The 2026 ACSM Exercise Guidelines

The American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM) published a new set of resistance training guidelines for 2026. For a long time exercise guidelines have been presented like they were handed down from a mountain on two stone tablets:

3 sets.

8 to 12 reps.

Train to failure....no pain, no gain!

Periodize or perish.

Meanwhile, in the real world, plenty of people got stronger, built muscle, moved better, and generally became harder to kill doing programs that looked nothing like that. In 30 years working with hundreds of folks, I'm happy to say that there are many ways to to get fitter, stronger and look better. The above resistance training guidelines are helpful but certainly not set in stone. If it was up to me to write the tablets, the first thing I'd put on it is "Consistency" and second would be "Effort"....and make it clear that there are many ways to improve strength and increase lean muscle mass.

The new American College of Sports Medicine Position Stand on resistance training has arrived, and to its credit, it is a lot less dogmatic than older guidance. This paper reviewed 137 systematic reviews involving more than 30,000 participants and updated ACSM’s 2009 position stand. Its big message is refreshingly simple:

Resistance training works very well, and most of the tiny programming details matter less than people think.

The funny part is that some corners of the fitness world have spent years acting as if missing the perfect rep tempo or not periodizing your cable curls properly was basically exercise negligence. According to this new statement, a lot of those sacred cows deserve to be gently escorted off the premises.

Drop sets vs straight sets: no difference.

Training to failure: no difference.

Free weights vs machines: no difference.

The biggest takeaway: stop majoring in minors

The paper found that compared with doing nothing, resistance training improves strength, muscle size, power, endurance, contraction velocity, gait speed, balance, and physical function. Duh, of course. Lifting weights is good for you in almost every way people care about, which is not exactly shocking, but it is nice to have a giant evidence synthesis say it plainly.

More importantly, the authors concluded that only a few training variables consistently changed the main outcomes in meaningful ways.

This is important because the online fitness industry tends to exaggerate, acting as if every factor is crucial for survival. In reality, it isn't. Sure, some factors might help enhance performance by 2-3%. And that is not nothing, especially if you are a competition athlete.

Your body does not care that your split is called “upper lower conjugate undulating hypertrophy fusion.” Your body cares whether you challenge it consistently over time. The new ACSM statement leans heavily in that direction.

What seems to matter for strength

If your goal is getting stronger, the paper found that strength tends to improve more when people use:

Heavier loads (about 80% of 1RM or higher)

A full range of motion

2 to 3 sets

At least 2 sessions per week

Doing the priority lifts earlier in the session

None of this is wild. It is basically the research equivalent of saying, “Yes, if you want to get better at producing force, it helps to actually practice producing force.”

This is one reason I have always found the endless argument over whether you can build strength with light weights kind of exhausting. Can you improve with lighter loads? Sure, sometimes. But if strength is the main target, heavier loading still seems to give you an edge. Not because the barbell gods demand suffering, but because specificity remains stubbornly real.

What seems to matter for hypertrophy

For muscle growth, the paper highlights two factors that stood out more clearly:

1. Higher volume, specifically around 10 or more sets per body part per week

2. Eccentric overload may provide an added benefit

That first point is the big one. Not magical rep ranges. Not secret muscle confusion. Not some influencer whispering “mechanical tension” into a ring light as though they invented it.

More work tends to grow more muscle, up to a point.

That does not mean everyone needs bodybuilder level volume. It means if hypertrophy is the goal, doing too little is probably a bigger problem than choosing the wrong rep cadence. And yes, that is less sexy than arguing about whether 8 reps is morally superior to 12, but reality has always been rude like that.

What seems to matter for power and athletic performance

The paper also gives useful guidance for power development. Power improved more with:

Moderate loads, about 30 to 70 percent of 1RM

Low to moderate total volume

Olympic style weightlifting

Power focused resistance training -meaning fast concentric execution.

Again, this makes sense. Power is not just strength. It is force expressed quickly. If you train like every rep is a slow grind through mud, do not be shocked when your power output is less than thrilling.

This is also a helpful reminder that “lifting weights” is not one thing. Different outcomes respond best to somewhat different emphases. Strength, size, and power overlap, but they are not identical. Good programming respects that.

The really interesting part: a lot of the stuff people obsess over did not consistently matter

This is where the paper gets fun:

The authors report that training to momentary muscular failure, equipment type, exercise complexity, set structure, time under tension, blood flow restriction, and periodization did NOT consistently impact outcomes.

Read that again and imagine the amount of online content vaporized by those two sentences.

This does not mean those things never matter in any context. It means the evidence did not show they consistently changed the main outcomes across the big picture. That is a very different claim, and an important one.

So no, you probably do not need to perform every set like a hostage negotiation with your soul.

No, machines are not fake lifting.

No, free weights are not blessed by ancient priests.

No, tempo is not worthless, but it is also not the philosopher’s stone.

And no, failing to use formal periodization does not mean your gains will pack a suitcase and leave town.

The part I like most: the paper becomes more human than older guidelines

One of the strongest sections of the position stand is where the authors basically say that individualizing programs to improve participation is more important than forcing everyone into rigid criteria. They even note that minimal doses of resistance training can still produce substantial gains. That is a big deal.

Because for the average adult, the best program is not the one that wins a theoretical debate on the internet. It is the one they will actually do, recover from, and repeat next week.

This is what evidence based coaching should look like. Not worshipping studies as if they descended from heaven untouched by context, but using them to build better decisions for real human beings with jobs, knees, stress, kids, travel, and varying tolerance for Bulgarian split squats.

A program that is 95 percent “optimal” and gets done for a year beats a 100 percent “optimal” program that gets abandoned in nine days because it reads like punishment.

Also important: lifting appears to be very safe

The position stand also pushes back on the old fear that resistance training is somehow inherently risky, especially for older adults. It cites evidence that exercise did not increase the risk of serious adverse events in analyses involving more than 38,000 participants, including over 6,700 resistance training participants and more than 11,000 older adults. It also notes that nonfatal cardiovascular complications occurred less often during resistance training than during aerobic training in the evidence they reviewed.

That does not mean injuries never happen. Of course they do. People can get hurt doing literally anything, including sleeping weird and then blaming their pillow, mattress, age, Mercury in retrograde, or deadlifts.

But the broader point matters: lifting is not some fringe meathead activity for reckless lunatics. It is a safe, effective, broadly beneficial form of exercise for healthy adults (and kids) across the lifespan.

So what should regular people actually do?

If I had to boil this position stand down into plain English, it would be this:

Lift consistently.

Work hard.

Train all the major muscle groups.

Do it at least 2x/week.

Use enough volume if growth is the goal.

Use heavier loads if maximal strength is the goal.

Move weights fast sometimes if power matters.

Stop pretending every small programming variable is sacred.

That is not lazy coaching. It is what the evidence now seems to support.

And honestly, that should be freeing.

• You do not need the perfect split.

• You do not need a color coded spreadsheet made by a man whose traps have their own zip code.

• You do not need to hit failure on every set until you can see through time.

• You do not need to fear machines.

• You do not need to periodize your warm up band pull aparts like you are preparing for the Olympics.

  
  

You need a solid plan, progressive effort, and enough consistency to let the process work.

Final thought

The new ACSM position stand is useful not because it discovered that lifting works. We already knew that.

It is useful because it reinforces something that coaches probably should have been saying more clearly all along: resistance training is robust. There are many ways to do it well. A few variables matter more than others. And for most people, showing up and training hard enough is still the main event.

Which is a nice change from the usual fitness messaging, where every week some new prophet appears to tell us that unless we hold the eccentric for exactly 4.7 seconds while breathing into our pelvic floor and aligning our chakras, our quads will never fully actualize.

Thankfully, your muscles do not read Instagram.

Want more evidence-based fitness content? Follow along as we separate science from marketing in the world of health and fitness at Joachim’s Training.