Effect of Training Leading to Repetition Failure on Muscular Strength: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Level 1 - systematic review of randomized trials
Systematic review and meta-analysis of controlled intervention studies
PubMed 26666744 · doi:10.1007/s40279-015-0451-3
What was done
A systematic review and random-effects meta-analysis evaluated the effect of resistance training to repetition failure versus non-failure on muscular strength across five databases. Included trials were randomized and non-randomized studies with at least 3 exercise sessions comparing failure against non-failure training and measuring pre- and post-training strength. Eight studies met inclusion criteria; four controlled for training volume and four did not.
What was found
Non-failure training led to a 0.6–1.3% greater strength increase than failure training, representing a small pooled effect favoring non-failure training (ES = 0.34; p = 0.02). Small effects favoring non-failure training were also observed for compound exercises (ES = 0.37–0.38; p = 0.03), trained participants (ES = 0.37; p = 0.049), and volume-uncontrolled studies (ES = 0.41; p = 0.047). No significant difference was found among the volume-controlled studies.
Why it matters
Athletes and practitioners do not need to train to repetition failure to maximize strength development. Avoiding regular failure training can achieve equivalent strength gains while potentially reducing discomfort, fatigue, and injury risk.
Limits
The total number of participants was not reported in the abstract, and only eight studies were identified. Methodological quality across included studies was moderate, non-randomized designs were permitted, half the studies failed to control for training volume, and adverse events were rarely reported.
Cited by
- context Studies demonstrate that resistance training without reaching failure yields superior strength gains compared to training to failure.