Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Training to Fatigue: The Answer for Standardization When Assessing Muscle Hypertrophy?

  • Current Opinion
  • Published:
Sports Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Studies examining resistance training are of importance given that increasing or maintaining muscle mass aids in the prevention or attenuation of chronic disease. Within the literature, it is common practice to administer a set number of target repetitions to be completed by all individuals (i.e. 3 sets of 10) while setting the load relative to each individual’s predetermined strength level (usually a one-repetition maximum). This is done under the assumption that all individuals are receiving a similar stimulus upon completing the protocol, but this does not take into account individual variability with regard to how fatiguing the protocol actually is. Another limitation that exists within the current literature is the reporting of exercise volume in absolute or relative terms that are not truly replicable as they are both load-dependent and will differ based on the number of repetitions individuals can complete at a given relative load. Given that the level of fatigue caused by an exercise protocol is a good indicator of its hypertrophic potential, the most appropriate way to ensure all individuals are given a common stimulus is to prescribe exercise to volitional fatigue. While some authors commonly employ this practice, others still prescribe an arbitrary number of repetitions, which may lead to unfair comparisons between exercise protocols. The purpose of this opinion piece is to provide evidence for the need to standardize studies examining muscle hypertrophy. In our opinion, one way in which this can be accomplished is by prescribing all sets to volitional fatigue.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. 2008 Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans. Available at: http://www.health.gov/paguidelines/pdf/paguide.pdf. Accessed 4 Aug 2015.

  2. American College of Sports Medicine. American College of Sports Medicine position stand. Progression models in resistance training for healthy adults. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2009;41:687–708.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Dankel SJ, Loenneke JP, Loprinzi PD. Participation in muscle-strengthening activities as an alternative method for the prevention of multimorbidity. Prev Med. 2015;81:54–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Dankel SJ, Loenneke JP, Loprinzi PD. Determining the importance of meeting muscle-strengthening activity guidelines: is the behavior or the outcome of the behavior (strength) a more important determinant of all-cause mortality? Mayo Clin Proc. 2016;91:166–74.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Wolfe RR. The underappreciated role of muscle in health and disease. Am J Clin Nutr. 2006;84:475–82.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Wernbom M, Augustsson J, Thomeé R. The influence of frequency, intensity, volume and mode of strength training on whole muscle cross-sectional area in humans. Sports Med. 2007;37:225–64.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Hunter SK. Sex differences and mechanisms of task-specific muscle fatigue. Exerc Sport Sci Rev. 2009;37:113–22.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Richens B, Cleather DJ. The relationship between the number of repetitions performed at given intensities is different in endurance and strength trained athletes. Biol Sport. 2014;31:157–61.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Morton RW, McGlory C, Phillips SM. Nutritional interventions to augment resistance training-induced skeletal muscle hypertrophy. Front Physiol. 2015;6:245.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Hubal MJ, Gordish-Dressman H, Thompson PD, et al. Variability in muscle size and strength gain after unilateral resistance training. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2005;37:964–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Kraft JA, Green JM, Gast TM. Work distribution influences session ratings of perceived exertion response during resistance exercise matched for total volume. J Strength Cond Res Natl Strength Cond Assoc. 2014;28:2042–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Burd NA, Mitchell CJ, Churchward-Venne TA, et al. Bigger weights may not beget bigger muscles: evidence from acute muscle protein synthetic responses after resistance exercise. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab. 2012;37:551–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Marcotte GR, West DWD, Baar K. The molecular basis for load-induced skeletal muscle hypertrophy. Calcif Tissue Int. 2015;96:196–210.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Mitchell CJ, Churchward-Venne TA, West DDW, et al. Resistance exercise load does not determine training-mediated hypertrophic gains in young men. J Appl Physiol. [Internet]. 2012. Available at: http://jap.physiology.org/content/early/2012/04/12/japplphysiol.00307.2012. Accessed 29 Aug 2015.

  15. Ogasawara R, Loenneke JP, Thiebaud RS, et al. Low-load bench press training to fatigue results in muscle hypertrophy similar to high-load bench press training. Int J Clin Med. 2013;4:114–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Schoenfeld BJ, Ogborn DI, Krieger JW. Effect of repetition duration during resistance training on muscle hypertrophy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports Med. 2015;45:577–85.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Schoenfeld BJ, Wilson JM, Lowery RP, et al. Muscular adaptations in low- versus high-load resistance training: a meta-analysis. Eur J Sport Sci. 2016;16:1–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Krieger JW. Single versus multiple sets of resistance exercise: a meta-regression. J Strength Cond Res. 2009;23:1890–901.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Klemp A, Dolan C, Quiles JM, et al. Volume-equated high and low repetition daily undulating programming strategies produce similar hypertrophy and strength adaptations. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab. 2016;41(7):699–705.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Burd NA, West DWD, Staples AW, et al. Low-load high volume resistance exercise stimulates muscle protein synthesis more than high-load low volume resistance exercise in young men. PloS One. 2010;5:e12033.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Schoenfeld BJ, Peterson MD, Ogborn D, et al. Effects of low- vs. high-load resistance training on muscle strength and hypertrophy in well-trained men. J Strength Cond Res. 2015;29:2954–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Clark BC, Collier SR, Manini TM, et al. Sex differences in muscle fatigability and activation patterns of the human quadriceps femoris. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2005;94:196–206.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Counts BR, Buckner SL, Dankel SJ, et al. The acute and chronic effects of “no load” resistance training. Physiol Behav. 2016;164:345–52.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Dankel SJ, Buckner SL, Jessee MB, et al. Post-exercise blood flow restriction attenuates muscle hypertrophy. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2016;116(10):1955–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Van Roie E, Delecluse C, Coudyzer W, et al. Strength training at high versus low external resistance in older adults: effects on muscle volume, muscle strength, and force–velocity characteristics. Exp Gerontol. 2013;48:1351–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Campos GER, Luecke TJ, Wendeln HK, et al. Muscular adaptations in response to three different resistance-training regimens: specificity of repetition maximum training zones. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2002;88:50–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Burd NA, Andrews RJ, West DWD, et al. Muscle time under tension during resistance exercise stimulates differential muscle protein sub-fractional synthetic responses in men. J Physiol. 2012;590:351–62.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Henneman E, Somjen G, Carpenter DO. Functional significance of cell size in spinal motoneurons. J Neurophysiol. 1965;28:560–80.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Loenneke JP, Kim D, Fahs CA, et al. Effects of exercise with and without different degrees of blood flow restriction on torque and muscle activation. Muscle Nerve. 2015;51:713–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Vigotsky AD, Beardsley C, Contreras B, et al. Greater electromyographic responses do not imply greater motor unit recruitment and “hypertrophic potential” cannot be inferred. J Strength Cond Res. doi:10.1519/JSC.0000000000001249 (Epub 20 Dec 2015).

  31. McPhee JS, Williams AG, Stewart C, et al. The training stimulus experienced by the leg muscles during cycling in humans. Exp Physiol. 2009;94:684–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Labarbera KE, Murphy BG, Laroche DP, et al. Sex differences in blood flow restricted isotonic knee extensions to fatigue. J Sports Med Phys Fitness. 2013;53:444–52.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Izquierdo M, Ibañez J, González-Badillo JJ, et al. Differential effects of strength training leading to failure versus not to failure on hormonal responses, strength, and muscle power gains. J Appl Physiol. 1985;2006(100):1647–56.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Stowers T, McMillan J, Scala D, et al. The short-term effects of three different strength-power training methods. Natl Strength Cond Assoc. 1983;5:24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Fry DAC, Kraemer WJ. Resistance exercise overtraining and overreaching. Sports Med. 2012;23:106–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Fahs CA, Loenneke JP, Thiebaud RS, et al. Muscular adaptations to fatiguing exercise with and without blood flow restriction. Clin Physiol Funct Imaging. 2015;35:167–76.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Farup J, de Paoli F, Bjerg K, et al. Blood flow restricted and traditional resistance training performed to fatigue produce equal muscle hypertrophy. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2015;25:754–63.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Counts BR, Dankel SJ, Barnett BE, et al. Influence of relative blood flow restriction pressure on muscle activation and muscle adaptation. Muscle Nerve. 2016;53:438–45.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. McKendry J, Pérez-López A, McLeod M, et al. Short inter-set rest blunts resistance exercise-induced increases in myofibrillar protein synthesis and intracellular signalling in young males. Exp Physiol. 2016;101:866–82.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Ahtiainen JP, Pakarinen A, Alen M, et al. Short vs. long rest period between the sets in hypertrophic resistance training: influence on muscle strength, size, and hormonal adaptations in trained men. J Strength Cond Res. 2005;19:572–82.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. de Souza TP, Jr Fleck SJ, Simão R, et al. Comparison between constant and decreasing rest intervals: influence on maximal strength and hypertrophy. J Strength Cond Res. 2010;24:1843–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Kevser Ermin Applied Physiology Laboratory, Department of Health, Exercise Science, and Recreation Management, The University of Mississippi, 231 Turner Center, University, MS, 38677, USA

    Scott J. Dankel, Matthew B. Jessee, Kevin T. Mattocks, J. Grant Mouser, Brittany R. Counts, Samuel L. Buckner & Jeremy P. Loenneke

Authors
  1. Scott J. Dankel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Matthew B. Jessee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kevin T. Mattocks
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. J. Grant Mouser
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Brittany R. Counts
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Samuel L. Buckner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Jeremy P. Loenneke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jeremy P. Loenneke.

Ethics declarations

Funding

The authors are not aware of any affiliations, memberships, funding, or financial holdings that might be perceived as affecting the objectivity of this manuscript. This article was not supported by any funding.

Conflict of interest

Scott Dankel, Matthew Jessee, Kevin Mattocks, J. Grant Mouser, Brittany Counts, Samuel Buckner and Jeremy Loenneke declare that they have no conflicts of interest relevant to the content of this article.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Dankel, S.J., Jessee, M.B., Mattocks, K.T. et al. Training to Fatigue: The Answer for Standardization When Assessing Muscle Hypertrophy?. Sports Med 47, 1021–1027 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-016-0633-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-016-0633-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation