Editorial standards, Bandung
About Hormone Strength and how we write
An English-language strength-training resource made in Bandung for Indonesian readers who train for strength and want a routine that stays workable across work, study, and family weeks.
Who writes here
A small editorial desk in Bandung, not an anonymous feed
Hormone Strength is put together by people who lift, coach informally, and follow strength programming closely. We are based in Bandung, and that shapes the site in practical ways. We assume mixed access to commercial gyms, so most sessions get a version that works with a full rack and a version that works with two dumbbells and a bench. We account for small home training spaces and thin floors. We write for people whose weeks include work, study, and family rather than an open calendar.
We are not writing for elite athletes. We are writing for the person with three available training days who wants to do them well — someone who can hold a squat pattern, add a little weight next month, and understand why the plan is shaped that way. Every article is checked by at least one other person on the desk before it goes up, and the check is about whether a reader can actually run the session on Monday.
Review before publish
Programs get read against the equipment the site claims they need. If a plan says a rack, it says where a bench or floor press version sits instead.
Pages get maintained
When advice ages or a reader flags a gap, we rewrite the page instead of stacking a note at the bottom and leaving the old text standing.
What this site is, and what it is not
Training guidance, written plainly
We publish training and recovery guidance: how to apply progressive overload, how to structure a training split, how to use compound lifts and home equipment, and how to manage fatigue with planned lighter weeks. Every article answers three questions a reader usually asks first — what do I run this week, how do I progress it next month, and what tells me to back off.
We are not a clinic, and we do not provide care of any kind. We do not diagnose, we do not prescribe, and we do not claim that lifting resolves a hormonal condition. If a concern deserves a qualified professional's opinion, get one — our job is to make the training side clear and practical so you can get on with it.
How we handle evidence and claims
We treat claims carefully, and a lot of that care shows up as what we leave out. Where a training principle is well established, we explain it as such. Where an idea is popular but thin, we say so or drop it. We do not cite studies we haven't read, we do not invent numbers, and we do not convert general training guidance into claims about specific conditions.
-
Established principles
Progressive overload, the reason a planned lighter week exists, and the case for tracking load over time are treated as settled ground. We link them into sessions you can run this week rather than leaving them as theory.
-
Thin ideas get flagged
Trends that circulate without much behind them are named as trends. If a program template borrows authority from a fashionable phrase and nothing else, the page either rewrites the idea in plain terms or skips it.
-
Nothing borrowed from numbers
We do not manufacture percentages, percentages of progress, or study references to lend weight to an article. Where we cannot verify something, the page stays with what can be described directly: sets, reps, loads, rest, and how a week of training feels.
-
Where training stops being the answer
Some questions sit beyond what a strength-training article can responsibly address. When a topic crosses that line, we point readers toward a qualified professional rather than stretching the article to cover it.
What we will not publish
Some article categories are off the desk by policy
We do not write about supplements or products as a route to hormonal change. We do not use before-and-after framing or physical transformation narratives. We do not publish anything that promises a fixed outcome, and we do not run content that presents strength training as a replacement for qualified care. Part of that is reader trust; part of it is that those genres produce bad training advice anyway. Our subject is training and recovery.
No product pitches
Equipment pages describe what a lift needs from a bench, a bar, or a band — not what to buy from us.
No fixed-outcome promises
We write about what a training block asks of you and how to progress it, never about a result we can hand you.
No transformation framing
We skip paired photos of bodies. Strength progress is a log of loads, reps, and consistency, and we show it that way.
No clip-art authority
No badges, seals, or invented endorsements dress up a page. If a claim needs decoration to stand, it comes down.
Editorial standards in practice
What gets checked before a page goes up
Every page is read against the same four checks. The list is short on purpose — a longer list would just mean the checks stop meaning anything.
-
Accurate terminology
Lift names, tempo notation, and split language stay consistent across the site so a reader can move between pages without relearning the vocabulary.
-
Instructions, not encouragement
A program page tells you the set, the rep range, the rest, and the weight step. Inspirational language does not belong in the middle of a session plan.
-
Claims kept inside the content
A page can only claim what its own material supports. If the numbers do not line up, the sentence changes — not the meaning of the numbers.
-
Uncertainty said out loud
If two approaches both work and the choice hangs on your schedule, we say that instead of picking a winner for a headline. When the evidence is uneven, we name the unevenness.
Equipment and training recommendations stay aligned with what is actually used and available in Indonesia — three-day and four-day schedules for people training after work, in a commercial gym, a small home space, or a shared community court.
Corrections and how to raise them
If something on the site is wrong, we want to know. Send the page path, the section, and what you think is incorrect to [email protected], and we will look at it. Corrections that affect training safety get priority. If we change a page in a way that alters the advice, we update the text itself rather than stacking an addendum at the bottom and leaving the old text standing.
We treat this as maintenance rather than a favour. A site about strength training should hold itself to the same standard of consistency it asks of its readers — same bar, same review, every time a page changes.
Why the site exists
Most strength content online is written for people already deep in the hobby, or written to sell something. There is less material for the reader who wants a clear answer to what to do on Monday, how much to add next month, and when to back off. That gap is why this site exists. If we help a reader finish a twelve-week block they would otherwise have abandoned — and understand why it worked — we've done the job we set out to do.
Get in touch
Questions, corrections, and topic suggestions
All of it goes to the same inbox. Write to [email protected], call +62 22 424 8714, or use the form on the contact page. We read everything, though replies on detailed programming questions can take a few days. If you are writing about a specific page, include the path so we can find it quickly.
Contact the editorial teamJl. Braga No. 12, Sumur Bandung, Kota Bandung, Jawa Barat, 40111
Who actually writes and edits the pages here?
A small desk based in Bandung — people who lift, coach informally, and follow strength programming closely. Pages carry a review from a second person on the desk before publishing. This is not a single anonymous account.
What kind of training do you cover?
Progressive resistance training, compound lifts, training splits, equipment and home setups, planned lighter weeks, and fatigue management — written for three-and-four-day weeks rather than competition preparation.
Do you publish anything about supplements or product pitches?
No. Our subject is training and recovery. When a question crosses beyond what strength-training content can responsibly address, we point readers toward a qualified professional rather than stretching the article.
How do I flag something wrong in an article?
Email [email protected] with the page path, the section, and what you think is incorrect. Corrections that touch training safety are checked first, and any material change rewrites the page text directly.