OPINION

published: 29 January 2016

doi: 10.3389/fphys.2016.00010

Is Resistance Training to Muscular

Failure Necessary?
Sanmy R. Nbrega and Cleiton A. Libardi *
Laboratory of Neuromuscular Adaptations to Resistance Training, Department of Physical Education, Federal University of
So Carlos, So Carlos, Brazil
Keywords: weight training, hypertrophy, voluntary fatigue, electromyography, concentric failure

INTRODUCTION

Edited by:
Evangelos A. Christou,
University of Florida, USA
Reviewed by:
Agostina Casamento-Moran,
University of Florida, USA
Brach Poston,
University of Nevada, Las Vegas, USA
*Correspondence:
Cleiton A. Libardi
[email protected]
Specialty section:
This article was submitted to
Exercise Physiology,
a section of the journal
Frontiers in Physiology
Received: 10 August 2015
Accepted: 11 January 2016
Published: 29 January 2016
Citation:
Nbrega SR and Libardi CA (2016) Is
Resistance Training to Muscular
Failure Necessary?
Front. Physiol. 7:10.
doi: 10.3389/fphys.2016.00010

Frontiers in Physiology | www.frontiersin.org

Resistance training (RT) is the main method of exercise for improving strength and skeletal muscle
mass (i.e., muscle hypertrophy; ACSM, 2009). In order to promote such adaptations, high-intensity
resistance training (HI-RT) with loads above 60% of one repetition maximum (1-RM) are typically
recommended (ACSM, 2009). To further maximize increases in strength and muscle hypertrophy,
it has been suggested repetitions to muscular failure (Jacobson, 1981; Rooney et al., 1994; Schott
et al., 1995; Drinkwater et al., 2005), which can be defined as the inability to move a specific load
beyond a critical joint angle (i.e., sticking point; Drinkwater et al., 2005) or as incapacity to complete
a repetition in a full range of motion due to fatigue (Izquierdo et al., 2006).
Some studies suggest that HI-RT to muscular failure promotes greater activation of motor units
(MUs) compared to no failure HI-RT (Willardson, 2007; Akima and Saito, 2013). During a HIRT session, MUs recruitment pattern follows the size principle, in which the low threshold MUs
are recruited first, followed by high threshold MUs (Henneman, 1957). It has been speculated that
even more high excitability threshold MUs, composed predominantly of type IIx muscle fibers, are
recruited when repetitions are performed to failure, possibly due to fatigue in MUs (Willardson,
2007). In fact, RT to failure might promote increased electromyography (EMG) activity, which
suggests increased recruitment of high threshold MUs (Akima and Saito, 2013), even when RT is
performed at low intensities (Pincivero et al., 2006). In this regard, it is believed that recruiting as
many MUs as possible results in maximal gains in muscle hypertrophy and strength on the target
muscles (Wernbom et al., 2007). Despite a logical rationale, it is unclear if RT to failure is really
necessary. Few studies directly compared RT to failure and no failure on muscle activation and
strength. Results of these studies are conflicting, with some studies finding superiority for RT to
failure and others showing no significant differences (Drinkwater et al., 2005; Izquierdo et al., 2006;
Looney et al., 2015). Additionally, none of these studies assessed muscle hypertrophy.
Based on the current literature, it is still unclear if RT to muscular failure is really necessary to
maximize increases in muscle strength and hypertrophy compared to no repetition failure. Thus,
the purpose of this manuscript is to discuss the effects of RT to failure on MUs recruitment and
adaptive responses (i.e., increases in strength and muscle mass), providing rationale as to why RT
to failure might differently affect muscle adaptations in different populations.

MUSCULAR FAILURE IN HIGH INTENSITY RESISTANCE

TRAINING
Few studies have attempted to directly evaluate the effects of HI-RT to muscle failure or no failure in
neuromuscular adaptations (e.g., strength and muscle mass). Izquierdo et al. (2006) randomized 42
basque pelota players in two groups: (1) repetition failure (3 sets of 10-RM); (2) no repetition failure
(6 sets of 35 repetitions), with the same intensity (75% 1-RM) and volume. Results showed

January 2016 | Volume 7 | Article 10

Nbrega and Libardi

Resistance Training to Muscular Failure is Required?

individuals untrained in strength, RT to failure is unnecessary

for maximizing increases in muscle strength and muscle mass.
Conversely, for trained individuals, repetitions to failure might
result in increased muscle activation, which could explain the
greater increases in muscle strength after protocols performed
to muscular failure. However, it remains unclear if this fatigueinduced muscle activation truly reflects chronic increases in
strength and muscle hypertrophy, and how differently it affects
untrained and trained individuals.

similar increases in muscular strength between training groups,

independently of muscle failure. Neither fatigue levels nor
muscle activation were assessed, leading us to speculate that
the higher number of sets and fewer repetitions performed by
the no repetition failure group resulted in a substantial level of
fatigue. These findings suggest that, since subjects were untrained
in strength, the resulting fatigue promoted maximal MUs
recruitment previous to muscular failure point, boosting strength
gains. Accordingly, Sundstrup et al. (2012), evaluated muscle
activation of neck and shoulder muscles with EMG during lateral
raise to failure with elastic tubing of different resistances in
untrained women. Subjects performed a heavy load set (3-RM)
and a repetitions failure set with lower resistance (15-RM).
Results indicated that the normalized EMG activity during the
failure set was significantly lower in the first repetitions and
significantly higher in the latter repetitions when compared to the
3-RM set, reaching an activation plateau 35 repetitions before
concentric failure. It suggests that, for individuals untrained
in strength, HI-RT to complete failure is not necessary for
maximum recruitment of MUs.
On the other hand, Drinkwater et al. (2005) studied the effects
of RT to failure on upper limbs strength of 26 male elite junior
basketball players. All subjects had experience in weight-training.
Muscular strength was evaluated after two different protocols of
equated volume: repetitions to failure (four sets of six repetitions)
and non-failure (8 sets of 3 repetitions), with similar intensities
(85105% 1-RM). Rest interval differed between protocols,
with 260 s between sets for repetitions to failure and 113 s for
non-failure. Fatigue extent was measured before and after RT
while muscle activation was not assessed. Results showed greater
fatigue and increase in strength (almost twofold) for the failure
group. These results suggest that fatigue caused by muscular
failure may be related to greater muscle activation, which would
explain the greater increases in muscle strength when performing
repetitions to failure, at least for strength trained individuals. In
fact, a recent study by Looney et al. (2015) seems to support
such hypothesis. Employing a randomized within-subject design
with 10 strength trained men, the authors investigated muscle
activation at different intensities performed to submaximal and
maximal repetitions (i.e., failure), comparing single set and drop
set protocols. Even though fatigue levels were not assessed, results
demonstrated greater EMG amplitudes whenever repetitions
were performed to failure compared to submaximal repetitions
of same intensity. Such findings suggest that, for strength trained
individuals, HI-RT to muscle failure is necessary for maximal
muscle activation, which may be related to the greater increases
in muscular strength.
The lack of measurements of both fatigue levels and muscle
activation in studies that compare HI-RT to failure or no failure
hampers comprehension on how these mechanisms contribute
to RT-related chronic adaptations. Additionally, no studies have
directly compared hypertrophic responses after exercising to
failure or no failure. The differences in subjects training status
represent another problem, hindering the ability to draw relevant
comparisons between studies. As the above studies seem to point,
fatigue influence on muscle activation and adaptations can differ
greatly depending on the subject training level. Apparently, for

Frontiers in Physiology | www.frontiersin.org

MUSCULAR FAILURE IN LOW INTENSITY

RESISTANCE TRAINING
Recent studies have pointed muscular failure to be an important
factor in order to maximize adaptations when RT is done at
low intensities (LI-RT). However, no attempts have been made
to directly compare the effects of training to muscle failure
versus no failure on neuromuscular adaptations. As consequence,
the researchers compare LI-RT with HI-RT, assuming the last
as the ideal situation for increasing both muscle mass and
strength.
Regarding untrained individuals, Mitchell et al. (2012) sought
to determine whether different intensities would result in
different chronic adaptations. In their study, 18 recreationally
active men, with no weightlifting experience in the last year,
performed 10 weeks of unilateral knee extension to failure. Each
leg was randomly assigned in a counterbalanced way to one of
the three possible unilateral training conditions: LI-RT (3 series at
30% 1-RM), HI-RT (3 sets at 80% 1-RM), and HI-RT with a single
set. Results evidenced similar increases in isometric strength and
muscle hypertrophy between protocols after 10 weeks. Despite
no assessment on muscle activation was performed, it is possible
that these adaptations are related to a similar MU recruitment
between HI-RT and LI-RT protocols when both are performed
to muscular failure, with no apparent advantage in performing
HI-RT to failure, at least for untrained individuals.
On the other hand, Holm et al. (2008) investigated the effects
of LI-RT and HI-RT on 11 sedentary young men. Participants
performed five sets of unilateral knee extension for 12 weeks,
training one leg with 70% 1-RM (eight repetitions) and the
opposite leg with 15.5% 1-RM (1 repetition every 5th second
for a total of 36 repetitions) in a random and counterbalanced
way. Results demonstrated marked increases in quadriceps cross
sectional area (three-fold) for HI-RT when compared to LIRT. Muscle fatigue and activation levels were not assessed, but
considering the rest period allowed between each contraction in
LI-RT condition, it is possible to speculate that MUs recruitment
would be too low compared to HI-RT due the lower fatigue level
resulting from this protocol.
When it comes to strength trained individuals, results are
more consistent. To study the influence of training intensity on
muscle activation Schoenfeld et al. (2014) employed a withinsubject design in which resistance-trained young men performed
two protocols: high-load (75% 1-RM to failure); and low-load
(30% 1-RM to failure). Participants performed the protocols in
a counterbalanced way. Results showed greater peak and mean

January 2016 | Volume 7 | Article 10

Nbrega and Libardi

Resistance Training to Muscular Failure is Required?

EMG activity during high-load, indicating that training to failure

at low intensities does not result in maximal MUs activation
for trained individuals. Conversely, another study by the same
research group assessed muscle strength and mass in 24 men, all
experienced in weight lifting, after 8 weeks (24 training sessions)
of RT (Schoenfeld et al., 2015). Subjects were randomly assigned
to one of two possible training conditions performed to failure:
low-load (2535 repetitions 3050% 1-RM) and high-load (8
12 repetitions at 7080% 1-RM). The outcomes demonstrate
similar increases in muscle mass between the two training
regimen. However, results evidenced greater improvements in
strength for the high-load group. Results indicate that, even
though LI-RT to failure is able to achieve hypertrophic levels
similar to HI-RT, training at high intensities is necessary to
maximize strength adaptations.
Considering the evidence to date, it seems plausible to assume
that fatigue differently affects muscle adaptations when LIRT is performed to muscular failure by different populations
(trained and untrained). For untrained subjects, it is possible
that protocols resulting in low fatigue, like the one used by
Holm et al. (2008), are unable to maximally recruit high
threshold MUs. Results could have been different if the low
intensity repetitions were carried out near muscular failure,
as in Sundstrup et al. (2012) study. For trained individuals,
it is possible that, due RT-related neural adaptations, fatigue
following LI-RT protocols would not be sufficient to maximally
recruit the high threshold MUs of strength trained individuals.
Thus, the similar hypertrophy between LI-RT and HI-RT would
result from the greater time under tension when performing LIRT to failure, which would maximally stimulate type I muscle
fibers, promoting greater hypertrophic response.
Finally, some studies suggest that RT to failure for a prolonged
period may result in overtraining; higher risk of musculoskeletal
injury by repetitive effort; and stronger hemodynamic responses,

with pressure peaks near muscular failure (MacDougall et al.,

1985; Stone et al., 1996). Therefore, guidelines recommend
performing RT to a level of substantial fatigue (i.e., submaximal
efforts), ensuring strength and muscle mass increases, while
avoiding failure (Pollock et al., 2000; Mazzeo and Tanaka, 2001;
Haskell et al., 2007). These findings can be especially important to
populations that may have adverse effects when performing HIRT (e.g., elderly and hypertensive), where performing LI-RT with
level of substantial fatigue can be a viable alternative for maximize
strength gains and muscle mass.

REFERENCES

Izquierdo, M., Ibanez, J., Gonzalez-Badillo, J. J., Hakkinen, K., Ratamess, N.

A., Kraemer, W. J., et al. (2006). Differential effects of strength training
leading to failure versus not to failure on hormonal responses, strength,
and muscle power gains. J. Appl. Physiol. (1985) 100, 16471656. doi:
10.1152/japplphysiol.01400.2005
Jacobson, B. (1981). Reach failure to gain success. Natl. Strength Coaches Assoc. J.
3, 2425.
Looney, D. P., Kraemer, W. J., Joseph, M. F., Comstock, B. A., Denegar, C. R.,
Flanagan, S. D., et al. (2015). Electromyographical and perceptual responses
to different resistance intensities in a squat protocol: does performing sets to
failure with light loads recruit more motor units? J. Strength Cond. Res. doi:
10.1519/JSC.0000000000001109. [Epub ahead of print].
MacDougall, J. D., Tuxen, D., Sale, D. G., Moroz, J. R., and Sutton, J. R. (1985).
Arterial blood pressure response to heavy resistance exercise. J. Appl. Physiol.
58, 785790.
Mazzeo, R. S., and Tanaka, H. (2001). Exercise prescription for the elderly:
current recommendations. Sports Med. 31, 809818. doi: 10.2165/00007256200131110-00003
Mitchell, C. J., Churchward-Venne, T. A., West, D. W., Burd, N. A., Breen, L.,
Baker, S. K., et al. (2012). Resistance exercise load does not determine trainingmediated hypertrophic gains in young men. J. Appl. Physiol. (1985) 113, 7177.
doi: 10.1152/japplphysiol.00307.2012
Pincivero, D. M., Gandhi, V., Timmons, M. K., and Coelho, A. J. (2006).
Quadriceps femoris electromyogram during concentric, isometric and

CONCLUSION
In conclusion, considering the evidence regarding untrained
subjects, it seems plausible to suggest that HI-RT to failure is
not necessary for maximal increases in strength and hypertrophy.
On the other hand, repetitions to failure seem essential for
increases in muscle strength and mass of similar magnitude
to HI-RT when performing LI-RT. When it comes to trained
individuals, evidence show greater increases in muscle strength
after HI-RT performed to muscle failure compared to no
failure. Similarly to untrained individuals, muscle failure at LIRT might be an interesting strategy for maximizing muscle
hypertrophy. However, it does not promote maximal increases
on muscle strength when performed by strength trained
individuals.
Future studies should be conducted to determine how
fatigue extent influences MUs recruitment and RT-related muscle
adaptations on strength trained and untrained individuals.

FUNDING
This publication was supported by So Paulo Research
Foundation (FAPESP) grants #2016/00314-3.

ACSM (2009). American College of Sports Medicine position stand. Exercise and
physical activity for older adults. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 41, 15101530. doi:
10.1249/MSS.0b013e3181a0c95c
Akima, H., and Saito, A. (2013). Activation of quadriceps femoris including vastus
intermedius during fatiguing dynamic knee extensions. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol.
113, 28292840. doi: 10.1007/s00421-013-2721-9
Drinkwater, E. J., Lawton, T. W., Lindsell, R. P., Pyne, D. B., Hunt, P. H., and
McKenna, M. J. (2005). Training leading to repetition failure enhances bench
press strength gains in elite junior athletes. J. Strength Cond. Res. 19, 382388.
doi: 10.1519/R-15224.1
Haskell, W. L., Lee, I. M., Pate, R. R., Powell, K. E., Blair, S. N., Franklin, B. A.,
et al. (2007). Physical activity and public health: updated recommendation
for adults from the American College of Sports Medicine and the
American Heart Association. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 39, 14231434. doi:
10.1249/mss.0b013e3180616b27
Henneman, E. (1957). Relation between size of neurons and their susceptibility to
discharge. Science 126, 13451347. doi: 10.1126/science.126.3287.1345
Holm, L., Reitelseder, S., Pedersen, T. G., Doessing, S., Petersen, S.
G., Flyvbjerg, A., et al. (2008). Changes in muscle size and MHC
composition in response to resistance exercise with heavy and light loading
intensity. J. Appl. Physiol. 105, 14541461. doi: 10.1152/japplphysiol.9053
8.2008

Frontiers in Physiology | www.frontiersin.org

January 2016 | Volume 7 | Article 10

Nbrega and Libardi

Resistance Training to Muscular Failure is Required?

Sundstrup, E., Jakobsen, M. D., Andersen, C. H., Zebis, M. K., Mortensen, O.

S., and Andersen, L. L. (2012). Muscle activation strategies during strength
training with heavy loading vs. repetitions to failure. J. Strength Cond. Res. 26,
18971903. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0b013e318239c38e
Wernbom, M., Augustsson, J., and Thomee, R. (2007). The influence of frequency,
intensity, volume and mode of strength training on whole muscle crosssectional area in humans. Sports Med. 37, 225264. doi: 10.2165/00007256200737030-00004
Willardson, J. M. (2007). The application of training to failure in periodized
multiple-set resistance exercise programs. J. Strength Cond. Res. 21, 628631.
doi: 10.1519/R-20426.1

eccentric phases of fatiguing dynamic knee extensions. J. Biomech. 39, 246254.

doi: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2004.11.023
Pollock, M. L., Franklin, B. A., Balady, G. J., Chaitman, B. L., Fleg, J. L., Fletcher,
B., et al. (2000). AHA science advisory. Resistance exercise in individuals with
and without cardiovascular disease: benefits, rationale, safety, and prescription:
an advisory from the Committee on Exercise, Rehabilitation, and Prevention,
Council on Clinical Cardiology, American Heart Association. Circulation 101,
828833. doi: 10.1161/01.CIR.101.7.828
Rooney, K. J., Herbert, R. D., and Belnave, R. J. (1994). Fatigue contributes to the
strength training stimulus. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 26, 11601164.
Schoenfeld, B. J., Contreras, B., Willardson, J. M., Fontana, F., and Tiryaki-Sonmez,
G. (2014). Muscle activation during low- versus high-load resistance training
in well-trained men. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. 114, 24912497. doi: 10.1007/s00421014-2976-9
Schoenfeld, B. J., Peterson, M. D., Ogborn, D., Contreras, B., and Sonmez, G. T.
(2015). Effects of low- vs. high-load resistance training on muscle strength and
hypertrophy in well-trained men. J. Strength Cond. Res. 29, 29542963. doi:
10.1519/JSC.0000000000000958
Schott, J., McCully, K., and Rutherford, O. M. (1995). The role of metabolites in
strength training. II. Short versus long isometric contractions. Eur. J. Appl.
Physiol. Occup. Physiol. 71, 337341. doi: 10.1007/BF00240414
Stone, M. H., Chandler, T. J., Conley, M. S., Kramer, J. B., and Stone, M. E. (1996).
Training to muscular failure: is it necessary? Strength Cond. J. 18, 4448.

Frontiers in Physiology | www.frontiersin.org

Conflict of Interest Statement: The authors declare that the research was
conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could
be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Copyright 2016 Nbrega and Libardi. This is an open-access article distributed
under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The
use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the
original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in
this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use,
distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these
terms.

January 2016 | Volume 7 | Article 10