Find my equipment

Author: Compare Fitness Equipment

  • Hip Thrust or Back Squat for Glutes? What an EMG Study, a Systematic Review and a Nine-Week Trial Show

    The barbell hip thrust, in which the upper back rests on a bench and a loaded bar is driven upward through the hips, is often presented as the best exercise for the gluteal muscles. The back squat is the traditional alternative. Because the hip thrust needs only a bench and a bar, the question affects what a home gym needs. This article summarises a 2015 electromyography study, a 2020 systematic review of gluteus maximus activation and a 2023 randomised training trial, and separates what muscle activation shows from what training results show. It is about exercise selection, not injury prevention, and it is general information, not medical advice.

    Activation: the 2015 comparison

    Contreras and colleagues, in the Journal of Applied Biomechanics (2015), had 13 trained women perform estimated 10-repetition maximum sets of the back squat and the barbell hip thrust while surface electromyography (EMG) recorded muscle activity. The hip thrust produced significantly greater mean activity in the upper gluteus maximus (69.5% against 29.4%) and lower gluteus maximus (86.8% against 45.4%), and in the biceps femoris (40.8% against 14.9%). Activity in the vastus lateralis, a quadriceps muscle, did not differ significantly (99.5% against 110%). The authors stated that longitudinal training studies were needed to determine whether the higher activation goes with greater strength, size or performance.

    Activation across many exercises: the 2020 review

    Neto and colleagues, in the Journal of Sports Science and Medicine (2020), reviewed 16 articles that reported gluteus maximus activation as a percentage of maximal voluntary isometric contraction. They classed a long list of loaded exercises as producing very high activation, above 60%, including step-ups and variations, the hex bar deadlift, the traditional barbell hip thrust, the belt squat, the split squat, lunges, the conventional deadlift, the band hip thrust and a modified single-leg squat. The review concluded that several exercises can induce very high gluteus maximus activation, with step-up variations highest, followed by several loaded exercises such as deadlifts, hip thrusts, lunges and squats. The authors offered the results as a guide for selecting exercises.

    Two points follow from this. The hip thrust is one of many exercises above the 60% line, so the review does not single it out. And the review measures activation during exercise, not the muscle growth that results from months of training.

    Training results: the 2023 trial

    Plotkin and colleagues, in Frontiers in Physiology (2023), randomised untrained college-aged participants to hip thrust (18 people) or back squat (16 people) with set volume equated. They trained for nine weeks (15 to 17 supervised sessions), with muscle cross-sectional area measured before and after by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).

    • Gluteal growth was similar. The estimates modestly favoured the hip thrust for lower, mid and upper gluteal areas, but with appreciable variance, and the confidence intervals spanned zero.
    • Thigh growth favoured squats. Quadriceps growth was greater after squatting (3.6 cm², 95% confidence interval 0.7 to 6.4) as was growth in the adductors (2.5 cm²; 1.2 to 3.9).
    • Strength followed the exercise trained. Squat three-repetition maximum gains favoured the squat group by 14 kg and hip thrust gains favoured the hip thrust group by 26 kg.
    • The deadlift and wall-push tests improved similarly in both groups.

    The trial also recorded EMG in the first session. All measured gluteal sites showed greater mean amplitude in the hip thrust set than the squat set, but the authors reported that this did not consistently predict gluteal hypertrophy outcomes. That is the main lesson of the three sources together: higher activation in one session was not a reliable guide to which exercise grew the gluteal muscles more over nine weeks.

    Reading the evidence at its actual strength

    • The 2015 EMG study used 13 trained women in a single session, so it describes activation, not growth.
    • The 2023 trial used untrained young adults over nine weeks, so it cannot be assumed to apply to experienced lifters, other exercise loads or longer periods.

    What it means for equipment

    If the goal is gluteal size, the 2023 trial gives no basis for saying the hip thrust is superior to the squat, or the reverse, and it found more thigh growth from squats. A lifter with a rack and bar can do either; the guide to power racks, squat stands and half racks compares the kit for squatting. The hip thrust needs a stable bench, and the guide to weight benches explains what stability and pad height mean in practice. The guides to leg and glute equipment and single-limb against two-limb training cover further options such as step-ups and split squats, which the review placed in the very high activation group.

    Frequently asked questions

    Does higher EMG mean more muscle growth?

    Not on this evidence. The 2023 trial’s authors reported that the greater hip thrust EMG did not consistently predict gluteal hypertrophy.

    Can the hip thrust replace the squat entirely?

    The trial showed different strength and thigh growth outcomes for each exercise, so the two are not interchangeable in every respect.

    The bottom line

    The barbell hip thrust produced greater gluteus maximus activation than the back squat in a 2015 study, but a 2023 nine-week trial found similar gluteal growth from both exercises, with more quadriceps and adductor growth from squatting. A 2020 review found many exercises reach very high gluteus maximus activation. Exercise choice for glute training can therefore follow available equipment and preference, backed by evidence from untrained young adults over nine weeks and not by activation figures alone.

    Sources

  • Internal or External Focus When Lifting? What Two Meta-Analyses, a Review and One Trial Show About Cues, Strength and Muscle Size

    Coaches often give lifters a thought to hold during a rep. An internal focus directs attention to the body, such as “squeeze the muscle”, while an external focus directs it to the effect of the movement, such as “push the floor away” or “drive the bar up”. No equipment is needed to try either, which makes attentional focus one of the cheapest variables in a home programme. This article summarises two 2021 meta-analyses of strength and endurance, a 2019 systematic review of weightlifting studies and one 2018 eight-week trial of muscle growth, and states what each can and cannot support. It is about training technique and performance, not injury prevention, and it is general information, not medical advice.

    Strength: what the 2021 meta-analysis found

    Grgic, Mikulic and Mikulic, in Sports (2021), pooled ten studies. For acute effects, meaning a single test session, an external focus produced higher muscular strength than an internal focus, with a standardised mean difference of 0.34 (95% confidence interval 0.22 to 0.46). For long-term effects, meaning gains over a training block, the difference between internal and external focus was not statistically significant (standardised mean difference 0.32; 95% confidence interval -0.08 to 0.73). In a subgroup of lower-body exercises, training with an external focus produced a significant benefit for strength gains (0.47; 95% confidence interval 0.07 to 0.87). The authors concluded that an external focus raises strength acutely and may also enhance training-induced gains in lower-body strength.

    The wide interval on the long-term result matters. It spans zero, so the data do not establish that either focus produces larger long-term gains overall, and the lower-body finding comes from a subgroup of the ten studies.

    Endurance: repetitions to failure

    Grgic and Mikulic, in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, pooled acute studies of muscular endurance, meaning how many repetitions can be completed. An external focus beat an internal focus (Cohen’s d 0.58; 95% confidence interval 0.34 to 0.82) and beat a control condition with no instruction (d 0.42; 0.08 to 0.76). An internal focus did not differ significantly from control (d -0.19; -0.45 to 0.07). The results were generally consistent for upper-body and lower-body exercises. The authors noted that earlier studies mostly reported surface electromyography rather than performance, so the effect on performance had been unclear, and suggested an external focus for acute endurance performance. All the included data came from acute tests, so they say nothing about long-term endurance gains.

    What a broader review of weightlifting studies adds

    Neumann, in Frontiers in Sports and Active Living (2019), reviewed 16 articles on attentional focus in weightlifting tasks such as the bench press, biceps curl, squat and leg extension. Most participants were experienced male lifters, and the most common comparison was internal against external focus. The review concluded that an external focus has shown benefits for movement economy across a variety of outcome measures and interpreted this through the constrained action hypothesis, in which an external focus promotes automatic control of movements. That is a theory offered to explain results, not a measured mechanism in the lifters themselves.

    Muscle size: the counterpoint

    Muscle growth is the outcome where the internal-focus idea, often called the mind-muscle connection, has the best case. Schoenfeld and colleagues, in the European Journal of Sport Science (2018), randomly assigned 30 untrained young men to an internal group, who focused on contracting the target muscle, or an external group, who focused on the outcome of the lift. Both trained three times a week for eight weeks with four sets of 8 to 12 repetitions per exercise. Elbow flexor thickness rose 12.4% in the internal group against 6.9% in the external group, which was statistically significant, and quadriceps thickness changed similarly. Isometric elbow flexion strength was greater in the internal group and isometric knee extension strength was greater in the external group, but neither difference was significant. The authors concluded that the findings support a mind-muscle connection for hypertrophy.

    This is a single small trial of untrained men on isolation-style exercises, so it does not settle the question for compound lifts or for experienced lifters. It does show why the two meta-analyses, which measure performance in tests, do not automatically translate into advice about muscle size.

    What this means for a home workout

    • Testing strength or maximum repetitions: an external cue has the better support in the two meta-analyses, so cues such as “drive the floor away” on a leg press or squat are what the evidence favours.
    • Isolation work for muscle size: the 2018 trial found larger thickness gains with an internal focus, and it is reasonable to try it on curls or extensions, with the caveat above.
    • Equipment does not change the principle: the same cues apply on a bench, rack or cable machine. The guides to lifting tempo, range of motion and RPE and RIR cover other variables that can be changed without buying anything.

    Frequently asked questions

    Is an internal focus always worse?

    No. In the endurance meta-analysis it did not differ significantly from no instruction, and in the 2018 trial it was linked to greater muscle thickness gains. The evidence favours an external focus for acute strength and endurance tests only.

    Do these studies cover people with experience?

    The weightlifting review notes that experienced male lifters were the most common participants, while the 2018 trial used untrained men.

    The bottom line

    Two 2021 meta-analyses found that an external focus gave better acute strength and repetition performance than an internal focus, while long-term strength gains did not differ significantly overall. A small 2018 trial in untrained men found larger arm muscle thickness gains with an internal focus. The evidence therefore supports using outcome-based cues when testing performance and treating the mind-muscle connection as a plausible option for muscle size on isolation exercises, not a proven rule.

    Sources

  • Lifting Straps and Belts on the Deadlift: What Three Small Studies and a Review Show About Reps, Grip and Bar Speed

    Lifting straps wrap around the wrist and the bar to take grip out of the equation, and belts are worn around the trunk. Both are sold as aids for heavy pulling. This article summarises the abstracts of three small studies published between 2021 and 2023 and a 2026 narrative review, and states what they can and cannot support. It is about equipment performance, not injury prevention, and it is general information, not medical advice. The competition rules for belts and related kit are covered separately in the guide to what IPF equipment rules specify.

    Study one: 16 men and four sets of four deadlifts

    Jukic and colleagues, in Physiology & Behavior (2021), had 16 men complete three protocols of four sets of four repetitions at 80 per cent of their one-repetition maximum (1RM): without straps, with straps using the same weight based on the without-straps 1RM, and with straps using a weight based on a with-straps 1RM. Using straps at the same weight allowed higher mean and peak bar velocity than either other condition. Grip fatigue was smaller with straps, perceived grip security and power were greater, and perceived exertion was lower in the strapped, same-weight protocol. The authors concluded that straps allow better maintenance of grip strength, faster grip recovery and greater perceived grip security, while increasing mechanical performance and reducing perceived exertion.

    Study two: 10 women and three sets to failure

    Trahey and colleagues, in the Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research (2023), tested straps in women because earlier work had been in men. Ten women with about 3.2 years of training experience performed three sets of as many repetitions as possible at 80 per cent 1RM, with and without straps. With straps, they completed significantly more repetitions, with no statistically significant difference in mean or peak bar velocity, and they lost less grip strength. The authors concluded that straps appear beneficial for deadlift performance in women.

    Study three: belts and straps in 20 recreational male lifters

    Fong and colleagues, in Medicine (2022), used a repeated-measures design with 20 male recreational lifters (average age 23.1) who deadlifted with combinations of belt and straps. Wearing both a belt and straps reduced knee flexion angle in the setup phase, but not hip flexion. Straps alone increased thoracic kyphosis at lockout compared with a belt alone, and no changes in cervical or lumbar lordosis angles were seen with any aid. Participants completed deadlifts faster wearing both, and perceived less exertion wearing a belt, straps or both. The authors recommended using a belt and straps together, and not straps alone, for recreational lifters. This was an observational study of posture angles measured by video, so it does not show that any combination is safer or more dangerous.

    The 2026 narrative review

    Martins and colleagues, in the International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance (2026), reviewed the evidence on lifting straps, noting that the tool is meant to enhance grip and reduce grip limitation, especially in deadlifts, weightlifting movements and pulling exercises. They reported that evidence suggests straps can enhance maximal strength and grip perception, but for pulling and back exercises no consistent effects have been observed. Straps may increase mechanical work in the deadlift but, contrary to common belief, appear not to increase muscle recruitment. The review said no scientific evidence supports chronic effects of strap use in training, calling this “still a hypothesis”. It is a narrative review, so it summarises the literature without pooled statistics.

    Reading the evidence together

    • Straps reduce grip fatigue and raise deadlift reps and bar speed in short tests. This was seen in two small experiments, one in men and one in women.
    • No study shows that straps build a bigger back or stronger grip over months. The 2026 review says chronic effects are unproven, and that strapped lifting may not raise muscle recruitment.
    • Straps bypass grip as the limiting factor. Using them on every set means grip is no longer the limit, which matters for anyone also training grip; the guide to grip strength training at home covers that side.
    • Belt evidence here is thin. The one belt study measured posture angles in 20 men, not maximum strength or safety.

    What the evidence does not show

    All three studies were small (10 to 20 people), used young adults, and tested the deadlift only. None of the abstracts reports injury outcomes or long-term training results, and none compares brands or strap types.

    Practical points for buying

    • Straps are inexpensive kit, and the evidence supports their use as a way to complete more work when grip limits a pulling set, not as a shortcut to a stronger back.
    • A lifter who wants to train grip can save straps for heavy or high-volume sets and go without for lighter work.
    • Choose belts and straps by the competition rules if entering an event, which is where the IPF equipment guide applies.

    The bottom line

    Two small experiments found that straps let lifters do more work on the deadlift with less grip fatigue, and a 2022 observational study found belts and straps used together reduced perceived exertion and time to complete a lift. A 2026 review adds that long-term benefits are unproven and that straps may not increase muscle recruitment. The evidence is limited to small samples of young lifters in short tests, so straps are a convenience aid, not a proven training upgrade.

    Sources

  • Supersets and Drop Sets for Short Home Workouts: What Two Meta-Analyses Show

    Supersets pair two exercises back to back with little or no rest, and drop sets take a set to failure, cut the load and continue at once. Both are promoted as ways to fit a full workout into limited time, which matters for anyone training in a home gym around work and family. This article summarises the abstracts of two systematic reviews with meta-analyses, published in 2023 and 2025, and states what they can and cannot support. It is general information about training, not medical advice.

    The 2025 superset meta-analysis: 19 studies, 313 participants

    Zhang and colleagues, in Sports Medicine (2025), compared superset and traditional set prescriptions across acute and chronic outcomes, searching four databases up to 10 February 2024. They included 19 studies with 313 participants. Compared with traditional sets, supersets allowed:

    • a similar total number of repetitions (standardised mean difference, SMD, -0.03) and volume load (0.05), with a shorter session and greater training efficiency (SMD 1.74);
    • higher blood lactate concentration during and after training (SMD 0.94 and 1.13) and a higher energy cost during training (1.93);
    • similar creatine kinase concentration after training, muscle activation measured by surface electromyography, and acute muscle swelling;
    • a higher rating of perceived exertion (0.77) with similar perceived recovery; and
    • similar chronic adaptations in maximal strength (0.10), strength endurance (0.07) and muscle hypertrophy (-0.05).

    The authors noted considerable variance in some outcomes. Subgroup analyses found that agonist-antagonist supersets allowed more repetitions than traditional sets (SMD 0.68), while similar-biomechanics supersets, which work the same muscle group, produced less volume load (SMD -1.08). The authors concluded that supersets are a time-efficient alternative that reduces session duration without compromising volume, activation or chronic adaptations in maximal strength, strength endurance and hypertrophy. They added that supersets generally induce higher internal loads, more severe muscle damage and greater perceived exertion, which may call for longer recovery between sessions.

    The 2023 drop set meta-analysis: six studies, 142 participants

    Sødal and colleagues, in Sports Medicine – Open (2023), compared drop sets with traditional sets for muscle hypertrophy. They searched two databases on 9 April 2022. Six studies met the inclusion criteria, with 142 participants (28 women and 114 men) aged 19.2 to 27 years, and five were used in the quantitative synthesis. Both drop set and traditional groups increased muscle size significantly from pre- to post-test (SMD 0.555 and 0.437). The difference between the groups was not significant (SMD 0.155, 95 per cent confidence interval -0.199 to 0.509, p = 0.392). The authors noted that some drop set modalities took half to one-third of the time of traditional training, and concluded that drop sets are an efficient strategy for maximising hypertrophy in people with limited time.

    Reading the two together

    • Time saved without a measured loss of results. The superset review found similar strength and hypertrophy adaptations, and the drop set review found similar muscle-size gains, with shorter sessions.
    • More effort per minute. The superset review found higher lactate, energy cost and perceived exertion, so these sessions feel harder.
    • Superset type matters. Pairing opposing muscles (for example a push with a pull) kept volume up, while pairing exercises for the same muscle reduced it.
    • Different questions. The drop set review looked only at muscle size, not strength.

    What the evidence does not show

    The drop set review is small (six studies, average sample size about 24) and covers young adults aged 19 to 27, so it says nothing about older lifters. The superset review reported considerable variance in some outcomes. Neither review compares supersets with drop sets, and neither reports injury outcomes. The abstracts do not describe the equipment used in the studies, so they do not show that any particular type of equipment is better for these methods.

    Practical points for a home set-up

    • Supersets are easiest when both exercises can be done without changing the bar or setting up a new station. Pairs that use the same equipment, such as a push and a pull with dumbbells, keep rest short.
    • A drop set needs a fast load change, which is easy with plates on a dumbbell you can strip quickly, or with a spread of fixed dumbbells; the comparison of adjustable dumbbells and fixed sets covers how each type handles quick weight changes.
    • Higher perceived exertion means recovery matters; the guide to training to failure and the guide to weekly sets discuss how effort and volume interact.
    • Order and rest are covered in the guides to exercise order and rest intervals.

    The bottom line

    Two meta-analyses suggest that supersets and drop sets can deliver comparable strength and muscle-size results to traditional sets in less time, at the price of higher perceived effort and, for supersets, more muscle damage. Pairing opposing muscle groups protects volume. The evidence comes from modest numbers of studies (and, for drop sets, young adults only), so neither method is proven superior, and neither requires special equipment. They are options for people short of time, not a substitute for adequate weekly volume.

    Sources

  • Whole-Body Electrical Muscle Stimulation: What Two Meta-Analyses Show About Muscle, Strength and Body Fat

    Whole-body electromyostimulation (WB-EMS) uses electrodes across most of the body’s main muscle groups to trigger contractions with electrical impulses, often while the user performs simple movements. It is promoted as a fast route to muscle and a leaner body. This article summarises the abstracts of two systematic reviews with meta-analyses, published in 2021 and 2023, and states what they can and cannot support. It is general information about training equipment, not medical advice, and it does not cover any particular device or brand.

    What was counted as WB-EMS

    The definition matters, because the reviews pooled studies of a specific kind of system. The 2021 review, by Kemmler and colleagues in Frontiers in Physiology, included WB-EMS trials in which the stimulation was the primary physical intervention and used at least six electrodes covering most muscle groups, in non-athletic adults. A single belt or pad over one muscle group would not meet that definition, so the findings should not be applied to small consumer stimulators of that kind. Nor do the abstracts describe whether the control groups did conventional exercise, so they do not show that WB-EMS beats ordinary training.

    The 2021 meta-analysis: 16 studies, 897 participants

    Kemmler and colleagues pooled 16 controlled studies with 19 WB-EMS groups representing 897 participants, searching eight databases up to 30 June 2020. The studies varied considerably in age, body mass index and physical condition, and in training frequency (one to five sessions a week) and length (6 to 54 weeks). The average standardised mean difference (SMD) was 1.23 for muscle mass parameters, 0.98 for maximum leg extension strength and 1.08 for maximum trunk extension strength, all statistically significant. The SMD for body fat change was -0.40, but the confidence interval (-0.98 to 0.17) included zero, so this did not reach significance. The authors reported substantial heterogeneity between trials for muscle and fat mass changes, and concluded that the review provided further evidence for significant, large-sized effects of WB-EMS on muscle mass and strength, but not on body fat mass.

    The 2023 meta-analysis: 26 studies, 1,183 participants

    Rodrigues-Santana and colleagues, in the journal Medicine, pooled 26 studies with 1,183 participants (586 in WB-EMS groups and 597 in control groups), aged from 20.4 to 77.4 years on average across studies, with interventions lasting 4 to 54 weeks. They searched five databases up to 30 July 2021 and assessed risk of bias using the PEDro scale and the GRADE approach. The SMD was 0.36 for muscle mass, -0.38 for body fat, 0.54 for strength and 0.36 for power, all with statistically significant differences between groups. Heterogeneity was low for muscle mass (15 per cent) and power (0 per cent), and medium for body fat (45 per cent) and strength (55 per cent). The authors concluded that WB-EMS has significant positive effects on muscle mass, body fat, strength and power.

    Reading the two together

    • Both found gains in muscle mass and strength. The 2021 effect sizes (around 1.0 to 1.2) are much larger than the 2023 ones (0.36 to 0.54), which included more studies.
    • The reviews disagree on body fat. The 2021 review found no significant change; the 2023 review found a significant reduction (SMD -0.38). The difference may reflect the studies included, which the abstracts do not resolve.
    • Studies vary a lot. Session frequency ranged from one to five a week and length from 4 to 54 weeks, so no single “dose” is supported by these abstracts.
    • Effect sizes are relative to control groups. The abstracts do not say what the control groups did, so they do not show how WB-EMS compares with conventional resistance training.

    What these reviews do not show

    The abstracts report no comparison between brands, suits or settings. They do not show results for single-region devices, or for people using stimulation at home without supervision. They say nothing about long-term use beyond 54 weeks. They give no cost-effectiveness figures. Nor do they support claims that stimulation can replace movement with heavy loads.

    Questions to ask before buying

    • Does the product stimulate most major muscle groups with at least six electrodes, as in the reviews, or only one region?
    • Do sellers cite trials of the specific device, or only the general meta-analyses?
    • Are marketing claims about fat loss consistent with the 2021 review, which found no significant fat change?
    • Is the review of equipment independent, or affiliate-funded? The guide to sponsored and affiliate reviews explains what UK rules require reviews to disclose.

    The guide to fitness gadgets and gimmicks applies the same evidence test across other products, and the guide to choosing a vibration plate covers another gadget category.

    The bottom line

    Two meta-analyses of whole-body electromyostimulation (the 2021 one restricted to systems with at least six electrodes) found improvements in muscle mass and strength compared with control groups. Results for body fat were mixed: not significant in 2021 and significant in 2023. Neither abstract shows that stimulation beats conventional resistance training, and neither applies to single-region gadgets. Anyone considering a suit should look for trial evidence for the specific product.

    Sources

  • Bands and Chains on the Barbell: What Four Meta-Analyses Say About Variable Resistance Training

    Variable resistance training (VRT) means changing the load during a repetition, most often by hanging chains from a barbell or looping elastic bands over it, so that resistance rises as the lift is completed. The equipment is sold on the promise of extra strength and power. This article summarises the abstracts of four meta-analyses published between 2015 and 2026 and states what each can and cannot support. Their conclusions differ, which is itself informative. It is general information about training equipment, not medical advice.

    Meta-analysis one: seven studies, 235 people (2015)

    Soria-Gila and colleagues, in the Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research (2015), pooled seven studies with 235 subjects. They compared long-term programmes of at least seven weeks that used chains or elastic bands with similar programmes using constant resistance, in trained adults from different sports and in untrained people, looking at one-repetition maximum (1RM). VRT produced a significantly greater mean strength gain, a weighted mean difference of 5.03 kg (95 per cent confidence interval 2.26 to 7.80 kg). The authors concluded that long-term VRT with chains or bands attached to the barbell is an effective method of improving maximal strength.

    Meta-analysis two: 17 studies, 491 people (2022)

    Andersen and colleagues, in the Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport (2022), pooled 17 studies with 491 healthy adults (341 men and 150 women, aged 18 to 37) comparing VRT with traditional resistance training. For maximal strength there were no statistically significant differences between the two for the lower body (p = 0.46, standardised mean difference -0.10) or the upper body (p = 0.14, -0.17). Nor were there significant differences in muscle power for the lower body (p = 0.16, 0.21) or upper body (p = 0.81, 0.05). One sub-group analysis found larger lower-body strength gains after traditional training when more repetitions per set were used. The authors concluded that the two approaches are equally effective for maximal strength and power in healthy adults.

    Meta-analysis three: elastic tubes against conventional devices (2019)

    Lopes and colleagues, in SAGE Open Medicine (2019), examined a different comparison: training with elastic devices (tubes and Thera-Bands) against conventional devices (weight machines and dumbbells). Eight studies were included. There was no superiority for either method for lower-limb strength (standardised mean difference -0.11, 95 per cent confidence interval -0.40 to 0.19) or upper-limb strength (0.09, -0.18 to 0.35). The authors concluded that elastic resistance can promote similar strength gains to conventional resistance. This review is about stand-alone elastic devices, not bands attached to a barbell, so it should not be read as a verdict on barbell VRT.

    Meta-analysis four: a 2026 comparison with free weights

    Li and colleagues, in the Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research (2026), compared VRT with free weight training for maximal strength, velocity, power and jump distance, in long-term and acute interventions. The authors used cluster analysis to group studies by the proportion of load that was variable (VRLP). For long-term effects, VRT outperformed free weights for maximal strength and jump distance, with standardised mean differences between 0.28 and 0.37. Chain-based loading and a variable load of 20 per cent or less showed advantages for both (0.39 to 0.51). Multiple-exercise VRT improved maximal strength (0.27), while single-exercise VRT improved jump distance (0.46). For acute effects, a variable load above 20 per cent showed greater maximal force output, and above 37 per cent produced lower movement velocity and power compared with free weights. The authors concluded that long-term VRT surpasses free weight training for maximal strength and jump distance, and that chain-based loading or a variable share of 20 per cent or less appears optimal.

    Why the results differ

    • Different pools of studies. The 2015 review included seven studies of barbell chains or bands; the 2022 review included 17 studies of variable against traditional training; the 2026 review categorised studies by how much of the load was variable.
    • Different questions. The 2019 review compared elastic tubes against machines and dumbbells, which is not the same as adding bands to a barbell.
    • Effect sizes are small to moderate. Where a benefit was found, it was a few kilograms on a 1RM test or a standardised difference of roughly 0.3 to 0.5. Small differences on short-term tests do not show what happens over years of training.

    What the evidence does not show

    None of the abstracts reports injury outcomes, and none supports a claim that VRT builds more muscle. The subjects were mainly healthy adults aged 18 to 37 in the 2022 review, so the findings should not be extended to older adults or beginners without a specific study. The abstracts also do not say whether a particular brand of chain or band performs better.

    Practical points for a home set-up

    • The 2022 and 2019 reviews found no meaningful gap between variable and traditional or conventional training for maximal strength, so bands and chains are an optional extra and not a required purchase.
    • Where a lifter wants to try them, the 2026 review suggests keeping the variable share modest, at 20 per cent or less of the load for long-term training.
    • Barbell bands and chains are used with a barbell and rack; the guides to rack dimensions and rack safety systems cover what to check.
    • Stand-alone bands are a different product category, discussed in the guide to resistance bands and suspension trainers.
    • For ways to keep progressing without new kit, see progressive overload at home.

    The bottom line

    Meta-analyses disagree. The 2015 and 2026 reviews found small advantages for bands and chains on 1RM and jump distance, while the 2022 review found no significant differences from traditional training and the 2019 review found elastic tubes comparable to conventional devices. Any benefit is small, and none of the reviews shows that bands or chains build more muscle or reduce injury. Anyone who already trains hard with a plain barbell has no clear evidence-based need to add them.

    Sources

  • Trap Bar or Straight Bar Deadlift? What Four Studies Show About Load, Joint Loading and Training Results

    A trap bar, also called a hex bar, lets the lifter stand inside a hexagonal frame with neutral-grip handles at the sides, while a straight barbell sits in front of the shins. Buyers weighing the two for a home gym are often told that the trap bar is simply “better”. This article summarises the abstracts of four studies published between 2011 and 2025 and states what each can and cannot support. Most involved small groups of strength-trained lifters in short experiments, so the results are small-sample evidence. It is general information about training equipment, not medical advice.

    Study one: 19 male powerlifters across eight loads

    Swinton and colleagues, in the Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research (2011), had 19 male powerlifters perform deadlifts with a straight barbell and a hexagonal barbell at 10 to 80 per cent of their one-repetition maximum (1RM), lifting at maximum speed. The lifters managed a heavier 1RM with the hexagonal bar (265 kg against 245 kg on average). The bar design changed the resistance moments at the joints, giving lower peak moments at the lumbar spine, hip and ankle and a higher peak moment at the knee. Across the submaximal loads, peak force, peak velocity and peak power were greater with the hexagonal bar. The authors concluded that the greater mechanical stimulus suggests the hex-bar deadlift is generally the more effective exercise.

    Study two: a one-repetition maximum comparison in 31 lifters

    Lockie and colleagues, in the same journal (2018), compared a conventional deadlift with a high-handle hex-bar deadlift in 31 strength-trained subjects (21 men and 10 women), each completing a 1RM in both lifts while a linear position transducer measured the bar. Subjects lifted more with the hex bar (about 154.5 kg against 134.7 kg). The lift distance and duration were 22 and 25 per cent shorter, and peak power, peak velocity and peak and mean force were higher, although more total work was done in the conventional deadlift. The authors noted that greater force can be generated with the hex bar, which could have implications for strength adaptations over time.

    Study three: 3RM lifts by 11 strength-trained women

    Gundersen and colleagues, in the same journal (2025), compared conventional, sumo and hex-bar deadlifts in 11 resistance-trained women, using the last repetition of a three-repetition maximum. In this study the loads were similar: about 103.2 kg for conventional, 101.5 kg for sumo and 99.7 kg for hex bar. Conventional and sumo lifts produced larger hip joint moments near lockout, while the hex bar produced greater bar velocity, larger knee moments and greater hip and knee flexion. The authors suggested that the hex bar may be beneficial for targeting the knee extensors and bar speed, and that sumo and conventional deadlifts may better target the hip extensors near lockout.

    Study four: eight weeks of half squats or trap bar deadlifts

    Hagerupsen and colleagues, in BMC Sports Science, Medicine and Rehabilitation (2024), randomised 22 recreationally active women to twice-weekly training for eight weeks with either barbell half squats (10 women) or trap bar deadlifts (12 women). The half squat group tended to improve half squat 1RM more (21.0 kg against 13.1 kg), and the trap bar group tended to improve trap bar deadlift 1RM more (18.4 kg against 11.7 kg), although the confidence intervals for both differences included zero. There were no between-group differences for sprint, jump or lean mass. For both groups combined, jump height, sprint times and lean mass improved. The authors concluded that exercise selection matters less than applying heavy loads and targeting the relevant muscles. This study did not include a straight-bar deadlift, so it says nothing about trap bar against straight bar.

    Reading the four together

    • Heavier loads on the hex bar were seen in two studies with 1RM tests, but the 3RM study in women found similar loads across the three lifts, so a heavier load is not guaranteed.
    • Joint loading differs. In the two studies that measured joint moments, hex-bar lifts loaded the knee more and the hip less (and, in the first study, the lumbar spine less) than straight-bar lifts. These are measurements of joint moments during lifts, not evidence about injury risk, which none of the studies measured.
    • No study followed lifters for long enough to show that one bar builds more strength or muscle. The only training trial compared a different pair of exercises.

    Practical points for a home set-up

    • A trap bar is a different lift, not a modification of a straight-bar deadlift; the evidence suggests it shifts work from the hip towards the knee and shortens the range of movement.
    • A person who already owns a straight barbell and a rack (see the barbell specifications guide and the rack comparison) may find the evidence too thin to justify buying a second bar solely for performance.
    • Plates for either bar should suit the sleeve, as explained in the plate standards guide.
    • For programming questions about how much to lift, see the guides to rest intervals and free weights against machines.

    The bottom line

    Studies of trained lifters found that a hex bar produced different joint moments, higher bar velocity and, in two of them, a heavier 1RM than a straight-bar deadlift. The eight-week trial found no clear difference between trap bar deadlifts and half squats for strength, power or lean mass. None of the four followed lifters long enough to show that either bar builds more muscle, and none measured injury. The choice is best made on the lift wanted and the space available.

    Sources

  • Bench Press Grip Width: What Three Small Studies Show About Load, Muscle Activity and Volume

    Anyone setting up a bench and barbell at home has to choose where to place their hands. Advice commonly ranges from “wide for chest” to “narrow for triceps”. What do controlled studies of grip width actually show? This article summarises the abstracts of three small studies, published in 2005, 2021 and 2021, and states what they can and cannot support. All three tested men in short experiments, so the results should be read as small-sample evidence. It is general information about training, not medical advice.

    Study one: 28 men lifting a six-repetition maximum

    Saeterbakken and colleagues, in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health (2021), compared narrow, medium and wide grips in 28 men, including resistance-trained and novice-trained subgroups, measuring muscle activity by electromyography (EMG) while the men lifted their six-repetition maximum (6-RM) loads. Biceps brachii activity increased as the grip widened, while a wide grip produced lower triceps brachii activation than medium and narrow grips. Anterior deltoid activity was greater with a medium grip than a narrow one, and other muscles showed similar activity across grips. Both groups lifted lower 6-RM loads with a narrow grip than with the other grips. The authors conclude that grip width affects both 6-RM loads and the activity of the triceps, biceps and anterior deltoid, especially between wide and narrow grips.

    Study two: an older isometric study of 12 men

    Lehman, in the Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research (2005), recorded the electrical activity of parts of the pectoralis major, the biceps and the triceps in 12 healthy men during isometric holds in five bench press variations, changing grip width and forearm rotation. Moving from a wide to a narrower grip increased triceps activity and decreased activity in the sternoclavicular portion of the pectoralis major, unless the grip was supinated. A supinated grip increased biceps and clavicular pectoralis activity. Lehman noted that the changes were small and concluded that grip choice should follow the positions athletes adopt in their sport, and that sport specificity should supersede attempts to train specific muscle groups.

    Study three: reps to failure on a Smith machine

    Perez-Castilla and colleagues, in the same journal as study one (2021), asked 19 men to perform a single set to failure at 75% of one-repetition maximum in the Smith machine bench press with a narrow, medium, wide or self-selected grip on four separate days. The number of repetitions to failure was not significantly affected by grip width (p = 0.545), and neither were repetitions performed before reaching velocity-loss thresholds of 15%, 30% or 45%. The authors conclude that training volume in this exercise is not influenced by grip width. The test used a Smith machine and a single set, so it does not describe free barbell bench pressing across a full programme.

    Reading the three together

    The studies point the same way on load: the narrow grip in study one permitted less weight, while study three found no difference in repetitions at a fixed relative load on a Smith machine. Muscle activity changed with grip width in studies one and two, with wider grips reducing triceps involvement, though Lehman describes the changes as small. None of the three measured muscle growth. EMG amplitude shows how much electrical activity was recorded during a lift, and it cannot by itself show that a different grip will build more muscle over months. No study here compared long-term training outcomes. Each tested a single session or short protocol on modest samples of 28, 12 and 19 men, which limits how far the results can be generalised to other lifters, including women, older adults or people using different equipment.

    Practical points for a home set-up

    The medium grip was the middle option in all three studies, and none of them reported it as inferior on load or repetitions. The participants totalled 59 men across three separate designs, all male, and the conclusions from Lehman point towards choosing a grip according to the positions needed for a sport or purpose rather than trying to isolate a muscle. Our guides to weight benches and barbell specifications cover the equipment side.

    Frequently asked questions

    Does a narrow grip lift less weight? In the 28-man study both the resistance-trained and novice groups lifted lower 6-RM loads with a narrow grip.

    Does grip width change repetitions to failure? Not in the Smith machine study of 19 men, which found no significant effect.

    Does a wide grip build a bigger chest? None of these studies measured muscle growth, so the question is not answered by them.

    The bottom line

    Small studies in men show that grip width changes the load lifted with a narrow grip and shifts muscle activity between the chest, triceps and shoulders, while repetitions to failure on a Smith machine were unaffected. The evidence does not show that any grip builds more muscle, so grip choice is best guided by comfort, control and the purpose of the lift.

    Sources

  • How Accurate Are Fitness Trackers? What Reviews Show for Step Counts, Calories and Activity Intensity

    Fitness trackers and smartwatches report steps, calories and activity levels with confident precision, and many people use those numbers to judge their training or compare equipment. Whether the numbers are accurate is a research question. This guide summarises two published reviews: a 2020 systematic review by Fuller and colleagues in JMIR mHealth and uHealth, and a 2024 “living” umbrella review by Doherty and colleagues in Sports Medicine. It concerns consumer wearables only; it does not assess the built-in consoles on treadmills, bikes or rowers, which are covered in our guide to console metrics and their accuracy. It is general information, not medical advice.

    The 2020 systematic review

    Fuller and colleagues searched PubMed, Embase and SPORTDiscus for English-language articles up to May 2019 and included 158 publications examining nine commercial wearable brands, with Fitbit by far the most studied. In laboratory settings, Fitbit, Apple Watch and Samsung appeared to measure steps accurately. Heart rate results were more variable, with Apple Watch and Garmin the most accurate and Fitbit tending to underestimate. For energy expenditure, the authors report that no brand was accurate. They conclude that wearables are accurate for steps and heart rate in laboratory-based settings, but that this varies by manufacturer and device type, and they note that devices are constantly being redesigned, so more current reviews are needed.

    The 2024 umbrella review

    Doherty and colleagues reviewed the reviews. From 904 records they included 24 systematic reviews or meta-analyses, covering 249 non-duplicate validation studies and 430,465 participants (43% female), and extracted measures such as mean absolute percentage error and pooled bias. Their headline findings on the outcomes most relevant to home exercisers were:

    • Steps: wearables mostly underestimated step counts, with mean absolute percentage errors ranging from −9% to 12%.
    • Energy expenditure: mean bias of about −3 kcal per minute, or −3%, with error ranging from −21.27% to 14.76%.
    • Heart rate: a mean bias of ±3%.
    • Physical activity intensity: mean absolute error ranging from 29% to 80%, depending on the intensity of the activity.
    • Aerobic capacity: VO2max significantly overestimated, by ±15.24% during resting tests and ±9.83% during exercise tests.

    What the two reviews say together

    Both point the same way on the measurements that matter to most users. Steps are the best-measured outcome in laboratory conditions, with the umbrella review reporting a tendency towards underestimation. Calorie estimates are the weakest: the 2020 review found no brand accurate for energy expenditure, and the 2024 review reports wide error ranges even though the average bias was small. A small average bias can hide large errors in individual readings, which is why the range matters more than the mean for someone using a number to plan meals or training. The 2024 review also reports that intensity measurement had large errors, so “active minutes” and zone targets deserve caution.

    What the evidence cannot say

    The umbrella review states that approximately 11% of commercially available wearable devices released to date have been validated for at least one biometric outcome, and that the number of validation studies represents just 3.5% of the total needed for a comprehensive evaluation. Its authors say that a conclusive assessment is impeded by heterogeneity in outcomes and methods, and call for standardised validation protocols. The 2020 review is based on data up to May 2019, so newer models are not covered. Neither review supports a ranking of brands for current products, and neither addresses machine consoles. The 2020 conclusions are specific to laboratory-based settings, and the review defined validity as agreement with other measures (criterion validity) and with what the device claims to measure (construct validity), with reliability assessed within and between devices. It included studies of the general population and of special populations, so its results are not restricted to one group of users.

    Using trackers sensibly

    Trends are more useful than single readings: a device that consistently underestimates steps still shows whether a week was busier than the last, provided the same device is used. Heart rate readings are covered in more detail in our guide to chest straps against optical sensors, and the wider marketing pattern in fitness gadgets and gimmicks.

    Frequently asked questions

    Are calorie counts on trackers reliable? The 2020 review found no brand accurate for energy expenditure, and the 2024 review reports errors ranging from −21.27% to 14.76%.

    Do trackers over- or under-count steps? The umbrella review found that wearables mostly underestimated step counts.

    Does brand matter? The 2020 review reports that accuracy varied by manufacturer and device type and that devices change quickly.

    The bottom line

    Reviews of wearable trackers show that step counts and heart rate are reasonably accurate in laboratory conditions, that steps tend to be underestimated, and that calorie and intensity estimates carry wide errors. The numbers are best used to follow personal trends rather than as precise measurements.

    Sources

  • Weighted Vests and Wearable Resistance: What Two Reviews Show for Sprinting and Jumping

    Weighted vests and other wearable resistance products are sold as a way to make running, jumping and bodyweight exercise harder without a machine. Whether they improve performance is a separate question from whether they change how a movement feels. Two systematic reviews, one in Scientific Reports in 2024 and one in Frontiers in Physiology in 2025, examined the research on sprinting and jumping. This guide summarises their abstracts and explains where they differ. It is general information about equipment, not advice on injuries or health conditions.

    The 2024 review: acute changes and thin chronic evidence

    The authors note that wearable resistance and vests can be used in almost all training conditions, but that their positioning and added mass differ and so affect performance and movement mechanics differently. Bertochi and colleagues searched four databases (PubMed, Embase, Scopus and SPORTDiscus) for longitudinal and cross-over studies of wearable resistance (WR) and weighted vests (WV) and included 25 studies in the meta-analysis. In cross-over studies, both WR and WV produced significantly slower sprint times and longer ground contact times than unloaded running. They differed in how they changed the stride: WR was associated with a lower step frequency, whereas WV was associated with a shorter step length. Only one study investigated the chronic adaptation to WR and found the WR group superior to the control group on sprint time. For WV, no chronic difference was found for sprint time, contact time or flight time. The authors suggest that WR may suit athletes who rely on step frequency and WV those who rely on step length, but state that there is no supporting evidence that WV or WR will change sprint performance, contact time or flight time, and that coaches and athletes should carefully consider their use.

    The 2025 review: randomised trials only

    Wei and colleagues restricted their search to randomised controlled trials, searching five databases from inception to 1 May 2025 and including ten studies with 256 participants. Their three-level meta-analysis found that wearable resistance training significantly improved linear sprinting overall, with a 95% confidence interval of −0.558 to −0.027 (negative values indicate faster times). The subgroup effects that reached significance were 10-metre sprint performance (Hedges’ g −0.393), trunk-mounted loading (g −0.554) and loads of 10% of body mass or less (g −0.495). Jumping ability did not improve significantly (p = 0.118). The authors conclude that trunk loading with loads up to 10% of body mass can enhance start acceleration over 0 to 10 metres, and that jumping did not significantly improve.

    Reading the two together

    The reviews are not directly comparable. The 2024 review pooled acute cross-over and chronic studies and focused on how loads change the stride, while the 2025 review pooled randomised trials of training programmes and reported outcomes for sprinting and jumping. The conclusions differ in tone. The 2025 review reports a significant training effect on short-sprint acceleration in specific subgroups, whereas the 2024 review found only one chronic wearable-resistance study and no chronic difference for vests. The 2025 review also rates the certainty of its evidence as low on the GRADE scale.

    Limits of the evidence

    Several limitations are noted in the 2025 review’s account: sample sizes were small, blinding is difficult with wearable loads, and participants were mostly athletes, so the results may not transfer to other groups. Neither review is a head-to-head comparison of a vest against a different training method such as sled pushing or plyometrics, so no claim that a vest is superior to any other approach is supported. These findings concern athletes performing sprint and jump training, not general fitness, weight loss or bone health.

    What this means when buying

    The evidence suggests that if a weighted vest is used for sprint training, light loads up to about 10% of body mass on the trunk are the range with a reported effect on the first 10 metres, and that a vest cannot be assumed to help jumping. A vest with adjustable weights would allow a user to keep to a light load, though the reviews do not test particular products. Related purchasing questions are covered in our guides to separating evidence-based equipment from marketing and resistance bands and suspension trainers.

    Frequently asked questions

    Does a weighted vest improve jumping? The 2025 meta-analysis found no significant effect of wearable resistance training on jumping ability.

    What load did the review link to better sprint starts? Loads of 10% of body mass or less, worn on the trunk, in the 2025 subgroup analysis.

    How certain is the evidence? The 2025 review graded it as low certainty.

    The bottom line

    Reviews of weighted vests and wearable resistance show that loading changes sprint mechanics immediately, but evidence that it improves sprint performance over time is thin and rated low certainty. The clearest reported effect is an improvement in 0 to 10 metre acceleration with trunk loads of up to 10% of body mass, and there is no significant effect on jumping.

    Sources

Shopping regionLocal retailers, prices and availability