Refalo · Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.) 2023 · systematic review with meta-analysis · n=15 studies

Influence of Resistance Training Proximity-to-Failure on Skeletal Muscle Hypertrophy: A Systematic Review with Meta-analysis.

Cited 64 times in the scientific literature.

Level 1 - systematic review of randomized trials

Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

PubMed 36334240 · doi:10.1007/s40279-022-01784-y · record verified 2026-08-26

What was done

A systematic review and meta-analysis of 15 studies searched via PubMed, SCOPUS, and SPORTDiscus evaluated the effect of resistance training proximity-to-failure on muscle hypertrophy in healthy adults of any age and resistance training background. Interventions compared resistance training performed to: (A) momentary muscular failure versus non-failure, (B) set failure (defined as anything other than momentary muscular failure) versus non-failure, or (C) different velocity loss thresholds.

What was found

When combining studies applying any definition of set failure versus non-failure, there was a trivial advantage for failure for muscle hypertrophy [effect size = 0.19 (95% CI: 0.00, 0.37), p = 0.045], with no moderating effect of volume load (p = 0.884) or relative load (p = 0.525). Subgroup analysis showed no advantage for momentary muscular failure versus non-failure [effect size = 0.12 (95% CI: -0.13, 0.37), p = 0.343], and no advantage for high (>25%) versus moderate (20-25%) velocity loss thresholds [effect size = 0.08 (95% CI: -0.16, 0.32), p = 0.529].

Why it matters

This review demonstrates that reaching absolute muscular failure is not required to maximize muscle growth, suggesting a non-linear relationship between proximity-to-failure and hypertrophy. Athletes and lifters can achieve comparable hypertrophy without the excessive neuromuscular fatigue associated with training to failure.

Limits

The total sample size of participants was not reported in the abstract. There was substantial variability in set failure definitions across the 15 included studies. Specific participant demographics (such as sex and training status breakdowns) and measurement methods were not detailed in the abstract.

Cited by