Does Protocol Matter for Repetition Volume? A Meta-Analytic Investigation of Volitional Failure Versus the Traditionally Used 75-Repetition Blood Flow Restriction Resistance Training
Abstract Background It is recommended to prescribe sets to volitional muscular failure (e.g., 4 sets) or a fixed repetition scheme of 75 repetitions (1 × 30, 3 × 15) in low-load resistance exercise with blood flow restriction (BFR-RE). While prior studies suggest both protocols may elicit similar mu...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
SpringerOpen
2025-07-01
|
| Series: | Sports Medicine - Open |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1186/s40798-025-00892-z |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1849332842289430528 |
|---|---|
| author | Nicholas Rolnick Victor S. de Queiros Ethan C. Hill Thomas Bjørnsen Tim Werner Jeremy P. Loenneke |
| author_facet | Nicholas Rolnick Victor S. de Queiros Ethan C. Hill Thomas Bjørnsen Tim Werner Jeremy P. Loenneke |
| author_sort | Nicholas Rolnick |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Abstract Background It is recommended to prescribe sets to volitional muscular failure (e.g., 4 sets) or a fixed repetition scheme of 75 repetitions (1 × 30, 3 × 15) in low-load resistance exercise with blood flow restriction (BFR-RE). While prior studies suggest both protocols may elicit similar muscular adaptations, the extent to which this is explained by matched exercise volume remains unclear. Objectives This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the number of repetitions performed during four sets of low-load BFR-RE to volitional muscular failure and compared these with the fixed 75-repetition scheme. The goal was to determine whether the two protocols yield similar total and per-set repetition volumes. Methods On 10/31/2024, two databases (PubMed® and Scopus) were used to identify studies that applied a protocol of four sets to volitional muscular failure in BFR-RE with a load of ≤ 50% of one repetition maximum (1RM), regardless of the outcome investigated. Mean repetition data were pooled using a random-effects meta-analysis. One-sample t-tests compared per-set and total volumes to the reference scheme (1 × 30, 3 × 15). Results Across 25 studies (47 means; n = 678), the estimated total repetitions performed to failure was 73.1 (95% CI: 61.1 to 85.2). Per-set means were 36.0 (95% CI: 30.5 to 41.4), 14.7 (95% CI: 12.2 to 17.1), 11.5 (95% CI: 9.2 to 13.8), and 10.4 repetitions (95% CI: 8.1 to 12.7) for sets 1 through 4, respectively. Conclusion Four sets of BFR-RE to volitional muscular failure produce similar total repetition volume compared to the commonly implemented fixed 75-repetition scheme, though the distribution of repetitions per set differs. These findings provide insight into the mechanical equivalence of two widely used BFR-RE prescriptions. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-c5a99bd1c3d84dd0b10e5d525bddb121 |
| institution | Kabale University |
| issn | 2198-9761 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2025-07-01 |
| publisher | SpringerOpen |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Sports Medicine - Open |
| spelling | doaj-art-c5a99bd1c3d84dd0b10e5d525bddb1212025-08-20T03:46:04ZengSpringerOpenSports Medicine - Open2198-97612025-07-0111111510.1186/s40798-025-00892-zDoes Protocol Matter for Repetition Volume? A Meta-Analytic Investigation of Volitional Failure Versus the Traditionally Used 75-Repetition Blood Flow Restriction Resistance TrainingNicholas Rolnick0Victor S. de Queiros1Ethan C. Hill2Thomas Bjørnsen3Tim Werner4Jeremy P. Loenneke5Department of Exercise Science and Recreation, CUNY Lehman CollegeDepartment of Physical Education, State University of Paraíba [UEPB]School of Kinesiology and Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Central FloridaDepartment of Education and Sport Science, University of StavangerExercise Science, Salisbury UniversityKevser Ermin Applied Physiology Laboratory, The University of MississippiAbstract Background It is recommended to prescribe sets to volitional muscular failure (e.g., 4 sets) or a fixed repetition scheme of 75 repetitions (1 × 30, 3 × 15) in low-load resistance exercise with blood flow restriction (BFR-RE). While prior studies suggest both protocols may elicit similar muscular adaptations, the extent to which this is explained by matched exercise volume remains unclear. Objectives This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the number of repetitions performed during four sets of low-load BFR-RE to volitional muscular failure and compared these with the fixed 75-repetition scheme. The goal was to determine whether the two protocols yield similar total and per-set repetition volumes. Methods On 10/31/2024, two databases (PubMed® and Scopus) were used to identify studies that applied a protocol of four sets to volitional muscular failure in BFR-RE with a load of ≤ 50% of one repetition maximum (1RM), regardless of the outcome investigated. Mean repetition data were pooled using a random-effects meta-analysis. One-sample t-tests compared per-set and total volumes to the reference scheme (1 × 30, 3 × 15). Results Across 25 studies (47 means; n = 678), the estimated total repetitions performed to failure was 73.1 (95% CI: 61.1 to 85.2). Per-set means were 36.0 (95% CI: 30.5 to 41.4), 14.7 (95% CI: 12.2 to 17.1), 11.5 (95% CI: 9.2 to 13.8), and 10.4 repetitions (95% CI: 8.1 to 12.7) for sets 1 through 4, respectively. Conclusion Four sets of BFR-RE to volitional muscular failure produce similar total repetition volume compared to the commonly implemented fixed 75-repetition scheme, though the distribution of repetitions per set differs. These findings provide insight into the mechanical equivalence of two widely used BFR-RE prescriptions.https://doi.org/10.1186/s40798-025-00892-z75 RepetitionsFixed ProtocolBFR TrainingLimb Occlusion PressureResistance Exercise |
| spellingShingle | Nicholas Rolnick Victor S. de Queiros Ethan C. Hill Thomas Bjørnsen Tim Werner Jeremy P. Loenneke Does Protocol Matter for Repetition Volume? A Meta-Analytic Investigation of Volitional Failure Versus the Traditionally Used 75-Repetition Blood Flow Restriction Resistance Training Sports Medicine - Open 75 Repetitions Fixed Protocol BFR Training Limb Occlusion Pressure Resistance Exercise |
| title | Does Protocol Matter for Repetition Volume? A Meta-Analytic Investigation of Volitional Failure Versus the Traditionally Used 75-Repetition Blood Flow Restriction Resistance Training |
| title_full | Does Protocol Matter for Repetition Volume? A Meta-Analytic Investigation of Volitional Failure Versus the Traditionally Used 75-Repetition Blood Flow Restriction Resistance Training |
| title_fullStr | Does Protocol Matter for Repetition Volume? A Meta-Analytic Investigation of Volitional Failure Versus the Traditionally Used 75-Repetition Blood Flow Restriction Resistance Training |
| title_full_unstemmed | Does Protocol Matter for Repetition Volume? A Meta-Analytic Investigation of Volitional Failure Versus the Traditionally Used 75-Repetition Blood Flow Restriction Resistance Training |
| title_short | Does Protocol Matter for Repetition Volume? A Meta-Analytic Investigation of Volitional Failure Versus the Traditionally Used 75-Repetition Blood Flow Restriction Resistance Training |
| title_sort | does protocol matter for repetition volume a meta analytic investigation of volitional failure versus the traditionally used 75 repetition blood flow restriction resistance training |
| topic | 75 Repetitions Fixed Protocol BFR Training Limb Occlusion Pressure Resistance Exercise |
| url | https://doi.org/10.1186/s40798-025-00892-z |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT nicholasrolnick doesprotocolmatterforrepetitionvolumeametaanalyticinvestigationofvolitionalfailureversusthetraditionallyused75repetitionbloodflowrestrictionresistancetraining AT victorsdequeiros doesprotocolmatterforrepetitionvolumeametaanalyticinvestigationofvolitionalfailureversusthetraditionallyused75repetitionbloodflowrestrictionresistancetraining AT ethanchill doesprotocolmatterforrepetitionvolumeametaanalyticinvestigationofvolitionalfailureversusthetraditionallyused75repetitionbloodflowrestrictionresistancetraining AT thomasbjørnsen doesprotocolmatterforrepetitionvolumeametaanalyticinvestigationofvolitionalfailureversusthetraditionallyused75repetitionbloodflowrestrictionresistancetraining AT timwerner doesprotocolmatterforrepetitionvolumeametaanalyticinvestigationofvolitionalfailureversusthetraditionallyused75repetitionbloodflowrestrictionresistancetraining AT jeremyploenneke doesprotocolmatterforrepetitionvolumeametaanalyticinvestigationofvolitionalfailureversusthetraditionallyused75repetitionbloodflowrestrictionresistancetraining |