Find my equipment

Author: Compare Fitness Equipment

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

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

    The 2019 systematic review and meta-analysis

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

    The authors report five main findings:

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

    What the 2012 review adds

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

    Putting the two reviews together

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

    What this means for testing and tracking

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

    Limits of the evidence

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

    Where equipment enters

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

    Frequently asked questions

    Is evening training better for strength?

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

    Does the time of day matter for muscle growth?

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

    The bottom line

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

    Sources

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

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

    Why the definition matters

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

    Strength: the 2016 meta-analysis

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

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

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

    Strength and size: the 2022 meta-analysis

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

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

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

    Muscle size: the 2023 meta-analysis

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

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

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

    Reading the three reviews together

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

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

    Where equipment enters

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

    Frequently asked questions

    Does training to failure build more muscle?

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

    Is it harmful to train to failure?

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

    The bottom line

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

    Sources

  • Combining Cardio and Strength Training: What the Concurrent-Training Meta-Analyses Show

    Anyone equipping a home setup with both a cardio machine and weights has to decide how the two fit together in a week. The research question is known as concurrent training: does adding aerobic work interfere with strength and muscle gains? Several meta-analyses have pooled the trials. This article summarises three, covering overall compatibility, session order and high-intensity interval training. The findings apply to healthy adults in the studies and do not amount to advice for people with injuries or medical conditions.

    Overall compatibility: the 2022 meta-analysis

    Schumann and colleagues included 43 studies that compared supervised concurrent aerobic and strength training, lasting at least four weeks, against an identical strength programme with no aerobic training. The pooled results were:

    • Maximal strength: a standardised mean difference of -0.06 (95% confidence interval -0.20 to 0.09; P = 0.446), meaning no significant difference;
    • Muscle hypertrophy: -0.01 (confidence interval -0.16 to 0.18; P = 0.919), again no significant difference;
    • Explosive strength: -0.28 (confidence interval -0.48 to -0.08; P = 0.007), a significant reduction with concurrent training.

    The authors conclude that concurrent training does not compromise muscle hypertrophy or maximal strength, but that explosive strength gains may be attenuated. The attenuation was more pronounced when both kinds of training were done in the same session (P = 0.043) than when sessions were separated by at least three hours (not significant). No significant effects were found for the type of aerobic training (cycling against running), the frequency of concurrent training (more or fewer than five weekly sessions), training status (untrained or active) or mean age (under or over 40).

    For a lifter focused on muscle size and maximal strength, the meta-analysis found no significant cost from adding cardio. The included trials were supervised programmes.

    Which goes first in the same session?

    A 2018 systematic review and meta-analysis looked only at trials that compared strength before endurance with endurance before strength within the same session. Lower-body one-repetition maximum was significantly higher when strength training came first, with a pooled mean change of 3.96 kg (95% confidence interval 0.81 to 7.10 kg). The order made no difference to maximal aerobic capacity (pooled difference 0.39 ml per kg per minute, confidence interval -1.03 to 1.81). The authors conclude that putting strength first appears beneficial for lower-body strength while aerobic improvement is unaffected by order. The absolute difference is small and the interval wide, so it is a modest edge and not a rule.

    Interval training and lower-body strength

    A separate 2018 meta-analysis compared concurrent high-intensity interval training (HIIT) plus resistance training with resistance training alone. Muscle hypertrophy and upper-body strength changed similarly. Lower-body strength increased less with the combination (effect size -0.248, P = 0.049). Sub-analyses showed a trend, not statistically significant, for cycling HIIT to have a more negative effect on lower-body strength (-0.377, P = 0.074) than running HIIT (-0.176, P = 0.261). The authors suggest that any negative effect on lower-body strength may be reduced by using running-based HIIT and longer rest between the two modes, but they present this as a possibility. The 2022 meta-analysis, by contrast, found no significant difference between cycling and running for the overall outcomes, so the modality point remains unresolved.

    Reading the evidence

    • Consistent: hypertrophy and maximal strength held up under concurrent training in the 2022 pooled analysis.
    • Some signal, some uncertainty: explosive strength and lower-body strength showed reductions in one or both analyses, with same-session training and cycling HIIT the suggested aggravating factors.
    • Unresolved: the cycling against running contrast, since one analysis found a non-significant trend and the other found no significant moderator effect.
    • Population: healthy adults in supervised trials. Extrapolating to home routines, older or clinical populations or elite athletes goes beyond what the reviews tested.

    Turning it into a weekly plan

    The reviews do not prescribe schedules, but they support some options. If explosive strength is not a priority, cardio and strength can be combined in one session without expecting a large penalty to muscle size or maximal strength. If it is, or if lower-body strength is a particular goal, separating sessions by several hours, doing strength first or choosing running-style intervals over cycling are the variations the analyses point to. Equipment placement can follow whichever schedule is chosen, and space and layout for keeping both in one room is covered in a separate guide.

    Frequently asked questions

    Will cardio stop me building muscle?

    The 2022 meta-analysis found no significant difference in hypertrophy between concurrent training and strength training alone.

    Should I lift before cardio?

    One meta-analysis found slightly higher lower-body one-repetition maximum when strength came first, with no effect on aerobic capacity. The difference was modest.

    Is HIIT on a bike worse for leg strength than running?

    One analysis showed a non-significant trend in that direction. Another found no significant difference by aerobic type, so the evidence does not settle it.

    The bottom line

    Meta-analyses find that adding aerobic training to strength training does not significantly reduce muscle size or maximal strength in healthy adults, though explosive strength and, in one analysis of interval training, lower-body strength may gain less. Same-session training and strength-second ordering are associated with somewhat larger penalties. Equipment for both can therefore coexist in a home gym, and the main decision is scheduling rather than choosing one over the other.

    Sources

  • Age-Based Maximum Heart Rate Formulas: How Accurate Are the Training Zones Set From Them?

    Heart-rate zones on cardio equipment and in apps usually rest on an estimate of maximum heart rate, and the most familiar estimate is 220 minus age. Research has tested this and several alternative equations against measured maximum heart rate. This article summarises four studies, the equations they support and the size of the error they report. It concerns general exercise physiology in healthy people and is not medical advice; anyone with a heart or health condition should follow their clinician’s guidance on exercise intensity.

    The equations in circulation

    The equations named in the studies below include:

    • 220 minus age, the most commonly used;
    • 208 minus 0.7 times age, from a 2001 meta-analysis by Tanaka and colleagues;
    • 211 minus 0.64 times age, from the Norwegian HUNT Fitness Study of 2013;
    • 209.3 minus 0.72 times age, from a US registry analysis of 4,796 people.

    Worked through for a 40-year-old, 220 minus age gives 180 beats per minute, the Tanaka equation gives 180, the HUNT equation gives about 185 and the registry equation about 181. For a 55-year-old the same equations give 165, about 170, about 176 and about 170. The equations differ most at older ages, which is where the studies report the largest disagreement.

    The 2001 meta-analysis

    Tanaka, Monahan and Seals gathered group mean values from 351 studies covering 492 groups and 18,712 subjects. Maximum heart rate was strongly related to age (r = -0.90), and the regression equation was 208 minus 0.7 times age. A laboratory study of 514 healthy subjects gave a virtually identical equation, and the line did not differ between men and women or with habitual physical activity. The authors concluded that the then-current 220 minus age formula underestimates maximum heart rate in older adults.

    The HUNT Fitness Study

    Nes and colleagues measured maximum heart rate in 3,320 healthy men and women where a maximal effort was verified. Age alone explained the result with the formula 211 minus 0.64 times age, and there was no evidence of interaction with gender, physical activity, fitness level or body mass index. They found that the earlier equations underestimated measured maximum heart rate in subjects older than 30. Importantly, they report a standard error of the estimate of 10.8 beats per minute and say it must be taken into account, meaning even the better equation leaves a wide range around any individual.

    The registry analysis

    A study using the FRIEND Registry analysed 4,796 apparently healthy people who reached maximal effort on a treadmill test. The fitted equation was 209.3 minus 0.72 times age, with a correlation of 0.61 and a standard error of estimate of 11.35 beats per minute. The mean difference between measured and predicted maximum heart rate was not significantly different from zero, but the limits of agreement were about plus or minus 25 beats per minute and there was a significant proportional bias. The authors advise against using age-predicted maximum heart rate as a measure of whether a person has made a maximal effort.

    Comparing nine equations in a general sample

    Shookster and colleagues (2020) compared nine equations, including those named by Fox, Tanaka, Nes and Gellish, against 99 graded treadmill exercise tests that ended at volitional fatigue with a respiratory exchange ratio above 1.10. Significant differences from measured values were found for the Gulati, Astrand, Nes and Fairbarn (male) equations, and Bland-Altman plots showed wide limits of agreement for all nine, meaning poor agreement between predicted and measured maximum heart rate. Proportional bias meant equations tended to underestimate at lower measured values and overestimate at higher ones, with the exception of the Fox equation (220 minus age), which the authors suggest may be the best option for a general population because it is less likely to under- or overestimate. They advise individuals to use data from a graded exercise test to determine maximum heart rate when possible.

    What the disagreement means in practice

    The studies point in different directions on which equation is best, which is itself informative: none is reliable for an individual. A rough illustration: a person predicted at 180 beats per minute could, with an error of about 25 beats either way, have a true maximum anywhere from about 155 to 205. Seventy per cent of those two figures is around 109 and 144 beats per minute, so a zone set from the formula could feel very different in practice from what the label suggests. Any zone programme, whether on a machine, a watch or an app, that begins from an age-based estimate inherits this uncertainty.

    Practical points when using zones

    • Treat zones as approximate ranges, not targets to the beat.
    • Use perceived effort alongside heart rate. A related guide on this site covers rating of perceived exertion for strength work, and the same principle of checking a number against how hard the effort feels applies to cardio.
    • Where accuracy matters, a supervised maximal test is the route the studies point to, rather than another formula.
    • Different tools may use different equations, so a change of device can change the zones without any change in fitness.

    Frequently asked questions

    Is 220 minus age wrong?

    It is approximate. The 2001 meta-analysis and the HUNT study found it underestimates in older adults, while a later sample of 99 tests found it less prone to bias than several alternatives. Every study reports wide individual error.

    Which equation is most accurate?

    The studies do not agree on one, and the standard errors reported (10.8 and 11.35 beats per minute) show a wide range around any prediction.

    The bottom line

    Age-based equations give a reasonable population average but a poor individual answer, with errors of roughly 10 to 11 beats per minute for one standard deviation and about 25 for the limits of agreement in the largest registry sample. Heart-rate zones set from them should be treated as a rough guide, checked against perceived effort and, where precision matters, against a supervised maximal test.

    Sources

  • Treadmill Running Against Overground Running: What Systematic Reviews Find

    A common question for anyone buying a treadmill is whether running or walking on one is comparable to doing so outdoors. Systematic reviews of crossover studies, where the same people do both, give a more careful answer than either “identical” or “completely different”. This article summarises three of them, on running biomechanics, running physiology and performance, and walking. All involved healthy adults, and none evaluates individual treadmill brands.

    Running biomechanics

    Van Hooren and colleagues (2020) pooled 33 crossover studies with 494 participants comparing lower-limb biomechanics on a motorised treadmill and overground. They included only non-inclined, non-cushioned treadmill running at quasi-constant speed. The main conclusion was that spatiotemporal, kinematic, kinetic, muscle-activity and muscle-tendon outcomes were largely comparable, and most outcomes did not differ between conditions. The differences that did appear were:

    • a smaller sagittal foot-ground angle at footstrike on the treadmill (mean difference 9.8 degrees, low-certainty evidence);
    • differences in knee flexion at footstrike and knee flexion range of motion during stance, both graded low certainty;
    • less vertical displacement of the centre of mass or pelvis (1.5 cm, low certainty);
    • a slightly longer contact time (5 ms, low certainty);
    • a lower peak propulsive force (0.04 body weights, very low certainty) and a difference in ankle joint moment, each based on pooled results from only two studies.

    The authors advise care when extrapolating treadmill running biomechanics to overground running, particularly at footstrike. Their limitations note that most studies compared treadmill running with a laboratory runway rather than concrete or road surfaces, so real-world differences may be larger than reported. Conflicting results were found for the amplitude of muscle activity.

    Running physiology and performance

    A 2019 Sports Medicine systematic review of 34 crossover studies compared physiological, perceptual and performance measures. Twelve studies set the treadmill at a 1% grade and three used steeper grades. Key findings:

    • oxygen uptake at submaximal speeds was similar on the treadmill at 0% and 1% grade to overground, while blood lactate was lower on the treadmill;
    • heart rate and rating of perceived exertion on the treadmill were higher at faster submaximal speeds and lower at slower submaximal speeds than overground;
    • at maximal running intensity, oxygen uptake and heart rate were similar between treadmill and overground;
    • endurance performance was poorer on a motorised treadmill (standardised mean difference -0.50, with a confidence range shown as 0.36), while sprint performance varied considerably and was not significantly different.

    The review’s conclusion is deliberately measured: some, but not all, variables differ between treadmill and overground running, and may depend on the speed at which they are assessed. That is a finding about pace-dependence and should not be read as saying a treadmill is better or worse.

    Walking

    A 2023 systematic review and meta-analysis of 55 studies with 1,005 healthy participants compared walking on a motorised treadmill and overground at matched speeds. It found that relative oxygen consumption (standardised mean difference 0.38) and cadence (0.22) were higher on the treadmill, while stride length (-0.36) and step length (-0.52) were lower. It reports that most kinetic variables differed between surfaces. The authors suggest the changes may reflect an attempt to increase stability given the lack of control, discomfort and unfamiliarity on the treadmill, and that treadmill construction, including surface stiffness and motor power, needs investigation.

    A separate 2022 review of 22 studies with 409 young adults reached a similar overall verdict for walking: spatiotemporal, kinematic, kinetic, electromyographic and energy consumption measures were largely comparable, with some differences in kinematic, kinetic and electromyographic parameters.

    What buyers can and cannot take from this

    • Largely comparable does not mean identical. Small footstrike and stride differences appear, so gradual adaptation is reasonable, but the reviews give no personalised advice.
    • Treadmill specifications are barely tested. The running biomechanics review excluded cushioned and inclined conditions, and the walking review says surface stiffness and motor power need investigation. Claims that a particular deck or motor makes running more natural are therefore unsupported by these reviews.
    • Effort readouts may differ. Heart rate and perceived exertion depended on speed, so numbers seen on the treadmill may not map to outdoor effort at every pace.
    • Endurance performance. Times on a treadmill may not match outdoor times, according to the 2019 review.

    Readers comparing machines can pair this with the guides on this site covering motor ratings, deck cushioning and incline systems, which deal with specifications rather than physiology.

    Frequently asked questions

    Is running on a treadmill easier than running outside?

    The reviews do not say so in general. Heart rate and perceived exertion were higher at faster speeds and lower at slower speeds on the treadmill, and endurance performance was poorer.

    Does a 1% incline make it equivalent?

    The physiology review reports similar oxygen uptake at both 0% and 1% grade, with lower lactate on the treadmill in each case. It does not present 1% as a proven correction.

    Do the findings apply to everyone?

    The reviews covered healthy adults aged 18 to 65 or, for one review, 20 to 40, so no conclusions follow for other groups.

    The bottom line

    Systematic reviews find treadmill and overground running and walking largely comparable, with specific differences in footstrike mechanics, stride length, effort at different speeds and endurance performance. The evidence is mostly low certainty and from healthy adults, and it does not test individual treadmill designs. Buyers should treat the treadmill as a good but not identical stand-in for outdoor exercise.

    Sources

  • Eccentric Emphasis and Flywheel Trainers: What the Meta-Analyses Show and How to Read the Claims

    Eccentric training, where the muscle lengthens under load while a weight is lowered, is often marketed as a reason to buy specific equipment, particularly flywheel trainers that promise eccentric overload. Several meta-analyses have examined the underlying claims. This article summarises what they found, at the strength the evidence supports, and turns the results into questions a buyer can ask. It reports general research and is not advice for people with injuries or medical conditions.

    Eccentric against concentric training in healthy adults

    Roig and colleagues (2009) reviewed 20 randomised controlled trials comparing eccentric with concentric resistance training in healthy adults. Their findings were:

    • when eccentric exercise was performed at higher intensities than concentric training, total strength and eccentric strength increased significantly more;
    • strength gains after eccentric training appeared more specific, in terms of velocity and mode of contraction, than gains after concentric training;
    • eccentric training at high intensities was more effective in promoting increases in muscle mass measured as muscle girth, with a trend towards greater muscle cross-sectional area on imaging;
    • the authors relate the advantage to the higher loads developed during eccentric contractions, and note that further research is needed on how far the gains transfer to more complex movements.

    The caution is in the wording: the superiority appeared when eccentric work was done at higher intensity, and the gains were specific. It is a finding about load and specificity, not a claim that any eccentric emphasis beats normal lifting.

    Flywheel training and eccentric overload

    Flywheel devices use the inertia of a spinning wheel instead of a weight stack. Maroto-Izquierdo and colleagues (2017) pooled nine randomised trials, with 276 subjects and 92 effect sizes, of flywheel training with eccentric overload in athletes and healthy subjects. The pooled effect estimate was 0.63 (95% confidence interval 0.49 to 0.76). The authors conclude that the analysis supports flywheel eccentric-overload training as superior to traditional weight-stack exercise for strength, power and size in healthy subjects and athletes.

    Two boundaries apply. The comparison in that review is against traditional weight-stack exercise, not against free weights or against every form of eccentric-emphasis training. And nine trials is a small evidence base, so the finding is best read as supportive rather than settled.

    Does a flywheel device actually deliver eccentric overload?

    A 2021 systematic review and meta-analysis looked at how flywheel training is monitored in real time (28 articles in the review, 17 in the meta-analysis). It reports that an eccentric overload was not always achieved using flywheel devices. It also found that a cylindrical shaft, as against a conical pulley, and a low moment of inertia showed higher possibilities of achieving eccentric overload, and it advises a cylindrical shaft type with low moments of inertia where overload is the aim. For a buyer, that changes the question from “is it a flywheel?” to “does this configuration produce overload for the way it will be used?”, which the manufacturer’s marketing may not answer.

    Older adults

    A 2022 systematic review with meta-analysis compared eccentric with traditional or concentric exercise in adults over 55, pooling 19 papers. Results were mixed:

    • for isometric knee strength the pooled effect favoured eccentric exercise (standardised mean difference 0.50) but was not statistically significant (P = 0.160);
    • eccentric exercise gave greater improvements in the timed up and go test (SMD -0.68), the 2-minute sit-stand test (0.53) and the 30-second sit-stand test (0.81), but not the 6-minute walking test (0.01);
    • the effects on body composition and muscle architecture were described as unclear.

    The authors conclude that eccentric exercise is superior to, or at least as good as, concentric exercise for function in older adults. That is a statement about older adults as a group and should not be extended to other populations or to specific machines.

    Reading the marketing claims

    • “Eccentric overload”: ask what evidence shows the device achieves it in the reviewed configuration, since the monitoring review found it was not always reached.
    • “Superior to weights”: the flywheel meta-analysis compared with weight-stack exercise, so a claim against barbells or dumbbells is not supported by it.
    • “Faster results”: the eccentric review found greater gains at higher intensities and with high specificity, not a general speed advantage.
    • Extending across categories: results for flywheel devices do not automatically apply to cable machines, resistance bands or slow-lowering technique with ordinary weights.

    Practical points for a home setup

    The 2009 review credits the higher loads developed during eccentric contractions for the advantage it found. Higher eccentric loads are a reason to review rack safety arrangements such as pins, safety arms and straps, which are covered elsewhere on this site.

    Frequently asked questions

    Is eccentric training better than normal lifting?

    The 2009 meta-analysis found larger strength and girth gains when eccentric work was done at higher intensities than concentric work, with gains that were more specific. It did not show that it is better in every situation.

    Do flywheel machines beat free weights?

    No head-to-head comparison is reported in the meta-analysis summarised here. Its comparator was traditional weight-stack exercise.

    What did the older-adult review find?

    Greater improvements on several functional tests and no significant advantage on others, with unclear effects on body composition.

    The bottom line

    Meta-analyses support eccentric emphasis at higher intensities and flywheel eccentric-overload training against weight-stack exercise, but the evidence bases are modest and the comparators specific. A separate review shows overload is not guaranteed on every flywheel setup. Buyers should treat claims of superiority over other equipment as unproven and check the design details that affect overload before paying a premium.

    Sources

  • Weekly Sets and Results: What Meta-Analyses Say About Training Volume for Muscle Size and Strength

    Training volume, usually counted as the number of hard sets performed, is the variable most often discussed when a home training plan stops working. Three published meta-analyses have pooled trial data on how the number of sets relates to gains in muscle size and strength. This article summarises what each reports, how they count volume differently, and where their limits lie. It covers general evidence about resistance training and is not advice for anyone with an injury or health condition.

    Why the counting method matters

    The reviews do not use the same unit. Schoenfeld and colleagues (2017) count weekly sets per muscle group. Ralston and colleagues (2017) count weekly sets per exercise, and Krieger (2010) compares single with multiple sets per exercise. A figure such as “10 sets” therefore means different things depending on the paper, and numbers cannot be lifted from one review and applied to another.

    Muscle size: the 2017 dose-response meta-regression

    Schoenfeld, Ogborn and Krieger pooled 34 treatment groups from 15 studies and related weekly sets to changes in muscle size. Their main results were:

    • with weekly sets treated as a continuous variable, volume had a significant effect on muscle size (P = 0.002), and each additional set was associated with a larger effect size of 0.023, which the authors equate to a 0.37% larger percentage gain;
    • when studies were split into lower and higher volume conditions, the difference in effect size was 0.241, equivalent to a 3.9% difference in percentage gain (P = 0.03);
    • when weekly sets were grouped as fewer than 5, 5 to 9 and 10 or more per muscle, the result was only a trend (P = 0.074).

    The authors conclude that the findings indicate a graded dose-response relationship, with greater hypertrophy at higher volumes. The categorical result is worth noting, since it did not reach the usual significance threshold, and these are associations across studies rather than a controlled comparison of one person at different volumes.

    Single sets against multiple sets

    Krieger’s earlier meta-analysis analysed 8 studies (19 treatment groups) on muscle hypertrophy. Multiple sets per exercise were associated with a larger effect size than a single set, with a difference of 0.10. In a dose-response model, 2 to 3 sets and 4 to 6 sets each showed a trend towards a larger effect than 1 set, but there was no significant difference between 2 to 3 sets and 4 to 6 sets (P = 0.29). The paper’s summary is that multiple sets were associated with 40% greater hypertrophy-related effect sizes than one set, in both trained and untrained subjects. Taken together, the 2010 and 2017 hypertrophy analyses both associate more sets with more growth, and neither identifies a clear point beyond which extra sets stop helping.

    Strength: the 2017 weekly-set meta-analysis

    Ralston, Kilgore, Wyatt and Baker examined strength rather than size. They pooled 61 treatment groups from nine studies and classed weekly sets per exercise as low (5 or fewer), medium (5 to 9) or high (10 or more). Their findings were:

    • strength gains were greater with high weekly sets than with low, with a mean effect size difference of 0.18 (95% confidence interval 0.06 to 0.30), the mean effect sizes being 0.82 for low and 1.01 for high;
    • medium sets produced marginally greater gains than low (difference 0.15, confidence interval 0.01 to 0.30, P = 0.04), with heterogeneity between the seven studies in that comparison of 74%;
    • the authors describe a graded dose-response relationship between weekly sets and strength gain, and suggest that for novice and intermediate male trainees low set numbers did not lead to the strength gains seen with medium or high volumes.

    The paper lists its own limitations. The number of suitable studies was small, only one of the nine used a randomised control design, and the analysis was restricted to male populations. The authors also note that some of the strength increases may reflect repeated one-repetition-maximum testing, a learning effect, rather than the extra sets themselves.

    What the evidence supports, and what it does not

    • Supported: on average, trials with more weekly sets show larger gains in both muscle size and strength than trials with very few sets.
    • Uncertain: how the response differs between individuals, how volume interacts with load, frequency or recovery, and whether results in the studies’ participants transfer to any given home trainee.
    • Not established by these papers: an exact optimum. The reviews describe a graded relationship on average.
    • Sex: the strength meta-analysis included men only, so it cannot be applied directly to women.

    Where equipment enters

    These reviews say nothing about products. Equipment matters only in that it determines whether a planned number of sets can actually be performed, for example through enough load range on adjustable dumbbells or a bench and rack that allow the exercises to be trained safely. A related guide on this site covers progressive overload when weights cannot simply be added.

    Frequently asked questions

    Is one set enough?

    Krieger’s meta-analysis found multiple sets were associated with a larger hypertrophy effect than one set, and Ralston’s found low weekly sets produced the smallest strength gains. Neither is a statement about any individual.

    Do more sets always give more muscle?

    The 2017 meta-regression describes a graded relationship on average. The reviews do not identify a ceiling, and the categorical comparison in that paper was not significant.

    Why do the reviews give different set numbers?

    They count differently: the 2017 size review counts sets per muscle group per week, while the strength review counts sets per exercise per week.

    The bottom line

    Meta-analyses of resistance training trials consistently associate more weekly sets with larger gains in muscle size and strength than one set or very few, with the clearest contrasts between very low volumes and higher ones. They count volume differently, contain small numbers of studies and cannot fix an ideal figure, so a plan should be treated as a starting point to adjust and not a formula to copy.

    Sources

  • Lifting Tempo and Repetition Speed: What Two Studies Show About Slow Against Fast Reps

    Lifting tempo, the speed at which each repetition is performed, is often presented as a secret: slow the lowering phase, pause at the bottom, count to three on the way up. What does the research say? This article summarises a 2015 systematic review and meta-analysis by Schoenfeld, Ogborn and Krieger, and a 2021 controlled study by Lacerda and colleagues, and reports each at the strength it supports.

    What “repetition duration” means

    The 2015 review defines repetition duration as the sum total of the concentric (lifting), eccentric (lowering) and isometric (pause) components of a repetition, determined by the tempo at which it is performed. The authors describe it as an often overlooked variable compared with exercise selection, exercise order, rest intervals, load and training volume, and they asked whether changing it can amplify the muscle-growth response to resistance training.

    The 2015 meta-analysis

    Studies were eligible if they were experimental trials in English-language refereed journals that directly compared different training tempos in dynamic exercise using both concentric and eccentric repetitions, measured changes in muscle by biopsy, imaging or densitometry, lasted at least six weeks, trained to muscle failure, and used human participants without chronic disease or injury. Eight studies met those criteria. The results indicate that hypertrophic outcomes are similar when repetition durations range from 0.5 to 8 seconds. The authors conclude that, for maximising muscle growth, a fairly wide range of repetition durations can be used. They add that training at volitionally very slow durations, over 10 seconds per repetition, appears inferior from a hypertrophy standpoint, but that a lack of controlled studies makes it difficult to draw definitive conclusions.

    A 2021 controlled study

    Lacerda and colleagues, writing in PeerJ, compared two 14-week protocols in ten untrained men. Each participant’s legs were assigned to different protocols using unilateral knee extension, one with 2-second repetitions and one with 6-second repetitions. Both used 3 to 4 sets at 50 to 60 per cent of one-repetition maximum, with 3 minutes of rest, and were performed to muscle failure. The researchers measured muscle cross-sectional area, isometric strength at two knee angles, and one-repetition maximum. They found that:

    • gains in one-repetition maximum and in the cross-sectional area of the rectus femoris and vastus lateralis were not significantly different between the two protocols;
    • the 6-second protocol produced larger gains in isometric strength at a knee angle of 30 degrees;
    • gains in isometric strength at 90 degrees did not differ significantly.

    The authors conclude that longer repetition duration could suit those seeking greater isometric strength gains in shortened knee positions, but that similar dynamic strength and muscle growth would be obtained from either.

    Why both tempos can work

    The 2021 authors offer an explanation, framed as a possibility rather than a proven mechanism. The 6-second protocol had an average time under tension about 25 per cent longer than the 2-second protocol (43 seconds against 30 seconds), while the 2-second protocol involved twice the number of repetitions per set (14 against 7) and showed higher muscle electrical activity. They suggest that the higher volume and activation of the faster protocol may have counterbalanced the longer time under tension of the slower one.

    How strong is this evidence?

    • The 2015 review included eight studies, and its authors stress a lack of controlled studies at very slow durations.
    • The 2021 study involved ten untrained men and one exercise, the knee extension, so it cannot be generalised to women, trained lifters or other exercises.
    • The meta-analysis included only trials in which sets were taken to muscle failure, defined as the inability to complete another concentric repetition with proper form, so its conclusions apply to sets performed that way rather than to sets stopped well short of failure.
    • Both sources concern muscle growth and strength measures in healthy adults training to failure; neither examines injury risk, cardio machines or specific equipment products.

    Practical points when comparing equipment

    Neither source studied tempo-counting consoles, apps or attachments, so the research cannot show that such features improve results. Because the reviewed range of 0.5 to 8 seconds produced similar hypertrophic outcomes, the evidence gives no reason to treat a tempo counter as essential for muscle growth. A buyer who wants to vary repetition speed can simply check, on a demonstration, that a machine or cable stack moves smoothly at both faster and slower speeds.

    Frequently asked questions

    Is slower always better?

    No. The meta-analysis found similar hypertrophy across 0.5 to 8 seconds per repetition, and very slow repetitions over 10 seconds appeared inferior, with caveats.

    Does tempo change strength gains?

    In the 2021 study, dynamic strength gains were similar between 2-second and 6-second protocols, while isometric strength at 30 degrees improved more with the slower protocol.

    The bottom line

    Current evidence from a meta-analysis of eight studies suggests that a wide range of repetition durations, from 0.5 to 8 seconds, produces similar muscle growth when training to failure, and a small 2021 trial found similar strength and size gains at 2 and 6 seconds. Neither source tested tempo-counting features, and the conclusions come with clear limits on sample size and population.

    Sources

  • Range of Motion in Strength Training: What the Evidence Says About Full Against Partial Reps

    “Full range of motion” is one of the most repeated instructions in strength training, and one of the least examined. It matters for equipment as well as technique, because racks, machines and cable stacks all set limits on how far a joint can travel. A 2020 systematic review by Schoenfeld and Grgic, published in SAGE Open Medicine, looked directly at the question of whether full or partial range of motion (ROM) produces greater muscle growth. This article summarises what that review found, at the strength the evidence supports.

    What the review examined

    The authors set out to review studies comparing exercise performed through a full range of motion against a partial range in dynamic, longitudinal resistance training programmes, with muscle hypertrophy (growth in muscle size) as the outcome. Six studies met the criteria: four involved the lower limbs and two the upper limbs. The combined sample was 135 participants, of whom 127 were men and 8 were women, and the methodological quality of all six studies was rated “excellent” on the modified PEDro scale. The review’s introduction adds that a majority of research shows strength gains to be specific to the joint angle trained, which is a separate question from muscle size.

    Lower body: full range looked favourable

    The authors concluded that training through a full range of motion appears to confer beneficial effects on hypertrophy of the lower body musculature compared with a partial range. Three of the four lower-body studies favoured full range. Of the studies using free-weight exercises, two reported that full-range training may produce greater growth in the quadriceps. However, two studies that measured muscle volume with MRI found similar quadriceps results between conditions, and gluteal and adductor growth was greater with full range in a single study, so the authors urge caution about drawing inferences from that finding.

    A possible threshold

    The authors interpret the data as implying that the benefit applies up to a certain range-of-motion threshold, beyond which the advantage attenuates. They point out that in the study finding no difference for the quadriceps with free weights, the “partial” condition (0 to 90 degrees of knee flexion) was already large compared with the partial conditions in other studies. This is a hypothesis from the authors’ interpretation, not a demonstrated fact.

    Upper body: no clear answer

    For the upper limbs, the picture was mixed. One study found that partial range produced greater growth in the elbow extensors, while another found modest advantages for full range in the biceps that did not reach the conventional significance threshold. The authors describe the evidence as limited and conflicting, which precludes strong practical inferences, and state that no compelling rationale can be made for a given range in the upper-body muscles. No study to date had examined trunk muscles.

    Machines and accommodating resistance

    One study in the review used isokinetic leg extension, a form of accommodating resistance in which resistance is maximal throughout the range. Muscle volume changes were similar between full and partial range, and the authors suggest range may matter less with this kind of resistance, provided effort is also maximal. The finding comes from a single study of 11 untrained men, so it cannot be generalised to selectorised machines or cable stacks.

    Limits of the evidence

    • About 94 per cent of participants across the studies were young men, so results may not generalise to youth, women or older people.
    • Only one study included participants with previous resistance training experience.
    • The review compared larger ranges against shorter ones; it did not test combining both, though the authors note it is conceivable that combining variations could have synergistic effects, and label this a research gap.

    What this means when comparing equipment

    The review concerns how exercises are performed, not any particular product, and it says nothing about which brand of rack or machine is better. It does give buyers one practical question to ask of any specification: how far can the joint travel in the exercises intended? Where a listing gives seat, pad and lever adjustment ranges, or the height range of a rack’s pins and safety arms, those figures indicate whether a user of a given height and limb length can train through a large range. Equipment that forces a shortened range on some users would have that effect for reasons of design rather than by choice.

    Frequently asked questions

    Does full range always build more muscle?

    Not according to the review. Lower-body evidence leaned towards full range, while upper-body evidence was mixed, and the authors saw benefits attenuating beyond a threshold.

    Is partial range wrong?

    The review does not say so. It notes that some upper-body results favoured partial range and that combining range variations remains unstudied.

    The bottom line

    A 2020 systematic review of six high-quality studies found that training the lower body through a full range of motion appeared to support muscle growth better than a partial range, while upper-body findings were limited and conflicting. The sample was largely young men, few had training experience and the number of studies was small, so the conclusions are provisional. For buyers, the useful takeaway is to check the adjustment ranges that determine how much movement a piece of equipment allows.

    Sources

  • Buying Fitness Equipment for a Business: How UK Capital Allowances Treat Gym Kit

    Anyone buying treadmills, racks, dumbbells or bikes for a gym, studio or personal training business faces a question that has little to do with specification sheets: how the purchase is treated for tax. HMRC’s capital allowances let businesses deduct some or all of the cost of qualifying equipment from profits. This article summarises the GOV.UK guidance on capital allowances for plant and machinery as it stands in September 2026. It describes the guidance for UK businesses in general terms and is not tax advice; the rules turn on the type of business and the item, and an accountant or HMRC can confirm how they apply.

    What capital allowances are

    GOV.UK describes capital allowances as a type of tax relief for businesses that lets you deduct some or all of the value of an item from your profits before you pay tax. It says you can claim on equipment, machinery and business vehicles, known collectively as “plant and machinery”. Whether a specific piece of fitness equipment counts depends on HMRC’s definition of plant and machinery, so a business should check rather than assume. In most cases, the value used is what was paid for the item. Where the business owned the item before using it, or received it as a gift, the market value is used instead.

    A first check: the cash basis

    GOV.UK states that a sole trader or partnership using the cash basis can only claim capital allowances on business cars. Someone who runs a personal training business as a sole trader on the cash basis therefore should not expect to claim allowances on a rack or treadmill through this route, and should check how equipment purchases are treated under the cash basis instead. Limited companies, and sole traders or partnerships not using the cash basis, can claim on equipment.

    The main allowances compared

    • Annual investment allowance (AIA): GOV.UK says you can claim up to £1 million on certain plant and machinery, and the AIA amount has been £1 million from 1 January 2019 for sole traders, partnerships and limited companies. It lets you deduct the full value of a qualifying item from profits before tax. It applies to most plant and machinery up to the AIA amount, but not to business cars, items owned for another reason before being used in the business, or gifts.
    • Full expensing and 50% first-year allowance: only companies can claim these. The equipment must have been bought from 1 April 2023, must be new and unused, and must not be a car. Full expensing deducts 100% of the cost in the year of purchase; the 50% first-year allowance deducts 50%. A business cannot claim both against the same expenditure.
    • 40% first-year allowance: GOV.UK lists this for qualifying plant and machinery purchased after 1 January 2026.
    • Writing down allowances: these apply if plant and machinery does not qualify for another allowance, or if value remains after claiming the maximum amount of another one.

    Where an item qualifies for more than one allowance, GOV.UK says you can choose which to use.

    Second-hand and mixed-use equipment

    The new-and-unused condition for full expensing means used equipment is outside that allowance. The AIA guidance excludes only items already owned for another reason, gifts, and cars, which suggests that second-hand equipment bought from a third party is not excluded, though a business should confirm this for its own situation. For sole traders and partnerships, GOV.UK says items also used outside the business cannot be claimed in full: the allowance is reduced by the proportion of outside use, so an item used half the time outside the business is reduced by 50%.

    When and how a purchase counts

    Allowances such as AIA and the first-year allowances must be claimed in the accounting period in which the item was bought. GOV.UK sets the purchase date as the date the contract was signed, if payment is due in less than four months, or the date payment is due, if it is due more than four months later. Under a hire purchase contract, the date is when you start using the item, and you can claim for all payments you will make under the contract, though not for the interest. Claims are made on a Self Assessment return for sole traders, a partnership tax return, or a Company Tax Return, which must include a separate capital allowances calculation.

    What is not equipment

    GOV.UK separates capital allowances from other costs. Day-to-day running costs, items a business trades in and interest or finance costs are claimed differently: as business expenses for sole traders and partnerships, or deducted as a business cost for limited companies. In fitness terms, a bike bought to use in classes is equipment, while a bike bought to resell is stock. Servicing and consumables such as lubricant are running costs.

    If the full cost is not claimed

    A business that does not want to claim the full cost, for example because profits are low, can claim part as AIA and part through writing down allowances, or use writing down allowances instead. GOV.UK says that if a business spends more than the AIA amount, it can claim first-year allowances or writing down allowances on the excess.

    Frequently asked questions

    Can a limited company claim full expensing on a treadmill?

    According to GOV.UK, a company can claim full expensing on qualifying plant and machinery bought from 1 April 2023 that is new and unused and not a car. Whether a particular treadmill qualifies is for the company and its adviser to confirm.

    Does buying on finance change the claim?

    Under hire purchase, GOV.UK says you can claim for all payments you will make under the contract from when you start using the item, but not for the interest.

    The bottom line

    For a fitness business, the key GOV.UK points are that the AIA is £1 million, full expensing is limited to companies buying new and unused equipment, cash-basis sole traders and partnerships can only claim on cars, mixed private use reduces claims, and the timing of purchase decides the accounting period. Because eligibility depends on the item and the business structure, checking with an accountant or HMRC before buying is sensible.

    Sources

Shopping regionLocal retailers, prices and availability