↓ Skip to main content

Muscle activation during three sets to failure at 80 vs. 30 % 1RM resistance exercise

Overview of attention for article published in European Journal of Applied Physiology, July 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
36 X users
facebook
4 Facebook pages
reddit
4 Redditors
video
3 YouTube creators

Readers on

mendeley
281 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Muscle activation during three sets to failure at 80 vs. 30 % 1RM resistance exercise
Published in
European Journal of Applied Physiology, July 2015
DOI 10.1007/s00421-015-3214-9
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

The purpose of this study was to investigate electromyographic amplitude (EMG AMP), EMG mean power frequency (MPF), exercise volume (VOL), total work and muscle activation (iEMG), and time under concentric load (TUCL) during, and muscle cross-sectional area (mCSA) before and after 3 sets to failure at 80 vs. 30 % 1RM resistance exercise. Nine men (mean ± SD, age 21.0 ± 2.4 years, resistance training week(-1) 6.0 ± 3.7 h) and 9 women (age 22.8 ± 3.8 years, resistance training week(-1) 3.4 ± 3.5 h) completed 1RM testing, followed by 2 experimental sessions during which they completed 3 sets to failure of leg extension exercise at 80 or 30 % 1RM. EMG signals were collected to quantify EMG AMP and MPF during the initial, middle, and last repetition of each set. Ultrasound was used to assess mCSA pre- and post-exercise, and VOL, total work, iEMG, and TUCL were calculated. EMG AMP remained greater at 80 % than 30 % 1RM across all reps and sets, despite increasing 74 and 147 % across reps at 80 and 30 % 1RM, respectively. EMG MPF decreased across reps at 80 and 30 % 1RM, but decreased more and was lower for the last reps at 30 than 80 % 1RM (71.6 vs. 78.1 % MVIC). mCSA increased more from pre- to post-exercise for 30 % (20.2-24.1 cm(2)) than 80 % 1RM (20.3-22.8 cm(2)). VOL, total work, iEMG and TUCL were greater for 30 % than 80 % 1RM. Muscle activation was greater at 80 % 1RM. However, differences in volume, metabolic byproduct accumulation, and muscle swelling may help explain the unexpected adaptations in hypertrophy vs. strength observed in previous studies.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 36 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 281 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Brazil 3 1%
Japan 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
Unknown 275 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 54 19%
Student > Bachelor 39 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 22 8%
Researcher 19 7%
Professor 17 6%
Other 51 18%
Unknown 79 28%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 111 40%
Medicine and Dentistry 21 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 14 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 2%
Other 26 9%
Unknown 89 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 25. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 May 2026.
All research outputs
#1,897,523
of 32,950,043 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Applied Physiology
#597
of 5,302 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#19,131
of 295,509 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Applied Physiology
#9
of 36 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 32,950,043 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,302 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 295,509 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 36 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.