Lifting to Failure Every Set Not Necessary for Maximum Muscle Growth Summary
- The study shows similar increases in quadriceps muscle growth when comparing lifting to failure every set and stopping short 1-2 reps from failure. The average increase in muscle growth is 6.96% for training to failure and 6.98% for training with one to two repetitions in reserve. This indicates that stopping short of failure is as effective as training to failure for muscle growth.
- Lifting to failure every set consistently results in higher levels of acute neuromuscular fatigue, evidenced by greater decreases in lifting velocity and repetition loss from the first to the final set, compared to training with 1-2 RIR.
- The findings suggest that terminating sets with a perceived 1-2 RIR can promote similar hypertrophy with reduced fatigue, making it a viable and potentially more sustainable approach for resistance-trained individuals seeking to optimize muscle growth and recovery.
Lifting to Failure Each Set: The Key to Muscle Growth?
Muscle hypertrophy, or the increase in muscle size, is a primary goal for many individuals going to the gym. Training to failure has long been the norm for many bodybuilders, who believe pushing muscles to their absolute limit by lifting to failure every set is the key to achieving maximum growth. Legendary figures in bodybuilding, such as Arnold Schwarzenegger, Dorian Yates, and Mike Mentzer, advocate that training to and beyond failure is essential for muscle hypertrophy. Schwarzenegger often mentioned the importance of “shocking the muscles” with intense workouts going to complete failure each set. Yates and Mentzer promote high-intensity training routines that push each set to the brink of muscular collapse.
Modern Day Bodybuilding: All the Greats Trained to Failure Each Set
These training philosophies were rooted in the belief that lifting to failure every set recruits more muscle fibers, leading to greater muscle growth. Studies suggest lifting to failure every set can enhance muscle hypertrophy and strength more than non-failure training, potentially due to increased mechanical tension and metabolic stress.(Martorelli et al., 2021; Nóbrega et al., 2018) The concept is that by exhausting the muscle fibers completely, one can maximize the recruitment of both slow-twitch and fast-twitch fibers, thereby inducing a greater hypertrophic response. Additionally, a 2021 study observed that high-velocity loss thresholds (associated with training to failure) promoted slightly greater muscle hypertrophy in certain muscle groups than lower-velocity loss thresholds, indicating the potential benefits of pushing muscles closer to failure.(Andersen et al., 2021)
However, a new study by Refalo et al. (2024) challenges this long-standing belief. The study finds that training with one to two repetitions in reserve (RIR) results in muscle growth similar to lifting to failure every set. This finding debunks the myth that lifting to failure every set is necessary for maximizing muscle hypertrophy. Instead, it suggests that stopping short of failure can be just as effective, with the added benefit of reduced neuromuscular fatigue. This new evidence prompts a reevaluation of traditional training methodologies and offers a more sustainable approach for those seeking muscle growth.(Refalo et al., 2024)
Review of the Literature on Lifting to Failure Each Set
Previous research on lifting to failure each set has produced mixed results. Some studies suggest that training to failure maximizes muscle hypertrophy by recruiting a greater number of muscle fibers.(Santanielo et al., 2020) However, other studies show that stopping short of failure can be equally effective in promoting muscle growth as lifting to failure every set (Andersen et al., 2021; (Helms et al., 2018)
Meta-analyses have also contributed to this debate. For example, a comprehensive review in 2021 concludes that there are no significant differences in muscle growth between lifting to failure every set and non-failure training. (Grgic et al., 2022) Additionally, the role of neuromuscular fatigue, which is higher when training to failure, highlights a potential drawback of this approach.(Alix-Fages et al., 2022; Jenkins et al., 2017) However, others have suggested that training to failure may not necessarily provide additional benefits regarding strength gains and muscle hypertrophy. (Martorelli et al., 2017; Refalo et al., 2023) The new study conducted by Refalo differs from previous studies as it uses similar training volume, rest periods, and training frequency between the groups, which many studies have not done in the past.
Overview of the Study Protocol
The study involves 18 resistance-trained males and females who participated in an 8-week intervention. Participants performed two weekly resistance training sessions, focusing on leg press and leg extension exercises. The study randomized lower limbs to perform exercises to complete muscular failure or with a perceived 1-2 RIR (i.e., 1-2 reps shy of failure). Participants rested for two minutes before attempting a set to momentary muscular failure with the predicted RM load. The load was adjusted if participants could perform more or fewer repetitions than the RM range, and another set was attempted after five minutes of rest until the correct RM load was established.
Results: Lifting to Failure Every Set Does Not Result in Greater Muscle Growth
The study shows that quadriceps muscle thickness increases were similar for lifting to failure every set and stopping short a few reps. Specifically, the average increase in muscle thickness was 0.181 cm for the training to failure each set group and 0.182 cm for the RIR group. These results suggest that stopping short of failure can produce muscle growth comparable to training to failure. Additionally, the study observes that neuromuscular fatigue was consistently higher in the group training to fail each set than the stopping short of failure. Lifting velocity and repetition loss are greater for the training to failure group protocol, indicating higher fatigue levels.
Rethinking Lifting to Failure Every Set Is Superior for Muscle Growth
The findings of this study support the idea that training with 1-2 RIR or stopping 1 to 2 reps short of failure can be as effective as lifting to failure every set for muscle hypertrophy. This challenges the traditional notion that lifting to failure is necessary to maximize muscle growth. One possible explanation is that training to failure may not provide additional benefits in terms of muscle fiber recruitment beyond a certain point. Comparing these results with previous research, it becomes clear that the effectiveness of training to failure is not as straightforward as once thought. Studies such as those by Andersen et al. (2021) and Helms et al. (2018) show similar findings, suggesting that proximity to failure, rather than reaching absolute failure, may be sufficient for hypertrophy.
Furthermore, the higher levels of neuromuscular fatigue associated with lifting to failure every set could potentially impair overall training stimulus and recovery (Alix-Fages et al., 2022). This indicates that training a few reps shy of muscular failure could be a more sustainable approach for long-term muscle growth and performance. To promote meaningful muscle hypertrophy, it is accepted that resistance-trained individuals should terminate sets with a close proximity to failure (defined as the number of repetitions remaining in a set prior to momentary muscular failure). (Hickmott et al., 2022)
Greater Neuromuscular Fatigue When Training to Failure Every Set
The study shows a similar increase in quadriceps thickness after eight weeks of resistance training performed to either failure (+6.96%) or stopping short of failure (+6.98%) in resistance-trained males and females. Despite similar quadriceps hypertrophy observed between protocols, slightly greater vastus lateralis hypertrophy occurs in lifting to failure every set versus stopping short a few reps. In contrast, slightly greater rectus femoris hypertrophy occurred in stopping short of failure versus lifting to failure each set. The present study’s findings thus highlight that muscle-specific hypertrophy can be influenced by the proximity-to-failure reached in given exercises, their order within a training session, and the subsequent targeted musculature.
Practical Applications for Lifting to failure every set
Based on the study’s findings, practical recommendations for resistance training can be made. For most individuals, stopping 1-2 reps short of failure can effectively promote muscle hypertrophy while reducing the risk of excessive fatigue and overtraining. This approach allows for similar volume load and repetition volume accumulation as training to failure without the associated drawbacks. For advanced lifters or those aiming to maximize specific aspects of performance, incorporating occasional sets to failure might still be beneficial. However, balancing these sessions with adequate recovery and lower-intensity training is essential to avoid chronic fatigue.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the new study provides compelling evidence that lifting to failure every set is unnecessary for achieving maximum muscle growth. Training with 1-2 RIR offers a viable alternative, promoting similar hypertrophy with less neuromuscular fatigue. This finding is particularly relevant for resistance-trained individuals seeking to optimize their training efficiency and recovery.
References
Alix-Fages, C., Del Vecchio, A., Baz-Valle, E., Santos-Concejero, J., & Balsalobre-Fernández, C. (2022). The role of the neural stimulus in regulating skeletal muscle hypertrophy. European Journal of Applied Physiology, 122(5), 1111-1128. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00421-022-04906-6
Andersen, V., Paulsen, G., Stien, N., Baarholm, M., Seynnes, O. R., & Saeterbakken, A. H. (2021). Resistance Training With Different Velocity Loss Thresholds Induce Similar Changes in Strengh and Hypertrophy. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research.
Grgic, J., Schoenfeld, B. J., Orazem, J., & Sabol, F. (2022). Effects of resistance training performed to repetition failure or non-failure on muscular strength and hypertrophy: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Sport and Health Science, 11(2), 202-211. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jshs.2021.01.007
Helms, E. R., Byrnes, R. K., Cooke, D. M., Haischer, M. H., Carzoli, J. P., Johnson, T. K., Cross, M. R., Cronin, J. B., Storey, A. G., & Zourdos, M. C. (2018). RPE vs. Percentage 1RM Loading in Periodized Programs Matched for Sets and Repetitions [Original Research]. Frontiers in Physiology, 9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2018.00247
Hickmott, L. M., Chilibeck, P. D., Shaw, K. A., & Butcher, S. J. (2022). The Effect of Load and Volume Autoregulation on Muscular Strength and Hypertrophy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Sports Medicine – Open, 8(1), 9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40798-021-00404-9
References
Jenkins, N. D. M., Miramonti, A. A., Hill, E. C., Smith, C. M., Cochrane-Snyman, K. C., Housh, T. J., & Cramer, J. T. (2017). Greater Neural Adaptations Following High- Vs. Low-Load Resistance Training. Frontiers in Physiology, 8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2017.00331
Martorelli, A. S., De Lima, F. D., Vieira, A., Tufano, J. J., Ernesto, C., Boullosa, D., & Bottaro, M. (2021). The interplay between internal and external load parameters during different strength training sessions in resistance-trained men. European Journal of Sport Science, 21(1), 16-25. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/17461391.2020.1725646
Martorelli, S., Cadore, E. L., Izquierdo, M., Celes, R., Martorelli, A., Cleto, V. A., Alvarenga, J. G. S. d., & Bottaro, M. (2017). Strength Training With Repetitions to Failure Does Not Provide Additional Strength and Muscle Hypertrophy Gains in Young Women. European Journal of Translational Myology, 27(2). https://doi.org/10.4081/ejtm.2017.6339
Nóbrega, S. R., Ugrinowitsch, C., Pintanel, L., Barcelos, C., & Libardi, C. A. (2018). 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(1), 162-169. https://doi.org/10.1519/jsc.0000000000001787
Refalo, M. C., Helms, E. R., Hamilton, D. L., & Fyfe, J. J. (2023). Influence of Resistance Training Proximity-to-Failure, Determined by Repetitions-in-Reserve, on Neuromuscular Fatigue in Resistance-Trained Males and Females. Sports Medicine – Open, 9(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40798-023-00554-y
Refalo, M. C., Helms, E. R., Robinson, Z. P., Hamilton, D. L., & Fyfe, J. J. (2024). Similar muscle hypertrophy following eight weeks of resistance training to momentary muscular failure or with repetitions-in-reserve in resistance-trained individuals. J Sports Sci, 42(1), 85-101. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2024.2321021
Santanielo, N., Nóbrega, S., Scarpelli, M., Alvarez, I., Otoboni, G., Pintanel, L., & Libardi, C. (2020). Effect of resistance training to muscle failure vs non-failure on strength, hypertrophy and muscle architecture in trained individuals [journal article]. Biology of Sport, 37(4), 333-341. https://doi.org/10.5114/biolsport.2020.96317
