Fitness equipment guides

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

Performance and effort: the 2026 meta-analysis

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

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

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

How exercise feels: the 2025 meta-analysis

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

What the two reviews cannot show

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

Practical reading for a home cardio setup

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

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

Frequently asked questions

Does music make cardio workouts more effective?

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

Does the type of music matter?

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

The bottom line

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

Sources

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

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

Stretching before a workout: the 2016 review

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What this means for equipment and routine

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

Frequently asked questions

Does static stretching make you weaker?

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

Is stretching better than lifting for flexibility?

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

The bottom line

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

Sources

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

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

Study one: grip width on the lat pulldown

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

Study two: width against forearm orientation

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

Study three: four pull-up variations

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

Study four: pull-up grip width and performance

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

Reading the four studies at their actual strength

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

What the studies mean for kit

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

Frequently asked questions

Does a wider grip build a wider back?

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

Which grip activated the latissimus most?

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

The bottom line

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

Sources

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

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

• Contreras et al., “A Comparison of Gluteus Maximus, Biceps Femoris, and Vastus Lateralis Electromyographic Activity in the Back Squat and Barbell Hip Thrust Exercises”, Journal of Applied Biomechanics (2015)
• Neto et al., “Gluteus Maximus Activation during Common Strength and Hypertrophy Exercises: A Systematic Review”, Journal of Sports Science and Medicine (2020)
• Plotkin et al., “Hip thrust and back squat training elicit similar gluteus muscle hypertrophy and transfer similarly to the deadlift”, Frontiers in Physiology (2023)

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

• Grgic, Mikulic and Mikulic, “Acute and Long-Term Effects of Attentional Focus Strategies on Muscular Strength: A Meta-Analysis”, Sports (2021)
• Grgic and Mikulic, “Effects of Attentional Focus on Muscular Endurance: A Meta-Analysis”, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health (2021)
• Neumann, “A Systematic Review of Attentional Focus Strategies in Weightlifting”, Frontiers in Sports and Active Living (2019)
• Schoenfeld et al., “Differential effects of attentional focus strategies during long-term resistance training”, European Journal of Sport Science (2018)

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

• Jukic et al., “Ergogenic effects of lifting straps on movement velocity, grip strength, perceived exertion and grip security during the deadlift exercise”, Physiology & Behavior (2021)
• Trahey et al., “The Effect of Lifting Straps on Deadlift Performance in Females”, Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research (2023)
• Fong et al., “The influence of weightlifting belts and wrist straps on deadlift kinematics, time to complete a deadlift and rating of perceived exertion in male recreational weightlifters: An observational study”, Medicine (2022)
• Martins et al., “Are Lifting Straps a Game Changer for Resistance Training or an Overrated Tool? An Exploratory Review of Current Evidence and Future Research Directions”, International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance (2026)

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

• Zhang et al., “Superset Versus Traditional Resistance Training Prescriptions: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Exploring Acute and Chronic Effects on Mechanical, Metabolic, and Perceptual Variables”, Sports Medicine (2025)
• Sødal et al., “Effects of Drop Sets on Skeletal Muscle Hypertrophy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis”, Sports Medicine – Open (2023)

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

• Kemmler et al., “Efficacy of Whole-Body Electromyostimulation (WB-EMS) on Body Composition and Muscle Strength in Non-athletic Adults. A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis”, Frontiers in Physiology (2021)
• Rodrigues-Santana et al., “The effects of whole-body muscle stimulation on body composition and strength parameters: A PRISMA systematic review and meta-analysis”, Medicine (2023)

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

• Soria-Gila et al., “Effects of Variable Resistance Training on Maximal Strength: A Meta-Analysis”, Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research (2015)
• Andersen et al., “Comparing the effects of variable and traditional resistance training on maximal strength and muscle power in healthy adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis”, Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport (2022)
• Lopes et al., “Effects of training with elastic resistance versus conventional resistance on muscular strength: A systematic review and meta-analysis”, SAGE Open Medicine (2019)
• Li et al., “Comparison of Variable Resistance and Free Weight Training on Long-Term and Acute Effects on Different Assessments of Strength: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis”, Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research (2026)

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

• Swinton et al., “A biomechanical analysis of straight and hexagonal barbell deadlifts using submaximal loads”, Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research (2011)
• Lockie et al., “The 1 Repetition Maximum Mechanics of a High-Handle Hexagonal Bar Deadlift Compared With a Conventional Deadlift as Measured by a Linear Position Transducer”, Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research (2018)
• Gundersen et al., “A Biomechanical Comparison Between Conventional, Sumo, and Hex-Bar Deadlifts Among Resistance Trained Women”, Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research (2025)
• Hagerupsen et al., “Comparison of resistance training using barbell half squats and trap bar deadlifts on maximal strength, power performance, and lean mass in recreationally active females: an eight-week randomised trial”, BMC Sports Science, Medicine and Rehabilitation (2024)