Cited by 111Sports Performance and TrainingMuscle activation and electromyography studiesCardiovascular and exercise physiology

Is repetition failure critical for the development of muscle hypertrophy and strength?

Sampson, J. A., Groeller, H.·2016·Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports

Abstract

This investigation sought to determine the effect of resistance training to failure on functional, structural and neural elbow flexor muscle adaptation. Twenty‐eight males completed a 4‐week familiarization period and were then counterbalanced on the basis of responsiveness across; non‐failure rapid shortening (RS; rapid concentric, 2 s eccentric), non‐failure stretch‐shortening (SSC; rapid concentric, rapid eccentric), and failure control (C, 2 s concentric, 2 s eccentric), for a 12‐week unilateral elbow flexor resistance training regimen, 3 × week using 85% of one repetition maximum (1 RM). 1 RM, maximal voluntary contraction (MVC), muscle cross‐sectional area (CSA), and muscle activation (EMG RMS) of the agonist, antagonist, and stabilizer muscles were assessed before and after the 12‐week training period. The average number of repetitions per set was significantly lower in RS 4.2 [confidence interval (CI): 4.2, 4.3] and SSC 4.2 (CI: 4.2, 4.3) compared with C 6.1 (CI: 5.8, 6.4). A significant increase in 1 RM (30.5%), MVC (13.3%), CSA (11.4%), and agonist EMG RMS (22.1%) was observed; however, no between‐group differences were detected. In contrast, antagonist EMG RMS increased significantly in SSC (40.5%) and C (23.3%), but decreased in RS (13.5%). Similar adaptations across the three resistance training regimen suggest repetition failure is not critical to elicit significant neural and structural changes to skeletal muscle.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/sms.12445

Cites

7 of 7 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Sampson, J. A., & Groeller, H.
Affiliations
University of Wollongong (AU)
Corresponding author
Sampson, J. A.
Venue
Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2015-03-24
Volume
26
Issue
4
Pages
375-383
ISSN
  • 0905-7188 (ISSN-L)
  • 1600-0838
OpenAlex
W1541519129
Cited by
111
References
7
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 18 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 5
FWCI
12.04
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Scandinavian Journal of Medicine and Science in Sports (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Online (University of Wollongong) (submittedVersion)
Funders
New South Wales Fire Brigades (Australia)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Orthopedics and Sports Medicine › Sports Performance and Training
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Muscle activation and electromyography studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Complementary and alternative medicine › Cardiovascular and exercise physiology
Keywords
muscle hypertrophy, muscle strength, elbow flexors, muscle cross-sectional area, muscle activation, antagonist muscle activation, stretch-shortening cycle, one-repetition maximum, neural adaptation, skeletal muscle adaptation
MeSH terms
Adaptation, Physiological, Adolescent, Adult, Biomechanical Phenomena, Elbow Joint, Humans, Hypertrophy, Male, Muscle Contraction, Muscle, Skeletal, Muscle Strength, Resistance Training, Young Adult

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