For strength, yes; for muscle growth, barely. In a meta-analysis of 11 studies, strength rose most in whichever exercises were done first in a session, while muscle growth was about the same in either order (effect size 0.03)4.
So the order question depends on the goal. If one lift's strength matters most, the research says it tends to gain more when it comes first.
What the terms mean
A multi-joint (compound) exercise moves several joints at once, like a squat, bench press or row. A single-joint (isolation) exercise moves one joint, like a leg extension or biceps curl. These examples are ours; the studies used various exercises.
Exercise order is the sequence in which exercises are done within one session5. The classic comparison is big lifts first, then small ones (multi-joint to single-joint), against the reverse.
An effect size expresses a difference in units of how much people vary. By a common rule of thumb, 0.2 is small and 0.5 is medium. This is general statistics, not something the order studies defined.
A meta-analysis pools the results of many studies into one estimate.
In plain terms: the question is whether doing squats before leg extensions, or the other way round, changes the results.
What was studied
| Study | Who | Design | Length |
|---|---|---|---|
| Simão 2012 | Earlier trials, reviewed | Narrative review of order studies | Varied |
| Avelar 2019 | 36 young men | Big-first vs small-first, ultrasound and body scan | 6 weeks |
| Tomeleri 2020 | 44 older women (29 training, 15 control) | Big-first vs small-first, 8 exercises, 3 times a week | 12 weeks |
| Nunes 2021 | 11 studies | Meta-analysis of strength and growth | Varied |
| Currier 2026 (ACSM) | 137 systematic reviews | Overview of all training variables | Search to October 2024 |
The 2021 meta-analysis rated all 11 of its studies good to excellent in quality4. Its abstract does not say who the participants were or how long each programme ran.
What the studies found
Strength follows position. When all strength tests were pooled, order made no difference (effect size −0.11, p = 0.306)4. But split by exercise, a clear pattern appeared. Multi-joint lifts gained more strength when the session started with them (effect size 0.32, p = 0.034). Single-joint lifts gained more strength when the session started with them (0.58, p = 0.032)4. The two effects pull in opposite directions, which is a likely reason the pooled result was not significant.
Effect of doing big lifts first vs small lifts first · ES
Growth does not follow position. For muscle growth, combining direct and indirect measures, the order effect was 0.03 (p = 0.862)4. The estimate sits close to zero, though the abstract gives no interval, and the authors wrote only that both orders may produce similar growth4.
The single trials agree, mostly. In 36 young men over 6 weeks, biceps thickness grew about equally with big-first (14.2%) and small-first (13.8%) sessions2. Mid-thigh thickness increased significantly only in the big-first group (7.2% vs 3.9%), and trunk lean tissue showed a trend the same way (7.2% vs 1.7%, p = 0.07)2. In 29 older women training for 12 weeks, strength (16.4% vs 12.7%) and lean mass (7.5% vs 6.1%) rose similarly in both orders3.
Gains with small lifts first vs big lifts first, two trials · %
Small lifts first Big lifts first
The newest guidance. The 2026 ACSM position stand, pooling 137 systematic reviews, found strength was enhanced by training an exercise at the beginning of a session rather than the end. It found muscle growth was not affected by exercise order within a session5.
In plain terms: whatever comes first gets stronger; order hardly changes how much muscle grows.
The nuance
Why first gets stronger. An earlier review found that more total reps are done on an exercise placed at the start of a session, whatever the size of the muscle1. Fresh muscles lift more, which adds up to more practice and more volume on that lift. This is a likely reason, not something the meta-analysis tested.
Why growth barely changes. Each muscle still gets its sets in either order. If the weekly work per muscle is the same, growth tends to be similar. See how many sets per muscle group per week for why weekly sets matter more.
The thigh result is a hint, not a rule. In the 6-week trial, the thigh grew significantly only when the big lifts came first2. But the pooled data across 11 studies showed no order effect on growth4. One short trial is not enough to overturn that.
"Big muscles first" is a habit, not a law. The 2012 review suggested ordering exercises by priority for the training goal, whether they work a large or a small muscle group1. The 2021 data fit that: small lifts done first got stronger too4.
Pre-exhaustion is a different question. Doing an isolation exercise right before a compound one for the same muscle, to tire it first, might not raise recruitment of the larger muscle, the 2012 review concluded1.
In plain terms: order the session by what you most want to get stronger at; for size, the order you will stick to is fine.
What this means in practice
The trials describe groups, not a plan for one person. The groups whose strength rose most on a lift were the ones that did it first4. The groups that did big lifts first and those that did small lifts first grew about the same amount of muscle45.
Many programmes put the main compound lifts first, which fits this pattern when those are the lifts tracked for strength; see the beginner workout program and how to build your own workout program. Pairing exercises back to back is covered in supersets explained.
The studies at a glance
| Study | Who was studied | Key result | Year |
|---|---|---|---|
| Simão et al., *Sports Med*1 | Earlier order studies, reviewed | More reps and strength for exercises placed first; order by goal priority | 2012 |
| Avelar et al., *Appl Physiol Nutr Metab*2 | 36 young men, 6 weeks | Biceps grew equally; mid-thigh grew only with big lifts first | 2019 |
| Tomeleri et al., *J Strength Cond Res*3 | 44 older women, 12 weeks | Similar strength and lean-mass gains in both orders | 2020 |
| Nunes et al., *Eur J Sport Sci*4 | 11 studies | Strength gains largest in exercises done first; growth effect 0.03 | 2021 |
| Currier et al., *Med Sci Sports Exerc*5 | Overview of 137 systematic reviews | Strength enhanced at the start of sessions; growth not affected by order | 2026 |
Limits worth knowing
- Abstracts only for four of the five papers. We read the exercise-order parts of the ACSM stand in full, not its online appendices.
- No confidence intervals. The 2021 abstract gives effect sizes and p-values but no intervals, so the chart shows point estimates only4.
- Unknown participants. The meta-analysis abstract does not say who was studied or for how long4.
- Short and small trials. Six to twelve weeks, with 29 to 36 people training.
- Indirect growth measures. The meta-analysis combined direct and indirect measures of growth, which are less precise than scans of a single muscle4.
Latest research
The newest source is the 2026 ACSM position stand, which updates the society's 2009 guidance5. On order it matches the 2021 meta-analysis: strength was enhanced for exercises done at the beginning of a session, and growth was not affected by order. Its search ended in October 2024. We found no newer controlled trial of exercise order and muscle growth.
The short version
- Exercises done first in a session gained the most strength in the pooled studies.
- That held for big and small lifts alike.
- Muscle growth was about the same in either order.
- The 2026 ACSM stand reached the same two conclusions.
- Weekly sets per muscle matter more for growth than the sequence.
Educational overview only — not medical advice.
