3 Workout Strategies You Should Avoid Before Practice and Games

Research suggests these 3 strategies may decrease performance.

This article is a summary of research from the following courses:

Introduction

Athletes are aware of the challenge of scheduling resistance training around practices, games, and tournaments. One emerging strategy involves performing resistance training sessions immediately before practices or competitions. When properly implemented, this approach allows athletes to maintain consistency in their training and may even enhance readiness and performance. In fact, many athletes, including myself, report feeling better during practices and games after a short (20–40 minute) resistance training session.

Ideally, pre-practice or pre-game sessions would include a movement preparation or corrective exercise warm-up routine based on movement assessment , followed by resistance training, low-intensity sport-specific drills (e.g., shooting drills, ball handling, route-running, etc.), and then would be followed by a full-intensity practice or gameplay, and finish with a cool-down and recovery routine. While this structure can be highly effective, it’s essential to avoid certain common resistance training strategies.

Some of the most effective strategies for hypertrophy, maximal strength, and muscular endurance result in significant short-term fatigue, reducing strength and power for several hours after training. This decrease in performance would defeat the purpose of pre-game or pre-practice resistance training, which is intended to help prepare the athlete for the sport and improve their performance. Avoiding fatigue-inducing protocols enables athletes to consistently attain the benefits of resistance training while minimizing any negative carryover of fatigue to their performance during practice and games. Over time, managing fatigue in this way may even result in greater gains, even during the season.

The 3 Training Strategies to Avoid Before Games

Three resistance training strategies should be avoided based on available research (annotated bibliography below). We have also added a strategy, based on our experience, that cannot currently be confirmed with published studies.

Repetitions to failure (reps-to-failure/set)
Light-load, high-repetition training to failure (muscular endurance protocols)
Drop sets
- Potentially: Blood flow restriction (BFR) training using high-rep protocols

Caption: Prior to basketball some resistance training strategies should be avoided.

Summary of Research Findings:

Reps until failure: Performing sets to failure (reps-to-failure/set ), where no additional repetitions can be completed with good form, is a common training practice. However, athletes should stop each set with one to two repetitions in reserve (reps-in-reserve ). Research has demonstrated that performing all sets to failure results in significant decreases in bar velocity, vertical jump height, and total repetitions achieved from the first to the last set both during a routine and for several days post-exercise. These sessions are also associated with significantly higher serum concentrations of creatine kinase for 2 - 3 additional days to recover. In contrast, even a single repetition left in reserve can help maintain bar velocity, maintain reps/set from the first to final set, reduce delayed onset muscle soreness (DOMS), and lower creatine kinase concentrations, all of which may lead to faster recovery and larger increases in volume from session to session. Furthermore, even performing the same volume of exercise by increasing the number of sets with reps-in-reserve per set may reduce recovery time to 6 hours or less.

High Repetition/Low Load Training: Although counterintuitive, performing exercises with lighter loads to failure, commonly referred to as strength endurance training, often results in greater post-exercise decreases in performance than training to failure with heavy loads or ballistic exercises to failure (max strength and power training). The relationship is more complex than the fatigue described above when comparing rep-to-failure protocols to rep-in-reserve protocols. However, the practical application is clear. Strength endurance workouts should generally be avoided before practices or games. While some studies indicate that heavier loads may cause greater post-exercise performance impairments, this comparison is made when the number of repetitions per set is matched. Lighter loads are typically performed for significantly more repetitions per set, which leads to much greater cumulative motor unit fatigue.

Interestingly, both light-load and heavy-load training may result in similar decreases in strength and power 24 to 48 hours after exercise. Further, heavy-load training may result in more delayed onset muscle soreness (DOMS) and longer recovery times. As a result, athletes may feel better immediately after a heavy strength session but experience similar soreness 48 hours later when compared to a high-rep endurance workout. This also implies that athletes can expect larger post-exercise decreases in power when increasing loads or progressing exercise, and may note that DOMS may actually increase more 48 hours post-exercise following really heavy strength training. Despite these changes in the duration of recovery, it is recommended that post-exercise performance is prioritized and that athletes perform strength and power exercises prior to practice and games.

Drop Sets: Drop sets are widely recognized as an effective tool for enhancing hypertrophy and muscular endurance, and are often used to combine strength and stability training into a single routine. However, they are not recommended for sessions occurring before practices or games. Multiple studies have demonstrated that drop sets result in greater immediate reductions in strength and power compared to conventional training methods. Of all common set structures (e.g., standard sets, supersets, and pyramid sets), drop sets are associated with the largest post-exercise decline in performance, especially when they include multiple drops or end with high-repetition, low-load sets.

Note that a single drop set with one reduction in load may not induce a significant performance decrement, but protocols involving multiple drops or sets taken to failure with very light loads amplify fatigue considerably. If drop sets are performed, they are best reserved for larger, multi-joint exercises during intentionally higher-volume routines performed on days separate from practice or competition, or following practice or competition. When performed too close to practices or games, the acute fatigue induced by drop sets can undermine athletic performance, defeating the purpose of in-season resistance training.

Blood Flow Restriction (BFR) Training – Additional Mention Based on Clinical Observations: The research on blood flow restriction training is overwhelmingly positive, offering a valuable method for promoting hypertrophy when heavier loads are not feasible. It has proven effective for increasing muscle mass in various situations, including bodybuilding, travel with limited equipment, and physical rehabilitation following surgery, strains, or persistent tendinopathies. However, despite its benefits, no studies have directly examined post-exercise strength and power following BFR protocols.

Clinically, our experience suggests that BFR is not appropriate prior to practices or games. Athletes and professionals who have used BFR immediately before sport report a noticeable decline in strength and power, often describing sensations like “dead legs” or feeling unable to generate explosive force. This aligns with the physiological demands of BFR training. Most BFR protocols are based on strength endurance principles with the deliberate restriction of blood flow, which results in significant motor unit fatigue. In effect, it mirrors the compounding fatigue of high-repetition, low-load training, with the added stress of localized hypoxia. Although we are excited about the applications of BFR training, we cannot recommend it before practice or games.

Caption: Avoiding reps-to-failure prior to games will ensure that performance is not affected.

Final Thoughts:

Motor Unit Fatigue as a Mechanism for Performance Loss: I hypothesize that these strategies, including reps-to-failure/set, high-repetition/low-load sets, drop sets, and BFR training, likely impair post-exercise performance by fatiguing a larger number of motor units than other conventional training methods. While high-intensity strength and power exercises recruit more motor units per repetition, failure occurs when no combination of available units can produce sufficient force to complete another rep. Many motor units, particularly smaller or more fatigue-resistant units, are not stressed to failure under these conditions. You might think of these as the motor units that were “not quite enough.”

Heavier loads or power-focused efforts require more motor units per rep, resulting in faster fatigue at that intensity and a larger group of motor units left untapped. In contrast, strategies that involve lighter loads and higher repetition counts allow athletes to perform many more reps, progressively recruiting and fatiguing a broader range of motor units. The “not quite enough” category shrinks, and cumulative fatigue increases, contributing to a more global reduction in neuromuscular performance.

Not Bad, Just Poorly Timed: The strategies outlined above are not inherently detrimental. In fact, they are essential tools for developing hypertrophy, muscular endurance, strength, and even power when applied appropriately. The issue is timing. When these methods are used immediately before practices or games, they can significantly compromise performance. Instead, they should be reserved for off days, post-practice training blocks, or mesocycles that do not place immediate demands on competition readiness.

It’s understandable why athletes may be drawn to these methods. They deliver satisfying short-term gains and provide tangible benchmarks, such as breaking a rep record or jumping onto a higher box one more time. However, the cost is often diminished performance in the hours or days that follow. Over time, consistently relying on these fatiguing strategies can blunt adaptation and undermine progress. In support of this, two of three published studies comparing power outcomes, such as rate of force development, bar velocity, and vertical jump height, found superior improvements throughout a program (several months) when reps were not taken to failure.

Smart programming is about more than effort; it’s about precision. Resistance training that emphasizes movement quality, managed intensity and volume, and readiness for competition results in more sustainable improvements, especially in-season. The key to maximizing long-term progress is avoiding excessive fatigue while maintaining training consistency and intent.

Additional Programming Considerations

Training before practice or games requires careful attention to volume, load, and exercise selection. Athletes should prioritize intensity, movement quality, and training frequency, rather than duration, total volume, and the ability to work through fatigue. There are no rewards given for overtraining.

It’s often more effective to select 2–4 targeted exercises (2–4 sets each), performed consistently before practice, than to complete a high-volume “bodybuilding-style” or generalized “student-athlete” workout. There are no rewards given for overtraining. Consider structuring workouts using an upper/lower split and rotating through specific movement patterns. For example:

Lower body days: Include one strength-focused and one power-focused leg exercise.
Upper body days: Include one push, one pull, and one upper-body power exercise.

Repeat each split twice per week before practice or games. If practice frequency exceeds four sessions per week, add variation by rotating in additional movement patterns or supplementary exercises. Incorporate corrective and core work during rest periods, and scale workouts based on upcoming demands. For instance, use larger workouts before regular practices (e.g., 2–3 primary exercises for 4 sets each) and scaled-down routines (e.g., 1–2 exercises for 1–2 sets each) before games or tournaments.

Sample Program

Goal: Improve performance during the season
Athlete Experience: Advanced
Phase 1: General Strength with Power-Stability Emphasis

Acute Variables

Cycle Length: 4-8 weeks
Frequency: Upper/lower split, 2x/week each
Load: 70-80% 1-RM (strength), <30% 1-RM (power-stability)
Reps/Set: 6-8 (2 reps-in-reserve) for strength, 3-10 (not to failure) for power
Active Rest: 20 reps to failure for core/corrective
Sets/Exercise: 3-4 per movement
Rest Between Circuits: 1-3 minutes
Rest Between Exercises: 30-60 seconds
Tempo: Controlled with max velocity concentric (1:0:MaxV)
Session Duration: 20-40 minutes (excluding warm-up)
Style: Circuit training

Upper Body (Days 1 & 3)

Back (Strength): Rope row
Chest (Strength): Asymmetrical dumbbell press
Power Stability: Single-leg medicine ball smash
Active Rest: Alternating horizontal abduction

Lower Body (Days 2 & 4)

Legs (Strength): Front rack frontal plane lunge
Active Rest: Side plank with leg abduction
Legs (Power Stability): Depth jump to balance
Active Rest: Heel walks

Caption: Avoiding fatigue inducing sets is likely ideal before sports and practice.

Annotated Bibliography

Reps Until Failure

Immediate Decrease in Strength Following a Single Session

Summary: These studies suggest that reps-to-failure/set for all sets of an exercise results in significantly larger decreases in bar velocity, vertical jump height, reps from the first to the last set, and larger increases in serum concentrations of creatine kinase for more days (longer recovery). Even leaving 1-rep-in-reserve/set may result in significant decreases in the reduction of reps from the first to the final set, maintenance of bar velocity, decreases in DOMS, decreases in creatine kinase concentrations, and may result in increases in exercise volume/session.

Pareja-Blanco et al. compared 10 novice male exercisers (age: 20.6 ± 2.7 years). All participants performed bench press and squats for 3 sets/exercise with a 10-repetition maximum (RM) load/set during a reps-to-failure/set protocol, a 5-repetition/set protocol, and a 5-repetition/set after 10 weeks of training protocol. Outcome measures included bar velocity, recovery period, serum concentrations of growth hormone, prolactin, creatine kinase, insulin-like growth factors (IGF-1), and cortisol. The findings demonstrated that the reps-to-failure/set protocol resulted in significantly larger post-exercise reductions in vertical jump height and bar velocity and significantly slower recovery. The findings demonstrated that the reps-to-failure/set protocol exhibited significantly larger post-exercise reductions in vertical jump height and bar velocity, as well as significantly slower recovery. Additionally, the 5-reps/set protocol exhibited significantly larger reductions in post-exercise vertical jump height, bar velocity, and recovery when compared to the same protocol after 10 weeks of training.

Pareja-Blanco, F., Rodriguez-Rosell, D., & Gonzalez-Badillo, J. J. (2019). Time course of recovery from resistance exercise before and after a training program. The Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness, 59(9), 1458-1465.

Refalo et al. compared 24 resistance-trained males (12) and females (12) (age: 18-40 years) with no history of musculoskeletal injuries, neuromuscular disorders, or use of ergogenic aids. Participants performed 3 protocols in a random order, including a reps-to-failure protocol, 1 rep-in-reserve protocol, or a 3 reps-in-reserve protocol. All participants performed bench press for 6 sets, with 75% of 1-RM loads, moderate (2 min) rest between sets, with 96 hours of recovery between each protocol. Outcome measures included change in lifting velocity, rep loss from the first to the final set, total volume, rate of perceived exertion (RPE), and delayed onset muscle soreness (DOMS) at 24 and 48 hours post-exercise. The findings demonstrated that lifting velocity and reps from the first to the final set decreased more for the reps-to-failure protocol when compared to the reps-in-reserve protocols (with larger decreases in males compared to females). Exercise volume was higher for the 1 rep-in-reserve when compared to the reps-to-failure protocol or 3 rep-in-reserve protocol. Both the RPE and DOMS were higher for the reps-to-failure protocol when compared to the reps-in-reserve protocols (16).

Refalo, M. C., Helms, E. R., Hamilton, D. L., & Fyfe, J. J. (2023). Influence of Resistance Training Proximity-to-Failure, Determined by Repetitions-in-Reserve, on Neuromuscular Fatigue in Resistance-Trained Males and Females. Sports medicine - open, 9(1), 10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40798-023-00554-y

An RCT by Mangine et al. compared 14 male experienced exercisers (aged 24.6 ± 3.0 years) with no history of injury, illness, or use of performance-enhancing drugs. All exercisers performed 2 protocols in random order, including a reps-in-reserve/set except for the last set protocol, and a reps-to-failure/set protocol, for 1 session/protocol with 1 week rest between sessions. Both protocols included the bench press for 5 sets, with 80% of 1-RM loads, and long (3-min) rest between sets. The reps-in-reserve protocol performed 4 sets with reps until a self-reported 3 reps-in-reserve (could potentially perform 3 more reps), with a 5th set performed with reps-to-failure/set. Outcome measures included bar velocity, changes in reps/set, and serum concentration of creatine kinase 6 hours, 24 hours, 48 hours, and 72 hours post-exercise. The findings demonstrated that the reps-to-failure/set protocol resulted in the largest decrease in reps/set and average bar velocity 24 and 48 hours post-exercise. Both protocols resulted in significant increases in post-exercise serum concentrations of creatine kinase; however, the reps-to-failure/set protocol resulted in larger increases 24 hours, 48 hours, and 72 hours post-exercise. Note that 72 hours post-exercise, only the reps-to-failure/set protocol had failed to return to near pre-exercise concentrations (6).

Mangine, G. T., Serafini, P. R., Stratton, M. T., Olmos, A. A., VanDusseldorp, T. A., & Feito, Y. (2022). Effect of the repetitions-in-reserve resistance training strategy on bench press performance, perceived effort, and recovery in trained men. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 36(1), 1-9.

Volume Equated Studies

Summary: These studies suggest that reps-to-failure/set may result in significant decreases in load, bar velocity, and vertical jump height for 24 - 48 hours post-exercise. However, performing the same volume of exercise by increasing the number of sets with reps-in-reserve per set may reduce recovery time to 6 hours or less.

An RCT by Ramos-Campo et al. compared 15 experienced male exercisers (age: 23.4 ± 2.4 years). All participants performed both a reps-to-failure/set protocol and a reps-not-to-failure/set protocol separated by 1 week of rest. Both protocols included bench press and squats. The reps-to-failure/set protocol included 4 sets/exercise, approximately 10 reps-to-failure/set, 75% 1-RM loads, and moderate (90 sec) rest between sets. The reps-not-to-failure/set protocol included 5 sets/exercise, 8 reps/set, 75% 1-RM loads, and moderate (90 sec) rest/set. Outcome measures included sleep quality, heart rate variability, bench press, and squat 1-RM strength 24 hours after training. The findings demonstrated that neither protocol resulted in significant changes in sleep quality or heart rate variability post-exercise. Only the reps-to-failure/set protocol resulted in significant decreases in bench press and squat 1-RM strength 24 hours after training (18).

Ramos-Campo, D., Martínez-Aranda, L. M., Caravaca, L. A., Ávila-Gandí, V., & Rubio-Arias, J. Á. (2021). Effects of resistance training intensity on the sleep quality and strength recovery in trained men: a randomized cross-over study. Biology of Sport, 38(1), 81-88.

Morán-Navarro et al. compared 10 experienced male exercisers (age: 21.5 ± 4.0 years). All participants performed 3 protocols in random order, including a low-volume protocol, high-volume protocol, and low-volume with reps-to-failure/set protocol. All participants performed Smith machine bench press and back squats with 75% of 1-RM loads, very long (5 min) rest between sets, and a 4-week recovery between each protocol. The low-volume 5-reps protocol included 3 sets/exercise and 5 reps/set (not-to-failure based on assigned loads). The high-volume 5-reps protocol included 6 sets/exercise and 5 reps/set (not-to-failure based on assigned loads). The reps-to-failure protocol included 3 sets/exercise and approximately 10 reps-to-failure/set with 75% of 1-RM loads. Outcome measures included post-exercise changes in bench press and squat load and velocity, and counter-movement jump height. The findings demonstrated that the reps-to-failure protocol resulted in significantly lower loads during post-exercise testing of bench press and squats at 0 hours (immediately post-exercise), 6 hours, 24 hours, and 48 hours post-exercise when compared to the 5-reps groups and pre-exercise-values. The 5-reps protocols only resulted in a significant decrease in post-exercise bench press and squat loads at 0 hours and 6 hours post-exercise. The reps-to-failure protocol also resulted in significantly lower bench press and squat velocities at 0 hours, 6 hours, and 24 hours compared to the 5-reps protocols and pre-exercise values. The 5-reps protocols did not result in significant differences at any time point when compared to pre-exercise values. The reps-to-failure protocol also resulted in significantly lower CMJ heights at 0 hours, 6 hours, 24 hours, and 48 hours compared to the 5-reps protocols and pre-exercise values. The 5-reps protocols only resulted in significant differences at 0 hours when compared to pre-exercise values (1).

Morán-Navarro, R., Pérez, C. E., Mora-Rodríguez, R., de la Cruz-Sánchez, E., González-Badillo, J. J., Sánchez-Medina, L., & Pallarés, J. G. (2017). Time course of recovery following resistance training leading or not to failure. European journal of applied physiology, 117(12), 2387-2399.

Light Load and Higher Reps

Summary: When reps/set are similar an increase in load will increase post-exercise decreases in strength, decreases in velocity, increases in DOMS, and increases in recovery time. When comparing lighter loads (more reps) to heavier loads (fewer reps) with reps-to-failure/set, lighter loads may result in larger immediate decreases in strength; however, decreases in strength 1 - 2 days post-exercise are likely to be similar, and heavier loads are likely to result in more DOMS and longer recovery times.

Chen et al. compared 36 novice male exercisers (age: 22.5 ± 3.2 years), randomly assigned to 3 groups performing 10%, 50%, or 100% of MVIC, immediately, 1 day, 2 days, 3 days, 4 days, and 5 days post-exercise. Participants performed eccentric dumbbell preacher curls, with short (15 sec) rest between reps, a moderate (2 min) rest between sets, and a 3-sec eccentric rep tempo. Volume was equated; the 10% load group completed 10 sets and 10 reps/set; the 50% load group completed 4 sets and 5 reps/set, and the 100% load group completed "at least" 2 sets of 5 reps to failure/set. Results demonstrated that all groups exhibited a large decrease in concentric force production immediately following the exercise protocol, followed by the largest percent return to pre-exercise values on day 1 and day 2, and smaller improvements on days 4 and 5. The 10% load group exhibited the largest decrease in force production immediately following the exercise protocol and the fastest recovery, with values returning to near pre-exercise levels 4 days post-exercise. The 100% load group exhibited the smallest decrease in force production immediately following the exercise protocol, but the slowest recovery, still exhibiting a significant decrease in force production on day 5. Delayed onset muscle soreness (DOMS) increased significantly more, and recovery was significantly longer for heavier loads. The 10% load groups exhibited a smaller increase in DOMS when compared to the other groups, which peaked 1-day post-exercise and returned to near pre-exercise values on day 4 or 5. The 50% load group exhibited larger increases in DOMS than the 10% load group, which peaked during day 1 or 2, and returned to near pre-exercise levels on day 4 or 5. The 100% load group exhibited the largest increases in DOMS, which also peaked on day 1 and 2, and returned to near pre-exercise levels on day 5 (31).

Chen, T. C., Huang, G. L., Hsieh, C. C., Tseng, K. W., Tseng, W. C., Chou, T. Y., & Nosaka, K. (2020). Comparison among three different intensities of eccentric contractions of the elbow flexors resulting in the same strength loss at one day post-exercise for changes in indirect muscle damage markers. European journal of applied physiology, 120, 267-279.

Haun et al. compared 15 experienced male exercisers (age: 22 ± 2 years) immediately, 15 min, 90 min, and 2 days post-exercise with 30% or 80% 1-RM/set. Participants completed knee extensions, 4 sets/exercise, reps-to-failure/set, with long (3 min) rest between sets. Compared to pre-exercise values, neither group exhibited significant changes in muscle soreness 90 minutes or 2 days post-exercise. When compared to pre-exercise values, the 30% of 1-RM load group exhibited a significantly larger decrease in knee extension peak torque immediately post-exercise (approximately 15-20%); however, both groups exhibited similar reductions in peak torque 48 hours post-exercise (approximately 10-15%) (7).

Haun, C. T., Mumford, P. W., Roberson, P. A., Romero, M. A., Mobley, C. B., Kephart, W. C., ... & Roberts, M. D. (2017). Molecular, neuromuscular, and recovery responses to light versus heavy resistance exercise in young men. Physiological reports, 5(18), e13457.

Linnamo et al. compared 8 novice men and 8 novice women (age: 27.1 ± 0.7 years) immediately, 1 hour, and 2 hours post-exercise, following 3 different protocols, each separated by 2 weeks. The protocols included ~10 reps-to-failure/set with 70% of 1-RM loads and a self-selected tempo, 10 reps/set with 40% of 1-RM load and a self-selected tempo, and 10 reps with 40% of 1-RM loads with a max velocity tempo. All participants completed 3 exercises (bench press, sit-ups, and leg press), for 5 sets/exercise, 10 reps/set, with moderate (2 min) rest between sets. The findings demonstrated that all interventions resulted in a significant decrease in leg press maximal force immediately, 1 hour, and 2 hours post-exercise. The 10 reps to failure/set protocol resulted in the largest decreases in force, followed by the 10 reps/set with 40% of 1-RM load and self-selected tempo protocol in force, and the 10 reps with 40% of 1-RM loads with a max velocity tempo protocol resulted in the smallest decreases in force (9).

Linnamo, V., Pakarinen, A., Komi, P. V., Kraemer, W. J., & Häkkinen, K. (2005). Acute hormonal responses to submaximal and maximal heavy resistance and explosive exercises in men and women. Journal of strength and conditioning research, 19(3), 566.

Amdi et al. compared 31 experienced exercisers (15 females age: 26 ± 4 years, 16 males age: 28 ± 4 years) 5 min, 24 hours, 48 hours, and 72 hours post-exercise following random assignment to 5 reps/set with 80% of 1-RM load group (approximately half-reps to failure/set), or reps to failure/set with 4-6 RM loads. All participants performed squats, for 5 sets/exercise, with long (≥ 5 min) rest between sets. The findings demonstrated that the 5 reps of 80% of 1-RM protocol resulted in a significant decrease in average concentric velocity when compared to pre-exercise values. Men exhibited a decrease 5 min and 1 day post-exercise and then exceeded pre-exercise values 48 hours post-exercise, and women exhibited a decrease 5 min post-exercise and then exceeded pre-exercise values 24 hours post-exercise. The 4-6 RM to failure/set protocol resulted in significantly larger decreases in leg press average concentric velocity when compared to pre-exercise values. Men and women regained most velocity by 2 days post-exercise, but still exhibited a trend toward slightly lower values 3 days post-exercise (112).

Amdi, C. H., Cleather, D. J., & Tallent, J. (2021) Impact of training protocols on lifting velocity recovery in resistance trained males and females. Sports, 9, 157. https://doi.org?10.3390/sports9110157

Thomas et al. compared 10 experienced male exercisers (age: 21 ± 2 years) 1 day, 2 days, and 3 days post-exercise. Participants completed squats, jump squats, and maximal sprints during 3 separate sessions, 1 week apart, in randomized, counter-balanced order, with each session followed by 4 days of assessment. The squat session included 10 sets/exercise, 5 reps to failure/set, 80% of 1-RM loads, long (3 min) rest between sets, and a moderate (2:0:MaxV) rep tempo (note: if the concentric phase was 2 sec or longer the set was discontinued). The jump squat session included 10 sets/exercise, 5 reps/set, 10 ± 5kg load, intent to achieve maximal height, and long (3 min) rest between sets. The maximal sprints session included 15 sets/exercise, a distance of 30 meters/set, and moderate (2 min) rest between sets. The findings demonstrated that compared to pre-exercise values, all groups exhibited peak fatigue immediately following exercise, peak DOMS 1 day post-exercise, and a return to near pre-exercise values 3 days post-exercise. The squat protocol exhibited larger reductions in MVIC both immediately and 24 hours post-exercise when compared to the jump squats and sprint protocols, but all groups returned to pre-exercise values 72 hours post-exercise. All protocols exhibited the largest decreases in maximum voluntary EMG activity (leg extensions) immediately post-exercise; however, the squat protocol resulted in the largest decrease, and a return to pre-exercise values was exhibited 72 hours post-exercise, compared to the jump squats and sprints protocol recovering in 48 hours. Voluntary activation with transcranial muscle activation (TMS) of the rectus femoris was also assessed at 50%, 75%, and 100% of MVC, decreased most for all protocols immediately post-exercise, the squat and sprint protocols resulted in the largest immediate decreases, and a return to pre-exercise values was exhibited 48 hours after the squat and sprint protocols, but 24 hours after the jump squats protocol (34).

Thomas, K., Brownstein, C., Dent, J., Parker, P., Goodall, S., & Howatson, G. (2018). Neuromuscular fatigue and recovery after heavy resistance, jump, and sprint training. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 50(12), 2526-2535.

Drop Sets

Conventional Sets Compared to Drop Sets

Summary: These studies suggest that drop sets result in a larger decrease in immediate post-exercise strength and power when compared to conventional sets

Fink et al. compared 16 male exercisers with less than 1 year of resistance training experience (age: 22.8 ± 3.9 years). Participants were randomly assigned to a conventional set group or drop-set group for 6 weeks. The conventional set group performed 3 sets/exercise, 12 RM loads, and a moderate (1.5 min) rest between sets. The drop-set group performed 1 conventional set/exercise with 12 RM loads, and then 2 drop-sets with a 20% decrease in load/drop-set, and minimal rest between sets. All participants performed tricep press downs, reps to failure/set, and a moderate (2:0:1) rep tempo. The findings demonstrated that both groups exhibited similar total exercise volume/session (load × reps); however, the drop-set group exhibited a significant reduction in session length. Both groups exhibited significant and similar increases in tricep pressdown 12 RM strength. However, only the drop-set group exhibited a significant decrease in immediate post-exercise triceps brachii isometric strength (21).

Fink, J., Schoenfeld, B. J., Kikuchi, N., & Nakazato, K. (2018). Effects of drop set resistance training on acute stress indicators and long-term muscle hypertrophy and strength. J Sports Med Phys Fitness, 58(5), 597-605.

Keskin et al. compared 24 experienced exercisers (conventional set group age: 20.00 ± 1.12 years; drop-set group age: 21.00 ± 1.04 years). Participants were randomly assigned to a conventional set or drop-set group for 6 weeks, 2 sessions/week, for a total of 12 sessions. The conventional set group performed leg press and leg extensions, 4 sets/exercise, 8-12 reps/set, 70% of 1 RM loads, long (3 min) rest between sets, and a moderate (2:0:1) rep tempo. The drop-set group performed 3 conventional sets with leg press, 8-12 reps/set, 70% of 1 RM loads, long (3 min) rest between sets, and 2 drop-sets with knee extensions, 50/30% of 1 RM loads/set, reps-to-failure/set, and minimal rest between drop-sets. The findings demonstrated that the drop-set group exhibited larger increases in power output following the 6-week intervention (Wingate testing). However, only the drop-set group exhibited a significant decrease in Wingate performance immediately after exercise (69).

Keskin, K., & Tokat, F. (2023). A comparative analysis of the effects of drop set and traditional resistance training on anaerobic power in young men. Turkish Journal of Kinesiology, 9(3), 225-232.

Comparing Different Types of Drop Sets

Summary: In summary, a single drop-set, with only 1 "drop," may not be sufficient to significantly increase immediate post-exercise decreases in force production. However, multiple drop sets, multiple drops/set, and/or drops resulting in low loads and high reps to failure may result in a larger decrease in immediate post-exercise force production. Further, it may be advised that drop-sets are performed on larger multi-joint exercises, in a routine with multiple exercises/muscle group, if the goal is to maximize exercise volume.

Goto et al. compared 8 male recreationally active exercisers (age: 20-23 years) with no history of supplement use, anabolic steroid use, or drug use that may affect serum concentrations of growth hormone. Participants performed 2 conventional set protocols and 2 drop-set protocols, separated by at least 7 days. All protocols included knee extensions for 5 sets, 90% of 1 RM loads, reps-to-failure/set, long (3 min) rest between sets, and a fast (2 sec/rep) rep tempo. One protocol did not include a 6th set, 1 protocol included a 6th set of the same load, 1 protocol included a 6th set of 70% of 1 RM loads, and 1 protocol included a 6th set of 50% of a 1 RM load. Note, only a 30 sec rest was permitted between the 5th and 6th sets. The findings demonstrated that the protocols resulted in similar reps/set for the initial 5 sets/exercise. However, for the 6th set, the 50% of 1-RM load resulted in the most reps, highest exercise volume, and the lowest work rate; the 70% of 1-RM load resulted in fewer reps, less exercise volume, and a higher work rate, and the 90% of 1-RM load resulted in the fewest reps, the least exercise volume, and highest work rate. All protocols resulted in similar decreases in knee extension isometric strength (10).

Goto, K., Sato, K., & Takamatsu, K. (2003). A single set of low intensity resistance exercise immediately following high intensity resistance exercise stimulates growth hormone secretion in men. Journal of sports medicine and physical fitness, 43(2), 243-249.

Fisher et al. compared 8 healthy male experienced exercisers (age: 27.2 ± 7.4 years) with no history of musculoskeletal injury and no history of medications or performance-enhancing substance use. Participants performed high-load, low-load, forced reps, and drop-set protocols, separated by 7 days. The high-load protocol included 80% of 1 RM loads, and the low-load protocol included (unknown sets/exercise) 30% of 1 RM loads. The forced reps protocol included assisted reps once participants reached failure, starting with 80% of 1 RM loads and continuing with assisted reps until the participant could not maintain a 1-sec isometric hold in full extension. The drop-set protocol included 3 sets/exercise, 75/60/45% of 1 RM load/set, and minimal rest between sets. All protocols included knee extensions, reps to failure/set, and a slow (3:0:2:1) rep tempo. The findings demonstrated that the low-load protocol resulted in the largest post-exercise decrease in maximal voluntary isometric torque (MVIT), followed by the drop-set protocol, and the forced reps and high-load protocols exhibited the smallest decrease in MVIT (88).

Fisher, J. P., Farrow, J., & Steele, J. (2017). Acute fatigue and perceptual responses to resistance exercise. Muscle & Nerve, 56(6), E141-E146.

Bentes et al. compared 22 male experienced exercisers (age: 22.5 ± 3.04 years) with no history of upper extremity injury. Participants performed 4 protocols, separated by at least 2 days. Two protocols included drop sets followed by conventional sets, and the other 2 protocols included conventional sets followed by drop sets. The conventional set protocol included 1 set/exercise and a 10 RM load. The drop-set protocol included 1 conventional set/exercise, 10 RM load, and 2 drop-sets, with reps to failure/set, and 80/60% of 10 RM load/set. Participants performed bench press and chest flies with moderate (2 min) rest between exercises. Note that the 4 protocols were as follows: Protocol 1: bench press with drop-sets, followed by chest flies with conventional sets; protocol 2: bench press with conventional sets, followed by chest flies with drop sets; protocol 3: chest flies with drop sets, followed by bench press with conventional sets; protocol 4: chest flies with conventional sets, followed by bench press with drop-sets. The findings demonstrated that all protocols resulted in a similar total number of reps/session (24-26 reps). However, the findings demonstrated that protocols 1 and 4 (Bench press with drop sets) resulted in similar and larger total volumes of work (total reps × workload) than protocols 2 and 3 (chest flies with drop sets), which also resulted in similar total work (89).

Bentes, C. M., Simão, R., Bunker, T., Rhea, M. R., Miranda, H., Gomes, T. M., & Novaes, J. D. S. (2012). Acute effects of dropsets among different resistance training methods in upper body performance. Journal of human kinetics, 34, 105.

Supersets, Pyramid sets, and Drop Sets

Summary: These studies suggest drop-sets are likely to result in the largest decrease in immediate post-exercise strength and power. Conventional sets, supersets, and pyramid sets will likely result in similar post-exercise decreases in power; however, descending pyramid sets, which finish with low-load/high-rep sets, may result in slightly larger decreases.

Sabido et al. compared 17 male experienced exercisers (age: 23.2 ± 3.6 years) who were included if they could bench press at least 100kg and had experience with the routines used in the protocols of this study. Participants performed conventional, descending pyramid sets, agonist/antagonist supersets, and agonist/agonist supersets protocols, separated by 3 days. The conventional set protocol included 4 exercises, 6 sets/exercise, 10 reps/set, with 70% of 1 RM loads. The descending pyramid set protocol included 4 exercises, 6 sets/exercise, 6/8/10/10/12/14 reps/set, and 80/75/70/70/65/60% of 1 RM load/set. The agonist/antagonist superset protocol performed 4 exercises, 6 sets/exercise, 10 reps/set, with 70% of 1 RM loads. And, the agonist/agonist superset protocol included 8 exercises, 3 sets/exercise, 10 reps/set, with 60% of 1 RM loads. All protocols included 240 reps/session, moderate (1.5 min) rest between sets, and a slow (2:0:2) rep tempo. Note that the most assisted reps were performed during the conventional set protocol, the 2nd most assisted reps were performed during the agonist/antagonist set protocol, and the least assisted reps were performed during the descending pyramid set and agonist/agonist superset protocols (which resulted in a similar number of assisted reps). The findings demonstrated that compared to pre-exercise values, all protocols resulted in significant and similar decreases in peak velocity of post-exercise Smith-machine bench press throws (5 reps with 40% of 1 RM load) (24).

Sabido, R., Peñaranda, M., & Hernández-Davó, J. L. (2016). Comparison of acute responses to four different hypertrophy-oriented resistance training methodologies. European Journal of Human Movement, 37, 109-121.

De Vasconcelos Costa et al. compared 18 male experienced exercisers (age: 18-26 years) with no history of musculoskeletal injury or ergogenic substance use within the previous 6 months. Participants performed conventional, descending pyramid, and drop-set protocols, separated by 7 days. The conventional set protocol included 3 sets/exercise, 10 reps/set, 12 RM load/set, and long (3 min) rest between sets. The descending pyramid set protocol included 3 sets/exercise, 10 reps/set, 10/12/15 RM load/set, and long (3 min) rest between sets. The drop-set protocol included 2 sets/exercise, 10 reps/set, 12 RM load/set, long (6 min) rest between sets, immediately followed by 1 drop set/exercise, 5 reps/set, 15 RM load/set. All protocols included bench press and leg press, with a rep tempo ratio of 2:1. This study assessed countermovement jump (CMJ) height pre-exercise and 30-min post-exercise. The findings demonstrated that the drop-set protocol resulted in the largest decreases in post-exercise CMJ height, followed by the descending pyramid set protocol. Only the conventional set protocol resulted in no significant changes in CMJ height. Additionally, only the drop-set protocol resulted in a significant decrease in CMJ peak force and power (90).

de Vasconcelos Costa, B. D., Ferreira, M. E. C., Gantois, P., Kassiano, W., Paes, S. T., de Lima-Júnior, D., ... & de Sousa Fortes, L. (2020). Acute effect of drop-set, traditional, and pyramidal systems in resistance training on neuromuscular performance in trained adults. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 35(4), 991-996.

Comparing Reps-to-failure and Reps-in-reserve Programs:

Summary: Two of the 3 studies published comparing power outcome measures (rate of force development, bench press bar velocity, and vertical jump height) suggest that power increases more following programs that include reps-not-to-failure/set when compared to reps-to-failure/set.

Izquierdo et al. compared 42 male professional handball athletes with 12.5 ± 5 yr of regular training and competition experience and no history of taking performance-enhancing drugs. Participants were randomly assigned to a reps-to-failure group (age: 24.8 ± 2.9 years), a reps-not-to-failure group (age: 23.9 ± 1.9 years), or a control group (age: 24.4 ± 2.1 years) that performed no additional activity. All participants in the training groups performed a total body routine (squats, bench press, shoulder press, lat pull-downs, crunches, back extensions, standing leg curls, countermovement vertical jumps, loaded vertical jumps, sprints, and throwing exercises with a 1-kg ball) for 16 weeks, 2 sessions/week. The reps-to-failure group performed 3 sets/session with 6-10 reps-to-failure/set with 70-80% of 1-RM loads during weeks 1-6; 3 sets/session, 6 reps-to-failure/set with 80% of 1-RM loads during weeks 7-12; and 3 sets/session, 2-4 reps-to-failure/set with 85 - 90% 1-RM loads during weeks 13-16. Participants in the reps-not-to-failure group performed 6 sets/session, 5 reps (not-to-failure)/set with 70-80% of 1-RM loads during weeks 1-6; 6 sets/session, 3 reps (not-to-failure)/set with 80% of 1-RM loads during weeks 7-12; and 3 sets/session, 2-4 reps (not-to-failure)/set with 85-90% 1-RM loads during weeks 13-16. Outcome measures included changes in body composition, bench press and squat 1-RM strength, endurance, bench press and squat power, and serum concentrations of testosterone, cortisol, and IGF-1. The findings demonstrated that the reps-to-failure group exhibited significantly larger increases in bench press and squats 1-RM strength and endurance (maximal number of reps using 75% 1-RM loads) compared to the reps-not-to-failure group; however, the reps-not-to-failure group exhibited significantly larger increases in bench press power output (bar velocity) and countermovement jump height when compared to the reps-to-failure group (4).

Izquierdo, M., Ibañez, J., González-Badillo, J. J., Häkkinen, K., Ratamess, N. A., Kraemer, W. J., French, D. N., Eslava, J., Altadill, A., Asiain, X., & Gorostiaga, E. M. (2006). Differential effects of strength training leading to failure versus not to failure on hormonal responses, strength, and muscle power gains. Journal of applied physiology (Bethesda, Md. : 1985), 100(5), 1647–1656. https://doi.org/10.1152/japplphysiol.01400.2005

An RCT by Karsten et al. compared 18 recreationally trained males (age: 24 ± 4 years) with no history of musculoskeletal injury or use of performance-enhancing drugs. Participants were randomly assigned to a reps-to-failure group or a reps-not-to-failure group for 6 weeks, 2 sessions/week. Participants in the reps-to-failure group performed 4 sets, approximately 10 reps-to-failure/set, approximately 75% of 1-RM loads, and moderate (2 min) rest between sets. Participants in the reps-not-to-failure group performed 8 sets, 5 reps not-to-failure/set, approximately 75% 1-RM loads, and moderate (1 min) rest between sets. All participants performed an upper body routine on Day 1 (bench press, dumbbell flyes, chest press, barbell curls, seated dumbbell curls, reverse grip bent-over rows, dumbbell lateral raises, barbell shoulder press, and barbell shoulder front raises), and a total body routine on Day 2 (lateral pulldowns, dumbbell reverse flys, barbell pull-overs, barbell lying arm extensions, barbell close grip bench press, cable triceps press downs, squats, deadlifts, and machine leg curls). Outcome measures included body fat percentage, circumference measurements, muscle thickness of the biceps brachii, anterior deltoid, and vastus medialis (measured using ultrasound), bench press and squat 1-RM strength, bench press power output, and vertical jump height. The findings demonstrated that the reps-to-failure group exhibited larger increases in bench press 1-RM strength, the reps-not-to-failure group exhibited significantly larger increases in bench press power, and neither group exhibited statistically significant changes in jump height (11).

Karsten, B., Fu, Y. L., Larumbe-Zabala, E., Seijo, M., & Naclerio, F. (2021). Impact of Two High-Volume Set Configuration Workouts on Resistance Training Outcomes in Recreationally Trained Men. Journal of strength and conditioning research, 35(Suppl 1), S136–S143. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000003163

Drinkwater et al. compared 26 experienced male basketball and soccer players (age: 18.6 ± .3 years). Participants were randomly assigned to a reps-to-failure protocol or a reps-not-to-failure protocol for 6 weeks, 3 sessions/week. The reps-to-failure protocol included 4 sets, about 6 reps-to-failure/set with 85-105% of 6-RM loads. The reps-not-to-failure protocol included 8 sets, 3 reps-not-to-failure/set, 85-105% of 6-RM loads. Both protocols included bench press and bench press throws on a Smith machine. Outcome measures included bench press 6-RM strength, average bench press throw power, and failure in completing all reps. The findings demonstrated that 6-RM strength and average bench press throw power increased significantly more for the reps-to-failure protocol. The reps-to-failure protocol also resulted in more failed reps/session (17).

Drinkwater, E. J., Lawton, T. W., Lindsell, R. P., Pyne, D. B., Hunt, P. H., & McKenna, M. J. (2005). Training leading to repetition failure enhances bench press strength gains in elite junior athletes. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 19(2), 382-388.

3 Workout Strategies You Should Avoid Before Practice and Games