Published ahead of Print

Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/acsm-msse by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCyw

CX1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC4/OAVpDDa8K2+Ya6H515kE= on 04/19/2025

Without Fail: Muscular Adaptations in Single Set Resistance Training

Performed to Failure or with Repetitions-in-Reserve

D
Thomas Hermann1, Adam E. Mohan1, Alysson Enes1,2, Max Sapuppo1, Alec Piñero1, Arman
Zamanzadeh1, Michael Roberts1, Max Coleman1, Patroklos Androulakis Korakakis1, Milo Wolf1,

TE
Martin Refalo3, Paul A. Swinton4, and Brad J. Schoenfeld1

1
Department of Exercise Science and Recreation, Applied Muscle Development Lab, CUNY
Lehman College, Bronx, NY; 2Metabolism, Nutrition and Strength Training Research Group
(GPMENUTF), Federal University of Paraná (UFPR), Curitiba, PR, BRAZIL; 3Institute for
Physical Activity and Nutrition (IPAN), School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Deakin
EP
University, Geelong, VIC, AUSTRALIA; 4Department of Sport and Exercise, School of Health
Sciences, Robert Gordon University, Aberdeen, UNITED KINGDOM

Accepted for Publication: 1 April 2025

C
C
A

Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise® Published ahead of Print contains articles in unedited
manuscript form that have been peer reviewed and accepted for publication. This manuscript will undergo
copyediting, page composition, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form.
Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered that could affect the content.

Copyright © 2025 American College of Sports Medicine

Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, Publish Ahead of Print
DOI: 10.1249/MSS.0000000000003728

Without Fail: Muscular Adaptations in Single Set Resistance Training

Performed to Failure or with Repetitions-in-Reserve

Thomas Hermann1, Adam E. Mohan1, Alysson Enes1,2, Max Sapuppo1, Alec Piñero1, Arman

D
Zamanzadeh1, Michael Roberts1, Max Coleman1, Patroklos Androulakis Korakakis1, Milo Wolf1,

Martin Refalo3, Paul A. Swinton4, and Brad J. Schoenfeld1

TE
1
Department of Exercise Science and Recreation, Applied Muscle Development Lab, CUNY

Lehman College, Bronx, NY; 2Metabolism, Nutrition and Strength Training Research Group
EP
(GPMENUTF), Federal University of Paraná (UFPR), Curitiba, PR, BRAZIL; 3Institute for

Physical Activity and Nutrition (IPAN), School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Deakin

University, Geelong, VIC, AUSTRALIA; 4Department of Sport and Exercise, School of Health

Sciences, Robert Gordon University, Aberdeen, UNITED KINGDOM

C

Address for correspondence: Lehman College, 250 Bedford Park Blvd West, Bronx, NY 10468;
C

E-mail: [email protected]
A

Conflict of Interest and Funding Source: This study was supported by a PSC-CUNY Cycle 55

grant (Award # 67359-00 55). AE gratefully acknowledges the support by the Fulbright U.S.

Student Program - Doctoral Dissertation Research Award, which is sponsored by the U.S.

Department of State and Brazilian Fulbright Commission. Competing Interests: BJS formerly

Copyright © 2025 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
served on the scientific advisory board for Tonal Corporation, a manufacturer of fitness equipment.

The other authors report no conflicts of interest with this manuscript.

D
TE
EP
C
C
A

Copyright © 2025 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
ABSTRACT

Introduction/Purpose: This study compared the effects of single-set resistance training

performed with maximal effort (failure) vs submaximal effort on muscular adaptations. Methods:

Forty-two young, resistance-trained men and women were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 parallel

groups: A group that trained to failure on all exercises (FAIL) or a submaximal effort group (2-

RIR) that trained with two repetitions in reserve for the same exercises. Participants performed a

D
single set of 9 exercises targeting all major muscle groups per session, twice weekly for 8 weeks.

We assessed pre-post study changes in muscle thickness for the biceps brachii, triceps brachii, and

TE
quadriceps femoris, along with measures of muscular strength, power, endurance, and ability to

estimate RIR in the bench press and squat. Results: Results indicated that both FAIL and 2-RIR

elicited appreciable gains in most of the assessed outcomes. Several measures of hypertrophy
EP
tended to favor FAIL, although absolute differences between conditions were generally modest.

Increases in countermovement jump height favored FAIL, but with no clear statistical support for

either the null or alternative hypothesis. Increases in strength and local muscular endurance were

similar between conditions. Participants demonstrated greater accuracy in estimating RIR for the
C

bench press compared to the squat and improved their accuracy over the intervention, particularly
C

for the bench press. Conclusions: These findings suggest that single-set routines can be a time-

efficient strategy for promoting muscular adaptations in resistance-trained individuals, even when
A

transitioning from higher-volume programs. Training to failure in single-set routines may

modestly enhance some measures of muscle hypertrophy and power, but not strength or local

muscle endurance. Key Words: TIME-EFFICIENT TRAINING, MINIMUM EFFECTIVE

DOSE, SET END POINT, PROXIMITY TO FAILURE, MUSCLE HYPERTROPHY,

STRENGTH

Copyright © 2025 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
INTRODUCTION

A compelling body of evidence indicates that regimented resistance training (RT) promotes

a wide array of health- and fitness-related benefits (1). To achieve beneficial effects, RT programs

are often implemented using multi-set protocols, which frequently exceed an hour per session

across several weekly sessions (2). However, research shows that a lack of time is a primary barrier

to exercise adherence (3), which may discourage some individuals from participating in long-

D
duration RT programs. Indeed, only 28% of the United States population regularly engages in RT

at least 2 days-per-week as recommended by the Federal Physical Activity Guidelines for muscle-

TE
strengthening (4). Thus, identifying time-efficient training strategies has important implications

for long-term RT engagement and hence public health and wellness.

EP
Evidence suggests that single-set RT, defined as performing one set of each exercise per

session, can be a viable time-efficient strategy to promote muscular adaptations (5). To achieve

optimal effects, it is generally proposed that single-set RT must be carried out to momentary

muscular failure (described hereafter as “failure”) (6), defined as the point at which an individual
C

cannot complete the concentric portion of a repetition, despite attempting to do so, without
C

deviation from the prescribed form of the exercise (7). However, this can be problematic for some

individuals as reaching failure causes high levels of perceived discomfort and negative post-
A

exercise feelings (8), which may be a deterrent to long-term exercise adherence.

Furthermore, emerging research in multi-set RT protocols suggests that performing RT to

failure may not be necessary to optimize strength development and muscle hypertrophy (9) (10).

Accordingly, the repetitions in reserve (RIR) scale was developed to help provide an accurate

Copyright © 2025 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
measure for determining RT proximity to failure (11). For example, a proximity-to-failure of 1-

RIR indicates a single additional repetition could be completed, while 0-RIR indicates the next

attempted repetition would result in failure. Indeed, an individual may attempt to control the

proximity-to-failure reached by performing repetitions with a given load until they perceive a

given RIR target has been reached, known as self-reported prediction of RIR.

D
Recent research in trained men has shown that terminating RT sets with a self-reported

prediction of 1- to 2-RIR can promote similar quadriceps hypertrophy to reaching failure (12),

TE
supporting general recommendations that speculate 2-RIR would likely be sufficient to elicit

optimal hypertrophic outcomes (13). However, this recommendation is specific to evidence

derived from multi-set protocols. It remains unclear whether training to failure is necessary to
EP
achieve satisfactory results in single-set protocols; if not, this would be of practical importance for

removing barriers to RT participation. Therefore, this study aimed to compare the effects of single-

set RT performed either with 2-RIR or to failure on muscular adaptations in young, resistance-

trained adults. We hypothesized that reaching failure would induce greater strength and
C

hypertrophy under the assumption that a lack of accumulated intersession fatigue in single set
C

protocols would mitigate detrimental effects observed in multi-set protocols (e.g., less or similar

volume load completed when RT is performed to failure versus with RIR) (8).
A

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Participants

We recruited a total of 50 volunteers, irrespective of sex, from a university population. To

qualify for inclusion in the study, participants were required to be: (a) between the ages of 18-40

Copyright © 2025 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
years; (b) free from existing cardiorespiratory or musculoskeletal disorders; (c) self-reported as

free from use of anabolic steroids or any other illegal agents known to increase muscle size

currently and for the previous year; and, (d) considered as resistance-trained, defined as

consistently lifting weights targeting all major skeletal muscles at least 3 times per week (on most

weeks) for at least 1 year. Participants were asked to refrain from the use of creatine products

throughout the course of the study period, as this supplement has been shown to enhance muscle-

D
building when combined with RT (14).

TE
Participants were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 experimental, parallel groups: A group that

trained to failure on all exercises (FAIL) or a group that performed the same exercises at a RIR of

2 (2-RIR). Randomization into groups was carried out using block randomization, with 2
EP
participants per block, via online software (www.randomizer.org.); group allocation was

concealed from the researcher who determined whether a subject was eligible for inclusion.

Approval for the study was obtained from the Lehman College Institutional Review Board (#2022-

0762-Lehman). Written informed consent and completion of the 2023 PAR-Q+ was obtained from
C

all participants prior to enrollment in the study. The methods for this study were preregistered prior
C

to recruitment at: https://osf.io/un8k4. Supplemental Figure 1 (Supplemental Digital Content)

provides a CONSORT flowchart of the data collection process.

A

Sample Size Justification

Our sample size was justified by a priori precision analysis for the minimum detectable

change at the 68% level (MDC68%; i.e., 1 standard deviation [SD], which is conservative in that it

requires a larger sample to produce a narrow interval) for mid-thigh hypertrophy (i.e., standard

Copyright © 2025 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
error of the measurement = 2.93 mm), such that the confidence interval (CI) of the between-group
13
effect would be approximately ± MDC68%. Based on data from previous research , along with

their sampling distributions, Monte Carlo simulation was used to generate 90% CI widths for 5000

random samples of each sample size. To ensure a conservative estimate, as literature values may

not be extrapolatable, the sum of each simulated sample size’s 90% CI’s mean and SD were used,

and the smallest sample that exceeded MDC68% was chosen; that is, 18 participants per group (1:1

D
allocation ratio). Additional participants were recruited to account for the possibility of dropouts.

TE
Resistance Training Procedures

The RT program worked both the upper and lower body musculature in each workout, with

sessions performed twice weekly on nonconsecutive days for 8 weeks. As previously described
EP
(15), the protocol was directly supervised by the research team with each participant trained by at

least one research assistant to monitor the proper performance of the respective routines and ensure

participant safety. Exercises consisted of the front lat pulldown, seated cable row, machine

shoulder press, machine chest press, cable triceps pushdown, supinated dumbbell biceps curl,
C

Smith squat, plate-loaded leg press, and machine leg extension. The duration of each session was
C

approximately 30 minutes.
A

Prior to commencement of the training program at least 48 hours after pre-study

assessments, participants underwent a 10RM testing session to determine their initial training loads

for each exercise. The RM testing was consistent with recognized guidelines as established by the

National Strength and Conditioning Association (16). During this testing session, participants were

instructed how to perform each exercise in the manner specified in the protocol.

Copyright © 2025 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 During the training program, participants performed a single set of 8-12 repetition

maximum (RM) for each exercise with ~2 minutes rest between exercises. The FAIL group was

verbally encouraged to carry out all sets to momentary muscular failure, whereby participants

continued to perform repetitions until they could not complete the concentric portion of a

repetition, despite attempting to do so. Set termination for the 2-RIR group involved the participant

subjectively terminating each set (without the supervisor's assistance) when they perceived to have

D
reached the RIR target; they received no verbal encouragement from supervising researchers to

avoid influencing their RIR estimate. Participants in 2-RIR were therefore provided with the

TE
following standardized instruction: “You will be required to stop the set when you perceive to have

reached 2-RIR”, with “0” anchored at the point momentary muscular failure).
EP
For both groups, the cadence of repetitions was carried out in a controlled fashion, with a

concentric action of approximately 1 second and an eccentric action of approximately 2 seconds

as estimated by the research staff (i.e., without the use of a metronome). For both groups (FAIL

and 2-RIR), if the participants performed more repetitions than the RM load range (8-12
C

repetitions), the load was adjusted the subsequent session by a minimal load to maintain the target
C

repetition range. Participants were allotted a maximum of 2 nonconsecutive missed sessions and

were expelled from the study if they missed an entire week of training. Video examples of
A

participants performing both conditions on selected exercises can be found in the Supplemental

Digital Content.

Copyright © 2025 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Recovery Assessment

To assess recovery timelines across the study period, we employed both subjective and

objective assessments. First, participants were asked to rate their recovery status immediately prior

to the first, second, eighth, and final training sessions using the Perceived Recovery Scale (PRS)

proposed by Laurent et al. (17). The scale gauges recovery along a spectrum from 0 to 10 (see

Supplemental Figure 2, Supplemental Digital Content, with “0” indicating that the individual is

D
“very poorly recovered/extremely tired” and “10” indicating that the individual is “very well

recovered/highly energetic”. A score between 0-2 suggests an expected reduction in performance;

TE
a score between 3-7 suggests no expected changes in performance, and a score between 8-10

suggests an expected performance enhancement.

EP
Immediately after completing the PRS, participants performed the countermovement jump

test (CMJ) test as described in the “Lower Body Muscle Power” section. This assessed the extent

of accumulated fatigue using a performance-based measure. The highest jump was recorded as the

final value as previously described.

C
C

Measurements

The following measurements were conducted pre- and post-intervention. All

A

measurements were taken in the same testing session. Participants reported to the lab at the time

of their choosing between 10:00 AM and 2:00 PM, having refrained from any strenuous exercise

for at least 72 hours prior to testing. Anthropometric and muscle thickness (MT) assessments were

performed first in the session, followed by measures of muscle power, strength, and endurance. A

Copyright © 2025 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
3-5-minute recovery interval separated each strength assessment to ensure adequate recovery,

while a 10-minute recovery interval separated strength and endurance testing.

Anthropometry: To reduce the potential for confounding from lifestyle factors, participants were

told to refrain from eating or drinking for 8 hours prior to anthropometric testing, eliminate alcohol

consumption for 24 hours, and void their bladder immediately before assessment. As previously

D
described (15), participants’ heights were measured using a stadiometer and assessments of body

mass and percent body fat were obtained by multifrequency bioelectrical impedance analysis

TE
(Model 770, InBody Corporation, Seoul, South Korea) as per the instructions of the manufacturer.

Muscle Thickness: As previously described (15), ultrasound imaging was used to obtain
EP
measurements of MT. A trained ultrasound technician performed all testing using a B-mode

ultrasound imaging unit (MX7, Mindray Corporation, Shenzhen, China). The technician applied a

water-soluble transmission gel (Aquasonic 100 Ultrasound Transmission gel, Parker Laboratories

Inc., Fairfield, NJ) to each measurement site, and a 4-12 MHz linear array ultrasound probe was
C

placed perpendicular to the tissue interface without depressing the skin. When the quality of the
C

image was deemed to be satisfactory, the same technician saved the image to a hard drive and

immediately obtained MT dimensions by measuring the distance from the subcutaneous adipose
A

tissue-muscle interface to the muscle-bone interface.

Measurements of 4 different muscle groups were taken on the right side of the body using

identical procedures in pre- and post-study testing sessions: (1) elbow flexors, (2) elbow extensors,

(3) mid-quadriceps (a composite of the rectus femoris and vastus intermedius), and (4) lateral

Copyright © 2025 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
quadriceps (a composite of the vastus lateralis and vastus intermedius). For the elbow flexors,

assessments were conducted on the anterior surface of the upper arm at 60% of the distance

between the antecubital fossa and the acromion process of the scapula. For the elbow extensors,

assessments were obtained on the posterior surface of the upper arm at 50% between the olecranon

tip and the acromion process of the scapula; mid- and lateral quadriceps measurements were

obtained at 30%, 50%, and 70% between the lateral condyle of the femur and greater trochanter.

D
To ensure that swelling in the muscles from training did not obscure MT results, images

TE
were obtained at least 72 hours after exercise/training sessions both in the pre- and post-

intervention assessment. This is consistent with research showing that acute increases in MT return

to baseline within 48 hours following a RT session (18) (19) and that muscle damage is minimal
EP
after repeated exposure to the same exercise stimulus over time (20) (21). To further ensure

accuracy of measurements, 3 successive images were obtained for each site and then averaged to

obtain a final value. The test-retest intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) of our lab’s ultrasound

technician for MT measurements are excellent (>0.94) with coefficients of variation (CV) of
C

≤3.3%.
C

Lower Body Muscle Power: Lower body muscle power was assessed via the vertical jump test.
A

As previously described (15), each participant was instructed on proper performance of the CMJ

prior to testing. The test was carried out as follows: The participant began by assuming a shoulder-

width stance with the body upright and hands on hips. When ready for the movement, the

participant descended into a semi-squat position and then forcefully reversed direction, jumping

as high as possible before landing with both feet on the ground.

Copyright © 2025 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Assessment of jump performance was carried out using a Just Jump mat (Probotics,

Huntsville, AL) attached to a hand-held computer that records airtime and thereby ascertains the

jump height. The participant stood on the mat and performed 3 maximal-effort CMJs with a 1-

minute rest period between each trial. The highest jump was recorded as the final value.

Dynamic Muscle Strength: Upper and lower body strength were assessed in the bench press

D
(1RMBENCH) and back squat (1RMSQUAT), respectively, performed on a Smith machine (Life

Fitness, Westport, CT). All testing sessions were supervised by two research assistants to achieve

TE
a consensus for success on each attempt. Repetition maximum testing was consistent with

recognized guidelines as established by the National Strength and Conditioning Association (16).

As previously described (15), participants were allowed to perform a general warm-up prior to
EP
testing consisting of light cardiovascular exercise lasting approximately 5-10 minutes. Next, a

specific warm-up set of the given exercise of 5 repetitions was performed at ~50% 1RM followed

by one to two sets of 2-3 repetitions at a load corresponding to ~60-80% 1RM. Participants then

performed sets of 1 repetition of increasing weight for 1RM determination. Three to 5 minutes rest
C

was given between each successive attempt. All 1RM determinations were made within 5 attempts.
C

Successful performance in the 1RMBENCH was determined as follows: Participants assumed

A

a supine position on the bench with a five-point body contact position (head, upper back, and

buttocks firmly on the bench with both feet flat on the floor) and grasp the bar at a comfortable

distance and width. Participants removed the barbell from the rack (with assistance if desired),

lowered the barbell until it touched the chest without bouncing, and then executed a full lock-out

Copyright © 2025 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
of the elbows without assistance. The test-retest ICC from our lab for the Smith machine bench

press is 0.996 with a CV of 2.0%.

In the 1RMSQUAT, participants were required to reach parallel (i.e., upper thigh in line with

the floor) and rise up until the hip and knees were fully extended for the attempt to be considered

successful; confirmation of squat depth was obtained by a research assistant positioned laterally to

D
the participant to ensure the thigh was parallel to the floor. The ICC from our lab for the Smith

machine squat is 0.953 with a CV of 2.8%.

TE
Local Muscular Endurance: Absolute lower-body local muscular endurance was assessed by

performing the leg extension exercise on a selectorized machine (Life Fitness, Westport, CT) using
EP
60% of the participant’s initial body mass. The smallest possible incremental increase in load for

the unit was ~2.2 kg. As previously described (15), participants sat with their back flat against the

backrest, grasping the handles of the unit for support. The backrest was adjusted so that the

anatomical axis of the participant’s knee joint aligned with the axis of the unit. Participants placed
C

their shins against the pad attached to the machine’s lever arm. Participants performed as many
C

repetitions as possible (AMRAP) using a full range of motion (90-0 degrees of knee flexion) while

maintaining a constant cadence of 1-0-1-0 as monitored by a metronome (i.e., is 1 second

A

concentrically, no pause at full extension, 1 second eccentrically, and no pause at full flexion). The

test was terminated when the participant could not perform a complete repetition with proper form

in tempo. Local muscular endurance testing was carried out 10 minutes after assessment of

muscular strength to minimize effects of metabolic stress potentially interfering with performance

of the latter.

Copyright © 2025 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Repetitions-to-Failure Assessment

At least 2 days after completing initial measurements, participants were assessed for their

ability to gauge RIR. As previously described (22), the assessment consisted of 2 sessions

separated by 48 to 72 hours using the Smith machine bench press and squat. Participants began

with a specific warm-up at 50%, 65%, and 85% of the 75% 1-RM load as determined in initial

strength testing (for 6, 5, and 4 repetitions, respectively, with 2-minute inter-set rest periods).

D
Researchers then explained the concept of intra-set RIR prediction, noting that a RIR of zero

indicates the last repetition possible with proper form before reaching failure, as previously

TE
defined. Participants also were apprised of the difference between perceptions of discomfort versus

proximity to failure given that participants may confuse these concepts (23). After

acknowledgement of understanding the concepts, participants performed 1 set with a load

EP
corresponding to 75% of 1-RM and verbally assess the point at which they perceived reaching a 2

RIR before continuing the set to failure. This process was repeated in a single separate session

after completion of the study, 48-72 hours after the final testing session.
C

As previously described (22), accuracy for RIR prediction was quantified as the difference
C

between the predicted RIR and the actual RIR (i.e., the number of repetitions achieved after RIR

prediction). We calculated both the raw RIR accuracy to assess the directionality of error (i.e.,
A

underestimation versus overestimation of RIR) and the absolute RIR accuracy to assess the

magnitude of error independent of directionality.

Copyright © 2025 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Dietary Adherence

To avoid potential dietary confounding of results, participants were advised to maintain

their customary nutritional regimen as previously described (15). Dietary adherence was assessed

by self-reported five-day food records (including at least one weekend day) using MacroFactor

(https://macrofactorapp.com/); similar applications have been shown to have good relative validity

for tracking energy and macronutrient intake (24). Nutritional data was collected twice during the

D
study: 1 week before the first training session (i.e., baseline) and during the final week of the

training protocol. A researcher instructed participants on how to properly record all food items and

TE
their respective portion sizes consumed for the designated period of interest. Each item of food

was individually entered into the program, and the program provided relevant information as to

total energy consumption, as well as the amount of energy derived from proteins, fats, and
EP
carbohydrates for each time-period analyzed.

Blinding

To minimize the potential for bias, both the sonographer who conducted ultrasound testing
C

and the statistician who analyzed data were blinded to group allocation.
C

Statistical Analyses
A

All analyses were conducted in R (version 4.2.0) (25) within a Bayesian framework, with

descriptive values expressed in means ± SDs. Bayesian statistics represents an approach to data

analysis and parameter estimation based on Bayes’ theorem (26) and can provide several

advantages over frequentist approaches including: 1) formal inclusion of information regarding

likely differences between interventions based on knowledge from previous studies (i.e., through

Copyright © 2025 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
informative priors); 2) flexible model building to capture a range of complexities within the data;

and 3) presentation of inferences based on intuitive probabilities (27) (26). Inferences were not

drawn on baseline nor within-group change, as baseline testing is inconsequential (28) and within-

group outcomes are not the subject of our research question (29), although we descriptively

presented standardized mean differences for within-group changes to help contextualize our

findings relative to strength and conditioning-specific small, medium and large thresholds (30).

D
We estimated the effects of group (FAIL vs. 2-RIR) on outcome variables using univariate

TE
and multivariate multilevel regression models (31). Use of multivariate models improves precision

by modeling all outcome variables simultaneously, taking advantage of the correlations between

outcomes (31) and avoiding limitations associated with separate inferences with related outcomes
EP
(32). Additionally, the multilevel component of the analysis accounted for the repeated measures

made on each participant across outcomes and time points. Recent data quantifying comparative

distributions and correlations across outcomes following interventions in strength and conditioning

were used to obtain informative priors (33). Inferences were made based on estimates of the
C

difference in change between FAIL and 2-RIR and their credible intervals (CrI) along with Bayes

factors that provided a ‘level’ of evidence (e.g., anecdotal, moderate, or strong) for either the null
C

hypothesis (i.e., no difference between groups) or the alternative hypothesis (i.e., difference
A

between groups), consistent with the recommendations of Lee & Wagenmakers (34). Secondary

analyses were performed on nutritional variables and PRS values, which were analyzed using

multilevel regression models. Accuracy of RIR estimates was modelled using ordinal regression

with a cumulative logit link function. Based on observing the data post study, RIR estimates were

entered as an ordered factor with levels -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, and >2.

Copyright © 2025 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 All analyses were performed using the R wrapper package brms interfaced with Stan to

perform sampling (35). There are three main areas where Bayesian analyses can be performed

inappropriately and/or result in poor inferences. These areas include: 1) issues related to prior

selection; 2) misinterpretation of Bayesian features and results; and 3) improper reporting (36). To

improve accuracy, transparency and replication in the analyses, the WAMBS-checklist (When to

worry and how to Avoid Misuse of Bayesian Statistics) was used and we incorporated sensitivity

D
analyses of influential data points and priors, which has been shown to be important in all cases

including when diffuse priors are used (37).

TE
RESULTS

Of the 50 participants that initially volunteered for the study, 42 completed the protocol
EP
(men = 34, women = 8; height = 172.5 ± 8.4 cm; weight = 79.9 ± 15.0 kg; age = 21.9 ± 3.8 years;

body fat% = 21.4 ± 8.3%; training experience = 4.4 ± 3.8 years). Descriptive data by group are

provided in Supplemental Table 1 (Supplemental Digital Content). Two participants in the FAIL

group dropped out of the study, both for personal reasons. Six participants in the 2-RIR group
C

dropped out of the study, 4 for personal reasons, 1 for non-compliance, and 1 for an injury
C

unrelated to the training program. The final group sizes included for analyses were FAIL = 23 and

2-RIR = 19. Of those completing the study protocol, average session attendance was 94% and 92%
A

for FAIL and 2-RIR, respectively. Prior to the study, 12 participants (29%) stated they were

familiar with the concept of RIR and 5 (12%) stated they previously had employed RIR in their

RT program. The only reported adverse event was an isolated incident of lightheadedness during

a training session.

Copyright © 2025 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Table 1 presents a descriptive summary of pre- and post-intervention values for all

outcomes. Table 2 presents univariate and multivariate estimates of between-group differences

along with Bayes factors. Figure 2 presents posterior distributions illustrating RIR accuracy based

on probabilities of the difference between predicted and actual repetitions.

Muscle Thickness

D
Both interventions promoted small-to-medium increases in muscle thickness from pre- to

post-intervention. While the between-group estimates consistently favored FAIL over 2-RIR

TE
(Table 2), the modes of the posterior distributions were located at small values, with relatively

wide CrI reflecting uncertainty. Summary Bayes factors for univariate models generally indicated

‘anecdotal’ or ‘moderate’ support for no difference between groups (i.e., null hypothesis).
EP
Exceptions included ‘anecdotal’ support for superior mid-quadriceps thickness changes for FAIL

versus 2-RIR (i.e., alternative hypothesis) measured at 50 and 70% (BF = 1.7 and 2.1,

respectively), and triceps brachii thickness (BF = 1.2). Multivariate analyses pooling outcomes for

the quadriceps and upper arms provided increased support for the null hypothesis, with Bayes
C

factors of 0.17, 0.04, and 0.49, respectively (Table 2).

C

Strength
A

Between-group estimates for both the 1RMBENCH and 1RMSQUAT were close to zero, with

wide CrI. These results yielded summary Bayes factors indicating ‘moderate’ support for the null

hypothesis (BF = 0.21 and 0.24, respectively). When the data were combined in a multivariate

analysis, the summary Bayes factor decreased to 0.04, providing ‘strong’ support for the null

Copyright © 2025 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
hypothesis. Within-intervention changes indicated small improvements for the 1RMBENCH and

small-to-medium improvements for the 1RMSQUAT (Figure 1).

Countermovement Jump

The between-group estimate for CMJ height favored FAIL; however, the summary Bayes

factor was 0.92, providing no clear support for either the null or alternative hypothesis. Within-

D
intervention changes indicated small-to-medium improvements (Figure 1).

TE
Local Muscle Endurance

The central ATE estimate for the AMRAP outcome was close to zero with a wide CrI. This

resulted in a summary Bayes factor of 0.62, indicating ‘anecdotal support for the null hypothesis.
EP
Within-intervention changes suggested potentially large improvements (Figure 1).

RIR Estimation

‘Moderate’ evidence (BF = 7.5) indicated greater accuracy in the bench press vs the squat,
C

which increased to ‘strong’ evidence (BF = 12.0) at post-intervention only. ‘Moderate’ evidence

(BF = 3.2) indicated improved RIR accuracy for the bench press, but only ‘anecdotal’ evidence
C

(BF = 1.1) for improvements in the squat. There was anecdotal support suggesting better accuracy
A

post-intervention in the FAIL group, although the evidence was unclear to draw firm conclusions.

Recovery Assessment

Subjective assessment measures indicated both groups perceived their recovery to be high.

2-RIR showed slightly greater measures in this assessment compared to FAIL, of questionable

Copyright © 2025 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
practical significance. Objective assessment measures showed no evidence of impairments in

recovery across the study period, with similar results between conditions. (See Supplemental

Figure 3, Supplemental Digital Content.)

Nutrition

Consumption of energy and nutrients remained relatively constant over the intervention,

D
with no observable differences between conditions (see Supplemental Figure 3, Supplemental

Digital Content).

TE
DISCUSSION

The present study produced several novel and notable findings that help to fill important
EP
gaps in the current literature. First, our results indicate that appreciable muscular gains can be

achieved with relatively low weekly set volumes in young, resistance-trained individuals. Second,

training to failure during single-set routines may have modestly improved some measures of

muscle hypertrophy and power compared to 2-RIR but did not influence markers of strength and
C

muscle endurance. Third, resistance-trained individuals with little to no experience using RIR
C

appear able to satisfactorily estimate their 2 RIR in the bench press and back squat after receiving

a brief explanation of the concept, and predictive ability is enhanced after an 8-week training
A

program. We discuss the specifics of these findings and their practical implications in the ensuing

sections.

Copyright © 2025 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Hypertrophy

Both groups elicited what can be considered appreciable increases in MT across most of

the assessed sites. Hypertrophy tended to be greater in the lower vs upper body sites, with sample

mean MT increases ranging from 2.5% to 9.5% and 1.2% to 4.5% , respectively. The findings add

to the emerging body of literature suggesting that single set RT programs can be a time-efficient

option for those seeking to enhance muscle development (2)(5).

D
Although the most probable estimates across the sites consistently favored FAIL over 2-

TE
RIR (as per our hypothesis), Bayes factors tended to support no differences between FAIL and 2-

RIR groups or provide ‘anecdotal’ support for FAIL being slightly superior to 2-RIR. Further,

when combining sites based on muscle region, Bayes factors further supported no probabilistic
EP
differences between FAIL and 2-RIR. Between-group estimates favoring FAIL were most

prominent in the triceps brachii (CrI = -0.14 to 3.2) and the mid-quadriceps at 50% (CrI = -0.17 to

3.9) and 70% (Cri = 0.02 to 3.1) femur length, although the magnitudes of effect were relatively

modest with anecdotal support for a difference favoring FAIL.

C
C

Several meta-analyses have found no statistically significant differences in muscle

hypertrophy between failure and non-failure training in multi-set protocols (9, 10), despite the
A

pooled effect sizes slightly favoring failure. Additionally, a recent meta-regression exploring the

dose-response relationship between estimated proximity to failure and muscle hypertrophy

indicated that changes in muscle size increased as sets were terminated closer to failure (38). These

findings seem to be consistent with our results given that most of the central estimates for

individual muscle sites favored FAIL over 2-RIR, despite lacking strong probabilistic support. It

Copyright © 2025 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
is possible that a larger sample size and/or a longer intervention duration would increase the

support for a difference. It also remains to be determined how training with a further proximity-

to-failure (>2 RIR) might influence long-term muscle development. It is recommended that future

studies be conducted over longer time periods and incorporate the posterior distributions presented

here into their analyses for more precise estimates, with adjustments as necessary.

D
When comparing our results with those of Refalo et al. (12), it is conceivable that the

influence of proximity-to-failure on muscle hypertrophy may be more potent with single- vs multi-

TE
set protocols, whereby differences between proximity-to-failure (e.g., FAIL vs 2-RIR) conditions

are likely to be larger with lower set volumes. Although speculative, this may be attributed to the

effects of accumulated fatigue from training to failure in these set configurations. In an acute study,
EP
Mangine et al. (39) demonstrated that a 3-RIR better maintained the number of repetitions

performed and work at greater average velocity compared to failure training across 5 sets at 80%

1RM in the bench press. Moreover, failure training has been shown to negatively impact measures

of acute neuromuscular function following performance of 6 sets of the bench press, with
C

impairments sustained at 24 hours post-exercise (8). Conceivably, these deleterious effects would
C

have less relevance in single-set protocols given the lower total training volumes compared to

multi-set protocols. It is therefore plausible that performing a greater number of repetitions at high
A

intensities of effort, as was the case in the present study, may enhance hypertrophy when

employing single-set routines. Future research should endeavor to better understand mechanisms

underlying the phenomenon and their relationship to training volume.

Copyright © 2025 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Strength

Both conditions elicited appreciable improvements in dynamic strength, with sample

increases ranging from 6.4% to 6.9% and 12.4% to 13.2% in the 1RMBENCH and 1RMSQUAT,

respectively. Primary findings also suggest that similar strength development is experienced when

comparing single set programs in which individuals train to failure vs employing 2- RIR. This

observation aligns with meta-analytic evidence suggesting that training to failure is not obligatory

D
for optimizing maximal strength in multi-set protocols (10, 38). Of note, the results of Robinson

et al. (38) suggest that training with a RIR >2 in multi-set programs do not negatively affect

TE
strength adaptations. Future research should investigate whether similar results can be achieved

with lower RIR schemes in single-set RT programs.

EP
Overall, the findings suggest that substantial strength development can be achieved with

minimalistic RT programs independent of the proximity-to-failure reached. The greater

improvements observed in lower- vs upper-body strength may be attributed to the complexity of

the squat exercise, which requires greater neuromuscular coordination than the bench press. This
C

discrepancy may have been magnified by the fact that although participants had engaged in RT for
C

at least 1 year prior to the study, inclusion criteria did not specify previous experience performing

the squat. Although we employed the use of a Smith machine to reduce the potential for motor
A

learning to influence performance of the assessed exercises, it seems likely that motor learning

nevertheless may have persisted in some participants with greater effects observed in the

1RMSQUAT than 1RMBENCH.

Copyright © 2025 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Local Muscular Endurance

Both conditions elicited a large improvement in the number of repetitions performed in the

knee extension at 60% body weight, with the sample data showing greater relative increases for

FAIL vs 2-RIR (31.7% vs 22.5%, respectively). However, the between-group estimate for this

outcome was close to zero with a wide CrI (-2.2 to 3.3), thus raising uncertainty as to appreciable

differences between conditions. A meta-analysis by Hackett et al. (40) indicated RT to failure was

D
a moderating variable on local muscle endurance (confidence interval = -0.29, 2.54). However, all

included studies involved multi-set protocols, limiting generalizability to single-set routines.

TE
Future research should further investigate local muscular endurance adaptations in low-volume

protocols employing different proximities to failure.

EP
Muscular Power

Our sample results indicated somewhat greater improvements in CMJ height, a proxy for

muscular power, for FAIL vs 2-RIR (6.0% vs 1.4%, respectively); however, the Bayes factor did

not provide clear support for a probabilistic difference and the CrI reflected uncertainty as to the
C

possible range of effects (CrI = -0.72 to 4.2). Previous meta-analytic evidence indicates similar
C

improvements in measures of muscular power when training to failure or not-to-failure in volume-

equated routines (41). However, all included studies in this meta-analysis involved multi-set
A

routines, precluding direct comparison to single-set programs.

It should be noted that our protocol was designed to approximate single-set training

programs as customarily described (6), not specifically to optimize muscular power, which

requires a high-velocity training component (42). Future research should investigate the effects of

Copyright © 2025 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
proximity to failure in single-set routines using high-velocity concentric actions to better determine

its influence on muscular power.

RIR Predictive Ability

The vast majority of RIR predictions were within ±2 repetitions on both the squat and

bench press exercises. This level of accuracy was accomplished after a single, brief familiarization

D
session even though the majority of participants never used the method in practice. These results

highlight similar RIR prediction accuracy to those of Remmert et al. (43) and Refalo et al. (22),

TE
who found that trainees can predict RIR within ∼1 repetition when training at 72.5% 1RM in the

biceps curl, triceps pushdown and seated row exercise, and at 75% 1RM on the bench press

exercise, respectively. The findings also are generally consistent with a recent meta-analysis that
EP
showed individuals tended to underpredict the number of repetitions to task failure by 0.95

repetitions (44). Further, results indicated that participants’ predictive ability tended to be better

for the bench press compared to the squat. This finding suggests that RIR estimation may be

influenced by the complexity of the exercise, with accuracy decreasing in movements that involve
C

greater stabilization.
C

We also demonstrated that participants’ predictive ability improved over the 8-week study
A

period, with greater improvements observed in the bench press compared to the squat. The FAIL

group tended to improve their predictive ability to a greater extent than the 2-RIR group. This

would suggest that consistently training to failure enhances the ability to gauge RIR. However, the

evidence on this outcome can be considered anecdotal, with limited ability to draw strong

Copyright © 2025 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
inferences on the topic. Overall, the results provide additional support for the validity of the RIR

method when training with moderate loads in resistance trained individuals.

Limitations

Our study had several limitations that should be considered when drawing practical

inferences. First, the sample consisted of healthy young men and women with at least one year of

D
RT experience. The generalizability of findings to other populations therefore should be inferred

cautiously. Moreover, although the participants in our study had previous RT experience, the

TE
majority would not be considered elite lifters. The findings therefore cannot necessarily be

generalized to highly trained individuals. Second, we opted to employ an ecologically valid

training program and thus employed submaximal loads equating to a medium repetition range (8-
EP
12RM). Given evidence that RIR accuracy diminishes with the use of lighter loads (45), the overall

findings therefore cannot necessarily be extrapolated to higher repetition routines. Moreover,

considering that the magnitude of load correlates with a greater ability to produce force (46), the

strength results cannot necessarily be extrapolated to protocols specifically designed to maximize

C

force production, such as those employed by powerlifters. Third, we did not record participants’
C

previous training volume, which could have influenced our findings as some participants

potentially decreased their previous training volume to different extents than others. Fourth, the
A

FAIL group received consistent verbal encouragement throughout each set, while the RIR group

did not. Augmented feedback, such as verbal cues, can potentially influence exercise performance

(47) and thus may have given the FAIL group an unintended advantage, potentially confounding

the results. Finally, we only assessed MT changes for the upper arms and legs, and thus inferences

Copyright © 2025 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
cannot necessarily be made for hypertrophy of the other muscles. Future research should address

these limitations to fully elucidate the practical implications of the topic.

CONCLUSIONS

Appreciable muscular adaptations were observed when performing just two, 30-minute

total body RT sessions per week over an 8-week study period. This reinforces the veracity of the

D
claim that a lack of time should not be a barrier to regular participation in RT programs, even for

resistance trained individuals. Our findings therefore indicate that resistance trained individuals

TE
not only can maintain muscular gains employing low set volumes but potentially enhance

adaptations at least over relatively short training periods.

EP
Our findings also indicate that although training to failure may be necessary to maximize

development in certain muscles during single-set programs, significant hypertrophy nevertheless

can be achieved employing 2- RIR. Moreover, improvements in measures of strength and local

muscular endurance appear to be independent of proximity- to- failure. Thus, trainees can realize
C

beneficial effects from time-efficient routines with less discomfort than previously believed, which
C

may help to remove potential perceived barriers to RT and facilitate long-term exercise adherence

(48).
A

Finally, we show that resistance trained individuals can predict RIR within ±2 repetitions

after a brief familiarization session. Moreover, participants’ predictive ability improved over the

8-week study period, providing support for the use of the method in estimating proximity to failure

Copyright © 2025 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
when training in a moderate repetition range. Predictive ability tended to be superior in the bench

press vs the squat, suggesting that exercise selection may influence the accuracy of estimation.

D
TE
EP
C
C
A

Copyright © 2025 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Acknowledgements

We extend our heartfelt gratitude to Max Kim, Justin Jusinovega, and Orlando Rivera for their

participation in the data collection process. We also thank Greg Nuckols for providing the use of

the MacroFactor software platform for nutritional tracking by participants. his study was supported

by a PSC-CUNY Cycle 55 grant (Award # 67359-00 55). AE gratefully acknowledges the support

by the Fulbright U.S. Student Program - Doctoral Dissertation Research Award, which is

D
sponsored by the U.S. Department of State and Brazilian Fulbright Commission. BJS formerly

served on the scientific advisory board for Tonal Corporation, a manufacturer of fitness equipment.

TE
The other authors report no conflicts of interest with this manuscript. The results of the study are

presented clearly, honestly, and without fabrication, falsification, or inappropriate data

manipulation. The results of the present study do not constitute endorsement by the American
EP
College of Sports Medicine. BJS conceived of the idea for the study. BJS, PAK, MW, MR, MC,

AM, TH and AP designed the methodology for the study. TH, AP, AM, AE, MS, AZ and MR

assisted with acquisition of data. PAS conducted the statistical analysis. All authors critically

interpreted the data, drafted and/or revised the article, and approved the final version of the
C

manuscript draft. Data and Supplementary Material Accessibility Data can be requested from the
C

corresponding author upon reasonable request. Supplemental material are available on the Open

Science Framework project page: https://osf.io/fkts9/files/osfstorage.

A

Copyright © 2025 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
REFERENCES

1. American College of Sports Medicine. American college of sports medicine position stand.

progression models in resistance training for healthy adults. Med Sci Sports Exerc.

2009;41(3):687–708.

2. Iversen VM, Norum M, Schoenfeld BJ, Fimland MS. No time to lift? designing time-efficient

training programs for strength and hypertrophy: a narrative review. Sports Med.

D
2021;51(10):2079–95.

3. Hoare E, Stavreski B, Jennings GL, Kingwell BA. Exploring motivation and barriers to physical

TE
activity among active and inactive Australian adults. Sports (Basel). 2017;5(3):47.

4. Hyde ET, Whitfield GP, Omura JD, Fulton JE, Carlson SA. Trends in meeting the physical

activity guidelines: muscle-strengthening alone and combined with aerobic activity, united states,
EP
1998-2018. J Phys Act Health. 2021;18(S1):S37–44.

5. Fyfe JJ, Hamilton DL, Daly RM. Minimal-dose resistance training for improving muscle mass,

strength, and function: a narrative review of current evidence and practical considerations. Sports

Med. 2022;52(3):463–79.
C

6. Smith D, Bruce-Low S. Strength training methods and the work of Arthur Jones. J Exerc Physiol
C

Online. 2004;7(6):52-68.

7. Schoenfeld B, Fisher J, Grgic J, et al. Resistance training recommendations to maximize muscle

A

hypertrophy in an athletic population: position stand of the IUSCA. Int J Strength Cond. 2021;1(1).

8. Refalo MC, Helms ER, Hamilton DL, Fyfe JJ. Influence of resistance training proximity-to-

failure, determined by repetitions-in-reserve, on neuromuscular fatigue in resistance-trained males

and females. Sports Med Open. 2023;9(1):10.

Copyright © 2025 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
9. Refalo MC, Helms ER, Trexler ET, Hamilton DL, Fyfe JJ. Influence of resistance training

proximity-to-failure on skeletal muscle hypertrophy: a systematic review with meta-analysis.

Sports Med. 2023;53(3):649–65.

10. Grgic J, Schoenfeld BJ, Orazem J, Sabol F. Effects of resistance training performed to

repetition failure or non-failure on muscular strength and hypertrophy: a systematic review and

meta-analysis. J Sport Health Sci. 2022;11(2):202-11.

D
11. Zourdos MC, Klemp A, Dolan C, et al. Novel resistance training-specific rating of perceived

exertion scale measuring repetitions in reserve. J Strength Cond Res. 2016;30(1):267–75.

TE
12. Refalo MC, Helms ER, Robinson ZP, Hamilton DL, Fyfe JJ. Similar muscle hypertrophy

following eight weeks of resistance training to momentary muscular failure or with repetitions-in-

reserve in resistance-trained individuals. J Sports Sci. 2024;42(1):85-101.

EP
13. Schoenfeld BJ, Grgic J. Does training to failure maximize muscle hypertrophy? Strength Cond

J. 2019;41(5):108–13.

14. Kreider RB, Kalman DS, Antonio J, et al. International Society Of Sports Nutrition position

stand: Safety and efficacy of creatine supplementation in exercise, sport, and medicine. J Int Soc
C

Sports Nutr. 2017;14:18.

C

15. Plotkin D, Coleman M, Van Every D, et al. Progressive overload without progressing load?

the effects of load or repetition progression on muscular adaptations. PeerJ. 2022;10:e14142.

A

16. Haff GG, Triplett NT, editors. Essentials of strength and conditioning. 3rd ed. Champaign, IL:

Human Kinetics; 2015.

17. Laurent CM, Green JM, Bishop PA, et al. A practical approach to monitoring recovery:

Development of a perceived recovery status scale. J Strength Cond Res. 2011;25(3):620–8.

Copyright © 2025 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
18. Barakat C, Barroso R, Alvarez M, et al. The effects of varying glenohumeral joint angle on

acute volume load, muscle activation, swelling, and echo-intensity on the biceps brachii in

resistance-trained individuals. Sports (Basel). 2019;7(9):204.

19. Ogasawara R, Thiebaud RS, Loenneke JP, Loftin M, Abe T. Time course for arm and chest

muscle thickness changes following bench press training. Interv Med Appl Sci. 2012;4(4):217–20.

20. Damas F, Phillips SM, Libardi CA, et al. Resistance training-induced changes in integrated

D
myofibrillar protein synthesis are related to hypertrophy only after attenuation of muscle damage.

J Physiol. 2016;594(18):5209–22.

TE
21. Biazon TMPC, Ugrinowitsch C, Soligon SD, et al. The association between muscle

deoxygenation and muscle hypertrophy to blood flow restricted training performed at high and

low loads. Front Physiol. 2019;10:446.

EP
22. Refalo MC, Remmert JF, Pelland JC, et al. Accuracy of intraset repetitions-in-reserve

predictions during the bench press exercise in resistance-trained male and female subjects. J

Strength Cond Res. 2024;38(3):e78–85.

23. Fisher JP, Steele J. Heavier and lighter load resistance training to momentary failure produce
C

similar increases in strength with differing degrees of discomfort. Muscle Nerve. 2017;56(4):797-
C

803.

24. Teixeira V, Voci SM, Mendes-Netto RS, da Silva DG. The relative validity of a food record
A

using the smartphone application MyFitnessPal. Nutr Diet. 2018;75(2):219–25.

25. R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R

Core Team. Available from: https://www.R-project.org/

26. van de Schoot R, Depaoli S, King R, et al. Bayesian statistics and modelling. Nat Rev Methods

Primers. 2021;14(1):1–26.

Copyright © 2025 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
27. Kruschke JK, Liddell TM. The Bayesian new statistics: hypothesis testing, estimation, meta-

analysis, and power analysis from a Bayesian perspective. Psychon Bull Rev. 2018;25(1):178–206.

28. Senn S. Testing for baseline balance in clinical trials. Stat Med. 1994;13(17):1715–26.

29. Bland JM, Altman DG. Comparisons against baseline within randomised groups are often used

and can be highly misleading. Trials. 2011;12:264.

30. Swinton PA, Burgess K, Hall A, et al. Interpreting magnitude of change in strength and

D
conditioning: Effect size selection, threshold values and Bayesian updating. J Sports Sci.

2022;40(18):2047–54.

TE
31. Vickerstaff V, Ambler G, Omar RZ. A comparison of methods for analysing multiple outcome

measures in randomised controlled trials using a simulation study. Biom J. 2021;63(3):599–615.

32. Rubin M. When to adjust alpha during multiple testing: a consideration of disjunction,
EP
conjunction, and individual testing. Synthese. 2021;199:10969–1000.

33. Swinton PA, Murphy A. Comparative effect size distributions in strength and conditioning and

implications for future research: a meta-analysis. SportRxiv. 2022:DOI: 10.51224/SRXIV.202.

34. Lee, MD, Wagenmakers, EJ. Bayesian cognitive modeling: a practical course. Cambridge, UK:
C

Cambridge University Press; 2013

C

35. Burkner PC. An R package for Bayesian multilevel models using stan. J Stat Softw.

2017;80(1):1–28.
A

36. Depaoli S, van de Schoot R. Improving transparency and replication in Bayesian statistics: the

WAMBS-checklist. Psychol Methods. 2017;22(2):240–61.

37. Depaoli S, Winter SD, Visser M. The importance of prior sensitivity analysis in Bayesian

statistics: demonstrations using an interactive shiny app. Front Psychol. 2020;11:608045.

Copyright © 2025 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
38. Robinson ZP, Pelland JC, Remmert JF, et al. Exploring the dose-response relationship between

estimated resistance training proximity to failure, strength gain, and muscle hypertrophy: a series

of meta-regressions. Sports Med. 2024;54(9):2209-31.

39. Mangine GT, Serafini PR, Stratton MT, Olmos AA, VanDusseldorp TA, Feito Y. Effect of the

repetitions-in-reserve resistance training strategy on bench press performance, perceived effort,

and recovery in trained men. J Strength Cond Res. 2022;36(1):1–9.

D
40. Hackett DA, Ghayomzadeh M, Farrell SN, Davies TB, Sabag A. Influence of total repetitions

per set on local muscular endurance: a systematic review with meta-analysis and meta-regression.

TE
Sci Sports. 2022;37(5-6):405–20.

41. Vieira AF, Umpierre D, Teodoro JL, et al. Effects of resistance training performed to failure

or not to failure on muscle strength, hypertrophy, and power output: a systematic review with
EP
meta-analysis. J Strength Cond Res. 2021;35(4):1165–75.

42. Schaun GZ, Bamman MM, Alberton CL. High-velocity resistance training as a tool to improve

functional performance and muscle power in older adults. Exp Gerontol. 2021;156:111593.

43. Remmert JF, Laurson KR, Zourdos MC. Accuracy of predicted intraset repetitions in reserve
C

(RIR) in single- and multi-joint resistance exercises among trained and untrained men and women.
C

Percept Mot Skills. 2023;130(3):1239–54.

44. Halperin I, Malleron T, Har-Nir I, et al. Accuracy in predicting repetitions to task failure in
A

resistance exercise: a scoping review and exploratory meta-analysis. SportRxiv.

2021;https://doi.org/10.31236/osf.io/x256f

45. Zourdos MC, Goldsmith JA, Helms ER, et al. Proximity to failure and total repetitions

performed in a set influences accuracy of intraset repetitions in reserve-based rating of perceived

exertion. J Strength Cond Res. 2021;35(Suppl 1):S158–65.

Copyright © 2025 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
46. Lopez P, Radaelli R, Taaffe DR, et al. Resistance training load effects on muscle hypertrophy

and strength gain: Systematic review and network meta-analysis. Med Sci Sports Exerc.

2021;53(6):1206-16.

47. Petancevski EL, Inns J, Fransen J, Impellizzeri FM. The effect of augmented feedback on the

performance and learning of gross motor and sport-specific skills: s systematic review. Psychol

Sport Exerc. 2022;63(2):102277.

D
48. Orssatto LBR, Diefenthaeler F, Vargas M, Rossato M, Freitas CdlR. Dissimilar perceptual

response between trained women and men in resistance training to concentric failure: a quasi-

TE
experimental study. J Bodyw Mov Ther. 2020;24(4):527–35.
EP
C
C
A

Copyright © 2025 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
FIGURE LEGENDS

Figure 1 (above plot): Standardized mean differences illustrating within-intervention changes.

Figure 1 (below plot): Distributions illustrate posterior densities of standardized within-group

changes expressed relative to strength and conditioning-specific thresholds (Swinton et al. (30)).

D
MQ = mid quadriceps; LQ = lateral quadriceps; CMJ = countermovement jump; AMRAP = as

many repetitions as possible.

TE
Figure 2: (above plot). Posterior distributions illustrating RIR accuracy based on probabilities of

the difference between predicted and actual repetitions

EP
C
C
A

Copyright © 2025 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
SUPPLEMENTAL DIGITAL CONTENT

SDC 1: Supplemental Digital Content.docx

D
TE
EP
C
C
A

Copyright © 2025 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Figure 1

D
TE
EP
C
C
A

Copyright © 2025 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Figure 2

D
TE
EP
C
C
A

Copyright © 2025 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Table 1: Descriptive summary of pre- and post-intervention values for all outcomes
FAIL (n=23) 2-RIR (n=19)
Variable Pre Post Δ% Pre Post Δ%

D
1RM squat (kg)* 103.2 ± 32.0 116.8 ± 31.4 13.2% 101.3 ± 31.6 113.9 ± 32.5 12.4%
1RM bench (kg)* 78.3 ± 27.7 83.7 ± 28.4 6.9% 72.2 ± 26.0 76.8 ± 25.0 6.4%
Countermovement Jump (cm) 46.7 ± 10.4 49.5 ± 10.1 6.0% 48.8 ± 9.1 49.5 ± 9.7 1.4%

TE
Strength Endurance (reps) 16.7 ± 5.7 22.0 ± 8.0 31.7% 19.1 ± 6.7 23.4 ± 8.8 22.5%
Mid-quad 30% (mm) 52.3 ± 8.6 55.3 ± 9.0 5.7% 53.2 ± 9.3 55.0 ± 9.6 3.3%
Mid-quad 50% (mm) 44.9 ± 8.5 48.6 ± 9.1 8.2% 44.6 ± 8.9 46.3 ± 8.7 3.8%
Mid-quad 70% (mm) 34.9 ± 7.2 38.2 ± 7.2 9.5% 35.1 ± 7.2 36.7 ± 7.4 4.6%

EP
Lateral quad 30% (mm) 33.3 ± 6.5 34.7 ± 6.6 4.2% 32.2 ± 6.5 33.0 ± 6.7 2.5%
Lateral quad 50% (mm) 38.4 ± 5.6 40.8 ± 5.6 6.3% 36.7 ± 5.3 38.4 ± 5.2 4.6%
Lateral quad 70% (mm) 36.7 ± 5.3 39.0 ± 5.2 6.3% 35.4 ± 5.0 37.6 ± 5.1 6.2%
Biceps brachii (mm) 37.4 ± 6.1 38.4 ± 6.8 2.7% 35.8 ± 5.7 37.4 ± 6.1 4.5%
Triceps brachii (mm) 45.2 ± 9.7 46.9 ± 8.7 3.8% 41.8 ± 8.6 42.3 ± 8.2 1.2%
C
*Reflects the mass of the plates without including the mass of the bar
C
A

Copyright © 2025 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Table 2: Univariate and multivariate analyses of potential group pre to post differences for muscle
growth and performance outcomes.
Variable Bayes factor for
Univariate
Bayes factor for univariate multivariate
Group Difference
analysis with interpretation analysis with
(95%CrI)
interpretation
Mid-quad 30% (mm) 1.2 (-1.1 to 3.4) 0.56 (Anecdotal support of H0) 0.17 (Moderate

D
Mid-quad 50% (mm) 1.9 (-0.17 to 3.9) 1.7 (Anecdotal support of H1) support of H0)
Mid-quad 70% (mm) 1.6 (0.02 to 3.1) 2.1 (Anecdotal support of H1)
Lateral quad 30% (mm) 0.57 (-0.57 to 1.7) 0.37 (Anecdotal support of H0) 0.04 (Strong

TE
Lateral quad 50% (mm) 0.86 (-0.27 to 1.9) 0.83 (Anecdotal support of H0) support of H0)
Lateral quad 70% (mm) 0.18 (-0.90 to 1.2) 0.27 (Moderate support of H0)
Biceps brachii (mm) -0.67 (-1.9 to 0.57) 0.48 (Anecdotal support of H0) 0.49 (Anecdotal
Triceps brachii (mm) 1.5 (-0.14 to 3.2) 1.2 (Anecdotal support of H1) support of H0)
EP
Bench press (kg) 1.0 (-2.8 to 4.7) 0.21 (Moderate support of H0) 0.02 (Strong
Squat (kg) 1.1 (-4.3 to 6.6) 0.24 (Moderate support of H0) support of H0)
Countermovement jump (cm) 1.8 (-0.72 to 4.2) 0.92 (Anecdotal support of H0)
AMRAP (#) 0.57 (-2.2 to 3.3) 0.62 (Anecdotal support of H0)
Positive values favor the train-to-failure intervention. CrI: Credible interval. H0:Null hypothesis. H1:Alternative
C

hypothesis
C
A

Copyright © 2025 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Figure S1

D
TE
EP
C
C
A

Copyright © 2025 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Figure S2

D
TE
EP
C
C
A

Copyright © 2025 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Figure S3

D
TE
EP
C
C
A

Copyright © 2025 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 D
TE
EP
C
C
A

Copyright © 2025 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 D
TE
EP
C
C
A

Copyright © 2025 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 D
TE
EP
C
C
A

Copyright © 2025 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 D
TE
EP
C
C
A

Copyright © 2025 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 D
TE
EP
C
C
A

Copyright © 2025 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 D
TE
EP
C
C
A

Copyright © 2025 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 D
TE
EP
C
C
A

Copyright © 2025 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 D
TE
EP
C
C
A

Copyright © 2025 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Table S1: Descriptive characteristics of the participants by group
Variable FAIL (n = 23) 2-RIR (n = 19)
Height (cms) 170.9 ± 7.9 174.5 ± 8.9
Body mass (kgs) 81.2 ± 15.6 78.5 ± 14.5
Age (yrs) 21.7 ± 3.2 22.2 ± 4.5
Training experience (yrs) 4.3 ± 3.2 4.4 ± 4.5

D
TE
EP
C
C
A

Copyright © 2025 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.