A groundbreaking study led by Florida Atlantic University has shown that training closer to failure significantly boosts muscle growth while strength gains remain consistent regardless of intensity.
A new study led by Florida Atlantic University has unveiled crucial insights into optimizing resistance training routines. The comprehensive research underscores that while pushing your muscles closer to failure enhances muscle growth, it does not significantly impact strength gains.
The study, published in the journal Sports Medicine, analyzed data from 55 studies to determine the effect of training to the point of failure, where one can no longer complete another repetition, on muscle hypertrophy and strength. Researchers estimated the repetitions in reserve (RIR), or how many reps an individual could have performed before reaching failure, to assess its impact on training results.
“If you’re aiming for muscle growth, training closer to failure might be more effective. In other words, it doesn’t matter if you adjust training volume by changing sets or reps; the relationship between how close you train to failure and muscle growth remains the same,” Michael C. Zourdos, senior author and professor of exercise science at FAU, said in a news release. “For strength, how close you push to failure doesn’t seem to matter as much.”
This ground-breaking study found a clear distinction between the two primary objectives of strength training. For individuals focusing on muscle hypertrophy, training as close to failure as possible appears significantly beneficial. However, those aiming for strength gains might not need to endure the same degree of exertion. The researchers recommend staying between zero to five reps short of failure to optimize muscle growth while minimizing injury risks. For strength, they suggest stopping three to five reps shy of failure to avoid unnecessary physical strain.
“Training closer to failure enhances the accuracy of self-reported repetitions in reserve,” added Zac P. Robinson, the study’s first author. “When people estimate how many reps they have left, this perception influences the weights they choose.”
This insight is crucial because incorrect estimations can lead to under-training and hinder strength progress.
The findings question the often-prescribed notion that pushing to the maximum is necessary for all forms of muscle development. Moreover, they align training intensity with specific goals, offering a tailored approach for fitness enthusiasts, athletes and rehabilitation programs.
The study’s implications are far-reaching, suggesting that training protocols need not be universally grueling. By tailoring intensity to specific goals, trainers and athletes can better manage recovery and long-term performance.
Researchers from institutions in Australia, New Zealand and England collaborated on this meta-analysis. The diverse yet cohesive study efforts underline the global interest in optimizing physical training approaches.
Looking ahead, the FAU team acknowledges that more research is needed to refine the numerical relationship between proximity to failure and strength gains. Future studies are expected to include larger sample sizes and varied training regimens to bolster these findings. The continuous pursuit of such research signifies the ever-evolving understanding of fitness science.