This is my attempt to get this thread back on track.
INTENSITY OF STRENGTH
TRAINING FACTS AND THEORY:
RUSSIAN AND EASTERN
EUROPEAN APPROACH
Vladmir M. Zatsiorsky, Ph.D.
Biomechanics Lab The Pennsylvania State University, University Park,
Pennsylvania and Central Institute of Physical Culture-Moscow, Russia
Re-printed with permission by the author.
Many attempts have been made to determine which training is more effective,
lifting maximal or intermediate weights. This is similar to the question of whether
800-meter runners should train at distances shorter or longer than 800 meters. It
is advisable to run both. The same holds true for strength training; exercises with
different resistances must be employed.
The objective of this paper is to describe and explain the training routine
employed by elite Russian and Bulgarian weightlifters. Athletes from these
countries have won almost all of the gold medals at the World and Olympic
championships over the last 25 years.
Three main problems exist in strength conditioning of elite athletes:
1. Selection of exercises used by an athlete;
2. Training load, in particular training intensity and volume; and
3. Training timing, i.e. the distribution of the exercises and load over the time
periods.
The training intensity of elite athletes is the only problem covered in this article.
Exercise Intensity Measurement
Exercise intensity during heavy resistance training can be estimated in four ways:
1. Magnitude of resistance, i.e., weight lifted, expressed as a percentage of
the best achievement (FM) in relevant movement. Expressing the weight
lifted in kg, it is difficult to compare the training load of athletes of various
skill levels and from different weight classes.
2. Number of repetitions (lifts) per set (a set is a group of repetitions
performed consecutively).
3. Number (or percentage) of repetitions with maximal resistance (weight).
4. Workout density, i.e. the number of sets per one-hour workout.
The first three methods are described below:
1. To characterize the magnitude of resistance (load), use the percentage of
the weight lifted relative to the best performance. Depending on how the
best achievement is determined, two main variants of such a measure are
utilized. The athletic performance attained during an official sport
competition (competition FM = CFM) is used as a ?best performance? in the
first case. In the second, a so called maximum training weight (TFM) is
used for comparison.
By definition, maximum training weight is the heaviest weight (one
repetition maximum - 1 RM) which can be lifted by an athete without
substantial emotional stress. In practice, experienced athletes determine
TFM by registering heart rate. An increase in heart rate before the lift is a
sign of emotional anxiety. The weight exceeds TFM in this case. The
difference between the TFM and the CFM is approximately 12.5 +/- 2.5
percent for superior weight lifters. The difference is greater among
athletes in heavy weight classes. In the case of an athlete who lifts 200 kg
during competition, 180 kg weight is typically above his TFM.
The difference between CFM and TFM is great. After an important
competition, weight lifters are extremely tired, although they perform only
six lifts in comparison to nearly 100 during a regular training session. The
athletes have a feeling of ?emptiness?and they cannot lift large volumes of
weight. The athletes need about one week of rest and may compete in the
next important competition only after one month of rest and training
(compared with other sports in which athletes compete two to three times
a week). The reason for this is the great emotional stress while lifting CFM,
rather than the physical load itself. TFM can be lifted at each training
session.
It is more practical to use CFM rather than TFM for the calculation of
training intensity. In a sport such as weight lifting, the training intensity is
characterized by an intensity coefficient.
average weight lifted, kg.
intensity coefficient =
athletic performance
(Snatch plus clean and jerk), kg
On average, the intensity coefficient for superior Russian athletes is 38 +/-
2 percent.
It is recommended to use a CFM value (the average of the two
performances attained during official contests) immediately before and
after the studied period of training. For instance, if the performance was
100 kg during a competition in December and it was 110 kg in May, the
average CFM for the January - April period was 105 kg.
There are many misconceptions in sports science literature regarding
weight loads used in heavy resistance training. One reason is that the
difference between CFM and TFM is not always completely described. The
reader must be attentive to this difference.
Figure 1: The distribution of weights lifted by members of the National Olympic
team of the USSR during preparation for the 1988 Olympic Winter Games; one
year of direct observations. (From: ?Preparation of National Olympic team in
weight lifting to the 1988 Olympic Games in Seoul.? Technical report #1988-67,
All-Union Research Institute of Physical Culture, Moscow, 1989)
2. The number of repetitions per set (repetition maximum - RM) is a popular
measure of intensity in exercise where maximal force (FM) is difficult or
even impossible to evaluate, such as sit-ups.
The magnitude of resistance (weight, load) may be characterized by the
ultimate number of repetitions possible in one set (to failure). RM
determination entails utilizing a trial-and-error process to find the greatest
amount of weight a trainee can lift a designated number of times. RM is a
very convenient measure of training intensity in heavy resistance training.
However, there is no fixed relationship between the magnitude of the
weight lifted (expressed as a percentage of the FM in relevant movement)
and the number of repetitions to failure (RM). The relationship varies with
different athletes and motions.
Thus, 10 RM corresponds to approximately 75 percent of FM. This is valid
for athletes in sports in which strength and explosive strength are
predominate qualities (weight lifting, sprinting, jumping, throwing, etc.).
However, it should be taken into account that a given percent of 1 RM will
not always elicit the same number of repetitions to failure when performing
different lifts.
During training, elite athletes use varying numbers of repetitions in
different lifts.
3. The number for repetitions with maximal resistance is used as an
additional measure of the intensity of strength training. All lifts with a
barbell above 90 percent of CFM are included in this category. These
loads are above TFM for most athletes.
Intensity of training
The practical training experience of elite athletes is a very useful source of
information in sports science. This experience, while it does not provide sound
scientific proof of the optimum results that can be expected from the employed
training routines, reflects the most efficient training techniques known at the time.
The distribution of training weights in the conditioning of elite weight lifters is
shown in Figure 1. Elite athletes use a broad spectrum of different loads. The
loads below 60 percent of CFM are used mainly for warming up and restitution
(they account for eight percent of all the lifts). The main portion of weights lifted
(25 percent) is 70 to 80 percent of the CFM . The loads above 90 percent of CFM
account for only seven percent of all lifts.
According to numerous observations, the average training intensity for elite
Russian athletes is 75 +/- 2 percent of the CFM. Athletes from other countries
often use higher or lower training weights. For instance, Finnish weight lifting
champions exercise (1987) at an average intensity of 80 +/- 2.5 percent.
The number of repetitions per, set varies by exercise. In both the snatch and
clean and jerk lifts (Figure 2), the major parts of all sets are performed with 1-3
repetitions. In the snatch, only 1.8 percent of the sets are done with three four
repetitions; in the clean, the percentage of sets with four through six lifts is not
more than 5.4 percent. The majority of sets, roughly from 55 to 60 percent,
comprise two repetitions.
In auxiliary strength exercises, such as squatting with a barbell, in which motor
coordination only partially resembles the coordination in the snatch squats, the
range is from two to seven lifts per set (more than 93 percent of all sets are
performed in this range, Figure 3).
Generally, as the intermuscular coordination in an exercise becomes more
simple, and as the technique of the exercise deviates from the technique of the
main event (in this example, from the technique of both the snatch and clean and
jerk), the greater the number of repetitions. In the clean and jerk, it is one to three
(54.4 percent of sets were with two lifts only); the typical number of reps in
squatting is three to five, and in the inverse curl the average number of lifts is five
to seven per set (Figure 4).
The numbers of repetitions with maximal resistance (CFM) are relatively low.
During the 1984 -1988 Olympic training cycle, elite Russian athletes lifted a
barbell of maximal weight in main exercises (snatch, clean, and jerk) 300 to 600
times a year. This amount comprised 1.5 - 3.0 percent of all their lifts. These
weights were distributed as follows:
Weight of Barbell Number of lifts
(Percent of CFM) (Percent)
90 - 92.5 65
92.6 - 97.5 20
97.6 - 100 15
Total 100
In a one-month period before important competitions, weights above 90 percent
of CFM are lifted in the snatch and / or clean and jerk 40 to 60 times.
During the 1980s, Russian and Bulgarian weight lifting teams won almost all of
the gold medals at World and Olympic competitions. It has been reported many
times that Bulgarian athletes lift barbells of maximal weight more than 4,000
times a year. The training intensity of Bulgarian athletes is actually higher than it
is for Russian athletes. However, the real source of such a huge discrepancy
(600 versus 4,000 lifts a year) is not the training itself, but the method of
determining maximal weight. Russian athletes use CFM in their plans and logs,
while Bulgarians stick to TFM (1 RM in a given training session).
The aforementioned integers should not be mechanically copied. Rather, the
underlying concept of such training must be understood and practiced.
The concept was formulated in 1970 and has since been used as a theoretical
background for strength conditioning of elite athletes. Though the concept is not
scientifically validated in detail (it should be considered as a hypothesis rather
than a scientific theory), it is useful from a practical standpoint. When training
elite athletes, it is impossible to wait until scientific research provides all of the
necessary knowledge.
The training concept is based on the idea that strength manifestation is
determined by two latent factors:
1. Peripheral muscles and
2. Central coordination.
KILLER article on single set versus multiple sets!
[size=3][b]Resolving the Single-
Versus Multiple-Set
Strength Training
Debate
Matthew R. Rhea, PhD, CSCS[/b][/size]
For decades, debate has persisted regarding the amount of work (volume or number of
sets) a person must perform in the weight room to elicit maximal strength gains. A very small, but
vocal group has promoted their opinion that single-set training programs will elicit maximal, or near
maximal, strength gains and additional sets of training are of no value. The vast majority of exercise
professionals and leaders in our field, however, have founded their prescription of training volume
on two fundamental exercise principles: the dose-response and progression. These principles, the
experience of our most knowledgeable professionals, and the body of research examining this issue
overwhelmingly support the need for multiple-set training programs to achieve maximal strength
gains.
The dose-response is a training principle that states that a given stress or dose will result
in a certain response with higher doses eliciting a greater response up to a certain point. After this
point of maximal effectiveness, benefits of increased dosages begin to diminish and an overdose is
observed. In the pharmaceutical world, the principle of the dose-response is a very familiar and
important concept. Physicians must know the degree of impact that a specific dose of a drug will
have in order to prescribe the correct amount. Too little dose will fail to achieve the needed change
in health or condition while an overdose may carry severe adverse effects. Similar to pharmaceutical
drug prescriptions, exercise professionals prescribe resistance training programs (of varying doses) to
elicit the needed or desired degree of strength development. Prescribing too little work will result
in a failure to achieve the desired or needed strength gains while too much work could result in
overtraining. The principle of progression states that once an individual has become accustomed to
a stimulus, they must add additional stress in order to stimulate continued responses. In other
words, the dose must be progressively increased to result in continued adaptation. These principles
have been developed through years of research and practice and have continually been supported by
such work.
Hundreds of studies have examined the amount of strength improvement elicited by
training programs involving different training doses (i.e. sets, intensity, etc.). Unfortunately, taken
separately, each study provides only a small glimpse of the dose-response relationship. Luckily,
methods have been developed over the past 20 years for combining individual studies in a way that
leads to reliable information (5, 6, 7). Such procedures, called meta-analysis, involve a process of
systematically combining separate but related studies so that the findings can compared. The metaanalysis
allows researchers to come to a consensus regarding disputed outcomes among individual
studies by increasing statistical power and summing the results of the body of research as a whole.
This is especially important among bodies of research, such as strength training, where statistical
power in each study may be low due to small sample sizes.
Recently, several meta-analyses have been completed on a large body (nearly 200
studies) of strength training literature (2, 3, 4, 8) in search of the dose-response for strength
development. Taken individually, many of these studies have found no statistical difference
between single- and multiple-set training programs due to low statistical power. Most of these
studies included little more than a handful of participants making it almost impossible for
conventional statistics to identify a difference between the training programs when, in fact, a
difference did exist. With the results of hundreds of studies combined through meta-analytical
techniques, it becomes quite obvious that single-set training programs do not elicit maximal, or
even near maximal, strength gains. Even in groups of people just beginning a training program,
those requiring the least amount of training to see improvements, up to four sets per muscle group
is needed to see maximal strength gains. In this population, one set results in less than half of the
strength elicited by multiple sets. For trained populations, progression to five or six sets is required
to see maximal gains, while athletes (very highly trained populations) must perform about eight sets
per muscle group to experience maximal strength gains. In athletes, the meta-analyses
demonstrated that single-set training programs elicited minimal, if any, strength gains.
This research has made it apparent that different doses of training volume will result in a
different magnitude of strength development and the amount of strength improvement with
different doses changes as an individual becomes more highly trained. Once again, strong evidence
supports the principle of the dose-response. Since publication of these analyses, additional studies
have been added to the database and the dose-response for strength development has been further
solidified
Having dispelled the myth that single-set programs will elicit maximal gains, the
question of who might benefit from performing just one set arises. To answer such a question, one
must ask how much strength gain is needed and how much time an individual has to exercise. If
only small amounts of strength gain are desired, single-set programs can be sufficient for lesser
training populations because even low amounts of stress are sufficient to stimulate some
improvements. However, if large gains are desired or needed, much more work must be performed.
If time is limited, then performing as much work as time permits is better than doing nothing.
However, it must be acknowledged that such a situation will not result in maximal strength gains
and any argument to the contrary is misleading and unsubstantiated.
The meta-analyses have supported what most serious strength trainers already knew: it takes significant time and effort to develop high levels of strength. Applying this knowledge to real-life situations can assist in the development of training
programs for a variety of populations. First, beginners should be cautious about attempting to do
too much work too soon. They should begin slowly, perhaps following a single-set, low-intensity
training program. As they become accustomed to training, usually in a matter of a few months,
additional sets can and must be added if increased strength gains are desired. Such progression
should occur gradually with no more than one set added each week but must occur for additional
strength gains to be achieved.
Progression is a principle that every avid strength trainer can attest to. Even more
importantly, a group of the most experienced and knowledgeable leaders in our field recently
compiled one of the most thorough and respected statements in support of the principle of
progression for the American College of Sports Medicine (1). Training experience and vast amounts
of research have demonstrated that low volume (single-set) programs become less and less effective
as people become more highly trained. Such programs do not present sufficient stimulus to cause a
highly developed neuromuscular system to improve itself. An individual must progress to a greater
stimulus in order to elicit continued adaptations.
By adhering to physiological principles such as the dose-response and progression,
exercise professionals can develop safe, effective strength training programs. The vast body of
research examining different doses of training has provided us with ample evidence and detail
regarding how much work should be done to achieve a given increase in strength. The past
confusion among some in our field and the resolution of the debate over single versus multiple set
training programs should teach us that exercise principles that have been established, tested, and
validated should be the foundation of prescription for strength development.
References
1. American College of Sports Medicine. (2002). Position Stand: Progression models in
resistance training for healthy adults. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise. 34: 364-380.
2. Peterson, MD, Rhea, MR, and Alvar, BA. ?Maximizing Strength Development in Athletes:
A Meta-Analysis to Determine the Dose-Response Relationship?. Journal of Strength and
Conditioning Research. 18(2): 377-382. 2004.
3. Rhea, M, Alvar, B, Burkett, L. ?A Meta-Analysis of One and Three Sets of Weight Training
for Strength?. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport. 73(4): 485-88. 2002.
4. Rhea, M., Alvar, B., Burkett, L., Ball, S. ?A Meta-Analysis to Determine the Dose-Response
Relationship for Strength Development: Volume, Intensity, and Frequency of Training?.
Medicine and Science in Sport and Exercise. 35(3): 456-464. 2003.
5. Rhea, M. ?Synthesizing Strength Training Research Through the use of the Meta-
Analysis?. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. 18(4) 921-923. 2004.
6. Thomas, J. and K. French. The use of meta-analysis in exercise and sport: a tutorial. R.Q.
57: 196-204.1986.
7. Thomas, J., W. Salazar, and D.M. Landers. What is missing in p < .05? Res. Q. Exerc. Sport.
62: 344-348.1991.
8. Wolfe, LeMura, and Cole. (2004).?Quantitative Analysis of Single- vs. Multiple-Set
Programs in Resistance Training?. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. 18(1): 35-
47.
Louie Simmons HIT....... or Miss?
[b]Louie Simmons respected strength trainer/powerlifter.[/b]
[url]http://www.deepsquatter.com/strength/archives/ls12.htm[/url]
Charles Poliquin ... Working to failure?
[b]Recent Question to Charles Poliquin on the MBN member's board.....[/b]
"Working to failure". Do you recommend it for long-term use? The reason I ask is that I like (love!) going to failure on each and every set, except warm ups of course. I find it an easy indicator of strength gains/losses from workout to workout, recording everything including time between sets. Is there 'room' for it in your 'Intensification/Accumulation' phases? Also, I've been lifting for about 3 months now, making consistent strength gains on this 'failure' system, up until 3 weeks ago.
Now, each workout, I am weaker than the one before. I've changed little in my diet during this period except my protein powder, now being 'Optimum Nutrition 100% Whey' which has significantly fewer carbs but more protein than its predecessor; have also upped my EFA's (essential fatty acids).
So, if anything at all, that I can really see here, is a lower intake of carbs.
Could this be my problem, or have I been overtraining i.e. to failure for too long, or both? It's slowly driving me crazy trying to figure it out..please help!!![/font]
[b]And here's Charles Poliquin's answer...[/b]
Let's define absolute muscle failure. The first step in defining this term is to review the fact that there are three types of muscle contraction: concentric, isometric and eccentric.
When a muscle shortens, it is called a concentric contraction, like when you raise the barbell in curls by shortening the elbow flexors.
When you lower the same barbell, your muscle lengthens - perform an eccentric contraction.
Finally, a muscle can also contract without changing the joint angle or also known as an - isometric or static contraction, like in the case of a gymnast holding an iron cross.
Isometric contractions are normally 10-15% stronger than concentric contraction, while eccentric contractions are as much as 75% stronger than concentric contraction, with the average between 25 to 40% greater than the concentric contraction.
In other words, if you can curl 100 lbs, you can hold 110-115 lbs at pretty much any angle in the range of motion, and can lower safely 125 to 140 lbs.
There are three types of muscular failure, one associated with each type of contraction One is known to fail concentrically when one cannot raise the weight, to fail statically when one is not able hold the weight at any given point in the range of motion, and to fail eccentrically when to not able to lower the weight under control at a given tempo.
When one reaches failure on all three types of muscular contraction, he is known to have reached "absolute muscle failure".
Rarely you will find athletes who train to this level of failure - simply because it's masochism has fallen out of grace.
Since there are three types of contraction, there are three degrees of failure.
You can train to just concentric and/or static and/or eccentric failure. Typically, the higher the degree of failure (closer you approach total eccentric failure), the less you can control the weight, and hence common sense will tell you that exercise performance is not being safe anymore.
Your muscles simply cannot generate enough strength to control the weight, thus you are predisposing yourself to injury.
To answer your question, is it absolutely necessary to achieve muscle growth? Certainly not, just look at the hypertrophy of powerlifters and Olympic lifters, they rarely if ever train to failure and yet achieve significant hypertrophy in the trained muscles.
The only people that I have seen make significant gains on ?absolute failure? had the following in common:
1. They were amphetamines user like Ritalin who disguised their animalistic training drive by claiming it is was instead influenced by the readings of German philosophers and/or listening to Wagnerian music prior to training, Please don't piss on my leg and tell me its raining.
2. They were severe exogeneous androgen users i.e. 2,000 mg to 3000 mg of various testoterones a week, and 100-300 mg of orals a day (i.e. Dianabol and Anadrol)
3. The obsession with making progress in training loads leads to improper technique. They all ended up tearing one or more of the following: biceps, pec, lat and quadriceps. One Mr. Olympia finalist, tore a biceps training in this fashion while loosely curling an 85 lbs on a Scott bench, while a more reasonable weight in good form would have been 65 lbs.
4. They all suffered from adrenal exhaustion and paranoia, probably because of the abuse of 1.
Training to absolute muscle failure is a concept that has been around for about the last 25 years or so. Mike Mentzer and Nautilus machine inventor Arthur Jones were the initial proponents of this training methodology.
It gained rapid popularity because it went strongly against the grain of the training methodology popular in the bodybuilding meccas of Northern Europe and Southern California.
In the early seventies, we were told to do 20 sets a bodypart, two workouts a week per bodypart, and only take Sundays off .
So obviously doing only 1-2 sets per bodypart 2-3 per week in full body workouts was considered either heresy or something valid to look at.
Since then, many training systems have been used. In my opinion, training to absolute failure should be used vary sparingly, maybe once every 8 weeks should suffice, and only after a very progressive warm-ups.
Systematic variations in both intensity and volume, not training to absolute failure are the keys to muscle growth.
In certain training methods like German Volume Training, one does not need to reach concentric failure on every set. Unless specifically mentioned you can assume that every set prescribed is a work set. Therefore you should reach concentric muscle failure.
However I also believe that many trainees fail to achieve their training goals by exhausting their neuro-endocrine.
You know the type of trainee that does a 6 seconds isometric contraction after failing to complete the concentric range.
A principle is always for long-term use. Hence the name principle.
Yes, you are overtraining.
[b]Source[/b]
[url]http://www.strengthcats.com/CPworkingtofailure.htm[/url]
Lyle McDonald: Why go to failure?
From: Lyle McDonald
Subject: Here's one for you to chew on for a while: Is Failure Necessary
Date: Fri, 9 Feb 96 23:39:45 -0500
Ok, it's time for some more musings from the guy who never hangs out
on m.f.w any more. So, here in all it's glory is hopefully the answer
of the following question.
--------------------
Why go to failure?
The question of how much stimulation (and what type) is sufficient to
cause maximal/optimal muscle growth is one that does not have an easy
answer. Many groups and individuals feel that going to the point of momentary
muscular failure (or beyond with certain techniques) is the key to causing
muscular adaptation. That is, taking the muscle to the point of attempting
the momentary impossible is the key ingredient to muscular failure.
There have been several schools of thought as to why going to failure is
necessary. One of those is the simple microtear theory wherby the muscle
literally undergoes physical tearing. Various individuals feel that going
to the point of ischemic rigor (where the muscle essentially locks up) causes
minute tears to occur in the muscle during the eccentric phase (the
lowering phase of a weight training movement) and that is the stimulus
for growth. If true, this is incedentally why the eccentric point of the
movement is both critically necessary for growth (for the most part)
as well as the cause of the majority of muscle soreness. That is, since
the tearing occurs during the eccentric portion, it seems reasonable to conclude
that one must perform an accentuated negative to get increases in size and
strength. Proponents of this theory offer as evidence the fact that
muscles stressed in a concentric only method do not undergo growth
consistently and that the eccentric portion of the movement has been
shown to be the stimulus for growth. However, they also feel that negative
only movements (which are often used to increase the intensity of
training since more weight can be lifted with eccentric vs concentric
contractions) do not work as well as combined concentric/eccentric
lifting as the concentric is necessary to 'prime' the muscle in some way
for the above mentioned microtears.
Now we do know that heavy training (especially eccentric contractions)
cause an increase in biochemical markers of muscle damage which lends
some support to the theory that muscle damage is a key stimulus for
growth. But, even this brings up the question of just how much muscle
damage is needed to stimulate optimal growth. This is not a question
that anyone is even close to answering at this point and I have a feeling
that it may depend on the person and their genetics (which might explain
why some individuals can grow from greater amounts of training while
others overtrain with anything but the least amount).
Now, at this point in time, there is not adequate data to say exactly what
it is about lifting a weight X number of times that causes it to grow. Various
other theories have been offered instead of the above including ATP depletion
(which, at least during high intensity cycle ergometry has not been shown to
occur), CP depletion (which, if correct would argue against creatine loading),
decreased blood flow (which occurs as a result of near maximal muscular
contractions which cause capillaries near the muscle to collapse), increased
blood flow (i.e. the pump theory of growth), muscle ischemia (oxygen
deprivation but we don't see huge muscles in individuals who spend lots
of time at high altitude) and the simple tension/metabolic work
theory (covered in great detail in a seminal review article by
Goldspink et. al.) that argues that forcing the muscle to do high intensity
work is the prime stimulus for growth.
Now we also know that involuntary high intensity contractions (like with
electrical simulation) does not cause growth except in very untrained or
injured inviduals. So, not only does there seem to be a need to perform
high intensity muscular work, it has to be generated by a person's own
nervous system to be effective.
Ok, so why failure? Is there anything special about going to muscular failure
which might be the primary stimulus for growth. Other than the microtear
theory which mandates failure so that the tears can occur, none of the above
theories seem to require going to failure. And, it may be that tearing can
occur without going to failure seeing as it does occur with downhill running
(which forces the muscle to contract eccentrically as well). But, we know
that long distance running doesn't spur muscle growth so there must be
something else going on.
Let's say you're lifting a load that puts you above the threshold to recruit
100% of your motor units (about 8RM for upper body movements and 15RM
for lower body movements). And, let's further say that you are performing
an upper body movement with your 8RM. Well, strict proponents of the
failure theory would argue that you must perform 8 reps to achieve growth
and that stopping short of this would not generate any growth. But, if
you were to stop this set at 7 reps (knowing with 100% accuracy that
it was your 8RM) you would achieve almost 100% of the (take your pick
here) ATP depletion, CP depletion, decreased blood flow, increased blood
flow, oxygen deprivation or time under tension. So, the question still
remains: Why failure?
Let's take as an assumption that the critical component to muscle growth
is simply the time spent under high tension (supported by ample evidence
as presented by Goldspink et. al.) and that other factors (those listed above
as well as hormonal factors) are secondary in nature but may increase the
adaptations seen. Several groups suggest specific set
times like 60-90 seconds (HIT advocates although the times change
>from source to source), 20-60 seconds (strength coach Charles Poliquin),
Superslow (generally 60 seconds per set in 4 slow 15 second reps) which lends
at least anecdotal evidence that some minimum time under high tension
may be a pre-requisite to simulate size and strength increases. I don't
think we can say with complete accuracy what that time is for
optimal strength or size gains but let's take for granted now that some
minimal time is necessary. Or, put a better way, slamming out 8 reps in
8 seconds with your 8RM will in all likelihood not achieve the same
level (or type) of adaptation as doing 8 reps in 48 seconds with your 8RM.
Although the rep count is the same, the total time under tension (and
presumably other factors like ATP depletion et. al.) will not be the same.
Ok, so still why failure? Assuming that stopping an 8RM set at 7
reps will achieve most of the time under tension that doing the final
rep will, why push to 8 reps? I mean, that 8th rep hurts like hell and
in the case of movements like squats and deadlifts, it may cause injury
due to form breakdown so why not stop just short of that point if we
can get similar results from it? Let me digress before I answer that
question.
Is there any evidence to the contrary in terms of the need for failure
to spur muscle growth in either the scientific or anecdotal world?
Yes, there is. We have at least one excellent example of how growth can
occur without going to failure (or even including an eccentric motion
in your lift). And that is the Olympic lifters. While many individuals
will bitch and moan about how useless the Olympic lifts are and how
dangerous they are, you cannot deny that they are some
massively muscled individuals. Having seen Wes Barnett (one of
the current US Heavyweight lifters), I can vouch for his extreme
muscularity. Not that he's as big as even the smallest pro bodybuilder
but he's built considerable muscle with the Olympic lifts. Now, Olympic
lifters can't go to failure in their lifts as it will disrupt their technique.
Also, the primary Olympic lifts (clean and jerk, snatch, etc) do not contain
an eccentric movement. And, even on movements like squats and such, most
Olympic lifters move rather quickly so there is no accentuated negative
movement in their training. Now, I don't want to give everyone the
impression that Olympic lifting is the most effective, most efficient, or
safest way to get bigger muscles since I don't think it is. But, the fact that
these individuals (who again lift very quickly, don't go to failure since
it's not feasible with the types of lifting they are doing, and don't
perform slow eccentric movements) show muscular hypertrophy throws
a bit of a wrench in the simple theory of "You must go to the point of
muscular failure in X seconds with a slow eccentric to achieve growth."
To achieve optimal growth? Well, that's a different question entirely.
Additionally, if you look at tradesmen who perform heavy manual labor,
you often see large scale muscular hypertrophy caused by much lower than
maximal work. However, their work requires large amounts of submaximal
work (time under tension) which also seems to stimulate growth.
So, we have at least two data points that show growth to occur without
muscular failure occurring. And, any theory which can't adequately
explain all data points needs to be revised. So, I'm revising it here.
Now, there is one more interesting observation that can be made from
Olympic lifters which is their generally large total training volumes
(at least when compared to systems like HG and HIT and such).
Since they rarely perform more than 3-5 reps per set and the reps are
very short (less than 1 second generally), they tend to perform lots
and lots of sets. We've all heard of the Bulgarian's training 3-6 times per
day but each session was very short, these individuals were genetically
superior, and they were most likely taking steroids so they are not
the best example. But, at the Olympic training center, the Junior
Olympic team lifters frequently train twice daily. So, although each
set is minimal in length and there is no accentuated eccentric, it may
be possible that these lifters make up for it with a large total time
that their muscles are under tension. In any event, it does make quite
a big hole in the theory that failure is the primary stimulus for growth
since it's obviously not. The story, as they say, thickens.
Now, I hate to bore you with this but Dave told me I better back up the
above argument with some numbers rather than just give a hand-waving "OL's
may perform similar amounts of total work" argument. So here goes but
we have to make some major simplifying assumptions or the math will
be impossible. Let's compare 'Typical HG Training' over the course of
a year to a 'Typical OL Training' in terms of total time under tension.