🚨🚨We finally managed to push out our multifactorial & individualized hamstring risk reduction intervention in professional soccer. @PascalEdouard42 @jb_morin @zentrumsport et al Here is a 🧵 of the results and some interpretation (some extra figures also). bmjopensem.bmj.com/content/1…

New study shows evidence that the repeated bout effect, whereby muscle damage and associated symptoms are reduced after a second exercise bout, persists for ~9 weeks following intense an initial eccentric resistance training session. onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/…

E-stim Effective Early 💥 💥 💥 @TimothyHewett1 @TimHewett5

Step width: difficult to quantify, but essential to consider🤔

🚨NEW PODCAST🎧🎙️🚨 Thank you @GarageStrength for having me on the show! 1h20 around sprint mechanics, performance, training, max versus submax speed, research and practical applications🏃🏻 Available here on Youtube, and all audio platforms: piped.video/watch?v=NWlqJZck…

I started working on a book a while back. It will probably take much longer to finish than expected, which is probably a good thing, as I certainly don’t want to publish a “speed slop” as my friend Carl Valle elegantly calls poorly researched and misleading information🤣

Sprint/hamstring researchers; please do a study that aims to check correlations between prone eccentric knee flexion (so hip closer to 0) at multiple velocities (preferably last one over 200 degrees sec) and maximal velocity capacity in sprinting. Hypothesis; correlation gets much stronger with increasing velocity. If possible test seated knee flexion also as i dont think it will correlate as well. Luxury; scan with MRI muscles and so some modelling ;)

I was proud to have been part of the team, led by @mackinprof, that comprehensively updated the previous ACSM Position Stand on resistance training prescription, published earlier this year (PMID: 41843416). This was a massive undertaking: an umbrella review of 137 systematic reviews encompassing >30,000 participants were synthesized to determine how resistance-training variables influence strength, hypertrophy, power, and physical function. Some key takeaways: For muscle hypertrophy: --Higher weekly volume appears beneficial, with ≥10 sets per muscle group/week enhancing growth --Hypertrophy can be achieved across a wide range of loads (30–100% 1RM) --A high level of effort is required to optimize results but training to momentary muscle failure does not appear necessary --Higher training frequency does not independently enhance hypertrophy when volume is equated --Periodization, repetition duration, and exercise order did not consistently affect hypertrophy For strength: --Heavier loads (≥80% 1RM) are advantageous --Training ≥2 days/week is beneficial --2–3 sets per session and a full range of motion can enhance strength --Prioritize exercises you want to improve by performing them earlier in the session For power: --Moderate loads (30–70% 1RM) are favored --Intentional high-velocity/power training and Olympic-style weightlifting can enhance power --Lower-to-moderate training volumes appear preferable Perhaps the biggest take-home: Resistance training itself matters far more than obsessing over most individual programming variables. Many commonly debated aspects of program design had little or inconsistent influence on outcomes. #justlift pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/article…

Just in case you don't know .... the adolescent growth spurt increases the risk of injury. Assess|Monitor|Adjust

⚽️ Associations between growth, maturation and non-contact injury risk ⚽ 💥 Growth velocity was positively associated with injury incidence, with a marked increase observed at rates exceeding 10 cm/year 💥 👉 Curnyn, @phd_sean et al. 2026 󠁧🇬🇧󠁧 🗂️ doi.org/10.1080/03014460.202…

"Sprinters have the same tendon stiffness or are more compliant than untrained controls?" Sure - if you cherry-pick weak data and misunderstand tendon biomechanics The usual awful stuff from Chris Beardsley here. So this is Part 1 of a 3-part video @lahti_johan @GregLehman

A popular resistance-training theory proposes that you should match your rep range to a muscle’s fiber-type composition: train predominantly slow-twitch muscles with lighter loads/higher reps, and more fast-twitch muscles with heavier loads/lower reps. My lab put this idea to the test. In our study (PMID: 32342648), untrained young men trained their calves for 8 weeks using a within-subject design. One leg trained HEAVY (6–10 RM) while the other trained LIGHT (20–30 RM), with sets performed to momentary muscular failure. We specifically compared the soleus, which is predominantly slow-twitch, with the gastrocnemius, which has a more mixed fiber-type composition. What happened? Not much. --Both heavy and light loads produced similar hypertrophy across the calf muscles. --The slow-twitch soleus did not show a preferential hypertrophic response to lighter loads. --The mixed-fiber type gastroc did not show a preferential hypertrophic response to heavier loads. --Isometric strength gains were also similar between conditions. Interestingly, the soleus increased muscle thickness by 7.8%, compared with 8.9% in the medial gastrocnemius and 13.7% in the lateral gastrocnemius, suggesting slow-twitch muscle respond well to training. Overall hypertrophy was similar between heavy and light loading (9.2% vs. 10.7%, respectively). Take home: Our findings challenge the notion that loading ranges should be tailored to a muscle’s fiber-type composition. When sets are performed with a high level of effort, both relatively heavy and light loads appear capable of producing substantial muscle growth, regardless of a muscle’s overall twitch characteristics. However, because we did not directly assess individual fiber hypertrophy, we cannot rule out the possibility that fiber-type–specific differences in growth occurred. physoc.onlinelibrary.wiley.c…

Hey guys! If you’re interested in coming to Finland for my 2 day hamstring workshop in December then I advice to sign up for my discount email list, luanching the product soon. linktr.ee/r5.johan?utm_sourc… Dont miss out!

Cant wait for the data to come out Gerard!

The dumbbell bench press and dumbbell fly are staples of chest training—but does one produce better pec growth? Our new study, just accepted in JSCR, set out to answer this question. We randomized recreationally trained men to perform either the dumbbell bench press or dumbbell fly twice per week for 10 weeks. Training volume was individualized based on each participant’s previous chest-training volume, and muscle thickness was assessed at multiple regions of the pectoralis major using ultrasound. The results: Both exercises appreciably increased in pec muscle thickness, with no notable differences between groups at any of the measured regions. Overall increases in summed muscle thickness were approximately 13% for the dumbbell bench press and 15% for the dumbbell fly. Interestingly, we hypothesized that the fly would produce greater hypertrophy because of its presumed greater resistance moment arm when the pecs are lengthened. This hypothesis was not supported. Practical takeaway: If your primary goal is pec hypertrophy, both dumbbell presses and flyes appear to be viable options. On a basic level, exercise selection can therefore be based, at least in part, on personal preference, comfort, and individual training goals. It should be noted that the study involved recreationally trained men and lasted 10 weeks, so we can’t necessarily generalize the findings to women, highly trained lifters, longer training periods, or other chest exercises. Importantly, exercise selection doesn’t have to be an either/or choice. This begs the question: Could combining presses AND flyes provide greater pec development than performing either exercise alone? More research is needed on the topic but, until shown otherwise, it's generally a good strategy to include some variation in movements if your goal is to optimize hypertrophy. researchgate.net/publication…

Why do some people gain more muscle than others? Last year I participated in the 2025 Inter-Individual Variation in Resistance Training Response Conference at the University of Jyväskylä, organized by @DrMikeRoberts, where leading researchers discussed why hypertrophy responses can vary so widely between individuals. The findings were summarized in a recent paper published in JAP (PMID: 42172438) Some key takeaways: --Programming matters. Evidence suggests ~10 sets per muscle per week is sufficient to efficiently promote hypertrophy for most people, with diminishing returns as volume increases. Rest periods should generally be at least 60 seconds—and ≥2 minutes for multi-joint exercises—with sets performed close to failure (~2 RIR or less). --“Non-responders” may not really be non-responders. A single pre/post measurement can reflect measurement error and normal biological variation rather than someone's true response to training. --Genetics aren't destiny. Despite substantial variability in muscle growth, we currently lack strong evidence that genetic testing can meaningfully predict who will or won't respond well to resistance training. Hypertrophy appears to result from a complex interaction of numerous biological and environmental factors. --Age doesn't automatically make you a poor responder. Some older adults respond very well to resistance training, and chronological age alone shouldn’t be viewed as a barrier to gaining muscle. Resistance training remains a potent strategy for combating age-related declines in muscle mass and strength. --Before blaming your biology, get the basics right. If progress is poor, first examine training consistency, progressive overload, sleep, and dietary habits. Supplements play a comparatively minor role in muscle-building. Bottom Line: Yes, people differ in how much muscle they gain from resistance training—but determining someone's true responsiveness is far more complicated than labeling them a “high responder” or “non-responder.” The most important controllable factor remains remarkably straightforward: Train consistently, apply progressive overload, and keep doing it for the long haul. journals.physiology.org/doi/…

Can different exercises preferentially grow different parts of a muscle group? Our study in resistance-trained individuals suggests they can (doi: 10.1007/s42978-024-00299-4). After 8 weeks of supervised resistance training, we found: --Leg extensions preferentially grew the rectus femoris ( 8.9% vs. 4.7% with the leg press). --Leg presses preferentially grew the vastus lateralis (8.7% vs. 2.9% with the leg extension). --For the calves, straight-leg plantar flexion preferentially grew the gastrocnemius compared with bent-leg calf raises. -- Results for the soleus showed a small hypertrophic advantage with the bent- versus straight-leg calf raise, although there was greater uncertainty regarding whether this represented a true benefit. Practical takeaway: Exercise selection isn't just about training a muscle—it can influence where the muscle grows. If your goal is comprehensive muscle development, relying exclusively on a specific exercise may leave some growth on the table. Our findings suggest that combining multi-joint and single-joint exercises may provide more complete development of the quads, and that varying knee position may influence regional calf development. Importantly, optimizing results requires careful attention to biomechanical and anatomical principles—simply varying exercises haphazardly won’t get the job done. link.springer.com/article/10…

New ebook A practitioner’s guide to jump training Free and available to download. 35 pages 20 years of research and practice 17 cheat-sheets, figures and tables. Get it here 👇👇👇 eamonn-flanagan-s-c.sender.s…

Force-velocity talk (after a long x break). We see a lot of debates going forward and back of you cant place for example squatting or whatever max strength exercise on the top left of a concentric fv curve while on the bottom right you have sprinting. I get the arguments; if you had a force plate in both the external force is higher in sprinting (3-5 x BW, vs squatting maybe 2.5-4 in intermediate/elite athletes). Ok we can agree on this. But the confusion i believe exactly comes from the external force component. It is further continued when MSK studies are published in sprinting on a higher pace than strength traininf. When dorn et al came out with their msk study in 2012, for about now 14 years in a row, people on social media post calf x amount BW forces in sprinting (cant remember exact number) or hamstring x 9, how can you replicate this force/or overload this forcr in the gym? Here was the first misstake; these are internal forces. You cant mix gym external forces with this. Ok next problem is MSK studies on strength training. We have very little high quality studies (maybe 4 that have come out the last 5 years ish). But none still have actually measured heavy back squatting muscle forces (+ 80% of 1rm in athletes), arguably the most popular development exercise in the world, and its 2026… then we have actually method differences in MSK studies but thats another discussion. But i think we should calm down a bit on this debate and have more strength training MSK studies come out (preferably ones that compare to sprinting/COD in the same study but not always possible). I think we are highly underestimating the force overload provided in classical S&C exercises for instance. Of course, this is leaving out the MTU and eccentric component for now, but i think this sets the correct tone for something that needs to be addressed.

🚨🔥Accepted by Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports Title: Training and Detraining Effects of Eccentric Exercise and Static Stretching on Hamstring Aponeurosis Dimensions Collaboration with @sahinischryso @twakahar @wakahara_lab @KatsukiTakahas1 Three first author articles (one co-first) have been accepted within this week😅