A new meta-analysis in the land of ever-evolving fitness science gives some meaning to one of the age-old debates: Is training to failure necessary for optimal gains? Published in Sports Medicine, it looks into the interrelation between proximity to failure in resistance training, strength gains, and muscle hypertrophy.
A review of 214 studies attempted to shed light on the question of whether the number of repetitions in reserve or basically how many reps are left in the tank at the end of a set, has different effects on strength and muscle growth. The findings are both enlightening and counterintuitive.
Yes, the study says training closer to failure does have advantages for those who want to build muscle. These results indicate that muscle hypertrophy increases assets are terminated closer to failure, most likely because of the increased mechanical tension put on muscle fibers—a determinant of muscle growth. “Muscle hypertrophy tends to increase when sets finish closer to failure,” the study noted.
On the other hand, in the event of strength gains, proximity to failure does not seem to be that critical. The result almost unanimously showed no significant relationship between estimated reps in reserve and strength improvement. This finding suggests that the intensity of the load used is more important in developing strength, and it is not simply a question of proximity to failure. “The distance of sets from failure has little influence on strength gains,” concludes the study, adding that heavier weights engage more motor units, which in turn contribute to strength gains.
These findings have huge implications for professional and recreational fitness alike. There seems to be a sweet spot on the continuum of muscle growth: pushing yourself 0–5 reps short of failure. Training to failure won’t harm your gains, but it does increase the chances of getting hurt and overuse. Reaping the benefits of training close enough to failure without the downsides is, therefore, more balanced.
For strength training, what should be focused on is heavier loads rather than the number of reps to failure. Training to failure can be really hard on the body, most especially harder to recover from in sets after it. It seems as if aiming 3-5 repetitions short of failure would be the best way to drive strength gain and minimize risks.
Ultimately, this meta-analysis encourages a more individualized approach to training. Understanding how proximity to failure factors into the equation can help tailor your workouts for maximum effectiveness—whether you’re working toward muscle hypertrophy or strength gains. That concept redefines the general advice to train hard and train intensely with a sense of ‘smart training’ in the pursuit of fitness goals.
In summary, while training to failure is useful for inducing muscle growth, it has no significance in the building of strength. In this nuanced understanding lies room for a better and more individualistic approach toward resistance training so that people can focus and optimize their workouts based on the goals they want to achieve.