Weightlifting and other resistance exercises can help those with MCI.(Photo by Unsplash+ in collaboration with Getty Images)
BOCA RATON, Fla. — For decades, the mantra “no pain, no gain” has echoed through gyms worldwide, with fitness enthusiasts pushing themselves to muscle failure in pursuit of strength and size. But a new study challenges this conventional wisdom, suggesting that when it comes to building strength, training to failure may not be necessary after all.
Researchers from Florida Atlantic University and several international institutions conducted a comprehensive analysis of existing studies on resistance training, examining how closely exercisers approached muscle failure during their workouts and how it impacted their results. Their findings, published in the journal Sports Medicine, offer surprising insights that could reshape how we approach strength training.
For building raw strength, it doesn’t seem to matter much whether lifters push themselves to complete muscle failure or stop their sets with a few repetitions left in the tank. However, when it comes to muscle growth, training closer to failure does appear to provide an edge.
These results have potentially major implications for how both everyday gym-goers and elite athletes approach their training. The prevailing wisdom has long been that to maximize gains, you need to push your muscles to their absolute limit during every workout. This often means grinding out those last few agonizing reps until you physically cannot lift the weight again.
What’s the optimal way to build muscle strength?
If building strength is your primary goal, this study suggests you may be able to make similar progress without putting yourself through that ordeal. By stopping each set when you still have 2-3 good reps left, you could potentially reduce your injury risk and speed up recovery between workouts, all while achieving comparable strength gains.
“If you’re aiming for muscle growth, training closer to failure might be more effective. In other words, it doesn’t matter if you adjust training volume by changing sets or reps; the relationship between how close you train to failure and muscle growth remains the same,” says study senior author Michael C. Zourdos, Ph.D., professor and chair of the Department of Exercise Science and Health Promotion at Florida Atlantic University, in a statement. “For strength, how close you push to failure doesn’t seem to matter as much.”
Bigger isn’t always better
The study’s findings highlight the complexity of resistance training and how different approaches may be optimal depending on your specific goals. They also underscore how much we still have to learn about the science of strength and muscle building.
For the average person looking to get stronger and healthier, the takeaway is that you don’t necessarily need to destroy yourself in the gym to see results. Consistent, challenging workouts that push you hard – but not to your absolute limit every time – may be just as effective for developing strength.
Now, for all the gym rats who still think training to failure is the way to go, study first author Zac P. Robinson, a Ph.D. graduate of FAU’s Department of Exercise Science and Health Promotion, says the method is still beneficial. “Training closer to failure enhances the accuracy of self-reported repetitions in reserve. When people estimate how many reps they have left, this perception influences the weights they choose. If the estimation is off, they might use lighter weights than needed, which could limit strength gains,” he says. “On the flip side, our meta-analysis shows that training closer to failure also leads to greater muscle growth. So, for the average individual, training close to failure may be the best option – as it seems to improve the accuracy of our perception of effort as well as gains in muscle size.”
The researchers suggest that individuals aiming to build muscle should work within a range of 0-5 repetitions short of failure for optimized muscle growth while minimizing injury risk. For strength training, they recommend focusing on heavier loads rather than pushing to failure, suggesting that stopping about 3-5 reps short of failure may be optimal.
Ultimately, the study serves as a reminder that in fitness, as in life, balance is key. While there’s certainly a place for high-intensity training, constantly pushing yourself to the brink isn’t always necessary or beneficial. Sometimes, leaving a little in the tank can take you further in the long run.
Paper Summary
Methodology
The researchers conducted a meta-analysis, gathering data from 55 previous experiments on resistance training, involving a total of 1,483 participants. These studies had tested various workout approaches, from training to complete muscle failure to stopping sets well short of failure.
To standardize the data, the researchers estimated how close to failure participants were training in each study using a measure called Repetitions in Reserve (RIR). A RIR of 0 means you couldn’t do another rep if you tried, while a RIR of 5 means you had about 5 more reps left in you when you stopped the set.
They then used complex statistical techniques to analyze how these different RIR levels correlated with strength and muscle growth outcomes across all the studies.
Results
For strength gains, there was no clear relationship between training closer to failure and better results. Whether people stopped their sets with 0 RIR or 5+ RIR, strength improvements were similar.
For muscle growth, there was a trend showing better results as people trained closer to failure. The closer individuals were to failure when stopping their sets, the more muscle growth they tended to see.
Limitations
The main limitation is that the researchers had to estimate RIR in many cases, as not all studies directly measured it. This introduces some uncertainty into the findings. Additionally, most studies were relatively short-term (average 8 weeks), so long-term effects might differ.
Discussion and Takeaways
The results suggest that for strength, a wide range of training intensities can be effective. This gives people more flexibility in how they structure their workouts.
For muscle growth, training closer to failure may provide a benefit, though the exact relationship remains unclear. The study highlights the need for more research on how different training variables impact specific outcomes.
“As the load increases, motor patterns change, which means performing sets closer to failure can more closely mimic the demands of max strength assessments,” says Professor Zourdos. “This approach aligns with the principle of specificity by exposing you to similar motor patterns and psychological challenges. Moreover, training near failure may also improve psychological factors like visualization, which are important for achieving maximal strength.”
The researchers emphasize that while their findings provide valuable insights, future studies should be deliberately designed to explore the continuous nature of the effects in larger samples.
Funding and Disclosures
The study was conducted as part of the Society for Transparency, Openness and Replication in Kinesiology (STORK). No specific funding sources were mentioned. The study involved international collaboration, with co-authors from Deakin University in Australia, Auckland University of Technology in New Zealand, and Solent University in England.
