assertion
Analysis v1
49
Pro
0
Against

If you do more reps near your limit, you grow muscle just as well as doing more total reps far from failure.

Scientific Claim

A higher proportion of repetitions performed within two reps of muscular failure enhances hypertrophic stimulus efficiency, producing equivalent muscle growth with fewer total repetitions.

Original Statement

The researchers wanted to design the drop set protocol so that it involved a greater proportion of repetitions closer to failure than the normal set condition. To do this, after the first load drop, they wanted all repetitions to be two or fewer reps away from failure.

Context Details

Domain

exercise

Population

human

Subject

Higher proportion of repetitions performed within two reps of failure

Action

enhances

Target

hypertrophic stimulus efficiency

Intervention Details

Type: exercise
Dosage: Repetitions performed within two reps of failure after load reduction
Duration: 10 weeks

Evidence from Studies

4 pending
4 studies are still being processed and not included in the score yet.

Supporting (4)

49

This study found that doing just one tough set of lifts until you're almost too tired to continue grew muscles just as well — or even better — than doing three easier sets, meaning you can get the same results with less work.

This study found that lifting weights until you're almost too tired to continue, then making the weight lighter and doing it again, builds just as much muscle as doing a lot more reps the normal way—so you can get the same results with less work.

Why this evidence?

People who trained almost until they couldn't do another rep grew just as much muscle as those who stopped earlier, meaning they didn't need to do as many reps to get the same results.

Technical explanation

This study directly compares training near failure (low RIR) versus not near failure (high RIR) in trained individuals and measures hypertrophy outcomes, showing that training closer to failure can produce similar muscle growth with potentially fewer total repetitions, aligning with the assertion that proximity to failure enhances efficiency.

Why this evidence?

When the same people trained one leg to failure and the other without, both legs grew the same amount—so going all the way to failure isn't needed to get big muscles.

Technical explanation

This within-subject study directly compares training to failure versus not to failure with matched volume and finds no difference in muscle growth, supporting the idea that training close to failure (even without going all the way) can be just as effective, implying higher efficiency per repetition.

Contradicting (2)

0
Why this evidence?

For older people, pushing close to failure didn't help them grow more muscle than stopping earlier, so going all-out might not be worth it.

Technical explanation

This study shows that in older adults, training to near failure doesn't produce extra muscle growth compared to stopping short, suggesting that proximity to failure may not enhance efficiency—contradicting the assertion that it allows equivalent growth with fewer reps.

Why this evidence?

If you do the same number of total reps, stopping short of failure worked just as well—or even better—than going all the way to exhaustion.

Technical explanation

This study found that when total volume is equal, training without going to failure produced similar or even greater hypertrophy than training to failure, directly contradicting the assertion that proximity to failure improves efficiency per repetition.