Strength Training and Its Evolution Throughout History

From athletes in Ancient Greece to modern monitoring technologies: how our approach to developing strength has changed and why it is now one of the fundamental pillars of health and performance.

Strength: A Skill as Old as Humanity

Lifting, carrying, pushing, pulling. Movements that we associate today with gym training have been part of human life since our earliest origins.

Long before it became a sporting discipline, strength was a necessity. It was essential for obtaining food, building shelters, working, and overcoming environmental challenges.

With the development of civilizations, however, something changed: strength ceased to be merely a means of survival and began to take on cultural, educational, and competitive significance.

From the feats of mythological heroes to athletic competitions, the ability to produce force gradually became a symbol of discipline, courage, and physical preparation.

But when did we begin training strength systematically? And, more importantly, how did we progress from the stones lifted by athletes in ancient times to modern systems capable of measuring a barbell’s velocity?

To answer these questions, we must retrace more than two thousand years of history.

Ancient Greece: When Strength Became Training

In Ancient Greece, physical exercise played a central role in the development of the individual. Athletic preparation was considered not merely a matter of muscular development, but an integral part of education.

Athletes trained through bodyweight exercises, wrestling, running, jumping, and lifting heavy objects.

An interesting example is provided by the halteres, weights made of stone or metal used primarily in the long jump, which demonstrate the use of external implements in athletic training.

Among the most famous stories in ancient sporting tradition is that of Milo of Croton, a legendary wrestler who lived in the sixth century BC.

According to tradition, Milo trained by carrying a calf on his shoulders every day. As the animal grew, the weight he had to carry increased as well.

We do not know how closely this story corresponds to documented historical fact, but its underlying meaning is remarkably modern.

It describes what we now call the principle of progressive overload: to continue improving, the body must be exposed to progressively more demanding stimuli, appropriate to its capabilities.

Although this principle was formally established through scientific research many centuries later, it remains one of the fundamental foundations of strength training today.

From the Renaissance to the 19th Century: Strength Becomes a Spectacle

Over the centuries, the culture of physical exercise underwent profound transformations.

Between the 18th and 19th centuries, organized gymnastics and physical education systems helped spread a renewed interest in developing physical abilities throughout Europe.

At the same time, strongmen began to gain popularity at fairs and in theaters: men capable of impressing audiences by lifting weights, bending metal objects, or performing feats of strength.

These performances were primarily intended as entertainment, but they helped transform strength into a quality that could be developed, displayed, and compared.

Eugene Sandow and the Birth of Modern Bodybuilding

A key figure in this transformation was Eugene Sandow (1867–1925).

Sandow did not simply demonstrate his strength. He presented a muscular physique as the result of methodical work, combining physical performance, aesthetic proportions, and personal discipline.

His aesthetic ideal was inspired by the proportions of Greco-Roman sculptures.

In 1901, he organized a famous physical development competition in London, often regarded as one of the founding events of modern bodybuilding.

With Sandow, a shift emerged that would profoundly influence fitness culture: training was no longer just about becoming stronger, but also about consciously transforming one’s body.

The 20th Century: The Science of Strength Training Emerges

While the 19th century helped popularize strength culture, the 20th century began to transform it into an increasingly systematic and scientific discipline.

The spread of adjustable barbells, specialized equipment, and early technical publications made it possible to plan exercise more precisely.

The fundamental question began to change.

It was no longer just about how much weight a person could lift, but which combination of load, repetitions, and recovery would produce the best adaptations.

Maximal Strength, Explosive Strength, and Power: They Are Not the Same Thing

For a long time, strength training was primarily associated with the ability to lift heavy loads.

Scientific research, however, has shown that muscular performance is a more complex phenomenon.

Maximal strength

The maximum force that the neuromuscular system can produce under specific conditions.

Explosive strength

The ability to develop force rapidly, particularly important when the time available is limited.

Muscular power

The rate at which mechanical work is performed; in linear movements, it is expressed as the product of force and velocity.

An athlete may possess high maximal strength without necessarily being equally effective in movements that require force to be produced very rapidly.

Consider a jump, a sprint, or a rapid change of direction: in these situations, what matters is not only how much force is potentially available, but also how quickly it can be developed and applied.

The Rate of Force Development (RFD)

One of the most important concepts in modern athletic training is the Rate of Force Development, abbreviated as RFD.

RFD describes how quickly force increases during a contraction.

A 2016 scientific review by Maffiuletti and colleagues highlighted the importance of neuromuscular factors, particularly voluntary activation during the very early stages of contraction.

The ability to develop force rapidly therefore depends on several factors, including neural activation, muscle characteristics, and the type of training performed.

This explains why developing maximal strength and developing explosiveness may require partially different training stimuli.

Research suggests that both high-load training and explosive contraction training can improve RFD, through adaptations that depend on the protocol and the athlete’s characteristics.

The message is simple: being strong is important, but being able to apply that strength within the time required by a specific movement can make all the difference.

From Traditional Training to Velocity-Based Training

Advances in measurement technologies have introduced a new possibility: monitoring not only the weight being lifted, but also the speed at which it moves.

This has led to the development of Velocity-Based Training (VBT), an approach that uses movement velocity to monitor performance and help regulate training loads.

In traditional training, intensity is often prescribed as a percentage of the one-repetition maximum, or 1RM.

The problem is that the 1RM represents a measurement obtained at a specific point in time, while an athlete’s physical condition can vary from one training session to another.

VBT provides an additional piece of useful information: how the load is actually being moved at that particular moment.

How Does VBT Work?

Using devices such as linear position transducers or dedicated sensors, it is possible to monitor the execution velocity of an exercise.

These data can be used to assess changes across repetitions, identify variations in performance, and adjust training according to specific objectives.

One particularly interesting parameter is velocity loss, which refers to the percentage decrease in movement velocity during a set.

When repetitions are performed with a comparable movement intention, a progressive reduction in velocity can provide information about fatigue and how close the athlete is getting to their performance limit.

For example, a strength and conditioning coach might choose to terminate a set when velocity drops beyond a predetermined threshold, rather than always prescribing a fixed number of repetitions.

Naturally, these thresholds must be interpreted in context, taking into account the exercise, the training objective, and the athlete’s individual characteristics.

What Does Scientific Research Say?

A systematic review by Włodarczyk and colleagues (2021) analyzed the use of Velocity-Based Training (VBT) in elite athletes, highlighting the potential of velocity loss thresholds to monitor fatigue and guide neuromuscular adaptations.

A subsequent meta-analysis by Zhang and colleagues (2022), based on nine studies involving a total of 253 trained men, found improvements in several performance indicators, including maximal lower-body strength, strength endurance, jumping ability, and sprint performance.

These findings are promising, but they do not demonstrate that VBT is always superior to a well-structured traditional training program.

Its main value lies in the possibility of incorporating objective data into coaching decisions.

Does Movement Intent Matter as Much as Velocity?

A particularly interesting perspective emerges from a review by Behm and colleagues, published in 2025.

The authors emphasize that developing specific explosive adaptations depends not only on the actual speed of movement, but also on the intention to perform the concentric phase as rapidly as possible.

During a heavily loaded squat, for example, the barbell may move slowly even when the athlete is attempting to accelerate it as much as possible.

This explosive intent can provide a meaningful neuromuscular stimulus, even when the external movement velocity remains relatively low.

Modern athletic preparation can therefore combine heavy loads, explosive intent, rapid movements, and plyometric training, always according to the specific objective.

PAP and PAPE: Preparing the Neuromuscular System to Produce More Power

Another chapter in the evolution of strength training concerns the possibility of temporarily improving performance through preceding muscular activity.

Imagine an athlete performing a few repetitions of squats with a heavy load, resting for several minutes, and then completing a set of vertical jumps.

Under certain conditions, jumping performance may improve compared with the initial baseline.

This type of strategy has often been associated with the concept of Post-Activation Potentiation (PAP).

More recent scientific literature, however, has introduced an important distinction.

PAP, in the strict physiological sense, describes a temporary increase in the muscle’s contractile response, measured through specific stimulation protocols.

PAPE, or Post-Activation Performance Enhancement, refers instead to an observable improvement in voluntary performance, such as a jump or sprint, following a conditioning activity.

Blazevich and Babault (2019), together with Prieske and colleagues (2020), have clarified why these phenomena should not automatically be considered equivalent.

The Role of Recovery

The effect of a conditioning sequence depends on the balance between the potential benefits of neuromuscular preparation and the fatigue produced by the preceding exercise.

If recovery is insufficient, fatigue may outweigh the benefits and impair subsequent performance.

A meta-analysis by Li and colleagues (2024), which included 21 studies and 327 participants, observed improvements in vertical jump height with recovery intervals of four minutes and five to eight minutes in the protocols analyzed.

This does not mean that there is a universally optimal recovery time. Training experience, intensity, volume, and individual characteristics can substantially influence the response.

Practical application therefore requires assessment, individualization, and fatigue management.

A Cultural Revolution: Strength Is No Longer Considered Exclusively Male

The evolution of strength training has not been purely technical and scientific. It has also been social.

For much of the 20th century, resistance training was associated primarily with men, bodybuilding, and strength sports.

Women were often encouraged to participate in activities considered more appropriate according to the stereotypes of the time, such as light gymnastics, dance, and aerobic exercise.

Change occurred gradually through advances in research, increased female participation in sports, and the contributions of female athletes who challenged established cultural conventions.

Among them, Jan Todd represents an important figure in the history of women’s powerlifting.

Women’s recognition and participation in competitive strength sports progressively expanded, culminating in the inclusion of women’s weightlifting in the Olympic program at Sydney 2000.

A review by Kraemer, Fragala, and Ratamess (2025) examines this transformation, emphasizing that strength training provides significant benefits for women as well, from athletic performance to muscular, bone, and metabolic health.

Today, we know that the fundamental principles of resistance training are broadly shared by men and women, while still requiring appropriate individualization.

Strength does not belong to a particular gender. It is a human capability that can be developed throughout life.

From Performance to Health: Why Strength Training Is Essential Today

Perhaps the most significant change in the history of strength training concerns its very purpose.

For centuries, we sought to become stronger to fight, work, compete, or improve our physical appearance.

Today, we know that strength training also means investing in our health and future independence.

Muscular strength contributes to our ability to perform daily activities, supports musculoskeletal function, and helps maintain independence as we age.

Properly programmed resistance training can help maintain or increase muscle mass, improve functional capacity, and contribute to bone and metabolic health.

It is therefore not an activity reserved for athletes.

For an older adult, improving lower-body strength can mean getting up from a chair more easily, climbing stairs with greater confidence, or maintaining independence for longer.

For a sedentary adult, it can be an important tool for counteracting the gradual decline in muscular capacity.

For an athlete, on the other hand, strength is a fundamental physical quality that must be integrated with technique and the other abilities required by their sport.

The goals change, as do the exercises and training intensities. But the principle remains the same: progressively, safely, and sustainably stimulate the body to improve its capabilities.

The Future of Strength Training: Technology, Personalization, and Expertise

Today, we have access to tools that athletes from a century ago could scarcely have imagined.

Motion sensors, force plates, velocity analysis systems, and monitoring software allow us to collect increasingly detailed information about training.

These tools can help coaches and strength and conditioning professionals better understand individual responses to training stimuli, monitor progress, and adjust programs accordingly.

However, technology alone does not guarantee better results.

Data are useful only when correctly interpreted and incorporated into a competent decision-making process.

Exercise selection, execution quality, load progression, recovery, and consistency remain fundamental elements.

And this is precisely where the past and the future meet.

The principle illustrated by the story of Milo of Croton, DeLorme’s progressive training approach, and modern VBT systems all share the same underlying objective: identifying the most appropriate stimulus to promote adaptation.

The tools and our knowledge have changed, but the need to understand the relationship between training, recovery, and improvement remains the same.

Conclusion: Strength Has Changed, but Its Value Remains

From the stones of antiquity to adjustable barbells, from the first progressive overload protocols to periodization, and finally to velocity monitoring and performance enhancement strategies, strength training has undergone an extraordinary transformation.

Once a practice associated with survival and competition, it has become a scientifically researched tool for improving performance, supporting health, and preserving physical function.

Today, true progress does not simply mean lifting more weight, but understanding how, when, and why to train.

Because strength is not just what we are capable of lifting. It is also what enables us to keep moving, face everyday challenges, and maintain our independence over time.

And perhaps this is the most important evolution in the meaning of strength.