ACSM's 2026 Resistance Training Guidelines, Explained for Lifters

Published October 7, 2026

Collage of a woman doing a controlled barbell back squat in a squat rack, with the headline "2026 Lifting Guidelines"

ACSM's 2026 position stand says healthy adults should train every major muscle group with high effort at least twice a week, and that most of the other variables lifters argue about matter far less than showing up. For strength, the evidence favors loads of 80% of your one-rep max or more, a full range of motion and 2–3 sets of an exercise per session. For muscle size, it favors at least 10 sets per muscle group per week. Training to failure, machines versus free weights and elaborate periodization did not consistently change results.

This article is general education, not medical advice. The position stand covers healthy adults aged 18 and over. If you have a medical condition, are pregnant, are recovering from an injury or surgery, or are unsure whether heavy lifting suits you, check with a doctor or another qualified professional before you start.

What the position stand actually is

The paper is the American College of Sports Medicine Position Stand "Resistance Training Prescription for Muscle Function, Hypertrophy, and Physical Performance in Healthy Adults: An Overview of Reviews." Brad Currier, Stuart Phillips and 11 colleagues wrote it, and it ran in the April 2026 issue of Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise. It updates the 2009 stand on progression models, and ACSM calls it the first major update in 17 years.

It is an overview of reviews, sometimes called an umbrella review. The authors searched six databases through October 2024 and synthesized 137 systematic reviews covering more than 30,000 participants. Each review had to synthesize randomized trials of healthy adults who trained for at least 6 weeks and compared the result with no exercise or a different program. The protocol was registered in advance.

That design has consequences:

The authors looked at one variable at a time (load, weekly sets, frequency). The paper can show whether a variable changed outcomes, but it cannot rank complete programs.
Much of the evidence comes from people new to lifting, though the authors say their earlier work found training experience had little effect on strength and size results.
"Healthy adults" excludes anyone with a defined disease, and the authors list obesity, sarcopenia and frailty among those exclusions.

The headline: high effort, twice a week, every major muscle group

The primary recommendation is short: perform resistance training with high effort at least twice weekly, involving all major muscle groups. The authors add that you can reach high effort with different loads and set counts. Phillips summed up the public message this way: "The best resistance training program is the one you'll actually stick with."

The stand also changes tone. The authors summarize earlier ACSM guidance, including the 2009 stand, as 2–3 sessions a week, 8–10 exercises per session, 1–4 sets per exercise, 8–20 reps, 2–3 minutes of rest and loads of 40–70% of 1RM. The new authors argue that individualizing a program so people actually train matters more than matching a fixed recipe. They cite self-reported estimates that only about 30% of American adults do muscle-strengthening work on two or more days a week, and nearly 60% do none.

Compared with no exercise, the reviews found that resistance training improved strength, muscle size, power, endurance, balance, gait speed and chair-stand performance. Everything below is fine print on top of that finding.

The numbers, by goal

The paper's summary table lists the variables that beat standard training for each outcome. Treat them as levers, not a mandatory recipe.

Strength

Frequency: at least 2 sessions per week. The authors could not identify an upper limit, and the benefit shrinks when total volume is matched between groups.
Load: 80% of 1RM or higher, with heavier loads tending to do better.
Technique: full range of motion.
Volume: 2–3 sets of an exercise per session.
Order: do the lift early in the session rather than at the end.

Muscle size

Volume: at least 10 sets per muscle group per week, with more sets generally producing more growth.
Eccentric emphasis: eccentric-only training beat concentric-only training, and the abstract credits eccentric overload. The paper does not turn this into an everyday prescription, but controlling the lowering phase instead of dropping the weight is a sensible way to include eccentric work.

Several things that gym culture treats as essential did not separate programs for size. Loads from 30% to 100% of 1RM produced similar growth, training one day a week matched training more than five days when total volume was equal, and rep speeds from half a second to eight seconds performed alike. Heavy loads help strength more than size, and our post on light versus heavy weights covers the same point from the muscle-growth side.

The 10-set figure is a floor. The authors cite a meta-regression showing diminishing returns beyond roughly 18–20 weekly sets for growth and about 2–3 sets per exercise for strength, and they say the optimal number cannot be pinned down, only that two sets beat one and one beats none. For more, see how many sets you need for muscle growth.

Power

Load: moderate, 30–70% of 1RM.
Intent: move the lifting phase as fast as you can.
Volume: low to moderate. The paper's shorthand is repetitions times sets of 24 or fewer, which I read as total reps, so 3 sets of 6 fast reps qualifies either way.
Exercise choice: Olympic-style lifts also helped, and power-style training improved physical function.

What did not consistently matter

The abstract names training to momentary muscle fatigue, equipment type, exercise complexity, set structure, time under tension, blood flow restriction and periodization as variables that did not consistently affect outcomes. That is narrower than "does not matter," so the main ones deserve a closer look.

Failure and effort

Taking sets to failure did not improve gains in strength, size or power. The authors still want sufficient effort. They suggest "near-failure," or about 2–3 reps in reserve, as a way to get there, while admitting there is not enough evidence to set an exact target. They also say failure may be inadvisable for some groups, such as older adults, because of vascular risk and poor form. Our post on training to failure covers when it can still be useful, and our guide to RPE and RIR explains how to judge reps in reserve.

Equipment

Machines and free weights produced similar strength gains. Resistance bands and home-based routines improved strength compared with no exercise, and bands improved muscle size too. For size specifically, there was not enough data to compare machines with free weights, so "equal" holds for strength and stays open for growth.

Periodization

With appropriate progressive overload, the authors conclude that periodization is not significantly better than non-periodized training for healthy adults, and less important than earlier guidance assumed. One review slightly favored periodized plans for strength when volume was matched, so the door is not shut. If you like structured phases, our periodization guide still applies. You just do not need one to make progress.

Still unknown

The paper could not determine whether rest intervals, range of motion, single-joint versus multi-joint exercises or exercise variety change muscle growth. For strength, rests under a minute and over a minute did not differ. Where evidence is thin, your preference and joint comfort are fair tiebreakers.

A practical week built from the stand

The authors offer one simplification as their own view: applying the recommendations to four body regions (upper push, upper pull, lower push, lower pull) is enough to cover the major muscle groups. That gives you a counting system.

Below, a "hard set" means a set you stop about 2–3 reps before you could not do another. The exercise picks and rep ranges are my practical translation of the stand, not rules from it.

The two-day minimum week

Do the same session twice a week, with each region getting 3 sets:

Lower push: squat or leg press, 3 sets
Lower pull: Romanian deadlift or leg curl, 3 sets
Upper push: dumbbell bench press or overhead press, 3 sets
Upper pull: seated cable row or lat pulldown, 3 sets

That is 12 hard sets per session and 6 per region per week. It meets the twice-weekly and 2–3-set guidance but falls short of the 10-set growth mark. The authors say minimal-dose programs can deliver substantial gains, though the evidence is not yet strong enough for formal recommendations. If time is tight, our guide to minimalist strength training goes further.

The growth-focused week

To reach at least 10 weekly sets per region, choose one of two layouts:

Three full-body days: 4 hard sets per region per session, split across two exercises, for 12 per region per week (about 16 sets a session).
Two full-body days: 5 hard sets per region per session for 10 per region per week (about 20 sets a session, so longer workouts).

Where heavy work fits

Strength was the one outcome that clearly rewarded heavy loads. Open each session with one main lift, for 2–3 sets at roughly 80% of your 1RM or above. Do the rest with moderate loads you can control through a full range of motion, finishing 2–3 reps short of your limit.

You do not need to test a true max. Estimate it from a hard set of a few reps with the 1RM calculator. How many reps 80% allows differs by exercise and person, and the paper notes that conversions between percent of 1RM and reps vary, so treat any calculator as an estimate.

The stand's conclusion is that healthy adults should perform progressive training. When you hit the top of your target reps on every set while leaving 2–3 in reserve, add the smallest weight increment next time. The authors note that many trials showed benefit without progression, but that increasing the stimulus is likely needed for longer-term progress. Our progressive overload guide shows ways to do it.

Who this does not apply to

The numbers above come from trials of healthy adults aged 18 and over. The paper does not set loads or volumes for the following groups, and a doctor, physiotherapist or qualified exercise professional should set the plan:

People under 18.
Anyone who is pregnant or postpartum.
People with heart disease, uncontrolled high blood pressure, or other chronic conditions.
Older adults with sarcopenia or frailty, and anyone with osteoporosis or a history of fractures.
Anyone recovering from surgery, a fracture or a recent injury.

That does not mean these groups should avoid lifting, and many can benefit from it. It means the loads, set counts and effort levels here are a starting point to discuss, not a prescription. A clinician should decide on medical clearance, how to load after surgery or a fracture, and how hard to push with a cardiovascular condition.

Athletes and highly trained lifters are a different case. The accompanying press release says they still need more specialized, sport-specific programs, although the paper's reviews did include some more advanced trainees.

Heavy loads are also usually not where a beginner should start. The authors acknowledge that for inexperienced people, loads may need to begin low for safety, with progression doing the work. Spend the first weeks learning technique.

Stop and get medical advice promptly if you notice chest pain or pressure, fainting or near-fainting, unusual shortness of breath, sharp joint pain, or numbness or tingling that does not fade after you stop. Call your local emergency number for chest pain that feels tight or squeezing, severe difficulty breathing, or if someone passes out and is not responding normally.

For context, the stand cites an analysis of more than 38,000 participants (more than 6,700 of them in resistance training, and more than 11,000 older adults) in which exercise did not raise the risk of serious adverse events. That analysis covered patients in exercise-therapy trials, and non-serious events (the stand lists pain and fatigue as examples) were more common than in non-exercising groups, so it is background, not clearance for your own situation. The stand itself concludes that resistance training is safe for healthy adults of all ages.

Common mistakes when applying the guidelines

Hearing "failure is not needed" as "effort is not needed." The primary recommendation is high effort. If every set ends with five reps left, you are well short of what the authors describe.
Using 80% of 1RM for everything. Heavy loads are a strength lever. For size, the paper found similar growth from light to heavy loads.
Counting exercises instead of hard sets. This guide counts only hard sets toward the 10. That is my own convention, since the paper does not define a hard set.
Treating 10 sets as a ceiling. It is the level the paper found to beat lower volumes, and the meta-regression it cites shows diminishing returns beyond roughly 18–20 weekly sets.
Rebuilding your plan every month. The authors' public message is consistency. A decent plan you follow for a year beats an optimal plan you drop in March.
Over-reading the paper. It synthesizes reviews, so it cannot rank complete programs, and the authors say many trials in the field are small or poorly reported. It shows which variables matter, not one perfect program.

Tracking it without extra work

Following this takes three checks: how many hard sets each region got this week, whether your main lifts are going up, and whether you showed up twice. Any log can do that. Easy Reps is a free gym tracker for iPhone, iPad, Mac and Apple Watch with no account, and its workout history lets you open a past session and see every set, or filter by muscle group and date so you can tally what you did. Its 50+ templates include beginner full-body routines you can customize by swapping exercises and changing sets and reps. The app does not record reps in reserve, so use a simple rule of your own: end each working set when you could manage about two or three more reps, and let the weights and reps in your history show whether you are progressing.

Bottom line

The 2026 stand gives you a short list. Train every major muscle group with high effort at least twice a week. Do at least two sets of each exercise, and aim for 10 or more sets per muscle group per week if size is the goal. Use loads around 80% of 1RM or heavier on your main lifts if strength is the goal, and move fast with moderate loads if power is. You do not need to chase failure, a particular kind of equipment or complicated periodization, so pick the plan you will keep doing. If any of your health circumstances fall outside the healthy-adult category, have a qualified professional adjust the numbers before you copy them.