Cited by 115Sports Performance and TrainingCardiovascular and exercise physiologyMuscle metabolism and nutrition

Training to Fatigue: The Answer for Standardization When Assessing Muscle Hypertrophy?

Dankel, Scott J., Jessee, Matthew B., Mattocks, Kevin T., Mouser, J. Grant, Counts, Brittany R., Buckner, Samuel L., Loenneke, Jeremy P.·2017·Sports Medicine

Abstract

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.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s40279-016-0633-7

Cites

12 of 12 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The inclusion of experimental studies using repetitions until volitional failure is based on ensuring that a similar stressful stimulus was undertaken by all participants in the resistance training programs.

    “The inclusion of experimental studies using repetitions until volitional failure is based on ensuring that a similar stressful stimulus was undertaken by all participants in the resistance training programs (57).”
  • Performing resistance training until volitional failure is one way to eliminate a large amount of individual variability related to between-subject endurance capacity and ensures methodological feasibility when comparing different resistance training loads.

    “Although performing resistance training until volitional failure is one way to eliminate a large amount of individual variability related to between-subject endurance capacity (i.e., individuals who are able to complete different numbers of repetitions at a given relative load) and ensures methodological feasibility when comparing different resistance training loads (57)”
  • Exercising until volitional failure was the strategy required to compare the efficacy of different resistance training load protocols.

    “it was the strategy required to compare the efficacy of different resistance training load protocols (57).”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Dankel, S. J., Jessee, M. B., Mattocks, K. T., Mouser, J. G., Counts, B. R., Buckner, S. L., & Loenneke, J. P.
Affiliations
University of Mississippi (US)
Corresponding author
Loenneke, Jeremy P.
Venue
Sports Medicine
Published
2016-09-28
Volume
47
Issue
6
Pages
1021-1027
ISSN
  • 0112-1642 (ISSN-L)
  • 1179-2035
OpenAlex
W2527180838
Cited by
115
References
12
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 20 · 2017: 8
FWCI
15.81
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Sports Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Orthopedics and Sports Medicine › Sports Performance and Training
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Complementary and alternative medicine › Cardiovascular and exercise physiology
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Cell Biology › Muscle metabolism and nutrition
Keywords
resistance training, muscle hypertrophy, volitional fatigue, training standardization, exercise volume, one-repetition maximum, interindividual variability
MeSH terms
Humans, Hypertrophy, Muscle, Skeletal, Muscle Fatigue, Muscle Strength, Resistance Training

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review