See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331718773

Does Training to Failure Maximize Muscle Hypertrophy?

Article  in  Strength and conditioning journal · March 2019

DOI: 10.1519/SSC.0000000000000473

CITATIONS

2READS

9,310

2 authors:

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

The acute effects of 3 different doses of caffeine on jumping and throwing performance, strength and muscular endurance View project

Active Aging Longitudinal Study View project

Brad J Schoenfeld

City University of New York City - Lehman College

237 PUBLICATIONS   3,331 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Jozo Grgic

Victoria University Melbourne

49 PUBLICATIONS   392 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Jozo Grgic on 02 April 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Dow

nloadedfrom

https://journals.lww.com

/nsca-scjbyBhD

Mf5ePH

Kav1zEoum1tQ

fN4a+kJLhEZgbsIH

o4XMi0hC

ywCX1AW

nYQp/IlQ

rHD3jm

g6KbmzD

t49SgRcfG

u+RWhH

U+9C

E91sVYQ/Fo3D

AM4=

on04/02/2019

Downloadedfromhttps://journals.lww.com/nsca-scjbyBhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCywCX1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3jmg6KbmzDt49SgRcfGu+RWhHU+9CE91sVYQ/Fo3DAM4=on04/02/2019

Strength and Conditioning Journal Publish Ahead of PrintDOI: 10.1519/SSC.0000000000000473

Does Training to Failure Maximize Muscle Hypertrophy?

Brad Schoenfeld, PhD, CSCS, FNSCA1, *

Jozo Grgic, MS2

1Department of Health Sciences, Lehman College, Bronx, NY, USA

2Institute for Health and Sport (IHES), Victoria University, Melbourne, Australia

*Corresponding author:

Department of Health Sciences, Lehman College, Bronx, NY, USA

Email: brad@workout911.com

Brad Jon Schoenfeld is an Assistant Professor in Exercise Science and director of the Human

Performance Laboratory at CUNY Lehman College in the Bronx, New York.

Jozo Grgic is a PhD student at the Institute of Sport, Exercise and Active Living, Victoria

University, Melbourne, Australia. ACCEPTED

Copyright � 201 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.9

Abstract: It has been proposed that training to failure is a necessary strategy to maximize

muscle growth. This paper examines the research behind these claims, and attempts to draw

evidence-based conclusions as to the practical implications for hypertrophy training.

Introduction

Resistance training is well-established as a primary exercise-based strategy to enhance

muscle mass in humans. The manipulation of program variables is believed to be a key factor in

optimizing muscular gains (1, 14). Variables such as volume, load, and frequency have been well

explored in the literature (28-30). One variable that has not received as much attention is the set

endpoint, operationally defined as the point at which a set of repetitions is terminated (34). The

intensity of effort expended during a set is best estimated by how close an individual comes to

reaching muscular failure, which can be defined as the point where the activated muscles are

incapable of completing another complete repetition without assistance (22, 25). Training to

muscular failure has been promoted since the 1940s when Thomas DeLorme, a physician in the

US Army at the time, published a series of papers advocating the use of this method in resistance

exercise (15). While training to failure has long been employed in resistance training programs,

particularly by bodybuilders, the number of well-controlled studies that have explored this topic

is small. Initially, Rooney et al. (21) indicated a benefit for training to failure (versus not training

to failure) for gains in strength; however, these results were not corroborated by others (8).

Recognizing the equivocal body of evidence, Davies et al. (4) recently conducted a meta-analysis

for strength gains, and concluded that similar increases in strength might be attained with both

muscle failure and non-failure training. However, this meta-analysis (as well as the majority of

ACCEPTED

Copyright � 201 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.9

original studies) only focused on gains in strength; the effects of training to failure on muscle

hypertrophy have been less explored.

Some researchers have put forth the claim that training to failure is necessary to

maximize muscle growth (2, 7, 38). This contention is at least in part based on the underlying

belief that training to failure elicits full motor unit recruitment, which is considered an essential

component for increases in muscle size (37). However, the applicability of this claim may be

load-specific. High-threshold motor units are recruited almost immediately when lifting very

heavy loads as high levels of force are required from the onset of the exercise (5). This is in

contrast to low-load training, where recruitment of the larger motor units is delayed because a

high level of force is not initially needed to lift the weight; as the set becomes more fatiguing,

higher threshold motor units are then recruited to maintain force output. This physiological

response has been demonstrated in studies showing that fatiguing concentric contractions

produce a corresponding increase in surface electromyography activity during low-load training

(27, 32), but the effect diminishes with the use of progressively heavier loads. It therefore could

be hypothesized that the need to train to failure becomes increasingly less relevant when training

with high intensities of load.

It also has been hypothesized that training to failure augments muscular growth by

increasing metabolic stress. There is some evidence that the buildup of metabolites – byproducts

from anaerobic energy production – enhances the anabolic response to resistance training (26,

35), although this claim remains speculative (36). Research shows that continuing a set to the

point of volitional fatigue heightens energy demands, thereby resulting in a greater metabolite

accumulation (10). This seemingly supports a beneficial metabolic effect of training to the point

of failure. However, it is not clear whether the additional metabolic stress produced during an

ACCEPTED

Copyright � 201 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.9

‘all-out’ set leads to a meaningfully greater accretion of muscle proteins compared to a set

stopped short of failure. It is conceivable that a threshold exists for metabolic stress beyond

which no further beneficial effects are realized. The purpose of this column is to (1) review the

current literature as to the effects of failure training on hypertrophic adaptations, and; (2) draw

evidence-based conclusions as to how the strategy should be employed in practice, both in terms

of integration with other resistance training variables and avoiding burnout, for those seeking

maximize muscle growth.

Overview of the Literature

There is surprisingly little longitudinal research investigating the topic of training to

failure. An often-cited study in support of training performed to failure compared muscle growth

in recreationally-trained men performing a multiple set protocol of 10 reps with 60 seconds rest

between sets, whereby one group trained to failure and the other did not (11). Exercises consisted

of the lat pulldown, shoulder press, and leg extension, with 3-5 sets performed per exercise.

Results showed that the group training to failure gained significantly more muscle over the

course of the 12-week study than the group that did not train to muscle failure (+13% vs. +4%).

While on the surface these findings may seem intriguing, the caveat here was that one group

performed all sets continuously to failure while the group that did not train to failure took a 30-

second break at the mid-point of each set. This protocol does not replicate traditional non-failure

training regimens where sets are stopped at a given number of repetitions from fatigue; thus, it

has limited ecological validity.

In a study by Schott et al. (31) one group trained using a low-fatigue training protocol

that included 4 sets of 10 contractions (each contraction lasted 3-seconds followed by 2-seconds

of rest) with 2 minutes of rest between sets while another group trained with high levels of

ACCEPTED

Copyright � 201 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.9

fatigue induced by performing 4 sets of 30-second contractions with 1 minute of between-set

rest. Only the latter group experienced significant increases in muscle size after 14 weeks of

training, adding further support for the importance of fatigue for gains in muscle mass. However,

as in the Goto et al. (11) study, the protocol did not mirror resistance exercise performed in the

practical context as it included only isometric muscle actions. Furthermore, the protocol in the

low fatigue group included inter-repetition rest which, again, is not often employed in traditional

resistance exercise.

Sampson and Groellier (22) compared the effects of exercising to muscle failure using a

more traditional resistance training protocol. Twenty-eight untrained young men performed 4

sets of arm curls at 85% one repetition maximum (1RM). Subjects were randomized either to

carry out sets to failure using a 2-second concentric and 2-second eccentric action or to stop

approximately 2 reps short of failure while employing either rapid shortening (explosive

concentric and 2-second eccentric action) or stretch-shortening (explosive movement on both

concentric and eccentric components). After 12 weeks, the average gain in biceps muscle cross-

sectional area was ~11% for all subjects combined, with no significant differences noted between

groups. A key point to keep in mind here is that subjects trained with heavy loads equating to a

6RM. It therefore can be hypothesized that training to failure becomes less important when using

heavy weights, which is consistent with the previously mentioned research on muscle activation.

The study did have a potential confounding issue: the non-failure groups actually performed a

single set to failure at the end of each week to determine the load for the subsequent week of

training. Whether this had a significant effect on the results is not clear.

ACCEPTED

Copyright � 201 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.9

Martorelli et al. (16) randomly assigned 89 active women to one of three groups: (1) a

group that performed three sets of repetitions to failure at 70% 1RM; (2) a group that performed

four sets of seven repetitions not to failure, but with volume equalized to the failure condition,

and; (3) a group that performed three sets of seven repetitions not to failure. Training consisted

of free-weight biceps curls performed two days per week for ten weeks. The authors observed

significant main effects for time and for the interaction between the groups. However, the

authors did not perform further post-hoc analyses to determine where the differences between the

groups occurred. The relative changes substantially favored the group training to muscle failure

(17.5% versus 8.5% in the group not training to failure, with equal volume). The magnitude of

differences between groups raises the possibility of a type II error, whereby statistically

significant differences went undetected. The group that performed repetitions not-to-failure

without matching volume to the two other groups did not significantly increase muscle thickness.

Even if there indeed was an advantage favoring the group that trained to failure in the

Martorelli et al. study, it should be noted that the included participants were young women and

therefore, the results cannot be generalized to older adults. Older adults might experience slower

post-exercise recovery and may warrant a different approach to their program design (6). da

Silva et al. (3) essentially used the same study design as Martorelli and colleagues (16) while

including older men (66 ± 5 years) as participants. In this study, the group training to failure and

the group that did not train to failure with equalized volume experienced similar increases in

quadriceps muscle thickness; no significant pre-to-post changes occurred in the group that did

not train to failure and that performed less volume than the two other training groups. These

results may indicate that age (and the age-related recovery from exercise) is an important factor

to consider when prescribing resistance exercise performed to muscle failure. Furthermore, the

ACCEPTED

Copyright � 201 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.9

study by da Silva et al. (3) indicates that training to muscle failure may not be needed for

increases in muscle size in older adults. Finally, the totality of findings also suggest that volume

load may be an important variable when considering the relevance of training to failure.

Most recently, Nobrega et al. (18) allocated 32 untrained men to perform 3 sets of leg

extension exercise at either a high load (80% 1RM) or low load (30% 1RM), twice per week.

The study employed a within-subject design whereby each lower limb was randomized to

execute these conditions either to failure or terminated at the point at which participants

voluntarily interrupted training. After 12 weeks, increases in muscle cross-sectional area were

statistically similar between conditions. It should be noted that the differences in volume load

between failure and non-failure training were rather slight in both the high-load conditions

(training to failure: 26,694 kg; training not to failure: 26,042 kg) and in the low-load conditions

(training to failure: 21,114 kg; training not to failure: 20,643 kg), suggesting that the non-failure

condition performed sets at close to full fatigue (likely only one to two repetitions shy of failure).

These results, therefore, may indicate that training close to muscle failure may be similarly

effective for increasing muscle size as training that includes reaching actual muscle failure.

Practical Implications

A primary issue when attempting to draw evidence-based conclusions on the topic is

qualifying the alternative endpoint to failure. Specifically, if failure is not the chosen option, then

at what point should a set be terminated? One option may be to use the “repetitions in reserve”

(RIR) scale proposed by Zourdos et al. (39), whereby a RIR of 0 equates to training to failure, a

RIR of 1 equates to stopping one repetition short of failure, a RIR of 2 equates to stopping two

repetitions short of failure, etc. However, as indicated by Hackett et al. (12) individuals may

underestimate the number of repetitions to failure during the earlier sets and the accuracy of

ACCEPTED

Copyright � 201 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.9

prediction may increase with subsequent sets. Other researchers also show that resistance

training experience may increase the ability to accurately predict repetitions to failure (33) and

therefore, when using this scale, a period of familiarization should be incorporated in the study

design in order to keep the comparison between the groups valid.

A potential issue with continuous training to failure is that it may increase the potential

for overtraining and psychological burnout (9). This hypothesis was supported by a study from

Izquierdo et al. (13), who randomized members of the Spanish Basque ball team to perform 3

sets of 8 resistance exercises targeting the body’s major muscle groups either to failure or non-

failure using 70-80% of 1RM. Training was carried out twice a week for 16 weeks. Results

showed that training to failure blunted resting levels of anabolic hormones (IGF-1 and

testosterone); an outcome indicative of non-functional overreaching (9). Thus, if failure training

is employed in a program, it seems prudent to do so judiciously. There is no research on the

topic, but one strategy would be to limit its use to the last set of an exercise. For example, if

muscle failure is incorporated in the first set of a given exercise, it is likely that the performance

(concerning the total number repetitions) would be hindered on subsequent sets (24). By limiting

the use of a muscle failure only on the last set of a given exercise we may ensure that sufficient

volume is achieved, although the effects of failure training on volume remain somewhat

equivocal (24). As with all resistance training variables, failure training could also be periodized

so that it is used more extensively in a short training block (i.e. the peaking phase of a mass-

building program) and less so during other training cycles.

Based on the limited available evidence, it would appear that stopping several repetitions

short of failure when training with moderately heavy loads (6-12 RM) does not seem to

compromise hypertrophy, at least when training volume is equated. The paucity of research with

ACCEPTED

Copyright � 201 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.9

light loads makes it difficult to extrapolate a specific recommendation, but a logical case (from a

motor unit recruitment perspective) can be made that RIR values would need to be in the range

from 0 to 2 in order to fully stimulate the highest threshold motor units, and thus maximize

hypertrophic adaptations. More research is needed to strengthen evidence-based conclusions.

Other more advanced methods, such as the assessment of velocity loss also require

attention in this context (23). In one study, Pareja-Blanco et al (19) randomized resistance-

trained men to one of two protocols that differed only in the amount of repetition velocity loss

allowed in each set: 20% vs. 40% of velocity loss. The 40% velocity loss group trained in close

proximity to muscle failure while the 20% velocity loss group performed approximately half of

the maximum number of repetitions. After the 8-week training intervention, greater hypertrophy

in the vastus lateralis and intermedius was observed in the 40% velocity loss group. These

findings suggest that training to failure (or very close to it) might be indeed of importance for

maximizing increases in muscle size. One limitation here is that the groups were not matched for

total volume in terms of the total number of performed repetitions as the 40% velocity loss group

also performed more total repetitions. This may be relevant given the linear dose-response

relationship between volume and muscle hypertrophy (28). It would be interesting for future

studies to use a similar protocol while adding more sets to the small velocity loss group in order

to equate the volume load comparison.

An important limitation with the current body of literature is that the majority of studies

to date have been carried out in untrained subjects. A case can be made that as a lifter gains more

training experience, there is an increasing need to challenge the neuromuscular system with

higher levels of effort. Support for this hypothesis can be inferred in the results of the study by

ACCEPTED

Copyright � 201 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.9

Pareja-Blanco and colleagues (19), but additional research is needed to draw stronger

conclusions.

Ultimately, training to failure also needs to be considered in the context of the whole

resistance training program (see Figure 1). One variable that is likely important to take into

account here is training frequency. In a recent study, training to failure in each set using a 3 x 10

repetitions protocol (compared to training without reaching failure using a 6 x 5 repetitions

protocol) slowed down the recovery up to 24-48 h post-exercise (17). This attenuated post-

exercise recovery will not likely be of practical importance if the training program is performed

with a low weekly training frequency per muscle group (e.g., training each muscle group once

per week). However, when training with a higher training frequency (e.g., training a muscle

group +4 times week), training to failure should likely be used sparingly to allow a better

neuromuscular condition before the subsequent training session. Slower rates of recovery may be

more pronounced when exercising with a higher number of repetitions, which is another

component that needs to be taken into account in program design (20).

It also is important to consider the specific exercises performed. Multi-joint movements,

particularly those performed using free weights and of a structural nature, are substantially more

taxing on the neuromuscular system than single-joint exercises. It therefore seems pragmatic to

limit the use of training to failure in exercises such as squats, deadlifts, presses, and rows.

Alternatively, failure can be employed more liberally when performing single-joint exercises as

they are much less physically and mentally demanding.

ACCEPTED

Copyright � 201 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.9

Figure 1: Key aspects to consider when incorporating training to muscle failure in

resistance exercise.

References

1. American College of Sports Medicine. American College of Sports Medicine position stand.

Progression models in resistance training for healthy adults. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 41: 687-708,

2009.

2. Burd, NA, West, DW, Moore, DR, Atherton, PJ, Staples, AW, Prior, T, Tang, JE, Rennie, MJ,

Baker, SK, and Phillips, SM. Enhanced amino acid sensitivity of myofibrillar protein synthesis

persists for up to 24 h after resistance exercise in young men. J. Nutr. 141: 568-573, 2011.

3. da Silva, LXN, Teodoro, JL, Menger, E, Lopez, P, Grazioli, R, Farinha, J, Moraes, K, Bottaro,

M, Pinto, RS, Izquierdo, M, and Cadore, EL. Repetitions to failure versus not to failure during

concurrent training in healthy elderly men: A randomized clinical trial. Exp. Gerontol. 108: 18-

27, 2018.

4. Davies, T, Orr, R, Halaki, M, and Hackett, D. Effect of Training Leading to Repetition Failure

on Muscular Strength: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Sports Med. 46: 487-502, 2016.

5. Duchateau, J, Semmler, JG, and Enoka, RM. Training adaptations in the behavior of human

motor units. J. Appl. Physiol. 101: 1766-1775, 2006.

6. Fell, J, and Williams, D. The effect of aging on skeletal-muscle recovery from exercise:

possible implications for aging athletes. J. Aging Phys. Act. 16: 97-115, 2008.

ACCEPTED

Copyright � 201 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.9

7. Fisher, J, Steele, J, and Smith, D. Evidence-based resistance training recommendations for

muscular hypertrophy. Medicina Sportiva 7: 16-26, 2013.

8. Folland, JP, Irish, CS, Roberts, JC, Tarr, JE, and Jones, DA. Fatigue is not a necessary

stimulus for strength gains during resistance training. Br. J. Sports Med. 36: 370-373, 2002.

9. Fry, AC, and Kraemer, WJ. Resistance exercise overtraining and overreaching.

Neuroendocrine responses. Sports Med. 23: 106-129, 1997.

10. Gorostiaga, EM, Navarro-Amezqueta, I, Calbet, JA, Sanchez-Medina, L, Cusso, R, Guerrero,

M, Granados, C, Gonzalez-Izal, M, Ibanez, J, and Izquierdo, M. Blood ammonia and lactate as

markers of muscle metabolites during leg press exercise. J. Strength Cond Res. 28: 2775-2785,

2014.

11. Goto, K, Ishii, N, Kizuka, T, and Takamatsu, K. The impact of metabolic stress on hormonal

responses and muscular adaptations. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 37: 955-963, 2005.

12. Hackett, DA, Johnson, NA, Halaki, M, and Chow, CM. A novel scale to assess resistance-

exercise effort. J. Sports Sci. 30: 1405-1413, 2012.

13. Izquierdo, M, Ibanez, J, Gonzalez-Badillo, JJ, Hakkinen, K, Ratamess, NA, Kraemer, WJ,

French, DN, Eslava, J, Altadill, A, Asiain, X, and Gorostiaga, EM. Differential effects of

strength training leading to failure versus not to failure on hormonal responses, strength, and

muscle power gains. J. Appl. Physiol. 100: 1647-1656, 2006.

14. Kraemer, WJ, and Ratamess, NA. Fundamentals of resistance training: progression and

exercise prescription. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 36: 674-688, 2004.

ACCEPTED

Copyright � 201 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.9

15. Kraemer, WJ, Ratamess, NA, Flanagan, SD, Shurley, JP, Todd, JS, and Todd, TC.

Understanding the Science of Resistance Training: An Evolutionary Perspective. Sports Med. 47:

2415-2435, 2017.

16. Martorelli, S, Cadore, EL, Izquierdo, M, Celes, R, Martorelli, A, Cleto, VA, Alvarenga, JG,

and Bottaro, M. Strength Training with Repetitions to Failure does not Provide Additional

Strength and Muscle Hypertrophy Gains in Young Women. Eur. J. Transl. Myol 27: 6339, 2017.

17. Moran-Navarro, R, Perez, CE, Mora-Rodriguez, R, de la Cruz-Sanchez, E, Gonzalez-Badillo,

JJ, Sanchez-Medina, L, and Pallares, JG. Time course of recovery following resistance training

leading or not to failure. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. 117: 2387-2399, 2017.

18. Nobrega, SR, Ugrinowitsch, C, Pintanel, L, Barcelos, C, and Libardi, CA. Effect of

Resistance Training to Muscle Failure vs. Volitional Interruption at High- and Low-Intensities

on Muscle Mass and Strength. J. Strength Cond Res. 32: 162-169, 2018.

19. Pareja-Blanco, F, Rodriguez-Rosell, D, Sanchez-Medina, L, Sanchis-Moysi, J, Dorado, C,

Mora-Custodio, R, Yanez-Garcia, JM, Morales-Alamo, D, Perez-Suarez, I, Calbet, JAL, and

Gonzalez-Badillo, JJ. Effects of velocity loss during resistance training on athletic performance,

strength gains and muscle adaptations. Scand. J. Med. Sci. Sports 27: 724-735, 2017.

20. Pareja-Blanco, F, Rodriguez-Rosell, D, Aagaard, P, Sanchez-Medina, L, Ribas-Serna, J,

Mora-Custodio, R, Otero-Esquina, C, Yanez-Garcia, JM, and Gonzalez-Badillo, JJ. Time Course

of Recovery From Resistance Exercise With Different Set Configurations. J. Strength Cond Res.

, 2018.

ACCEPTED

Copyright � 201 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.9

21. Rooney, KJ, Herbert, RD, and Balnave, RJ. Fatigue contributes to the strength training

stimulus. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 26: 1160-1164, 1994.

22. Sampson, JA, and Groeller, H. Is repetition failure critical for the development of muscle

hypertrophy and strength? Scand. J. Med. Sci. Sports , 2015.

23. Sanchez-Medina, L, and Gonzalez-Badillo, JJ. Velocity loss as an indicator of neuromuscular

fatigue during resistance training. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 43: 1725-1734, 2011.

24. Santos, WDND, Vieira, CA, Bottaro, M, Nunes, VA, Ramirez-Campillo, R, Steele, J, Fisher,

JP, and Gentil, P. Resistance Training Performed to Failure or Not to Failure Results in Similar

Total Volume, but With Different Fatigue and Discomfort Levels. J. Strength Cond Res. , 2019.

25. Schoenfeld, BJ. The mechanisms of muscle hypertrophy and their application to resistance

training. J. Strength Cond Res. 24: 2857-2872, 2010.

26. Schoenfeld, BJ. Potential mechanisms for a role of metabolic stress in hypertrophic

adaptations to resistance training. Sports Med. 43: 179-194, 2013.

27. Schoenfeld, BJ, Contreras, B, Willardson, JM, Fontana, F, and Tiryaki-Sonmez, G. Muscle

activation during low- versus high-load resistance training in well-trained men. Eur. J. Appl.

Physiol. 114: 2491-2497, 2014.

28. Schoenfeld, BJ, Ogborn, D, and Krieger, JW. Dose-response relationship between weekly

resistance training volume and increases in muscle mass: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

J. Sports Sci. : 1-10, 2016.

ACCEPTED

Copyright � 201 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.9

29. Schoenfeld, BJ, Grgic, J, Ogborn, D, and Krieger, JW. Strength and Hypertrophy

Adaptations Between Low- vs. High-Load Resistance Training: A Systematic Review and Meta-

analysis. J. Strength Cond Res. 31: 3508-3523, 2017.

30. Schoenfeld, BJ, Grgic, J, and Krieger, J. How many times per week should a muscle be

trained to maximize muscle hypertrophy? A systematic review and meta-analysis of studies

examining the effects of resistance training frequency. J. Sports Sci. : 1-10, 2018.

31. Schott, J, McCully, K, and Rutherford, OM. The role of metabolites in strength training. II.

Short versus long isometric contractions. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. Occup. Physiol. 71: 337-341,

1995.

32. Spiering, BA, Kraemer, WJ, Anderson, JM, Armstrong, LE, Nindl, BC, Volek, JS, and

Maresh, CM. Resistance exercise biology: manipulation of resistance exercise programme

variables determines the responses of cellular and molecular signalling pathways. Sports Med.

38: 527-540, 2008.

33. Steele, J, Endres, A, Fisher, J, Gentil, P, and Giessing, J. Ability to predict repetitions to

momentary failure is not perfectly accurate, though improves with resistance training experience.

PeerJ 5: e4105, 2017.

34. Steele, J, Fisher, J, Giessing, J, and Gentil, P. Clarity in reporting terminology and definitions

of set endpoints in resistance training. Muscle Nerve 56: 368-374, 2017.

35. Takada, S, Okita, K, Suga, T, Omokawa, M, Kadoguchi, T, Sato, T, Takahashi, M, Yokota,

T, Hirabayashi, K, Morita, N, Horiuchi, M, Kinugawa, S, and Tsutsui, H. Low-intensity exercise

ACCEPTED

Copyright � 201 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.9

can increase muscle mass and strength proportionally to enhanced metabolic stress under

ischemic conditions. J. Appl. Physiol. (1985) 113: 199-205, 2012.

36. Wackerhage, H, Schoenfeld, BJ, Hamilton, DL, Lehti, M, and Hulmi, JJ. Stimuli and sensors

that initiate skeletal muscle hypertrophy following resistance exercise. J. Appl. Physiol. (1985)

126: 30-43, 2019.

37. Wernbom, M, Augustsson, J, and Thomee, R. The influence of frequency, intensity, volume

and mode of strength training on whole muscle cross-sectional area in humans. Sports Med. 37:

225-264, 2007.

38. Willardson, JM, Norton, L, and Wilson, G. Training to failure and beyond in mainstream

resistance exercise programs. Strength Cond J 32: 21-29, 2010.

39. Zourdos, MC, Klemp, A, Dolan, C, Quiles, JM, Schau, KA, Jo, E, Helms, E, Esgro, B,

Duncan, S, Garcia Merino, S, and Blanco, R. Novel Resistance Training-Specific Rating of

Perceived Exertion Scale Measuring Repetitions in Reserve. J. Strength Cond Res. 30: 267-275,

2016.

ACCEPTED

Copyright � 201 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.9

ACCEPTED

Copyright � 201 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.9

View publication statsView publication stats