In the world of fitness and strength training, it has become common to hear statements such as, “Research shows this exercise builds more muscle,” or “Studies prove this movement activates the muscle more.” Sometimes the claim goes further, suggesting that a particular exercise targets the inner chest, the outer biceps, or a specific portion of a muscle more effectively than others. Because of this, many people select their exercises primarily based on what a study appears to suggest. When a study becomes widely shared, its conclusions can sometimes be accepted almost as definitive truth, and people begin implementing the exercise simply because “research says so.”

This reaction is understandable. Scientific research carries credibility, and over the years it has helped us learn a great deal about how the body responds to resistance training. Studies have improved our understanding of muscle growth, strength development, recovery, and many other physiological processes that occur during training.

However, research conclusions are always tied to the specific methods used in the study. What a study measures determines what it can actually tell us. Many exercise studies focus on physiological indicators such as muscle activation, metabolic responses, or changes in muscle size. These measurements provide useful information about how the body reacts to an exercise, but they do not always explain how efficiently the exercise itself loads the muscle.

Every exercise is governed by mechanics. The effectiveness of a movement depends on factors such as whether the motion follows the ideal direction of anatomical motion of the target muscle, whether the exercise provides an ideal range of motion, whether the resistance remains properly aligned relative to the working limb, and whether the movement maintains sufficient stability during execution, to name a few. These biomechanical variables determine how much tension is actually applied to the target muscle and how consistently that tension can be maintained throughout the movement.

When the mechanics of an exercise are not fully considered, it becomes possible for a movement to show measurable physiological responses without necessarily being the most efficient way to load a muscle.

A simple example can illustrate this limitation clearly.

If you place your hands together in front of your chest and press them firmly against each other, your chest muscles will contract. If EMG sensors were attached to the chest, they would detect electrical activity in the muscle because the muscle is producing force.

Yet no one would argue that pressing your hands together in front of your chest is an effective exercise for building the chest.

Even though the muscle is activated, the movement lacks several critical elements required for hypertrophy. There is no meaningful external resistance, no progressive loading potential, and no full range of motion through which the muscle must produce force. The muscle is working, but it is not being challenged by a load sufficient to stimulate substantial growth.

This example highlights an important distinction. Muscle activation simply indicates that a muscle is contracting. It does not automatically mean that the muscle is being trained under optimal mechanical conditions.

For hypertrophy training, the objective is not merely to activate a muscle. The objective is to apply meaningful mechanical tension to muscle fibers while they are working against resistance.

To determine whether an exercise achieves this, we must examine how resistance interacts with the body. This includes whether the exercise allows the active muscle to operate at an appropriate length without active insufficiency, whether excessive stretch of the antagonist muscle creates passive insufficiency, whether the movement avoids neurological interference such as reciprocal inhibition, and whether the exercise prevents limitations from weaker peripherally recruited muscles. All of these factors influence how effectively the muscle can be loaded.

These are biomechanical questions.

Two exercises may both produce measurable activation in a muscle, yet one may load that muscle far more efficiently because its mechanical design allows tension to be applied more effectively throughout the movement. Another exercise might produce activation but fail to maintain meaningful resistance where the muscle is strongest or most capable of producing force.

For this reason, exercise evaluation should not rely solely on physiological measurements.

In the SmartTraining365 system, exercises are analyzed and evaluated through 16 biomechanical factors that determine exercise efficiency. These factors examine how resistance interacts with the body, including elements such as matching the resistance curve of the exercise to the strength curve of the target muscle, ensuring that resistance remains perpendicular to the working limb, avoiding mechanical inefficiency caused by secondary levers that reduce the moment arm of the primary lever, and avoiding exercises that create a base or apex at the mid-range of motion. When an exercise satisfies these 16 factors, it indicates that the movement is highly effective at loading the target muscle under mechanically favorable conditions.

Understanding these principles allows exercises to be evaluated from a mechanical standpoint before interpreting physiological responses. Once the mechanics of an exercise are understood, physiological indicators such as muscle activation, metabolic stress, or hypertrophy results from research can be interpreted more accurately.

This is also why research findings often make more sense when viewed through the lens of biomechanics. When these biomechanical principles are considered alongside physiological research, the information from studies becomes easier to interpret and apply. Instead of relying on isolated measurements, combining biomechanics and physiology provides a more complete and realistic understanding of exercise effectiveness.

For those interested in learning more about this approach, the 16 biomechanical factors and how they are used to evaluate exercises are explained in detail in a dedicated video. These factors form the foundation of how SmartTraining365 measures exercise efficiency and ranks movements according to their mechanical effectiveness.

Over the years, through systematic experimentation with exercises within complete training programs, combined with the use of scientific knowledge, testing different methods, and observing results from both research and practical experience, a consistent pattern began to emerge. Movements that satisfy key biomechanical principles—such as favoring unilateral loading to benefit from cross education, avoiding simultaneous activation of contralateral muscles that can create a bilateral deficit, ensuring the level of resistance is appropriate for the target muscle, and avoiding unnatural joint movement or unnecessary spinal loading—tend to be easier to progress, more sustainable over time, and more comfortable on the joints. They also allow better training frequency and recovery while delivering meaningful mechanical load to the target muscles. When these factors are present, training becomes more efficient, minimizing wasted time and effort while also reducing unnecessary injury risk.

Research remains an important tool for expanding our knowledge. However, when interpreting research, it is also important to look carefully at the context in which the study was conducted. The profile of the participants, their training experience, the duration of the experiment, and the conditions under which they trained can all influence the results. A short-term study, for example, may show certain outcomes, but that does not always mean the same results will apply over longer training periods.

Other factors also play an important role when interpreting research. Were the participants beginners or experienced lifters? How frequently were they training? What was their recovery like? Were nutrition and lifestyle factors controlled or consistent? These details can significantly influence how the body responds to training, and they must be considered before assuming that the results apply universally.

In addition, the background of the researchers and the methods used in the study influence what the research is actually able to measure. If the focus of the research is primarily physiological, the biomechanical efficiency of the exercises being tested may not always be examined with the same level of depth. Ideally, both physiological responses and biomechanical principles should be considered together in order to evaluate an exercise more completely. It is also worth recognizing that researchers, like anyone else, may sometimes approach a study with certain expectations or viewpoints about what they hope to demonstrate. In some cases, they may be attempting to support a theory they have previously discussed or are personally interested in. This does not necessarily invalidate the research, but it reinforces why it is important for readers to look closely at how a study was conducted and to evaluate the findings critically rather than accepting them automatically.

Beyond research, personal experience and observation also play an important role. Over the years, I have tested many exercises and training programs in different ways, carefully observing how the body responds under various conditions. This process of experimentation and self-observation has helped me better understand how different exercises work and how training principles apply in real practice.

By developing that awareness, it becomes easier to interpret research findings more intelligently. Instead of accepting conclusions automatically, you begin to understand when a study aligns with sound biomechanical principles and when its findings may be limited by the conditions under which it was conducted.

For this reason, I always encourage people to learn the principles behind effective training and to pay attention to how their own body responds. When research, biomechanics, and personal observation are considered together, training decisions become clearer, more efficient, and far more effective.

Written By Moe Larbi
 Founder of SmartTraining365 & Ratel Mentality
Sports Performance Coach
 Helping athletes and everyday lifters train smarter, safer, faster, and stronger under real-world conditions.