The prescription of resistance exercise often involves administering a set number of repetitions to be completed at a given relative load. While this accounts for individual differences in strength, it neglects to account for differences in local muscle endurance and may result in varied responses across individuals. One way of potentially creating a more homogenous stimulus across individuals involves performing resistance exercise to volitional failure, but this has not been tested and was the purpose of the present study. Individuals completed 2 testing sessions to compare repetitions, ratings of perceived exertion (RPE), muscle swelling and fatigue responses to arbitrary repetition (SET) vs. failure (FAIL) protocols using either 60% or 30% one-repetition maximum. Statistical analyses assessed differences in the variability between protocols. Forty-six individuals (25 females and 21 males) completed the study. There was more variability in the number of repetitions completed during FAIL when compared to SET protocols. Performing the 60% 1RM condition to failure appeared to reduce the variability in muscle swelling (average variance: 60%-SET = .034, 60%-FAIL = .023) and RPE (average variance: 60%-SET = 4.0, 60%-FAIL = 2.5), but did not alter the variability in muscle fatigue. No differences in variability were present between the SET-30% and FAIL-30% protocols for any of the dependent variables. Performing resistance exercise to failure may result in a more homogenous stimulus across individuals, particularly when using moderate to high exercise loads. The prescription of resistance exercise should account for individual differences in local muscle endurance to ensure a similarly effective stimulus across individuals.

Highlights

• There is a large variance in the number of repetitions individuals can complete even when exercising with the same relative load.

• Ratings of perceived exertion and muscle swelling responses become more homogenous when exercising to volitional failure as compared to using performing a set number of repetitions, particularly when moderate to higher loads are used.

• The prescription of exercise should take into consideration the individual's local muscle endurance as opposed to choosing an arbitrary number of repetitions to be completed at a given relative load.

View article

Background: Studies have examined the influence of postexercise blood flow restriction as a mechanism to activate muscle afferents and assess nonlocal muscle fatigue. Although these studies have assessed fatigue during maximal contractions, less is known about how these afferents may impact submaximal local muscle endurance, which was the purpose of the present study.

Methods: Individuals completed two testing visits which involved completing a set of elbow flexion exercises to volitional failure on the nondominant followed by the dominant arm. During both trials, a pneumatic cuff was placed at the top of the nondominant arm before exercise. This cuff was inflated to either 0% (control) or 70% (experimental) of the individual's arterial occlusion pressure immediately after the set was completed. We then evaluated how this impacted local muscle endurance of the dominant arm using a Bayesian paired samples t-test with an uninformed prior width of 0.707 centred on 0.

Results: A total of 36 individuals completed the study (18 females). There was a greater discomfort present in the experimental trial when compared to the control trial (control: 4.5 standard deviation [SD]: 2.4); experimental: 5.8 [SD: 1.9]; BF₁₀ = 61.46), but there were no differences in repetitions completed on the dominant arm (control: 43 [SD: 9], experimental: 43 [SD: 10]; BF₁₀ = 0.179).

Conclusions: Applying blood flow restriction postexercise induced sensations of discomfort but did not alter the local muscle endurance of the contralateral limb. These results suggest that increasing the activation of muscle afferents does not appear to alter the submaximal muscle endurance of a remote limb.

View article

Introduction: To compare changes in muscle size, strength, and power between free-weight and machine-based exercises.

Evidence acquisition: The online databases of Pubmed, Scopus, and Web of Science were each searched using the following terms: ""free weights" OR barbells OR dumbbells AND machines" up until September 15, 2020. A three-level random effects meta-analytic model was used to compute effect sizes.

Evidence synthesis: When strength was tested using a free-weight exercise, individuals training with free-weights gained more strength than those training with machines [ES: 0.655; (95% CI: 0.269, 1.041)]. When strength was tested a machine-based exercise incorporated as part of the machine-based training program, individuals training with machines gained more strength than those training with free-weights [ES: -0.784 (95% CI: -1.223, -0.344)]. When strength was tested using a neutral device, machines and free-weight exercises resulted in similar strength gains [ES: 0.128 (95% CI: -0303, 0.559)]. There were no differences in the change in power [ES: -0.049 (95% CI: -0.557, 0.460)] or muscle hypertrophy [ES: -0.01 (95% CI: -0.525, 0.545)] between exercise modes.

Conclusions: Individuals looking to increase strength and power should take into account the specificity of exercise, and how their strength and power will be tested and applied. Individuals looking to increase general strength and muscle mass to maintain health may choose whichever activity they prefer and are more likely to adhere to.

View article