Centre for Sport Research (CSR), School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Deakin University, Geelong, VIC, Australia.
Sport Performance Research Institute New Zealand (SPRINZ), Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand.
Sports Med. 2023 Mar;53(3):649-665. doi: 10.1007/s40279-022-01784-y. Epub 2022 Nov 5.
This systematic review with meta-analysis investigated the influence of resistance training proximity-to-failure on muscle hypertrophy.
Literature searches in the PubMed, SCOPUS and SPORTDiscus databases identified a total of 15 studies that measured muscle hypertrophy (in healthy adults of any age and resistance training experience) and compared resistance training performed to: (A) momentary muscular failure versus non-failure; (B) set failure (defined as anything other than momentary muscular failure) versus non-failure; or (C) different velocity loss thresholds.
There was a trivial advantage for resistance training performed to set failure versus non-failure for muscle hypertrophy in studies applying any definition of set failure [effect size=0.19 (95% confidence interval 0.00, 0.37), p=0.045], with no moderating effect of volume load (p=0.884) or relative load (p=0.525). Given the variability in set failure definitions applied across studies, sub-group analyses were conducted and found no advantage for either resistance training performed to momentary muscular failure versus non-failure for muscle hypertrophy [effect size=0.12 (95% confidence interval -0.13, 0.37), p=0.343], or for resistance training performed to high (>25%) versus moderate (20-25%) velocity loss thresholds [effect size=0.08 (95% confidence interval -0.16, 0.32), p=0.529].
Overall, our main findings suggest that (i) there is no evidence to support that resistance training performed to momentary muscular failure is superior to non-failure resistance training for muscle hypertrophy and (ii) higher velocity loss thresholds, and theoretically closer proximities-to-failure do not always elicit greater muscle hypertrophy. As such, these results provide evidence for a potential non-linear relationship between proximity-to-failure and muscle hypertrophy.
本系统评价与荟萃分析研究了接近力竭的抗阻训练对肌肉肥大的影响。
在 PubMed、SCOPUS 和 SPORTDiscus 数据库中进行文献检索,共确定了 15 项研究,这些研究测量了肌肉肥大(在任何年龄和抗阻训练经验的健康成年人中),并比较了以下两种抗阻训练方式:(A)即刻力竭与非力竭;(B)组竭(定义为非即刻力竭的任何情况)与非力竭;或(C)不同的速度损失阈值。
对于任何组竭定义的研究,与非力竭相比,组竭的抗阻训练对肌肉肥大有微小的优势[效应量=0.19(95%置信区间 0.00,0.37),p=0.045],且无运动量(p=0.884)或相对负荷(p=0.525)的调节作用。考虑到研究中应用的组竭定义的可变性,进行了亚组分析,发现对于肌肉肥大,即刻力竭与非力竭的抗阻训练相比[效应量=0.12(95%置信区间-0.13,0.37),p=0.343],或对于高(>25%)与中度(20-25%)速度损失阈值的抗阻训练相比[效应量=0.08(95%置信区间-0.16,0.32),p=0.529],均无优势。
总体而言,我们的主要发现表明,(i)没有证据支持力竭与非力竭抗阻训练相比,力竭抗阻训练更有利于肌肉肥大,(ii)更高的速度损失阈值和理论上更接近力竭并不总是引起更大的肌肉肥大。因此,这些结果为力竭与肌肉肥大之间存在潜在的非线性关系提供了证据。