Premium
Clarity in reporting terminology and definitions of set endpoints in resistance training
Author(s) -
Steele James,
Fisher James,
Giessing Jürgen,
Gentil Paulo
Publication year - 2017
Publication title -
muscle and nerve
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.025
H-Index - 145
eISSN - 1097-4598
pISSN - 0148-639X
DOI - 10.1002/mus.25557
Subject(s) - terminology , clarity , ambiguity , set (abstract data type) , interpretation (philosophy) , psychological intervention , resistance (ecology) , variable (mathematics) , computer science , medicine , psychology , linguistics , mathematics , nursing , ecology , mathematical analysis , philosophy , biochemistry , chemistry , biology , programming language
Previous resistance training (RT) recommendations and position stands have addressed variables that can be manipulated when producing RT interventions. However, 1 variable that has received little discussion is set endpoints (i.e., the endpoint of a set of repetitions). Set endpoints 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 the use and definition of terminology that has created issues in interpretation of research findings. The purpose of this paper was to: (1) provide an overview of the ambiguity in historical terminology around set endpoints; (2) propose a clearer set of definitions related to set endpoints; and (3) highlight the issues created by poor terminology and definitions. It is hoped this may permit greater clarity in reporting, interpretation, and application of RT interventions for researchers and practitioners. Muscle Nerve 56 : 368–374, 2017