”, Frontiers in Sports and Active Living (2026)
• He et al., “Effects of music on affective responses to acute exercise: A meta-analytic review and multilevel meta-analysis”, Applied Psychology: Health and Well-Being (2025)

Stretching straps, mats and mobility tools fill a large corner of the fitness market, and the claims made for stretching run from more flexibility to better lifting to bigger muscles. This article summarises three systematic reviews and meta-analyses, published in 2016, 2021 and 2024, that test stretching against specific outcomes: performance in a workout that follows it, range of motion compared with strength training, and strength and muscle size after weeks of stretching. It is about training results and equipment choice, not injury prevention or treatment, and it is general information, not medical advice.

Stretching before a workout: the 2016 review

Behm, Blazevich, Kay and McHugh, in Applied Physiology, Nutrition, and Metabolism (2016), compared static stretching (SS), dynamic stretching (DS) and proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation (PNF) stretching. Performance tested immediately after stretching changed by -3.7% after static stretching, +1.3% after dynamic stretching and -4.4% after PNF stretching. The authors said the effects were small to moderate and possibly due to reduced muscle activation after static and PNF stretching.

Duration mattered. Static stretching held for 60 seconds or more per muscle group was linked to a performance deficit of -4.6%, against -1.1% for holds of less than 60 seconds. Static stretching showed a moderate 2.2% performance benefit at longer muscle lengths. Testing took place on average 3 to 5 minutes after stretching, and in the studies that added dynamic activity after the stretching, no clear performance effect was observed. Dynamic stretching produced small to moderate performance improvements when done within minutes of the activity. All forms of stretching improved range of motion, but typically for less than 30 minutes. The authors concluded that stretching within a warm-up that includes further dynamic activity has inconsequential effects on later athletic performance and increases joint range of motion.

These are pooled figures across many studies of varied designs, and they describe tests done minutes after stretching. They do not show what happens to strength across weeks. The guide to warming up and cooling down for home workouts covers the wider warm-up question.

Stretching against strength training for range of motion: the 2021 meta-analysis

Afonso and colleagues, in Healthcare (2021), pooled 11 randomised controlled trials with 452 participants that compared strength training with stretching for improving range of motion (ROM). The pooled effect showed no difference between strength training and stretching (effect size -0.22; 95% confidence interval -0.55 to 0.12; p = 0.206). Subgroup analyses by risk of bias, active against passive ROM and joint also found no difference between the two approaches. The authors concluded that strength training and stretching were not different in their effects on ROM, but that the studies were highly heterogeneous in design, protocols and populations, so further research was warranted.

The pooled data therefore do not show that stretching is the only route to more range of motion.

Stretching as a way to build strength and size: the 2024 meta-analysis

Warneke and colleagues, in Sports Medicine – Open (2024), pooled 42 randomised controlled trials with 1,318 participants, each lasting at least two weeks, on chronic static stretching. Stretching produced small increases in maximal strength (d = 0.30; p < 0.001), with stretching duration and intervention time as significant moderators. Across all studies it produced small but significant hypertrophy effects (d = 0.20). Longer stretching durations, longer intervention periods and higher training frequencies produced small but significant effects (d = 0.26 to 0.28), while lower doses did not reach significance (p = 0.13 to 0.39). The authors concluded that, while of minor effectiveness, chronic static stretching is a possible alternative to resistance training for improving strength and increasing muscle size, and that higher durations and frequencies need further study.

The effects are small, so the result does not support treating stretching as equal to lifting. This is also a different question from loaded training at long muscle lengths, which the guide to stretch-mediated hypertrophy covers.

What this means for equipment and routine

• No equipment is needed for stretching itself. A strap, mat or wall may add convenience, but the reviews tested stretching, not products, so they give no basis for ranking stretching tools. The guide to mobility and balance equipment compares the kit.
• Before lifting, dynamic movement fits the 2016 evidence better than long static holds, because holds of a minute or more per muscle group were linked to bigger short-term performance losses.
• Range of motion can come from strength work too. The 2021 meta-analysis found no difference in ROM gains between the two approaches, and the guide to range of motion in strength training covers full against partial repetitions.

Frequently asked questions

Does static stretching make you weaker?

Immediately afterwards, on average, slightly: -3.7% in the 2016 review, larger for holds of 60 seconds or more and unclear once dynamic activity followed. Over weeks, the 2024 meta-analysis found small strength increases from chronic stretching.

Is stretching better than lifting for flexibility?

The 2021 meta-analysis found no difference in range of motion between the two.

The bottom line

A 2016 review found that static stretching briefly reduced performance when tested straight afterwards, most with long holds, while dynamic stretching slightly raised it and no clear effect remained once dynamic activity followed. A 2021 meta-analysis found strength training and stretching similar for range of motion, and a 2024 meta-analysis found chronic stretching gave small strength and muscle size gains. Stretching does not need equipment, and the evidence supports choosing it by goal and timing, not by product.

Sources

• Behm et al., “Acute effects of muscle stretching on physical performance, range of motion, and injury incidence in healthy active individuals: a systematic review”, Applied Physiology, Nutrition, and Metabolism (2016)
• Afonso et al., “Strength Training versus Stretching for Improving Range of Motion: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis”, Healthcare (2021)
• Warneke et al., “Effects of Chronic Static Stretching on Maximal Strength and Muscle Hypertrophy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis with Meta-Regression”, Sports Medicine – Open (2024)

Pulling exercises attract strong opinions about hand position. A wide grip is said to build a wider back, a supinated (palms-facing) grip is said to favour the biceps, and neutral-grip handles are marketed as a separate feature on pull-up frames and lat pulldown machines. This article summarises four small studies, published between 2010 and 2021, that tested grip width or grip orientation on the lat pulldown and the pull-up, and states what they can and cannot support. All four measured strength, repetitions or muscle electrical activity in short tests, not long-term growth. It concerns equipment choice and technique, not injury prevention, and it is general information, not medical advice.

Study one: grip width on the lat pulldown

Andersen and colleagues, in the Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research (2014), had 15 men perform six-repetition maximum (6RM) lat pulldowns with narrow, medium and wide pronated grips, set at one, 1.5 and two times the distance between the acromion points on the shoulders (the biacromial distance). The 6RM loads with the narrow (80.3 kg) and medium (80 kg) grips were higher than with the wide grip (77.3 kg). Electromyography (EMG) of the latissimus, trapezius and infraspinatus was similar across widths over the whole movement. In the eccentric, or lowering, phase, activation of the latissimus and infraspinatus was greater with the wide than the narrow grip, and the concentric phase showed greater biceps activity with the medium than the narrow grip. The authors concluded that a medium grip may have minor advantages, and that people can generally expect similar muscle activation, and so similar hypertrophy, with a grip of one to two times the biacromial distance. That last point is an expectation drawn from EMG, not a measured growth result.

Study two: width against forearm orientation

Lusk and colleagues, in the same journal (2010), noted that earlier EMG studies had recommended a wide, pronated grip without separating width from forearm position. Twelve healthy men performed lat pulldowns with wide-pronated, wide-supinated, narrow-pronated and narrow-supinated grips at 70% of their one-repetition maximum, with widths individualised to each person. A pronated grip produced greater latissimus dorsi activity than a supinated grip, and grip type had no influence on middle trapezius or biceps activity. The authors recommended the pronated grip to maximise latissimus activation, irrespective of width. The finding applies to a set of five repetitions at moderate load in 12 men, so it describes muscle activity in that test.

Study three: four pull-up variations

Dickie and colleagues, in the Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology (2017), recorded EMG from eight shoulder, arm and forearm muscles in 19 strength-trained men performing supinated, pronated, neutral-grip and rope pull-ups. Over a full repetition, the pronated grip produced greater middle trapezius activity than the neutral grip (peak 60.1% against 37.1% of maximum voluntary isometric contraction). Otherwise the authors found that activation across the complete repetition was similar despite the different hand orientations, though the concentric (lifting) phases produced greater activity than the eccentric phases in the brachioradialis, biceps brachii and pectoralis major.

Study four: pull-up grip width and performance

Ortega-Rodriguez and colleagues, in Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport (2021), had 14 trained men perform pull-ups using a biacromial grip and a free grip, which averaged about 20% wider. The one-repetition maximum, repetitions to failure and the power-force-velocity profile did not differ significantly between the two widths. The authors concluded that the choice of free or biacromial grip does not affect maximal strength, power-force-velocity relationship or repetitions to failure in the pull-up.

Reading the four studies at their actual strength

• Samples were small and male. Group sizes ranged from 12 to 19 men, so the findings do not show what happens in women or in beginners.
• EMG is not growth. Three of the four studies measured muscle electrical activity, which does not always predict growth, as the hip thrust and squat guide shows. Only Ortega-Rodriguez measured performance directly.
• The pulldown and the pull-up were not compared with each other. Each study looked at one exercise, so the four together give no head-to-head result for a pulldown machine against a pull-up bar.

What the studies mean for kit

None of the studies found that a specialist handle or an extra-wide grip produced better strength results. A frame or machine with a single fixed bar therefore loses little on the evidence here, and a range of handles is a preference more than a requirement. The guides to back and pulling equipment and cable machines and functional trainers compare the equipment itself, and the guide to bench press grip width shows a similar pattern for pressing.

Frequently asked questions

Does a wider grip build a wider back?

None of the four studies measured back width or muscle growth from grip width, so they cannot support that claim.

Which grip activated the latissimus most?

In the one study that compared them directly, Lusk and colleagues found the pronated grip did.

The bottom line

Four small studies in men found little difference in strength or repetitions from pull-up grip width, similar overall muscle activity across pull-up hand positions and across lat pulldown widths of one to two times shoulder width, and greater latissimus activity with a pronated than a supinated grip on the pulldown. They measured short tests, not muscle growth, so grip choice on a pulling machine or pull-up bar is best treated as a matter of comfort and variety.

Sources

• Andersen et al., “Effects of grip width on muscle strength and activation in the lat pull-down”, Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research (2014)
• Lusk, Hale and Russell, “Grip width and forearm orientation effects on muscle activity during the lat pull-down”, Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research (2010)
• Dickie et al., “Electromyographic analysis of muscle activation during pull-up variations”, Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology (2017)
• Ortega-Rodriguez et al., “Effect of the Pronated Pull-Up Grip Width on Performance and Power-Force-Velocity Profile”, Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport (2021)