Influence of Resistance Training Proximity-to-Failure, Determined by Repetitions-in-Reserve, on Neuromuscular Fatigue in Resistance-Trained Males and Females.
Fatigue
Proximity-to-failure
Repetitions-in-reserve
Resistance training
Journal
Sports medicine - open
ISSN: 2199-1170
Titre abrégé: Sports Med Open
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101662568
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
08 Feb 2023
08 Feb 2023
Historique:
received:
08
11
2022
accepted:
24
01
2023
entrez:
8
2
2023
pubmed:
9
2
2023
medline:
9
2
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
This study examined the influence of proximity-to-failure in resistance training (RT), using subjective repetitions-in-reserve (RIR) prediction, on neuromuscular fatigue and perceptual responses. Twenty-four resistance-trained males (n = 12) and females (n = 12) completed three experimental trials in a randomised order, each involving six RT sets (barbell bench press) with 75% 1-RM performed to either momentary muscular failure (FAIL), 1-RIR, or 3-RIR. Changes in lifting velocity with a fixed load were assessed from pre-exercise to post-exercise with the aim of quantifying acute neuromuscular fatigue (4 min post-exercise) and the associated time course of recovery (24 and 48 h post-exercise), and from the first to final set performed. Perceptual responses to RT were assessed at multiple time points during and following RT. Decreases in lifting velocity at 4 min post-exercise were greater for FAIL ( - 25%) versus 1-RIR ( - 13%) and 3-RIR ( - 8%), with greater decreases for male ( - 29%) versus female ( - 21%) participants following FAIL. At 24 h post-exercise, decreases in lifting velocity were greater for FAIL ( - 3%) and 1-RIR ( - 3%) versus 3-RIR (+ 2%), with all between-protocol differences diminishing at 48 h post-exercise. Loss of lifting velocity from the first to final set was greater for FAIL ( - 22%) versus 1-RIR ( - 9%) and 3-RIR ( - 6%), with a greater lifting velocity loss from the first to final set for males ( - 15%) versus females ( - 9%). As proximity-to-failure neared, ratings of perceived discomfort, exertion, and muscle soreness increased, general feelings worsened, and perceived recovery decreased. These findings support a linear relationship between RT proximity-to-failure and both acute neuromuscular fatigue and negative perceptual responses, which may influence long-term physiological adaptations and adherence to RT.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
This study examined the influence of proximity-to-failure in resistance training (RT), using subjective repetitions-in-reserve (RIR) prediction, on neuromuscular fatigue and perceptual responses.
METHODS
METHODS
Twenty-four resistance-trained males (n = 12) and females (n = 12) completed three experimental trials in a randomised order, each involving six RT sets (barbell bench press) with 75% 1-RM performed to either momentary muscular failure (FAIL), 1-RIR, or 3-RIR. Changes in lifting velocity with a fixed load were assessed from pre-exercise to post-exercise with the aim of quantifying acute neuromuscular fatigue (4 min post-exercise) and the associated time course of recovery (24 and 48 h post-exercise), and from the first to final set performed. Perceptual responses to RT were assessed at multiple time points during and following RT.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Decreases in lifting velocity at 4 min post-exercise were greater for FAIL ( - 25%) versus 1-RIR ( - 13%) and 3-RIR ( - 8%), with greater decreases for male ( - 29%) versus female ( - 21%) participants following FAIL. At 24 h post-exercise, decreases in lifting velocity were greater for FAIL ( - 3%) and 1-RIR ( - 3%) versus 3-RIR (+ 2%), with all between-protocol differences diminishing at 48 h post-exercise. Loss of lifting velocity from the first to final set was greater for FAIL ( - 22%) versus 1-RIR ( - 9%) and 3-RIR ( - 6%), with a greater lifting velocity loss from the first to final set for males ( - 15%) versus females ( - 9%). As proximity-to-failure neared, ratings of perceived discomfort, exertion, and muscle soreness increased, general feelings worsened, and perceived recovery decreased.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
These findings support a linear relationship between RT proximity-to-failure and both acute neuromuscular fatigue and negative perceptual responses, which may influence long-term physiological adaptations and adherence to RT.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36752989
doi: 10.1186/s40798-023-00554-y
pii: 10.1186/s40798-023-00554-y
pmc: PMC9908800
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
10Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s).
Références
Eur J Appl Physiol. 2022 May;122(5):1111-1128
pubmed: 35138447
Exerc Sport Sci Rev. 2001 Jul;29(3):109-12
pubmed: 11474957
J Strength Cond Res. 2022 Jan 1;36(1):1-9
pubmed: 34941608
Ann Phys Rehabil Med. 2011 Mar;54(2):88-108
pubmed: 21376692
J Strength Cond Res. 2021 Feb 1;35(Suppl 1):S158-S165
pubmed: 30747900
J Strength Cond Res. 2020 Oct;34(10):2867-2876
pubmed: 30036284
Clin Physiol Funct Imaging. 2017 Nov;37(6):630-639
pubmed: 26970332
Sports Med. 2020 Oct;50(10):1785-1812
pubmed: 32666247
J Strength Cond Res. 2019 Mar;33(3):890-895
pubmed: 30640306
J Strength Cond Res. 2016 Jan;30(1):267-75
pubmed: 26049792
Int J Sports Med. 2022 Mar;43(3):237-244
pubmed: 34255325
Muscle Nerve. 2017 Oct;56(4):797-803
pubmed: 28006852
Exp Physiol. 2022 Sep;107(9):1046-1060
pubmed: 35930559
J Strength Cond Res. 2011 Mar;25(3):620-8
pubmed: 20581704
J Exerc Sci Fit. 2020 May;18(2):94-100
pubmed: 32636891
J Strength Cond Res. 2021 Apr 1;35(4):886-893
pubmed: 33306589
Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2016 Nov;48(11):2247-2256
pubmed: 27015385
Sports Med. 2022 Nov 5;:
pubmed: 36334240
Sports Med. 2011 Aug 1;41(8):641-71
pubmed: 21780850
J Sports Sci. 2022 Jun;40(12):1369-1391
pubmed: 35658845
J Histochem Cytochem. 2000 May;48(5):623-9
pubmed: 10769046
J Strength Cond Res. 2013 Aug;27(8):2079-85
pubmed: 23287827
J Strength Cond Res. 2004 Nov;18(4):796-802
pubmed: 15574104
Sports (Basel). 2019 Mar 04;7(3):
pubmed: 30836680
PLoS One. 2012;7(7):e40621
pubmed: 22808209
Sports Med. 2022 Feb;52(2):377-390
pubmed: 34542869
J Int Soc Sports Nutr. 2017 Jun 20;14:20
pubmed: 28642676
J Physiol. 2019 Sep;597(17):4601-4613
pubmed: 31294822
Exp Physiol. 2016 Feb;101(2):250-5
pubmed: 26440505
Front Psychol. 2020 Dec 23;11:565416
pubmed: 33424678
J Sports Sci. 2020 Mar;38(5):477-485
pubmed: 31868099
J Sports Sci. 2012;30(13):1405-13
pubmed: 22873691
Am J Physiol. 1989 Oct;257(4 Pt 1):E567-72
pubmed: 2529775
Sports Med. 2020 Oct;50(10):1813-1827
pubmed: 32661839
PeerJ. 2017 Nov 30;5:e4105
pubmed: 29204323
Ann Behav Med. 2015 Oct;49(5):715-31
pubmed: 25921307
Sports Med. 2022 May;52(5):1103-1125
pubmed: 34881412
PLoS One. 2008 Jan 02;3(1):e1385
pubmed: 18167544
Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2017 Jul;27(7):724-735
pubmed: 27038416
J Strength Cond Res. 2021 Mar 1;35(3):870-878
pubmed: 30063555
J Strength Cond Res. 2021 May 1;35(5):1372-1379
pubmed: 30615007
Appl Physiol Nutr Metab. 2016 Feb;41(2):168-74
pubmed: 26789094
J Strength Cond Res. 2021 Nov 1;35(11):3063-3068
pubmed: 31356513
Biol Sport. 2014 Jun;31(2):157-61
pubmed: 24899782
Eur J Appl Physiol. 2017 Dec;117(12):2387-2399
pubmed: 28965198
Exerc Sport Sci Rev. 2009 Jul;37(3):113-22
pubmed: 19550202
J Sports Med Phys Fitness. 2020 Sep;60(9):1231-1239
pubmed: 32586078
Sports (Basel). 2021 Nov 19;9(11):
pubmed: 34822356
Acta Physiol (Oxf). 2014 Apr;210(4):768-89
pubmed: 24433272
J Strength Cond Res. 2021 Sep 1;35(9):2451-2456
pubmed: 31009432
J Strength Cond Res. 2018 Aug;32(8):2139-2153
pubmed: 29781942
Front Physiol. 2018 Mar 21;9:247
pubmed: 29628895
J Strength Cond Res. 2001 Feb;15(1):109-15
pubmed: 11708692
J Appl Physiol (1985). 2017 May 1;122(5):1068-1076
pubmed: 27932676
Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol. 1993;66(3):254-62
pubmed: 8477683
Front Psychol. 2016 Aug 25;7:1285
pubmed: 27610096
Sports Med. 2019 Nov;49(11):1637-1650
pubmed: 31190324
Contraception. 2013 Sep;88(3):408-12
pubmed: 23312929
Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2011 Sep;43(9):1725-34
pubmed: 21311352