Access the video collection for the 2018 Hammer Strength West Regional Clinic.

Join the 2026 NSCA Training for the Endurance Athlete Summit in Tempe, AZ, on March 28. Explore endurance training performance, learn hands-on, + earn 0.8 CEUs.

Mike Israetel discusses where strength training overlaps with hypertrophy training, and how you can get the best of both training methods.

Dr. Tim Suchomel gives the annual Dr. Mike Stone Lecture at the 2021 National Conference and discusses muscular strength in detail, including its effect on performance variables, effective training progressions, and strategies for athletes through the whole training spectrum.

Resistance training (RT) is a nonpharmacological complement to cancer treatments due to its effectiveness in attenuating sarcopenia, cardiotoxicity, fatigue, and emotional disorders common in oncology patients. To adequately program and evaluate the acute or long-term effects of this type of training, a proper evaluation of the patients’ strength levels is necessary. Strength evaluations traditionally applied to this population required reaching muscle or technical failure, which could increase their discomfort levels, risk of injury, or other complications associated with the disease. In this regard, this manuscript described different dynamic and isometric evaluations recommended to accurately and safely evaluate the strength of the oncology population. Concerning dynamic evaluations, the velocity based method is recommended to determine the capacity of the patient to apply force against maximal (i.e., 1 repetition maximum) and submaximal loads. The sit-to-stand or vertical jump tests are also proposed as alternatives to evaluate dynamic strength using body weight. For isometric assessments, the knee extension and handgrip tests could complement dynamic evaluations or replace them for patients with very low strength levels. Besides describing in depth the aforementioned evaluations, the current review proposes important methodological aspects to ensure their accurate, reliable, and safe implementation.

The primary aim of this study was to systematically compare the effectiveness of blood flow restriction training (BFR) versus traditional resistance training (TRT) to improve muscle size in healthy adults. Secondary outcomes were improvements in muscle strength and endurance. We performed a systematic searchwithmeta-analysis. Using predetermined criteria, 541 unique articles were identified through databases and bibliographies. After screening titles, abstracts, and full texts, 20 articles were included in the review. All 20 articles evaluated muscle hypertrophy, 19 evaluated strength, and 1 evaluated endurance in response to BFR and TRT. Data from 10 articles were included in the meta-analysis. In the qualitative analysis, TRT and BFR increased muscle size without differences between conditions for at least 1 hypertrophy outcome in 13 studies, and TRT or BFR differentially improved hypertrophy in 5 studies. TRT and BFR increased strength without differences between conditions for at least 1 outcome in 15 studies, and TRT or BFR differentially improved strength in 9 studies. Results from the meta-analysis indicate no differences in muscle size (ES 5 0.045, 95% CI [20.278 to 0.367]) or strength (ES520.149, 95% CI [20.439 to 0.141]) improvements with BFR versus TRT. Practitioners can implement BFR training to increase muscle size and strength as appropriate, especially for training periods of 8 weeks or longer.