Time course of recovery following resistance training leading or not to failure
- 1.3k Downloads
To describe the acute and delayed time course of recovery following resistance training (RT) protocols differing in the number of repetitions (R) performed in each set (S) out of the maximum possible number (P).
Ten resistance-trained men undertook three RT protocols [S × R(P)]: (1) 3 × 5(10), (2) 6 × 5(10), and (3) 3 × 10(10) in the bench press (BP) and full squat (SQ) exercises. Selected mechanical and biochemical variables were assessed at seven time points (from − 12 h to + 72 h post-exercise). Countermovement jump height (CMJ) and movement velocity against the load that elicited a 1 m s−1 mean propulsive velocity (V1) and 75% 1RM in the BP and SQ were used as mechanical indicators of neuromuscular performance.
Training to muscle failure in each set [3 × 10(10)], even when compared to completing the same total exercise volume [6 × 5(10)], resulted in a significantly higher acute decline of CMJ and velocity against the V1 and 75% 1RM loads in both BP and SQ. In contrast, recovery from the 3 × 5(10) and 6 × 5(10) protocols was significantly faster between 24 and 48 h post-exercise compared to 3 × 10(10). Markers of acute (ammonia, growth hormone) and delayed (creatine kinase) fatigue showed a markedly different course of recovery between protocols, suggesting that training to failure slows down recovery up to 24–48 h post-exercise.
RT leading to failure considerably increases the time needed for the recovery of neuromuscular function and metabolic and hormonal homeostasis. Avoiding failure would allow athletes to be in a better neuromuscular condition to undertake a new training session or competition in a shorter period of time.
KeywordsMuscle strength Weight training Hormonal response Bench press Back squat
Analysis of variance
- Basal AM
The same morning of the resistance training protocol at 8:00 h
- Basal PM
The day before the resistance training protocol at 18:00 h
Mean propulsive velocity
- Post 0 h
Immediately following each resistance training protocol (11:00 h)
- Post 6 h
Same evening of resistance training, at 18:00 h
- Post 24 h
24 h after the resistance training protocol
- Post 48 h
48 h after the resistance training protocol
- Post 72 h
72 h after the resistance training protocol
Full back squat
- V1 load
The load that elicited a ~ 1.00 m s−1 mean propulsive velocity
- Cohen J (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences, 2nd edn. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, New Jersey, p 569Google Scholar
- Izquierdo M, Ibáñez J, González-Badillo JJ, Häkkinen K, Ratamess NA, Kraemer WJ, French DN, Eslava J, Altadill A, Asiain X, Gorostiaga EM (2006) Differential effects of strength training leading to failure versus not to failure on hormonal responses, strength, and muscle power gains. J Appl Physiol 100(5):1647–1656CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Morton RW, Oikawa SY, Wavell CG, Mazara N, McGlory C, Quadrilatero J, Baechler BL, Baker SK, Phillips SM (2016) Neither load nor systemic hormones determine resistance training-mediated hypertrophy or strength gains in resistance-trained young men. J Appl Physiol 121(1):129–138CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- Pareja-Blanco F, Rodríguez-Rosell D, Sánchez-Medina L, Ribas-Serna J, López-López C, Mora-Custodio R, Yáñez-García JM, González-Badillo J (2016) Acute and delayed response to resistance exercise leading or not leading to muscle failure. Clin Physiol Funct Imaging. doi: 10.1111/cpf.12348 PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Pareja-Blanco F, Rodríguez-Rosell D, Sánchez-Medina L, Sanchís-Moysi J, Dorado C, Mora-Custodio R, Yáñez-García JM, Morales-Álamo D, Pérez-Suárez I, Calbet JAL, González-Badillo JJ (2017) Effects of velocity loss during resistance training on athletic performance, strength gains and muscle adaptations. Scand J Med Sci 27(7):724–735CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Sanborn K, Boros K, Hruby J, Schilling B, O’bryant HS, Johnson RL, Hoke T, Stone ME, Stone MH (2000) Short-term performance effects of weight training with multiple sets not to failure vs a single set to failure in women. J Strength Cond Res 14(3):328–331Google Scholar