Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport (2006) 9, 135—142

ORIGINAL PAPER

Acute neuromuscular responses to resistance

training performed at different loads
C. Benson a, D. Docherty b,∗, J. Brandenburg c

a ARC Performance Training Systems, Surrey, BC, Canada

b School of Physical Education, University of Victoria, Victoria, BC, Canada V8W 3P1
c Department of Kinesiology and Physical Education, Northern Illinois University, IL, USA

Accepted 15 July 2005

KEYWORDS Summary The aim of this study was to compare the acute neuromuscular responses
Training volume; during resistance exercise performed with different loading protocols. Thirteen
Electromyography; (N = 13) college-aged male subjects experienced in weight training completed two
Fatigue different weight training protocols involving a single elbow flexion exercise. Dur-
ing both protocols subjects performed three sets of the exercise with a 3-min rest
between each set. One protocol required the subjects to perform each set to failure
using 100% 10 repetition maximum (RM) load whereas the second protocol required
the subjects to perform 10 repetitions for the first two sets using 90% 10 RM load and
only go to failure on the third set. Maximal voluntary isometric contraction (MVIC),
integrated EMG recording (iEMG) of the biceps brachii, and blood lactate were mea-
sured before and upon completion of the two training protocols. Subjects were able
to perform a significantly greater volume of work (total repetitions × load) in the
90% 10 RM protocol compared to the 100% 10 RM protocol. Both protocols elicited
similar cumulative levels of fatigue as reflected by a decrease in MVIC and iEMGmax
and an increase in blood lactate (p ≤ 0.05). As a result of the drop in repetitions
performed in successive sets, it was concluded that training with 100% 10 RM while
exercising to failure in each set may not optimise the training volume, which may
have implications for chronic muscle adaptation.
© 2006 Sports Medicine Australia. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Introduction and hypertrophy, primarily as a result of the

Although there is some debate,1 it is generally
accepted that multiple sets of exercises are supe-
rior to a single set in developing muscular strength
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 250 721 8375
E-mail address: docherty@uvic.ca (D. Docherty).
increased resistance training volume,2,3 When per-
forming multiple sets it is usually recommended
that each set be performed to muscular failure,
often defined as an inability to perform any fur-
ther repetitions in a given exercise against a spe-
cific dynamic constant external resistance (DCER).4
The inability to complete another repetition is the

1440-2440/$ — see front matter © 2006 Sports Medicine Australia. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jsams.2005.07.001
136
result of an acute decrease in the force generating
capability of a muscle which in turn is attributed to
the accumulation of neuromuscular fatigue.5,6 The
number of repetitions an individual can complete
until failure is dependent on the magnitude of the
external load, referred to as the repetition max-
imum (RM).7 The training load is often described
as a specific repetition maximum; e.g., 10 RM indi-
cates a load that can be lifted a maximum of 10
times.
Muscular failure, and the associated muscle
metabolites and hormonal responses, are con-
sidered to provide stimuli for neuromuscular
adaptations.8—10 Rooney et al.11 found that pro-
tocols that produced greater levels of volitional
fatigue were more effective in improving strength
than protocols that produced less fatigue with
the same time under tension. It was specu-
lated that during resistance training to failure or
substantial levels of fatigue, active motor units
fatigue and their contribution to the generation
of force is reduced. Consequently, motor units
that were previously inactive are now recruited
to assist in maintaining the necessary force out-
put. As a muscle group approaches temporary
volitional fatigue, additional motor units are
recruited, placing greater metabolic and neurolog-
ical demands on an increasingly larger amount of
muscle when compared to training that does not
induce failure. Potentially the increased disruption
to homeostasis would lead to greater neuromuscu-
lar adaptations.11,12
A consequence of performing each set to fail-
ure is a decrease in the number of repetitions in
subsequent sets when the initial RM load remains
constant, which is common practice in most train-
ing regimens, regardless of the recovery time that
is used.4,13 Even when a 3-min rest was provided,
the number of repetitions in subsequent sets using
a 12 RM load was reported to decrease to 11.7, 9.2
and 7.2 over three consecutive sets.4
It has been postulated that training to failure
in repetitive sets prevents optimisation of the
total volume of work accomplished during train-
ing (reps × sets × load) and thus decreasing the
acute neuromuscular training response and the
subsequent chronic adaptations.13 In addition, if
adaptations are based on the load and number of
repetitions performed,14 it is plausible that by the
second or third set an individual may no longer be
training in the desired repetition range. Baker15
has suggested that training at 90% of an RM load
and not going to failure until the final set would
allow the retention of the number of repetitions
at a constant load and optimise the total volume
of work over the multiple sets of a workout and,
C. Benson et al.
therefore, increase the training stimulus. The rate
of gain in strength has been associated with an
increase in training volume.16
However, it is possible that by not going to failure
on each set the degree of fatigue will be compro-
mised that may offset the potential advantage of a
higher volume of work. In order to test the postu-
late of Baker,15 the acute neuromuscular responses
resulting from training at 100% 10 RM to failure
on each set or 90% 10 RM with failure only on the
last set were compared. It was hypothesised that
both protocols would induce similar acute neuro-
muscular responses at the completion of three sets
but the volume of work completed during train-
ing would be greater in the 90% 10 RM protocol.
Such results would support training at 90% RM which
may optimise the stimulus by maximising the vol-
ume of work performed during training while pro-
ducing similar acute neuromuscular responses. It
is also possible that training compliance would be
enhanced because there would be less discomfort
during training in only going to failure on the last
set.
Methods and procedures
Subjects
Thirteen college-aged males with at least 1 year
of experience in weight training volunteered as
subjects for the study. Mean (±S.D.) age, height,
weight and single-arm elbow flexion 1 RM of the
participants were 25.5 ± 0.3 years, 176.5 ± 5.8 cm,
84.5 ± 3.3 kg, 22.3 ± 3.5 kg, respectively. The sub-
jects had primarily utilised training loads of
8—12 RM and, therefore, were accustomed to the
loads used in the present study. All procedures
were approved by the institution’s ethics commit-
tee and informed consent was obtained for each
participant.
Experimental design
All participants attended two familiarisation ses-
sions in which the experimental protocols of the
study and expectations were explained, consent
forms were completed, and 1 and 10 RM loads were
identified. Participants attended two more experi-
mental sessions in which they randomly performed
one of two resistance training protocols. One pro-
tocol involved performing three sets to failure
with the pre-determined 10 RM load (100% 10 RM)
whereas the second protocol involved performing
two sets of 10 repetitions and a third set of rep-
etitions until failure at 90% of the pre-determined
Acute neuromuscular responses to resistance training performed at different loads
10 RM load (90% 10 RM). Maximal isometric strength,
EMG and blood lactate were assessed pre- and post-
protocols. Each subject performed both protocols.
A random and balanced crossover design was used,
ensuring that each subject had an equal opportu-
nity to begin testing with either the 100% 10 RM or
90% 10 RM protocol.
At least 72 h was allowed between each testing
session. Between sessions subjects were encour-
aged to avoid all resistance training primarily tar-
geting the elbow flexors for 72 h and all resistance
exercises in which the elbow flexors acted as a sec-
ondary mover (i.e., back exercises) for 48 h prior to
the next testing session. All subjects were asked to
refrain from alcohol and caffeine consumption for
a period of 8 h prior to testing. Subjects reported
to the laboratory following at least 2 h of fasting.
Upon reporting to the laboratory, each subject was
permitted to drink 500 ml of water prior to exercise
in order to standardise the level of hydration.
Strength testing
All subjects were assessed for initial strength (1
and 10 RM) while performing a seated unilateral
elbow flexion exercise on a preacher curl bench.
Testing for all participants was performed with the
left upper limb. The testing session occurred at
least 72 h prior to any experimental trials. Upon
arrival, subjects were required to progress through
a warm-up, involving one set of 10 repetitions at
approximately 30—40% of their predicted 1 RM, and
two sets of two repetitions representing approxi-
mately 60 and 80% of 1 RM. Each warm-up set was
followed by at least 2 min rest. Additional sets of
two repetitions were used if subjects did not feel
sufficiently prepared to perform a 1 RM test. Test-
ing always involved determining the 1 RM prior to
10 RM, and 4-min rest intervals were used between
all testing sets. If the weight selected for 1 RM test-
ing could be lifted more than once, subjects were
encouraged to perform repetitions to failure in an
attempt to estimate better the 10 RM on the subse-
quent trials. Following 4 mins of rest the load was
increased and the 1 RM trial was repeated. In the
case of a failed repetition, the weight was removed
from the subject’s hand, a 4-min rest allowed, and
resistance reduced according to the researcher’s
best estimate. To determine the 10 RM, approxi-
mately 75% of the measured 1 RM was used in the
first attempt If subjects were able to perform more
or less than the desired repetitions (10), but were
within one repetition of the goal, the predictive
charts of Bompa17 were used to best-estimate the
resistance needed to perform 10 repetitions maxi-
mum. If fewer than nine repetitions or more than 11
137
repetitions were completed, a second trial was per-
formed with the load adjusted accordingly. 10 RM
was determined to serve as a reference point in
setting the loads used in the 100% 10 RM and 90%
10 RM protocols.
Resistance training protocols
A supported, dumbbell elbow flexion exercise,
identical to that used in strength testing, was per-
formed using the subject’s left arm on a preacher
curl bench. A metronome was set to 40 beats per
min to assist in the timing of elbow flexion. The
eccentric and concentric components of the exer-
cise were both performed on a 1.5 s count.
Supported elbow flexion involved a muscle mass
which has been previously shown to induce reliable
increases in muscle and blood lactate.4 The exer-
cise was structured so that the angle at the elbow
and range of motion were noted and kept constant
for each set of the prescribed exercise sessions.
During the concentric and eccentric components of
the exercise, the elbows of both arms were placed
on the angled pad, such that the posterior upper
arm rested flat against the pad; the back was held
in an upright position; the feet remained flat and
stable and the axillary region was not permitted to
rest over the edge of the bench. The latter proce-
dure minimised axillary artery occlusion. No grip-
ping with the inactive arm occurred as the arm hung
freely over the front of the bench with the palm in a
supinated position. This seating position minimised
trunk rotation and maximised the contribution of
the biceps brachii in the action.
For the 100% 10 RM protocol, subjects were
instructed to perform as many repetitions as pos-
sible until no further muscle actions could be per-
formed during each of the three sets at the 10 RM
load. If the number of repetitions completed in
the first set was not within two repetitions of 10,
then the session was terminated, weight charts of
Bompa17 were used to adjust the resistance settings
for future testing, and the subject was asked to
return to repeat this condition after a minimum of
72 h. If subjects performed no fewer than eight and
no more than 12 repetitions, the tester recorded
the number of repetitions at muscle failure and
continued the session. Participants used this initial
10 RM load for sets 2 and 3. When performing the
90% 10 RM protocol subjects were instructed, in the
first two sets, to perform 10 consecutive repetitions
at 90% of the predetermined 10 RM load. If failure
to complete all 10 repetitions occurred during this
protocol, the tester followed the procedure out-
lined for the 100% 10 RM protocol (i.e., terminated
the session and adjusted the weight for another ses-
138
sion performed at least 72 h later). Repetitions to
failure were performed in the third set. In both pro-
tocols each of the sets was separated with 3 min
of rest. Three minutes was selected as the dura-
tion of the rest interval as this rest interval has
been used in previous research4,13 and is consistent
with strength training guidelines published by both
the American College of Sports Medicine18 and the
National Strength and Conditioning Association.19
Repetitions completed in each set as well as volume
of work in the three sets (total repetitions × load)
were recorded for comparative purposes.13 Prior to
completing each protocol participants performed a
standardised warm-up consisting of two sets of 10
repetitions of the training exercise using 50—60% of
the 10 RM load.
Maximum voluntary isometric contractions
(MVIC)
All isometric actions involved the left elbow flex-
ors and were performed on a Cybex II isoki-
netic dynamometer (Lumex Inc., Ronkonkoma, New
York) at an elbow angle of 90◦ . The position
of the body was similar to that assumed during
the dynamic elbow flexion task. Isometric testing
was performed before (pre-protocol) and immedi-
ately after (post-protocol) each resistance train-
ing protocol. Subjects were directed to contract
as fast and as forcefully as possible and hold all
contractions for 2—3 s. Maximal force and EMG
were simultaneously measured. Force outputs were
stored on a computer interfaced with the isokinetic
dynamometer.
EMG
Silver chloride electrode leads were applied to
the belly of the left bicep brachii muscle of each
subject. A 20-mm distance and a bipolar config-
uration between the centres of electrodes were
used to help minimise cross-talk among synergis-
tic and antagonistic muscle groups. Prior to posi-
tioning the recording electrodes, the placement
areas were abraded and then scrubbed of dead
skin cells with an alcohol-soaked pad prior to elec-
trode application. Electrodes were attached with
double adhesive bands and conductive gel placed
in the centre region of the electrode. A ground
electrode was then placed on the styloid process
of the wrist. Following electrode placement, each
electrode was traced with a permanent marker
to ensure consistent placement for each session.
The EMG signal was recorded at 1000 Hz (Biopac
Systems, AcqKnowledge III). Electrical activity of
the biceps brachii was measured during the pre-
C. Benson et al.
and post-protocol MVIC. Following raw data collec-
tion, all data were stored and later analysed using
the AcqKnowledge III EMG software package. A 1-
s segment of the recorded EMG signal, beginning
0.25 s after the onset of the MVIC, was processed.
For analysis the raw EMG signals were rectified
and integrated. From the integrated EMG record-
ing, peak amplitude (iEMGmax ) and mean amplitude
(iEMGmean ) were determined.
Lactate measurement
Finger prick blood samples were taken (<5 ␮l/
sample) from the middle digit of the non-exercising
arm for determination of peripheral lactate con-
centrations. Blood samples were obtained following
the procedures of MacDougall et al.4 A total of three
blood samples were drawn and placed into a YSI lac-
tate Analyzer (Yellow Springs, OH). Upon arriving
at the laboratory subjects rested for 10 min prior
to the actual data collection in order to minimise
hormonal and blood lactate fluctuations related to
prior activity and anticipatory responses.20 Follow-
ing the 10 min of rest blood lactate was sampled. In
order to ensure that the warm-up and MVIC did not
affect pre-protocol blood lactate, a second sample
was obtained 2 min following the initial MVIC. Blood
lactate samples were also taken 2 min following the
completion of one of the training protocols (100%
10 RM or 90% 10 RM) and the final MVIC.
Data treatment and statistical analysis
Paired sample t-tests were performed to deter-
mine if there were differences in the number of
repetitions performed as well as the amount of
training volume completed between the two resis-
tance exercise protocols. To determine if there
were differences in MVIC, blood lactate and EMG
measures as a result of performing the two proto-
cols, a 2 × 2 (protocol by time: pre-protocol and
post-protocol) repeated measures ANOVA was per-
formed for each dependent variable. Paired sample
t-tests were performed to ensure there were no
pre-protocol differences in the dependent variables
between the resistance exercise protocols. Repeti-
tions completed per set, volume of work, blood lac-
tate, iEMG and MVIC were the dependent measures
and are presented in Fig. 1 and Table 1. Statistical
significance was set at the p < 0.05 level.
Results
Thirteen subjects performed the single-arm elbow
flexion task using two different resistance exer-
Acute neuromuscular responses to resistance training performed at different loads 139

for elbow flexion at 90% of 10 RM and 100% of 10 RM

loads (Table 1).

Figure 1 Mean (S.D.) number of repetitions completed
for each set while performing single-arm elbow flexion at
90 or 100% of 10 RM. ** Represents significant differences
between the two protocols (p < 0.01).
cise protocols. During both sessions total volume
of work, maximum voluntary isometric contraction
and mean (iEMGmean ) and peak (iEMGmax ) ampli-
tude values were obtained pre- and post-protocol
Volume of work
The mean 10 RM for the subjects was 76.6%
(±4.2) 1 RM. There was a significant 14% difference
between the two protocols for the mean volume
of work performed across the three sets (p ≤ 0.01),
with the subjects following the 90% of 10 RM pro-
tocol achieving a greater volume of exercise over
three sets compared to the 100% of 10 RM protocol
(Table 1).
A significant decrease in the mean number
of repetitions performed per set was observed
between sets 1 and 2 of the 100% of 10 RM protocol
(p ≤ 0.01) (Fig. 1). In the third set significant mean
differences, in repetitions completed, (p ≤ 0.01)
were observed for subjects performing 100%10 RM
(6.07 ± 1.55) compared to 90% 10 RM (10.54 ± 1.66)
(Table 1). Significant between-protocol differences
were observed for sets 2 and 3, with the 100% 10 RM
protocol producing a greater decrease in repeti-
tions than the 90% 10 RM prototcol (Fig. 1).
MVIC
Significant 19% and 18% decreases (p ≤ 0.01) were
observed from pre- to post-exercise for mean MVIC
in response to 100% 10 RM and 90% 10 RM, respec-
tively, but no statistical difference was observed
between the exercise protocols (Table 1).

Table 1 Mean (S.D.) volume of work, repetitions, MVIC, iEMGmean, iEMGmax and blood lactate in response to the
performance of three sets of elbow flexion at 100% of 10 RMand 90% of 10 RM.
Protocol: 100% 10 RM Protocol: 90% 10 RM
**
Total volume of work 901.72 (±115.58) 1028.61 (±147.74)**
MVIC (N m)
Pre 88.85 (±9.83) 89.20 (±9.40)
Post 71.80 (±10.39)* 73.52 (±11.66)*
iEMGmean (uV)
Pre 0.21 (± .130)*** 0.40 (±.27)
Post 0.19 (± .15) 0.27 (±.22)
iEMGmax (uV)
Pre 2.62 (± .94) 3.59 (±2.120
Post 2.18 (± 1.35)* 2.94 (±1.85)*
Blood lactate (mmol L−1 )
Pre 1.34 (± .40) 1.74 (±.63)
Post 2.92 (± .68)* 2.76 (±.76)*
Total volume of work = total number of repetitions completed × load.
* Represents significant within group differences from pre- to post-protocol (p ≤ 0.05).
** Represents significant between group differences (p ≤ 0.05).
*** Represents significant between group differences prior to experimental protocols (p ≤ 0.05).
140
iEMG
There was an initial significant difference in
iEMGmean between 100% 10 RM and 90% 10 RM
(p ≤ 0.05) with 100% 10 RM having a lower mean
value than 90% 10 RM (Table 1). There were no
significant differences observed within protocols
although the reductions observed in response to 90%
10 RM approached significance (p = 0.051).
No initial difference was found between the
two exercise protocols for iEMGmax . Significant
decreases (p ≤0.05) were found from pre- to post-
protocol for both protocols (Table 1).
Blood lactate
Significant differences (p ≤ 0.05) were observed in
mean blood lactate from pre- to post-protocol
within each protocol but not between protocols
(Table 1).
Discussion
The results of this study confirmed the postulate
of Baker et al.14 that performing each set of rep-
etitions at the same 100% of 10 RM load and going
to failure on each set compromises the total vol-
ume of work that can be accomplished in a resis-
tance training workout. When training at 90% of
the 10 RM load, the subjects were able to perform
12.3% more volume of work. The difference in vol-
ume of work performed was primarily due to the
decreased number of repetitions that occurred in
subsequent sets when retaining the initial 100% of
10 RM load and is similar to the results reported
by other investigators.4,13,21 The reduction in vol-
ume of work performed in the 100% 10 RM protocol,
when compared to the 90% 10 RM protocol, may
be indicative of greater levels of fatigue follow-
ing the first and second set. It would appear that
the fatigue that occurs from taking a muscle to
failure during each set does not dissipate in the
rest time that is used in most resistance training
protocols. The inability of the muscle to recover
within the 3-min rest period used in the present
study may be due a number of factors, including the
accumulation of metabolites,22 depletion of muscle
substrates,4 impaired neural drive to the muscle5 or
a combination of these factors.6,23
Despite the significant difference in volume of
work performed between the two protocols, the
post-protocol markers of fatigue were very simi-
lar. This may be the result of taking the muscle
to failure in the last set of the 90% 10 RM protocol
and consequently may have masked any differences
C. Benson et al.
in fatigue between the protocols during the initial
sets.
The MVIC decreased an average of 18 and 19% for
the 90% 10 RM and 100% 10 RM protocols, respec-
tively, indicating a similar level of fatigue when
expressed as a loss in the force generating capabil-
ity of the muscle. Similar deficits in performance
have been reported by other studies regardless of
the mode of contraction,24 the RM load,25 muscle
group21 and even the number of sets.26 Accompa-
nying and perhaps accounting for the reduction in
MVIC were decreases in iEMGmax and increases in
blood lactate.
Electrical activity of the muscle may be used to
reflect central activation or a neural component to
force production.26 The results of the current study
showed a 17 and 18% decrease in iEMGmax following
protocols A and B respectively, which are compara-
ble to the findings of Linnamo et al.26 and Behm et
al..25 Linnamo et al.26 used five sets of 10 RM leg
extension whereas Behm et al.25 used single sets of
either 5, 10 or 20 RM. The change in iEMGmax did
mimic changes in force production and may impli-
cate a decrease in neural activation as a contributor
to a loss in force producing ability, but again it
is difficult to make this conclusion, especially as
others have found no change in EMG activity with
a decrease in force production.27 In fact, closer
examination of individual data in the present study
indicated that, although all subjects demonstrated
reduced force generation following both resistance
exercise protocols, in some cases the loss was with-
out a concomitant decrease in iEMGmax activity.
Individual differences such as training status, fibre
type, activation patterns and genetic response to
training could account for the variability in the
iEMGmax . However, it is difficult, given the depen-
dent measures used in the study, to identify the
locus of fatigue clearly.23 It is possible that the
reduced iEMGmax activity was related to a sensory
feedback loop between ion or metabolite produc-
tion and EMG output.6
Examination of blood lactate levels revealed
similar but significant increases as a result of the
two protocols. Training at 90% of 10 RM and 100%
of 10 RM produced post-exercise values of 2.92
and 2.76 mmol L−1 , respectively, which are lower
than other reported values using similar train-
ing loads. However, such a discrepancy in results
between studies could be due to differences in
the lactate sample times, less time under tension
(shorter exercise periods), subject background and
the amount of muscle exercised.28 The results are
only marginally different from those of MacDougall
et al.4 who also had well-trained subjects perform
a single-arm elbow flexion task to failure. If blood
Acute neuromuscular responses to resistance training performed at different loads
lactate concentrations are considered to reflect
muscle lactate concentrations, it is possible that
the muscle metabolites contributed to the decrease
in maximal isometric force generating capacity and
the number of repetitions in subsequent sets for
the 100% 10 RM group as well as the muscle failure
achieved in the last set for the 90% 10 RM group.
However, blood lactates were only collected at the
end of the last set and this conclusion can only be
speculated.
Lactate production and accumulation during
resistance training has been considered a stimulus
for the development of strength.8—10 The mecha-
nism of action accounting for this may be an asso-
ciation between lactate-related changes in muscle
pH and the release of growth hormone.11,29 Con-
sidering the similar blood lactate responses fol-
lowing both protocols, it is possible that the 90%
10 RM protocol may be as effective as the 100%
10 RM protocol in providing an appropriate train-
ing stimulus. However, the small lactate concen-
trations observed in the present study, as a result
of the small mass of muscle exercised, may have
been insufficient to produce differences in lactate
concentration between the two resistance exercise
protocols and the results should be interpreted with
caution.
If the volume of work performed during resis-
tance exercise is fundamental to the development
of strength and muscle mass, as Baker15 suggests,
the 90% 10 RM protocol would be an effective stim-
ulus for neuromuscular adaptation. Recognised as
a key component of the neuromuscular adapta-
tion process is the acute hormone response (i.e.,
testosterone and growth hormone) accompanying
regular resistance exercise.11 It appears that size
of the hormone response is positively related not
only to the volume of work performed but also to
the magnitude of the load lifted during resistance
training.11 The greater volume of work performed
during the 90% 10 RM protocol was achieved at the
expense of training load and production of muscle
fatigue following the first and second sets. Alterna-
tively, resistance training protocols utilising a con-
stant load across all sets (i.e., 100% 10 RM protocol)
will compromise the volume of work accomplished
due to a progressive reduction in the number of
repetition completed per set, thereby limiting the
effectiveness of such a protocol. Perhaps a resis-
tance training protocol that progressively (set by
set) reduces the training load while ensuring muscle
failure on each set will optimise the volume of work
achieved, the magnitude of the load used and the
amount of fatigue produced. However, the extent
to which volume of work, magnitude of the train-
ing load and fatigue influence the development of
141
strength and muscle mass is uncertain and remains
to be investigated.
Conclusion
The results of the present study indicated that the
number of completed repetitions during successive
sets, and therefore the volume of work performed,
was compromised when individuals trained with a
100% 10 RM training load compared to a 90% 10 RM
training load. The markers of fatigue after the com-
pletion of the two protocols used in the study were
very similar. Such a training approach, if adopted
as a training programme, may also increase train-
ing compliance. Going to muscular failure is gener-
ally unpleasant and compliance may be enhanced,
as well as training volume, when failure is only
required on the last set and not each of the preced-
ing sets. When completing sets using elbow flexion,
90% 10 RM is the appropriate load to induce failure
on the 10th repetition of set 3. Although the effect
of training volume and fatigue on neuromuscular
adaptation is still unclear,30 it is possible that a pro-
tocol that increases training volume while produc-
ing similar fatigue characteristics may produce a
more effective training stimulus than one with less
volume. However, the efficacy of both protocols
in producing chronic neuromuscular adaptations
remains to be clarified through training studies.
Practical implications
• Assuming that training volume and the degree
of neuromuscular fatigue are related to the
training response there would appear to be
several advantages in training at 90% of a 10RM
load and only going to failure on the last set.
• Training at 90% of a 10RM load for multiple sets
and going to failure only on the last set, com-
pared to training at a 100% of a 10RM load
and going to failure on each set, optimizes
the training volume while maintaining similar
fatigue profiles which should produce better
chronic neuromuscular adaptations.
• Going to failure on every set of an exercise
reduces overall training volume and is gen-
erally not very pleasant which may impact
training compliance. Training to failure only
on the last set of an exercise reduces the
unpleasantness of the training without com-
promising the training effect which should in
turn enhance compliance and subsequent neu-
romuscular adaptations.
142
References
1. Carpinelli RN, Otto RM. Strength training: Single versus mul-
tiple sets. Sports Med 1998;26:73—84.
2. Paulsen G, Mykelstad D, Raastad T. The influence of vol-
ume of exercise on early adaptations to strength training.
J Strength Cond Res 2003;17(1):115—20.
3. Rhea MR, Alvar BA, Burkett LN, et al. A meta-analysis to
determine the dose response for strength development.
Med Sci Sports Exerc 2003;35:456—64.
4. MacDougall JD, Ray S, Sale DG, et al. Muscle substrate uti-
lization and lactate production during weightlifting. Can J
Appl Physiol 1999;24(3):209—15.
5. Gandevia SC. Spinal and supraspinal factors in human mus-
cle fatigue. Physiol Reviews 2001;81(4):1725—89.
6. Kent-Braun JA. Central and peripheral contributions to mus-
cle fatigue in humans during sustained maximal effort. Eur
J Appl Physiol 1999;80:57—63.
7. Campos GE, Luecke TJ, Wendeln HK, et al. Muscular adap-
tations in response to three different resistance-training
regimens: specificity of repetition maximum training zones.
Eur J Appl Physiol 2002;88:50—60.
8. Schott J, McCully K, Rutherford OM. The role of metabolites
in strength training II. Short versus long isometric contrac-
tions. Eur J Appl Physiol 1995;71:337—41.
9. Takarada Y, Ishii N. Effects of low intensity resistance exer-
cise with short rest period on muscular function in middle-
aged women. J Strength Cond Res 2002;16(1):123—8.
10. Takarada Y, Sato Y, Ishii N. Effects of resistance exercise
combined with vascular occlusion on muscle function in ath-
letes. Eur J Appl Physiol 2002;86:308—14.
11. Rooney KJ, Herbert RD, Balnave RJ. Fatigue contributes
to the strength training stimulus. Med Sci Sports Exerc
1994;26:1160—4.
12. Ahtiainen JP, Pakarinen A, Kraemer WJ, et al. Acute
hormonal responses to heavy resistance exercise in
strength athletes versus nonathletes. Can J Appl Physiol
2004;29(5):527—43.
13. Richmond SR, Godard MP. The effects of varied rest periods
between sets to failure using the bench press in recre-
ationally trained men. J Strength Cond Res 2004;18(4):
846—9.
14. Baker D, Wilson G, Carolyn R. Periodization: The effect on
strength of manipulating volume and intensity. J Strength
Cond Res 1994;8:235—42.
15. Baker D. Designing, implementing and coaching strength
training programs for beginners and intermediate level
C. Benson et al.
athletes-part 1: Designing the program. Strength and Con-
ditioning Coach 1998;5(3):11—20.
16. Dudley GA, Tesch PA, Miller MA, et al. Importance of eccen-
tric actions in performance adaptations to resistance train-
ing. Aviat Space Environ Med 1991;62:543—50.
17. Bompa T. Periodization Training for Sports. Champaign, IL:
Human Kinetics; 1999.
18. Kraemer WJ, Adams E, Caffarelli E, et al. Progression mod-
els in resistance training for healthy adults. Med Sci Sports
Exerc 2002;34:364—80.
19. Pearson D, Faigenbaum A, Conley M, et al. The National
Strength and Conditioning Association’s basic guidelines for
the resistance training of athletes. J Strength Cond Res
2000;22:14—27.
20. Kraemer WJ, Marchitelli LJ, Gordon SE, et al. Hormonal
and growth factor responses to heavy resistance exercise
protocols. J Appl Physiol 1990;69:1442—50.
21. Pincivero DM, Lephart SM, Karunakara RJ. Effects of
intrasession rest interval on strength recovery and relia-
bility during high intensity exercise. J Strength Cond Res
1998;12(3):152—6.
22. McCully KK, Authier B, Olive J, et al. Muscle fatigue: The
role of metabolism. Can J Appl Physio 2002;27(1):70—82.
23. Green HJ. Mechanisms of fatigue in intense activity. J Sport
Sciences 1997;15:247—56.
24. Esposito F, Orizio C, Veicsteinas A. Electromyogram and
mechanogram changes in fresh and fatigued muscle dur-
ing sustained contraction in men. Eur J Appl Phyiol
1998;78:494—501.
25. Behm DG, Reardon G, Fitzgerald J, et al. The effect of 5,
10 and 20 repetition maximums on the recovery of vol-
untary evoked contractile properties. J Strength Con Res
2002;16(2):209—18.
26. Linammo V, Hakkinen K, Komi PV. Neuromuscular fatigue
and recovery in maximal compared to explosive loading.
Eur J Appl Physiol 1998;77:176—81.
27. Bigland-Richie B, Furbush F, Woods JJ. Fatigue of inter-
mittent submaximal voluntary contractions: central and
peripheral factors. J Appl Physiol 1986;61(2):421—9.
28. Fleck SJ, Kraemer WJ. Designing resistance training pro-
grams. 2nd ed Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics; 1997.
29. Gordon SE, Kraemer WJ, Vos NH, et al. Effect of acid-base
balance on the growth hormone response to acute high-
intensity cycling exercise. J Appl Physiol 1994;76:821—9.
30. Folland JP, Irish CS, Roberts JC, et al. Fatigue is not a neces-
sary stimulus for strength gains during resistance training.
Br J Sports Med 2002;36:370—3.