How to Program Resistance Training: Step-by-Step
The biggest mistake you can make with weightlifting is not having a program to follow.
Putting thought into how your training week is structured, and how those weeks build on one another over time, can make an enormous difference.
There are many resources online that discuss the ‘optimal’ way to design a resistance training program. Most of these resources—and the research behind them—are written with the assumption that training is priority #1 in life.
That’s likely not representative of your situation. It’s more likely that work, family, and other responsibilities need to take precedence.
Admittedly, some of what I cover in this article stems from my personal views on programming.
I’ve written anywhere from 10–30 new training programs per month for about seven years, and I’ve inevitably developed some biases along the way.
All that to say:
The programming process this article outlines will be evidence-based, supported by numerous citations.
However, I’ll also make every effort to present it as a clear, logical process that works for the everyday person.
Our talking points will be:
Goal clarification
Training block duration
Training frequency
Goal clarification
Split selection
Volume & intensity
Progressive overload
Rest intervals
Supersets
Dropsets
Goal clarification
Getting crystal clear on what you want to achieve with your training is the foundation of any good program.
There is no wrong answer, but you do need an answer.
For example, your resistance training goals might include:
Building strength
If so, strength in any specific lifts, or just generally?
Building muscle
If so, more upper body? Lower body? Or just generally?
Increasing bone strength (if so, go here)
Reducing injury risk for another athletic pursuit
etc. etc.
Lifting weights in any capacity can help with all of these.
However, the more specific you are about what you want, the better you can optimize your training—and the faster you’ll see results.
To illustrate what I mean, let’s compare the goals of building strength and building muscle.
In almost all respects, they’re the same adaptation. Over the long term, the primary way you get stronger is by building more muscle.
Still, the most appropriate training practices can look a bit different, because there are a few key distinctions.
For instance, strength is partly a skill. The more you practice barbell back squats specifically, the stronger you’ll become at them.
So, if improving your barbell back squat is a priority, you might program a few variations (pin squats, pause squats, etc.).
If general muscle growth is the goal, a standard barbell back squat may be the only variation you use—if you use it at all—because no single movement is ‘required’ for building muscle.
Likewise, some exercises are great for building muscle and improving your physique, but they don’t do much for strength development.
Dumbbell lateral raises are an example.
There are few movements as worthwhile for upper-body aesthetics. However, if your primary goal is to improve your deadlift, lateral raises won’t move the needle much.
You don’t need to select a single goal. You can change your goals whenever you want, and you’re not starting from zero each time.
Remember, building muscle and building strength are mostly the same adaptation. So if you’ve built strength, you’ve also built muscle.
If you’re focusing on strength now and switch to a more ‘bodybuilding’ focus later, you’ve already made meaningful progress toward that goal.
At the very least, I recommend keeping the same goal for at least 3 months at a time so you can make visible progress with each goal you set.
The final component of this process is identifying your goals outside of lifting.
In my 1:1 coaching, all of my clients have goals beyond the weight room.
Some want to improve their 10k time, some are training for 50+ mile races, some for triathlons, some want to improve their 100 m sprint, and others want to build their aerobic system more generally.
I won’t be covering the programming for those events in this article (go here for that), but getting clear on goals outside the weight room is just as important as getting clear on goals inside it.
Then, you need to clarify which goals take priority. Is lifting priority #1, or is something else?
Again, there’s no right or wrong answer.
You do need some sort of answer, though.
Training block (e.g. mesocycle) duration
In an ideal world, you have a set number of training sessions you complete each week.
You can schedule sessions on specific days if your week-to-week routine is predictable (e.g. 9–5). Or you can set an order for your sessions and complete them as you’re able if your schedule is more unpredictable (e.g. shift work).
You then repeat that week over week, making progressions (discussed later) to the sessions each week.
This is what’s known as a ‘training block’ or ‘mesocycle.’
It may be somewhat semantic, but I’d say this approach is what separates ‘exercise’ from ‘training.’
The purpose of training is to elicit a specific fitness adaptation (e.g. increased strength, increased endurance, etc.).
For your body to adapt to any stimulus you impose, it must be exposed to that stimulus for long enough for adaptations to occur.
If you’re constantly changing routines and exercises, adaptation becomes harder because the target is always moving.
For both myself and the programs I write for clients, these training blocks last anywhere from 4–8 weeks.
4 weeks is the floor because it’s the minimum amount of time for a meaningful adaptation to a specific stimulus.
8 weeks is the ceiling because you can’t include everything important to your goals in a single training week forever—eventually, the training week has to rotate so you can cover what matters over time.
Number of training days per week
At the beginning of this article, I mentioned that the goal is to describe resistance training programming in a real-life-centric way.
A core part of that is first understanding how many days—and/or how much time—you can realistically dedicate.
Here’s how I recommend approaching this:
Identify the number of training days you can commit to on a super busy week
Identify the number of training days you’d like to have on less busy weeks
If you’re pursuing more than just lifting, use this approach for all training days—not just resistance training days.
The answer may be the same in both scenarios, and that’s fine.
If they’re the same, you can write each workout through the same lens.
If they’re different, allocate your highest-priority movements to the days you can commit to on your busiest weeks.
Then allocate most accessory, non-essential movements to the days you can train on less busy weeks.
With that said, the programs I write for clients typically include 2, 3, or 4 resistance-training days per week.
2 days is the minimum I recommend to achieve sufficient training frequency (discussed next) while still accumulating enough volume (discussed later).
4 is the most I typically recommend because it allows higher volumes most people benefit from, still leaves time for other fitness qualities (e.g. endurance), and can be flexible enough to ebb and flow with life.
Split selection / training frequency
Your training split is how you divide what gets trained across the week.
You can’t choose it until you’re clear on your goals and how many resistance-training days you’ll have, because different splits are more or less appropriate depending on those decisions.
There’s plenty of room for creativity here. Any split can work, as long as the following two criteria are met:
Criteria 1
Each muscle should be trained at least 2x/week.
In other words, take your total weekly volume for a muscle (discussed later) and spread it across at least two sessions. For instance, if you plan to do 8 sets for chest in a week, do 4 sets on two different days instead of all 8 in one session.
Research shows that training a muscle group 2x/week yields better results than 1x/week, but 3x/week or more doesn’t outperform 2x/week. [1,2]
This is likely because average set quality is higher when training is spread out rather than concentrated.
For example, consider two scenarios where you do 10 chest sets per week. In scenario 1, you do all 10 sets in one day. In scenario 2, you do 5 sets on Monday and 5 on Thursday.
In scenario 1, the later sets are performed with far more fatigue, which lowers stimulus quality.
Criteria 2
Muscles should be given ~48 hours (minimum) rest between high-intensity training. [3]
This includes weight lifting, but also activities like maximum-effort interval running, sprinting, etc.
The exception is isometric training, where a muscle contracts without moving through a range of motion.
A plank is an example: you’re not moving, but you’re contracting to fight gravity.
Evidence suggests these contractions need much less recovery than normal strength training; sometimes just 4–8 hours. [3]
Low-intensity training (like an easy run, bike, or swim) can often be programmed the day before or after intense training for the same muscles without compromising recovery.
In the programs I write for clients, there are typically only three resistance-training splits I use:
Full body workouts
Example 1:
Mo: Full body
We: Full body
Fr: Full body
Example 2:
Mo: Full body
Th: Full body
Upper body / lower body workouts
Example 1:
Mo: Lower body
Tu: Upper body
Th: Lower body
Fr: Upper body
Example 2:
Tu: Lower body
Th: Upper body
Sa: Lower body
Su: Upper body
Full body / lower body / upper body
Example 1:
Mo: Full body
Th: Lower body
Fr: Upper body
Which one you select depends entirely on how many days per week you train and what your current training-block priorities are.
Your split doesn’t need to be as structured as these examples. As long as the criteria above two are met, there’s no wrong answer.
Exercise selection
Covering every consideration for training each muscle group and/or movement pattern would make this article needlessly long.
For now, we’ll cover the fundamental principles that should guide your decision-making, depending on whether you’re prioritizing strength or muscle growth.
Exercise selection for muscle growth
Research has converged on one primary driver of muscle growth: mechanical tension. [4]
The more mechanical tension a muscle is exposed to, the stronger the signal to remodel and grow.
In practice, this means the target muscle (or muscles) needs to be the limiting factor in the movement you’re training.
In a barbell back squat, the glutes, quadriceps, and lower back can all be limiting factors.
If you were to do a squat into a shoulder press (e.g. a thruster, push press, etc.), your legs would receive little to no muscle-growth stimulus because the weight is limited by shoulder strength.
It’s not a bad exercise overall; it’s just not great for muscle growth specifically.
Stability also matters.
The more stable you are during an exercise, the more you can focus on the muscle you’re trying to train.
The more off-balance you are, the harder it is to place as much mechanical tension on the target muscle as possible.
This is why some argue that machines can be better for muscle growth: balance is largely taken out of the equation.
Some exercises are inherently less stable but still worthwhile, such as single-leg training. If you’re off-balance during these, it’s usually more worthwhile to get more skilled at the movement than to remove it entirely.
Other exercises, like quadruped rows or renegade rows, are so unstable that they’re rarely very productive for muscle growth.
The last consideration is ensuring energy production isn’t the limiting factor in the exercise.
I discuss energy system training (e.g. conditioning) in more detail here, but here’s what’s worth knowing for now:
In resistance training, you may hit failure either due to mechanical tension or because your muscles can’t produce enough energy to fuel further contractions.
This can happen if you 1) do too many reps in a set (sets shouldn’t last >45 seconds or so) or 2) rest too little between sets (discussed later).
Exercise selection for strength
As I mentioned before, building strength and building muscle are mostly the same thing (think ~90% overlap).
When your goals are more strength-focused, there are a few additional considerations.
First, consider which muscles you’re targeting in a given workout.
For example, imagine you’re at the end of a session and only have time for one more upper-body exercise, and your priorities are building your squat and deadlift.
Choosing an exercise that builds muscle in the spinal extensors (i.e., low back) will bring you closer to those goals more than dumbbell side raises.
This can be guided further by identifying your specific weak link in a lift.
Deadlifts can be limited by many muscles: hamstrings, glutes, spinal erectors, traps, grip, etc.
If you take the time to identify where you’re weak and allocate your muscle-growth training there, progress will be fast-tracked.
Another consideration is that strength is a skill. In other words, technique influences how strong you are.
If you’re fidgeting on the way down in a barbell back squat and not controlling the weight, you’ll be weaker than you could be because you’re wasting energy throughout the movement.
To address this, you might program variations of the barbell back squat to get more high-quality practice.
Volume
Volume in resistance training is measured as the number of sets taken close to failure per muscle group per week. [5, 6, 7]
In other words, sets are the unit of measurement; how many reps you do per set doesn’t matter (we’ll discuss this soon).
This definition assumes sufficient intensity (also discussed soon), meaning warm-up sets don’t count toward your weekly total.
For instance, if you do three sets of barbell bench press on Monday, three sets of dumbbell bench press on Wednesday, and three sets of push-ups on Friday, your chest volume is 9 sets per week (assuming all sets are performed with sufficient intensity).
Of course, your chest isn’t the only muscle working in those movements.
Your chest does most of the work, but your shoulders and triceps contribute substantially.
In these cases, those sets might count as 0.5 sets each toward shoulders and triceps.
Using the same example, your shoulders and triceps would receive 4.5 sets of volume that week.
This is somewhat abstract, but this method of measuring volume reliably predicts the effect of different volumes on gains over time.
For example, imagine cloning someone.
One version does 8 sets of barbell bench press per week; the other does 4 sets of tricep skull crushers per week.
Tracked over time, you’d likely see similar triceps growth because the effective volume is similar.
Older definitions used equations like (sets x reps x weight), but these tend to be less reliable predictors over time.
They also ignore effort level (i.e., intensity), which is a crucial component of an effective set.
The minimum effective dose is often reported to be ~4 sets per week. [5]
In other words, the lowest amount of training you can do for a muscle while still reliably seeing gains is about 4 sets spread across the week.
I want to emphasize how low this truly is: it’s very doable to hit ~double this dose for most major muscle groups with just two resistance-training days per week.
Studies typically show that more is better, and this is more true for muscle size than for strength.
However, returns diminish as volume rises.
For instance, there’s more benefit going from 4–6 sets per week than there is going from 10–12 sets per week, even though the absolute increase is the same.
For most people, I find the sweet spot is somewhere between 6–12 sets per week.
Here, I’m defining the sweet spot as the intersection of getting the vast majority of gains without the time investment becoming too high.
Intensity
Because volume is measured in hard sets, intensity is built into the definition.
For a set to be sufficiently stimulating, and therefore count toward your weekly total, you generally need to stop ~1–3 reps shy of failure (at minimum). [6]
Failure can be defined a few ways. Some define it as being unable to do more reps with “good form.” Others define it as the point where the muscle can’t contract any longer.
In my view, it’s not worth splitting hairs. Either definition works.
Number of reps per set
Historically, there’s been an idea known as the “repetition continuum,” which claims that specific rep ranges produce specific adaptations:
Low reps (usually ~1–5 reps) are specific for strength increases
Moderate reps (usually ~6–12 reps) are specific for muscle size increases
High reps (usually ~15+ reps) are specific for muscular endurance increases
This cause-and-effect conclusion is largely a result of how early studies were designed.
For example, earlier I mentioned that skill influences strength.
When researchers have people back squat in the 3–5 rep range (heavier weight) versus the 8–12 rep range (moderate weight), the 3–5 group often performs better in final strength testing, even when muscle growth is similar.
That’s likely because they got more practice lifting heavy loads, which improves the skill component.
When researchers test a different movement where skill is more equal, strength gains become the same.
This is why I say these adaptations are mostly the same thing.
If you compare a set of 5 reps where you could have done 7 with a set of 15 reps where you could have done 17, the muscular adaptations will be essentially the same.
So, the bottom line is this:
It doesn’t matter how many reps you do in a set. What matters is that you take your working sets close to failure—however many reps it takes to get there. [7]
Rest intervals
Resting the right amount between sets is something many people overlook, but it can make a massive difference; both for time management and long-term progress.
You need to rest enough that your muscles recover enough to produce a high-quality set, but not so long that you’re needlessly extending the workout.
If you rest too little: set quality plummets because fatigue prevents you from getting near mechanical failure
If you rest too long: your workout can easily become ~1.5–2x as long as it needs to
Research suggests that resting less than 60 seconds per set can impair muscle growth, while resting longer than ~90–120 seconds doesn’t provide additional benefit. [8]
In my view, though, this depends on the exercise.
The fatigue from a hard set of squats is very different from the fatigue from a hard set of lateral raises.
In any case, my recommendation is to ensure each muscle group rests somewhere within this range before you train it again in a subsequent set.
Setting a timer between sets can be invaluable for resting long enough to preserve results without resting so long that you prolong the workout.
The main scenario where you can approach rest differently is when using supersets, which we’ll cover later.
Progressing over time
Progressive overload is the basic idea of doing more over time.
In my view, though, many people think about this the wrong way.
They treat it as something you actively do.
Rather, I’d argue it’s something that happens as a result of good programming.
Let’s say you do 8 reps in a set where you could have done 9 before failure.
Your body adapts, and the next week you do 8 reps again but could have done 10.
Even though the load is the same, you progressed because the stimulus was sufficient to drive adaptation.
Eventually, that stimulus becomes insufficient, and the load will need to increase.
When you reach that point, you can either increase the weight or increase the reps.
Research shows neither is inherently better, so preference can dictate what you choose. [9]
Some exercises feel better in certain rep ranges, so I often manipulate weight and rep schemes to keep someone within a target range.
So, the bottom line is this:
Your job is to ensure the stimulus you impose is sufficient to promote an adaptation.
This is often called an “overload” stimulus.
Over time, you adapt until that stimulus is no longer enough.
That’s when you increase the magnitude of the stimulus.
In other words: first you progress, then load progresses; not the other way around.
A good enough rule of thumb is that once a given workload feels like a ~7/10 effort, it is time to increase the dose.
Number of exercises & sets per session
People often ask how many exercises I typically include in a workout.
In my opinion, a better question is how many total sets you do.
Doing 2 sets of 8 different exercises is the same overall workload as doing 4 sets of 4 different exercises.
Also, single-arm or single-leg exercises effectively double your set count compared to bilateral exercises.
There’s no truly “evidence-based” answer here.
There’s no single right answer at all.
However, there are a few considerations that can guide your decision:
The first is your target weekly volume and how much volume you’re getting elsewhere in the week.
Another is how much time you have to train in a session, and then working backward from there.
In many cases, a workout with 16 working sets takes around an hour (including warm-up).
However, I’ve had clients complete this many sets in 45–75 minutes depending on the exercise selection (high-fatigue vs. low-fatigue) and the environment they train in (home vs. commercial gym).
This assumes time is tracked diligently and warm-ups are efficient.
All in all, the “right” answer varies person to person and is largely dictated by preference and practicality.
Supersets
The intention of this article is to lay foundational groundwork for how to approach strength training.
There are various “intensity techniques” you can use in resistance training.
Two are useful enough, in my opinion, to include in an article like this:
Supersets
Dropsets
The reason these are so helpful is that, when used correctly, they can drastically reduce the amount of time you need to train; without sacrificing results.
At its core, a superset is alternating between two movements that have no overlapping muscles.
For instance, instead of doing 3 sets of bench press with 2:00 rest between sets and then 3 sets of bent-over rows with the same rest period, you could alternate between them and rest only ~1:00 between sets.
The idea is that while you bench, your back muscles rest, and vice versa. This reduces the total rest time you need while maintaining performance.
The benefits include:
Nearly identical strength and hypertrophy gains (when volume is equated)
Increased muscular endurance compared to traditional sets
The same session volume performed in half the time compared to traditional sets
For these reasons, in my own training and the programs I write for clients, I use supersets whenever they make sense.
That said, supersets don’t always make sense.
If you superset two movements that overlap heavily in the muscles they recruit, performance will drop and results will suffer.
For example, barbell back squats train the quadriceps, and deadlifts train the hamstrings, but both also train the glutes, adductors, and back. So these two movements wouldn’t make sense as a superset.
However, a dumbbell reverse lunge and a seated leg curl have minimal overlap. The reverse lunge recruits the quads, glutes, and back, while the seated leg curl isolates the hamstrings—so this can be a good superset.
Another consideration is gym etiquette.
A seated leg curl and machine leg extension superset can make sense mechanically, but it’s often poor etiquette to take up two machines at once.
The reverse lunge + seated leg curl example is generally better etiquette because you can bring dumbbells to the machine area and avoid occupying multiple pieces of equipment.
Of course, in a home gym, this isn’t an issue.
In a commercial facility, though, it’s worth considering.
Dropsets
Similar to supersets, drop sets are another way to reduce training time while completing a given amount of work.
A drop set is when you perform an exercise to failure (or close to failure), then reduce the weight by ~30% (it doesn’t have to be exact) and immediately continue.
For most practical purposes, one drop set performed this way can be considered roughly equivalent to 2 sets.
Research suggests this approach can cut training time down to 1/2–1/3 of what traditional sets require, while producing similar results.
The easiest way to do drop sets is with machines, where you can simply move a pin.
Dumbbells also work well, but using multiple pairs can raise gym-etiquette issues.
Drop sets are more impractical with a barbell unless someone can change plates for you.
A “mechanical” drop set uses the same load but switches to an easier variation.
A good example is doing standard push-ups to failure, then immediately switching to knee push-ups.
Or you could do dumbbell flies for chest until near failure and then switch to a dumbbell bench press.
If you want a barbell-style drop set, you could switch to a similar but easier movement, such as 6 reps of barbell back squats followed immediately by lighter dumbbell goblet squats.
The broader point is that there’s a lot of room for creativity.
One thing to note is that drop sets can feel much more fatiguing than traditional sets.
If you use them from start to finish, set quality later in the workout may suffer.
So, I generally don’t recommend using drop sets for every set.
A more practical approach is doing a drop set on the last set of each exercise.
Finally, combining supersets and drop sets can really reduce the time you need to train.
If you’re able to and want to save time, I highly recommend it.
Conclusion
Success with resistance training ultimately comes down to:
Training in line with your goals
Doing the right amount (not too little or too much) of that training
Doing this consistently over time
Following this article, you should be able to do this with ease.
Of course, there are many more small details that can be discussed at greater lengths, but this article should sufficiently cover the basics (which are most important anyhow).
If you are ever in the market for more personalized help with this (with guaranteed results), consider inquiring about 1:1 coaching.
