FitProven
Evidence Breakdown
Based on 2 studies
THE BIGGER QUESTION
Whether this one statement holds is settled above. What to actually do about it is a wider question, weighed across every claim that bears on it.
- What's the right way to train for muscle growth? — this claim is one of 5 weighed there
Evidence map
For & against, at a glance
Meta-Analysis
Con
Grgic J et al. · 2022Journal of Sport and Health ScienceSystematic review and meta-analysis of 15 studies comparing resistance training performed to repetition failure against non-failure training. **Neither outcome favoured training to failure.** For muscular strength the pooled effect was ES −0.09 (95% CI −0.22 to 0.05, p = 0.198, 394 participants); for hypertrophy it was ES 0.22 (95% CI −0.11 to 0.55, **p = 0.152**, 219 participants) — not significant. The authors' own conclusion is that "training to or not to muscle failure may produce similar increases in muscular strength and muscle size." Two subgroups moved: with volume not equated, strength favoured *non*-failure training (ES −0.32, 95% CI −0.57 to −0.07, p = 0.025), and in resistance-trained participants hypertrophy slightly favoured failure (ES 0.15, 95% CI 0.03–0.26, p = 0.039). Training to failure is therefore not required, and no detrimental effect was found either.
0.70
Systematic review and meta-analysis of 15 studies comparing resistance training performed to repetition failure against non-failure training. **Neither outcome favoured training to failure.** For muscular strength the pooled effect was ES −0.09 (95% CI −0.22 to 0.05, p = 0.198, 394 participants); for hypertrophy it was ES 0.22 (95% CI −0.11 to 0.55, **p = 0.152**, 219 participants) — not significant. The authors' own conclusion is that "training to or not to muscle failure may produce similar increases in muscular strength and muscle size." Two subgroups moved: with volume not equated, strength favoured *non*-failure training (ES −0.32, 95% CI −0.57 to −0.07, p = 0.025), and in resistance-trained participants hypertrophy slightly favoured failure (ES 0.15, 95% CI 0.03–0.26, p = 0.039). Training to failure is therefore not required, and no detrimental effect was found either.
Design Meta-Analysis (1.0) × quality 0.70 = impact 0.70
View sourceRCT
Con
Carroll KM et al. · 2019SportsTen-week trial in 15 well-trained men training 3 d/wk, comparing a repetition-maximum group (RM, n = 8, which "exercised until muscular failure on each exercise") with a relative-intensity group (RI_SR, n = 7, which "did not reach muscular failure throughout the intervention"), assessed by vastus lateralis needle biopsy and ultrasound.
The result is stronger than "no difference": the **non-failure group did better**. RI_SR significantly increased type I fibre CSA (p = 0.018, g = 0.56), type II fibre CSA (p = 0.012, g = 0.81), anatomical CSA (p = 0.002, g = 0.53) and muscle thickness (p < 0.001, g = 1.47). The failure group significantly increased **only** muscle thickness (p = 0.003, g = 0.80). Between-group effect sizes favoured non-failure throughout (type I CSA g = 0.48, type II CSA g = 0.50, ACSA g = 1.03, MT g = 0.72). The authors conclude there were "greater adaptations in fibre size, whole-muscle size, and several key contractile proteins when using RI_SR compared to RM loading paradigms."
The companion paper on the same cohort (Carroll et al., *IJSPP* 2019, doi 10.1123/ijspp.2018-0045) reports that weekly volume-load displacement did not differ between groups (p > .05) while training strain was significantly greater in the failure group — i.e. the failure group paid more fatigue for less hypertrophy at matched volume. With 7–8 men per arm this is underpowered, so treat the *direction* as the finding and not the effect sizes.
0.36
Ten-week trial in 15 well-trained men training 3 d/wk, comparing a repetition-maximum group (RM, n = 8, which "exercised until muscular failure on each exercise") with a relative-intensity group (RI_SR, n = 7, which "did not reach muscular failure throughout the intervention"), assessed by vastus lateralis needle biopsy and ultrasound. The result is stronger than "no difference": the **non-failure group did better**. RI_SR significantly increased type I fibre CSA (p = 0.018, g = 0.56), type II fibre CSA (p = 0.012, g = 0.81), anatomical CSA (p = 0.002, g = 0.53) and muscle thickness (p < 0.001, g = 1.47). The failure group significantly increased **only** muscle thickness (p = 0.003, g = 0.80). Between-group effect sizes favoured non-failure throughout (type I CSA g = 0.48, type II CSA g = 0.50, ACSA g = 1.03, MT g = 0.72). The authors conclude there were "greater adaptations in fibre size, whole-muscle size, and several key contractile proteins when using RI_SR compared to RM loading paradigms." The companion paper on the same cohort (Carroll et al., *IJSPP* 2019, doi 10.1123/ijspp.2018-0045) reports that weekly volume-load displacement did not differ between groups (p > .05) while training strain was significantly greater in the failure group — i.e. the failure group paid more fatigue for less hypertrophy at matched volume. With 7–8 men per arm this is underpowered, so treat the *direction* as the finding and not the effect sizes.
Design RCT (0.8) × quality 0.45 = impact 0.36
View sourceMeta-Analysis
Con
Grgic J et al. · 2022Journal of Sport and Health ScienceSystematic review and meta-analysis of 15 studies comparing resistance training performed to repetition failure against non-failure training. **Neither outcome favoured training to failure.** For muscular strength the pooled effect was ES −0.09 (95% CI −0.22 to 0.05, p = 0.198, 394 participants); for hypertrophy it was ES 0.22 (95% CI −0.11 to 0.55, **p = 0.152**, 219 participants) — not significant. The authors' own conclusion is that "training to or not to muscle failure may produce similar increases in muscular strength and muscle size." Two subgroups moved: with volume not equated, strength favoured *non*-failure training (ES −0.32, 95% CI −0.57 to −0.07, p = 0.025), and in resistance-trained participants hypertrophy slightly favoured failure (ES 0.15, 95% CI 0.03–0.26, p = 0.039). Training to failure is therefore not required, and no detrimental effect was found either.
0.70
Systematic review and meta-analysis of 15 studies comparing resistance training performed to repetition failure against non-failure training. **Neither outcome favoured training to failure.** For muscular strength the pooled effect was ES −0.09 (95% CI −0.22 to 0.05, p = 0.198, 394 participants); for hypertrophy it was ES 0.22 (95% CI −0.11 to 0.55, **p = 0.152**, 219 participants) — not significant. The authors' own conclusion is that "training to or not to muscle failure may produce similar increases in muscular strength and muscle size." Two subgroups moved: with volume not equated, strength favoured *non*-failure training (ES −0.32, 95% CI −0.57 to −0.07, p = 0.025), and in resistance-trained participants hypertrophy slightly favoured failure (ES 0.15, 95% CI 0.03–0.26, p = 0.039). Training to failure is therefore not required, and no detrimental effect was found either.
Design Meta-Analysis (1.0) × quality 0.70 = impact 0.70
View sourceRCT
Con
Carroll KM et al. · 2019SportsTen-week trial in 15 well-trained men training 3 d/wk, comparing a repetition-maximum group (RM, n = 8, which "exercised until muscular failure on each exercise") with a relative-intensity group (RI_SR, n = 7, which "did not reach muscular failure throughout the intervention"), assessed by vastus lateralis needle biopsy and ultrasound.
The result is stronger than "no difference": the **non-failure group did better**. RI_SR significantly increased type I fibre CSA (p = 0.018, g = 0.56), type II fibre CSA (p = 0.012, g = 0.81), anatomical CSA (p = 0.002, g = 0.53) and muscle thickness (p < 0.001, g = 1.47). The failure group significantly increased **only** muscle thickness (p = 0.003, g = 0.80). Between-group effect sizes favoured non-failure throughout (type I CSA g = 0.48, type II CSA g = 0.50, ACSA g = 1.03, MT g = 0.72). The authors conclude there were "greater adaptations in fibre size, whole-muscle size, and several key contractile proteins when using RI_SR compared to RM loading paradigms."
The companion paper on the same cohort (Carroll et al., *IJSPP* 2019, doi 10.1123/ijspp.2018-0045) reports that weekly volume-load displacement did not differ between groups (p > .05) while training strain was significantly greater in the failure group — i.e. the failure group paid more fatigue for less hypertrophy at matched volume. With 7–8 men per arm this is underpowered, so treat the *direction* as the finding and not the effect sizes.
0.36
Ten-week trial in 15 well-trained men training 3 d/wk, comparing a repetition-maximum group (RM, n = 8, which "exercised until muscular failure on each exercise") with a relative-intensity group (RI_SR, n = 7, which "did not reach muscular failure throughout the intervention"), assessed by vastus lateralis needle biopsy and ultrasound. The result is stronger than "no difference": the **non-failure group did better**. RI_SR significantly increased type I fibre CSA (p = 0.018, g = 0.56), type II fibre CSA (p = 0.012, g = 0.81), anatomical CSA (p = 0.002, g = 0.53) and muscle thickness (p < 0.001, g = 1.47). The failure group significantly increased **only** muscle thickness (p = 0.003, g = 0.80). Between-group effect sizes favoured non-failure throughout (type I CSA g = 0.48, type II CSA g = 0.50, ACSA g = 1.03, MT g = 0.72). The authors conclude there were "greater adaptations in fibre size, whole-muscle size, and several key contractile proteins when using RI_SR compared to RM loading paradigms." The companion paper on the same cohort (Carroll et al., *IJSPP* 2019, doi 10.1123/ijspp.2018-0045) reports that weekly volume-load displacement did not differ between groups (p > .05) while training strain was significantly greater in the failure group — i.e. the failure group paid more fatigue for less hypertrophy at matched volume. With 7–8 men per arm this is underpowered, so treat the *direction* as the finding and not the effect sizes.
Design RCT (0.8) × quality 0.45 = impact 0.36
View sourceTap any node to expand its detail.
Evidence
AGAINST (2)
AGAINST Meta-Analysisn=3940.70 Grgic J, Schoenfeld BJ et al. (2022)
No significant difference between failure and non-failure training for strength (ES -0.09, 95% CI -0.22 to 0.05) or hypertrophy (ES 0.22, 95% CI -0.11 to 0.55)
Systematic review and meta-analysis of 15 studies comparing resistance training performed to repetition failure against non-failure training. Neither outcome favoured training to failure. For muscular strength the pooled effect was ES −0.09 (95% CI −0.22 to 0.05, p = 0.198, 394 participants); for hypertrophy it was ES 0.22 (95% CI −0.11 to 0.55, p = 0.152, 219 participants) — not significant. The authors' own conclusion is that "training to or not to muscle failure may produce similar increases in muscular strength and muscle size." Two subgroups moved: with volume not equated, strength favoured non-failure training (ES −0.32, 95% CI −0.57 to −0.07, p = 0.025), and in resistance-trained participants hypertrophy slightly favoured failure (ES 0.15, 95% CI 0.03–0.26, p = 0.039). Training to failure is therefore not required, and no detrimental effect was found either.
Weighted 0.70 — 394 participants across 15 studies, all young adults. WARNING - this record is unreliable and needs human review: its DOI does not resolve, and the paper matching these authors (J Sport Health Sci 2022, 10.1016/j.jshs.2021.01.007) reports NO significant difference for either outcome, which contradicts the summary text below. The metadata here reflects the verified paper, not the summary.
Journal of Sport and Health Science
AGAINST RCTn=150.45 Carroll KM, Bazyler CD et al. (2019)
Over 10 volume-matched weeks, non-failure relative-intensity training increased type I and type II fibre CSA and whole-muscle CSA, while training to failure increased only muscle thickness
Ten-week trial in 15 well-trained men training 3 d/wk, comparing a repetition-maximum group (RM, n = 8, which "exercised until muscular failure on each exercise") with a relative-intensity group (RI_SR, n = 7, which "did not reach muscular failure throughout the intervention"), assessed by vastus lateralis needle biopsy and ultrasound.
The result is stronger than "no difference": the non-failure group did better. RI_SR significantly increased type I fibre CSA (p = 0.018, g = 0.56), type II fibre CSA (p = 0.012, g = 0.81), anatomical CSA (p = 0.002, g = 0.53) and muscle thickness (p < 0.001, g = 1.47). The failure group significantly increased only muscle thickness (p = 0.003, g = 0.80). Between-group effect sizes favoured non-failure throughout (type I CSA g = 0.48, type II CSA g = 0.50, ACSA g = 1.03, MT g = 0.72). The authors conclude there were "greater adaptations in fibre size, whole-muscle size, and several key contractile proteins when using RI_SR compared to RM loading paradigms."
The companion paper on the same cohort (Carroll et al., IJSPP 2019, doi 10.1123/ijspp.2018-0045) reports that weekly volume-load displacement did not differ between groups (p > .05) while training strain was significantly greater in the failure group — i.e. the failure group paid more fatigue for less hypertrophy at matched volume. With 7–8 men per arm this is underpowered, so treat the direction as the finding and not the effect sizes.
Weighted 0.45 — 15 well-trained men analysed (8 RM vs 7 RI_SR) over 10 weeks — a real training study in the right population with no external funding, but badly underpowered for between-group hypertrophy comparisons. Note also that the DOI recorded here (10.1519/JSC.0000000000002957) is wrong: the real paper is Sports 2019;7(7):169, doi 10.3390/sports7070169. The journal field is correct.
Funding: none declared (no external funding)
Sports