The 2026 ACSM Position Stand Is Excellent. The Communication Around It Failed the Professionals It Was Meant to Serve.

A practitioner's interpretation and applied framework for working professionals.

Matt Leu, M.S. Kinesiology | Personal Trainer Since 2006 | Studio Owner & Operator

I’ve been coaching for 20 years. I hold an M.S. in Kinesiology, own a boutique training studio, and manage a team of 10-12 fitness professionals.

When the American College of Sports Medicine published its updated resistance training position stand last month (the first in 17 years), I read the full 22-page paper. Then I read the summary.

Then I read them again, because I couldn’t reconcile the two.

The paper is exceptional. 137 systematic reviews. 30,000+ participants. Rigorous evidence grading. This is a highly comprehensive resistance training guidance, and provides a deep look at outcomes related to different training types.

The communication and summary built around it did not represent the paper. And that’s a problem, not just for professionals, but for the credibility of the science the summary is supposed to represent.

The Title Wrote A Check The Summary Didn’t Cash

Approximately 90% of the position stand is dedicated to training variables, loading protocols, and goal-specific programming. Approximately 10% addresses participation and adherence.

The public summary and press communication inverted that ratio, which is a major departure from previous summaries of position stands.

The adherence message, built primarily around a single CDC statistic that 60% of Americans do no muscle-strengthening exercise, became the headline, the soundbite, and the dominant narrative. The 90% that provides actionable professional guidance was compressed into bullet points that most coverage buried or ignored.

“The best resistance training program is the one you’ll actually stick with” became the takeaway. It is not wrong. But it represents 10% of the paper’s content positioned as 100% of the message.

The paper is titled “Resistance Training Prescription for Muscle Function, Hypertrophy, and Physical Performance in Healthy Adults.” Every word is a practitioner-facing promise. The summary led with “any is better than none” and “consistency beats complexity.”

That’s not a summary. That’s confirmation bias at the institutional level, selecting the finding that is aligned with a public health priority and amplifying it over the paper’s primary contribution to the field.

The Consequence

ACSM’s position stands are designed, in their own words, to “provide evidence-based recommendations to support decision making” for exercise science and sports medicine professionals. That’s what makes a position stand different from a press release.

The communication around this paper served a public health message that other institutions (the CDC, the WHO, the Surgeon General) already deliver. What is unique to ACSM is the ability to synthesize evidence at this scale and translate it into professional programming guidance. No other organization has the institutional authority or scope of mission to do what this paper did.

A trainer with a degree and years of applied experience who says “load and progressive overload matter for your specific goal” is now met with “well, ACSM says it doesn’t matter what you do as long as you stick with it.” 

In an environment where programming advice is increasingly shaped by social media and content creators with no professional accountability, working practitioners needed this position stand to provide clear, evidence-based guidance they could stand behind with their clients.

The paper delivered that. The summary delivered ambiguity.

My Professional Interpretation: Two Layers For Professional Outcomes

The confusion dissolves once you separate the paper’s two audiences:

Layer 1: Adherence (~10% of the paper)

Nearly 60% of American adults do no muscle-strengthening exercise. For the general population, the priority is removing barriers to participation. Modality doesn’t matter as long as it enables appropriate load and volume. Get people started. Keep them consistent. This message is accurate and important.

Layer 2: Adaptation (~90% of the paper)

Some training variables consistently impact outcomes (load, volume, frequency, and progressive overload). Others don’t. Equipment type, exercise selection, and tempo did not consistently change results compared to the primary drivers of load and volume.

Modality isn’t the driver. It’s the delivery vehicle. Load, volume, and progression are the drivers.

And every delivery vehicle has a max capacity. Bodyweight can only deliver the resistance of the individual’s own mass. Bands have a maximum tension curve. Even machines have a top plate. When a client’s progression demands more than the current modality can provide, you change the vehicle. Not because it matters, but because it can no longer deliver the load.

Once adherence is established, it is much easier to branch into necessary modalities. That’s when programming actually starts to matter.

Maintenance is also potentially a third layer, but not largely associated with outcomes in this paper.

What ACSM Should Have Done

These two messages are not contradictory. They are sequential. Layer 1 gets the client through the door. Layer 2 ensures what they’re doing actually produces the adaptation they’re training for.

ACSM should have made the connection clear that these two things are inextricably linked for us to be successful as trainers, get good outcomes, and retain clients.

Instead, the summary led with someone else’s message: the public health participation narrative that the CDC, WHO, and Surgeon General already own. It buried the one thing only ACSM can provide: evidence-based professional programming guidance synthesized at a scale no other institution can match. The paper is asking professionals to do two things simultaneously, and neither works without the other.

Build a program the client enjoys and will stick with. That’s Layer 1. Then make sure that program is actually producing the stimulus required for their goal. Individualize load, volume, and frequency. Progress them over time.

That’s Layer 2, and it’s where professional coaching actually shows up.

When the client’s favorite modality can’t deliver the load their goal requires, that’s where your expertise as a professional earns its value.

The science in this position stand is solid and refined in response to the last position stand. It deserved communication that matched its quality. And the lead author’s years of rigorous work deserved a summary that represented what the paper actually found, not just the 10% that made for a convenient headline.

Adherence gets the client in the door.

Adaptation gets them results.

Modality isn’t the driver. It’s the delivery vehicle.

Load, Volume, Progression may exceed the delivery vehicles’ capacity.