The effects of resistance training to near failure on strength, hypertrophy, and motor unit adaptations in previously trained adults

Bradley A. Ruple,Daniel L. Plotkin,Morgan A. Smith,Joshua S. Godwin,Casey L. Sexton,Mason C. McIntosh,Nicholas J. Kontos,Jonathan P. Beausejour,Jason I. Pagan,Juan P. Rodriguez,Daniel Sheldon,Kevan S. Knowles,Cleiton A. Libardi,Kaelin C. Young,Matt S. Stock,Michael D. Roberts
DOI: https://doi.org/10.14814/phy2.15679
2023-05-07
Physiological Reports
Abstract:Limited data exist examining how resistance training to failure affects applied outcomes and single motor unit characteristics in previously trained individuals. Here, we show that training near failure versus not training near failure for 5 weeks similarly increases strength and does not affect muscle hypertrophy. However, training near failure increases lower‐threshold motor unit firing rates, and further research is needed to determine the significance of this finding. Limited research exists examining how resistance training to failure affects applied outcomes and single motor unit characteristics in previously trained individuals. Herein, resistance‐trained adults (24 ± 3 years old, self‐reported resistance training experience was 6 ± 4 years, 11 men and 8 women) were randomly assigned to either a low‐repetitions‐in‐reserve (RIR; i.e., training near failure, n = 10) or high‐RIR (i.e., not training near failure, n = 9) group. All participants implemented progressive overload during 5 weeks where low‐RIR performed squat, bench press, and deadlift twice weekly and were instructed to end each training set with 0–1 RIR. high‐RIR performed identical training except for being instructed to maintain 4–6 RIR after each set. During week 6, participants performed a reduced volume‐load. The following were assessed prior to and following the intervention: (i) vastus lateralis (VL) muscle cross‐sectional area (mCSA) at multiple sites; (ii) squat, bench press, and deadlift one‐repetition maximums (1RMs); and (iii) maximal isometric knee extensor torque and VL motor unit firing rates during an 80% maximal voluntary contraction. Although RIR was lower in the low‐ versus high‐RIR group during the intervention (p
What problem does this paper attempt to address?