Should You Perform Sets to Failure?

Recommendations, selected studies, and excerpts from a comprehensive systematic research review.

by Dr. Brent Brookbush DPT, MS, CPT, HMS, IMT

The following is an excerpt from the pre-approved 3-credit course:

• Acute Variables: Performing Sets to Failure

Introduction:

Should you push every set to failure, or is it more effective to leave a few repetitions in reserve? Which approach is better for building strength, hypertrophy, or power? These common questions in resistance training are often met with incomplete or inconsistent answers that fail to consider the full breadth of available research. Drawing from the Brookbush Institute’s systematic review of peer-reviewed studies and the course Acute Variables: Sets to Failure, this article examines when and why to perform sets to failure, the advantages of reps-in-reserve, the influence of key variables like volume and repetition velocity, and evidence-based recommendations for various training goals.

Evidence-based Summary Statement on Sets to Failure:

Based on a systematic review of all available peer-reviewed and published research, the Brookbush Institute recommends performing repetitions to failure per set (reps-to-failure/set) for optimal improvements in hypertrophy, strength endurance, and maximal strength. However, repetitions in reserve per set (reps-in-reserve/set) are recommended for enhancing power outcomes and for athletes engaging in high-frequency training with the intent of improving sports performance, hypertrophy, strength, or power. Performing 1–2 reps-in-reserve/set, along with 1 additional set per exercise, maintains exercise volume (an influential acute variable), sustains rep velocity and force across multiple sets, and reduces post-exercise performance decreases and long recovery periods associated with reps-to-failure/set.

It is also important to note that for most training goals, reps-to-failure/set is not the most influential variable. For example, performing 1 set to failure is less effective than performing 3 sets with reps-in-reserve for improving hypertrophy, strength, or power, as total training volume has a larger influence on outcomes. Similarly, training load is a more influential variable for improving strength, and contraction velocity is more influential for power development.

• Reps-to-failure/set recommended for:
  • Hypertrophy
  • Strength Endurance
  • Max Strength
• 1-2 Reps-in-reserve/set and an additional set/exercise is recommended for:
  • Power
  • Athletes performing high-frequency training (with hypertrophy, strength, or power goals).
• Acute variables that are likely more influential than sets to failure:
  • Volume: 1 set-to-failure is less effective than 3 sets-not-to-failure.
  • Load: Load is more influential than reps-to-failure/set for strength goals.
  • Velocity/force (repetition tempo): Concentric velocity and force production are likely to have a larger influence on strength and power (and potentially hypertrophy) than reps-to-failure.

Definitions

• Sets to Failure (reps-to-failure/set): Sets-to-failure is a resistance training strategy in which an individual performs repetitions of an exercise until they can no longer complete a repetition. The word "failure" in this context may include:
  • Mechanical failure is performing repetitions until another repetition cannot be performed through a full range of motion (ROM), regardless of effort.
  • Volitional failure is an exerciser performing repetitions until they choose to stop, depsite encouragement to continue (presumably due to fatigue).
  • Form failure is performing repetitions until another repetition cannot be performed with optimal posture/form. Note that form failure is not included in any of the methodologies of the studies included in this review.
• Reps-in-reserve (RIR, normal sets, or reps-NOT-to-failure/set): Reps-in-reserve is a training strategy intended to approximate effort while performing fewer reps than sets to failure. The number of reps-in-reserve is an exerciser's estimate of how many more reps they could have performed before reaching failure.
  • For example, if an exerciser performed 8 repetitions but feels they could have performed 2 more reps before failing, then the intensity is 2 reps-reps-reserve, and they are presumably using a 10-repetition maximum load (10-RM load). Common strategies include 1-2 reps-in-reserve, 3 reps-in-reserve, and half-reps/set. Note, "feeling half-reps" is likely unreliable and assumes that the exerciser has some experience with the exercise and the load and can estimate the total number of reps they would perform for a set. RIR can be used in conjunction with a 10-point Rate of Perceived Exertion (RPE) scale. For example, an RPE of 8/10 corresponds to 2 RIR ("2 reps left in the tank").

Caption: Sets to failure has a significant effect on recovery.

Research Issues:

Unfortunately, most of the research on this topic does not include methodologies that directly compare reps-to-failure/set to reps-not-to-failure/set in programs with similar exercise volumes and protocols performed by separate groups. That is, the research is plagued by methodological issues, including studies that alter multiple variables, studies that compare limbs, and studies that fail to equate volume. Despite these challenges, the conclusions in the statements above are well supported when carefully considering the findings of all studies, and it is expected that these conclusions will be congruent with any additional research published. We recommend that all professionals take the course (Acute Variables: Sets to Failure) and read the full comprehensive systematic research review (and acquire the pre-approved credits), and those really passionate about this topic use the full bibliography to find the original studies and develop independent conclusions. Of course, we attempt to be as thorough, transparent, and objective as possible, and it is our intent to develop unbiased conclusions that the majority of professionals would also develop given the same information. However, we are also open to new views, interpretations, and critiques, and there may be no better way to learn than attempting to develop conclusions or write a review of your own based on the available research. Below, we have selected the volume-equated studies with the most direct comparisons.

• The problem with altering multiple variables. Unfortunately, when studies compare 2 or more groups that are performing programs that are different in more than one way (altering more than one variable), it can be very challenging, if not impossible, to determine which of the variables contributed to the difference in outcomes, and/or how much each variable contributed to the differences. Confounding variables are an issue in all research; however, research studies related to this topic often included reps-to-failure/set as an additional variable and not as the primary variable.
• The problem with comparing limbs. Six studies used methodologies that compared reps-to-failure and reps-not-to-failure by performing each protocol on one leg of the participant. However, comparing legs results in known "cross-over effects." That is, training one leg will often result in some of the same changes in outcomes for the other leg, even when the other leg is not trained at all. This is likely due to some adaptations resulting from systemic changes or central nervous system changes. For example, resistance training may result in an increase in circulating hormones that stimulate muscle growth and an increase in neuromuscular coordination via central nervous system changes that benefit both legs. When comparing legs using two different protocols, this cross-over effect may reduce the actual differences in outcomes between protocols and significantly increase the likelihood that no statistical difference will be demonstrated. Note that significant differences noted in these studies should likely be viewed as strong evidence that a difference between programs exists. However, due to the effect on outcomes, these studies were not included in the selected annotations below.
• The problem with failing to consider the volume of exercise. Hundreds of studies have demonstrated that resistance training volume has a large influence on outcomes. Although this issue is similar to the "altering of multiple variables problem," it deserves special attention because so many acute variables affect volume. For example, performing the same number of reps with a slower tempo significantly increases time-under-tension and increases volume, changing load can significantly influence the amount of total work (reps x load) and volume, and performing reps-to-failure/set is likely to result in more volume than reps-in-reserve/set for the same number of sets. Therefore, if a study does not specifically attempt to equate volumes between protocols/groups, it is likely that volumes will be different and become a confounding variable.
  • For more on this topic, check out the article
    • Article: Is 3 Sets per Muscle Group the Upper Limit?
    • Course: Acute Variables: Sets Per Muscle Group

Caption: What is the expected impact of sets to failure on recovery?

Single-session Comparisons (Post-exercise Blood Chemistry, Strength, and Session Volume)

Several studies compared metrics during and immediately following a single session of reps-to-failure/set and reps-not-to-failure/set. Below, we included the 3 studies published that also considered exercise volume.

These studies demonstrate that reps-to-failure/set is likely to result in significant changes in post-exercise serum concentrations of testosterone and human growth hormone (HGH); however, these increases may also be correlated with an increase in exercise volume. The effect this has on muscle growth, strength, or power is debatable. Several studies discussed in our other reviews have demonstrated that post-exercise changes in blood chemistry generally decrease with continued training and are not correlated with differences in outcome measures (For example, larger increases in post-exercise serum concentrations of HGH are not correlated with larger increases in strength). For more on this topic check out: Acute Variables: Sets Per Muscle Group , Acute Variables: Training Load (Weight and Resistance) , and Acute Variables: Training Frequency and Recovery Between Sessions .

Additionally, reps-to-failure/set is likely to result in significantly larger decreases in bar velocity during a session, vertical jump height, and total reps from the first set to the last set. This decrease in reps from the first to the last set may explain why the Refalo et al. (2023) study demonstrated that 1-rep-in-reserve resulted in more total reps during 6 sets of bench press when compared to reps-to-failure/set. Reps-to-failure/set also results in significantly larger post-exercise changes, including a decrease in load, bar velocity, and vertical jump height, an increase in delayed onset muscle soreness (DOMS), and an increase in the duration of recovery. These decreases in performance during and following a session are significant reasons why it is not recommended that athletes perform reps-to-failure/set.

Annotated Bibliography

• 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. Outcome measures included post-exercise changes in bench press and squat load and velocity, and counter-movement jump (CMJ) height. Post-exercise Blood Chemistry: The reps-to-failure protocol resulted in the lowest post-exercise serum concentrations of testosterone (0 - 72 hours post-exercise) when compared to the other protocols. Significant but smaller decreases were exhibited for up to 48 hours following the high-volume 5-reps protocol and only immediately post-exercise for the low-volume 5-reps protocol. The reps-to-failure protocol also resulted in significantly larger increases in serum concentrations of HGH immediately post-exercise. A significant increase in HGH concentrations was also exhibited immediately post-exercise by the high-volume 5-reps group, but not the low-volume 5-reps group. The findings demonstrated that only the reps-to-failure protocol resulted in a significant increase in serum concentrations of cortisol immediately post-exercise, and the 5-reps (low-volume and high-volume) protocols actually resulted in a significant DECREASE in cortisol immediately post-exercise. Post-exercise Performance: 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.
  • 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.
• 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. The reps-to-failure/set protocol resulted in significant decreases in bench press and squat 1-RM strength 24 hours after training.
  • 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.
• 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.
  • 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

Caption: Are sets to failure appropriate for all goals?

Multi-week Program Comparisons (Hypertrophy, Endurance, Strength, and Power)

Summary

Additional studies have compared improvements in outcomes measures following multi-week (and multi-month) programs of reps-to-failure/set and reps-not-to-failure/set. Again, in this section, we only included the published studies that also considered exercise volume (a total of 4 studies).

The findings from these studies are most congruent for hypertrophy and increases in cross-sectional area (CSA). All of the studies demonstrate that reps-to-failure/set is more effective than reps-not-to-failure/set for increasing muscle mass, even when volume is equal. Even the study by Silva et al. (2018) on an older population (age: 66.2 ± 5.2 years), a population known to exhibit less hypertrophy with training, demonstrated that performing reps-to-failure/set result in a larger increase in CSA, despite all other outcome measures in the study being similar for the reps-to-failure/set and reps-not-to-failure/set groups (e.g., strength, max EMG activity, and jump performance).

Unfortunately, the study by Martorelli et al. et al. (2017) was the only study in this group to investigate the effects of reps-to-failure/set on muscle endurance, and no difference between reps-to-failure/set and reps-not-to-failure/set was found. However, the comprehensive systematic review in the course "Acute Variables: Set to Failure" does suggest that reps-to-failure/set is more effective for improving strength endurance. If strength endurance can be defined as an increase in the total number of reps that can be performed for a given load, it seems reasonable to assume that performing as many reps as possible per set would be necessary to optimally improve strength endurance.

Strength was investigated in all 4 of these studies. One study demonstrated no significant difference, and 1 study demonstrated that peak torque increased more with reps-NOT-to-failure/set. Note that the study that demonstrated no difference was performed on older individuals (daSilva et al. (2018)), a group that is known to exhibit smaller magnitude changes with resistance training, resulting in a decreased likelihood of exhibiting a statistically significant difference in research. The study demonstrating that peak elbow flexion increased more with reps-NOT-to-failure/set did not demonstrate a significant difference between groups for 1-RM strength (Martorelli et al. (2017)). However, two studies demonstrated that strength increased more with reps-to-failure/set. The two studies included young, healthy, trained individuals and protocols using multiple multi-joint exercises. Although I would suggest that the correlation between rep-to-failure/set and larger increases in strength is weaker than the correlation between reps-to-failure/set and more hypertrophy, I would still recommend reps-to-failure/set for healthy adults with the intent to optimally increase strength.

Last, these studies likely imply that power increases more with reps-not-to-failure/set, although this conclusion is less certain than the conclusions for hypertrophy, endurance, or strength. Considering the importance of optimizing rep velocity for improving power, and the effect reps-to-failure/set has on rep velocity, it does seem reasonable to suggest that a strategy of 1-2 reps-in-reserve/set may aid in ensuring that every rep during a session is performed with maximal velocity. Further, it should be noted that many of the individuals who train with the intent to increase power are athletes with challenging game schedules. The effect reps-to-failure/set has on post-exercise power must be considered if a game occurs within 48 hours of a session.

Annotated Bibliography

• 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 bicep 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 differences were not statistically significant for circumference measurements. However, the reps-to-failure group exhibited larger decreases in body fat percentage and larger increases in biceps brachii and vastus medialis thickness (measured with ultrasound). Conversely, the reps-not-to-failure group exhibited larger increases in anterior deltoid muscle thickness. The reps-to-failure group also exhibited significantly 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 (???).
  • 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, 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 6 RM bench press 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 (???).
  • 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.
• Martorelli et al. compared 89 active females (age: 21.9 ± 3.3 years). Participants were randomly assigned to a reps-to-failure/set group, a reps-not-to-failure/set group, and a volume-matched group for 10 weeks, 2 sessions/week. All groups peformed biceps curls, with 70% 1-RM loads, with moderate (2 min) rest between sets. The reps-to-failure/set group performed 3 sets with reps-to-failure/set (presumably 28 total reps based on the volume-matched protocol). The reps not-to-failure/set group performed 3 sets of 7 reps/set. And the volume-matched group performed 4 sets of 7 reps/set. Outcome measures included average load lifted, training volumes, biceps muscle thickness, 1-RM strength, peak torque, and muscle endurance. The findings demonstrated that none of the groups exhibited significant differences in average load lifted, and the reps-to-failure/set group and the volume-matched group performed significantly higher training volumes when compared to the reps-not-to-failure/set group. However, the reps-to-failure/set group and volume-matched group exhibited significantly larger increases in muscle thickness when compared to the reps-not-to-failure/set group. Additionally, the findings demonstrated that none of the groups exhibited significant differences in average load lifted, and the reps-to-failure/set group and the volume-matched group performed significantly higher training volumes when compared to the reps-not-to-failure/set group. All groups exhibited significant increases in 1-RM strength and muscle endurance (reps-to-failure with 70% of 1-RM); however, the reps-not-to-failure/set group and volume-matched groups exhibited significantly larger increases in peak torque when compared to the reps-to-failure/set group.
  • Martorelli, S., Cadore, E. L., Izquierdo, M., Celes, R., Martorelli, A., Cleto, V. A., Alvarenga, J. G., & Bottaro, M. (2017). Strength Training with Repetitions to Failure does not Provide Additional Strength and Muscle Hypertrophy Gains in Young Women. European journal of translational myology, 27(2), 6339. https://doi.org/10.4081/ejtm.2017.6339
• An RCT by da Silva et al. compared 52 healthy males (age: 66.2 ± 5.2 years) with no history of neuromuscular, metabolic, hormonal, or cardiovascular diseases, not currently smoking or taking hormonal or neuromuscular medications. Participants were randomly assigned to a reps-to-failure protocol, a reps-not-to-failure protocol, and a volume-matched protocol for 12 weeks, 2 sessions/week. The reps-to-failure group performed 2-3 sets/exercise, reps-to-failure/set, with 60 - 80% of 1-RM loads. The reps-not-to-failure group performed 2-3 sets/exercise, half the number of reps-to-failure/set, with 60-80% of 1-RM loads. The volume-matched protocol performed 4-6 sets/exercise, half the number of reps-to-failure/set, 60-80% of 1-RM loads, and volume was matched to the reps-to-failure group. All participants performed a lower body routine (leg press and leg extensions). Outcome measures included leg press and leg extension 1-RM strength, isometric knee extension torque, rate of force development, jump performance, EMG activity of the vastus lateralis and rectus femoris, and quadricep muscle thickness. The findings demonstrated that all groups exhibited significant and similar increases in knee extension and leg press 1-RM strength, jump performance, and maximal EMG activity of the vastus lateralis and rectus femoris, despite only the reps-to-failure and volume-matched groups exhibiting significant increases in quadriceps CSA.
  • da Silva, L. X. N., Teodoro, J. L., Menger, E., Lopez, P., Grazioli, R., Farinha, J., Moraes, K., Bottaro, M., Pinto, R. S., Izquierdo, M., & Cadore, E. L. (2018). Repetitions to failure versus not to failure during concurrent training in healthy elderly men: A randomized clinical trial. Experimental gerontology, 108, 18–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.exger.2018.03.017

Caption: Who should perform sets to failure?

1 Set-to-Failure Versus Multiple Sets Not-to-Failure

Several articles, blogs, message boards, and social media posts have suggested that 1 set of reps-to-failure/set is more effective than multiple sets of reps-not-to-failure/set. This is simply untrue. As mentioned above, volume is a very influential acute variable. For experienced exercisers, multiple sets will result in larger improvements than a single set for strength and power, regardless of whether sets are performed to failure.

Annotated Bibliography

• Sanborn et al. compared 17 novice college-aged women (age: 18-20 years). Participants were randomly assigned to a single set reps-to-failure protocol or a multiple set reps-not-to-failure protocol for 8 weeks, 3 sessions/week. The single set reps-to-failure protocol included 1 set, 8-12 reps-to-failure/set. The multiple set reps-not-to-failure protocol included 3 sets, 10 reps/set on week 1; 3 sets, 5 reps/set on weeks 2-4; 3 sets, 3 reps/set on week 5; 5 sets, 5 reps/set on week 6; 3 sets, 5 reps/set on week 7; and 3 sets, 2 reps/set on week 8. The multiple sets of reps-not-to-failure group performed 3 sets at a target weight (not-to-failure) and used different loads on heavy and light training days. All participants performed a total body routine (Mondays and Fridays included squats, ¼ squats, bench press, standing shoulder press, and crunches. Wednesdays included mid/thigh pulls, shoulder shrugs, straight-legged deadlifts, upright rows, and crunches). Outcome measures included body composition, 1-RM squat strength, and countermovement jump (CMJ) height. The findings demonstrated both protocols resulted in similar changes in body composition. The findings also demonstrated that 1 RM squat strength and CMJ height increased significantly more for the multiple-set reps-not-to-failure protocol when compared to the single-set reps-to-failure protocol (???).
  • Sanborn, K., Boros, R., Hruby, J. O. E., Schilling, B., O'BRYANT, H. S., Johnson, R. L., ... & STONE, M. H. (2000). Short-term performance effects of weight training with multiple sets not to failure vs. a single set to failure in women. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 14(3), 328-331.
• Kramer et al. compared 43 experienced male exercisers (age: 20.3 ± 1.9 years) who could back squat at least their body weight with good form. Participants were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 groups, including a 1 set of reps-to-failure/set group, 3 sets of 10 reps of 10-RM load group, and a variable load/set group, for 14 weeks, 3 sessions/week. All participants performed a total-body routine on Mondays and Fridays (squats, push-press, bench press, and crunches) and a different total-body routine on Wednesdays (pulls from mid-thigh, leg curls, bent-over rows, and crunches). The reps-to-failure/set group performed 1 set/exercise, with reps-to-failure/set and 10-RM loads/set. The reps-in-reserve/set group performed 3 sets/exercise, 10 reps/set, and 10-RM loads/set. The variable load/set group performed 3 sets/exercise, 2-10 reps/set, and 10-RM loads/set (periodized program). Outcome measures included body mass, body composition, and 1-RM squat strength. The findings demonstrated similar improvements in body mass, and none of the groups exhibited significant changes in body fat or composition. The 3 sets of 10 reps/set and variable load/set groups exhibited significantly larger increases in 1-RM squat strength compared to the reps to failure/set group (???).
  • Kramer, J. B., Stone, M. H., O'Bryant, H. S., Conley, M. S., Johnson, R. L., Nieman, D. C., Honeycutt, D. R. and Hoke, T. P. (1997) Effects of single vs. multiple sets of weight training: impact of volume, intensity, and variation. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 11(3), 143-147.

Caption: Testimonial from Google Reviews (Maria Emberg)

Bibliography

• 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.
• 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.
• 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
• 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, 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.
• Martorelli, S., Cadore, E. L., Izquierdo, M., Celes, R., Martorelli, A., Cleto, V. A., Alvarenga, J. G., & Bottaro, M. (2017). Strength Training with Repetitions to Failure does not Provide Additional Strength and Muscle Hypertrophy Gains in Young Women. European journal of translational myology, 27(2), 6339. https://doi.org/10.4081/ejtm.2017.6339
• da Silva, L. X. N., Teodoro, J. L., Menger, E., Lopez, P., Grazioli, R., Farinha, J., Moraes, K., Bottaro, M., Pinto, R. S., Izquierdo, M., & Cadore, E. L. (2018). Repetitions to failure versus not to failure during concurrent training in healthy elderly men: A randomized clinical trial. Experimental gerontology, 108, 18–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.exger.2018.03.017
• Sanborn, K., Boros, R., Hruby, J. O. E., Schilling, B., O'BRYANT, H. S., Johnson, R. L., ... & STONE, M. H. (2000). Short-term performance effects of weight training with multiple sets not to failure vs. a single set to failure in women. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 14(3), 328-331.
• Kramer, J. B., Stone, M. H., O'Bryant, H. S., Conley, M. S., Johnson, R. L., Nieman, D. C., Honeycutt, D. R. and Hoke, T. P. (1997) Effects of single vs. multiple sets of weight training: impact of volume, intensity, and variation. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 11(3), 143-147.

© 2025 Brent Brookbush (B2C Fitness, LLC d.b.a. Brookbush Institute)

Comments, critiques, and questions are welcome!