Approved by CATA and 1 course contact hour = 0.4 CATA CEUs

Canadian Athletic Therapists Association

Approved for {{credits}} CEUs by CPTA #CPTAAP-36

California Physical Therapy Association

This activity is provided by the Texas Board of Physical Therapy Examiners Accredited Provider 2309052TX and meets continuing competence requirements for physical therapist and physical therapist assistant licensure renewal in Texas.

Texas Physical Therapy Association

New York Physical Therapist just a disclaimer The Brookbush Institute (B2C Fitness) is recognized by the New York State Education Department's State Board for Physical Therapy as an approved provider of physical therapy and physical therapist assistant continuing education.

New York State Education Department's State Board for Physical Therapy

Acute Variables: Performing Sets to Failure

Access to all courses with monthly membership

Brookbush Institute

I have almost completed my CPT certification and am half-way through the Human Movement certification to inform my massage practice. The different modalities of reading, watching audiovisual materials, and attending live or recorded webinars have been important to my learning style and for review.

Brookbush Institute has the most detailed, specific and effective tools for online learning for movement and/or bodywork professionals. I love the combination of the videos as well as the text available online.

I recently completed the CPT course. It was demanding yet practical. I would highly recommend it for anyone wanting an education about human movement.

I have my personal trainer certificate through here and am almost finished my human movement specialist certification. Overall, the education that Brookbush has packaged together for clinicians and trainers is invaluable. I am a physio assistant so coming from more of a rehab background I appreciate that this education has been beneficial both as a trainer and in a rehab setting. I love that I have been able to do all learning at my own pace and able to work around my schedule. Thank you for setting up this platform! Highly recommend :)

I have been a massage therapist for 10 yrs and I feel like all the “pieces” I’ve learned throughout the yrs have been put into place and can see the full picture. I am also a member to tons of great content since I love to learn! I plan to get my CPT through them as well.

I have been following Brent Brookbush for nearly a decade- back when I was a personal Trainer and now as a Physical Therapist. BBI is an incredible resource for any movement nerds and corrective exercise specialists! The information is thorough with multiple real world applications. I am looking forward to an in-person Manual Therapist course the second they do one a little bit closer to Virginia ;)

I have taken both the Human Movement Specialist and Certified Personal Trainer certificate programs and have found the value in understanding the how and ways the body moves and functions and from evidence, non-biased, outcome, conceptual, theoretical, and practical approach to helping my clients/patients look better, feel better, and move better.

Over the last years I've returned time and again to Brookbush Institute for stellar coursework as I've worked toward a Human Movement Specialist certification. (I'm currently ACE CPT, and in training with Anatomy Trains for Structural Integration Manual Therapy.) Every Brookbush Institute module is fantastic and each one includes detailed informational videos, written descriptions of how to-do, and, more importantly, why to-do!

I am a 70 yr old chiropractor and no other healthcare provider was able to come up with an exercise protocol particular to my structural and balances and muscle deficits and keep me in the game. And as for continuing education on human skeletal movement, the website is phenomenal full of great exercises for particular mechanical dysfunction.

The H.M.S. is the most valuable certificate I have earned and was a fraction of the the cost of my others. Define the best bang for your buck!

Brookbush is the most efficient Personal Training Certification I have ever come across. All the lessons are well thought out and very straight to the point.

I am getting my Master's degree in Kinesiology, and I would like to say that I have benefited greatly from the rich, comprehensive, well-documented scientific content of Brookbush Institute that links theory to practical applications. Proudly I've got my CPT certificate, and I am on my way to get my HMS certificate.

Having courses count towards different certifications makes it so users can transition seamlessly from one certification to another. In my case, going from earning the BI CPT to earning the BI HMS was an easy decision and I am proud to have earned both certifications. I have also had the pleasure of going to a Live HMS workshop that was well taught by Instructor Boettcher and that was excellent to see how the methods and techniques are implemented.



I have been a member of BBI for years and every course I have taken has been incredibly informative. I learn more from these courses than I do at local CEU courses for my PTA license. I also earned my CPT and HMS certifications through the platform. It was so convenient and the content was top notch! Forever member.

We learn principles in academia, we learn cool new modalities via whatever specialty certification, but BBI really concentrates on the nuances of passive treatment and they do a fantastic job. The format in which BBI instructs soft tissue specialists (DPTs, Chiros, ATs) like myself feels like almost like an apprenticeship. You get a thoroughly detailed explanation of the “why’s”, and a visual comprehension of how to apply. Personally, I believe application is where the good and the great are distinguished.

Brookbush has been incredibly helpful since I was in massage school and now as I’m in my career! I run my own practice and it gives me the resources I need to not only improve what I already know, but also help me navigate better, more efficient ways of treatment.

Totally loving the convenience and affordability of this program with my crazy lifestyle! I feel like I am getting a quality education without a massive cost! My favorite part is the videos I can watch in the courses. I learn so much better that way. Once I really spent more time on the site, I figured out how to maneuver around a lot better! I enjoy the sense of humor, as well as the easy explanation, and short tests. And if I am really tired, I can have the computer read me the lessons. 😁

Challenging concepts are explained in very understandable terms without dumbing down the material, and I find this program to be superior in quality to other personal training programs.

Home

Courses

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: 

 is performing repetitions until another repetition cannot be performed through a full range of motion (ROM), regardless of effort.

 is an exerciser performing repetitions until they choose to stop, depsite encouragement to continue (presumably due to fatigue).

 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-in-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").

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 (

) for optimal improvements in hypertrophy, strength endurance, and maximal strength. However, repetitions in reserve per 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 

 has a larger influence on outcomes. Similarly, 

 is a more influential variable for improving strength, and 

 is more influential for power development.

1-2 Reps-in-reserve/set and an additional set/exercise is recommended for:

Athletes performing high-frequency training (with hypertrophy, strength, or power goals).

Acute variables that are likely more influential than sets to failure:

 1 set-to-failure is less effective than 3 sets-not-to-failure.

 Load is more influential than reps-to-failure/set for strength goals.

 Concentric velocity and force production are likely to have a larger influence on strength and power (and potentially hypertrophy) than reps-to-failure.

Based on the research available and carefully developed conclusions, this course answers many of the questions regarding performing sets to failure for improving strength, hypertrophy (muscle growth), muscle endurance, and power. Additionally, training experience, age, and athletic performance are also addressed. Additional topics include the effects of set-to-failure on blood chemistry, hormones, markers of muscle growth, body composition (body fat), electromyography, and post-exercise force production.

This course reviews all of the available research comparing "sets to failure" and "sets not to failure" (e.g., reps-in-reserve). Although the definition of failure most often included mechanical failure and the inability to perform another repetition (reps), some studies included volitional failure in which a participant chose to stop. Sets not performed to failure included a range from 1-rep-in-reserve to an estimated half-of-the-reps that could be performed for a load. Unfortunately, most of the research on this topic is plagued by methodological issues, including studies that altered multiple variables, making determining the most influential variable challenging, and studies that compared protocols on each limb of an individual despite known cross-over effects. Despite these challenges, the conclusions in the statement above are well supported and are likely to be congruent with any additional research published.

Some findings from the included systematic research review resulted in counterintuitive, or at least unconventional, recommendations. For example, it may be beneficial to use an athlete's perception of intensity (similar to a BORG scale) to perform reps-in-reserve/set to maintain or improve bar velocity/power throughout a high-frequency training program, to optimize improvements for power, as well as strength and hypertrophy.

Movement professionals, including personal trainers, fitness instructors, strength coaches, physical therapists, athletic trainers, massage therapists, chiropractors, and occupational therapists, should consider acute variables essential knowledge for optimal exercise programming. Sets to failure is one of these critical acute variables. This course is part of our ongoing effort to optimize acute variable recommendations.

Certified Personal Trainer (CPT) Certification

Pre-approved for Continuing Education Credits (CECs)for:

Acute Variables: Training Frequency and Recovery Between Sessions

Acute Variables: Training Load (Weight and Resistance)

 Moderate (75-85% of 1 RM load, light loads for power) 

Note that when performing reps-in-reserve, adding an extra set will maintain exercise volume.

 Circuit training, 1- 2 min rest between exercises

Single-leg Alternating Horizontal Abduction

Side-plank with bottom leg on knee and top leg straight and abducted

Course Summary: Sets to Failure

Reps-to-failure/set is likely to significantly increase serum concentrations of testosterone, HGH, and IGF-1; however, these increases may also be correlated with an increase in exercise volume. Conversely, reps-to-failure/set may significantly increase post-exercise concentrations of cortisol, lactate, and creatine kinase, and post-exercise concentrations may not increase or decrease following reps-not-to-failure/set.

 Hypertrophy may be influenced more by force production (concentric tempo) and load; however, reps-to-failure/set is also likely to result in larger improvements.

 Strength endurance is significantly influenced by exercise volume; however, it is likely that reps-to-failure/set results in significantly larger improvements.

Power is likely to increase more following programs that include reps-in-reserve/set, likely due to the maintenance of power throughout a session, a reduction in the post-exercise decreases in power, and better performance in frequent subsequent sessions.

 Maximum strength (like hypertrophy) may be influenced more by force production (concentric tempo) and load; however, reps-to-failure/set is also likely to result in larger improvements.

During Session and Post-exercise Performance:

 Reps-to-failure/set for all sets of exercise results in significantly larger decreases during a session in bar velocity, vertical jump height, and reps from the first to the last set during a session, and significantly increases the post-exercise decrease in performance, increases DOMS, and increases the duration of recovery.

 It is the author's opinion that this study may be alluding to the benefits of programs including reps-not-to-failure/set for athletes training with high frequency (e.g., 5 days/week). That is, it may be beneficial to use a participant's perception of intensity (similar to a BORG scale) to perform reps-in-reserve/set to maintain or improve bar velocity/power throughout a high-frequency training program, which some research has demonstrated may be beneficial for improving both power and hypertrophy.

Summary Statement and 1-Page Review

Testosterone, Cortisol, Human Growth Hormone (HGH), and Insulin-like Growth Factor 1 (IGF-1)

These studies suggest that post-exercise blood serum concentrations of HGH and testosterone are likely to exhibit the largest changes following protocols that include reps-to-failure/set; and further, concentrations may be significantly influenced by exercise volume. Post-exercise serum concentrations of cortisol may increase following protocols with reps-to-failure/set and decrease following protocols with reps-not-to-failure/set.

 Reps-to-failure/set is likely to result in higher resting serum concentrations of cortisol and lower resting serum concentrations of IGF-1 and testosterone when compared to performing reps-not-to-failure/set. Further, reps-to-failure/set may result in higher post-exercise serum concentrations of HGH; however, a comparison of reps-not-to-failure/set protocols before and after 10 weeks of training suggests there may be some adaptation with training that results in smaller changes in post-exercise hormone concentrations.

 Performing reps-to-failure/set results in significantly larger increases in post-exercise serum concentrations of creatine kinase, and the elevations last longer (more days). Further, the study by Pareja-Blanco et al. (2019) may suggest that adaptations to training result in a decrease in the post-exercise increases in concentrations of creatine kinase.

Many of the studies in this section were not direct comparisons of reps-to-failure/set and reps-not-to-failure/set protocols; however, every study demonstrated that the protocols that included reps-to-failure/set and/or more total work/set resulted in significantly larger increases in serum concentrations of lactate immediately post-exercise.

EMG activity may increase more with reps-to-failure/set if it results in a significant increase in the volume of exercise. However, it is likely that increases in load and repetition tempo have a larger influence on EMG activity. Note that these studies also demonstrated that EMG activity was not correlated with hypertrophy.

 When the volume of exercise is similar, reps-to-failure/set results in larger improvements in body composition; however, significantly larger volumes of exercise will result in larger improvements in body composition regardless of the reps/set.

Hypertrophy, Cross-Sectional Area (CSA), Muscle Volume

 The studies in this section suggest that hypertrophy is similar when comparing programs with and without reps-to-failure/set, but these studies included variables that may have affected outcomes. For example, in the Sampson et al. (2016) study, the faster tempos used by the reps-not-to-failure groups may have resulted in more force, which other studies have demonstrated may contribute to increases in hypertrophy. The Bergamasco et al. (2022) study included older participants and 40% of 1-RM (very light) loads, which may have significantly reduced improvements in hypertrophy and the likelihood of significant differences between protocols.

Reps-to-Failure/Set Results in More Hypertrophy: 

Young adults performing resistance training programs that include reps-to-failure/set are likely to exhibit significantly larger increases in muscle cross-sectional area (CSA), even when the total volume of exercise is similar.

Reps-to-failure/set is more effective for improving muscle endurance (total reps for a sub-maximal load) than protocols that do not include reps-to-failure/set. However, there is some evidence to suggest that endurance may improve similarly with routines that include similar volume or routines that include reps until a 20% decrease in concentric velocity (fatigue protocols).

Power During and Immediately Post-exercise:

 Leaving just 1 rep in reserve can help preserve lifting velocity throughout multiple sets. Three reps in reserve may result in lower exercise volume but even higher average lifting velocity. Reps-to-failure/set may result in a significant decrease in strength, velocity, and vertical jump height for up to 48 hours post-exercise, whereas half-reps-to-failure/set may only result in a significant decrease in performance immediately post-exercise (recovery within hours).

 Two of the three 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.

Immediate Decrease in Strength Following a Single Session: 

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.

 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 performing more sets with reps-in-reserve/set may reduce recovery time to 6 hours or less.

Strength Following Programs With and Without Reps-to-failure/set

The studies in this section may imply that an increase in force during the concentric contraction (repetition velocity) has a larger influence on strength than reps-to-failure/set. Further, a 10% difference in load may not be sufficient to result in a statistically significant difference in strength following just 8 weeks of training.

Load and Volume Are More Influential Than Reps-to-Failure/Set: 

Training with multiple-sets/exercise when compared to 1-set/exercise, and moderate (80% of 1-RM) loads when compared to light (40% of 1-RM) loads are likely to have a significantly larger influence on strength improvements than performing reps-to-failure/set or reps-not-to-failure/set.

Reps-to-failure/set Increases Strength More: 

Performing reps-to-failure/set likely results in significantly larger increases in 1-RM strength and endurance but potentially smaller increases in power when compared to reps-not-to-failure/set.

Reps-to-Failure/Set Increases Strength Less: 

This study by Martorelli et al. (2017) suggests that elbow flexor peak torque may improve less with reps-to-failure/set when compared to reps-not-to-failure/set. More research is needed to determine why this study contradicts other studies.

 The publications by Carroll et al. (2018, 2019) mix several variables, including reps-to-failure/set, daily undulation of training intensity, and adjusting reps/load based on perceived intensity. The results of this study counter the outcomes demonstrated by some studies discussed in the section on hypertrophy. It is the author's opinion that this study may be alluding to the benefits of programs including reps-not-to-failure/set for athletes training with high frequency (e.g., 5 days/week). That is, it may be beneficial to use a participant's perception of intensity (similar to a BORG scale) to perform reps-in-reserve/set to maintain or improve bar velocity/power throughout a high-frequency training program, which some research has demonstrated may be beneficial for improving both power, strength, and hypertrophy.

Older individuals performing reps-to-failure/set or reps-not-to-failure/set, especially when volumes of exercise are similar, are likely to exhibit similar increases in 1-RM strength, jump performance, MVIC, EMG activity, and functional outcome measures (e.g., timed-up-and-go). However, reps-to-failure/set may result in larger increases in muscle CSA/hypertrophy.

 Four of the five studies demonstrated no significant difference between reps-to-failure and reps-not-to-failure protocols for hypertrophy, pennation angle, EMG activity, MVIC, 1-RM strength, and strength endurance. The study by Lasevicius et al. (2022) was the only study to demonstrate that reps-to-failure/set and heavier loads resulted in larger increases in hypertrophy and 1-RM strength. When considering the cross-over effects mentioned above, these findings are congruent with the previously mentioned research. One study demonstrates more strength and hypertrophy following reps-to-failure/set, but it is likely that cross-over effects washed out most differences between protocols.

 It is unfortunate that the studies in this section compared limbs and/or a mix of acute variables, making it difficult to develop concise conclusions. However, these studies may allude to faster tempos being more beneficial for increasing strength, but more time under tension resulting in significantly higher rates of protein synthesis, phosphorylation, and larger increases in muscle CSA.

Summary of Research Findings

Blood Chemistry: Research Summary

Testosterone, Cortisol, Growth Hormone (GH), and Insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1)

Creatine Kinase

Lactate

Blood Chemistry and Sets to Failure

Electromyographic (EMG) activity has been investigated in several studies comparing reps-to-failure and reps-not-to-failure protocols. 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 (9). As mentioned above, Tanimoto et al. compared 24 novice male exercisers (age: 19.5 ± 0.6 years). Participants were randomly assigned to a high-intensity/moderate-tempo group, a low-intensity/slow-tempo group, or a low-intensity/moderate-tempo group for 12 weeks, 3 sessions/week. The high-intensity/moderate-tempo group performed leg extensions for 3 sets/exercise, reps-to-failure/set, 80% of 1-RM loads, with a moderate (1:0:1) tempo. The low-intensity/slow-tempo group performed leg extensions for 3 sets/exercise, reps-to-failure/set, 50% of 1-RM loads, with a slow (3:1:3) tempo. The low-intensity/moderate tempo group performed leg extensions for 3 sets/exercise, 8 reps (not-to-failure)/set, 50% of 1-RM loads, with a moderate (1:0:1) tempo. Note that the low-intensity/moderate-tempo group matched the same load and reps/set as the low-intensity/slow-tempo group. Outcome measures included changes in knee extension 1-RM strength, isometric torque, dynamic knee extension torque, rectus femoris cross-sectional area (CSA), electromyographic (EMG) activity, and near-infrared spectroscopic analyses (muscle deoxygenation). The findings demonstrated a significant and sustained increase in EMG activity and near-infrared spectroscopic analyses (muscle deoxygenation) of the vastus lateralis during and immediately post-exercise following the low-intensity/slow-tempo exercise. EMG activity and muscle deoxygenation during exercise were also significantly higher during the high-intensity/moderate-tempo exercise when compared to the low-intensity/moderate-tempo exercise; however, the changes did not continue post-exercise. Note that the rectus femoris cross-sectional area (CSA) increased significantly for the low-intensity/slow-tempo and high-intensity/moderate-tempo groups (i.e., reps-to-failure groups), and did not significantly increase for the low-intensity/moderate-tempo group (reps-not-to-failure) (7). Sampson et al. compared 28 males (age: 24 ± 7 years) who had not participated in resistance exercise for at least 6 months and who had been cleared for activity by a physical activity readiness questionnaire (PAR-Q). Participants were randomly assigned to a maximum concentric velocity (MaxV) tempo not-to-failure protocol, an explosive tempo not-to-failure protocol, and a moderate (2:0:2) tempo reps-to-failure protocol. All training sessions included 85% of 1-RM loads with unilateral dominant limb elbow flexion and extension exercises for 12 weeks, 3 sessions/week. The MaxV not-to-failure protocol included approximately 4.2 reps (not to failure)/set with a moderate (2:0:MaxV) tempo. The explosive not-to-failure protocol included approximately 4.2 reps-not-to-failure/set and an explosive tempo. The moderate tempo reps-to-failure protocol included approximately 6.1 reps-to-failure/set and a moderate (2:0:2) tempo. Outcome measures included the average number of reps/set, 1-RM strength, maximal voluntary isometric contractions (MVIC), elbow flexor CSA, and EMG activity of the agonist, antagonist, and stabilizer muscles. The findings demonstrated that the average number of reps/set was significantly higher for the reps-to-failure group when compared to the MaxV and explosive tempo reps-not-to-failure groups. Additionally, antagonist muscle EMG activity was higher for the MaxV and explosive reps-not-to-failure groups when compared to the moderate tempo reps-to-failure protocol. However, EMG activity of the agonists was similar for all groups (10). In summary, EMG activity may increase more with reps-to-failure/set if it results in a significant increase in the volume of exercise. However, it is likely that increases in load and repetition tempo have a larger influence on EMG activity. Note that these studies also demonstrated that EMG activity was not correlated with hypertrophy.

Electromyographic (EMG) Activity

These studies likely suggest that when the volume of exercise is similar, reps-to-failure/set results in larger improvements in body composition; however, significantly larger volumes of exercise will result in larger improvements in body composition regardless of the reps/set.

Four studies measured body composition when comparing reps-to-failure/set and reps-not-to-failure/set protocols. 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, 6-10 reps-to-failure/set, 70-80% of 1-RM loads during weeks 1-6; 3 sets/session, 6 reps-to-failure/set, 80% of 1-RM loads during weeks 7-12; and 3 sets/session, 2-4 reps-to-failure/set, 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, at 70-80% of 1-RM loads during weeks 1-6; 6 sets/session, 3 reps (not-to-failure)/set, at 80% of 1-RM loads during weeks 7-12; and 3 sets/session, 2-4 reps (not-to-failure)/set, 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 significant decreases in body composition when compared to the reps-not-to-failure group and the control group (4). 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 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). However, the reps-not-to-failure group exhibited larger increases in anterior deltoid muscle thickness (11). 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 (12). 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 (13). These studies likely suggest that when the volume of exercise is similar, reps-to-failure/set results in larger improvements in body composition; however, significantly larger volumes of exercise will result in larger improvements in body composition regardless of the reps/set.

Body Composition

Two studies comparing young adults demonstrated that reps-to-failure/set resulted in significantly more hypertrophy. 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 (volume equated). 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). However, the reps-not-to-failure group exhibited larger increases in anterior deltoid muscle thickness (11). Tanimoto et al. compared 24 male novice exercisers (age: 19.5 ± 0.6 years). Participants were randomly assigned to a high-intensity/moderate-tempo group, a low-intensity/slow-tempo group, or a low-intensity/moderate-tempo group for 12 weeks, 3 sessions/week. The high-intensity/moderate-tempo group performed leg extensions for 3 sets/exercise, reps-to-failure/set, 80% of 1-RM loads, with a moderate (1:0:1) tempo. The low-intensity/slow-tempo group performed leg extensions for 3 sets/exercise, reps-to-failure/set, 50% of 1-RM loads, with a slow (3:1:3) tempo. The low-intensity/moderate tempo group performed leg extensions for 3 sets/exercise, 8 reps (not to failure)/set, 50% 1-RM loads, with a moderate (1:0:1) tempo. Note that the low-intensity/moderate-tempo group matched the same load and reps/set as the low-intensity/slow-tempo group. Outcome measures included changes in knee extension 1-RM strength, isometric torque, dynamic knee extension torque, rectus femoris CSA, EMG activity, and near-infrared spectroscopic analyses (muscle deoxygenation). The findings demonstrated a significant and sustained increase in electromyographic (EMG) activity and near-infrared spectroscopic analyses (muscle deoxygenation) of the vastus lateralis during and immediately post-exercise following the low-intensity/slow-tempo exercise. EMG activity and muscle deoxygenation during exercise were also significantly higher during the high-intensity/moderate-tempo exercise when compared to the low-intensity/moderate-tempo exercise; however, the changes did not continue post-exercise. Note that the rectus femoris cross-sectional area (CSA) increased significantly for the low-intensity/slow-tempo and high-intensity/moderate-tempo groups (i.e., sets to failure groups), and did not significantly increase for the low-intensity/moderate-tempo group (reps-not-to-failure) (7). These studies suggest that young adults performing resistance training programs that include reps-to-failure/set are likely to exhibit significantly larger increases in muscle CSA, even when the total volume of exercise is similar.

Hypertrophy, Cross-sectional Area (CSA), and Muscle Volume

A few studies that compared protocols with and without reps-to-failure/set included muscle endurance as an outcome measure. An RCT by Terada et al. compared 27 recreationally active college males (age: 18 – 22 years) with no caffeine or alcohol use 24 hours prior to training. Participants were randomly assigned to perform bench press with a reps-to-failure protocol, a velocity fatigue protocol, or a high-load protocol for 8 weeks, with 2 sessions/week. The reps-to-failure protocol included 3 sets, reps-to-failure/set, with 40% of 1-RM loads. The velocity fatigue protocol included 3 sets, reps to a 20% reduction in lifting velocity, with 40% of 1-RM loads. And, the high load protocol included 3 sets, 8 reps/set, with 80% of 1-RM loads. Outcome measures included changes in post-exercise serum concentrations of blood lactate, pectoralis major muscle thickness, bench press 1-RM strength, and bench press muscular endurance. The findings demonstrated that bench press 1-RM strength improved significantly more for the high-load protocol when compared to the reps-to-failure or velocity fatigue groups; however, muscular endurance increased significantly more for the reps-to-failure and velocity-fatigue protocols when compared to the high-load protocol (8). 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, 6-10 reps-to-failure/set, 70-80% of 1-RM loads during weeks 1-6; 3 sets/session, 6 reps-to-failure/set, 80% of 1-RM loads during weeks 7-12; and 3 sets/session, 2-4 reps-to-failure/set, 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, at 70-80% of 1-RM loads during weeks 1-6; 6 sets/session, 3 reps (not-to-failure)/set, at 80% of 1-RM loads during weeks 7-12; and 3 sets/session, 2-4 reps (not-to-failure)/set, 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). 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. 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 (15). In summary, these studies suggest that reps-to-failure/set is more effective for improving muscle endurance (total reps for a sub-maximal load) than protocols that do not include reps-to-failure/set. However, there is some evidence to suggest that endurance may improve similarly with routines that include similar volume or routines that include reps until a 20% decrease in concentric velocity (fatigue protocols).

Strength Endurance

Power During Session and Immediately Post-exercise:

 Leaving just 1-rep in reserve can aid in preserving lifting velocity throughout multiple sets; however, 3-reps-in-reserve may result in higher average lifting velocity (but lower exercise volume). Further, reps-to-failure/set may result in a significant decrease in strength, velocity, and vertical jump height for up to 48 hours post-exercise, whereas half-reps-to-failure/set may only result in a significant decrease in performance immediately post-exercise.

Power During and Immediately Following a Session

Two studies compared the effects on power during and immediately following protocols that included reps-to-failure/set and reps-not-to-failure/set. Refalo et al. compared 12 resistance-trained males and 12 resistance-trained females (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, a 1-rep-in-reserve protocol, and a 3-reps-in-reserve protocol. All protocols included 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). 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). These studies suggest that leaving just 1-rep in reserve can aid in preserving lifting velocity throughout multiple sets; however, 3-reps-in-reserve may result in higher average lifting velocity (but lower exercise volume). Further, reps-to-failure/set may result in a significant decrease in strength, velocity, and vertical jump height for up to 48 hours post-exercise, whereas half-reps-to-failure/set may only result in a significant decrease in performance immediately post-exercise.

Several additional studies investigated the effects of programs, including reps-to-failure/set, on velocity and power. As mentioned above, 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). 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). 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). In summary, 2 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.

Power

Research Summary

Immediate Decrease in Strength Following a Single Session

Strength Following Programs With and Without Reps-to-Failure/Set

Strength

Complex and Frequent Training

Older Individuals

Comparing Legs

Total Reps or Total Time?

Sample Program: In-season Basketball Athlete (Reps-in-reserve/set)

Additional Findings

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.

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.

Craig, B. W. and Kang, H. Y. (1994) Growth hormone release following single versus multiple sets of back squats: total work versus power. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 8 (4), 270-275

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

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.

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.

Tanimoto, M., & Ishii, N. (2005). Effects of low-intensity resistance exercise with slow movement and tonic force generation on muscular function in young men. Journal of Applied Physiology, 100(4), 1150-1157.

Terada, K., Kikuchi, N., Burt, D., Voisin, S., & Nakazato, K. (2022). Low-load resistance training to volitional failure induces muscle hypertrophy similar to volume-matched, velocity fatigue. The journal of strength & conditioning research, 36(6), 1576-1581.

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

Sampson, J. A., & Groeller, H. (2016). Is repetition failure critical for the development of muscle hypertrophy and strength?. Scandinavian journal of medicine & science in sports, 26(4), 375-383.

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

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.

Hypertrophy, Cross-sectional Area (CSA), and Muscle Volume (and 7, 10, & 11)

Bergamasco, J. G. A., da Silva, D. G., Bittencourt, D. F., de Oliveira, R. M., Júnior, J. C. B., Caruso, F. R., ... & Libardi, C. A. (2022). Low-load resistance training performed to muscle failure or near muscle failure does not promote additional gains on muscle strength, hypertrophy, and functional performance of older adults. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 36(5), 1209-1215.

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.

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 - 

(1), 10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40798-023-00554-y

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.

Immediate Decrease in Strength Following a Single Session (and 1, 5, 6, & 16)

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.

Strength Following Programs With and Without Reps-to-Failure/Set (and 4, 7, 8, 10-13, 15, & 17)

Vieira, J. G., Dias, M. R., Lacio, M., Schimitz, G., Nascimento, G., Panza, P., ... & Vianna, J. (2019). Resistance Training with Repetition to Failure or Not on Muscle Strength and Perceptual Responses. Journal of Professional Exercise Physiology, 16(3).

Carroll, K.M.; Bernards, J.R.; Bazyler, C.D.; Taber, C.B.; Stuart, C.A.; DeWeese, B.H.; Sato, K.; Stone, M.H. Divergent Performance Outcomes Following Resistance Training Using Repetition Maximums or Relative Intensity. Int. J. Sports Physiol. Perform. 2018, 29, 1–28.

Carroll, K. M., Bazyler, C. D., Bernards, J. R., Taber, C. B., Stuart, C. A., DeWeese, B. H., ... & Stone, M. H. (2019). Skeletal muscle fiber adaptations following resistance training using repetition maximums or relative intensity. Sports, 7(7), 169.

Lasevicius, T., Schoenfeld, B. J., Silva-Batista, C., de Souza Barros, T., Aihara, A. Y., Brendon, H., ... & Teixeira, E. L. (2022). Muscle failure promotes greater muscle hypertrophy in low-load but not in high-load resistance training. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 36(2), 346-351

Santanielo, N., Nóbrega, S., Scarpelli, M., Alvarez, I., Otoboni, G., Pintanel, L., & Libardi, C. (2020). Effect of resistance training to muscle failure vs non-failure on strength, hypertrophy and muscle architecture in trained individuals. Biology of sport, 37(4), 333-341.

Nóbrega, S. R., Ugrinowitsch, C., Pintanel, L., Barcelos, C., & Libardi, C. A. (2018). Effect of Resistance Training to Muscle Failure vs. Volitional Interruption at High- and Low-Intensities on Muscle Mass and Strength. Journal of strength and conditioning research, 32(1), 162–169. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000001787

Lacerda, L. T., Marra-Lopes, R. O., Diniz, R. C., Lima, F. V., Rodrigues, S. A., Martins-Costa, H. C., ... & Chagas, M. H. (2020). Is performing repetitions to failure less important than volume for muscle hypertrophy and strength?. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 34(5), 1237-1248.

Fisher, J. P., Blossom, D., & Steele, J. (2016). A comparison of volume-equated knee extensions to failure, or not to failure, upon rating of perceived exertion and strength adaptations. Applied Physiology, Nutrition, and Metabolism, 41(2), 168-174.

Burd, N. A., Andrews, R. J., West, D. W. D., Little, J. P., Cochran, A. J. R., Hector, A. J., Cashaback, J. G. A., Gibala, M. J., Potvin, J. R., Baker, S. K. and Phillips, S. M. (2012) Muscle time under tension during resistance exercise stimulates differential muscle protein sub-fractional synthetic responses in men. Journal of Physiology, 590(2), 351-362

Acute Variables: Performing Sets to Failure

Related Courses:

Course Summary: Sets to Failure

Summary Statement and 1-Page Review

Summary of Research Findings

Blood Chemistry and Sets to Failure
4 Sub Sections

Electromyographic (EMG) Activity

Body Composition

Hypertrophy, Cross-sectional Area (CSA), and Muscle Volume

Strength Endurance

Power

Strength
3 Sub Sections

Additional Findings
5 Sub Sections

Bibliography

Related Courses:

Comments

Guest

Acute Variables: Performing Sets to Failure

Related Courses:

Course Summary: Sets to Failure

Summary Statement and 1-Page Review

Summary of Research Findings

Blood Chemistry and Sets to Failure4 Sub Sections

Electromyographic (EMG) Activity

Body Composition

Hypertrophy, Cross-sectional Area (CSA), and Muscle Volume

Strength Endurance

Power

Strength3 Sub Sections

Additional Findings5 Sub Sections

Bibliography

Related Courses:

Comments

Guest

Blood Chemistry and Sets to Failure
4 Sub Sections

Strength
3 Sub Sections

Additional Findings
5 Sub Sections