I was wondering what your thoughts were on the ACSM guidelines and their recommendations for target rep ranges for resistance training. For adults and older adults, they recommend training in the 8-12 rep range, which equates to intensities in the ~65%-75% range. How does this impact strength outcomes for the general population? Should ACSM start recommending higher intensities to the general population? I would love to hear your professional opinion on this and how you would program rep ranges for someone looking to build a general strength base for health outcomes.
We think they’re fine for nonspecific training, though fairly meaningless for untrained populations. Strength is force production measured in a specific context. For example a 1RM executed by a powerlifter and a 2:15 marathon are both displays of force production in different contexts.
Improving force production in the 8-12 rep range improves dynamic strength most significantly in the 8-12 rep range, with less transfer to the 1-5 rep range. Conversely, improving force production in the 1-5 rep range improves dynamic strength most significantly in the 1-5 rep range, with less transfer to the 8-12 rep range. Strength is specific to how it is developed. In short, there’s no such thing as general strength.
We don’t see a convincing argument based on evidence (or experience) for specializing in one rep range over another. We’d advocate for a variety of rep ranges during training unless there was a specific goal being trained fore.
That makes a lot of sense to me. So do you think ACSM should widen the rep range (say ~5-20) and recommend to spread training throughout the rep range? Or you think the 8-12 is wide and non-specific enough for the population? Thanks for the answer; I am currently writing a health promotion program that involves resistance training seniors for my undergrad and am trying to organize my thinking around the topic.