An interventional study of Myo-Reps resistance training and Traditional three-set resistance training in Resistance Exercise and Muscle Strength Development, sponsored by Norwegian University of Science and Technology. Completed at 1 site in Norway. Open to participants aged 18 Years to 65 Years, including healthy volunteers. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2026-11-03.
Sponsored by Norwegian University of Science and Technology · Not applicable, Interventional, and Other
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.
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.
Norwegian University of Science and Technology is the lead sponsor of 495 studies on the registry; 48 are open to participants now.
Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.
Go through the criteria one by one — yes, no or not sure — and take the list to your doctor or the study team. Kept in this browser only.
Exclusion Criteria:
Underlined terms in the criteria open these too. Explained by clinicaltrials.gg, not part of the registry record. The study team decides who can take part.
A reason a treatment, test or procedure should not be given to a particular person, such as an allergy, another illness or a medicine they take.
Contraindication
A reason a treatment, test or procedure should not be given to a particular person, such as an allergy, another illness or a medicine they take.
Explained by clinicaltrials.gg, not part of the registry record. The study team decides who can take part.
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.
Other: Myo-Reps resistance 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.
Other: Traditional three-set resistance training
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.
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.
Change in exercise-specific muscular strength (estimated one-repetition maximum, e1RM) across 10 machine exercises
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.
Time frame: Baseline (week 2) to post-intervention (week 12)
Change in fat-free mass
Measured by bioelectrical impedance (InBody 770).
Time frame: Baseline (week 1) to post-intervention (week 12)
Session duration
Time taken to complete a training session, averaged per participant.
Time frame: Training weeks 3-11
Weekly volume load
Load × repetitions, summed across exercises and averaged per week.
Time frame: Training weeks 3-11
Repetitions close to failure
Estimated number of repetitions performed close to muscular failure during training.
Time frame: raining weeks 3-11
Session rating of perceived exertion (session RPE)
Participant-rated exertion for each training session.
Time frame: Training weeks 3-11
Plan to share: Yes — 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.
Time frame: Data will be available beginning after publication of the main article and for at least 5 years thereafter.
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.
No publications or documents are linked to this record.
From the registry record's own update history. This site started tracking changes on Sep 25, 2026; for anything earlier, see the record history on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
This study is completed, as verified in Oct 2026. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.
Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.
Sign in to followQuestions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.
Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.
Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.
Norwegian University of Science and Technology →