Throughout this series exploring the empirical evidence surrounding Dr. Gabrielle Lyon’s (2022) Muscle-Centric Medicine (MCM) paradigm, we’ve explored the profound role of skeletal muscle in metabolic regulation, disease prevention, and longevity. However, the question remains: how do we track success in a training program rooted in MCM? Traditional fitness metrics have long prioritized weight loss and BMI, but these numbers fail to tell the whole story. For personal trainers integrating MCM into their practice, success must be measured through objective and subjective markers that reflect true physiological adaptation, functional capability, and long-term adherence.
This final installment in our series explores scientifically validated methods for tracking muscle-centric training progress, reinforcing the need for a shift away from outdated models toward a more comprehensive assessment framework.
Muscle as a Marker of Health and Longevity
A growing body of research highlights the vital connection between skeletal muscle health and longevity. Studies consistently show that muscle mass and strength serve as significant predictors of long-term health outcomes, with greater levels of lean mass linked to enhanced insulin sensitivity, reduced systemic inflammation, and a lower risk of chronic diseases (Hoffmann & Weigert, 2017; Kalyani et al., 2014; Sheffield-Moore & Urban, 2004). Additionally, grip strength—a seemingly straightforward measure—has proven to be an exceptionally accurate indicator of cardiovascular health, metabolic resilience, and even the decline associated with neurodegenerative diseases (American College of Sports Medicine, 2021; Gerodimos, 2012) (Nicola et al., 2024). Therefore, as a personal trainer, assessing a client’s grip strength can offer substantial benefits!
As mentioned in previous installments, sarcopenia—the progressive decline of skeletal muscle mass and function—is now recognized as a major contributor to frailty, disability, and increased mortality risk (Argilés et al., 2016; Kalyani et al., 2014). While traditional healthcare models have largely neglected skeletal muscle as a vital organ of longevity, MCM challenges this outdated perspective by placing muscle health at the forefront of disease prevention and metabolic optimization. If muscle is indeed the key to aging well, then tracking changes in muscle mass, strength, and function must become central to how we measure progress in resistance training.
Objective Measures of Success in Resistance Training
Tracking objective, quantifiable data is the foundation of progressive overload and long-term muscle adaptation strategies. While clients may initially focus on external changes—muscle definition, body composition, or weight—the fundamental indicators of success lie in how well their bodies are responding physiologically to training stimuli.
In this regard, Body Composition Analysis provides a far more accurate assessment of progress than scale weight. Traditional weight tracking fails to differentiate between muscle mass, fat mass, and hydration levels, making it unreliable in muscle-centric training. Instead, methods such as Dual-Energy X-ray Absorptiometry (DEXA) (Angin & Erden, 2009; Nagelkirk et al., 2010), bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) (McLester et al., 2020), and skinfold calipers offer more precise insights into changes in lean tissue and fat distribution (Pastuszak et al., 2019). Additionally, the D3 creatine dilution test has emerged as a potentially new gold standard for directly measuring skeletal muscle mass, surpassing traditional assessments in accuracy and reliability (Evans et al., 2019).
In contrast, strength and functional movement assessments stand out as two of the most practical and meaningful ways to monitor client progress. Unlike body composition, which can vary due to factors such as hydration levels and glycogen storage, strength adaptations offer direct evidence of neuromuscular improvements. Alongside grip strength measurements, five-rep max (5RM) (Haff & Triplett, 2015; Haugen et al., 2023) testing and functional movement screens (FMS) provide valuable insights into muscular function, movement efficiency, and movement asymmetries (Karuc et al., 2021; Parchmann & McBride, 2011). Moreover, the timed sit-to-stand test has emerged as an effective measure of lower body strength and endurance, particularly among aging populations (American College of Sports Medicine, 2021). Collectively, these methods equip personal trainers with a more comprehensive “assessment toolbox” to enhance client tracking.
For a more clinical approach, tracking metabolic biomarkers provides deeper insights into systemic adaptations. Since muscle plays a key role in glucose regulation, lipid metabolism, and inflammation, relevant blood markers such as fasting glucose, insulin sensitivity, testosterone levels, and C-reactive protein (CRP) can help quantify the impact of resistance training at a cellular level (Paine et al., 2015).
Subjective and Psychological Metrics in Strength Training
While objective data provides a measurable framework for progress, subjective perception plays an equally important role in training adherence and overall well-being. To illustrate, research highlights the significance of perceived progress, self-efficacy, and psychological resilience in sustaining long-term commitment to resistance training (Guerrero, 2023; Shaw et al., 2015).
Monitoring self-reported energy levels, recovery times, and mental clarity offers trainers a comprehensive view of how clients are responding to their training programs. Drawing from the author’s personal experiences as a trainer and certified strength and conditioning specialist, many individuals involved in muscle-focused training have reported improvements in energy levels, sleep quality, and stress management—factors that significantly enhance motivation and commitment. Regular check-ins and the use of training journals provide a means to document these qualitative improvements, emphasizing progress that extends beyond mere numerical data.
Best Practices for Tracking Client Progress in Muscle-Centric Training
For MCM to be fully optimized, tracking methods must extend beyond weight and body fat percentages. Implementing structured tracking strategies enhances accountability, motivation, and long-term commitment.
Training logs and digital tracking applications provide clients with concrete data on their progress over time. By logging sets, repetitions, weights, and rest periods, clients can identify clear patterns of improvement, while wearable technology facilitates real-time monitoring of heart rate variability, recovery, and energy expenditure (Patel et al., 2021). Additionally, gamification strategies—such as leaderboards, community-based challenges, and milestone rewards—help create a supportive training environment. Research indicates that social reinforcement significantly enhances adherence, particularly among older adults and novice trainees (Patel et al., 2021).
Conclusion: Redefining Success in Muscle-Centric Training
Dr. Gabrielle Lyon’s Muscle-Centric Medicine paradigm offers a groundbreaking framework for redefining success in resistance training. To fully integrate MCM into practice, trainers must move beyond outdated weight-centric models and embrace comprehensive tracking systems that capture strength, metabolic health, and psychological resilience.
By incorporating objective markers such as DEXA scans, strength testing, and metabolic biomarkers, alongside subjective assessments of energy, confidence, and functional independence, fitness professionals can develop a holistic, data-driven approach to muscle-centric training.
Ultimately, MCM is about more than muscle—it’s about building resilient, empowered individuals who redefine what it means to age well and perform at their peak. By tracking and measuring success through a broad, evidence-based lens, we reinforce the long-term value of strength training and solidify the importance of skeletal muscle in the future of health and longevity.
References
American College of Sports Medicine. (2021). ACSM’s guidelines for exercise testing and prescription: Eleventh edition. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
Angin, E., & Erden, Z. (2009). The effect of group exercise on postmenopausal osteoporosis and osteopenia. Acta orthopaedica et traumatologica turcica, 43(4), 343–350.
Argilés, J. M., Campos, N., Lopez-Pedrosa, J. M., Rueda, R., & Rodriguez-Mañas, L. (2016). Skeletal muscle regulates metabolism via interorgan crosstalk: Roles in health and disease. Journal of the American Medical Directors Association, 17(9), 789–796.
Evans, W. J., Hellerstein, M., Orwoll, E., Cummings, S., & Cawthon, P. M. (2019). D3 -Creatine dilution and the importance of accuracy in the assessment of skeletal muscle mass. Journal of Cachexia, Sarcopenia and Muscle, 10(1), 14–21.
Gerodimos, V. (2012). Reliability of handgrip strength test in basketball players. Journal of Human Kinetics, 31, 25–36.
Guerrero, B. (2023, September 26). Boosting employee health: The power of strength training. Treo Wellness. https://treowellness.com/blog/boosting-employee-health-the-power-of-strength-training/
Haff, G. G., & Triplett, N. T. (2015). Essentials of strength training and conditioning: 4th edition. Human Kinetics.
Haugen, M. E., Vårvik, F. T., Larsen, S., Haugen, A. S., van den Tillaar, R., & Bjørnsen, T. (2023). Effect of free-weight vs. machine-based strength training on maximal strength, hypertrophy and jump performance – a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Sports Science, Medicine and Rehabilitation, 15(1), 103.
Hoffmann, C., & Weigert, C. (2017). Skeletal muscle as an endocrine organ: The role of myokines in exercise adaptations. Cold Spring Harbor Perspectives in Medicine, 7(11), a029793.
Kalyani, R. R., Corriere, M., & Ferrucci, L. (2014). Age-related and disease-related muscle loss: the effect of diabetes, obesity, and other diseases. The Lancet. Diabetes & Endocrinology, 2(10), 819–829.
Karuc, J., Mišigoj-Duraković, M., Šarlija, M., Marković, G., Hadžić, V., Trošt-Bobić, T., & Sorić, M. (2021). Can injuries be predicted by functional movement screen in adolescents? The application of machine learning. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research / National Strength & Conditioning Association, 35(4), 910–919.
Lyon, Gabrielle. (2022, September 13). Muscle-centric Medicine ®. Dr. Gabrielle Lyon. https://drgabriellelyon.com/muscle-centric-medicine/
McLester, C. N., Nickerson, B. S., Kliszczewicz, B. M., & McLester, J. R. (2020). Reliability and agreement of various InBody body composition analyzers as compared to dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry in healthy men and women. Journal of Clinical Densitometry: The Official Journal of the International Society for Clinical Densitometry, 23(3), 443–450.
Nagelkirk, P. R., Scalzo, R., Harber, M., & Kaminsky, L. A. (2010). The influence of acute resistance training and body composition on coagulation and fibrinolytic activity in low-risk women. International Journal of Sports Medicine, 31(7), 458–462.
Nicola, L., Loo, S. J. Q., Lyon, G., Turknett, J., & Wood, T. R. (2024). Does resistance training in older adults lead to structural brain changes associated with a lower risk of Alzheimer’s dementia? A narrative review. Ageing Research Reviews, 98, 102356.
Paine, N. J., Bosch, J. A., Ring, C., Drayson, M. T., & Veldhuijzen van Zanten, J. J. C. S. (2015). Induced mild systemic inflammation is associated with impaired ability to improve cognitive task performance by practice. Psychophysiology, 52(3), 333–341.
Parchmann, C. J., & McBride, J. M. (2011). Relationship between functional movement screen and athletic performance. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research / National Strength & Conditioning Association, 25(12), 3378–3384.
Pastuszak, A., Gajewski, J., & Buśko, K. (2019). The impact of skinfolds measurement on somatotype determination in Heath-Carter method. PloS One, 14(9), 1–11.
Patel, M. S., Bachireddy, C., Small, D. S., Harrison, J. D., Harrington, T. O., Oon, A. L., Rareshide, C. A. L., Snider, C. K., & Volpp, K. G. (2021). Effect of goal-setting approaches within a gamification intervention to increase physical activity among economically disadvantaged adults at elevated risk for major adverse cardiovascular events: The ENGAGE randomized clinical trial. JAMA Cardiology, 6(12), 1387–1396.
Shaw, B. S., Shaw, I., & Brown, G. A. (2015). Resistance exercise is medicine: Strength training in health promotion and rehabilitation. International Journal of Therapy and Rehabilitation, 22(8), 385–389.
Sheffield-Moore, M., & Urban, R. J. (2004). An overview of the endocrinology of skeletal muscle. Trends in Endocrinology and Metabolism: TEM, 15(3), 110–115.
