Stronger with Time

The new ACSM Position Stand on Resistance Training is the first major update to these guidelines since 2009. That matters not just because more research now exists, but because this update uses an overview-of-reviews methodology built on 137 systematic reviews and meta-analyses covering just over 30,000 participants. The result is a more reproducible, evidence-based summary of what appears to matter most for generally healthy adults looking to get stronger, build muscle, and improve function.Dr. Brad Currier is the lead author on the position stand and joins me to explain how it was built, what it suggests about the variables that seem to matter most, and why some of the factors the fitness industry argues about most intensely may carry less weight than people think.You’ll learn Why a position stand sits differently in the evidence hierarchy than a single trial, review, or meta-analysisWhy the 2026 update is meaningfully different from the 2009 version in both method and intended populationHow the author team pre-defined populations, outcomes, and study types before a single paper was includedWhy the shift from no resistance training to some resistance training may still be the biggest message for the general publicWhat appears to matter most for different outcomes: load for strength, volume for hypertrophy, and speed for powerWhy power training may deserve more attention in the context of healthy agingWhat the evidence suggests about rep ranges for muscle growth, and why the old continuum model may be too narrowWhat did not appear to significantly change outcomes for general-population goals, including machines versus free weights and periodisationWhy the findings may feel more liberating than prescriptive for coaches working with everyday clientsBrad’s practical framework for someone beginning resistance training for the first timeKey insight This position stand is not a blueprint for “optimal” training in every context. It is a synthesis of what the evidence suggests for the vast majority of generally healthy adults, many of whom are still doing no resistance training at all. That context matters when applying the findings.Resources & links• ACSM Position Stand on Resistance Training (2026) - https://journals.lww.com/acsm-msse/fulltext/2026/04000/american_college_of_sports_medicine_position.21.aspx• Timeline Nutrition - https://www.timeline.com• Visit - tonyboutagy.com• Follow on Instagram - @tonyboutagy• Listen on Spotify - https://open.spotify.com/show/5Yydg6y3dA8OiA8hyHcJON• Master evidence-based program design - tonyboutagy.com/advanced-program-mastery-course-page

Creatine has been studied for decades. The dosing evidence is settled, the mechanism is understood, and the safety profile in healthy people is clear. Yet advice on whether to take it, how much, and what form still varies widely in practice. In this episode, Professor Jose Antonio works through where the confusion comes from - and what the research actually shows.Professor Antonio is the co-founder and CEO of the International Society of Sports Nutrition, a professor at Nova Southeastern University, and the author of over 300 peer-reviewed papers on sports nutrition and supplementation.You'll learn:Why the evidence doesn't support the kidney damage claim for healthy people - and what studies at 3.5g/kg foundHow to evaluate the mTOR longevity argumentWhy elevated liver enzymes in trained individuals often reflect adaptation, not pathologyHow creatine works - and what the water weight argument missesWhy creatine monohydrate remains the evidence-supported formWhether higher creatine doses for cognitive function are worth itWhy there is no compelling reason to cycle creatine on and offWhich supplements the evidence supports for healthy agingWhen HMB and essential amino acids are worth consideringHow to assess whether a pre-workout is properly dosedKey insight: The argument against high protein intake - whether on kidney or longevity grounds - consistently runs into the same problem: the people consuming the most protein tend to be those exercising the most and carrying the most muscle mass. Separating protein from those variables in clinical endpoints is not straightforward, and Professor Antonio argues the trade-offs involved are not what the critics assume.🌐 Visit → tonyboutagy.com📲 Follow us on Instagram → @tonyboutagy📣 Get the evidence-based framework for fat loss: tonyboutagy.com/fat-loss-fundamentals-course-pageTopics: creatine, sports nutrition, protein intake, kidney function, mTOR, longevity, sports supplements, Jose Antonio, ISSN, healthy aging, omega-3, vitamin D, HMB, glucosamine, pre-workout

🎓 Master advanced program design: https://tonyboutagy.com/advanced-program-mastery-course-page📲 Follow on Instagram → @tonyboutagyPeriodisation is often dismissed as too complex, too theoretical, or irrelevant to hypertrophy training. In this episode, I revisit my conversation with Professor Greg Haff - one of the world's leading authorities on periodisation and strength development - and work through what these concepts actually mean for how training should be structured over time.You'll learn:What periodisation actually is - and why conflating it with programming generates most of the confusion in the debateThe three periodisation models (parallel, sequential, and emphasis) and when each one is applicableWhy phase potentiation matters, and how building strength first can increase the quality and volume of subsequent hypertrophy workHow different loading ranges accumulate fatigue differently - and why this shapes program design beyond just exercise selectionWhat the current research on periodisation and hypertrophy actually shows, and where its limitations genuinely lieHow long to stay on a program - and why the honest answer depends on training age, lifestyle, and individual contextWhat cluster sets are, how they differ from traditional set structures, and how I use them with clients🎧 Original Greg Haff episode: https://open.spotify.com/episode/1DQ2ZMYb3IuaqYJWTuajGh?si=094ba7a125314f91⚠️  Educational purposes only. Not individualized training or medical advice.

🌐 Visit → tonyboutagy.com 📲 Follow us on Instagram → @tonyboutagyMost people who train seriously have heard the word periodization. Far fewer understand what it actually is, or how to use it to get more out of every year of training. In this episode, one of the world's leading authorities on the subject explains exactly that.Professor Greg Haff completed his doctoral work under Professor Mike Stone and has spent decades coaching Olympic athletes, military personnel, and elite strength and power competitors, while publishing over 270 scientific papers on training adaptation.In this episode, Professor Haff explains:What periodization actually is and why confusing it with programming is one of the most common mistakes coaches make. Periodization is an organisational strategy. Programming tactics sit inside it.The three periodization models — parallel, sequential, and emphasis — and how goal and context determine which one applies. Most recreational trainees benefit from an emphasis model that varies the density of each training component across the week.Why changing the training stimulus every four to five weeks prevents accommodation and what the historical and modern research consistently shows about why this window matters for large muscle group exercises.How to sequence strength and hypertrophy phases to get more from both and why building work capacity first creates the foundation to lift heavier loads when you return to hypertrophy training.Why volume load, not set count, is the primary driver of muscle growth and how cluster sets allow higher loads, greater time under tension, and more total work than conventional set structures.How psycho-emotional stress compounds training stress and why periodization is fundamentally a fatigue management process that has to account for everything happening in a person's life, not just what happens in the gym.Key insight:The best coaches in the world have always used some form of periodization model. Most of them are not on social media. Structure, variation, and fatigue management remain the variables that separate long-term progress from stagnation.Topics: periodization, program design, hypertrophy, strength training, phase potentiation, cluster sets, training volume, fatigue management, periodized nutrition, long-term athlete development, resistance training, ageing and exercise

🌐 Visit → tonyboutagy.com 📲 Follow us on Instagram → @tonyboutagyThe most prominent female fitness trends of 2025-26 are heavily hormone-focused. Most take something biologically true — estrogen fluctuates, cortisol rises during exercise, fibre type differs slightly between sexes — and build a training recommendation on it that the outcome data doesn't support. In this episode, Dr. Lauren Colenso-Semple evaluates those claims against the actual research.Dr. Lauren Colenso-Semple completed her PhD at McMaster University under Professor Stuart Phillips, with research focused on strength and performance across the menstrual cycle.In this episode, Dr. Colenso-Semple explains:How cycle syncing originated — from rodent ovariectomy studies involving full hormone shutdown to a large extrapolated jump into popular fitness content, and why reducing training volume to align with cycle phase conflicts with what the research shows about long-term volume-dependent adaptation.Why sex differences in muscle fibre type are very small in untrained people, adaptive with training, and secondary to athlete calibre — and why mitochondrial adaptations are a function of training status rather than sex or age.Why mechanical tension, achievable across a wide rep range, is the primary driver of muscle growth — and why this holds in men and women of all ages and training backgrounds.The distinction between Cushing's syndrome, a clinical condition involving chronic cortisol dysregulation, and the normal acute cortisol fluctuations that occur during exercise — and why conflating the two has led to widespread unnecessary concern.Why the kisspeptin argument against fasted training for women comes from a rodent receptor deletion model and has not been replicated in human outcome studies.Why the apparent ease with which male partners lose weight relates to differences in body size and maintenance calorie intake rather than a sex-specific metabolic response to a calorie deficit.Key insight:The hormone-based fitness claims most frequently directed at women tend to draw on mechanistic or animal data, while the long-term outcome studies — which address the actual goals of interest — show no meaningful sex difference in training response.Topics: cycle syncing, zone two training, female fitness trends, fibre type, mitochondria, cortisol and exercise, Cushing's syndrome, fasted training, kisspeptin, rep ranges, menopause and strength training, estrogen and muscle, mechanical tension, training volume, calorie deficit, evidence-based training

🌐 Visit → tonyboutagy.com 📲 Follow us on Instagram → @tonyboutagyThe fitness industry prescribes energy deficits without the framework to know when a deficit becomes harmful. This episode translates the RED-S research into practical application for coaches and individuals working on body composition.In this episode we breakdown the key concepts from recent conversation with Professor Louise Burke.You'll learn:Low energy availability (the exposure) vs RED-S (the syndrome) - why the distinction matters for applicationWhy fat-free mass, not total body mass, is the correct denominator for energy availabilityThe threshold numbers: ~20 cal/kg FFM for fat loss; below 15 cal/kg FFM where adverse consequences are well-documentedWhich systems are affected first - reproductive hormones and bone turnover - and how quickly (research shows within five days at 10 cal/kg FFM, which the transcript notes is not uncommon in physique sport)Why metabolic adaptation is a consequence of RED-S, not a separate phenomenonWhat the evidence does and doesn't support on sex differences in fasted exercise, including the kisspeptin hypothesisWhy fasted training and low energy availability are not the same thingThe 2023 RED-S questionnaire toolkitPrevention: returning to energy balance (30–40 cal/kg FFM) one to two days per weekRecovery: stepwise calorie increase and gastrointestinal adaptationKey insight: Low energy availability is the exposure; RED-S is the syndrome. Fasted training is not the same as low energy availability. These distinctions are foundational to applying this research correctly.Topics: RED-S, low energy availability, fat-free mass, metabolic adaptation, fasted training, kisspeptin, body composition, physique sport, Louise Burke, Stronger With TimeRESOURCES & LINKSDr Tony Boutagy → tonyboutagy.comProfessor Louise Burke - Australian Catholic University → https://www.acu.edu.au/research-and-enterprise/our-research-institutes/mary-mackillop-institute-for-health-research/our-people/louise-burkeIOC RED-S CAT 2 Tool (PDF) → https://stillmed.olympics.com/media/Documents/Beyond-the-Games/Health-and-Wellbeing/2023-IOC-REDS-CAT2.pdfIOC 2023 Consensus Statement on RED-S → https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37752005Sports Dietitians Australia → https://www.sportsdietitians.com.auPolar H10 heart rate monitor → https://www.polar.com/en/sensors/h10-heart-rate-sensor

🌐 Visit → https://tonyboutagy.com/📲 Follow us on Instagram → @tonyboutagyIf you've experienced unexplained fatigue, lost your period, or can't build muscle despite training hard - this episode will help you understand why.Professor Louise Burke - IOC expert panel member on RED-S - explains the complexity behind low energy availability, why it's being oversimplified on social media, and why context matters more than rigid rules.You'll learn when energy deficit becomes problematic, which body systems are affected first (and why), why stress makes everything worse, and whether the fasted training fears are actually supported by evidence.We also discuss Professor Burke's groundbreaking Melbourne study using the only metabolic chamber in the Southern Hemisphere to compare diet-induced versus exercise-induced energy deficits.In this Episode:The difference between low energy availability (exposure) and RED-S (syndrome)Why energy deficits aren't always intentional (training volume, time constraints, budget)Which body systems are affected: reproductive, bone, GI, metabolism, performanceWhy some systems shut down before others (evolutionary perspective)Stress as a major amplifier of symptomsRED-S CAT 2 clinical diagnosis tool (requires medical expertise, not self-diagnosis)Evolution from Female Athlete Triad to RED-S (males affected, multiple systems involved)Cultural issues in endurance sports (Tour cyclists surviving on coffee for 7-hour rides)Does the method of creating deficit matter? Diet vs exercise-inducedMelbourne metabolic chamber study: comparing both methods (results expected 2027)Fasted training controversy: insufficient evidence for rigid rulesSex differences in sensitivity to energy rhythm (confounded by stress factors)Louise's perspective: better to exercise fasted than not exercise at allKey insight:RED-S is far more complex than simple numerical thresholds. Context, individual variation, stress, and the method of creating deficit all matter. Oversimplified social media advice may cause more harm than good.Melbourne Study:Professor Burke is recruiting runners, triathletes, race walkers (50k+/week) for a study comparing exercise-induced vs diet-induced energy deficit using the only metabolic chamber in the Southern Hemisphere. Results expected 2027. Contact  ⁠agility@acu.edu.au for recruitment information.Go straight to the redcaps screening tool   https://redcap.link/acu-agilityTopics: energy deficit, undereating, overtraining, hormones, bone health, metabolic adaptation, female athlete triad, amenorrhea, stress fractures, fasted training, sports nutrition

What started as 6 planned episodes became 31 conversations throughout 2025. This is my year-end reflection on the final five conversations - and the one consistent message that emerged from every expert.The core message:Individual variation matters more than sex-specific protocols. Training principles apply to human physiology, not gender categories. What you do consistently shapes who you become.Key insights from 2025:💡 You are what you do repeatedly" - Professor Sophia Nimphius. Your training history shapes your physiology more than your sex does.💡 Research + coaching perspectives both matter. Research shows what works on average. Coaching finds what works for you.💡 The public message has become too complex. 80% of women aren't lifting weights, yet the advice has become increasingly segmented and contradictory.💡 Training frequency: The pre-steroid era (1800s-1950s) used 2-3x per week full body training. Modern muscle physiology supports this approach for natural lifters.💡 Menopause care is patient-centered. History, symptoms, and goals drive treatment decisions - not blanket "every woman should" recommendations.💡 Low energy availability is the hidden epidemic in midlife women. Even 35-year-olds are showing perimenopausal symptoms from chronic under-fueling.Brief highlights from 5 conversations:🎙️ Round Table (Paul Laursen, Jake Doleschal, Dana Lis): How strength, endurance, and nutrition interact in real life. Why zones are coaching prescription tools, not gender-specific protocols.🎙️ Jake Doleschal: Training frequency and the muscle fiber-specific nature of hypertrophy. Why first sets give you 50% of stimulus with diminishing returns after.🎙️ Dr. Nadya Chami: What happens in a menopause consultation. Individualized hormone therapy decisions based on patient needs and contraindications.🎙️ Professor Abbie Smith-Ryan: Context matters for fasted training. Fueling around training sessions for better body composition. Why short-term studies miss real-world complexity.🎙️ Professor Sophia Nimphius: Research quality issues (85% of top meta-analyses contain errors). The circle of resistance training life. Why more overlap exists than difference between male and female training responses.📅 2026 plans: Body composition focus, continued women's health and performance, and the experts doing the actual research.If you found this valuable, follow for more evidence-based insights in 2026.

📲 Instagram → https://www.instagram.com/tonyboutagy/🎧 Watch on YouTube → https://www.youtube.com/@tonyboutagy-PhD/Professor Sophia Nimphius's research on training adaptation reveals that your training history shapes your physiology more than demographic categories. Her work bridges exercise science research with practical coaching application.In this episode, you'll discover:Research quality in exercise science: why 85% of influential meta-analyses contain calculation errorsWithin-group variation versus between-group differences in male and female training responses"You are what you do repeatedly" - how consistent training patterns shape physiologyThe circle of resistance training life: cycling through muscle mass, strength, and work capacity phasesWhy it takes 3-4 years of consistent training to understand your true capabilitiesProgramming for muscle mass: higher reps, total work, and learning what "heavy" meansCluster sets and rest redistribution as alternatives to traditional set structuresPower decline with age: maintaining fast movements across the lifespanBone health: both impact and tension stimulate adaptation (with satiation effects)Multimodal and multi-directional movement for comprehensive developmentMuscle imbalances: practical screening and monitoring changes over timeKey insights:Training principles apply to human physiology rather than gender categories. Within-group variation (differences between individuals of the same sex) exceeds between-group differences (average differences between sexes). Your training history - what you do consistently over years - determines your physiological adaptations.The "circle of resistance training life" applies universally: build muscle mass, maximize strength and efficiency, develop work capacity, repeat. Cycle through 3-8 week blocks of each phase across your entire training lifespan.Guest:Professor Sophia Nimphius is Pro Vice-Chancellor of Sport at Edith Cowan University, with over 20 years of experience bridging research and elite sports coaching in surfing, softball, and strength sports.Resources:Professor Sophia Nimphius → https://www.docsoph.com/Instagram → @docsophIf you found this valuable, follow for more evidence-based insights.

📲 Instagram → https://www.instagram.com/tonyboutagy/🎧 Watch on YouTube → https://www.youtube.com/@tonyboutagy-PhD/Professor Abbie Smith-Ryan's research reveals why individual variation in women's training and nutrition response matters more than group averages - and why rigid protocols often miss the mark.In this episode, you'll discover:Why menstrual cycle training needs vary dramatically between women (and how to track your own patterns)When body composition measurements provide useful feedback versus create psychological problemsCreatine for women: dosing, timing, and benefits for muscle, cognition, and bone healthStrategic fueling around training sessions while maintaining fat loss goalsLow energy availability in midlife: why some women eating 1,400 calories still aren't fueling adequately around trainingHow chronic energy deficit suppresses metabolic rate by 300-400 caloriesCase studies: world champions who fuel strategically versus chronic under-fuelers with suppressed metabolismKey insights:Individual response to menstrual cycle changes varies significantly - some women need training modifications, others don't notice differences. Track your own patterns rather than following rigid protocols.You can maintain calorie restriction for fat loss while still fueling strategically around training sessions. The timing matters for body composition and metabolic health.Guest:Professor Abbie Smith-Ryan is co-director of the Applied Physiology Laboratory at UNC Chapel Hill, with 230+ peer-reviewed publications on women's health, performance nutrition, and body composition.Resources:Professor Abbie Smith-Ryan → @asmithryan (Instagram)Professor Abbie Smith-Ryan - Website → https://asmithryan.com/Applied Physiology Laboratory → https://exss.unc.edu/If you found this valuable, follow for more evidence-based insights.