TITLE: Clarity in Reporting Terminology and Definitions of Set End Points in Resistance
Training
RUNNING TITLE: Resistance Training End Points
AUTHORS: James Steele Ph.D
a
, James Fisher MSc
a
, Jürgen Giessing Ph.D
b
, Paulo Gentil
Ph.D
c
AUTHOR AFFILIATIONS:
a
Centre for Health, Exercise, and Sport Science, School of
Sport, Health and Social Sciences, Southampton Solent University, UK,
b
Institute of Sport
Science, University of Koblenz-Landau, Germany,
c
Federal University of Goias, Faculty of
Physical Education and Dance, Brazil
CONTACT AUTHOR:
James Steele (
james.steele@solent.ac.uk)
Centre for Health Exercise and Sport Science,
Southampton Solent University,
East Park Terrace,
Southampton
Hampshire,
SO14 0YN
Telephone: 02382 016465
This article has been accepted for publication and undergone full peer review but has not been
through the copyediting, typesetting, pagination and proofreading process which may lead to
differences between this version and the Version of Record. Please cite this article as an
‘Accepted Article’, doi: 10.1002/mus.25557
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
2 | P a g e
Abstract word count: 150
Manuscript word count: 3392
Ethical Publication Statement: We confirm that we have read the Journal’s position on
issues involved in ethical publication and affirm that this report is consistent with those
guidelines.
Disclosure of Conflicts of Interest: None of the authors has any conflict of interest to
disclose
Keywords: Repetition maximum; Momentary failure; Intensity; Effort; Muscle; Strength
Page 2 of 26
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Muscle & Nerve
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
3 | P a g e
Abstract
Prior resistance training (RT) recommendations and position stands have discussed variables
that can be manipulated when producing RT interventions. However, one variable that has
received little discussion is set end points (i.e. the end point of a set of repetitions). Set end
points in RT are often considered to be proximity to momentary failure and are thought to be
a primary variable determining effort in RT. Further, there has been ambiguity in use and
definition of terminology that has created issues in interpretation of research findings. The
purpose of this paper is to: 1) provide an overview of the ambiguity in historical terminology
around set end points; 2) propose a clearer set of definitions related to set end points; and 3)
highlight the issues created by poor terminology and definitions. It is hoped this might permit
greater clarity in reporting, interpretation, and application of RT interventions for researchers
and practitioners.
Page 3 of 26
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Muscle & Nerve
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
4 | P a g e
Introduction
The American Colleague of Sports Medicine (ACSM) has published numerous position
stands regarding recommendations for application of resistance training (RT) [1,2]. These
highlight a number of variables that can be manipulated when producing RT interventions.
However, a variable that has received little discussion in these position stands was that of set
end points (i.e. the end point of a set of repetitions). Repetition ranges were offered (i.e.
performance of 8-12 repetitions), indicating voluntary set end points might include the
performance of a predetermined number of repetitions. However, the discussion of whether
or not any other particular criteria should be met in addition to achieving a set repetition
number was absent. Others have considered set end points further with reference to proximity
to momentary failure (MF), defined most recently as “the inability to perform anymore
concentric contractions without significant change to posture or repetitions duration” [3].
This definition suggests alteration to repetition duration is a factor to consider in determining
whether MF has occurred. It should be noted that when repetitions are performed with
maximal intended velocity, repetition duration can increase prior to, and leading to, MF being
achieved [4,5]. Thus the definitions we offer later have removed this consideration. In
essence, the most appropriate conceptualization of MF is that it occurs at the point where,
despite the greatest effort, a person is unable to meet and overcome the demands of the
exercise causing an involuntary set end point.
Most research considers people training ‘to MF’ or ‘not to MF’ or in some cases what has
been referred to as “past MF” (the use of advanced RT techniques such as drop sets, rest-
pause, forced reps to enable a trainee to continue repetitions after achieving MF). Recent
reviews which have considered this variable have in fact employed the distinction of “to MF”
or “not to MF” in reviewing the literature regarding the impact of training to MF [3,6-8].
Page 4 of 26
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Muscle & Nerve
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
5 | P a g e
Following this, proximity to MF has been considered an indicator of the effort employed
during RT. In fact the suggestion has being made that, due to inter- and intra-individual
variations in number of repetitions possible prior to MF at the same relative loadings, if the
intention is to match inter- and intra-individual effort, the only way to objectively do so is to
have people train to MF (i.e. maximal effort [3,10]). Further, some propose that effort could
also relate to intended velocity during RT, with maximal intended velocity related to maximal
effort [9]. However, it would appear that velocity produced when it is intended to be maximal
may in fact better serve as a an indicator of the degree of fatigue prior to reaching MF. It has
been shown that velocity correlates well with other physiological markers of fatigue in a
dose-response fashion to the number of repetitions performed relative to the number possible
(i.e. number prior to reaching MF [4,5]).
More recently, it has been argued that MF should be used as the means to standardize the RT
stimulus [11]. We do not wish to suggest that persons should always train to MF, however if
in a research or practical setting it is desirable to control effort objectively, it might be
applied. For example, when comparing another independent RT variable between
intervention arms in research, effort should be matched. Also it may be desirable to ensure
that an athlete is working to the same relative effort (i.e. maximal by training to MF or if
submaximal by first determining their repetitions to MF to then determine number of
repetitions required to approximate the relative effort desired) as another, or on each exercise
used in a training program.
A number of recent reviews have offered the conclusion that training to MF may confer
greater adaptations in strength [3], hypertrophy [8], and possibly cardiorespiratory fitness [7].
Conversely, other recent studies have reported contrasting results regarding the efficacy of
Page 5 of 26
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Muscle & Nerve
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
