Effects of resistance training performed to repetition failure or non-failure on muscular strength and hypertrophy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Grgic, Schoenfeld, Orazem, Sabol · 2022 · Journal of Sport and Health Science 11(2):202–211

Meta-analysis · Rang 1 von 9

doi.org/10.1016/j.jshs.2021.01.007 PubMed 33497853

What this work gives Aellic

15 studies in young adults. No significant difference between failure and non-failure training, for strength (ES −0.09; 95 % CI −0.22 to 0.05) or for hypertrophy (ES 0.22; 95 % CI −0.11 to 0.55). One subgroup runs the other way and matters for Aellic's audience: among already resistance-trained participants, training to failure WAS significantly better for hypertrophy (ES 0.15; 95 % CI 0.03–0.26).

Correction of 26 July 2026

The clause “and produces disproportionate autonomic fatigue” was not in this paper. Its only outcomes are 1RM and muscle size — the words autonomic, heart rate variability and parasympathetic do not appear in it, and its conclusion says the reverse of a fatigue warning: training to failure “does not seem to have detrimental effects on these adaptations, either”. The trained-subgroup result above was also missing, which made the blanket “failure is NOT required” read stronger than the source allows.

The entry on the register was wrong. It was not replaced but kept — with what holds instead standing next to it.

Where this sits in the engine

1 declared site — constants and thresholds in the code that point at this entry.

Training Muscle growth — sets per muscle 1 site

To the full register Sites without a source Report an error