ArticlePDF AvailableLiterature Review

Clarity in Reporting Terminology and Definitions of Set End Points in Resistance Training

Authors:
  • Solent University
  • Solent University

Abstract and Figures

Prior resistance training (RT) recommendations and position stands have discussed variables that can be manipulated when producing RT interventions. However, one variable that has received little discussion is set end points (i.e. the end point of a set of repetitions). Set end points in RT are often considered to be proximity to momentary failure and are thought to be a primary variable determining effort in RT. Further, there has been ambiguity in use and definition of terminology that has created issues in interpretation of research findings. The purpose of this paper is to: 1) provide an overview of the ambiguity in historical terminology around set end points; 2) propose a clearer set of definitions related to set end points; and 3) highlight the issues created by poor terminology and definitions. It is hoped this might permit greater clarity in reporting, interpretation, and application of RT interventions for researchers and practitioners.
No caption available
… 
No caption available
… 
No caption available
… 
No caption available
… 
Content may be subject to copyright.
TITLE: Clarity in Reporting Terminology and Definitions of Set End Points in Resistance
Training
RUNNING TITLE: Resistance Training End Points
AUTHORS: James Steele Ph.Da, James Fisher MSca, Jürgen Giessing Ph.Db, Paulo Gentil
Ph.Dc
AUTHOR AFFILIATIONS: aCentre for Health, Exercise, and Sport Science, School of
Sport, Health and Social Sciences, Southampton Solent University, UK, bInstitute of Sport
Science, University of Koblenz-Landau, Germany, cFederal University of Goias, Faculty of
Physical Education and Dance, Brazil
CONTACT AUTHOR:
James Steele (james.steele@solent.ac.uk)
Centre for Health Exercise and Sport Science,
Southampton Solent University,
East Park Terrace,
Southampton
Hampshire,
SO14 0YN
Telephone: 02382 016465
This article has been accepted for publication and undergone full peer review but has not been
through the copyediting, typesetting, pagination and proofreading process which may lead to
differences between this version and the Version of Record. Please cite this article as an
‘Accepted Article’, doi: 10.1002/mus.25557
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
2 | P a g e
Abstract word count: 150
Manuscript word count: 3392
Ethical Publication Statement: We confirm that we have read the Journal’s position on
issues involved in ethical publication and affirm that this report is consistent with those
guidelines.
Disclosure of Conflicts of Interest: None of the authors has any conflict of interest to
disclose
Keywords: Repetition maximum; Momentary failure; Intensity; Effort; Muscle; Strength
Page 2 of 26
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Muscle & Nerve
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
3 | P a g e
Abstract
Prior resistance training (RT) recommendations and position stands have discussed variables
that can be manipulated when producing RT interventions. However, one variable that has
received little discussion is set end points (i.e. the end point of a set of repetitions). Set end
points in RT are often considered to be proximity to momentary failure and are thought to be
a primary variable determining effort in RT. Further, there has been ambiguity in use and
definition of terminology that has created issues in interpretation of research findings. The
purpose of this paper is to: 1) provide an overview of the ambiguity in historical terminology
around set end points; 2) propose a clearer set of definitions related to set end points; and 3)
highlight the issues created by poor terminology and definitions. It is hoped this might permit
greater clarity in reporting, interpretation, and application of RT interventions for researchers
and practitioners.
Page 3 of 26
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Muscle & Nerve
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
4 | P a g e
Introduction
The American Colleague of Sports Medicine (ACSM) has published numerous position
stands regarding recommendations for application of resistance training (RT) [1,2]. These
highlight a number of variables that can be manipulated when producing RT interventions.
However, a variable that has received little discussion in these position stands was that of set
end points (i.e. the end point of a set of repetitions). Repetition ranges were offered (i.e.
performance of 8-12 repetitions), indicating voluntary set end points might include the
performance of a predetermined number of repetitions. However, the discussion of whether
or not any other particular criteria should be met in addition to achieving a set repetition
number was absent. Others have considered set end points further with reference to proximity
to momentary failure (MF), defined most recently as “the inability to perform anymore
concentric contractions without significant change to posture or repetitions duration” [3].
This definition suggests alteration to repetition duration is a factor to consider in determining
whether MF has occurred. It should be noted that when repetitions are performed with
maximal intended velocity, repetition duration can increase prior to, and leading to, MF being
achieved [4,5]. Thus the definitions we offer later have removed this consideration. In
essence, the most appropriate conceptualization of MF is that it occurs at the point where,
despite the greatest effort, a person is unable to meet and overcome the demands of the
exercise causing an involuntary set end point.
Most research considers people training ‘to MF’ or ‘not to MF’ or in some cases what has
been referred to as “past MF” (the use of advanced RT techniques such as drop sets, rest-
pause, forced reps to enable a trainee to continue repetitions after achieving MF). Recent
reviews which have considered this variable have in fact employed the distinction of “to MF”
or “not to MF” in reviewing the literature regarding the impact of training to MF [3,6-8].
Page 4 of 26
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Muscle & Nerve
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
5 | P a g e
Following this, proximity to MF has been considered an indicator of the effort employed
during RT. In fact the suggestion has being made that, due to inter- and intra-individual
variations in number of repetitions possible prior to MF at the same relative loadings, if the
intention is to match inter- and intra-individual effort, the only way to objectively do so is to
have people train to MF (i.e. maximal effort [3,10]). Further, some propose that effort could
also relate to intended velocity during RT, with maximal intended velocity related to maximal
effort [9]. However, it would appear that velocity produced when it is intended to be maximal
may in fact better serve as a an indicator of the degree of fatigue prior to reaching MF. It has
been shown that velocity correlates well with other physiological markers of fatigue in a
dose-response fashion to the number of repetitions performed relative to the number possible
(i.e. number prior to reaching MF [4,5]).
More recently, it has been argued that MF should be used as the means to standardize the RT
stimulus [11]. We do not wish to suggest that persons should always train to MF, however if
in a research or practical setting it is desirable to control effort objectively, it might be
applied. For example, when comparing another independent RT variable between
intervention arms in research, effort should be matched. Also it may be desirable to ensure
that an athlete is working to the same relative effort (i.e. maximal by training to MF or if
submaximal by first determining their repetitions to MF to then determine number of
repetitions required to approximate the relative effort desired) as another, or on each exercise
used in a training program.
A number of recent reviews have offered the conclusion that training to MF may confer
greater adaptations in strength [3], hypertrophy [8], and possibly cardiorespiratory fitness [7].
Conversely, other recent studies have reported contrasting results regarding the efficacy of
Page 5 of 26
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Muscle & Nerve
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
6 | P a g e
training to MF [12-15]. Considering the contrasting findings in the literature, it is important
to investigate the role of effort further, as determined by set end point criteria in determining
adaptations from RT. However, consideration of a trichotomous nature to set end points (to
MF, not to MF, or continuation of repetitions after MF through use of advanced techniques)
limits the degree to which it is possible to fully understand the relationship of intensity of
effort to RT adaptations. For example the dose-response nature of differing intensities of
effort is unknown in addition to whether a threshold of relative effort exists to optimize
adaptations. Investigation of this is further confounded by issues in interpreting previous
research due to vague definitions and practical application of terms such as ‘repetition
maximum’ (RM [16-17]). As detailed below, RM is often used synonymously with MF, or a
definition is not provided by authors reporting it. Examination of this ambiguity supports the
need for greater clarity in terminology and definition in future RT research, both for
examining the role of intensity of effort and in choosing appropriate control of this variable
when other independent variables are being examined.
Thus the purpose of this paper is as follows: 1) provide an overview of the ambiguity in
historical definitions of terms related to set end points including RM and ‘momentary
muscular failure’; 2) propose a set of definitions that permit researchers and practitioners
greater clarity in reporting, interpreting, and applying RT interventions; and 3) highlight the
issues created by the application of the contrasting prior historical definitions with respect to
interpreting what has actually occurred in an RT intervention.
Historical Definitions
Classic papers in addition to current textbooks in RT and exercise physiology provide a range
of terms and definitions of RM and MF. In many cases, there are discrepancies in the exact
Page 6 of 26
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Muscle & Nerve
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
7 | P a g e
definitions for the same term. In particular there are instances where it is difficult to
distinguish between definitions of RM and MF. Table 1 provides examples where the term
RM has been defined. Table 2 provides examples where the term MF has been defined.
Though this is not an exhaustive list, perusal of the definitions in the 2 tables should make it
clear that in some cases it is difficult to distinguish between RM and MF. There is no clear
delineation between the 2 terms which could be easily achieved by considering the success
(RM) or failure (MF) to complete the final repetition on which set ends. Readers will note
that 2 terms appear to be used interchangeably in the literature. Indeed in at least some cases
the 2 terms have been used seemingly interchangeably by the same authors at different points
in their texts [18-19]. It should also be noted that the ascription of intensity of effort to each
of these definitions also differs among authors, as some have stated that maximal effort is
required and others have not. There is also considerable ambiguity in the use of the terms
fatigue and failure in defining the terms.
Further, it is not uncommon for many authors to use an array of similar terminology
including muscular failure, muscular fatigue, or volitional exhaustion without offering any
definition of these terms [26]. This seems to imply that these terms and their definitions are
commonly accepted in the RT literature. Indeed many of the definitions in the above tables
have been termed similarly in their original sources. However, as can be seen from tables 1
and 2, the assumption that these terms and their definitions are commonly accepted would
appear to be false.
Definitions of Set End Points
In an attempt to rectify this ambiguity and to provide wider consideration of the role of
intensity of effort in RT, Giessing et al. [16] have proposed 4 definitions of set end points,
Page 7 of 26
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Muscle & Nerve
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
8 | P a g e
providing a gradient of intensity of effort during RT; non-repetition maximum, repetition
maximum, point of momentary failure, point of momentary failure plus advanced techniques
(e.g. drop sets, rest pause, forced repetitions). We have expanded and added to these
definitions for the purpose of this article to also include self-determined repetition maximum
(Table 3). Further, though the term ‘repetition failure’ has been used recently [14] we have
opted to use the term ‘momentary failure’, as ‘repetition failure’ might be thought to apply
predominantly to dynamic training modalities involving concentric and eccentric
contractions. However, the definition of MF offered here, if it were considered that MF was
failure to meet the demands of the exercise, could be expanded to also include predominantly
isometric and eccentric RT. For example, if holding an isometric contraction the point where,
despite attempting to maintain the current position, the subject cannot prevent an eccentric
contraction from occurring. Or if performing eccentric-only repetitions with a prescribed
repetition duration the point where, despite attempting to maintain the prescribed repetition
duration, the subject cannot prevent the eccentric contraction from occurring at a shorter
repetition duration than prescribed.
Historically the primary ambiguity in the RT literature regarding definition of set end points
has been that of RM and its relation to MF. Giessing et al. [16] differentiated between the 2
as follows:
"The difference between the RM and the point of MF is that the RM means that the set
is terminated after the final repetition has been completed [authors’ emphasis] in
good form… whereas the point of MF means that once the RM has been reached
another repetition is attempted [authors’ emphasis] but not completed. Therefore the
last repetition is the failed repetition."
Page 8 of 26
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Muscle & Nerve
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
9 | P a g e
Considering the definitions in table 3 it is clear to see that determination of a true RM
requires prior load determination and knowledge of the possible number of repetitions that a
trainee can perform to MF at that load in order to determine the number of repetitions for an
RM. RM is thus best described as the number of complete repetitions prior to MF. Should the
exercise be ended once trainees determine they could not complete further repetitions if
attempted (i.e. they predict MF on the next repetition), this might be considered volitional or
self-determined RM (sdRM), not a true RM, and thus it is a practical yet somewhat
ambiguous set end point definition. Considering this, RM is only included here for
comparative purposes, as from an applied standpoint the use of true RM as a set end point
criterion seems impractical. A key feature here of the definition of MF is that, when trainees
attempt to reach MF they should, subsequent to completing a repetition, attempt the
following repetition until they actually fail to complete one. Without actually attempting a
subsequent repetition upon completion of each prior repetition, it is impossible to be certain
that a person has in fact reached MF or indeed will do so on the subsequent repetition. This
distinction is particularly important, as numerous studies report having had participants train
to an RM which is often interpreted as synonymous with MF [6,7]. Indeed, if we consider
prior historical definitions of the 2, it would appear that such an interpretation may not be
accurate. Thus it is often unclear whether people have trained to an RM, or if they have in
fact trained to MF, as we have defined here (Table 3). Some of the historical ambiguity may
arise from conflation of interpretation and application of the term RM for testing purposes
and for training loads. The load obtained in an RM test (or MF) may differ from day to day
and depend upon a number of inter- and intra-individual variables (28). Thus the application
to training of an absolute ‘RM’ load obtained from testing may or may not be appropriate to
meet recommendations from session to session.
Page 9 of 26
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Muscle & Nerve
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
10 | P a g e
It is important also to note here the differentiation between failure and fatigue. We have
included the definition of MF+ being that failure occurs at a point where trainees, despite
giving a maximal effort, can no longer meet the demands of the task. Yet, if the demands
were reduced they could continue. Fatigue, conversely is best defined as “a transient
decrease in the capacity to perform physical actions” [29, pp 11]. Thus it is an ongoing
process during RT which may or may not result in failure. For example, during a set of
repetitions performed to MF as consequent repetitions are performed, trainees fatigue and
require greater degrees of effort until they either stop at a predetermined repetition number or
finally reach MF and are putting forth a maximal effort. Indeed from repetition to repetition it
has been shown that power output decreases during a set to MF [30]. In the case of MF+ (i.e.
use of advanced techniques to continue repetitions after MF) the load could further be
reduced at this point (drop set), assistance provided (forced repetitions), or a brief pause
permitted (rest-pause), and trainees continue perform repetitions due to the decreased
demands and are not maximally fatigued. However, effort initially is not maximal but reaches
max should trainees subsequently reach MF again. Thus it is apparent that it is not necessarily
accurate to say that maximal fatigue or exhaustion has occurred upon reaching failure [6,31],
though at least some degree of fatigue will have inevitably occurred.
In our definitions we have anchored intensity of effort as being maximal at the point of MF.
This is partly due to the reasoning given above regarding differentiation of fatigue and
failure. However, we believe this is also necessary due to the apparent difficulty people
experience in differentiating between perceptions of effort and discomfort. A recent review
[32] has discussed the differentiation between what is termed effort, defined as “the amount
of mental or physical energy being given to a task”, and exertion defined as “the amount of
Page 10 of 26
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Muscle & Nerve
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
11 | P a g e
heaviness and strain experienced in physical work”. The authors of this review noted that
both terms are often used interchangeably and in certain languages can translate as synonyms.
Further, discomfort has also been used previously to describe the physiological and
unpleasant sensations associated with exercise [33]. Thus, for this reason here we have opted
to use the term discomfort as opposed to exertion. Differentiation between perceptions of
effort and discomfort have been highlighted recently as important [32,33], particularly in RT
[10] for good reason. A number of studies [34-38] measuring rating of perceived exertion
(RPE) using a Borg CR10 scale [39] (where a value of 10 indicates maximal effort) have
reported that participants exercised to MF and received verbal encouragement to ensure
adequate motivation and effort. In this case, each trial, irrespective of exercise, load, or
training status should have resulted in a maximal value for effort, since people were
exercising to MF. Though those studies which have compared training to MF with training
not to MF show that RPE for the active muscle is indeed higher when training to MF [37,38],
maximal values (e.g. a score of 10) were not reported in any of the studies cited. Thus we can
only assume that the participants were unclear as to how to report their perception of effort.
Increasing ratings of effort were, however given with conditions known anecdotally to
produce greater acute discomfort such as lower load lower body exercise [34], as set volumes
increased [36], with increased work volume [35], and with increased work rate [37,38]. This
suggests participants more likely expressed their feelings of increasing discomfort [10,40]. If
persons are inappropriately anchoring their perceptions of effort upon feelings of discomfort,
they may be likely to end their sets further from the point of MF than expected if they were
using RM or self-determined RM as a set end point. Perceived effort is likely centrally
mediated, whereas perceptions of discomfort may be more closely associated with afferent
feedback [33]. This is particularly important to consider when using different loading
schemes due to the different fatigue processes involved at different loads (i.e. during high
Page 11 of 26
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Muscle & Nerve
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
12 | P a g e
load failure occurs due to central fatigue compared with peripheral neuromuscular fatigue
during lower loads [41]). During low loads, peripheral fatigue processes produce greater
increases in inorganic phosphate (Pi) along with increases in H+, to decrease intramuscular
pH and potentially affect afferent feedback and perceived discomfort [42-44]. Thus the
differentiation of effort from discomfort, and the anchoring of maximal effort as being
synonymous with MF, provides a point from which to examine the role of differing
intensities of perceived effort during submaximal efforts. This might permit further
understanding of the dose-response role of perceived effort during RT.
The need for clear terminology and definitions is also evident when attempting to understand
the interaction that variables such as set end point, and thus effort, have with other RT
variables. For example, broad recommendations for specific repetition ranges using specific
relative loadings may be inherently flawed. The number of possible repetitions varies
between individuals based on training status and even within individuals for different
exercises [34,45]; for example using a load of 80%1RM, an individual may fail during the
nineteenth repetition attempted using a leg press, yet during the seventh repetition attempted
for knee flexion. In this example a recommendation to perform 8-12 repetitions using that
relative load would result in 1 exercise requiring relatively low effort, while the other would
result in maximal effort yet be impossible to accomplish (i.e. result in MF). A further issue is
the interpretation of the application of training to MF when studies have utilized multiple set
RT protocols [46]. It may have been reported that participants trained to MF in all sets. Yet,
when combined with specific repetition range recommendations, it has been shown that
loading and/or rest intervals require manipulation from set to set in order to maintain
individual ability to achieve the specified repetition range due to fatigue from earlier sets [47-
51]. Unless described carefully it is often difficult to interpret whether participants trained to
Page 12 of 26
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Muscle & Nerve
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
13 | P a g e
MF or not, and if not, the proximity to MF they achieved (46). This point bears important
implications regarding both control of effort in addition to the relative loadings being used,
which researchers and practitioners should consider. Ultimately it is important that clear
terms and careful definitions are used when reporting on RT interventions if we are to gain
the greatest understanding of the application of differing manipulations of RT variables
[52,53].
Conclusions and Directions for Future Research
In combination with the definitions outlined here, researchers and practitioners might
consider using tools that allow participants to differentiate between, and report individually,
perceived effort and discomfort. This might allow researchers to examine the relationship
between perceptions of effort during submaximal RT and subsequent adaptation. A recent
study has already employed 2 of the definitions offered here in order to differentiate between
and compare practical applications of set end points, in this case self-determined RM
compared to MF under load volume matched conditions [12]. This study offered insight into
the role of effort in determining adaptations in trained people. We believe that application
and reporting of these definitions will assist in future research designs to fully elucidate the
role of intensity of effort in RT. By using the point of MF as an anchor for maximal effort,
future research designs might better determine the role that different intensities of effort
along a gradient play in determining adaptations. Indeed, research designs might utilize sub-
maximal effort repetition cessation criteria (nRM or sdRM) which, although representing
practically applicable definitions, represent situations whereby the degree of perceived effort
may differ between people due to the differing proximities to MF that participants reach.
Future research using tools to differentiate effort and discomfort in combination with these
definitions might also permit better examination of the validity and efficacy of using
Page 13 of 26
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Muscle & Nerve
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
14 | P a g e
subjective perceptions of effort to direct RT using practically applicable set end point criteria
in different populations. We have begun to examine these areas in our lab [54,55]. Of course,
we should note that even training to MF could be considered in some way subjective and as
such we have clarified in our definition that trainees should consider this as a set end point
only when they cannot complete the repetition despite attempting to do so.
To conclude, we hope that we have highlighted the issue associated with ambiguous
historical terminology and definitions of set end points. Further, we believe the terminology
and definitions presented here offer practically applicable set end point criteria that would
allow researchers and practitioners to report, interpret, and apply RT interventions with
greater clarity. It is recommended that future RT literature utilize this terminology, or at the
least offer an accurate definition of what repetition cessation criteria are being used. This will
ensure a better understanding of exactly what was done or is being proposed.
Page 14 of 26
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Muscle & Nerve
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
15 | P a g e
List of Abbreviations
Resistance training = RT
Momentary failure = MF
Repetition maximum = RM
Self-determined repetition maximum = sdRM
Page 15 of 26
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Muscle & Nerve
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
16 | P a g e
References
1. Kraemer, WJ, Adams, K, Cafarelli, E, Dudley, GA, Dooly, C, Feigenbaum, et al.
American College of Sports Medicine position stand. Progression models in
resistance training for healthy adults. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2002; 34(2): 364 – 380
2. Ratamess, NA, Alvar, BA, Evotoch, TK, Housh, TJ, Kibler, WB, Kraemer, WJ, et al.
American College of Sports Medicine position stand. Progression models in
resistance training for healthy adults. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2009; 41(3): 687 – 708
3. Fisher, J, Steele, J, Smith, J, Bruce-Low, S. Evidence based resistance training
recommendations. Medicina Sportiva 2011; 15(3): 147- 162
4. Izquierdo, M, Gonzalez-Badillo, JJ, Hakkinen, K, Ibanez, J, Kraemer, WJ, Altadil, A,
et al. Effect of loading on unintentional lifting velocity declines during single sets of
repetitions to failure during upper and lower extremity muscle actions. Int J Sports
Med 2006; 27(9): 718 – 724
5. Sanchez-Medina, L, Gonzalez-Badillo, JJ. Velocity loss as an indicator of
neuromuscular fatigue during resistance training. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2011; 43(9):
1725-1734
6. Willardson, JM. The application of training to failure in periodized multiple-set
resistance exercise training programs. J Strength Cond Res 2007; 21(2): 628 – 631
7. Steele, J, Fisher, J, McGuff, D, Bruce-Low, S, Smith, D. Resistance training to
momentary muscular failure improves cardiovascular fitness in humans: a review of
acute physiological responses and chronic physiological adaptations. J Exerc Physiol
online 2012; 15(3): 53 – 80
8. Fisher, J, Steele, J, Smith, D. Evidence-based resistance training recommendations for
muscular hypertrophy. Medicina Sportiva 2013; 7(4): 217 – 235
Page 16 of 26
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Muscle & Nerve
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
17 | P a g e
9. Gonzalez-Badilllo, JJ, Marques, MC, Sanchez-Medina, LS. The importance of
movement velocity as a measure to control resistance training intensity. J Hum Kinet
2011; 29A: 15-19
10. Steele, J. Intensity; in-ten-si-ty; noun. 1. Often used ambiguously within resistance
training. 2. Is it time to drop the term altogether? Br J Sports Med 2014; 48(22): 1586
– 1588
11. Dankel, SJ, Jesse, MB, Mattocks, KT, Mouser, JG, Counts, BR, Buckner, SL, et al.
Training to fatigue: The answer for standardisation when assessing muscle
hypertrophy? Sports Med 2016; Epub ahead of print
12. Giessing, J, Fisher, J, Steele, J, Rothe, F, Raubold, K, Eichmann, B. The effects of
low volume resistance training with and without advanced techniques in trained
participants. J Sports Med Phys Fitness 2016; 56(3): 249-258
13. Izquierdo-Gabarren, M, Gonzalez De Txbarri Exposito, R, Garcia-pallares, J,
Sanchez-medina, J, De Villarreal, ES, Izquierdo, M. Concurrent endurance and
strength training not to failure optimises performance gains. Med Sci Sports Exerc
2010; 42(6): 1191 – 1199
14. Sampson, JA, Groeller, H. Is repetition failure critical for the development of muscle
hypertrophy and strength? Scand J Med Sci Sports 2016; 26(4):375-383
15. Fisher, JP, Blossom, D, Steele, J. A comparison of volume equated knee extensions to
failure, or not to failure, upon rating of perceived exertion and strength adaptations.
Appl Physiol Nutr Metabol 2016; 41(2): 168-174
16. Giessing, J, Preuss, P, Greiwing, A, Goebel, S, Muller, A, Schischek, A, et al.
Fundamental definitions of decisive training parameters of single-set training and
multiple-set training for muscle hypertrophy. In: Giessing, J, Froehlich, M, Preuss, P.
Page 17 of 26
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Muscle & Nerve
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
18 | P a g e
eds: Current Results of Strength Training Research. Goettingen: Cuvillier; 2005, 9
23
17. Giessing, J. How intense are your weight training workouts? NSCA’s Performance
Training J 2007; 6(1): 11 – 13
18. Fleck, SJ, Kraemer WJ. Designing Resistance Training Programs. Champaign, IL:
Human Kinetics; 2004, 5 - 196
19. Zatsiorsky, VM, Kraemer, WJ. Science and Practice of Strength Training.
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics; 2006, 71 – 82
20. DeLorme, TL. Restoration of muscle power by heavy-resistance exercises. J Bone
Joint Surg Am 1945; 27(4): 645 – 667
21. DeLorme, TL, Watkins, AL. Technics of progressive resistance exercise. Arch Phys
Med Rehabil 1948; 29(5): 263 – 273
22. Astrand, PO, Rodahl, K, Dahl, HA, Stromme, SB. Textbook of Work Physiology:
Physiological Bases of Exercise. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics; 2003, 320
23. Wilmore, JH, Costill, DL. Physiology of Sport and Exercise. Champaign, IL: Human
Kinetics; 2004 87 - 107
24. Baechle, TR, Earle, RW, Wathen, D. Resistance training. In: Baechle, TR, Earle RW
eds: Essentials of Strength and Conditioning. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics; 2008,
394
25. Bompa, TO, Di Pasquale, MG, Cornacchia, L. Serious Strength Training. Champaign,
IL: Human Kinetics; 2013, 234
26. Carpinelli, RN. A critical analysis of the claims for inter-set rest intervals,
endogenous hormonal responses, sequence of exercise, and pre-exhaustion exercise
for optimal strength gains in resistance training. Medicina Sportiva 2010; 14(3): 126 –
156
Page 18 of 26
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Muscle & Nerve
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
19 | P a g e
27. Willardson, JM, Norton, L, Wilson, G. Training to failure and beyond in mainstream
resistance exercise programs. Strength Cond J 2010; 32(3): 21-29
28. Steele, J. Re: Dichotomy in translation raises the need for careful definition in use. Br
J Sports Med 2015; e-letter, http://bjsm.bmj.com/content/48/22/1586.extract/reply
29. Enoka, RM, Duchateau, J. Muscle fatigue: what, why and how it influences muscle
function. J Physiol 2008; 586(1): 11-23
30. Drinkwater, EJ, Galna, B, McKenna, MJ, Hunt, PH, Pyne, DB. Validation of an
optical encoder during free weight resistance movements and analysis of bench press
sticking point power during fatigue. J Strength Cond Res 2007; 21(2): 51 – 517
31. Drinkwater, EJ, Lawton, TW, Lindsell, RP, Pyne, DB, Hunt, PH, McKenna, MJ.
Training leading to repetition failure enhances bench press strength gains in elite
junior athletes. J Strength Cond Res 2005; 19(2): 382 – 388
32. Abbiss, CR, Peiffer, JJ, Meeusen, R, Skorski, S. Role of ratings of perceived exertion
during self-paced exercise: What are we actually measuring? Sports Med 2015; 45:
1235 – 1243
33. Marcora, S. Perception of effort during exercise is independent of afferent feedback
from skeletal muscles, heart, and lungs. J Appl Physiol 2009; 106: 2060 – 2062
34. Shimano, T, Kraemer, WJ, Spiering, BA, Volek, JS, Hatfield, DL, Silvestre, R, et al.
Relationship between the number of repetitions and selected percentages of one
repetition maximum in free weight exercises in trained and untrained men. J Strength
Cond Res 2006; 20: 819 – 823
35. Pritchett, RC, Green, JM, Wickwire, PJ, Pritchett, KL, Kovacs, MS. Acute and
session RPE responses during resistance training: Bouts to failure at 60% and 90% of
1RM. SAJSM 2009; 21(1): 23 – 26
Page 19 of 26
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Muscle & Nerve
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
20 | P a g e
36. Silva, VL, Azevedo, AP, Cordeiro, JP, Duncan MJ, Cholewa, JM, Siqueira-Filho,
MA, et al. Effects of exercise intensity on perceived exertion during multiple sets of
bench press to volitional failure. J Trainol 2014; 3: 41 – 46
37. Hiscock, DJ, Dawson, B, Donnelly, CJ, Peeling, P. Muscle activation, blood lactate,
and perceived exertion responses to changing resistance training programming
variables. Eur J Sport Sci 2015; 16(5): 536-544
38. Hiscock, DJ, Dawson, B, Peeling, P. Perceived exertion responses to changing
resistance training programming variables. J Strength Cond Res 2015; 29(6): 1564-
1569
39. Borg, GA. Psychophysical bases of perceived exertion. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1982;
14: 377 – 381
40. Smirnaul, BDC. Sense of effort and other unpleasant sensations during exercise:
clarifying concepts and mechanisms. Br J Sports Med 2012; 46: 308 – 311
41. Behm, DG, Reardon, G, Fitzgerald, J, Drinkwater, E. The effect of 5, 10, and 20
repetitions maximums on the recovery of voluntary and evoked contractile properties.
J Strength Cond Res 2002; 16(2):209-218.
42. Schott, J, McCully, K, Rutherford, OM. The role of metabolites in strength training II.
Short versus long isometric contractions. Eur J Appl Physiol 1995;71: 337-341.
43. Takarada, S, Okita, K, Suga, T, Omokawa, M, Kadoguchi, T, Sato, T, et al. Low-
intensity exercise can increase muscle mass and strength proportionally to enhance
metabolic stress under ischemic conditions. J Appl Physiol 2012; 113:199-205.
44. MacDougall, JD, Ray, S, Sale, DG, McCartney, N, Lee, P, Garner, S. Muscle
substrate utilization and lactate production during weight lifting. Can J Appl Physiol
1999; 24(3):209-215.
Page 20 of 26
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Muscle & Nerve
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
21 | P a g e
45. Hoeger, WWK, Hopkins, DR, Barette, SL, Hale, DF. Relationship between
repetitions and selected percentages of one repetitions maximum: A comparison
between untrained and trained males and females. J Strength Cond Res 1990; 4(2):
46-54
46. Gentil, P, Steele, J, Fisher, J, Arruda, A. Manuscript clarification: Dose-Response of
1, 3, and 5 Sets of Resistance Exercise on Strength, Local Muscular Endurance, and
Hypertrophy. J Strength Cond Res 2015; E-pub ahead of print
47. Willardson, JM, Burkettt, LN. A comparison of 3 different rest intervals on the
exercise volume completed during a workout. J Strength Cond Res 2005; 19(1): 23-26
48. Willardson, JM, Burkettt, LN. The effect of rest interval length on bench press
performance with heavy vs. light loads. J Strength Cond Res 2006; 20(2): 396-399
49. Willardson, JM, Burkettt, LN. The effect of rest interval length on the sustainability
of squat and bench press repetitions. J Strength Cond Res 2006; 20(2): 400-403
50. Willardson, JM, Simao, R, Fontana, FE. The effect of load reductions on repetitions
performance for commonly performed multi-joint resistance exercises. J Strength
Cond Res 2012; 26(11): 2939-2945
51. Richmond, SR, Godard, MP. The effects of varied rest periods between sets to failure
using the bench press in recreationally trained men. J Strength Cond Res 18(4): 846-
849, 2004
52. Paoli, A. Resistance training: The multifaceted side of exercise. Am J Physiol
Endocrinol Metab 2012; 302(3): E387
53. Paoli, A, Bianco, A. Not all exercises are created equal. Am J Cardiol 2012; 109(2):
305
54. Steele, J, Fisher, J, McKinnon, S, McKinnon, P. Differentiation between perceived
effort and discomfort during resistance training in older adults: Reliability of trainee
Page 21 of 26
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Muscle & Nerve
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
22 | P a g e
ratings of effort and discomfort, and reliability and validity of trainer ratings of trainee
effort. J Trainol 2016; In press
55. Fisher, J, Ironside, M, Steele, J. Heavier- and lighter-load resistance training to
momentary failure produce similar increases in strength with differing degrees of
discomfort. Muscle Nerve; Epub ahead of print
Page 22 of 26
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Muscle & Nerve
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
23 | P a g e
TABLES
Table 1. Examples of previous definitions of ‘Repetition Maximum’
Reference Definition
DeLorme, 1945, pp 648 (20) In reference to the ten-repetition maximum -
“That weight which requires maximum
exertion to perform ten repetitions”
DeLorme & Watkins, 1948, pp 264 (21) “The 10 repetition maximum is the most
weight that can be lifted correctly through a
full arc of motion for 10 repetitions.”
Astrand et al., 2003, pp 320 (22)
“When training with weights in dynamic
contractions, one talks about nRM load.
Which is the number of repetitions
maximum. The weight is so chosen that it
can be lifted n times in good style, but is too
heavy to lift n + 1 times.”
Wilmore & Costill, 2004, pp 87 (23)
“1-repetition maximum, or 1RM. To
determine your 1RM select a weight you
know you can lift just once. After a proper
warm-up, try to execute several repetitions.
If you can perform more than one repetition,
add weight and try again to execute several
repetitions. Continue doing this until you are
unable to lift the weight more than a single
repetition.”
ibid, pp 107 (23)
“In contrast a 25RM load (i.e. the peak
resistance that can be lifted only 25 times
before reaching fatigue)”
Fleck & Kraemer, 2004, pp 5 (18)
“A repetition maximum or RM is the
maximal number of repetitions per set that
can be performed with proper lifting
technique using a given resistance. Thus, a
set at a certain RM implies that the set is
performed to momentary voluntary fatigue.
Page 23 of 26
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Muscle & Nerve
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
24 | P a g e
The heaviest resistance that can be used
for 1 complete repetition of an exercise is
1RM. A lighter resistance that allows
completion of 10, but not 11, repetitions
with proper technique is 10RM.”
Zatsiorsky & Kraemer, 2006, pp 71 (19)
“The magnitude of resistance (weight, load)
can be characterised by the ultimate
number of repetitions possible in one set (to
failure). The maximal load that can be lifted
a given number of repetitions before fatigue
is called repetition maximum
(RM)determining RM entails the use of
trial and error to find the greatest amount of
weight a trainee can lift a designated
number of times.”
Baechle et al., 2008, pp 394 (24)
“Load is commonly described as either a
certain percentage of a 1-repetition
maximum (1RM) – the greatest amount of
weight that can be lifted with proper
technique for only one repetition – or the
most weight lifted for a specified number of
repetitions, a repetition maximum (RM). For
instance, if an athlete can perform 10
repetitions with 60kg in the back squat
exercise, her 10RM is 60kg. It is assumed
that the athlete provided a maximal effort; if
she has stopped at nine repetitions but
could have performed one more, she would
not have achieved a 10RM. Likewise, if she
lifted 55kg for 10 repetitions (but could have
performed more), her true 10RM was not
accurately assessed because she possibly
could have lifted 60kg for 10 repetitions.”
Page 24 of 26
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Muscle & Nerve
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
25 | P a g e
Table 2. Examples of previous definitions of ‘Momentary Failure’
Reference Definition
Bompa et al. 2013, pp 234 (25)
“The training objective with submaximal
loads is to contract muscles to exhaustion
in an effort to recruit all the muscle fibres.
As you ‘rep-out’ to exhaustion, muscle fibre
recruitment increasesTo achieve optimal
training benefits, an athlete must perform
the greatest number of repetitions possible
during each set. Bodybuilders should
always reach the state of local muscular
exhaustion that prevents them from
performing one more repetition, even when
applying maximal force.”
Fleck & Kraemer, 2004, pp 196 (18)
“An exhaustion set is a set performed until
no further complete repetitions with good
exercise technique can be completed.
Synonymous with exhaustion sets are the
terms carrying sets to volitional fatigue, sets
to failure, and sets to concentric
failureThe use of a repetition maximum
(RM) or an RM training zone (i.e 4-6RM) in
a training program indicates that sets were
carried to exhaustion.”
Zatsiorksy & Kraemer, 2006, pp 82 (19)
Describing ‘submaximal effort’ and
‘repeated effort’ training using the example
of a person with a 100kg 1RM – “Lift a load
smaller than 100kg, perhaps 75kg, either a
submaximal number of times (submaximal
effort method) or to failure (repeated effort
method).”
ibid, pp 82 (19)
“Methods using submaximal versus
repeated efforts differ only in the number of
repetitions per set – intermediate in the first
case and maximal (to failure) in the
second.”
Willardson, 2007, pp 628 (6)
“Muscular failure can be defined as the
point during a resistance exercise set when
the muscles can no longer produce
sufficient force to control a given
loadMuscular failure usually occurs
during the concentric phase of a
repetitionTherefore, to describe a muscle
as being maximally fatigued at the point of
concentric failure is inaccurate because the
muscle is not entirely fatigued.”
Page 25 of 26
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Muscle & Nerve
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
26 | P a g e
Table 3. Terminology and definitions for set end points.
Repetition Cessation Terminology Definition
Non-Repetition Maximum (nRM) Set end point when trainees complete a
pre-determined number of repetitions
despite the fact that further repetitions could
be completed.
Self-determined Repetition Maximum
(sdRM)
Set end point when trainee determines they
could not complete the next repetition if it
were attempted (i.e. they predict MF on the
following repetition).
Repetition Maximum (RM)* Set end point when trainees complete the
final repetition possible whereby if the next
repetition was attempted they would
definitely achieve MF.
Momentary Failure (MF) Set end point when trainees reach the point
where despite attempting to do so they
cannot complete the concentric portion of
their current repetition without deviation
from the prescribed form of the exercise.
Momentary Failure Plus Advanced
Techniques [MF+(insert technique)]
Set end point when trainees have
completed a pre-determined advanced
technique after already achieving MF (i.e.
completion of forced/assisted repetitions,
rest pause, drop sets)
* RM is only included here for comparative purposes – see text for explanation.
Page 26 of 26
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Muscle & Nerve
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
... Eine muskuläre Ausbelastung bis zum Punkt des momentanen Muskelversagens (PmM) [3,4] sollte bei einem Krafttraining im osteoporotischen Handlungsbereich konsistent unterbleiben. Obwohl die 16-jährige EFOPS-Studie mit postmenopausalen osteopenen Frauen, in der regelmäßig die Testung des 1RM oder der ausbelasteten Wiederholungsleistung durchgeführt wurde, trotz hoher Testanzahl ( ≈ 1500) keine wesentlichen Beschwerden oder Verletzungen berichtet, wird empfohlen, Ausbelastungstests bei Menschen mit höherer mechanischer Frakturgefährdung oder vorliegenden Wirbelkörperfrakturen nicht durchzuführen. ...
... Zur Überprüfung des Trainingserfolges wäre eine entsprechende Aufschlüsselung in Sturzrisikofaktoren nötig.3 Nach ausreichender Konditionierung und Schulung der Belastungseinschätzung ist hier der "repetition in reserve" (RIR) Ansatz[5] zu empfehlen.4 Also ohne muskuläre Ausbelastung: Beachte Beitrag "(Trainings-)Methodische Empfehlungen eines körperlichen Trainings zur Verbesserung der Knochenfestigkeit" in diesem Heft. ...
Article
Zusammenfassung Trainingsprotokolle zur Frakturprophylaxe müssen eine Vielzahl von trainingswissenschaftlichen, logistischen und finanziellen Rahmenbedingungen berücksichtigen, um die erwünschte Effektivität und Anwendbarkeit im Einzel- oder Gruppentraining zu gewährleisten. Basierend auf dem individuellen Risikoprofil ist eine Zuordnung von dedizierten Trainingszielen als Ausgangspunkt der Trainingsplanung zielführend. Die konkrete Adressierung individueller Trainingsziele ermöglicht die Auswahl geeigneter Trainingsinhalte, -mittel und -methoden, die ebenfalls den gesundheitlichen Status und Neigungen des Betroffenen berücksichtigen sollten. Durch die idealerweise überdauernde Trainingsdurchführung kommt der Beachtung nachhaltiger Trainingsprinzipen (progressive Belastungserhöhung, Periodisierung) besondere Relevanz im Trainingsprozess zu. Grundsätzlich ist ein individualisiertes körperliches Training zur Frakturprophlaxe aufgrund der großen Anzahl von Therapieoptionen und Ansatzpunkten in jedem Alter und angepasst an funktionellen Status, gesundheitlichen Beschwerden und potentiellen Kontraindikationen sinnvoll und möglich. Mit Ausnahme von Angebotsstrukturen für ambulante Sturzpräventions-Maßnahmen als Einzelangebote existieren im Gesundheitswesen grundsätzlich belastbare Strukturen, die eine eng supervidierte, qualifizierte und co-finanzierte Trainingsdurchführung unterstützen. Die breite Anwendbarkeit und dichte Struktur von Gesundheitsangeboten zur Frakturprophylaxe für nahezu alle Risiko- und Neigungsgruppen kollidiert allerdings mit dem häufig zu geringen Informationsstand bezüglich Effektivität, Durchführung und Angebotsstruktur von Betroffenen aber auch Entscheidern des Gesundheitswesens.
... Retrieved from an NSCA handbook [3] (T15.17), Item 4c addresses relative training intensity, which, unlike absolute training intensity, reflects not only the absolute load but also the number of repetitions in a set. Therefore, it can more accurately indicate how difficult a given set is. Item 5c, set endpoint, is adapted from an article by Steele et al. [27]. In this article, they showed the ambiguity in the use and definition of the set endpoint ] and provided recommendations [27(T3)] on how to report it. ...
Article
Full-text available
Background The issues of replication and scientific transparency have been raised in exercise and sports science research. A potential means to address the replication crisis and enhance research reliability is to improve reporting quality and transparency. This study aims to formulate a reporting checklist as a supplement to the existing reporting guidelines, specifically for resistance exercise studies. Methods PubMed (which covers Medline) and Scopus (which covers Medline, EMBASE, Ei Compendex, World Textile Index, Fluidex, Geobase, Biobase, and most journals in Web of Science) were searched for systematic reviews that comprised the primary studies directly comparing different resistance training methods. Basic data on the selected reviews, including on authors, publication years, and objectives, were summarized. The reporting items for the checklist were identified based on the objective of the reviews. Additional items from an existing checklist, namely the Consensus on Exercise Reporting Template, a National Strength and Conditioning Association handbook, and an article from the EQUATOR library were incorporated into the final reporting checklist. Results Our database search retrieved 3595 relevant records. After automatic duplicate removal, the titles and abstracts of the remaining 2254 records were screened. The full texts of 137 records were then reviewed, and 88 systematic reviews that met the criteria were included in the umbrella review. Conclusion Developed primarily by an umbrella review method, this checklist covers the research questions which have been systematically studied and is expected to improve the reporting completeness of future resistance exercise studies. The PRIRES checklist comprises 26 reporting items (39 subitems) that cover four major topics in resistance exercise intervention: 1) exercise selection, performance, and training parameters, 2) training program and progression, 3) exercise setting, and 4) planned vs actual training. The PRIRES checklist was designed specifically for reporting resistance exercise intervention. It is expected to be used with other reporting guidelines such as Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials and Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials. This article presents only the development process and resulting items of the checklist. An accompanying article detailing the rationale for, the importance of, and examples of each item is being prepared. Registration This study is registered with the EQUATOR Network under the title “Preferred Reporting Items for Resistance Exercise Studies (PRIRES).” PROSPERO registration number: CRD42021235259.
... Perceived discomfort increases as proximity to failure nears (26) because of multiple factors including elevated metabolite accumulation, breathing rate, and body temperature (17), ultimately increasing local pain perception (through group III/IV muscle afferent activation (17)) and requiring greater cognitive effort to complete further repetitions (3). Although afferent feedback does not seem to contribute substantially to perception of effort during exercise (16), making it possible to differentiate between perceived discomfort and proximity to failure (i.e., perceived effort), it is likely that RIR predictions in previous research have been influenced by perceived discomfort (31,32). For example, one may confuse a given level of perceived discomfort with a specific proximity to failure, leading to erroneous RIR predictions that are based on individual tolerance to discomfort and not on perceptions of proximity to failure. ...
Article
Refalo, MC, Remmert, JF, Pelland, JC, Robinson, ZP, Zourdos, MC, Hamilton, DL, Fyfe, JJ, and Helms, ER. Accuracy of intraset repetitions-in-reserve predictions during the bench press exercise in resistance-trained male and female subjects. J Strength Cond Res XX(X): 000–000, 2023—This study assessed the accuracy of intraset repetitions-in-reserve (RIR) predictions to provide evidence for the efficacy of RIR prescription as a set termination method to inform proximity to failure during resistance training (RT). Twenty-four resistance trained male ( n = 12) and female ( n = 12) subjects completed 2 experimental sessions involving 2 sets performed to momentary muscular failure (barbell bench press exercise) with 75% of 1 repetition maximum (1RM), whereby subjects verbally indicated when they perceived to had reached either 1 RIR or 3 RIR. The difference between the predicted RIR and the actual RIR was defined as the “RIR accuracy” and was quantified as both raw (i.e., direction of error) and absolute (i.e., magnitude of error) values. High raw and absolute mean RIR accuracy (−0.17 ± 1.00 and 0.65 ± 0.78 repetitions, respectively) for 1-RIR and 3-RIR predictions were observed (including all sets and sessions completed). We identified statistical equivalence (equivalence range of ±1 repetition, thus no level of statistical significance was set) in raw and absolute RIR accuracy between (a) 1-RIR and 3-RIR predictions, (b) set 1 and set 2, and (c) session 1 and session 2. No evidence of a relationship was found between RIR accuracy and biological sex, years of RT experience, or relative bench press strength. Overall, resistance-trained individuals are capable of high absolute RIR accuracy when predicting 1 and 3 RIR on the barbell bench press exercise, with a minor tendency for underprediction. Thus, RIR prescriptions may be used in research and practice to inform the proximity to failure achieved upon set termination.
... Failure was defined as the inability to perform a repetition through its full range of motion despite maximal effort to do so or the point at which a subject did not feel comfortable attempting another repetition. However, a distinction was made in record keeping between sets that reached momentary failure as defined by Steele et al. [17] (i.e., 11 RPE) and those that were terminated volitionally (i.e., 10 RPE). In terms of the specific intra-session set-to-set load adjustments, if the 4-6 and 7-9 RPE groups either under-or over-shot the desired RPE range, load was increased or decreased by 2% for every 0.5 RPE value from the middle of the range in accordance with Helms et al. 2018 [18]. ...
Preprint
Full-text available
Purpose: This study examined the effect of proximity to failure on hypertrophy, strength, and fatigue. We hypothesized strength gains would be superior in non-failure groups compared to those that include sets to momentary failure, while hypertrophy would be similar in all groups. Methods: 38 men were randomized into four groups (4-6 rating of perceived exertion-RPE per set, 7-9 RPE per set, 7-9+ RPE [last set taken to momentary failure], and 10 RPE per set) and completed an eight-week program. Back squat and bench press strength, muscle thickness, subjective fatigue, muscle soreness, and biomarkers (creatine kinase-CK and lactate dehydrogenase-LDH) were assessed. Results: Bench Press strength gains were comparable between the 4-6 RPE (9.05 kg [95% CI: 6.36, 11.76]) and 7-9 RPE (9.72 kg [95% CI: 7.03, 12.42]) groups, while outcomes in the 7-9+ (5.07 kg [95% CI: 2.05, 8.1]) and 10 RPE (0.71 kg [95% CI:-4.51, 5.54]) groups were slightly inferior. Squat strength gains were comparable between 4-6 RPE (13.79 kg [95% CI: 7.54, 19.92]) and 7-9 RPE (18.05 kg [95% CI: 12.28, 23.99]) groups, but data for 7-9+ RPE and 10 RPE are difficult to interpret due to poor feasibility of the protocols. For muscle hypertrophy, our data do not provide strong conclusions as to the effects of proximity to failure due to the large variability observed. The indices of fatigue were largely comparable between groups, without strong evidence of the repeated bout effect. Conclusion: These data suggest strength outcomes are comparable when taking sets to either a self-reported 4-6 RPE or 7-9 RPE, while training that includes sets to momentary failure may result in slightly inferior outcomes (i.e., 7-9+ and 10 RPE). However, the influence of proximity to failure on hypertrophy remains unclear and our data did not reveal clear differences between groups in any measure of fatigue.
... Im Bereich der koordinativen Fähigkeiten orientiert sich die Reizhöhe oder möglicherweise zutreffender, der Schwierigkeitsgrad des Trainingsinhaltes oder der Körperübung, neben der individuellen Überschwelligkeit der Belastung, primär an Sicherheitsaspekten. In Einklang mit der Forderung eines schnellkräftig ausgeführten Krafttrainings gegen hohe Widerstände sollten Trainingsphasen schneller (konzentrischer) Bewegungsgeschwindigkeit mit einer Reizhöhe von ≥ 70 % 1RM [122] und ohne komplette muskuläre Ausbelastung [192] durchgeführt werden. Aufgrund der erhöhten mechanischen Belastung sollten diese Phasen nicht dauerhaft, sondern intermittierend als ein funktionelles, linear periodisiertes Krafttraining in unterschiedlichen Intensitätsbereichen (50-85 % 1RM) gestaltet werden [193]. ...
Article
Zusammenfassung Stürze sind der wichtigste Risikofaktor für Frakturen im Alter. Epidemiologische Studien haben viele Risikofaktoren für Stürze identifiziert, die durch strukturiertes körperliches Training beeinflussbar sind. Dieser Artikel beschreibt die Evidenz zu Inhalten, Methoden und Belastungsdosierung eines körperlichen Trainings zur Vermeidung von Stürzen und zur Reduktion des Sturzimpaktes. Die Ergebnisse zeigen hohe Evidenz, dass verglichen mit inaktiven Kontrollgruppen, multimodale Programme, Gleichgewichts-& Funktionstraining und Tai Chi wirksam sind, Stürze zu vermeiden. Insbesondere die Rolle anspruchsvollen Gleichgewichtstrainings kommt hier zum Tragen. Neuere Inhalte/Methodenvariationen sind auch wirksam. Hierzu zählen Stepping und Perturbationstraining. Letzteres scheint auch in kürzeren Zeiträumen beachtliche Effekte zu erzielen. Während einige Programme supervidiert werden müssen, existieren auch wirksame individuelle Heimtrainings. Mit Ausnahme von Perturbationstraining, sollten Programme 3mal/Woche über mind. 3 Monate durchgeführt werden. Ein ggf. periodisiertes, dauerhaftes Training gewährleistet langanhaltende Effekte. Für isoliertes Kraft-, Ausdauer- oder Beweglichkeitstraining, Training im Wasser, Tanzen und interaktive kognitiv-motorische Interventionen liegt keine hinreichende Evidenz vor, um sie als wirksame Trainings in der Sturzprävention zu empfehlen. Jedoch sind sie größtenteils effektiv, um Risikofaktoren zu beeinflussen oder einen Einstieg ins Training zu unterstützen. Limitierte Evidenz existiert für die Beeinflussung des Sturzvorgangs durch Training. Bei gesunden, älteren Menschen sind Sturz-, Abfang-, Abrolltechniken sowie Stepping geeignet, den Impakt selbst-induzierter Stürze zu reduzieren. Keine diesbezüglichen Daten existieren für Verletzungen als Folge echter Stürze.
... Participants were verbally encouraged throughout; if they fell below the lower torque limit, they were encouraged to attempt to regain their set torque output. Momentary failure was defined as when participants could no longer generate enough torque to keep within the torque limits set, despite exerting maximal effort (Steele et al., 2017), for > 5 s or more. ...
Article
Full-text available
Surface EMG (sEMG) has been used to compare loading conditions during exercise. Studies often explore mean/median frequencies. This potentially misses more nuanced electrophysiological differences between exercise tasks. Therefore, wavelet-based analysis was used to evaluate electrophysiological characteristics in the sEMG signal of the quadriceps under both higher- and lower-torque (70 % and 30 % of MVC, respectively) isometric knee extension performed to momentary failure. Ten recreationally active adult males with previous resistance training experience were recruited. Using a within-session, repeated-measures, randomised crossover design, participants performed isometric knee extension whilst sEMG was collected from the vastus medialis (VM), rectus femoris (RF) and vastus lateralis (VL). Mean signal frequency showed similar characteristics in each condition at momentary failure. However, individual wavelets revealed different frequency component changes between the conditions. All frequency components increased during the low-torque condition. But low-frequency components increased, and high-frequency components decreased, in intensity throughout the high-torque condition. This resulted in convergence of the low-torque and high-torque trial wavelet characteristics towards the end of the low-torque trial. Our results demonstrate a convergence of myoelectric signal properties between low- and high-torque efforts with fatigue via divergent signal adaptations. Further work should disentangle factors influencing frequency characteristics during exercise tasks.
... This is primarily due to the uncertainty of the proximity to failure achieved across relevant studies; for example, it is difficult to know the RIR upon set termination in non-failure groups due to a lack of reporting, individual differences, and set-toset fatiuge. Additionally, there is ambiguity in the criteria for set termination [14] in failure groups, further limiting the applicability of these categorical comparisons. Fisher et al. [15] recently suggested investigating proximity to failure in a categorical fashion fails to inform the overall dose-response relationship between proximity to failure and resistance training outcomes. ...
Article
Investigation of the mechanical behavior of the biceps brachii (BB) muscle at different dynamic forces is essential to improve training techniques, prevent sports injuries and optimize rehabilitation results. In previous studies, researchers studied mechanical changes during muscle contraction using various mathematical methods and simulation models. The models adopted by the majority of these studies assumed a constant value for muscle force. However, variable muscle force has different effects on muscle mechanics. In this study, an inverse dynamic simulation model was initially utilized to determine the dynamic muscle forces generated in the BB while performing the dumbbell curl exercise with 5 kg and 10 kg weights. Subsequently, the finite element method (FEM) was used to calculate the stress and strain changes experienced by BB as a consequence of the applied forces. Moreover, simultaneous analysis through electromyography (EMG) was carried out to investigate muscle contraction during the dumbbell curl exercise. Consequently, it was concluded that the average BB force during the dumbbell curl exercise with 5 kg and 10 kg weights was 433.9 N and 695.0 N, respectively. The maximum stresses in the BB during exercise were calculated to be 960.5 Pa and 1484.9 Pa, respectively. Additionally, the maximum displacements were determined to be 102.30 μm and 158.28 μm, respectively. According to the findings of muscle force 100% increase in dumbbell weight increases the maximum muscle force by 83.13% and the average muscle force by 60.17%. Therefore, it is understood that there was no linear correlation between weight gain and muscle force.
Article
Full-text available
AimResistance training volume is one of the most important variables to induce muscular adaptations. However, high-volume training can be exhausting and cause prior knowledge of training volume in a session to negatively affect the total number of repetitions performed, thus reducing the overall training effect. This study was designed to determine the influence of prior knowledge of the number of sets to be performed on total training volume.Methods Eleven men with previous resistance training experience (≥ 12 months) performed six sets of bench press under three different conditions: a control trial (CL) where participants were informed that they would perform six sets and complete six sets; a deception trial (DC) where participants were informed they would perform three sets but had an additional three sets added after completing the first three sets, and an unknown trial (UN) in which participants received no information about how many sets would be performed but actually completed six sets. Conditions were randomized among all participants. All sets were performed to momentary concentric failure using 70% of one-repetition maximum.ResultsResults showed no significant difference among the three conditions for the total number of repetitions (CL = 62.4 ± 8.5, DC = 61.1 ± 13.2, UN = 62.2 ± 2.8, P = 0 .94).Conclusion These results suggest that prior knowledge of the number of sets to be performed in a training session has no significant effect on total training volume achieved in resistance-trained men.
Article
Full-text available
Objective: Rating of perceived exertion scales are commonly used in resistance training (RT)though most suffer from conflation of perceptions of both effort and discomfort by participants. The aim of this study was to examine reliability of trainee ratings of perceived effort (RPE-E) and discomfort (RPE-D) using these two novel scales in addition to reliability and validity of trainer RPE-E. Design: Participants underwent 3 RT trials over a period of three weeks. Methods: Seventeen participants (males n = 6, females n = 11, age 63+16 years) completed 5 RT exercises for a single set using a load permitting a self-determined 6 repetition maximum (meaning they determined inability to complete further repetitions if attempted i.e. they predicted momentary failure on the next repetition). Trainers completed their rating of RPE-E, followed by participants reporting of RPE-E and RPE-D immediately after completion of the exercises. Spearman’s correlations examined the relationship between RPE-E and RPE-D. Reliability was examined as standard error of measurement (SEM) calculated for each outcome across the 3 trials (Intra-rater), in addition to agreement between trainers (Inter-rater), and agreement between trainer and trainee RPE-E. Results: Correlations between RPE-E and RPE-D were significant but weak (r = .373 to 0.492; p< 0.01). Intra-rater SEMs for trainee RPE-E ranged from 0.64 to 0.85, trainee RPE-D ranged from 0.60 to 1.00, and trainer RPE-E ranged from 0.56 to 0.71. Inter-rater SEMs for trainer RPE-E ranged 0.25 to 0.66. SEMs for agreement between trainer and trainee RPE-E ranged from 1.03 to 1.25. Conclusions: Results suggest participants were able to differentiate RPE-E and RPE-D and that the reliability for both trainee measures of RPE-E and RPE-D, in addition to trainer RPE-E is acceptable. Further, trainer RPE-E appeared to have acceptable validity compared to trainee RPE-E. These scales might be adopted in research examining the dose-response nature of effort upon RT outcomes and that trainers might use them to inform programming.
Article
Full-text available
Studies examining resistance training are of importance given that increasing or maintaining muscle mass aids in the prevention or attenuation of chronic disease. Within the literature, it is common practice to administer a set number of target repetitions to be completed by all individuals (i.e. 3 sets of 10) while setting the load relative to each individual?s predetermined strength level (usually a one-repetition maximum). This is done under the assumption that all individuals are receiving a similar stimulus upon completing the protocol, but this does not take into account individual variability with regard to how fatiguing the protocol actually is. Another limitation that exists within the current literature is the reporting of exercise volume in absolute or relative terms that are not truly replicable as they are both load-dependent and will differ based on the number of repetitions individuals can complete at a given relative load. Given that the level of fatigue caused by an exercise protocol is a good indicator of its hypertrophic potential, the most appropriate way to ensure all individuals are given a common stimulus is to prescribe exercise to volitional fatigue. While some authors commonly employ this practice, others still prescribe an arbitrary number of repetitions, which may lead to unfair comparisons between exercise protocols. The purpose of this opinion piece is to provide evidence for the need to standardize studies examining muscle hypertrophy. In our opinion, one way in which this can be accomplished is by prescribing all sets to volitional fatigue.
Article
Full-text available
Objective. To compare resistance bouts performed to failure atlow (60% 1RM) and high (90% 1RM) workloads for acute rate of perceived exertion (RPE) (per exercise), session RPE (S-RPE) (30 min post), HR (per exercise) and total work (per session, and per exercise).Background. RPE is a convenient method for quantifying intensityin aerobic exercise. However, RPE has recently been extended to exercise modalities dominated by anaerobic pathways such as resistance training (RT). Method. Subjects (N=12) were assessed using an exercise-specific1 repetition maximum (1RM) for 6 exercises. On separate days in a counterbalanced order, subjects performed 3 sets of each exercise to volitional failure at a low intensity (LI) and a high intensity (HI) with 2 minutes rest between sets and exercises. At the end of each set, subjects estimated acute RPE for that set using a 10-point numerical scale. Thirty minutes after the end of the exercise session subjects estimated their S-RPE for the entire workout. HR, total work, and acute RPE were compared (HI v. LI) using repeated measures ANOVA.Results. A paired samples t-test showed LI was significantly higher(p=0.039) than HI for session RPE (LI=8.8±0.8, HI=6.3±1.2) andtotal work (LI=17461±4419, HI=8659±2256) (p=0.043). Per exercise,total work and acute RPE were significantly greater (p=0.01) for LI for all exercises. Peak HR was significantly higher per exercise during LI for leg press (p=0.041), bench press (p=0.031), lat pull-down (p=0.037) and shoulder press (p=0.046).
Article
Introduction: It has been suggested that disparities in effort and discomfort between high- and low-load resistance training might exist, which in turn have produced unequivocal adaptations between studies. Methods: Strength responses to heavier- (HL; 80% maximum voluntary isometric torque; MViT) and lighter- (LL; 50% MViT) load resistance training were examined in addition to acute perceptions of effort and discomfort. Seven men (20.6 ±0.5years; 178.9 ± 3.2cm; 77.1 ±2.7kg) performed unilateral resistance training of the knee extensors to momentary failure using HL and LL. Results: Analyses revealed significant pre- to post-intervention increases in strength for both HL and LL, with no significant between-group differences (P> 0.05). Mean repetitions per set, total training time, and discomfort were all significantly higher for LL compared to HL (P< 0.05). Discussion: This study indicates that resistance training with HL and LL produces similar strength adaptations, however, discomfort should be considered before selecting training load. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved
Article
Resistance exercise intensity is commonly prescribed as a percent of 1 repetition maximum (1RM). However, the relationship between percent 1RM and the number of repetitions allowed remains poorly studied, especially using free weight exercises. The purpose of this study was to determine the maximal number of repetitions that trained (T) and untrained (UT) men can perform during free weight exercises at various percentages of 1RM. Eight T and 8 UT men were tested for 1RM strength. Then, subjects performed 1 set to failure at 60, 80, and 90% of 1RM in the back squat, bench press, and arm curl in a randomized, balanced design. There was a significant (p < 0.05) intensity x exercise interaction. More repetitions were performed during the back squat than the bench press or arm curl at 60% 1RM for T and UT. At 80 and 90% 1RM, there were significant differences between the back squat and other exercises; however, differences were much less pronounced. No differences in number of repetitions performed at a given exercise intensity were noted between T and UT (except during bench press at 90% 1RM). In conclusion, the number of repetitions performed at a given percent of 1RM is influenced by the amount of muscle mass used during the exercise, as more repetitions can be performed during the back squat than either the bench press or arm curl. Training status of the individual has a minimal impact on the number of repetitions performed at relative exercise intensity.
Article
Drinkwater, E.J., T.W. Lawton, R.P. Lindsell, D.B. Pyne, P.H. Hunt, and M.J. McKenna. Training leading to repetition failure contributes to bench press strength gains in elite junior athletes. J. Strength Cond. Res. 19(2):382-388. 2005. The purpose of this study was to investigate the importance of training leading to repetition failure in the performance of 2 different tests: 6 repetition maximum (6RM) bench press strength and 40-kg bench throw power in elite junior athletes. Subjects were 26 elite junior male basketball players (n 12; age = 18.6 +/- 0.3 years; height = 202.0 +/- 11.6 cm; mass = 97.0 +/- 12.9 kg; mean SD) and soccer players (n = 14; age = 17.4 +/- 0.5 years; height = 179.0 +/- 7.0 cm; mass = 75.0 +/- 7.1 kg) with a history of greater than 6 months' strength training. Subjects were initially tested twice for 6RM bench press mass and 40-kg Smith machine bench throw power output (in watts) to establish retest reliability. Subjects then undertook bench press training with 3 sessions per week for 6 weeks, using equal volume programs (24 repetitions X 80-105% 6RM in 13 minutes 20 seconds). Subjects were assigned to one of two experimental groups designed either to elicit repetition failure with 4 sets of 6 repetitions every 260 seconds (RF4x6) or allow all repetitions to be completed with 8 sets of 3 repetitions every 113 seconds (NF8x3). The RF4X6 treatment elicited substantial increases in strength (7.3 +/- 2.4 kg, + 9.5%, p < 0.001) and power (40.8 +/- 24.1 W, + 10.6%, p < 0.001), while the NF8X3 group elicited 3.6 +/- 3.0 kg (+ 5.0%, p < 0.005) and 25 +/- 19.0 W increases (+ 6.8%, p < 0.001). The improvements in the RF4x6 group were greater than those in the repetition rest group for both strength (p < 0.005) and power (p < 0.05). Bench press training that leads to repetition failure induces greater strength gains than nonfailure training in the bench press exercise for elite junior team sport athletes.