"Just One More Rep!" - Ability to Predict Proximity to Task Failure in Resistance Trained Persons.
Level 3 - non-randomized controlled study
Repeated-measures laboratory experimental study graded by design analogy
PubMed 33424678 · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2020.565416
What was done
Researchers examined the accuracy of resistance-trained individuals (at least 1 year of experience) in predicting proximity to momentary task failure using a deception design across two experiments. Participants performed four trials of single-set knee extensions to either their self-determined repetition maximum (sdRM; predicted failure on the next repetition) or actual momentary failure (MF). In Experiment 1 (n = 14), participants used 70% of baseline 1-repetition maximum. In Experiment 2 (n = 24), participants used 70% of daily isometric maximal voluntary contraction.
What was found
Participants systematically underpredicted their repetitions to failure across experiments, with a pooled meta-analytic estimate of 2.0 repetitions underpredicted (95% CI 0.0 to 4.0).
Why it matters
Repetitions-in-reserve and proximity-to-failure scales are commonly used to regulate training intensity, but lifters may underestimate their true capacity. This perceptual mismatch can lead to under-dosing resistance training stimulus intended for strength and hypertrophy.
Limits
The abstract reports on a small total sample (n = 38 across two cohorts) tested only on a single-joint exercise (knee extension). Findings may not generalize to multi-joint compound exercises, multi-set protocols, upper-body movements, or different loading ranges. No longitudinal adaptations were assessed.
Cited by
- partial On average, beginner and intermediate lifters underestimate the number of repetitions they can achieve before failure by five to six repetitions.