Increased Number of Forced Repetitions Does Not Enhance Strength Development With Resistance Training

Abstract

Some research suggests that strength improvements are greater when resistance training continues to the point at which the individual cannot perform additional repetitions (i.e., repetition failure). Performing additional forced repetitions after the point of repetition failure and thus further increasing the set volume is a common resistance training practice. However, whether short-term use of this practice increases the magnitude of strength development with resistance training is unknown and was investigated here. Twelve basketball and 10 volleyball players trained 3 sessions per week for 6 weeks, completing either 4 x 6, 8 x 3, or 12 x 3 (sets x repetitions) of bench press per training session. Compared with the 8 x 3 group, the 4 x 6 protocol involved a longer work interval and the 12 x 3 protocol involved higher training volume, so each group was purposefully designed to elicit a different number of forced repetitions per training session. Subjects were tested on 3- and 6-repetition maximum (RM) bench press (81.5 +/- 9.8 and 75.9 +/- 9.0 kg, respectively, mean +/- SD), and 40-kg Smith Machine bench press throw power (589 +/- 100 W). The 4 x 6 and 12 x 3 groups had more forced repetitions per session (p < 0.01) than did the 8 x 3 group (4.1 +/- 2.6, 3.1 +/- 3.5, and 1.2 +/- 1.8 repetitions, respectively), whereas the 12 x 3 group performed approximately 40% greater work and had 30% greater concentric time. As expected, all groups improved 3RM (4.5 kg, 95% confidence limits, 3.1- 6.0), 6RM (4.7 kg, 3.1-6.3), bench press throw peak power (57 W, 22-92), and mean power (23 W, 4-42) (all p < or = 0.02). There were no significant differences in strength or power gains between groups. In conclusion, when repetition failure was reached, neither additional forced repetitions nor additional set volume further improved the magnitude of strength gains. This finding questions the efficacy of adding additional volume by use of forced repetitions in young athletes with moderate strength training experience.

Endurance and neuromuscular changes in world-class level kayakers during a periodized training cycle

“…4), after 5-week of hypertrophy-oriented strength training performed in P1, are comparable to those described for this exercise for moderately strengthtrained athletes following similar concurrent training routines in elite junior basketball and soccer players (from 5.2 to 9.6%) (Drinkwater et al 2005(Drinkwater et al , 2007, or handball players (16%) (Marques and González-Badillo 2006) after 6-week training. This notable increase in maximal strength was obtained even though only very modest levels of hypertrophy were detected in such a short training phase; thus, chest girth was the only variable to significantly increase during this period (Table 3).…”

Velocity Loss as an Indicator of Neuromuscular Fatigue during Resistance Training

“…During a period of approximately 8 wk, 21 exercise sessions were conducted in the following order: 1 ) an initial test with increasing loads for the individual determination of lRM strength and full load-velocity relationship, 2) five tests of maximal number of repetitions to failure (XRM: 12RM, lORM, 8RM, 6RM, 4RM), 3) 15 REP differing in the number of repetitions (R) actually performed in each set (S) with regard to the maximum predicted number of repetitions (P) (S x R[P]: 3 x 6 [12], 3 x 8 [12], 3 x 10 [12], 3 X 12 [12], 3 X 6 [10], 3 x 8 [10], 3 x 10 [10], 3 x 4 [8], 3 x 6 [8], 3 X 8 [8], 3 X 3[6], 3 x 4[6], 3 x 6[6], 3 x 2 [4], 3 x 4 [4]). All these sessions were conducted on separate days, with 48 h of recovery time except the initial 1 RM test, the XRM assessments, and the 3 x 12 [12], 3 x 10 [10], 3 x 8 [8], and 3 x 6[6] REP (i.e., the most demanding protocols) after which 72 h of recovery was allowed.…”

“…All these sessions were conducted on separate days, with 48 h of recovery time except the initial 1 RM test, the XRM assessments, and the 3 x 12 [12], 3 x 10 [10], 3 x 8 [8], and 3 x 6[6] REP (i.e., the most demanding protocols) after which 72 h of recovery was allowed. Sessions were perfomied in the evenings, at the same time of day for each participant and under similar environmental conditions (20°C-22°C and 55%-65% humidity).…”

“…Lack of attention to this issue is likely due to an assumption that RT should always be performed to muscular failure. However, increasing evidence seems to suggest that reaching repetition failure may not necessarily itnprove the magnitude of strength gains (10,14,20,21). Furthermore, in the case of not exercising to failure, the optimal number of repetitions to perfomi under different loading conditions to achieve certain training goals has not been established.…”

Movement Velocity as a Measure of Loading Intensity in Resistance Training

“…Gonz á lez-Badillo JJ, S á nchez-Medina L. Movement Velocity as a Measure of Loading Intensity … Int J Sports Med 2010; 31: 347 -352 sequent sessions [9,10,18,33,34] as well as undesirable transitions to slower fi bre types [12] . Furthermore, after performing the fi rst set to failure the number of repetitions in following sets is reduced, regardless of recovery [29] .…”