Accuracy in Predicting Repetitions to Task Failure in Resistance Exercise: A Scoping Review and Exploratory Meta-analysis

Estimating Repetitions in Reserve During the Bench Press Exercise: Should We Consider Sex and the Exercise Equipment?

BACKGROUND

Estimating repetitions in reserve (RIR) has been established as a valid and practical method for monitoring set configuration concerning proximity to failure in resistance training. However, factors such as sex and exercise equipment could interfere with the estimation process. Therefore, this study aimed to determine the influence of sex (female vs male) and exercise equipment (free-weight vs Smith machine) on the RIR estimation at different relative loads during the bench press exercise.

HYPOTHESIS

Men would be more accurate than women in the RIR estimation, and participants would better perceive their actual effort at the Smith machine compared with the free-weight bench press exercise.

STUDY DESIGN

Repeated measures design.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level 3.

METHODS

In a counterbalanced order, recreationally trained participants (12 female, 14 male) performed 2 identical sessions with the free-weight bench press exercise in 1 week and 2 identical sessions with the Smith machine bench press exercise in another week (first session for familiarization and second session for validity analysis). In each session, participants performed single sets of repetitions to failure against 3 relative loads (65%, 75%, and 85% of the 1-repetition maximum [1RM]).

RESULTS

Results revealed a significant interaction between RIR and sex at 65% 1RM (P < 0.01; women: -1.2 [-1.7 to -0.6] repetitions; men: -0.1 [-0.6 to 0.3] repetitions), and between RIR and exercise equipment at 65% 1RM (P < 0.01; free-weight: -1.1 [-1.5 to -0.6] repetitions; Smith machine: -0.2 [-0.6 to 0.2] repetitions), but not at 75% and 85% 1RM.

CONCLUSIONS

RIR estimation is a valid method for monitoring set configuration. However, this method tends to underestimate RIR at 65%1RM with female athletes and in the free-weight exercise for both sexes.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Strength and conditioning coaches should help their athletes understand effort awareness in the aforementioned context.

Exploring the Dose-Response Relationship Between Estimated Resistance Training Proximity to Failure, Strength Gain, and Muscle Hypertrophy: A Series of Meta-Regressions

BACKGROUND

The proximity to failure in which sets are terminated has gained attention in the scientific literature as a potentially key resistance training variable. Multiple meta-analyses have directly (i.e., failure versus not to failure) or indirectly (e.g., velocity loss, alternative set structures) evaluated the effect of proximity to failure on strength and muscle hypertrophy outcomes categorically; however, the dose-response effects of proximity to failure have not been analyzed collectively in a continuous manner.

OBJECTIVE

To meta-analyze the aforementioned areas of relevant research, proximity to failure was quantified as the number of repetitions in reserve (RIR). Importantly, the RIR associated with each effect in the analysis was estimated on the basis of the available descriptions of the training interventions in each study. Data were extracted and a series of exploratory multilevel meta-regressions were performed for outcomes related to both strength and muscle hypertrophy. A range of sensitivity analyses were also performed. All models were adjusted for the effects of load, method of volume equating, duration of intervention, and training status.

RESULTS

The best fit models for both strength and muscle hypertrophy outcomes demonstrated modest quality of overall fit. In all of the best-fit models for strength, the confidence intervals of the marginal slopes for estimated RIR contained a null point estimate, indicating a negligible relationship with strength gains. However, in all of the best-fit models for muscle hypertrophy, the marginal slopes for estimated RIR were negative and their confidence intervals did not contain a null point estimate, indicating that changes in muscle size increased as sets were terminated closer to failure.

CONCLUSIONS

The dose-response relationship between proximity to failure and strength gain appears to differ from the relationship with muscle hypertrophy, with only the latter being meaningfully influenced by RIR. Strength gains were similar across a wide range of RIR, while muscle hypertrophy improves as sets are terminated closer to failure. Considering the RIR estimation procedures used, however, the exact relationship between RIR and muscle hypertrophy and strength remains unclear. Researchers and practitioners should be aware that optimal proximity to failure may differ between strength and muscle hypertrophy outcomes, but caution is warranted when interpreting the present analysis due to its exploratory nature. Future studies deliberately designed to explore the continuous nature of the dose-response effects of proximity to failure in large samples should be considered.

Assessing the efficacy of the Stop OsteoARthritis (SOAR) program: A randomized delayed-controlled trial in persons at increased risk of early onset post-traumatic knee osteoarthritis

OBJECTIVE

Assess the efficacy of an 8-week virtual, physiotherapist (PT)-guided knee health program (Stop OsteoARthritis (SOAR)) to improve knee extensor strength in individuals at risk of post-traumatic knee osteoarthritis (PTOA).

METHOD

In this superiority, randomized delayed-control trial, persons aged 16-35 years, 1-4 years after a self-reported knee joint injury were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive the SOAR program immediately (experimental group) or after a 9-week delay (control group). SOAR includes 1) one-time Knee Camp (virtual PT-guided group education, knee assessment, 1:1 exercise and physical activity (PA) goal-setting); 2) Weekly personalized home-based exercise and PA program with tracking; 3) Weekly 1:1 PT counseling (virtual). The primary outcome was a change in isokinetic knee extensor strength (baseline to 9-weeks). Additional outcomes included change in self-reported knee-related quality-of-life (QOL), self-efficacy, self-management and kinesiophobia, and PA (accelerometer) at 9 and 18-weeks. Linear regression models estimated the effect of the 8-week intervention at the primary endpoint (9-week).

RESULTS

49 of 54 randomized participants completed the study (91%). Participants were a mean ± standard deviation age of 27 ± 5.0 years, and 2.4 ± 0.9 years post-injury. No mean between group differences for the primary (0.05; 95% confidence interval (CI): -0.10, 0.19) or other outcomes were seen at 9 weeks except for greater improvements in perceived self-management (Partner in Health Scale; 11.3/96, 95%CI: 5.5, 17.1) and kinesiophobia (Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia; -4.4/33, 95%CI: -7.0, -1.8).

CONCLUSION

For active persons with elevated risk of PTOA, an 8-week SOAR program did not change knee-related strength, QOL, self-efficacy, or PA, on average, but may benefit the ability to self-manage knee health and kinesiophobia.

Inter-Repetition Rest Impact on the Estimated Repetitions in Reserve at Various Loads and Proximities to Neuromuscular Failure

ABSTRACT

Ruiz-Alias, SA, Ramirez-Campillo, R, Leando Quidel-Catrilelbún, ME, García-Pinillos, F, and Pérez-Castilla, A. Inter-repetition rest impact on the estimated repetitions in reserve at various loads and proximities to neuromuscular failure . J Strength Cond Res 38(8): 1379-1385, 2024-The repetitions in reserve (RIR) estimation method allows for monitoring resistance training set volume. However, a significant bias is commonly observed when ending the set further from neuromuscular failure and using lower relative loads. Is unclear if implementing an IRR could improve its estimation validity. This study aimed to determine if the RIR estimation is influenced by the IRR at different relative loads and proximities to neuromuscular failure during the back squat (BQ) and bench press (BP) exercises. After a familiarization session, 19 male subjects (age, 21-26 years) completed an experimental session for each IRR configuration: IRR0 (without rest), IRR3 (3 seconds of rest), and SSIRR (self-selected rest [up to 5 seconds]). In each session, single sets to neuromuscular failure were performed at 3 relative loads (65% 1 repetition maximum [1RM], 75% 1RM, 85% 1RM) for BQ and BP exercises. Using the Estimated Repetitions to Failure scale, subjects estimated the RIR associated with a score of "5" and "2" (i.e., RIR-5 and RIR-2). The results revealed no interactions between the RIR estimation and IRR for BQ (RIR-5: p = 0.812; RIR-2: p = 0.084) or BP (RIR-5: p = 0.884; RIR-2: p = 0.944). Subjects provided valid estimations, with overestimation (BQ RIR-5: 0%; BQ RIR-2: 2.9%; BP RIR-5: 1.1%; BP RIR-2: 2.3%) or underestimation (BQ RIR-5: 14.9%; BQ RIR-2: 4%; BP RIR-5: 15.2% BP RIR-2: 8.2%) in few sets. In conclusion, the RIR estimation method seems valid, and the IRR (0-5 seconds) does not influence its validity at 65-85% 1RM loads nor proximities to neuromuscular failure (RIR-2, RIR-5).

A Comparison of Subjective Estimations and Objective Velocities at Quantifying Proximity to Failure for the Bench Press in Resistance-Trained Men and Women

ABSTRACT

Hickmott, LM, Butcher, SJ, and Chilibeck, PD. A comparison of subjective estimations and objective velocities at quantifying proximity to failure for the bench press in resistance-trained men and women. J Strength Cond Res 38(7): 1206-1212, 2024-The purpose of this study was to compare the accuracy of quantifying repetitions in reserve (RIR) in the bench press among 18 men and 18 women between 2 conditions: (a) subjective estimations and (b) objective velocities. Subjects performed 4 sessions over 10 days: (a) 1 repetition maximum (1RM) test; (b) repetition-to-failure test at 80% of 1RM; (c) 3 sets to failure at 80% of 1RM; and (d) 3 sets to failure at 75, 80, and 85% of 1RM. During sessions 2, 3, and 4, subjects verbally stated their perceived 4 and 2 RIR intraset, whereas average concentric velocity was recorded on all repetitions. The dependent variable for the subjective estimations condition was the difference between the actual number of RIR and the subject's subjective estimated number of RIR at the verbally stated 4 and 2 RIR. The dependent variable for the objective velocities condition was the difference between the actual number of RIR and the number of RIR calculated from the subject's baseline individualized last repetition average concentric velocity-RIR profile. Significance was set at p ≤ 0.05. Sessions 3 and 4 had significant ( p < 0.001) condition × set and condition × load interactions, respectively, at both 4 and 2 RIR. Objective velocities were significantly more accurate than subjective estimations on set 1 and set 2 at both RIRs during session 3 and for 75 and 80% of 1RM at both RIRs during session 4. Objective velocities exhibit significantly greater accuracy than subjective estimations at quantifying RIR during initial sets and lower loads.

Feasibility and Usefulness of Repetitions-In-Reserve Scales for Selecting Exercise Intensity: A Scoping Review

The intensity of resistance training (RT) exercise is an important consideration for determining relevant health and performance-related outcomes. Yet, current objective exercise intensity measures present concerns in terms of viability or cost. In response to these concerns, repetition-in-reserve (RIR) scales may represent an adequate method of measuring and regulating intensity. However, no recent review has focused on how RIR scales have been used for this purpose in prior research. We prepared the present scoping review to analyze the feasibility and usefulness of RIR scales in selecting RT intensity. We conducted a systematic search in PubMed, SPORTDiscus, PsycINFO, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases (last search date April 2023) for experimental and non-experimental studies that utilized an RIR scale to measure proximity to failure in RT activities with apparently healthy individuals of any age. We qualitatively analyzed 31 studies (N = 855 mostly male adult participants) published between 2012-2023. RIR scales appeared to be contextually feasible and useful in prescribing and adjusting RT intensity. The most common trend in this research was to prescribe a target RIR and adjust the exercise load for a desired proximity to muscle failure. Additionally, when measuring proximity to failure as an outcome of interest, the literature suggests that the RIR prediction should be made close to task failure to increase its accuracy. Future research should further explore the impact of sex, RT experience, exercise selection, and muscle conditioning on the overall RIR approach.

Accuracy of Intraset Repetitions-in-Reserve Predictions During the Bench Press Exercise in Resistance-Trained Male and Female Subjects

ABSTRACT

Refalo, MC, Remmert, JF, Pelland, JC, Robinson, ZP, Zourdos, MC, Hamilton, DL, Fyfe, JJ, and Helms, ER. Accuracy of intraset repetitions-in-reserve predictions during the bench press exercise in resistance-trained male and female subjects. J Strength Cond Res 38(3): e78-e85, 2024-This study assessed the accuracy of intraset repetitions-in-reserve (RIR) predictions to provide evidence for the efficacy of RIR prescription as a set termination method to inform proximity to failure during resistance training (RT). Twenty-four resistance trained male ( n = 12) and female ( n = 12) subjects completed 2 experimental sessions involving 2 sets performed to momentary muscular failure (barbell bench press exercise) with 75% of 1 repetition maximum (1RM), whereby subjects verbally indicated when they perceived to had reached either 1 RIR or 3 RIR. The difference between the predicted RIR and the actual RIR was defined as the "RIR accuracy" and was quantified as both raw (i.e., direction of error) and absolute (i.e., magnitude of error) values. High raw and absolute mean RIR accuracy (-0.17 ± 1.00 and 0.65 ± 0.78 repetitions, respectively) for 1-RIR and 3-RIR predictions were observed (including all sets and sessions completed). We identified statistical equivalence (equivalence range of ±1 repetition, thus no level of statistical significance was set) in raw and absolute RIR accuracy between (a) 1-RIR and 3-RIR predictions, (b) set 1 and set 2, and (c) session 1 and session 2. No evidence of a relationship was found between RIR accuracy and biological sex, years of RT experience, or relative bench press strength. Overall, resistance-trained individuals are capable of high absolute RIR accuracy when predicting 1 and 3 RIR on the barbell bench press exercise, with a minor tendency for underprediction. Thus, RIR prescriptions may be used in research and practice to inform the proximity to failure achieved upon set termination.

Similar muscle hypertrophy following eight weeks of resistance training to momentary muscular failure or with repetitions-in-reserve in resistance-trained individuals

This study examined the influence of resistance training (RT) proximity-to-failure, determined by repetitions-in-reserve (RIR), on quadriceps hypertrophy and neuromuscular fatigue. Resistance-trained males (n = 12) and females (n = 6) completed an 8-week intervention involving two RT sessions per week. Lower limbs were randomised to perform the leg press and leg extension exercises either to i) momentary muscular failure (FAIL), or ii) a perceived 2-RIR and 1-RIR, respectively (RIR). Muscle thickness of the quadriceps [rectus femoris (RF) and vastus lateralis (VL)] and acute neuromuscular fatigue (i.e., repetition and lifting velocity loss) were assessed. Data was analysed with Bayesian linear mixed-effect models. Increases in quadriceps thickness (average of RF and VL) from pre- to post-intervention were similar for FAIL [0.181 cm (HDI: 0.119 to 0.243)] and RIR [0.182 cm (HDI: 0.115 to 0.247)]. Between-protocol differences in RF thickness slightly favoured RIR [-0.036 cm (HDI: -0.113 to 0.047)], but VL thickness slightly favoured FAIL [0.033 cm (HDI: -0.046 to 0.116)]. Mean volume was similar across the RT intervention between FAIL and RIR. Lifting velocity and repetition loss were consistently greater for FAIL versus RIR, with the magnitude of difference influenced by the exercise and the stage of the RT intervention.

Reliability and Validity of Different Lower-Limb Strength Tests to Determine 1RM in the Keiser A300 Leg Press

ABSTRACT

Larsen, F, Loturco, I, Sigvaldsen, E, Strand, MF, Kalhovde, JM, and Haugen, T. Reliability and validity of different lower-limb strength tests to determine 1RM in the Keiser A300 leg press. J Strength Cond Res 37(10): 1963-1968, 2023-The aim of this study was to explore the reliability and validity of different lower-limb strength tests to determine the one-repetition maximum (1RM) value in the Keiser A300 leg press. Twenty-eight recreationally active subjects performed load-velocity (L-V) relationship, 1RM, isometric midthigh pull (IMTP), and maximal repetitions to failure (MRF) tests on 3 separated sessions. Predicted 1RMs for the L-V relationship were estimated from a linear regression equation, correlating movement velocity and relative loads. The number of repetitions from the MRF tests (at loads relative to bodyweight) and peak force from the IMTP tests were used in regression equations to predict 1RM. The level of significance was set to ρ ≤ 0.05. All 1RM prediction methods were highly comparable with the traditional 1RM test, as only trivial and nonsignificant differences were observed. Furthermore, the L-V relationship was the most reliable (intraclass correlation coefficient [± 95% confidence interval] = 0.99 [0.98, 0.996]; effect size = -0.01 [-0.38, 0.36], standard error of the measurement = 6.4 kg; coefficient of variation = 3.0 [2.2-3.8]% and valid (r = 0.95 [0.89, 0.98], effect size = 0.08 [-0.29, 0.45], standard error of the estimate = 20.4 kg; coefficient of variation = 7.4 [5.5-9.3]%) when compared with direct 1RM measurements. The L-V relationship test showed a significant change score relationship (r = 0.41 [0.04, 0.68]) against the direct 1RM measurements. In conclusion, the tests used in this study cannot be used interchangeably, but they represent a good alternative in training settings where 1RM testing is not feasible.

Changes in Intraset Repetitions in Reserve Prediction Accuracy During Six Weeks of Bench Press Training in Trained Men

In this study we investigated whether the accuracy of intraset repetitions in reserve (RIR) predictions changes over time. Nine trained men completed three bench press training sessions per week for 6 weeks (following a 1-week familiarization). The final set of each session was performed until momentary muscular failure, with participants verbally indicating their perceived 4RIR and 1RIR. RIR prediction errors were calculated as raw differences (RIRDIFF), with positive and negative values indicating directionality, and absolute RIRDIFF (absolute value of raw RIRDIFF) indicating error scores. We constructed mixed effect models with time (i.e., session) and proximity to failure as fixed effects, repetitions as a covariate, and random intercepts per participant to account for repeated measures, with statistical significance set at p ≤ .05. We observed a significant main effect for time on raw RIRDIFF (p < .001), with an estimated marginal slope of -.077 repetitions, indicating a slight decrease in raw RIRDIFF over time. Further, the estimated marginal slope of repetitions was -.404 repetitions, indicating a decrease in raw RIRDIFF as more repetitions were performed. There were no significant effects on absolute RIRDIFF. Thus, RIR rating accuracy did not significantly improve over time, though there was a greater tendency to underestimate RIR in later sessions and during higher repetition sets.

One Velocity Loss Threshold Does Not Fit All: Consideration of Sex, Training Status, History, and Personality Traits When Monitoring and Controlling Fatigue During Resistance Training

PURPOSE

This study aimed to quantify the potential variability in the volume of work completed after reaching different velocity loss (VL) thresholds and determine the effects of sex, training status and history, as well as psychological traits on the reliability and magnitude of the amount of work completed after reaching different VL thresholds using different loads in the back-squat exercise.

METHODS

Forty-six resistance-trained people (15 females and 31 males; 18 to 40 years of age) with a wide range of strength levels, training experience, and different training practices were recruited and performed a one-repetition maximum (1RM) test, and two repetitions to failure (RTF) tests 72 h apart. RTF tests were performed with 70, 80, and 90% of 1RM with 10 min of rest between sets. The Bland-Altman analysis for multiple observations per participant and equivalence tests were used to quantify the variability in the volume of work completed after reaching different VL thresholds, whereas linear and generalised mixed-effects models were used to examine the effects of different moderators on the stability and magnitude of the amount of work completed after reaching different VL thresholds.

RESULTS

The findings of the present study question the utility of using VL thresholds to prescribe resistance training (RT) volume as the agreement in the amount of work completed across two consecutive testing sessions was not acceptable. Regardless of the load used, females completed more repetitions than males across VL thresholds, while males performed repetitions at higher velocities. In addition, individuals with higher levels of emotional stability also tended to perform more repetitions across VL thresholds. Finally, sex, choice of load, strength levels and training practices, as well as emotional stability affected the linearity of the repetition-velocity relationship and when sets terminated.

CONCLUSION

Using the same VL thresholds for all individuals, while assuming generalisability of the stimuli applied, would likely lead to variable acute physiological responses to RT and divergent neuromuscular adaptations over long term. Therefore, VL monitoring practices could be improved by considering sex, training status, history, and psychological traits of individuals due to their effects on the variability in responses to different VL thresholds.

Meta-analysis of variation in sport and exercise science: Examples of application within resistance training research

Meta-analysis has become commonplace within sport and exercise science for synthesising and summarising empirical studies. However, most research in the field focuses upon mean effects, particularly the effects of interventions to improve outcomes such as fitness or performance. It is thought that individual responses to interventions vary considerably. Hence, interest has increased in exploring precision or personalised exercise approaches. Not only is the mean often affected by interventions, but variation may also be impacted. Exploration of variation in studies such as randomised controlled trials (RCTs) can yield insight into interindividual heterogeneity in response to interventions and help determine generalisability of effects. Yet, larger samples sizes than those used for typical mean effects are required when probing variation. Thus, in a field with small samples such as sport and exercise science, exploration of variation through a meta-analytic framework is appealing. Despite the value of embracing and exploring variation alongside mean effects in sport and exercise science, it is rarely applied to research synthesis through meta-analysis. We introduce and evaluate different effect size calculations along with models for meta-analysis of variation using relatable examples from resistance training RCTs.

Submaximal Fitness Test in Team Sports: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Exercise Heart Rate Measurement Properties

BACKGROUND

Submaximal fitness tests (SMFT) are a pragmatic approach for evaluating athlete's physiological state, due to their time-efficient nature, low physiological burden and relative ease of administration in team sports settings. While a variety of outcome measures can be collected during SMFT, exercise heart rate (HRex) is the most popular. Understanding the measurement properties of HRex can support the interpretation of data and assist in decision making regarding athlete's current physiological state and training effects.

OBJECTIVES

The aims of our systematic review and meta-analysis were to: (1) establish meta-analytic estimates of SMFT HRex reliability and convergent validity and (2) examine the moderating influence of athlete and protocol characteristics on the magnitude of these measurement properties.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic literature search with MEDLINE, Scopus and Web of Science databases for studies published up until January 2022 since records began. Studies were considered for inclusion when they  included team sports athletes and the reliability and/or convergent validity of SMFT HRex was investigated. Reliability statistics included the group mean difference (MD), typical error of measurement (TE) and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) derived from test-retest(s) designs. Pearson's correlation coefficient (r) describing the relationship between SMFT HRex and a criterion measure of endurance performance was used as the statistic for convergent validity. Qualitative assessment was conducted using risk of bias assessment tool for non-randomised studies. Mixed-effects, multilevel hierarchical models combined with robust variance estimate tests were performed to obtain pooled measurement property estimates, effect heterogeneity, and meta-regression of modifying effects.

RESULTS

The electronic search yielded 21 reliability (29 samples) and 20 convergent validity (29 samples) studies that met the inclusion criteria. Reliability meta-analysis indicated good absolute (MD = 0.5 [95% CI 0.1 to 0.9] and TE = 1.6 [95% CI 1.4 to 1.9] % points), and high relative (ICC = 0.88 [95% CI 0.84 to 0.91]) reliability. Convergent validity meta-analysis indicated an inverse, large relationship (r = - 0.58 [95% CI - 0.62 to - 0.54]) between SMFT HRex and endurance tests performance. Meta-regression analyses suggested no meaningful influence of SMFT protocol or athlete characteristics on reliability or convergent validity estimates.

CONCLUSIONS

Submaximal fitness test HRex is a reliable and valid proxy indicator of endurance performance in team sport athletes. Athlete and SMFT protocol characteristics do not appear to have a meaningful effect on these measurement properties. Practitioners may implement SMFT HRex for monitoring athlete's physiological state by using our applied implications to guide the interpretation of data in practice. Future research should examine the utility of SMFT HRex to track within-athlete changes in aerobic capacity, as well as any further possible effects of SMFT protocols design elements or HRex analytical methods on measurement properties. Registration Protocol registration can be found in Open Science Framework and available through https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/9C2JV .

Influence of Resistance Training Proximity-to-Failure, Determined by Repetitions-in-Reserve, on Neuromuscular Fatigue in Resistance-Trained Males and Females

BACKGROUND

This study examined the influence of proximity-to-failure in resistance training (RT), using subjective repetitions-in-reserve (RIR) prediction, on neuromuscular fatigue and perceptual responses.

METHODS

Twenty-four resistance-trained males (n = 12) and females (n = 12) completed three experimental trials in a randomised order, each involving six RT sets (barbell bench press) with 75% 1-RM performed to either momentary muscular failure (FAIL), 1-RIR, or 3-RIR. Changes in lifting velocity with a fixed load were assessed from pre-exercise to post-exercise with the aim of quantifying acute neuromuscular fatigue (4 min post-exercise) and the associated time course of recovery (24 and 48 h post-exercise), and from the first to final set performed. Perceptual responses to RT were assessed at multiple time points during and following RT.

RESULTS

Decreases in lifting velocity at 4 min post-exercise were greater for FAIL ( - 25%) versus 1-RIR ( - 13%) and 3-RIR ( - 8%), with greater decreases for male ( - 29%) versus female ( - 21%) participants following FAIL. At 24 h post-exercise, decreases in lifting velocity were greater for FAIL ( - 3%) and 1-RIR ( - 3%) versus 3-RIR (+ 2%), with all between-protocol differences diminishing at 48 h post-exercise. Loss of lifting velocity from the first to final set was greater for FAIL ( - 22%) versus 1-RIR ( - 9%) and 3-RIR ( - 6%), with a greater lifting velocity loss from the first to final set for males ( - 15%) versus females ( - 9%). As proximity-to-failure neared, ratings of perceived discomfort, exertion, and muscle soreness increased, general feelings worsened, and perceived recovery decreased.

CONCLUSION

These findings support a linear relationship between RT proximity-to-failure and both acute neuromuscular fatigue and negative perceptual responses, which may influence long-term physiological adaptations and adherence to RT.

Barbell load distribution and lifting velocity affect bench press exercise volume and perceived exertion

OBJECTIVE

The intensity of barbell bench press exercise is generally prescribed as the load to be lifted for a specific number of repetitions; however, other factors (e.g., execution velocity) can affect bench press exercise intensity. Moreover, no study assessed whether load distribution (i.e., the distance between the disc stacks on the two sides of the barbell) affects exercise intensity. The present study aims to assess how different combinations of load, velocity, and barbell load distribution affect the number of repetitions to failure (REPfailure), and rating of perceived exertion (RPEfatigue) and number of repetitions (REPfatigue) at fatigue onset.

METHODS

Ten males (age 23.3±1.8 years) performed bench press exercises to exhaustion using random combinations of three loads (50%, 65%, and 80% of 1 repetition maximum), three execution velocities (50%, 70%, and 90% of maximal concentric velocity), and two load distributions (narrow and wide). Three separate three-way repeated-measures ANOVAs were performed to assess the effect of load, velocity, and load distribution on REPfailure, RPEfatigue, and REPfatigue expressed as a percentage of REPfailure.

RESULTS

REPfailure was affected by load (p<0.001), velocity (p<0.001), and distribution (p = 0.005). The interactions between load and velocity (p<0.001) and load and distribution (p = 0.004) showed a significant effect on REPfailure, whereas the interaction between velocity and distribution was not significant (p = 0.360). Overall, more REPfailure were performed using lower loads, higher velocities, and a wider distribution. RPEfatigue and REPfatigue were affected by load (p<0.001 and p = 0.007, respectively) and velocity (p<0.001 and p<0.001, respectively), and not by distribution (p = 0.510 and p = 0.571, respectively) or the two-way interaction effects. Overall, using higher loads yielded higher RPEfatigue but lower REPfatigue, while RPEfatigue and REPfatigue were higher when slower velocities were used.

CONCLUSION

The current investigation shows that not only load but also velocity and barbell load distribution may influence bench press training volume and perceived exertion.

Towards an improved understanding of proximity-to-failure in resistance training and its influence on skeletal muscle hypertrophy, neuromuscular fatigue, muscle damage, and perceived discomfort: A scoping review

While proximity-to-failure is considered an important resistance training (RT) prescription variable, its influence on physiological adaptations and short-term responses to RT is uncertain. Given the ambiguity in the literature, a scoping review was undertaken to summarise evidence for the influence of proximity-to-failure on muscle hypertrophy, neuromuscular fatigue, muscle damage and perceived discomfort. Literature searching was performed according to PRISMA-ScR guidelines and identified three themes of studies comparing either: i) RT performed to momentary muscular failure versus non-failure, ii) RT performed to set failure (defined as anything other than momentary muscular failure) versus non-failure, and iii) RT performed to different velocity loss thresholds. The findings highlight that no consensus definition for "failure" exists in the literature, and the proximity-to-failure achieved in "non-failure" conditions is often ambiguous and variable across studies. This poses challenges when deriving practical recommendations for manipulating proximity-to-failure in RT to achieve desired outcomes. Based on the limited available evidence, RT to set failure is likely not superior to non-failure RT for inducing muscle hypertrophy, but may exacerbate neuromuscular fatigue, muscle damage, and post-set perceived discomfort versus non-failure RT. Together, these factors may impair post-exercise recovery and subsequent performance, and may also negatively influence long-term adherence to RT.KEY POINTS This scoping review identified three broad themes of studies investigating proximity-to-failure in RT, based on the specific definition of set failure used (and therefore the research question being examined), to improve the validity of study comparisons and interpretations.There is no consensus definition for set failure in RT, and the proximity-to-failure achieved during non-failure RT is often unclear and varies both within and between studies, which together poses challenges when interpreting study findings and deriving practical recommendations regarding the influence of RT proximity-to-failure on muscle hypertrophy and other short-term responses.Based on the limited available evidence, performing RT to set failure is likely not superior to non-failure RT to maximise muscle hypertrophy, but the optimal proximity to failure in RT for muscle hypertrophy is unclear and may be moderated by other RT variables (e.g., load, volume-load). Also, RT performed to set failure likely induces greater neuromuscular fatigue, muscle damage, and perceived discomfort than non-failure RT, which may negatively influence RT performance, post-RT recovery, and long-term adherence.

Prescribing Intensity in Resistance Training Using Rating of Perceived Effort: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Introduction: Rating of perceived effort (RPE) scales are used to prescribe intensity in resistance training (RT) in several ways. For instance, trainees can reach a specific RPE value by modifying the number of repetitions, lifted loads, or other training variables. Given the multiple approaches of prescribing intensity using RPE and its growing popularity, we compared the effects of two RPE prescription approaches on adherence rates, body composition, performance and psychological outcomes, in an online RT intervention. Methods: We randomly assigned 57 healthy participants without RT experience (60% females, age range: 18-45) to one of two groups that received two weekly RT sessions using a resistance-band for 8 weeks. In the fixed-repetition group, participants adjusted the band resistance with the goal of completing 10 repetitions and reaching a 7-RPE on a 0-10 scale by the 10th repetition. In the open-repetition group, participants selected their preferred band resistance and completed repetitions until reaching a 7-RPE by the final repetition. We measured body composition, performance, and program satisfaction rates. Results: We assessed 46 participants at post-test, 24 from the fixed-repetition group and 22 from the open-repetition group. We observed non-significant and trivial differences between groups in all outcomes (p > 0.05). We then combined the pre-post change scores of the two groups. We found that adherence rates began at 89% and gradually decreased to 42%. On average, participants increased their fat-free mass [0.3 kg (95% CI: 0.1-0.6)], isometric mid-thigh pull [5.5 kg (95% CI: 0.8-10.4)], isometric knee-extension [2.2 kg (95% CI: 0.8-3.7)], and push-ups [6.3 repetitions (95% CI: 4.5-8.2)]. We observed non-significant and trivial changes in bodyweight, grip-force, and countermovement jump. Participants reported high satisfaction rates with all components of the program. Conclusion: Participants in both groups improved their body composition and physical capacity to a similar extent, and reported comparable satisfaction rates with the programs they followed. Accordingly, either prescription approach can be used to deliver online RT sessions based on personal preferences and logistical constraints. However, since adherences rates declined over the course of the study, future research should test additional strategies aiming to maintain adherence rates.

Methods for Controlling and Reporting Resistance Training Proximity to Failure: Current Issues and Future Directions

Resistance training variables such as volume, load, and frequency are well defined. However, the variable proximity to failure does not have a consistent quantification method, despite being defined as the number of repetitions in reserve (RIR) upon completion of a resistance training set. Further, there is between-study variability in the definition of failure itself. Studies have defined failure as momentary (inability to complete the concentric phase despite maximal effort), volitional (self-termination), or have provided no working definition. Methods to quantify proximity to failure include percentage-based prescription, repetition maximum zone training, velocity loss, and self-reported RIR; each with positives and negatives. Specifically, applying percentage-based prescriptions across a group may lead to a wide range of per-set RIR owing to interindividual differences in repetitions performed at specific percentages of 1 repetition maximum. Velocity loss is an objective method; however, the relationship between velocity loss and RIR varies set-to-set, across loading ranges, and between exercises. Self-reported RIR is inherently individualized; however, its subjectivity can lead to inaccuracy. Further, many studies, regardless of quantification method, do not report RIR. Consequently, it is difficult to make specific recommendations for per-set proximity to failure to maximize hypertrophy and strength. Therefore, this review aims to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the current proximity to failure quantification methods. Further, we propose future directions for researchers and practitioners to quantify proximity to failure, including implementation of absolute velocity stops using individual average concentric velocity/RIR relationships. Finally, we provide guidance for reporting self-reported RIR regardless of the quantification method.