Exploring the Dose-Response Relationship Between Estimated Resistance Training Proximity to Failure, Strength Gain, and Muscle Hypertrophy: A Series of Meta-Regressions.

BACKGROUND: The proximity to failure in which sets are terminated has gained attention in the scientific literature as a potentially key resistance training variable. Multiple meta-analyses have directly (i.e., failure versus not to failure) or indirectly (e.g., velocity loss, alternative set structures) evaluated the effect of proximity to failure on strength and muscle hypertrophy outcomes categorically; however, the dose-response effects of proximity to failure have not been analyzed collectively in a continuous manner. OBJECTIVE: To meta-analyze the aforementioned areas of relevant research, proximity to failure was quantified as the number of repetitions in reserve (RIR). Importantly, the RIR associated with each effect in the analysis was estimated on the basis of the available descriptions of the training interventions in each study. Data were extracted and a series of exploratory multilevel meta-regressions were performed for outcomes related to both strength and muscle hypertrophy. A range of sensitivity analyses were also performed. All models were adjusted for the effects of load, method of volume equating, duration of intervention, and training status. RESULTS: The best fit models for both strength and muscle hypertrophy outcomes demonstrated modest quality of overall fit. In all of the best-fit models for strength, the confidence intervals of the marginal slopes for estimated RIR contained a null point estimate, indicating a negligible relationship with strength gains. However, in all of the best-fit models for muscle hypertrophy, the marginal slopes for estimated RIR were negative and their confidence intervals did not contain a null point estimate, indicating that changes in muscle size increased as sets were terminated closer to failure. CONCLUSIONS: The dose-response relationship between proximity to failure and strength gain appears to differ from the relationship with muscle hypertrophy, with only the latter being meaningfully influenced by RIR. Strength gains were similar across a wide range of RIR, while muscle hypertrophy improves as sets are terminated closer to failure. Considering the RIR estimation procedures used, however, the exact relationship between RIR and muscle hypertrophy and strength remains unclear. Researchers and practitioners should be aware that optimal proximity to failure may differ between strength and muscle hypertrophy outcomes, but caution is warranted when interpreting the present analysis due to its exploratory nature. Future studies deliberately designed to explore the continuous nature of the dose-response effects of proximity to failure in large samples should be considered.

Accuracy of Intraset Repetitions-in-Reserve Predictions During the Bench Press Exercise in Resistance-Trained Male and Female Subjects.

ABSTRACT: Refalo, MC, Remmert, JF, Pelland, JC, Robinson, ZP, Zourdos, MC, Hamilton, DL, Fyfe, JJ, and Helms, ER. Accuracy of intraset repetitions-in-reserve predictions during the bench press exercise in resistance-trained male and female subjects. J Strength Cond Res 38(3): e78-e85, 2024-This study assessed the accuracy of intraset repetitions-in-reserve (RIR) predictions to provide evidence for the efficacy of RIR prescription as a set termination method to inform proximity to failure during resistance training (RT). Twenty-four resistance trained male ( n = 12) and female ( n = 12) subjects completed 2 experimental sessions involving 2 sets performed to momentary muscular failure (barbell bench press exercise) with 75% of 1 repetition maximum (1RM), whereby subjects verbally indicated when they perceived to had reached either 1 RIR or 3 RIR. The difference between the predicted RIR and the actual RIR was defined as the "RIR accuracy" and was quantified as both raw (i.e., direction of error) and absolute (i.e., magnitude of error) values. High raw and absolute mean RIR accuracy (-0.17 ± 1.00 and 0.65 ± 0.78 repetitions, respectively) for 1-RIR and 3-RIR predictions were observed (including all sets and sessions completed). We identified statistical equivalence (equivalence range of ±1 repetition, thus no level of statistical significance was set) in raw and absolute RIR accuracy between (a) 1-RIR and 3-RIR predictions, (b) set 1 and set 2, and (c) session 1 and session 2. No evidence of a relationship was found between RIR accuracy and biological sex, years of RT experience, or relative bench press strength. Overall, resistance-trained individuals are capable of high absolute RIR accuracy when predicting 1 and 3 RIR on the barbell bench press exercise, with a minor tendency for underprediction. Thus, RIR prescriptions may be used in research and practice to inform the proximity to failure achieved upon set termination.

Changes in Intraset Repetitions in Reserve Prediction Accuracy During Six Weeks of Bench Press Training in Trained Men.

In this study we investigated whether the accuracy of intraset repetitions in reserve (RIR) predictions changes over time. Nine trained men completed three bench press training sessions per week for 6 weeks (following a 1-week familiarization). The final set of each session was performed until momentary muscular failure, with participants verbally indicating their perceived 4RIR and 1RIR. RIR prediction errors were calculated as raw differences (RIRDIFF), with positive and negative values indicating directionality, and absolute RIRDIFF (absolute value of raw RIRDIFF) indicating error scores. We constructed mixed effect models with time (i.e., session) and proximity to failure as fixed effects, repetitions as a covariate, and random intercepts per participant to account for repeated measures, with statistical significance set at p ≤ .05. We observed a significant main effect for time on raw RIRDIFF (p < .001), with an estimated marginal slope of -.077 repetitions, indicating a slight decrease in raw RIRDIFF over time. Further, the estimated marginal slope of repetitions was -.404 repetitions, indicating a decrease in raw RIRDIFF as more repetitions were performed. There were no significant effects on absolute RIRDIFF. Thus, RIR rating accuracy did not significantly improve over time, though there was a greater tendency to underestimate RIR in later sessions and during higher repetition sets.

Predicting Total Back Squat Repetitions from Repetition Velocity and Velocity Loss.

The purpose of this investigation was to determine if average concentric velocity (ACV) of a single repetition at 70% of one-repetition maximum (1RM), ACV of the first repetition of a set to failure at 70% of 1RM, or the velocity loss during the set could predict the number of repetitions performed in the back squat. Fifty-six resistance-trained individuals participated in the study (male = 41, age = 23 ± 3 yrs, 1RM = 162.0 ± 40.0 kg; female = 15, age = 21 ± 2 yrs, 1RM = 81.5 ± 12.5 kg). After 1RM testing, participants performed single repetition sets with 70% of 1RM and a set to failure with 70% of 1RM. ACV was recorded on all repetitions. Regression model comparisons were performed, and Akaike Information Criteria (AIC) and Standard Error of the Estimate (SEE) were calculated to determine the best model. Neither single repetition ACV at 70% of 1RM (R2 = 0.004, p = 0.637) nor velocity loss (R2 = 0.011, p = 0.445) were predictive of total repetitions performed in the set to failure. The simple quadratic model using the first repetition of the set to failure (Y=ß0+ß1XACVFirst+ß2Z+ε) was identified as the best and most parsimonious model (R2 = 0.259, F = 9.247, p < 0.001) due to the lowest AIC value (311.086). A SEE of 2.21 repetitions was identified with this model. This average error of ~2 repetitions warrants only cautious utilization of this method to predict total repetitions an individual can perform in a set, with additional autoregulatory or individualization strategies being necessary to finalize the training prescription.

Accuracy of Predicted Intraset Repetitions in Reserve (RIR) in Single- and Multi-Joint Resistance Exercises Among Trained and Untrained Men and Women.

We assessed the accuracy of intraset repetitions in reserve (RIR) predictions on single-joint machine-based movements of trained and untrained men and women. Participants were 27 men (M age = 22, SE = 0.6 years; M weight = 90.8, SE = 4.0 kg; M height = 182.3, SE = 1.4 cm; M training experience = 66, SE = 9 months) and 31 women (M age = 20, SE = 0.4 years; M weight = 67.8, SE = 2.3 kg; M height = 167.6, SE = 1.1 cm; M training experience = 22, SE = 4 months). In one session, participants performed a five-repetition maximum (5RM) test on biceps curl, triceps pushdown, and seated row exercises; we then estimated one repetition maximum (1RM). Participants then performed four sets of each exercise, in a randomized order, to the point of momentary muscular failure at 72.5% of 1RM. During each set, participants indicated when they first perceived 5RIR and then predicted RIR on every repetition thereafter until failure. The difference between actual repetitions performed and predicted repetitions at each intraset prediction was determined to be the RIR difference (RIRDIFF). A 3-way repeated measures ANCOVA found that a 3-way interaction was not statistically significant (p = 0.435) and no covariates of sex (p = 0.917), training experience (p = 0.462) nor experience rating RIR significantly affected RIRDIFF (p = 0.462-0.917). There were significant main effects for the proximity to failure of the prediction and the set number (p < 0.01) but not for exercise (p = 0.688). Thus, intraset RIR predictions were more accurate when closer to failure and in later sets, but sex, training experience, and experience rating RIR did not significantly influence RIR prediction accuracy on machine-based single-joint exercises.

Methods for Controlling and Reporting Resistance Training Proximity to Failure: Current Issues and Future Directions.

Resistance training variables such as volume, load, and frequency are well defined. However, the variable proximity to failure does not have a consistent quantification method, despite being defined as the number of repetitions in reserve (RIR) upon completion of a resistance training set. Further, there is between-study variability in the definition of failure itself. Studies have defined failure as momentary (inability to complete the concentric phase despite maximal effort), volitional (self-termination), or have provided no working definition. Methods to quantify proximity to failure include percentage-based prescription, repetition maximum zone training, velocity loss, and self-reported RIR; each with positives and negatives. Specifically, applying percentage-based prescriptions across a group may lead to a wide range of per-set RIR owing to interindividual differences in repetitions performed at specific percentages of 1 repetition maximum. Velocity loss is an objective method; however, the relationship between velocity loss and RIR varies set-to-set, across loading ranges, and between exercises. Self-reported RIR is inherently individualized; however, its subjectivity can lead to inaccuracy. Further, many studies, regardless of quantification method, do not report RIR. Consequently, it is difficult to make specific recommendations for per-set proximity to failure to maximize hypertrophy and strength. Therefore, this review aims to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the current proximity to failure quantification methods. Further, we propose future directions for researchers and practitioners to quantify proximity to failure, including implementation of absolute velocity stops using individual average concentric velocity/RIR relationships. Finally, we provide guidance for reporting self-reported RIR regardless of the quantification method.