Drop Sets vs 3x10 Protocol Fatigue Bench Press

Josh de Rooy 17226543 Resistance TrainingandPhysiology
1
Do Drop Sets Make Fatigue
Worse Versus Non-Failure
Protocol in the bench press?
Resistance Training and Physiology
By
Joshua de Rooy
Student No. 17226543
Word Count: 2529
Tables: 1
Graphs: 3

2
Do Drop Sets Make Fatigue Worse When Compared With 3 x 10
Introduction
Resistance training is a form of exercise which can lead to gains in strength and
hypertrophy. The amount of fatigue accumulated during resistance training can be
manipulated in a number of ways in order to achieve successive adaptations.

3
Factors such as volume and intensity of exercise are variables in which are often
varied in order to increase the amount of acute fatigue and associated
neuromuscular responses, combined with basal hormonal levels, and stimulation of
muscle protein synthesis (MPS) following exercise. These factors are identified as
the key stimulus in the adaptations proceeding resistance training. (1, 2)
In the attempt to enhance muscular fatigue, specific resistance techniques including
drop sets, supersets, tri sets, and forced repetition training have been practiced as a
means of increasing volume with altering intensities. These techniques are
commonly seen among bodybuilders, gym trainers and the general population. The
basis of stimulating fatigue has been used to warrant prescription of varying
intensity. The belief that high volumes of exercise performed at lower intensities with
minimal rest, enables high-threshold motor unit recruitment, underpins this
prescription type with little supporting evidence. (3, 4)
A large portion of research comparing different volumes and intensities, and their
effect of fatigue tends to agree that increased fatigue and accumulation of metabolic
by products (peripheral fatigue) was a necessary method in stimulating
neuromuscular response/adaptation, and variables contributing to hypertrophy,
including stimulation of Akt-mTOR pathways (increased MPS), and increased basal
hormonal level. The premise was to achieve this by prescribing low intensities with
little to no rest period, performed til failure.(1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8). They tend to claim that
fatiguing protocols progressively increased larger MUs, using Hennemans size
principle to support these claims. (9) Rooney conducted one of the initial pieces of
research on the effects of fatigue as a stimulus, and found that no rest between sets
combined with a high volume resulted in a significantly higher increase in strength
than resting between sets of lower volume. Findings were based on assumption that

4
fatiguing protocols induced increased MU recruitment, more so than non-fatiguing
protocols, also increasing recruitment of high-threshold MUs. The assumptions made
were without having measured any mechanisms of fatigue to validate the arguments.
(4)
The idea of fatiguing resistance training has been backed up with various studies
which utilize vascular occlusion in order to enhance metabolic accumulation and
increased MU recruitment. (1, 5) Suga concluded that blood flow restriction at a low
intensity could achieve the same metabolic stress and fibre recruitment that higher
intensity training could gain. However, no EMG recordings, or such measures which
would support increased high threshold MU recruitment were utilized in the study.(5)
The other side of the research tends to agree that fatigue training protocols do not
provide a more favorable outcome in regards to strength when compared with non-
fatiguing training as long as volume is kept constant. (10, 11) It is proposed that
prescribing training to failure may increase injury risk and cause discomfort, deemed
an unnecessary approach. (11) Folland, although neuromuscular factors were not
measured, proposed an alternative theory that fatigue and metabolite accumulation
is not a necessary stimulus in order for strength gains to occur. They found similar
gains in strength between a high fatigue and low allowing longer rest periods and
decreased fatigue and comfort. The high fatigue protocol used reduced load when
failure of a given load was achieve, similar to that of a ‘drop set’. (10) Burd went on
to state that in 1 vs. 3 set until volitional exhaustion, the concern should be more
about accumulating volume, than seeking to cause failure within the muscle. They
found an increase in myofibrillar protein synthesis, through signalling the Akt-mTOR
pathways, significantly longer in 3 set vs. 1 set. (12) In addition, from an endurance

5
perspective, it was found that blood lactate (BL) concentration, and overall muscular
endurance was no different between training to failure or non-failure, further
supporting the fact that training to failure may not be necessary. (13)
A method used to measure approximate neuromuscular response throughout
resistance training, within the muscle, is surface electromyography (sEMG).
Increased EMG amplitude is indicative of an increase in motor unit (MU) recruitment
and MU firing rate. Both of these factors are thought to increase as the muscle
fatigues and requires more MUs in order to produce force. (12) Acute changes in the
neuromuscular system which can enhance chronic adaptation are not firmly defined,
although many aspects have been examined which may affect amplitude of EMG
signal. (2) EMG signal can be affected by many aspects including: MU recruitment
and firing rate which can indicate output from α-motoneuron, improved
syncronization of MUs, and metabolic accumulation can also affect EMG signal by
appearing to have increased muscle activation, a limitation to sEMG use. (14, 15)
Research observing effects of failure based prescriptions including ‘drop sets’ vs.
non failure or sub maximal prescription, is lacking in areas including: samples of
trained individuals, commonly practiced failure and non failure techniques, EMG
measures within these studies, and other measures analysing the types of fatigue
which may occur. Thus, the aim of this study was to analyse and compare the acute
fatigue and neuromuscular responses between a technique, the ‘drop- set’, and a
sub-maximal lower volume protocol (3 x 10). The study compares whether fatigue
and severe discomfort are needed to stimulate neuromuscular variables within
trained individuals, and determines which protocol enhances fatigue the most. The
study observes changes in sEMG signal and which protocol elicits increased activity

6
amongst variables. It is hypothesized that the drop set protocol will induce an
increased accumulation of peripheral fatigue, but no differences in central fatigue
measures when comparing drop sets vs. 3 x 10.
Participants
 Project: Do drop-sets make fatigue worse?
 After gaining 1RM, on separate testing days subjects performed 3 x 10 of
75% 1RM, and drop sets of 60%, 50%, 40%, and 30%.
 Six Resistance trained males (mean ± SD; age- 20.83 ± 0.75 years, height –
177.67 ± 6.89 cm, weight 86.38 ± 3.41kg).
 Training experience was of a minimum of 12 months, with all participants
training at least 3 times per week, incorporating bench press into
programmes.
 MVC was taken prior to training, after each set of the 3 x 10 protocol, and
after failure at each weight on the drop set.
 Pain scale was taken prior to MVC, after each set.
 Primary dependant variable analysed: Maximal isometric force (N), median
frequency (Hz), RMS (mV), and numerical pain scale.
Results
Maximal isometric force after the 3 x 10 protocol (228.51 ± 85.48) was significantly
different than before exercise (418.51 ± 117.04N, p<0.04). Similarly, maximal
isometric force after the drop set protocol (142.1 ± 60.08N) was significantly different

7
than before (418.51 ± 117.04N, p<0.04). Drop sets showed significantly more
decreased force output than 3 x 10 protocol.
Maximal sEMG amplitude was seen to increase within the 3 x 10 protocol from first
set (0.36 ± 0.26) and last set (0.39± 0.29) within pectoralis major (p = 0.13). A
decrease was seen from the first drop set (0.26±0.06) to the last drop set (0.23±0.05,
p = 0.09).
Median frequency in pectoralis major progressively decreased in 3 x 10 protocol
from first set (39.63±4.98) to third set (36.83±4.84). Drop set protocol showed an
increased between 50% 1RM (36.27±6.41), and 30% 1RM (37.22±7.04). Following
both protocols, median frequency was at a similar level.
Pain scale saw a progressive increase in both protocols, with drop sets significantly
higher following last set (9.5±1.22), compared with 3 x 10 protocol (7.25±1.54).

8
Fig. 1. Median Frequency of pectoralis major is displayed in Hz (p = 0.83). Data is
shown as the mean value with confidence intervals. A strong relationship between
pectoralis major after the last set of each protocol has a strong relationship as shown
by the r value as MF was similar in each protocol (r = 0.8)
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
1 2 3 4
3 x 10
Drop Set
MedianFrequencyChange InPec(Hz)MedianFrequency(Hz)
Setnumber/drop number

9
Fig 2. Changes in median frequency of triceps expressed as a mean between
subjects (n = 6), were measured during each set and subsequent drop in intensity
within drop sets. Early spike was seen in drop sets, but after each protocol, median
frequency was not significantly different (p = 0.61).
57.9
57.46
57.27
61.09
56.16
57.45
57.8
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
1 2 3 4
Median Frequency - Triceps (Hz)
3 x 10
MedianFrequency(Hz)
Setnumber/dropnumber

10
Fig. 3. Pain Scale of pectoralis major is displayed numerical values (p = 0.007). Data
is shown as the mean value with confidence intervals (r = 0.99). A strong relationship
is evident between the drop set protocol and 3 x 10 as shown by the r value.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 2 3 4
3 x 10
Drop Set
VAS- Numerical PainScale
PainScale
Setnumber/drop number

11
Repetitions Completed (Mean±S.D)
Set/weight drop 1 2 3 4
3 x 10 10±0 10±0 9±1 -
Drop Set 21.5±2.74 11.17±2.79 11.83±2.56 19.5±3.78
Fig 4. The number of repetitions completed per set and percentage 1RM of each
protocol is displayed. Data is shown as the mean value and standard deviation.

12
Discussion
Key findings of this study were: A drop in maximal isometric force following both
protocols, with the 3 x 10 protocol having significantly more force production than the
drop set protocol, almost two fold more, an increase in EMG amplitude from first to
last set of 3 x 10 protocol, but a decrease in EMG amplitude was seen in the drop
set protocol, no significant difference in median frequency following each protocol
was seen, and significantly more muscular pain was observed after drop sets
compared with 3 x 10 protocol.
The results of this study suggest that training to fatigue through use of drop sets
does not necessary increase the acute fatigue stimulus, or show an increase in
muscle activation when compared with a 3 x 10 protocol of higher intensity. An
increase in median frequency indicates metabolic fatigue. Although no increases
from beginning to end of either protocol can be seen, no significant difference
between groups is evident, suggesting similar accumulation of peripheral fatigue
between drop sets and 3 x 10 protocol. An increase in muscular pain observed via
the numerical pain scale indicated increased afferent feedback, inhibiting fibre
conduction, and gives an indication of damage to the fibres. Although this may
contribute to task failure, it is not necessarily proven to increase muscular fatigue.
Significantly more pain is evident within the drop sets group, raising the question, is
the pain and discomfort necessary for subsequent adaptations to occur? (11).
Increased EMG amplitude was not evident when dropping load after failure has
occurred at a given load. Activity did however significantly increase between
beginning and end of the 3 x 10 protocol, having an end EMG signal that was
significantly higher than the drop set protocol. This suggests that at 75% of 1RM,
performed not until failure, is effective in increasing motor unit recruitment, most

13
likely MUs of a higher threshold. It is likely that a given MU pool is recruited in the
drop set protocol, cycling its MUs in order to maintain contraction, without exhausting
fibres. These results show that the increased MU recruitment does not correlate
training to failure with low intensity, via the drop set technique.
Aaagard measured EMG amplitude, having participants perform 4-5 sets between 3
– 10RM intensities, and progressed amount of sets and intensity in the later weeks
of the study. They found that, based on increased neural output at the onset of
contraction, higher resistance protocols was able to elicit an increase in MU
recruitment and also MU firing rate. (17) These finding are in agreement to those in
the present study as fatigue isn’t the major factor in neural mechanims. Additonally,
Vila-cha compared EMG responses between strength and endurance training
groups. The strength group used a load at an intensity between 60 – 85% 1RM, and
concluded that higher intensities allowed an increase in MU recruitment and
discharge rate, without fatiguing stimulus. (18) This is consistent with the current
study which found that an intensity of 75% 1RM showed higher EMG amplitude 60%
1RM and below. McBride conducted research on different volumes of training and
compared EMG variables. It was found that multiple set groups using a load of
10RM elicited increased EMG activity, likely due to increased synchronisation, and
increased recruitment of type II muscle fibres, due to high intensity and not
specifically fatigue. (19) Similar results are also seen by Kamen, who analysed MU
discharge rates and found that, in initial strength gains, when the high force
contractions took place, MU discharge rate was significantly increased. They also
used a 3 x 10 protocol. (20)
In contrast, research stated that lower intensities (65%, 35%, and 25% of MVC) was
able to sustain this force output by recruiting further MUs within fatiguing contraction,

14
based on misinterpretation of EMG signal. (16) The measures of M-wave signal
recorded, represent increased muscle excitability, but not necessarily increased
recruitment of MUs. Amplitude of EMG measured at 65% of MVC was higher than
the lower intensities performed to failure of 20 and 35% of MVC. These two
measures combined suggest that higher intensities were more effective in
stimulating high threshold MU recruitment. (12, 16) These conclusions conflict with
the current studies finding, that higher intensities and non-fatiguing prescription
increases neural responses. Based on findings of the current study, the hypothesis is
rejected as results show that drop sets do not make peripheral fatigue worse, or
central fatigue.
The current study is not without limitations. Sample size was relatively small (n = 6)
due to time constraints. Small sample size limits reliability as larger sample size may
prove differing results and trends, minimizing statistical power. Small sample size
increases type 2 ever as the results may be more correlated with the hypothesis, as
it has been rejected. Between group differences may have been more significant and
relatable had sample size been larger. Other muscle that were not measured,
including the anterior deltoid, may have presented differing acute neuromuscular
responses when performing the two protocols presented. It is unknown why
metabolic fatigue changed showed a decrease from first to last set with the 3 x 10
protocol, and an inconsistent pattern within the drop set protocol seeing an initial
spike, followed by a drop. The finding made regarding bench press protocols can
only be generalized to specific barbell bench press. Dumbbell bench press, machine
chest presses (weight and pin weighted), incline, and decline bench presses may
induce differing responses and results compared to those sustained in this study.

15
Practical Applications
 Drop sets have shown to achieve an acute fatigue stimulus, but doesn’t make
fatigue significantly worse than a 3 x 10 protocol.
 Based on this study, increasing fatigue through drop sets is not effective in
maximising peripheral or central fatigue measures beyond that of a 3 x 10
protocol.
 A higher resistance such as 75% of 1RM, showing enhanced MU recruitment
and firing rate, is therefore more effective in gaining the ideal neuromuscular
responses, with the absence of enhanced discomfort and pain.
 Within this study, the 3 x 10 protocol is simple with no adjustment of weight
needed, allowing two minutes of rest between sets.
 The preferred responses were achieved through accruing 30 repetitions at
75% 1RM, compared with 64 repetitions with the intensity being lowered 4
times for the drop set protocol.
 Prescription of low volume high fatiguing protocols are likely to increase
discomfort, and enhance risk of overtraining syndrome. Therefore an ideal
prescription to elicit acute fatigue stimulus is a non-failure program consisting
of 75% 1RM of 3 sets of 10 repetitions.

16
References
1. Takarada Y, Sato Y, Ishii N. Effects of resistance exercise combined with
vascular occlusion on muscle function in athletes. Eur j appl physiol. 2002
Feb;86(4):308-14. PubMed PMID: 11990743. Epub 2002/05/07. eng.
2. McCaulley GO, McBride JM, Cormie P, Hudson MB, Nuzzo JL, Quindry JC,
et al. Acute hormonal and neuromuscular responses to hypertrophy, strength
and power type resistance exercise. Eur j appl physiol. 2009
Mar;105(5):695-704. PubMed PMID: 19066934. Epub 2008/12/11. eng.
3. Burd NA, Holwerda AM, Selby KC, West DW, Staples AW, Cain NE, et al.
Resistance exercise volume affects myofibrillar protein synthesis and
anabolic signalling molecule phosphorylation in young men. J physiol. 2010
Aug 15;588(Pt 16):3119-30. PubMed PMID: 20581041. Pubmed Central
PMCID: PMC2956949. Epub 2010/06/29. eng.
4. Rooney KJ, Herbert RD, Balnave RJ. Fatigue contributes to the strength
training stimulus. Med sci sports ex. 1994 Sep;26(9):1160-4. PubMed PMID:
7808251. Epub 1994/09/01. eng.
5. Suga T, Okita K, Takada S, Omokawa M, Kadoguchi T, Yokota T, et al.
Effect of multiple set on intramuscular metabolic stress during low-intensity
resistance exercise with blood flow restriction. Eur j appl physiol. 2012
Nov;112(11):3915-20. PubMed PMID: 22415101. Pubmed Central PMCID:
PMC3474903. Epub 2012/03/15. eng.
6. Mitchell CJ, Churchward-Venne TA, West DW, Burd NA, Breen L, Baker SK,
et al. Resistance exercise load does not determine training-mediated

17
hypertrophic gains in young men. J appl physiol (Bethesda, Md : 1985). 2012
Jul;113(1):71-7. PubMed PMID: 22518835. Pubmed Central PMCID:
PMC3404827. Epub 2012/04/21. eng.
7. Moore DR, Burgomaster KA, Schofield LM, Gibala MJ, Sale DG, Phillips SM.
Neuromuscular adaptations in human muscle following low intensity
resistance training with vascular occlusion. Eur j appl physiol. 2004
Aug;92(4-5):399-406. PubMed PMID: 15205956. Epub 2004/06/19. eng.
8. Schott J, McCully K, Rutherford OM. The role of metabolites in strength
training. II. Short versus long isometric contractions. Eur j appl physiol occup
physiol. 1995;71(4):337-41. PubMed PMID: 8549577. Epub 1995/01/01.
eng.
9. Henneman E, Somjen G, Carpenter DO. Excitability and inhibitibility of
motoneurons of different sizes. J Neurophysiol. 1965;28(3):599-620.
10. Folland JP, Irish C, Roberts J, Tarr J, Jones DA. Fatigue is not a necessary
stimulus for strength gains during resistance training. Br J Sports Med.
2002;36(5):370-3.
11. Izquierdo M, Ibanez J, Gonzalez-Badillo JJ, Hakkinen K, Ratamess NA,
Kraemer WJ, et al. Differential effects of strength training leading to failure
versus not to failure on hormonal responses, strength, and muscle power
gains. J appl physiol (Bethesda, Md : 1985). 2006 May;100(5):1647-56.
PubMed PMID: 16410373. Epub 2006/01/18. eng.
12. Burd NA, West DW, Staples AW, Atherton PJ, Baker JM, Moore DR, et al.
Low-load high volume resistance exercise stimulates muscle protein

18
synthesis more than high-load low volume resistance exercise in young men.
PloS one. 2010;5(8):e12033. PubMed PMID: 20711498. Pubmed Central
PMCID: PMC2918506. Epub 2010/08/17. eng.
13. Willardson JM, Emmett J, Oliver JA, Bressel E. Effect of short-term failure
versus nonfailure training on lower body muscular endurance. Int j sports
physioland perform. 2008 Sep;3(3):279-93. PubMed PMID: 19211941. Epub
2009/02/13. eng.
14. Farina D, Cescon C, Negro F, Enoka RM. Amplitude cancellation of motor-
unit action potentials in the surface electromyogram can be estimated with
spike-triggered averaging. J Neurophysiol. 2008 Jul;100(1):431-40. PubMed
PMID: 18463179. Pubmed Central PMCID: PMC2493501. Epub 2008/05/09.
eng.
15. Yao W, Fuglevand RJ, Enoka RM. Motor-unit synchronization increases
EMG amplitude and decreases force steadiness of simulated contractions. J
neurophysiol. 2000 Jan;83(1):441-52. PubMed PMID: 10634886. Epub
2000/01/15. eng.
16. Aagaard P, Simonsen EB, Andersen JL, Magnusson P, Dyhre-Poulsen P.
Increased rate of force development and neural drive of human skeletal
muscle following resistance training. J appl physiol (Bethesda, Md : 1985).
2002 Oct;93(4):1318-26. PubMed PMID: 12235031. Epub 2002/09/18. eng.
17. Kamen G, Knight CA. Training-related adaptations in motor unit discharge
rate in young and older adults. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2004
Dec;59(12):1334-8. PubMed PMID: 15699535. Epub 2005/02/09. eng.

19
18. McBride JM, Blaak JB, Triplett-McBride T. Effect of resistance exercise
volume and complexity on EMG, strength, and regional body composition.
Eur j appl physiol. 2003 Nov;90(5-6):626-32. PubMed PMID: 12923645.
Epub 2003/08/19. eng.
19. Vila-Cha C, Falla D, Farina D. Motor unit behavior during submaximal
contractions following six weeks of either endurance or strength training. Eur
j appl physiol (Bethesda, Md : 1985). 2010 Nov;109(5):1455-66. PubMed
PMID: 20829500. Epub 2010/09/11. eng.
20. Fuglevand AJ, Zackowski KM, Huey KA, Enoka RM. Impairment of
neuromuscular propagation during human fatiguing contractions at
submaximal forces. Journal physiol. 1993 Jan;460:549-72. PubMed PMID:
8387589. Pubmed Central PMCID: PMC1175228. Epub 1993/01/01. eng.

Drop Sets vs 3x10 Protocol Fatigue Bench Press

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Tendances

Tendances (19)

Similaire à Drop Sets vs 3x10 Protocol Fatigue Bench Press

Similaire à Drop Sets vs 3x10 Protocol Fatigue Bench Press (20)

Drop Sets vs 3x10 Protocol Fatigue Bench Press