Influence of Resistance Training Proximity-to-Failure on Skeletal Muscle Hypertrophy: A Systematic Review with Meta-analysis
Refalo, Helms, Trexler, Hamilton, Fyfe · 2023 · Sports Medicine 53(3):649–665
Meta-analysis · Rang 1 von 9
What this work gives Aellic
15 studies. Training to set failure held a “trivial advantage” over non-failure for hypertrophy (ES 0.19; 95 % CI 0.00–0.37; p = 0.045), and none at all for momentary muscular failure specifically (ES 0.12; p = 0.343). Proximity was graded by velocity-loss thresholds, where high (>25 %) versus moderate (20–25 %) also came out level (ES 0.08; p = 0.529). Supports the direction — closer to failure is not worse — and nothing more precise than that.
Correction of 26 July 2026
This entry previously read “hypertrophy drops off markedly once sets end more than 4–5 repetitions short of failure (ES 0.19), which justifies the upper limit of 4 RIR”. Neither half holds. The paper contains no repetitions-in-reserve analysis whatsoever — its proximity gradient runs entirely on velocity loss — and the ES 0.19 it does report is the overall set-failure versus non-failure comparison, which the authors themselves call trivial and of uncertain validity. It also states outright that current set-termination methods “pose a challenge for deriving practical recommendations”. Aellic's 4-RIR ceiling is therefore a design decision, not a finding of this work.
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
Register entry refalo2023 · Meta-analysis