HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Free Full Text (PDF) Free All Versions of this Article: 100/5/1647    most recent 01400.2005v1 Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Web of Science (14) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Izquierdo, M. Articles by Gorostiaga, E. M. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Izquierdo, M. Articles by Gorostiaga, E. M.

Differential effects of strength training leading to failure versus not to failure on hormonal responses, strength, and muscle power gains

¹Studies, Research and Sport Medicine Center, Government of Navarra and ²Olympic Center of Sport Studies, Spanish Olympic Committee, Madrid, Spain; ³Department of Biology of Physical Activity, University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland, ⁴Department of Health and Exercise Science, The College of New Jersey, Ewing, New Jersey; ⁵Department of Kinesiology, Human Performance Laboratory, University of Connecticut, Storrs, Connecticut; and ⁶Institute of Sport, Northumbria University, Newcastle, United Kingdom

Submitted 4 November 2005 ; accepted in final form 8 January 2006

The purpose of this study was to examine the efficacy of 11 wk of resistance training to failure vs. nonfailure, followed by an identical 5-wk peaking period of maximal strength and power training for both groups as well as to examine the underlying physiological changes in basal circulating anabolic and catabolic hormones. Forty-two physically active men were matched and then randomly assigned to either a training to failure (RF; n = 14), nonfailure (NRF; n = 15), or control groups (C; n = 13). Muscular and power testing and blood draws to determine basal hormonal concentrations were conducted before the initiation of training (T0), after 6 wk of training (T1), after 11 wk of training (T2), and after 16 wk of training (T3). Both RF and NRF resulted in similar gains in 1-repetition maximum bench press (23 and 23%) and parallel squat (22 and 23%), muscle power output of the arm (27 and 28%) and leg extensor muscles (26 and 29%), and maximal number of repetitions performed during parallel squat (66 and 69%). RF group experienced larger gains in the maximal number of repetitions performed during the bench press. The peaking phase (T2 to T3) after NRF resulted in larger gains in muscle power output of the lower extremities, whereas after RF it resulted in larger gains in the maximal number of repetitions performed during the bench press. Strength training leading to RF resulted in reductions in resting concentrations of IGF-1 and elevations in IGFBP-3, whereas NRF resulted in reduced resting cortisol concentrations and an elevation in resting serum total testosterone concentration. This investigation demonstrated a potential beneficial stimulus of NRF for improving strength and power, especially during the subsequent peaking training period, whereas performing sets to failure resulted in greater gains in local muscular endurance. Elevation in IGFBP-3 after resistance training may have been compensatory to accommodate the reduction in IGF-1 to preserve IGF availability.

strength training; repetition to failure; insulin-like growth factor 1; insulin-like growth factor-binding protein-3; testosterone; cortisol

This article has been cited by other articles:

				J. R. Ruiz, X. Sui, F. Lobelo, D.-c. Lee, J. R. Morrow Jr., A. W. Jackson, J. R. Hebert, C. E. Matthews, M. Sjostrom, and S. N. Blair Muscular Strength and Adiposity as Predictors of Adulthood Cancer Mortality in Men Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., May 1, 2009; 18(5): 1468 - 1476. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]