More Isn’t Always Better: What 2026 Research Tells Us About Getting Stronger

Resistance training works. Let's get that out of the way first.

This isn't an article arguing against training hard.

Quite the opposite.

In 2026, the American College of Sports Medicine published an updated position stand on resistance training, replacing guidance that dated back to 2009.

This wasn't based on one small experiment involving twelve blokes doing leg extensions in a university basement.

The researchers synthesised evidence from 137 systematic reviews covering more than 30,000 participants.

Their conclusion was pretty emphatic: resistance training improves strength, muscle size, power, muscular endurance and several measures of physical function.

So yes.

Lifting works.

The more interesting question is:

How much lifting do you actually need?

More training does produce more results... until the return starts shrinking

This is where things get interesting.

A separate 2026 systematic review and meta-analysis published in Sports Medicine examined 157 studies looking at resistance-training volume, intensity and overall training dose.

The researchers found a nonlinear dose-response relationship between training and strength.

In normal gym language?

Doing more can improve strength.

But every extra chunk of work doesn't necessarily give you the same extra chunk of progress.

Eventually, the return gets smaller.

And in the researchers' modelling, strength improvements ultimately reached a plateau beyond a sufficiently high overall training dose.

That distinction matters.

Think about your first productive sets of an exercise.

You're fresh. Technique is strong. Force output is high. You're actually training the thing you're trying to improve.

Now fast-forward through a load of additional sets.

Fatigue rises.

Performance drops.

Technique may deteriorate.

Recovery demand increases.

At some point, adding another set can cost more than the extra training stimulus is worth.

That point won't be identical for everyone — and the study shouldn't be interpreted as providing some magical universal volume ceiling. The researchers themselves noted that their findings largely reflected strength changes in primarily untrained participants, meaning we should be cautious about applying a specific threshold to experienced lifters.

But the bigger principle is useful:

Training has a dose. More dose can help. The benefit of adding more dose eventually diminishes.

So how much should you actually do?

Here's where the updated ACSM evidence becomes particularly useful.

For improving strength, the 2026 position stand found better outcomes associated with factors including:

• resistance training at least twice per week;
• heavier loads, particularly around 80% or more of one-repetition maximum when maximal strength is the goal;
• around two to three sets;
• using a complete range of motion;
• and placing priority strength exercises earlier in the session.

That doesn't mean everyone now needs to march into the gym and perform exactly three sets at 82.7% of their one-rep max.

Please don't.

Training isn't a recipe where being 5g short ruins the cake.

What the evidence gives coaches and lifters is a framework.

You need enough resistance.

Enough productive volume.

Enough frequency to practise and stimulate adaptation.

And then you need to progressively challenge the body over time.

The NHS recommendation for general health is broader: adults should perform activities that strengthen all the major muscle groups on at least two days each week, alongside aerobic activity recommendations.

The NHS also advises building up gradually rather than jumping straight into large amounts of work.

Which brings us to one of the biggest mistakes in strength training.

Stop measuring a workout by how destroyed you feel afterwards

Soreness isn't a score.

Sweat isn't a score.

Being unable to straighten your arms for three days isn't a score either.

The goal of a strength programme is to create an adaptation.

That means the useful questions come afterwards.

Are your lifts progressing?

Are you completing more reps with the same weight?

Has your technique improved?

Are previously challenging loads becoming more manageable?

Are you recovering well enough to perform again?

Those tell us far more than whether your workout felt savage.

Interestingly, the ACSM review also found that several techniques people often obsess over did not consistently improve outcomes, including training to momentary muscular fatigue, equipment type, exercise complexity, set structure, time under tension and periodisation.

That doesn't mean those things are useless.

It means they're tools.

Not commandments.

Strength training doesn't need to be complicated to work

There's something reassuring buried in all this research.

You don't need the world's most complicated programme.

You don't need to change exercises every ten minutes because your muscles have apparently become bored.

You don't need twelve variations of a lateral raise.

And you don't necessarily need to crawl out of every session questioning your life decisions.

The ACSM review found that many different forms of resistance training improved strength, including conventional resistance training, circuit-based approaches, elastic-band training and home-based resistance training.

The important part is applying resistance consistently and progressively.

That's also why tracking matters.

Without some record of what you've done, it becomes surprisingly easy to replace progression with effort.

You remember that last week's bench press felt difficult.

You vaguely remember doing eight reps.

Or was it nine?

Was that 75kg or 77.5kg?

Did you do three sets or four?

Guessing makes progressive training considerably harder than it needs to be.

Progress beats punishment

Here's the part worth remembering next time you're tempted to add another four exercises because today's workout didn't feel brutal enough.

Your programme exists to make you better, not simply tired.

Sometimes progressing means more weight.

Sometimes it's another rep.

Sometimes it's better technique.

Sometimes it's an additional productive set.

Sometimes it's simply repeating a strong session and allowing enough recovery before pushing again.

And yes, sometimes more training volume is exactly what you need.

For muscle growth in particular, the ACSM review found that higher training volume was associated with greater hypertrophy, with volumes of around 10 or more sets per week highlighted as enhancing muscle growth. Even there, though, the review discussed diminishing returns as volume became increasingly high.

The answer isn't therefore:

Less is always better.

That's just replacing one oversimplification with another.

The better answer is:

Do enough. Do it well. Track the outcome. Then earn the right to add more.

What should you take into your next workout?

If you're training for strength, start by making your existing programme productive before making it bigger.

Prioritise the lifts that matter most to your goal while you're fresh.

Use appropriate resistance.

Train consistently.

Record what you actually did.

Give your body the opportunity to recover.

Then look for progression over weeks and months rather than judging success by how battered you feel on the drive home.

If your numbers are moving and you're recovering well, the programme is doing its job.

If progress has stopped, then look at what needs changing — volume, intensity, frequency, exercise selection, recovery or something else.

Don't automatically assume the answer is another hour in the gym.

Because perhaps the clearest lesson from the latest evidence is also one of the simplest:

Hard work matters. Smart hard work matters more.