14/07/2026
🆕 Our NEW SCOPING REVIEW highlights the implications of failing to critically investigate implementation outcomes when conducting real-world strength training research.
When real-wold research fails to report implementation outcomes, we cannot generate causal explanations for the failure of a strength training intervention to bring about the expected increases in muscle strength in these very important settings (for example, more than half of the studies in Van Roie et al.’s 2026 scoping review failed to show an increase in muscle strength in real-life muscle-strengthening research).
Therefore, we don’t know if
❓studies are failing to see increases in muscle strength because the intervention was unacceptable to those who delivered it or to those who received it
❓or, the intervention failed to deliver the core components of evidence-based strength training (i.e. sufficient frequency, intensity, or progressive overload) and thus, the intervention was not delivered as intended by its developers
❓or, was it that the intervention was cost-prohibitive and/or unsustainable in that particular setting?
Therefore, despite holding critical implications for our understanding in translating research to practice, evaluation of recognised implementation outcomes appears to be overlooked - at least for preventative strength training.
If we want to encourage decision makers to prioritise proactive or preventative strength training and increase resource allocation, we need to have a clearer picture about what works, for whom, in what circumstances, and how.
It’s time to open that black box!