Ordering strength training to perfection

Does the order in which a strength program is executed affect the efficiency of that program? Andrew Hamilton looks at new research

 As a qualified strength and conditioning coach many moons ago, I learnt that while most athletes understood which exercises were important for their particular sport, and the correct technical execution of these exercises, very few understood the basic principles needed to put a routine together – particularly when it came to the order of exercises. That’s unfortunate because the way the components of a workout are put together is just as important as what those components actually are – a classic case of the whole being bigger than the sum of its parts (see this article for a more detailed discussion of exercise order).

Optimum workout order

Research has demonstrated that the order of exercises in a strength session can directly affect subsequent strength adaptations⁽¹⁾. In particular, exercises completed early on in a session can be performed with higher loading and efficiency because of less local fatigue. In plain English, fresh muscle fibers can perform more work than those that have become fatigued (even partially) as a result of previous exercises in that session⁽²⁾. It follows that since ‘early’ exercises permit higher peak and total force generation, greater strength adaptations are possible compared to sessions where those same exercises are performed late in the session.

As a result, most strength training sessions are traditionally designed with the exercises prescribed in a fixed and predetermined order, with the ‘targeted muscles’ (those deemed key for sport performance) worked early in the session, while other muscle groups deemed of secondary importance are relegated to the later stages of the session. While such a predetermined structure to session planning can deliver clear benefits, implementing it is not always easy. Athletes who use a gym for strength sessions (most people!) may find that they have to stand around waiting for a piece of equipment to become free, particularly at busy times. This can lead to boredom, an unwanted cool down, and inefficient usage of time, all of which compromise the efficacy of the session. For a coach training a group of athletes, this presents a real challenge when structuring strength sessions.

A possible alternative to the predetermined approach to session structure is the self-selected approach, in which athletes are allowed to make choices concerning exercise order. Allowing athletes to choose the order of exercises can overcome logistical challenges associated with busy gyms or when coaching large groups with limited equipment. There’s also evidence that freely choosing exercise order seems to enhance motor learning⁽³⁾, motivation⁽⁴⁾, and the likelihood of adhering to a program⁽⁵⁾. But how much does a freely-chosen order of exercises (ie not hitting key muscle groups first) impact on potential benefits of a strictly ordered structure? Will athletes who strength train in a less strictly prescribed manner lose out in terms of performance?

The research

To investigate this, new research has compared the performance effects of predetermined vs. freely-chosen strength exercise order in elite hockey players [PeerJ. 2020 Nov 12;8:e10361. doi: 10.7717/peerj.10361. eCollection 2020]. Seventeen elite hockey players participated, and in the first part of this study, the athletes’ individual optimum power loads were calculated in the back squat, jump squat, bench press and bench throw exercises. Then in four counterbalanced sessions, participants completed three sets of six repetitions in the same exercises loaded with their optimum power loads. However, in two sessions, athletes used a self-selected order of exercises, while in other two sessions the order was predetermined. For the predetermined condition, the exercise order was established by consensus between two accredited strength and conditioning coaches and two senior academic staff members in line with an evidenced based practice approach: back squat then jump squat then bench press then bench throw.

In total, 12 different exercise orders were chosen by the participants, and only three participants selected the exact same order of the predetermined condition. In each condition, participants performed the same standardized warm up followed by three sets of six repetitions for each exercise loaded with the optimum power load in either the self-selected or predetermined order, with two minutes rest between the sets and three minutes rest between the exercises. Participants were asked to move the bar as fast and as explosively as possible in all repetitions. Power outputs measured estimated with a linear position transducer. Fatigue and enjoyment were measured during and after the sessions using standardized questionnaires.

The findings

When the data was analyzed, the key finding was that (surprisingly), there were no statistical or practical differences in power outputs (see figure 1), rate of fatigue development or physical activity enjoyment scores between the two conditions. The researchers went onto conclude that: “When the training goal in a session is to optimize power outputs, allowing athletes to choose the order of exercises can be effective in maintaining performances regardless of the order the athletes end up with during the sessions.” Given the trivial differences in power outputs, resistance training programs based on the self-selected approach have an advantage as they are simpler to plan and follow. This approach requires fewer constraints, facilitating easier session planning for the coaches, and session execution for the athletes.

---

Figure 1: Power output scores between the self-selected and predetermined conditions

Each data point indicates the average power outputs values for each participant. (A) Back squat, (B) squat jump, (C) bench press, (D) bench throw.

---

Practical implications

Given the trivial differences in power outputs, this study provides strong evidence that resistance training programs based on a self-selected approach have an advantage of rigidly structured programs; not only are they simpler to plan and follow, they place less constraints on athletes during busy gym periods and they also make session planning for coaches training groups of athletes much easier. Knowing that exercise order can be swapped also makes it less frustrating for athletes as there’s none of the frustration waiting for a machine when you know that you can change the exercise order (and come back later for the machine) all the while knowing that your workout is no less effective because of that. Of course, there are still some key considerations on order to bear in mind when performing a strength session - for example, the need to perform compound movements such as chest press before isolation movements such as chest flyes, or when to reverse this order during pre-exhaustion routines – see this article.

 References

1. European Journal of Sport Science. 2020;28:1–9
2. Sports Med. 2012 Mar 1; 42(3):251-65
3. Psychon Bull Rev. 2016 Oct; 23(5):1382-1414
4. Psychological Inquiry. 2000;11(4):227–268
5. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise. 2011;43(4):728–737