Does the order of exercises in a session matter?
A systematic review and meta-analysis of eleven training studies compared performing multi-joint exercises first with performing single-joint exercises first. No significant effect of exercise order was observed for muscle hypertrophy, combining site-specific and indirect measures (ES = 0.03; p = 0.862). When all strength tests were pooled across multi-joint and single-joint exercises, there was no difference between the two orders (ES = -0.11; p = 0.306). That pooled strength comparison, however, is made up of two significant effects running in opposite directions: strength gains in multi-joint exercises favoured starting the session with multi-joint exercises (ES = 0.32; p = 0.034), and strength gains in single-joint exercises favoured starting the session with single-joint exercises (ES = -0.58; p = 0.032). The authors conclude that increases in muscular strength are largest in the exercises performed at the beginning of a session, and that for muscle hypertrophy both orders may produce similar results.
Nunes JP (2021) · European journal of sport science · PMID 32077380
It does NOT say exercise order is irrelevant. Strength gains were order-dependent in both directions (ES = 0.32 favouring MJ-first for MJ strength; ES = -0.58 favouring SJ-first for SJ strength), so "order doesn't matter" is an overclaim and an inversion of the paper's own conclusion. The pooled all-strength null (ES = -0.11; p = 0.306) is not evidence of no effect — it averages two opposing order effects that cancel. It does NOT establish that exercise order is harmless for growth: the hypertrophy result is a failure to detect a difference (ES = 0.03; p = 0.862), the abstract reports no confidence interval for it, and the pooled estimate mixes site-specific with indirect hypertrophy measures — so it cannot be presented as a precise equivalence bound. It does NOT license any claim about who this applies to: no participant count, training status, sex or age appears anywhere in the abstract, so "in trained lifters" or "in men" is unsupported. And it is NOT a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials — the abstract says only "good-to-excellent methodological quality studies" appraised with TESTEX, and PubMed's publication types for this record are Journal Article, Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review, with no Randomized Controlled Trial type. Describe it as a systematic review and meta-analysis, never as "a meta-analysis of RCTs".
Every figure below is shown with the sentence it was taken from, so you can check it against the paper rather than trusting us.
- 0.03Hedges' g effect size
Pooled difference between MJ-to-SJ and SJ-to-MJ exercise order for muscle hypertrophy, combining site-specific and indirect measures — not statistically significant. No confidence interval is reported in the abstract, so this is not an equivalence bound.
No significant effect of EO was observed for hypertrophy combining site-specific and indirect measures (ES = 0.03; p = 0.862).
- 0.862p-value
p-value for the hypertrophy comparison between exercise orders
No significant effect of EO was observed for hypertrophy combining site-specific and indirect measures (ES = 0.03; p = 0.862).
- -0.11Hedges' g effect size
Difference between exercise orders when strength results from multi-joint and single-joint exercises are pooled together — no significant difference. This pooled figure averages two opposing significant effects that cancel; it is not evidence that order does nothing for strength.
When all strength tests, that is, both in multi-joint (MJ) and single-joint (SJ) exercises were considered, there was no difference between the EOs (ES = -0.11; p = 0.306).
- 0.306p-value
p-value for the pooled all-strength-tests comparison between exercise orders
When all strength tests, that is, both in multi-joint (MJ) and single-joint (SJ) exercises were considered, there was no difference between the EOs (ES = -0.11; p = 0.306).
- 0.32Hedges' g effect size
Advantage in multi-joint exercise strength gains from starting the session with multi-joint exercises
However, there was a difference between the MJ-to-SJ and SJ-to-MJ orders for strength gains in the MJ exercises, favouring starting the exercise session with MJ exercises (ES = 0.32; p = 0.034), and the strength gains in the SJ exercises, favouring starting the exercise session with SJ exercises (ES = -0.58; p = 0.032).
- 0.034p-value
p-value for the multi-joint strength gain difference between exercise orders. Distinct from the near-identical 0.032 belonging to the single-joint comparison.
However, there was a difference between the MJ-to-SJ and SJ-to-MJ orders for strength gains in the MJ exercises, favouring starting the exercise session with MJ exercises (ES = 0.32; p = 0.034), and the strength gains in the SJ exercises, favouring starting the exercise session with SJ exercises (ES = -0.58; p = 0.032).
- -0.58Hedges' g effect size
Advantage in single-joint exercise strength gains from starting the session with single-joint exercises. The negative sign carries the direction and must not be dropped.
However, there was a difference between the MJ-to-SJ and SJ-to-MJ orders for strength gains in the MJ exercises, favouring starting the exercise session with MJ exercises (ES = 0.32; p = 0.034), and the strength gains in the SJ exercises, favouring starting the exercise session with SJ exercises (ES = -0.58; p = 0.032).
- 0.032p-value
p-value for the single-joint strength gain difference between exercise orders. Distinct from the near-identical 0.034 belonging to the multi-joint comparison.
However, there was a difference between the MJ-to-SJ and SJ-to-MJ orders for strength gains in the MJ exercises, favouring starting the exercise session with MJ exercises (ES = 0.32; p = 0.034), and the strength gains in the SJ exercises, favouring starting the exercise session with SJ exercises (ES = -0.58; p = 0.032).
- Elevenstudies
Number of studies included in the review. Their designs are not specified in the abstract, so this is not eleven RCTs.
Eleven good-to-excellent methodological quality studies were included in the review.
Not stated in the abstract. The abstract describes only the studies ("Eleven good-to-excellent methodological quality studies were included in the review") and reports no participant total, training status, sex or age. PubMed MeSH indexing for this record carries Humans with no Male, Female, Adult or Young Adult qualifier. Do not assert a population on any card built from this record.
Nunes JP, et al. (2021)What influence does resistance exercise order have on muscular strength gains and muscle hypertrophy? A systematic review and meta-analysis.
European journal of sport science · PMID 32077380
Meta-analysis · Eleven studies
Who funded itAuthors declare no conflicts of interest.
Volume, rep ranges, rest, stretching, sleep — each with its numbers and its limits.
Every figure is machine-checked against the sentence it came from. Including what that does not guarantee.
Repstra handles the programming, check-ins and admin so the conversation you have with a client is the coaching one. Free for your first 5 clients, 0% commission on your own.
See how it works