Pilates & Strength Training: What Has Actually Been Studied?

Most research labeled “Pilates” examines mat-only or modified mat-based protocols, not the full Classical apparatus-based system designed by Joseph Pilates. As a result, conclusions about whether Pilates qualifies as strength training are often drawn from studies that never evaluated the method as it was intended to function.

Pilates may be one of the most misunderstood—and least understood—forms of physical training in modern exercise culture. Joseph Pilates’ method is layered, demanding, and deeply intelligent, yet its depth often reveals itself only to those who have practiced it beyond the surface. If you know, you know. Over time, this intelligent complexity has been flattened into simplified labels that fail to capture the method’s rigor and sophistication. Pilates resists easy categorization, and that resistance is precisely its strength.

Today, Pilates is frequently marketed as stretching or toning, framed as core-focused, low-impact, rehabilitative, dancer-inspired, or described as creating “long, lean muscles”—a common marketing phrase rather than a distinct physiological adaptation—often positioning Pilates as complementary to traditional strength training rather than a form of strength itself. While each of these labels captures a narrow aspect of the method, none accurately reflects the method as a whole. Over time, this framing has shaped public perception, positioning Pilates as aesthetic or wellness-oriented rather than as serious physical conditioning.

This interpretation stands in contrast to the method’s original intent. Joseph Pilates termed his system Contrology and presented it as a comprehensive approach to physical conditioning designed to cultivate strength, vitality, and resilience across the lifespan. In Return to Life Through Contrology and related publications issued through the American Foundation for Physical Fitness, Pilates consistently emphasized physical fitness, uniform development of the body, and functional capability—not cosmetic outcomes, or gentle exercise. 

When a method is framed primarily as stretching or toning, it is rarely evaluated as a resistance-based training system. Yet perception is not evidence. To evaluate this claim meaningfully, the question must shift away from marketing language and toward empirical data. What happens when Pilates is studied alongside traditional strength training programs?

The question is not whether Pilates is better than resistance training, but whether it has been appropriately classified within the spectrum of strength training in the first place. To suggest that Pilates is not strength training at all is physiologically inaccurate and scientifically oversimplified.  A more useful question is not whether Pilates resembles traditional resistance training, but what the research demonstrates when the two are studied side by side.

A small number of studies have compared Pilates to resistance-based programs, particularly in older adult populations. Across these trials, Pilates groups frequently demonstrate meaningful improvements in strength-related and functional outcomes. Measures such as trunk and hip strength, balance, and mobility tests often improve following Pilates training, sometimes in ranges similar to resistance training comparators. For example, Carrasco-Poyatos and colleagues conducted an 18-week randomized controlled trial in older women comparing Pilates to resistance training; both groups improved physical function, with Pilates favoring isometric trunk and hip extension strength and resistance training favoring isokinetic outcomes.

To clarify what has actually been tested, the table below summarizes identified studies that directly compared Pilates-based interventions to resistance or strength-based programs. Rather than focusing only on outcomes, it identifies what was operationalized under the label “Pilates” in each trial—how exercises were structured, what equipment was used, and how closely the intervention resembled the Classical system.

In this context, Classical Pilates refers to the method as originally designed by Joseph Pilates: a comprehensive training system defined by a specific repertoire, specialized apparatus, and purposeful sequencing intended to develop strength, coordination, and control over time.  Classical does not imply rigid. Exercises are personalized to the individual based on the needs, abilities, and stage of life of the practitioner. What remains consistent is the integrity of the system —the order, and structural progression through which the method develops strength and capacity.

Study (Author, Year)	Population (n)	Pilates Type	Apparatus Used	Instructor Training	Length of Study	Sessions / Week	Comparison Intervention	Outcomes Measured	Key Results	Classical Relevance
Sekendiz et al., 2007 Effects of Pilates exercise on trunk strength, endurance and flexibility in sedentary adult females	Healthy sedentary women (n = 21)	Mat Pilates–based	None	Not specified	5 weeks	3×	Conventional strength training	Trunk strength, endurance	Both groups improved; strength training increased maximal strength	Non-classical
Kloubec, 2010 Pilates for Improvement of Muscle Endurance, Flexibility, Balance, and Posture	Healthy adults, ages 25–65 (n = 50)	Mat Pilates	None	STOTT	12 weeks	2x	Traditional conditioning program	Muscle endurance, flexibility, balance, posture	Pilates improved endurance and balance	Non-classical
Martin et al., 2013 Improving muscular endurance with MVe Fitness Chair in breast cancer survivors: A feasibility and efficacy study	Female breast cancer survivors (n = 26)	Chair Pilates–based	MVe Fitness Chair	Not specified	8 weeks	2–3×	Resistance training	Physical fitness, strength-related outcomes	Both groups improved fitness measures	Non-classical
Carrasco-Poyatos et al., 2019 Pilates versus resistance training on trunk strength and balance adaptations in older women: A randomized controlled trial	Older women, ages 60–80 (n = 60)	Mat Pilates–based (props)	None (chi ball, bands)	Not specified	12 weeks	3×	Resistance training (listed exercises)	Trunk/core strength, dynamic balance	Resistance training increased strength; Pilates improved balance	Pre-Pilates–inspired
Pucci et al., 2021 Effect of Resistance Training and Pilates on the Quality of Life of Elderly Women: A Randomized Clinical Trial	Older women, ages 60–84 (n = 41)	Pilates-labeled floor exercises	None	Not specified	12 weeks	2×	Resistance training	Quality of life, functional capacity	Quality of life and function improved in both groups	Non-classical
Rathi et al., 2024 Effect of Pilates versus resistance training on physical fitness in older adults	Older adults, ages 60–75 (n = 47)	Mat Pilates	None	Not specified	8 weeks	3×	Resistance training (listed exercises)	Flexibility, muscle strength, endurance	Resistance training superior for strength outcomes	Classical-adjacent

Viewed collectively, the studies summarized above reveal the central gap in this conversation. Claims that Pilates is not strength training are often made as though Classical Pilates has been tested head-to-head against progressive resistance training and found lacking. That study does not exist. None of the available comparative trials evaluate the full Classical apparatus system, original sequencing, long-term progression, or comprehensively trained Classical instruction as a standardized intervention. Instead, the comparative literature relies almost entirely on mat-based or modified Pilates protocols.

In exercise science, strength training is defined as training that improves the body’s ability to produce force. Strength is an adaptation to resistance and progressive demand—not a function of any specific equipment. While resistance training often increases load through external weights, resistance can also be applied through springs, lever mechanics, controlled eccentric loading, trunk stabilization under tension, and increasing neuromuscular complexity (ACSM, 2021; NSCA, 2016).

Classical Pilates operates within these same physiological principles. It is not simply a mat workout. The mat repertoire represents an advanced expression of a system built through apparatus-based loading. Springs, leverage, and purposeful sequencing develop the strength and control required to execute the mat at a high level. Progression occurs not by adding external weight, but through longer levers, greater control demands, layered spring resistance, and increasingly complex movement integration.

Because the full apparatus-based Classical system has not been evaluated within a strength-training framework, definitive conclusions about its strength-training capacity cannot yet be drawn. What can be said, however, is that existing comparative studies—despite relying largely on mat-based protocols—consistently demonstrate strength-related and functional improvements.

Progressive resistance training has a robust and well-established evidence base for strength development, bone preservation, and healthy aging. That evidence should be respected. But excluding Pilates from the strength category on the basis of incomplete study design is not scientifically justified. The issue is not superiority. It is classification. Classical Pilates has not been tested as the comprehensive, apparatus-based resistance system it is.

The science has not yet caught up to the method. What is needed are trials that evaluate authentic Classical Pilates as a standardized training system and compare it directly with modern progressive resistance programs using outcomes relevant to aging, structural adaptation, and long-term strength preservation.

Until such research exists, Pilates should be understood not as an alternative to strength training, but as part of the strength continuum—distinct in its mechanics, integrated in its design, and capable of developing force, control, and resilience across the lifespan.

References

Carrasco-Poyatos, M., Rubio-Arias, J. Á., Martínez-Aranda, L. M., & Ramos-Campo, D. J. (2019). Pilates vs. resistance training in older women: Effects on strength, balance, and functional capacity. PeerJ, 7, e7400.
https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.7400

Kloubec, J. A. (2010). Pilates for improvement of muscle endurance, flexibility, balance, and posture. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 24(3), 661–667.
https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0b013e3181cfc9b6

Martin, E., Battaglini, C., Hands, B., & Naumann, F. (2013). Pilates on a fitness chair versus traditional resistance training: Effects on physical fitness in breast cancer survivors. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 16(2), 131–136.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsams.2012.08.012
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23026681/

Pinto, J. R., Santos, C. S., Soares, W. J. S., Ramos, A. P. S., Scoz, R. D., Teixeira de Júdice, A. F., Ferreira, L. M. A., Mendes, J. J. B., & Amorim, C. F. (2022). Is Pilates better than other exercises at increasing muscle strength? A systematic review. Sports Medicine, 52(12), 2895–2912.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-022-01755-8
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36439725/

Pucci, G. C., Rech, C. R., Costa, A. L. L., & da Silva, M. C. (2021). Effects of Pilates method versus resistance training on quality of life and functional capacity in older women. Revista Brasileira de Geriatria e Gerontologia, 24(2), e200205.
https://www.scielo.br/j/rbgg/a/JV6JGVhW8qPJ834yGcF8pQd/

Rathi, A., Muthiyan, K., Joshi, R., & Gazbare, P. (2024).
Comparative effects of Pilates and resistance training on physical fitness parameters in adults. Advances in Physical Therapy.
http://www.antpublisher.com/index.php/APT/article/view/743/930

Sekendiz, B., Altun, O., Korkusuz, F., & Akin, S. (2007).
Effects of Pilates exercise on trunk strength, endurance, and flexibility in sedentary adult females. Journal of Bodywork and Movement Therapies, 11(4), 318–326.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbmt.2006.12.002

Foundational and Position References

American College of Sports Medicine. (2021). ACSM’s guidelines for exercise testing and prescription (11th ed.). Wolters Kluwer.

National Strength and Conditioning Association. (2016). Essentials of strength training and conditioning (4th ed.). Human Kinetics.

Pilates, J. H., & Miller, W. J. (1945). Return to Life Through Contrology. J.J. Augustin.

Pilates, J. H. (1957). Return to Life Through Contrology (pamphlet). American Foundation for Physical Fitness.

This reference list reflects the studies discussed in this article and is not an exhaustive review of all Pilates-related research.