Failure causing damage to CNS??

[shaneee]

Yes, you would take a deload week. You would need to take that week off because you would've damaged (fatigued, overtrained) your nervous system, which is what you stated 'def doesn't' happen.

The main reason why I responded to your reply was because you were providing inaccurate information to the OP by saying that nervous system fatigue doesn't happen by going to failure all of the time, and that could hurt his training in the long run, which I don't like to see.

well you see..IN MY OPINION it won't happen..despite how soo many people so that..just from my own person experiences..obviously not that long yet but i've had no problems up to now with going to failure many times during a workout and i know many extremely big guys that agree..that's where i even got the idea from

[SumDumGoi]

Training to failure also raises cortisol levels and lowers testosterone levels. With out a bucket load of steroids you'll shrink if you do it long term.

The question is "does training to failure change hormone concentrations enough that it would interfere with gains in muscular size and strength?".

http://jap.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/100/5/1647

In the study above strength training volume was equal between both a training to failure and a training not to failure group. Differences in muscular strength (1RMs for both squat and bench press) were the same between both groups for every time point. However, the training to failure group was able to perform a larger number of repetitions @ 60% 1RM compared to the training not to failure group.

In the study they also measured hormone concentrations as well. At one time point there was a significant reduction in cortisol and an increase in testosterone observed in the not to failure group compared with the to failure group. However, these differences were only observed short term and it did not appear as though there were any real differences between the groups. Because there were no differences observed between the groups and there were no differences in muscular strength observed between the groups, I will have to disagree with the authors conclusions regarding that training not to failure "may" produce a favorable environment for strength training. The authors themselves supported this contention as they later addressed it within the discussion:

However, although it is attractive the use of the testosterone-to-cortisol ratio as a common marker to indicate a potential anabolic or catabolic state, positively related with performance improvements, it appears to be an oversimplification. In fact, it has been suggested that a transient drop in the testosterone-to-cortisol ratio below 45% cannot be interpreted as a sign of overstrain or neuroendocrine dysfunction and may not be associated with decreased performance (9, 14, 26). Indeed, in some circumstances it may be related to a temporary positive stress stimulus and may even be expressed in a beneficial effect on performance (14). Thus some authors have shown a decrease in the testosterone- to-cortisol ratio or the free testosterone-to-cortisol ratio to be associated with an increase (8–9, 34) or no change in performance (16). Our data support this hypothesis to a certain extent. Although a cortisol reduction was observed in NRF, no changes were observed in the testosterone-to-cortisol ratio. Thus the use of the testosterone-to-cortisol ratio remains questionable.

In general as long as the volume between the workouts is the same there aren't any differences between training to failure vs. training not to failure. I would recommend that the only real difference between training to failure vs. not to failure depends on the individual's preference, assuming the volume is the same. The only real benefit that I see between the two training styles is time. If you were to perform 3 sets of 10 reps to failure it would take you less time to perform than if you were to perform 6 sets of 5 reps. This would especially be true if you are talking about using this strategy on multiple muscle groups per workout. Much of the fuss between the two training styles is overrated.

[Joseph1990]

well i honestly feel like i have a bit above average genetics just because where im at after 1 year..but also that may very well happen and i would just take a deload week...anyways i just honestly feel failure training is the best way to gain mass..just one of those things i think despite other peoples thoughts..although there is quite a bit of people that agree with that

Im just gonna throw this out there and say I doubt you have above average genetics. Not stating you don't, this is just my first thought from looking at your post/profile picture.

How far have you come in 1 year anyways?

[aspengc8]

Good to see a 'big gun' poster telling it how it is. All these guys talking about training to failure all the time are either beginners or don't have the results to show for their claims.

To all the lurkers in here: Listen to the experienced individuals, plain and simple.

So are you completely dismissing training to failure all together? I know a lot of big guys that train to failure but keep their volume low so their CNS doesn't get raped.

[shaneee]

Im just gonna throw this out there and say I doubt you have above average genetics. Not stating you don't, this is just my first thought from looking at your post/profile picture.

How far have you come in 1 year anyways?

well comparing myself after 1 year(just hit that) compared to most others at 1 year i normally seem to blow them away in size and strength and i've never even trained for strength at all

[2020Wellness]

So are you completely dismissing training to failure all together? I know a lot of big guys that train to failure but keep their volume low so their CNS doesn't get raped.

To specifically answer your question, no, I'm not.

[all pro]

So are you completely dismissing training to failure all together? I know a lot of big guys that train to failure but keep their volume low so their CNS doesn't get raped.

Failure should be used as a test to gauge progress. If you use a periodized dual factor program failure will happen in the final weeks. That's how you get the weight target for the next cycle. As the article from Casey Butts pointed out, everything that is going to happen in a good way happened about 2 reps short of failure. but over the course of a 4-6 week cycle you don't know where that is. Anyone that has used a power lifting program or an olympic lifting program already knows this.
To apply the programing to a bodybuilding program all you need to know is you current max. If you can do 200 pounds for 3 sets of 10 it might look something like this,
Target 210 on week 5.
Week 1 80% 170
Week 2 85% 180
Week 3 90% 190
Week 4 95% 200
Week 5 100% 210
Or you can use a rep cycle
Week 1 6
Week 2 7
Week 3 8
Week 4 9
Week 5 10
Like anything else you wont know which way works best if you don't try it.
Long term failure training is a loser.

[all pro]

The question is "does training to failure change hormone concentrations enough that it would interfere with gains in muscular size and strength?".

http://jap.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/100/5/1647

In the study above strength training volume was equal between both a training to failure and a training not to failure group. Differences in muscular strength (1RMs for both squat and bench press) were the same between both groups for every time point. However, the training to failure group was able to perform a larger number of repetitions @ 60% 1RM compared to the training not to failure group.

In the study they also measured hormone concentrations as well. At one time point there was a significant reduction in cortisol and an increase in testosterone observed in the not to failure group compared with the to failure group. However, these differences were only observed short term and it did not appear as though there were any real differences between the groups. Because there were no differences observed between the groups and there were no differences in muscular strength observed between the groups, I will have to disagree with the authors conclusions regarding that training not to failure "may" produce a favorable environment for strength training. The authors themselves supported this contention as they later addressed it within the discussion:



In general as long as the volume between the workouts is the same there aren't any differences between training to failure vs. training not to failure. I would recommend that the only real difference between training to failure vs. not to failure depends on the individual's preference, assuming the volume is the same. The only real benefit that I see between the two training styles is time. If you were to perform 3 sets of 10 reps to failure it would take you less time to perform than if you were to perform 6 sets of 5 reps. This would especially be true if you are talking about using this strategy on multiple muscle groups per workout. Much of the fuss between the two training styles is overrated.

When you start weight training you can tell us all about it. Until then,
http://www.ofz.uni-erlangen.de/pubs/...20training.pdf

[SumDumGoi]

When you start weight training you can tell us all about it. Until then,
http://www.ofz.uni-erlangen.de/pubs/...20training.pdf

I'm sorry, but when was this discussion about single set vs multiple set training? Wasn't this thread about training to failure vs. not training to failure. I even explicitly stated that the volume of the workouts would have to be the same. As I said before, one method doesn't have any explicit benefits over the other. It is much ado about nothing.

[jonathanhef]

So far, it sounds to me like the only thing in dispute is whether or not there are negative effects of training to failure - not that there are positive outcomes to training to failure.

This tells me that there really isn't any reason to go to failure consistently then...

BUT, I do have one more question. Could training to failure (all pro sort of touched on this in his weekly rep cycle) on occasion help break plateaus? Obviously changing things up is a must in bodybuilding, would this support the occasional to-failure/post-failure training days?


Thanks for all the input guys. This thread is most definitely going to change my workout approach in one way or another.

[all pro]

I'm sorry, but when was this discussion about single set vs multiple set training? Wasn't this thread about training to failure vs. not training to failure. I even explicitly stated that the volume of the workouts would have to be the same. As I said before, one method doesn't have any explicit benefits over the other. It is much ado about nothing.

I wasn't speaking directly to you. You don't lift weights therefore there is nothing for us to discuss.

[all pro]

http://www.ironlife.com/mag/issue8/training.shtml

[SumDumGoi]

So far, it sounds to me like the only thing in dispute is whether or not there are negative effects of training to failure - not that there are positive outcomes to training to failure.

This tells me that there really isn't any reason to go to failure consistently then...

BUT, I do have one more question. Could training to failure (all pro sort of touched on this in his weekly rep cycle) on occasion help break plateaus? Obviously changing things up is a must in bodybuilding, would this support the occasional to-failure/post-failure training days?


Thanks for all the input guys. This thread is most definitely going to change my workout approach in one way or another.

You are correct, there isn't a reason that you "have" to go to failure. However, much of the arguments about going to failure (such as it will "burn out" your CNS) are simply not reality. If you stop a rep or two short of failure but keep the same overall volume within your workout there won't be any difference than if you were go to failure. Either way of setting up your program is perfectly acceptable and will produce similar results.

If you are trying to get through a plateau, setting up your program like all pro did earlier would be just fine.

[all pro]

http://www.illpumpyouup.com/articles...-necessary.htm

[SumDumGoi]

http://www.ironlife.com/mag/issue8/training.shtml

First, that is a web article and not exactly hard facts. Second, you are still not addressing anything that I said in the slightest. Where have I said that going to failure was a necessity? I didn't! In fact my argument stated specifically that there was no need to go to failure and that by going to failure or stopping 1-2 reps short of failure produce the same results AS LONG AS THE VOLUME IS THE SAME.

I also stated the the changes in hormone concentrations that you are talking about are often largely overstated. The differences in cortical and testosterone that you claimed earlier are not that large and for the most part do not reflect any differences in outcomes. If you are going to continue down this path I suggest that you state precisely what you are disagreeing with me about before you start posting every internet article under the sun in response.

So far in response to what I wrote earlier you have provided an article which did not measure changes in hormone concentrations (which happened to be my original point of contention), talked about single vs multiple sets (which would not exactly be equal volume) and now are suggesting with your last article that going to failure is not necessary (which is precisely a point that I brought up previously). Next time please provide something relevant if you are going to act like a jackass.

[SumDumGoi]

I wasn't speaking directly to you. You don't lift weights therefore there is nothing for us to discuss.

So other than quoting my post and attempting to discredit what I wrote above by creating a false accusation, you weren't speaking to me specifically? There must have been some deeper hidden meaning within those 2 sentences that I am unaware of.

I am certainly glad that you offered that contribution regarding the single set vs. multiple sets article to provide insight regarding a question that nobody was discussing.

[henmaniac87]

Where the hell has all the hard work you apparently do gone? do you eat at all?[/b][/color][/QUOTE]

Foolish statement from an ignorant tool.

I weighed 110lbs jackass, I've gained over 40 lbs of lean hard muscle. And I want the 'skinny muscled' look, which I own so well. Super cut!

You might be strong, but as far as
aesthetics go I've got you beat by a mile! Where's your 8 pack abs? Popping veins? Sick muscle definition? Haha you don't have **** on me but a bunch of excess body fat flabby

[WRX20PSI]

always going to failure too often for a long time have a negative effects on many things (joints, hormones, CNS...etc.)
if you insist on going all out to failure everytime, take plenty of rest and deload more often if you don't want problems

[Caged_Rav3n]

Where the hell has all the hard work you apparently do gone? do you eat at all?[/b][/color]

Foolish statement from an ignorant tool.

I weighed 110lbs jackass, I've gained over 40 lbs of lean hard muscle. And I want the 'skinny muscled' look, which I own so well. Super cut!

You might be strong, but as far as
aesthetics go I've got you beat by a mile! Where's your 8 pack abs? Popping veins? Sick muscle definition? Haha you don't have **** on me but a bunch of excess body fat flabby[/QUOTE]


Lol well, if i was as skinny as you, then my body too would have no alternative but to show
"8 pack abs, popping veins and sick muscle definition"...

Unlike you, i want to be big, and i'm weighing around 102Kg right now, which is around 224.5Lbs...

Right now, i'm bulking, getting bigger and stronger, and yes i have some excess weight on my stomach, but do you think i care? to you it's flabby lol, but one day if and when i decide to cut, then we'll see who has veins, muscle definition, and abs...

So you go on with your skinny bad self and live the life, i'm fine the way i am stretch mark.

I just got sick of seing you on these forums, saying how hard you work, how strong you are, how intense your workouts are, blah blah blah blah blah, yet in over 4 years, you look like a pencil...

And there is no such thing as a "hard gainer" anyone who claims they are doesn;t eat enough.

[joelash302]

Foolish statement from an ignorant tool.

I weighed 110lbs jackass, I've gained over 40 lbs of lean hard muscle. And I want the 'skinny muscled' look, which I own so well. Super cut!

You might be strong, but as far as
aesthetics go I've got you beat by a mile! Where's your 8 pack abs? Popping veins? Sick muscle definition? Haha you don't have **** on me but a bunch of excess body fat flabby

Lol well, if i was as skinny as you, then my body too would have no alternative but to show
"8 pack abs, popping veins and sick muscle definition"...

Unlike you, i want to be big, and i'm weighing around 102Kg right now, which is around 224.5Lbs...

Right now, i'm bulking, getting bigger and stronger, and yes i have some excess weight on my stomach, but do you think i care? to you it's flabby lol, but one day if and when i decide to cut, then we'll see who has veins, muscle definition, and abs...

So you go on with your skinny bad self and live the life, i'm fine the way i am stretch mark.

I just got sick of seing you on these forums, saying how hard you work, how strong you are, how intense your workouts are, blah blah blah blah blah, yet in over 4 years, you look like a pencil...

And there is no such thing as a "hard gainer" anyone who claims they are doesn;t eat enough.[/QUOTE]


Hey guys, check out my crazy definition -

[all pro]

So far, it sounds to me like the only thing in dispute is whether or not there are negative effects of training to failure - not that there are positive outcomes to training to failure.

This tells me that there really isn't any reason to go to failure consistently then...

BUT, I do have one more question. Could training to failure (all pro sort of touched on this in his weekly rep cycle) on occasion help break plateaus? Obviously changing things up is a must in bodybuilding, would this support the occasional to-failure/post-failure training days?


Thanks for all the input guys. This thread is most definitely going to change my workout approach in one way or another.

Yes it can be used to help break through a plateau. That's because it sends the the CNS into emergency fight or flight mode. But your body can't take this long term and the lower the rep range the sooner over reaching/over training will occur. But doing it in the last week or 2 of a 6 to 8 week cycle shouldn't be a problem.

[SumDumGoi]

Yes it can be used to help break through a plateau. That's because it sends the the CNS into emergency fight or flight mode. But your body can't take this long term and the lower the rep range the sooner over reaching/over training will occur. But doing it in the last week or 2 of a 6 to 8 week cycle shouldn't be a problem.

Could you please provide some evidence that supports this notion? I am only asking because the advice on this board is schizophrenic and as people parrot contradictory information depending on when it supports their claims. A lot of people on this board will make a claim that over training does not exist or that if it does it is really hard to over train. Then in the next breath they will make the claim that if you were to train to failure that you would "fry your CNS". If you are indeed "frying your CNS" wouldn't that mean you are over training? I am not accusing you of specifically making these claims, but rather judging the opinions of this board as a whole.

Additionally, and more importantly, I would like to see an actual research article or two based on this concept of training to failure "sending the CNS into emergency". I would like to know where the first-hand information is coming from. This is not a statement that you can make by just going to the gym as you can not measure central drive to the muscles by just lifting weights. I would like to see a study that measures the amount of central drive to the muscle following training to failure. Show me something that involves twitch interpolation, TMS stimulation, H-reflexes, fMRI data or any other measurement in central drive. There is an awful lot of conjecture that gets thrown around on these boards without a whole lot of factual support. What evidence do you have that suggests the brain or spinal cord are unable to send enough signal to the muscle following strength training. Moreover, what evidence do you have that compares these results between those who go to fatigue and those who don't? And please don't link internet articles.

I would also like to point out that in the study I provided above they compared training to failure vs not training to failure for a period of I believe 13 weeks in group of trained individuals. Outcome measurements were largely the same between the 2 groups. If training to failure indeed did "send your CNS into emergency" why did the training to failure group not result in a reduction of muscular strength?

[ppd001]

in the pumping iron movie.. arnold said that last reps where you struggle and the reps that makes your muscles hurt are the ones that makes the muscles grow.

[Kirra]

in the pumping iron movie.. arnold said that last reps where you struggle and the reps that makes your muscles hurt are the ones that makes the muscles grow.

Arnold also thought that lifting weight is like cumming. Take the shit he says with a grain of salt.

[shaneee]

Arnold also thought that lifting weight is like cumming. Take the shit he says with a grain of salt.

people that say stuff like this are dumb IMO
arnold obviously knows quite a bit about bodybuilding and should be listened to just from looking at his physique..you can't just magically get a body like that without knowing a thing or two..just sayin

[ppd001]

people that say stuff like this are dumb IMO
arnold obviously knows quite a bit about bodybuilding and should be listened to just from looking at his physique..you can't just magically get a body like that without knowing a thing or two..just sayin

Exactly, maybe that's old school and out of date buT, he's freaking 7 time mr. Olympia. He must be right at least most of the time.

[thouomega]

Also Dorian Yates (6 time mr o?) beleives strongly in not only positive failure but negative.

[gomez26]

assuming volume is not excessive then training to failure may not give much grief over 11 weeks or so as in that study.

however, i believe the point is that by not training to failure u can build up to a greater volume over the long run, & this greater volume has the potential for far better results.

however we have to keep in mind ppl's constraints, like sdg mentioned there is time efficiency issue where by training to failure may get u out of the gym quicker. not everyone has the time to train for long sessions & abbreviated routines (while less effective overall imo) can be a very good alternative under those circumstances.

in the pumping iron movie.. arnold said that last reps where you struggle and the reps that makes your muscles hurt are the ones that makes the muscles grow.

struggle does not necessarily mean failure.


**also dont let another friggin thread get derailed by calling out ppl's stats. its public friggin forum anyone can post their opinion regardless how much they weigh, u dont have to agree with them just like not everyone has to even display their stats.. im sick of threads getting derailed. mods see this a bannable offense & ppl will get reported if this continues.

[henmaniac87]

Training to failure also raises cortisol levels and lowers testosterone levels. With out a bucket load of steroids you'll shrink if you do it long term.

Not true....at all

[henmaniac87]

Lol well, if i was as skinny as you, then my body too would have no alternative but to show
"8 pack abs, popping veins and sick muscle definition"...

Unlike you, i want to be big, and i'm weighing around 102Kg right now, which is around 224.5Lbs...

Right now, i'm bulking, getting bigger and stronger, and yes i have some excess weight on my stomach, but do you think i care? to you it's flabby lol, but one day if and when i decide to cut, then we'll see who has veins, muscle definition, and abs...

So you go on with your skinny bad self and live the life, i'm fine the way i am stretch mark.

I just got sick of seing you on these forums, saying how hard you work, how strong you are, how intense your workouts are, blah blah blah blah blah, yet in over 4 years, you look like a pencil...

And there is no such thing as a "hard gainer" anyone who claims they are doesn;t eat enough.[/QUOTE]

Pshhh. Youre an UGLY fat ass and youre raging cause Im good looking and ripped...two things you'll NEVER be. ; )

Keep talking...

Youre not ****.

You'll never see your abs, little lone figure out how many you have. lol

hahahah Im so much more attractive than you, its not even funny...that's why youre acting like such a little bitch!

PS: Nobody gives a **** how strong you are but you.