Randomized crossover trial compares fatigue and recovery between resistance training to failure and non-failure in trained men, indicating RTF slows recovery.
This study compared the effects of a full-body resistance training session performed to momentary muscular failure (RTF) or non-failure (RTNF) on mechanical, perceptual, metabolic, neuromuscular, cardiovascular, and autonomic responses in trained men. In a randomized crossover design, six men (25.5 ± 3.3 years; 77.8 ± 6.2 kg; 174.5 ± 5.1 cm) completed two sessions of six exercises. RTF sets were performed to failure at 100% 10-repetition maximum (10RM), while RTNF sets consisted of 10 repetitions at 85% 10RM. Perceptual, metabolic, hormonal, cardiovascular, and autonomic responses, alongside markers of tissue damage and neuromuscular function, were monitored for 72 h post-RT. Data were analyzed via Generalized Estimating Equations. RTF induced greater perceived exertion ( p < 0.001) with fewer repetitions per set and reduced volume in specific movements ( p < 0.05), despite similar total session volume ( p > 0.05). RTF elicited higher lactate ( p = 0.003) and cortisol ( p < 0.001). RTF exacerbated tissue damage markers (creatine kinase and lactate dehydrogenase, p < 0.001) and soreness ( p < 0.05), leading to delayed countermovement jump recovery ( p < 0.001) through 72 h. Conversely, RTNF demonstrated faster perceived recovery ( p < 0.001) and similar autonomic preservation ( p > 0.05). Acute cardiovascular strain was higher in RTF ( p < 0.05), with no residual effects. Although the small sample size warrants cautious interpretation of inferential statistics, RTF delays recovery without acute functional benefits. Since proximity-to-failure drives physiological stress, RTNF proves to be more efficient and sustainable.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Vieira et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: