Cited by 41Sports Performance and TrainingCardiovascular and exercise physiologyMuscle metabolism and nutrition

A comparison of volume-equated knee extensions to failure, or not to failure, upon rating of perceived exertion and strength adaptations

Open access
Fisher, James Peter, Blossom, Dominic, Steele, James·2016·Applied Physiology, Nutrition, and Metabolism

Abstract

The present study aimed to compare the effects of repetition duration-, volume-, and load-matched resistance training to muscular failure (MMF) or not to muscular failure (NMF) on maximal voluntary isometric knee extensor strength. This design also allowed testing of the efficacy of “5×5” training. Nine recreationally active males (age, 21.4 ± 1.2 years; height, 1.79 ± 0.07 m; weight, 78.4 ± 7.1 kg) performed unilateral resistance training at 80% of maximal torque at 2×/week for 6 weeks. Using their nondominant leg, participants performed 5 sets of 5 repetitions (NMF). Using their dominant leg, participants performed 25 repetitions in as few sets as possible (MMF). All repetitions were performed at a pace of 2 s concentric, 1 s isometric pause, and 2 s eccentric with a 2-min rest interval between sets. Analyses identified significant pre- to post-intervention strength increases for both MMF and NMF, with effect sizes (ESs) of 2.01 and 1.65, respectively, with no significant differences between conditions (p > 0.05). Peak and mean ratings of perceived exertion (RPEs) were significantly higher for MMF compared with NMF conditions (p < 0.0001), and a tendency for significantly higher RPE values reported for later sets for the NMF condition. Total training time per session was significantly longer for NMF compared with MMF (p < 0.001). The present study suggests that in untrained participants, resistance training NMF produces equivocally the same strength increases as training to MMF when volume-matched. However, resistance training to MMF appears to be a more time-efficient protocol and may produce greater strength gains as indicated by a larger ES.

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 · 10.1139/apnm-2015-0421

Cites

50 of 50 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?

  • There are a number of studies that report no additional muscle strength or hypertrophy benefits of training to repetition failure.

    “However, there are a number of studies that report no additional muscle strength [93–98] or hypertrophy [96] benefits of training to repetition failure.”

    From Minimalist Training: Is Lower Dosage or Intensity Resistance Training Effective to Improve Physical Fitness? A Narrative Review (2024) · cites this paper as [95]

    The Strength results (page not available) report no significant difference in strength gains between training to failure and not to failure, supporting the strength portion of the claim. The Discussion (page not available) says future research should test whether hypertrophic adaptations are also similar; this study does not establish the hypertrophy portion. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Performing repetitions to momentary failure induces significantly higher ratings of perceived exertion, which probably would not be pleasurable or motivating for individuals who are not highly motivated to exercise.

    “Performing repetitions to momentary failure induces significantly higher ratings of perceived exertion [95, 100], which probably would not be pleasurable or motivating for individuals who are not highly motivated to exercise.”

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
Fisher, J. P., Blossom, D., & Steele, J.
Affiliations
Southampton Solent University (GB)
Venue
Applied Physiology, Nutrition, and Metabolism
Published
2016-02
Volume
41
Issue
2
Pages
168-174
ISSN
  • 1715-5312 (ISSN-L)
  • 1715-5320
OpenAlex
W1910451926
Cited by
41
References
49
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 3
FWCI
5.14
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Applied Physiology Nutrition and Metabolism (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • TSpace (University of Toronto) (acceptedVersion)
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, muscular failure, knee extension, isometric strength, rating of perceived exertion, training volume, training time efficiency, untrained men, strength adaptation
MeSH terms
Adaptation, Physiological, Physical Exertion, Humans, Knee, Male, Exercise, Weight-Bearing, 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