Resistance Training Performed to Failure or Not to Failure Results in Similar Total Volume, but With Different Fatigue and Discomfort Levels.

James Steele, Wanderson dos Santos, Carlos Vieira, Martim Bottaro, Vitória Nunes, Rodrigo Ramirez-Campillo

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Santos, WDNd, Vieira, CA, Bottaro, M, Nunes, VA, Ramirez-Campillo, R, Steele, J, Fisher, JP, and Gentil, P. Resistance training performed to failure or not to failure results in similar total volume, but with different fatigue and discomfort levels. J Strength Cond Res XX(X): 000-000, 2018-The purpose of this study was to compare the acute response to 4 sets of high velocity of parallel squats performed to momentary failure (MF) or not to momentary failure (NF). Twelve women (24.93 ± 5.04 years) performed MF and NF protocols, in a randomized order with 2-3 interday rest. The protocol involved 4 sets of parallel squats executed at high velocity at 10RM load, with 2 minutes of rest interval between sets. During the NF protocol, the sets were interrupted when the participant lost more than 20% of mean propulsive velocity. The analysis involved the number of repetitions performed per set, total number of repetitions, movement velocity loss, power output loss, rating of perceived exertion (RPE), rating of perceived discomfort (RPD), and session rating of perceived exertion (sRPE). Compared with NF, MF resulted in a higher number of repetitions in the first set (11.58 ± 1.83 vs. 7.58 ± 1.72, p < 0.05), but a lower in the last set (3.58 ± 1.08 vs. 5.41 ± 1.08, p < 0.05). Total number of repetitions was similar between the protocols (MF 26.25 ± 3.47 vs. NF 24.5 ± 3.65, p > 0.05). In both protocols, there were significant decreases in maximum and mean movement velocity loss and power output loss, but higher decreases were observed in MF than NF (p < 0.05). Values for RPE, sRPE, and RPD were higher during MF than NF (p < 0.05). Controlling the movement velocity in NF protocol enabled performance of a similar total volume of repetitions with lower movement velocity and power output losses, RPE, sRPE, and RPD than during an MF protocol.
Original languageEnglish
JournalJournal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Publication statusPublished - 2019

Fingerprint

Resistance Training
Fatigue
NF protocol

Cite this

@article{8b90ddf6924b41e0b7006ac73762ea35,
title = "Resistance Training Performed to Failure or Not to Failure Results in Similar Total Volume, but With Different Fatigue and Discomfort Levels.",
abstract = "Santos, WDNd, Vieira, CA, Bottaro, M, Nunes, VA, Ramirez-Campillo, R, Steele, J, Fisher, JP, and Gentil, P. Resistance training performed to failure or not to failure results in similar total volume, but with different fatigue and discomfort levels. J Strength Cond Res XX(X): 000-000, 2018-The purpose of this study was to compare the acute response to 4 sets of high velocity of parallel squats performed to momentary failure (MF) or not to momentary failure (NF). Twelve women (24.93 ± 5.04 years) performed MF and NF protocols, in a randomized order with 2-3 interday rest. The protocol involved 4 sets of parallel squats executed at high velocity at 10RM load, with 2 minutes of rest interval between sets. During the NF protocol, the sets were interrupted when the participant lost more than 20{\%} of mean propulsive velocity. The analysis involved the number of repetitions performed per set, total number of repetitions, movement velocity loss, power output loss, rating of perceived exertion (RPE), rating of perceived discomfort (RPD), and session rating of perceived exertion (sRPE). Compared with NF, MF resulted in a higher number of repetitions in the first set (11.58 ± 1.83 vs. 7.58 ± 1.72, p < 0.05), but a lower in the last set (3.58 ± 1.08 vs. 5.41 ± 1.08, p < 0.05). Total number of repetitions was similar between the protocols (MF 26.25 ± 3.47 vs. NF 24.5 ± 3.65, p > 0.05). In both protocols, there were significant decreases in maximum and mean movement velocity loss and power output loss, but higher decreases were observed in MF than NF (p < 0.05). Values for RPE, sRPE, and RPD were higher during MF than NF (p < 0.05). Controlling the movement velocity in NF protocol enabled performance of a similar total volume of repetitions with lower movement velocity and power output losses, RPE, sRPE, and RPD than during an MF protocol.",
author = "James Steele and {dos Santos}, Wanderson and Carlos Vieira and Martim Bottaro and Vit{\'o}ria Nunes and Rodrigo Ramirez-Campillo",
year = "2019",
language = "English",
journal = "Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research",
issn = "1064-8011",
publisher = "NSCA National Strength and Conditioning Association",

}

Resistance Training Performed to Failure or Not to Failure Results in Similar Total Volume, but With Different Fatigue and Discomfort Levels. / Steele, James; dos Santos, Wanderson; Vieira, Carlos; Bottaro, Martim; Nunes, Vitória; Ramirez-Campillo, Rodrigo.

In: Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 2019.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Resistance Training Performed to Failure or Not to Failure Results in Similar Total Volume, but With Different Fatigue and Discomfort Levels.

AU - Steele, James

AU - dos Santos, Wanderson

AU - Vieira, Carlos

AU - Bottaro, Martim

AU - Nunes, Vitória

AU - Ramirez-Campillo, Rodrigo

PY - 2019

Y1 - 2019

N2 - Santos, WDNd, Vieira, CA, Bottaro, M, Nunes, VA, Ramirez-Campillo, R, Steele, J, Fisher, JP, and Gentil, P. Resistance training performed to failure or not to failure results in similar total volume, but with different fatigue and discomfort levels. J Strength Cond Res XX(X): 000-000, 2018-The purpose of this study was to compare the acute response to 4 sets of high velocity of parallel squats performed to momentary failure (MF) or not to momentary failure (NF). Twelve women (24.93 ± 5.04 years) performed MF and NF protocols, in a randomized order with 2-3 interday rest. The protocol involved 4 sets of parallel squats executed at high velocity at 10RM load, with 2 minutes of rest interval between sets. During the NF protocol, the sets were interrupted when the participant lost more than 20% of mean propulsive velocity. The analysis involved the number of repetitions performed per set, total number of repetitions, movement velocity loss, power output loss, rating of perceived exertion (RPE), rating of perceived discomfort (RPD), and session rating of perceived exertion (sRPE). Compared with NF, MF resulted in a higher number of repetitions in the first set (11.58 ± 1.83 vs. 7.58 ± 1.72, p < 0.05), but a lower in the last set (3.58 ± 1.08 vs. 5.41 ± 1.08, p < 0.05). Total number of repetitions was similar between the protocols (MF 26.25 ± 3.47 vs. NF 24.5 ± 3.65, p > 0.05). In both protocols, there were significant decreases in maximum and mean movement velocity loss and power output loss, but higher decreases were observed in MF than NF (p < 0.05). Values for RPE, sRPE, and RPD were higher during MF than NF (p < 0.05). Controlling the movement velocity in NF protocol enabled performance of a similar total volume of repetitions with lower movement velocity and power output losses, RPE, sRPE, and RPD than during an MF protocol.

AB - Santos, WDNd, Vieira, CA, Bottaro, M, Nunes, VA, Ramirez-Campillo, R, Steele, J, Fisher, JP, and Gentil, P. Resistance training performed to failure or not to failure results in similar total volume, but with different fatigue and discomfort levels. J Strength Cond Res XX(X): 000-000, 2018-The purpose of this study was to compare the acute response to 4 sets of high velocity of parallel squats performed to momentary failure (MF) or not to momentary failure (NF). Twelve women (24.93 ± 5.04 years) performed MF and NF protocols, in a randomized order with 2-3 interday rest. The protocol involved 4 sets of parallel squats executed at high velocity at 10RM load, with 2 minutes of rest interval between sets. During the NF protocol, the sets were interrupted when the participant lost more than 20% of mean propulsive velocity. The analysis involved the number of repetitions performed per set, total number of repetitions, movement velocity loss, power output loss, rating of perceived exertion (RPE), rating of perceived discomfort (RPD), and session rating of perceived exertion (sRPE). Compared with NF, MF resulted in a higher number of repetitions in the first set (11.58 ± 1.83 vs. 7.58 ± 1.72, p < 0.05), but a lower in the last set (3.58 ± 1.08 vs. 5.41 ± 1.08, p < 0.05). Total number of repetitions was similar between the protocols (MF 26.25 ± 3.47 vs. NF 24.5 ± 3.65, p > 0.05). In both protocols, there were significant decreases in maximum and mean movement velocity loss and power output loss, but higher decreases were observed in MF than NF (p < 0.05). Values for RPE, sRPE, and RPD were higher during MF than NF (p < 0.05). Controlling the movement velocity in NF protocol enabled performance of a similar total volume of repetitions with lower movement velocity and power output losses, RPE, sRPE, and RPD than during an MF protocol.

M3 - Article

JO - Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

JF - Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

SN - 1064-8011

ER -