Fitter Tactical Strength

05/12/2026

04/23/2026

This graphic shows the basic mechanisms of muscle hypertrophy.

In my own personal experience, I found that performing 1-3 sets per exercise with a range of 5-20 repetitions per set taken to failure or near failure yielded positive results.

However, much of the most recent evidence aligns with the recommendations in the graphic below and is a good guideline for most people.

03/12/2026

“Learning never exhausts the mind.” —Leonardo da Vinci

03/04/2026

Are you obtaining the correct amount of calories, protein, and carbohydrates to gain muscle? This blog will provide you the recipes for muscle growth.

03/04/2026

Although not always covered by insurance, this minimal cost test can save lives.

The CT calcium score testing is widely available as part of routine heart risk assessment and can be ordered by a cardiologist or primary care provider.

03/04/2026

First responders are recognizing the need to improve their fitness testing and standards.

Police, fire and rescue services all undergo different job stressors and tactical fitness training and testing should reflect this based on a needs analysis.

The Firefighter Physical Fitness Test is a five-event assessment designed to reflect the physical demands of the fireground.

12/31/2025

High volume vs high intensity: which builds more muscle?

All credit for research and text to Stronger By Science

Few topics in the fitness industry divide the community like this one. On the one end, you’ve got the higher-volume camp, the “more sets = more growth” crowd. In more recent years, this has also often meant keeping sets a bit more submaximal, using the RIR-scale to guide this.

On the other end, high-intensity lifters swear by a “one all-out set to failure” approach. The argument often rests on the thrust that higher volumes can’t be recovered from and/or aren’t actually beneficial for hypertrophy.

But what does the research actually say is best for hypertrophy?

For years now, the scientific consensus has leaned toward higher training volumes being better for muscle growth. Meta-analyses – including the most recent one by Pelland et al – consistently show that more weekly sets per muscle group generally produced more hypertrophy (1, 2).

Zooming into the results of this most recent meta-analysis by Pelland et al, this relationship has proven remarkably robust. It holds true across different rest periods, study durations, proximity to failure, and even training experience (see their supplementary materials).

However, the benefit isn’t linear. The returns are diminishing. So, while it appears that doing up to 30-40 weekly fractional sets is optimal for hypertrophy, the best bang-for-buck may be obtained a bit lower.

The limitations of a high-volume approach are practical, not theoretical: it’s time-consuming, fatiguing, and can be hard to sustain alongside life’s other demands. Most studies also focus on one or two muscle groups, meaning what’s “recoverable” locally might not necessarily be globally sustainable across a full-body program.

Meanwhile, the “low-volume, high-intensity” philosophy has gained traction, particularly online.

The core claim: if you push a set to genuine failure, you don’t need much volume.

There is some evidence to support this. Most notably, the biggest, most recent meta-analysis by Robinson et al showed that the closer a set is taken to failure, all else being equal, the more muscle growth is seen.

Likewise, other research does suggest that there is a benefit to training to or past failure. For example, a recent study by Hermann et al showed that single-set training did cause hypertrophy, but that going to failure was better than training with two reps-in-the-tank. Likewise, a study by Larsen et al compared ending a set at full range of motion failure versus doing partials past-failure, and observed greater hypertrophy when training past-failure. Clearly, training to failure – and maybe even past failure – offers additional stimulus.

So, which is better?

If you’re hoping for a definitive answer, you’ll be disappointed. Because the real answer is that it depends on what you mean by better.

In empirical science, studies usually isolate a single variable. For example, higher volume vs lower volume (variable of interest) with the same rep ranges, to failure, same exercises, etc.

As a result, the debate of “high volume submaximally” vs “low volume to failure” is actually largely speculative.

It’s fairly clear that both can work, and it’s also likely that combining both will lead to the best muscle growth.

Most people can likely recover from more than they think. Training can be pushed surprisingly far – in both volume and intensity – before recovery truly caps progress.

For example, a study by Brigatto et al had lifters perform nearly 200 total weekly sets without it being detrimental to hypertrophy. Likewise, the infamous Enes quadriceps training study had lifters in the high-volume group do an average of 42 sets of quad training per week for 12 weeks, close to failure, and they still grew more. In fact, nearly all of the studies examining volumes of 20+ sets per week have had the subjects training to failure on every set.

More is certainly more, in terms of muscle growth. Recovery is rarely the bottleneck to gains in practice. Rather, it’s about maximizing stimulus.

However, high intensity vs high volume may have different use cases. Here’s how to apply each one.

High volume, lower intensity: Good if you have time, prefer longer sessions, or need to avoid failure (injury/safety).

Low volume, high intensity: Best when short on time. 4-10 hard sets/muscle/week can work pretty well if they’re truly near failure.

Both together: For maximal gains if you recover well. Track performance; if lifts hold or rise, you’re fine.

12/17/2025

How does sleep deprivation affect your workouts?

All credit for research and text to Stronger By Science

Sleep is one of those topics where the advice seems obvious: get more of it. But how much does missing a few hours actually hurt your gym performance? Can you still train effectively after a bad night, or is it better to rest and recover? Let’s look at what the research says.

First, we need to establish what actually happens when you get a bad night’s sleep. Sure, working out can feel worse, but how does a bad night’s sleep impact your performance objectively?

A recent meta-analysis by Craven et al examined 69 studies with 227 outcomes on how acute sleep loss (≤6 hours of sleep in a 24-hour period) affected exercise performance.
The authors categorized exercise tasks into seven types:

Anaerobic power
Strength and strength-endurance
Speed/power endurance
Endurance
Skill-based tasks
High-intensity intervals

Across almost every category, sleep loss impaired performance. The biggest decline was seen in skill-based tasks: things requiring fine motor control, coordination, or precision. In contrast, strength and power performance were affected a fair bit less, but still consistently dropped.

While this finding was relatively robust, the magnitude of the effect is worth noting. On average, for every hour participants were awake before training, performance declined by roughly 0.4%. That doesn’t sound dramatic, but missing several hours of sleep can feel like it adds up. For example, if you get only 4 hours of sleep before a workout, you could expect to be around 2-3% weaker that day – roughly the difference between hitting your usual last rep or failing the set a rep early.

Interestingly, though, not all sleep loss was equal. The pattern of sleep restriction matters.

Total sleep deprivation – think an all-nighter – or late-night restriction tended to hurt performance the most.

On the flip-side, early restriction – think waking up earlier than usual, but going to bed at the usual time – had a smaller impact.

Likewise, the time of day that training took place seemed to matter. Workouts done in the evening after poor sleep suffered more than morning sessions, likely because fatigue and sleep pressure accumulated throughout the day. So, if you have to train after a bad night, an early session might be the lesser evil.

Similarly, if you have some work you need to get done ASAP, this suggests you’d be better off waking up early to get some work done than going to bed late to finish it off. Training early might help too.

Given the positive impacts of exercise on sleep duration and quality, it’s usually worth getting a workout in, even after a bad night’s sleep, though you may find it easier to do so by reducing difficulty a bit.

But fundamentally, what gives? Besides feeling dreadful, why does one night of bad sleep impact workout performance?

​A review by Fullagar et al suggests there are likely a few factors that contribute:

Increased sympathetic and reduced parasympathetic activity, resembling early overreaching.

Glycogen repletion can be impaired after severe sleep deprivation.

Slightly increased inflammation.

Cognitively, slower reactions, worse decision-making.

Reduced motor memory consolidation.

To close us out, here are a few practical takeaways on how sleep deprivation impacts your workouts and how to adjust your approach:

Acute sleep loss does reliably negatively impact workout performance. However, this is a larger effect for skill-based tasks vs strength and power.

One bad night won’t make-or-break anything. A single night’s poor sleep may lower performance, but it’s unlikely to blunt long-term adaptations if your overall sleep is decent.

Prioritize recovery after sleep loss. If possible, shift harder sessions to another day or reduce load slightly.

When training sleep-deprived: Opt for morning workouts if your schedule allows.
If you have the choice: Opt to go to bed at your usual time but wake up early. This pattern appears to compromise performance a bit less.