Myo-Reps Versus Traditional Sets for Muscle Strength, Fat-Free Mass, and Time Efficiency

Myo-Reps Versus Traditional Sets for Muscle Strength, Fat-Free Mass, and Time Efficiency: a Randomized Controlled Trial

This study compared two ways of doing strength training in healthy adults. The first, called Myo-Reps, is a time-saving method: one hard first set of 8-15 repetitions, followed by three short "mini-sets" of 3-5 repetitions with only 10-20 seconds of rest in between. The second is traditional training: three sets of 8-15 repetitions with 1-3 minutes of rest between sets.

Thirty-four adults were randomly assigned, by chance, to one of the two groups. For nine weeks everyone trained twice a week, under supervision, doing full-body workouts on 10 gym machines. The researchers measured how much stronger people became on each exercise, how much their fat-free mass (muscle and other lean tissue) changed, how hard the sessions felt, how much weight and how many repetitions were lifted, and how long the sessions took.

The aim was to find out whether the shorter Myo-Reps workouts can build strength and fat-free mass as well as traditional training.

Study Overview

Status

Completed

Conditions

Intervention / Treatment

Detailed Description

Rationale: Lack of time is a common barrier to resistance training. The study tested two competing predictions. If total volume load (load × repetitions) is the main driver of adaptation, traditional three-set training should give greater improvements. If repetitions performed close to failure matter more, Myo-Reps could give similar or greater improvements despite less volume and shorter sessions.

Design: Parallel-group randomized trial in healthy adults, 1:1 allocation, stratified by gender and age, using a central web-based randomization system run by an independent trial unit; allocation was concealed until enrolment. All sessions were directly supervised, and load progression rules were identical in both groups. Week 1: familiarization and baseline body composition. Week 2: baseline strength testing. Weeks 3-11: training. Week 12: repeat testing.

Analysis: No sample-size calculation was performed (convenience sample). Strength comparisons are exploratory and analysed separately for each exercise.

Registration note: This record was registered retrospectively, after data collection was completed. Outcomes are described as defined in the manuscript submitted for publication.

Study Type

Interventional

Enrollment (Actual)

34

Phase

  • Not Applicable

Contacts and Locations

This section provides the contact details for those conducting the study, and information on where this study is being conducted.

Study Locations

    • Trøndelag
      • Trondheim, Trøndelag, Norway, 7030
        • Sit Trening HelgasetrSit

Participation Criteria

Researchers look for people who fit a certain description, called eligibility criteria. Some examples of these criteria are a person's general health condition or prior treatments.

Eligibility Criteria

Ages Eligible for Study

18 years to 65 years (Adult, Older Adult)

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

Yes

Genders Eligible for Study

All

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

  • 18-65 years
  • Generally good health
  • No medical contraindications for heavy resistance training

Exclusion Criteria:

  • highly advanced trainees
  • pregnancy

Study Plan

This section provides details of the study plan, including how the study is designed and what the study is measuring.

How is the study designed?

Design Details

  • Primary Purpose: Other
  • Allocation: Randomized
  • Interventional Model: Parallel Assignment
  • Masking: None (Open Label)

Arms and Interventions

Participant Group / Arm
Intervention / Treatment
Experimental: Myo-Rep

Nine weeks (weeks 3-11) of two supervised full-body sessions per week on 10 resistance-training machines. For each exercise: one activation set of 8-15 repetitions close to failure, followed by three mini-sets of 3-5 repetitions with the same load, separated by 10-20 seconds of rest. Load progression criteria were identical to the traditional training group.

Supervised full-body machine-based resistance training, twice weekly for nine weeks. Each exercise: one activation set of 8-15 repetitions close to failure, then three mini-sets of 3-5 repetitions with the same load and 10-20 seconds of rest between sets.

Active Comparator: Traditional three-set training

Nine weeks (weeks 3-11) of two supervised full-body sessions per week on the same 10 resistance-training machines. For each exercise: three sets of 8-15 repetitions separated by 1-3 minutes of rest. Load progression criteria were identical to the Myo-Reps group.

Supervised full-body machine-based resistance training, twice weekly for nine weeks, using the same 10 exercises. Each exercise: three sets of 8-15 repetitions with 1-3 minutes of rest between sets.

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Change in exercise-specific muscular strength (estimated one-repetition maximum, e1RM) across 10 machine exercises
Time Frame: Baseline (week 2) to post-intervention (week 12)

e1RM was derived from 3-10 repetition-maximum tests (Epley equation) for each of the 10 trained machine exercises. Each exercise was analysed separately, and the between-group difference in change from baseline to post-intervention is the outcome.

Baseline (week 2) to post-intervention (week 12)

Secondary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Change in fat-free mass
Time Frame: Baseline (week 1) to post-intervention (week 12)

Measured by bioelectrical impedance (InBody 770).

Baseline (week 1) to post-intervention (week 12)
Session duration
Time Frame: Training weeks 3-11

Time taken to complete a training session, averaged per participant.

Training weeks 3-11
Weekly volume load
Time Frame: Training weeks 3-11

Load × repetitions, summed across exercises and averaged per week.

Training weeks 3-11
Repetitions close to failure
Time Frame: raining weeks 3-11

Estimated number of repetitions performed close to muscular failure during training.

raining weeks 3-11
Session rating of perceived exertion (session RPE)
Time Frame: Training weeks 3-11

Participant-rated exertion for each training session.

Training weeks 3-11

Collaborators and Investigators

This is where you will find people and organizations involved with this study.

Sponsor

Investigators

  • Principal Investigator: Marius S Fimland, Phd, NTNU - Norwegian University of Science and Technology

Study record dates

These dates track the progress of study record and summary results submissions to ClinicalTrials.gov. Study records and reported results are reviewed by the National Library of Medicine (NLM) to make sure they meet specific quality control standards before being posted on the public website.

Study Major Dates

Study Start (Actual)

August 26, 2025

Primary Completion (Actual)

December 3, 2025

Study Completion (Actual)

December 3, 2025

Study Registration Dates

First Submitted

October 26, 2026

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

October 30, 2026

First Posted (Actual)

November 3, 2026

Study Record Updates

Last Update Posted (Actual)

November 3, 2026

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

October 30, 2026

Last Verified

October 1, 2026

More Information

Terms related to this study

Other Study ID Numbers

  • SIKT ID: 187305

Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)

Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?

YES

IPD Plan Description

De-identified individual participant data underlying the published results will be made available to qualified researchers on reasonable request to the corresponding author, after publication of the main article. Requests should include a brief research proposal.

IPD Sharing Time Frame

Data will be available beginning after publication of the main article and for at least 5 years thereafter.

IPD Sharing Access Criteria

De-identified individual participant data will be shared with qualified researchers on reasonable request to the corresponding author (Philip Meisterl, NTNU), who will review each request. Requesters should provide a short research proposal. Data are shared only for scientific research purposes, consistent with participants' consent and Norwegian data protection regulations (GDPR). Data will be sent securely by email or a secure file-transfer link.

Drug and device information, study documents

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product

No

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product

No

This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.