Training to Fatigue: The Answer for Standardization When Assessing Muscle Hypertrophy?
- 1.4k Downloads
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.
KeywordsResistance Training Resistance Exercise Muscle Hypertrophy Muscle Growth Training Variable
Compliance with Ethical Standards
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.
- 1.2008 Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans. Available at: http://www.health.gov/paguidelines/pdf/paguide.pdf. Accessed 4 Aug 2015.
- 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.
- 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).
- 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