Momentary muscular failure - THE stimulus?

[all pro]

Methods of maximum efforts.
Considered superior for improving both intramuscular and intermuscular
coordination. The method of maximum effort should be used to bring forth the
greatest strength increments. Central nervous system inhibition, if it exists, is
reduced with this method; thus, the maximal numbers of MU?s areactivated with
optimal discharge frequency and the biomechanical parameters of movement
and intermuscular coordination are similar to analogous values in a main sport
exercise. A trainee then ?learns? to enhance and to ?memorize? these changes in
motor coordination (evidently on an unconscious level).
It was previously mentioned that the magnitude of resistance should be close to
TFM while employing this training method. To avoid high emotional stress, CFM
must be included into the training routine only intermittently. If the aim of a
training drill is to train movement (i.e. both intramuscular and intermuscular
coordination are the object of training), the recommended number of repetitions
per set is one to three. Exercises such as the snatch or the clean and jerk may
serve as an example (Figure 2). When training muscles, rather than movement
training, is the drill objective (i.e., the biomechanical parameters of the exercise
and intermuscular coordination are not of primary importance since the drill is not
specific and its technique is different from the sport technique of the main
exercise) the number of repetitions increases. One example is the inverse curl
(Figure 5), in which the typical number of repetitions is four to eight.
The method of maximum efforts, while a popular method among elite athletes,
has several limitations.
The main limitation is the high risk of injury. Because of this, it cannot be
recommended for beginners. Only after proper technique of an exercise (i.e.
barbell squat) is acquired and the relevant muscles (spinal erectors and
abdomen) are adequately developed, can maximal weights be lifted. In some
exercises, such as sit-ups, this method is rarely used.
The method of maximum efforts, when employed with a small number of
repetitions (one or two), has the limited ability to induce muscle hypertrophy. This
is because only a minor amount of mechanical work is performed and in turn, the
amount of contractile proteins degradated is limited.
Due to the high motivational level needed to lift maximal weights, athletes can
easily become burned out. The staleness syndrome is characterized by
decreased vigor, elevated anxiety and depression, sensation of fatigue in the
morning hours and increased perception of effort while lifting a fixed weight, etc.
High blood pressure at rest is also a further symptom. This response is typical if
CFM, rather than TFM, are used too often in workouts. Staleness depends not
only on the weight lifted but also on the type of exercise used. It is easier to lift
maximal weights in the bench press, in which the barbell can simply be fixed and
the leg and trunk muscles are not activated, than in the jerk, where demands for
the activation of leg and trunk muscles, balance and arousal are much higher.
Sub-maximal efforts and repeated efforts
These methods differ only in the number of repetitions per set ? intermediate for
sub-maximal efforts and maximal (to failure) for repeated efforts.
The stimulation of muscle hypertrophy is similar between the two methods.
According to the energetic hypothesis described above, two factors are of
primary importance to induce a discrepancy in the amount of degraded and
newly synthesized proteins. Those factors are the rate of protein degradation and
the total value of performed mechanical work. If the number of lifts is not
maximal, mechanical work somewhat diminishes. However, if the amount of work
is relatively close to maximal values (i.e., if 10 lifts are performed instead of the
maximum 12 possible) then the difference is not crucial. It may be compensated,
for example, by shortening the time intervals between sequential sets. It
is a common belief that the maximal number of repetitions in a set is desirable,
but not required, for inducing muscle hypertrophy.
The situation is different if the main objective of a heavy resistance drill is to learn
a proper pattern of muscle coordination.
This issue is analyzed in the following example (Figure 8):
Suppose an athlete is lifting a 12 RM barbell with a given rate of one lift per
second. The muscle subjected to training consists of MU?s having different
endurance times from one to, for example, 100 seconds (in reality, some slow
MU?s have much longer endurance times; they may be active dozens of minutes
without any sign of fatigue). The maximal number of lifts until fatigue among
MU?s varies from one to 100. If the athlete lifts the barbell only one time, one
division of the MU?s is recruited and the second is not (Figure 8). According to
the size principle, the slow, fatigue-resistant MU?s are recruited first (theslow
MU?s are shown at the bottomof MU columns, Figure 8). After several lifts, some
of the shortest endurance times become exhaust. After six repetitions, for
instance, only the MU?s withendurance times less than six seconds are
exhausted. Since the exhausted MU?s now cannot develop the same tension as
at the beginning, new MU?s are recruited. These newly recruited MU?s are fast
and non-resistant to fatigue. Thus, they may become exhausted very quickly. If
only 10 lifts of 12 maximum possible are performed, the entire population of MU?s
is divided into three divisions (Intermediate lift column, Figure 8). The three
divisions of MU?s are:
1. MU?s that are recruited but not fatigued are not trained. All MU endurance
times above 10 seconds are in this category. Evidently, this subpopulation
consists of slow MU?s. Therefore, it can be concluded that it is
very difficult to increase the maximal force of the slow MU?s which are
fatigue resistant.
2. Only MU?s which are recruited and exhausted. Only these MU?s are
subjected to training stimulus in this set. These MU?s possess
intermediate features; there are no slowest, although recruited, and fastest
MU?s, which are not recruited all, in this sub-population. The ?corridor?of
MU?s that are subjected to atraining stimulus may be more narrow or
more broad. This depends on the weight lifted and on the number of
repetitions in a set. One objective of a strength program can be to
increase the sub-population of MU?s influenced by training, or to increase
the corridor.
3. MU?s that are not recruited or trained.
If the exercise is performed to failure (method of repeated efforts), the picture is
changed in the final lifts. A maximal number of available MU?s is now recruited.
All MU?s are divided into two subpopulations: exhausted (fatigued) and nonexhausted
(non-fatigued) with a substantial training effect on the first group only.
If the total number of repetitions is below 12, all the MU?s with endurance times
above 12 seconds fall into the second group. In spite of their early recruitment
(due to the higher endurance), these MU?s are not exhausted.
When maximal weights are lifted (method of maximal efforts), the MU?s ?corridor?
includes a smaller number of MU?s (Figure 8) than if a sub-maximal weight is
lifted a maximum possible number of repetitions. This is certainly a disadvantage
for the method of maximal efforts. Only fast MU?s are subject to the training effect
in this case. However, the advantage of this method (see above) outweighs any
drawbacks.
If the method of repeated efforts is used, the weight must be lifted with sincere
exertions to failure (maximum number of times). This requirement is very
important. The popular jokes among coaches are: ?Lift the barbell as many times
as you can and after that three more times,? and ?no pain, no gain? I reflect the
demand very well. With this method, only final lifts in which a maximal number of
MU?s are recruited are actually useful. If an athlete can lift a barbell 12 times but
lifts only 10, the exercise set is worthless.
In comparison with the method of maximal efforts, the method of repeated efforts
has certain pros and cons. Three advantages are most important:
1. A greater influence on muscle metabolism and consequently on the
inducement of muscle hypertrophy;
2. The greater sub-population of the trained MU?s (the ?corridor?, compare
the two right columns in Figure 8); and
3. A relatively low injury risk.
This method has two limitations:
1. The final lifts in a set are performed when the muscles are tired. Thus, this
training alone is less effective than the lifting of maximal weights; and
2. Very high training volume (the total amount of weight lifted) restricts the
application of this method in the training of elite athletes.
All of the methods discussed should be used in the strength training of elite
athletes.
Method of Dynamic efforts
It is impossible to attain FM in fast movement against intermediate resistance.
Therefore, the method of dynamic efforts is not used for increasing maximal
strength. It is employed only to improve the rate of force development and
explosive strength.
Practical Recommendations
In conclusion, the following methods are used to increase maximum strength FM:
To improve neuro-muscular coordination (MU recruitment, rate coding, MU
synchronization, entire coordination pattern), use the method of maximal efforts
as the first choice and the method of repeated efforts, as the second.
To stimulate muscle hypertrophy, use the methods of repeated efforts and / or
method of sub-maximal efforts.
To increase the ?corridor? of recruited and trained MU?s, use the method of
repeated efforts.
Acknowledgements
I would like to express my gratitude to Peter Brown and Sherry Werner for their
editorial assistance in the preparation of this manuscript.

[J_Smith]

NO he is correct. But to be exact he and ALL of the other eastern block coaches require THREE sets of 8-12. Failure should ONLY happen on the LAST set.
1 set of 8-12 reps to failure is a limp wristed wussy work out.

I would call the 2 NTF sets "warm up sets" (which I perform).

So you agree he is correct saying not going to failure (stopping on the 10th when could have done 12, is a waste of time....Interesting, I will remember that.

[all pro]

I would call the 2 NTF sets "warm up sets".

So you agree he is correct saying not going to failure (stopping on the 10th when could have done 12, is a waste of time....Interesting, I will remember that.

It depends on the purpose of the work out. the rep range, the intensity level(% of 1 rep max). I just posted an extremely long winded piece from the good doctor. Read it ALL.

[gjohnson5]

Correct.



This would imply that there is some "switch" that needs to be turned on for a stimulus to occur, we know this to be wrong, there is no switch rather a planned progression of over load is the stimulus required.

Remember, muscle doesn't know failure, WE only know failure, the muscle doesn't care if it failed or not.

The muscle doesn't know that it was supposed to lift the weight to a certain point, however IMHO the muscle does know when its energy expenditure is greater then it's supply of energy (glycogen,PcR, ATP....) and hence stops whatever it was doing

Again this implies that there is a certain magical point in a set where adaption has occurred, if failure occurs at rep 10 are reps 8 and 9 a wasted effort? No of course not. Why would reps 9 and 10 suddenly tell the muscle to grow? Stopping just short help prevent the neural fatigue associated with failure.

It's not magic , it's neurology and biochemistry

And as I mentioned in the original post, failure is not all you can do within one set, it just means fatigued prevents you from moving the load on the bar, there is no magic here.

I guess I don't understand why you keep calling neurology and biochemistry magic....
*edit*
anaerobic glycosis... fatigue onset from glycogen being oxidized and converted to lactic acid and thus a drop in PH
other nutrients are converted to metabolic waste products
*edit*

1/ Stopping 1-2 reps shy of failure as Mentzer has stated is sufficient and avoids the CNS fatigue associated with failure.

2/ If something has made a, what you term "inroad" into recovery then surely this is a signal that the body/muscle needs to adapt.

Also Gerry you need to be a bit more specific when claiming that failure ensures a stimulus, what type of growth response (hypertrophy) are you referring to?

You're making an assumption that the end result of stimulus is hypertrophy. The adaption could be neural. The adaption could also be joint and connective tissue adaption to the load lifted.

[N@tural1]

Vladmir M. Zatsiorsky, Ph.D.;

"If the method of repeated efforts is used, the weight must be lifted with sincere
exertions to failure (maximum number of times). This requirement is very
important. The popular jokes among coaches are: ?Lift the barbell as many times
as you can and after that three more times,? and ?no pain, no gain? I reflect the
demand very well. With this method, only final lifts in which a maximal number of
MU?s are recruited are actually useful. If an athlete can lift a barbell 12 times but
lifts only 10, the exercise set is worthless."

The key point here is bolded:

The RE method (repeated effort) is by it's very definition a to failure method of training!

RE requires a set taken to failure, it's the whole entire point of RE!

What I don't read is him saying that ALL sets at ALL times are taken to failure.

There is also:

ME - maximum effort
DE - dynamic effort

And also submaximal effort sets which is similar to RE but not to failure.

Orlando you have to take things within their context and not just at face value.

And trust Gerry to take something completely out of context due to being completely clueless!

[N@tural1]

Taken directly from Vladmir M. Zatsiorsky, Ph.D.

INTENSITY OF STRENGTH TRAINING FACTS AND THEORY:
RUSSIAN AND EASTERN EUROPEAN APPROACH

Methods of Strength Training

Strength training is classified according to methods of attaining maximal
muscular tension which can be attained in one of three ways:

1. Method of maximum efforts. Lifting a maximum load (exercising against
maximal resistance).

2. Method of repeated efforts. Lifting a non-maximal load to failure; during
the latest repetitions the muscles develop the maximum force possible in
the fatiguing state.

3. Method of dynamic efforts. Lifting, throwing, etc. a non-maximal load with
the highest attainable speed.

In addition, the lifting of non-maximal loads an intermediate number of times (not to failure) is used as a supplementary training method (method of sub-maximal
efforts).

Sub-maximal efforts and repeated efforts

These methods differ only in the number of repetitions per set, intermediate for sub-maximal efforts and maximal (to failure) for repeated efforts.

The stimulation of muscle hypertrophy is similar between the two methods.

^^
Told ya

[N@tural1]

So you agree he is correct saying not going to failure (stopping on the 10th when could have done 12, is a waste of time....Interesting, I will remember that.

Only in the context of RE (repeated effort training).

NOT for ALL training.

Now you remember that!

[N@tural1]

The muscle doesn't know that it was supposed to lift the weight to a certain point, however IMHO the muscle does know when its energy expenditure is greater then it's supply of energy (glycogen,PcR, ATP....) and hence stops whatever it was doing

A muscle still doesn't know this event, muscle has no mind, it knows nothing.

It's not magic , it's neurology and biochemistry

It certainly is gjohnson5, my reference to "magic" is that there are some here that believe each and every set should be taken to failure, as if failure represents the ultimate stimulus.

I guess I don't understand why you keep calling neurology and biochemistry magic....

I hope I've cleared that one up for you. Some like J_Smith (Gerry) and other dogmatic believers in failure training seem to view failure as a necessity. This debate has gone on for years on this very board mate, trust me

You're making an assumption that the end result of stimulus is hypertrophy. The adaption could be neural.

May I just correct you there, in my original post I made this very point:

There is one point I must not over look regarding failure, failure can be an effective tool for enhancing neural strength adaptions due to the fact that at failure, similar to a 1 rep max, you are exerting maximum available force. So failure is a useful tool for enhancing neural efficiency.

The adaption could also be joint and connective tissue adaption to the load lifted.

Yes agreed.

gjohnson5, you seem like a well read and knowledgeable member, welcome to the discussion and please share anymore input.

Thanks!

[N@tural1]

For posting the PDF and making it available for everyone to read. REPPED!

People really need to READ it before quoting bits out of context to suit their bias.

(not referring to you Orlando)

[fbcoach]

The muscle doesn't know that it was supposed to lift the weight to a certain point, however IMHO the muscle does know when its energy expenditure is greater then it's supply of energy (glycogen,PcR, ATP....) and hence stops whatever it was doing





It's not magic , it's neurology and biochemistry



I guess I don't understand why you keep calling neurology and biochemistry magic....
*edit*
anaerobic glycosis... fatigue onset from glycogen being oxidized and converted to lactic acid and thus a drop in PH
other nutrients are converted to metabolic waste products

If you have read all of Nat2's post, you would see that this is exactly was he has allured to. The point being, there is no magic "growth switch" at failure. There is metabolic/CNS fatigue, neural adaptation, and hypertrophy.
Some nutrients are converted into metabolic waste products (ammonia, etc.) and some are metabolized and the recycled and re-used as energy substrates.

[Orlando1234977]

The key point here is bolded:

The RE method (repeated effort) is by it's very definition a to failure method of training!

RE requires a set taken to failure, it's the whole entire point of RE!

What I don't read is him saying that ALL sets at ALL times are taken to failure.

There is also:

ME - maximum effort
DE - dynamic effort

And also submaximal effort sets which is similar to RE but not to failure.

Orlando you have to take things within their context and not just at face value.

And trust Gerry to take something completely out of context due to being completely clueless!

Not sure exactly what your point is here, but it is well explained that the RE work is multiple sets taken TO failure and that this method is superior in strength and hypertrophy to sub maximal efforts, (multiple sets ntf).

I know the point will be, 'but Westside doesn't train most of those to failure'. They say, this is because you have to look at the context of the program, it's not a bodybuilding program, the bread and butter is the ME work. The failure training would be too detrimental and take away from the goal of Westside, (Powerlifting).

My point is simply this, for bodybuilding/hypertrohpy practically use everything.

-ME work and 3X3 type work is king for strength.
But the TUT sucks for hypertrophy. (positive and negative)

-So another great way to improve strength would be the RE method, (ALL sets to failure) This is king for hypertrophy.
But, the constant use of failure effects overall workload/volume and has detrimental effects when used too much.
(positive and negative)

-So another way to train would be submaximal efforts, taking sets NOT to failure. Great way to increase workload, volume, training capacity.
But, not a great way to increase strength when used exclusively with reps greater then say 6 or so.
(positive and negative)

So you can see there are definite positive and negatives to each approach. For power and strength athletes, I would concentrate on heavy ntf sets for the majority of work. A bodybuilder or recreational lifter looking to add size needs to be a bit more creative and include ALL methods imo.

I don't think it should be a question of SSTF vs. multiple sets ntf when many bodybuilders are lifting multiple sets to failure. Natural Pro Layne Norton when asked how many of his fairly high volume sets are taken to failure he guessed about half. Looking at one of Thibaudeau's articles on which exercises are best taken to failure and which not to, I'd say he also recommends about half also. (Probably my favorite article on the matter!)

http://www.t-nation.com/free_online_..._exercises&cr=


Btw, I'm not really AGAINST anything or anyone in this discussion, just the fact that failure doesn't provide any additional benefits. And yes, I know alot of you do recommend an occasional failure or test, but for bodybuilding I think it should be used a bit more. Also, one set isn't going to get it done long term. (I'm finally experienced in this area and felt one set training worked well for about 3-4 months, it's not optimal for strength or size for most imo)

[N@tural1]

Not sure exactly what your point is here, but it is well explained that the RE work is multiple sets taken TO failure and that this method is superior in strength and hypertrophy to sub maximal efforts, (multiple sets ntf).

I'm glad you understood the context of your original post regarding Zatsiorsky recommendations, but not everyone has the knowledge to understand this as evidenced by our local jedi Gerry.

I know the point will be, 'but Westside doesn't train most of those to failure'. They say, this is because you have to look at the context of the program, it's not a bodybuilding program, the bread and butter is the ME work. The failure training would be too detrimental and take away from the goal of Westside, (Powerlifting).

Westside may not be a typical bodybuilding program, but a Westside based template using the principles can be used very effectively for strength athletes and bodybuilders. And last time I looked, powerlifters didn't lack hypertrophy!

My point is simply this, for bodybuilding/hypertrohpy practically use everything.

Yes for sure, I agree.

-ME work and 3X3 type work is king for strength.
But the TUT sucks for hypertrophy. (positive and negative)

Yes agreed here too.

-So another great way to improve strength would be the RE method, (ALL sets to failure) This is king for hypertrophy.

It would depend on the individual here Orlando, you know.. CNS capacity etc...

But, the constant use of failure effects overall workload/volume and has detrimental effects when used too much.
(positive and negative)

Yes agreed.

-So another way to train would be submaximal efforts, taking sets NOT to failure. Great way to increase workload, volume, training capacity.
But, not a great way to increase strength when used exclusively with reps greater then say 6 or so.
(positive and negative)

I think it would be inaccurate to suggest that avoiding failure doesn't contribute to strength, so long there is progression you'll get stronger.

So you can see there are definite positive and negatives to each approach.

Agreed.

For power and strength athletes, I would concentrate on heavy ntf sets for the majority of work. A bodybuilder or recreational lifter looking to add size needs to be a bit more creative and include ALL methods imo.

We both know that for MOST lifters that the focus on getting stronger is the priority.

I don't think it should be a question of SSTF vs. multiple sets ntf when many bodybuilders are lifting multiple sets to failure. Natural Pro Layne Norton when asked how many of his fairly high volume sets are taken to failure he guessed about half. Looking at one of Thibaudeau's articles on which exercises are best taken to failure and which not to, I'd say he also recommends about half. (Probably my failure article on the matter!)

I know that iron addict for most of his lifters uses NTF work sets and has stated that the results speak for themselves. It would really depend on the person, Laynes volume would crush a lot of lifters.

Also, one set isn't going to get it done long term. (I'm finally experienced in this area and felt one set training worked well for about 3-4 months, it's not optimal for strength or size for most imo)

Agreed here too.

[Zoofus]

Not sure exactly what your point is here, but it is well explained that the RE work is multiple sets taken TO failure and that this method is superior in strength and hypertrophy to sub maximal efforts, (multiple sets ntf).

I think it would be helpful for you to cite/specify where exactly you picked this up from and how you quantify it.

As an added point, the purpose of examining any of this should be not to arrive at the isolated most stimulative single workout but the series of workouts which gets you from point A to B in the fastest most effective fashion. And if point B is far enough out, the fastest way to get there might well involve several intermediate points which break up different blocks of training. That might be a 6 month or yearly plan.

[gjohnson5]

A muscle still doesn't know this event, muscle has no mind, it knows nothing.

Hmmm...
You do realize that muscles are cells and the nucleus of a cell and the DNA control cell's activities activities right?
The brain does not control when each and every cell in the body uses energy. The cells can initiate those chemical reactions on their own

[N@tural1]

Hmmm...
You do realize that muscles are cells and the nucleus of a cell and the DNA control cell's activities activities right?
The brain does not control when each and every cell in the body uses energy. The cells can initiate those chemical reactions on their own

I understand what you're saying here, but these cells are merely doing what they've been designed to do, they are not "aware" they are doing it, they have no conciousness. This is what I mean by "muscle doesn't know failure"

Anyhow, my point is that in the context of protein degradation and micro trauma, the main thing is simply how much mechanical work a fiber performs, failure or no failure.

[gjohnson5]

I understand what you're saying here, but these cells are merely doing what they've been designed to do, they are not "aware" they are doing it, they have no conciousness. This is what I mean by "muscle doesn't know failure"

Anyhow, my point is that in the context of protein degradation and micro trauma, the main thing is simply how much mechanical work a fiber performs, failure or no failure.

It's your choice of words that are throwing me off
Semantics , hence I misunderstand you

IMHO some sort of conciousness ( or consciousness ) is not needed for the cells to do their jobs.

Either the cells has the materials to perform it's chemical reactions or they does not.
Either the muscle is operating at a temperature and ph to maintain it's activities or it is not
Either hormones bound to receptor sites on the cells or they did not

These aren't decisions , they are yes / no scenarios.....


But any sorry for getting off the subject.

[bango skank]

What taking a set to failure does is INSURES you have induced the growth response by taking the set as far as possible which is failure.

This is like saying:

What eating the dinner table does is INSURES* that you ate your dinner.

or

What burning down your house does is INSURES* that you lit the fireplace.

or

What having sex with every single animal on the planet INSURES* is that one them will be a human female.

These are all round-about and inefficient ways to go about completing a task. And none of them actually ensures anything. The only way to ensure growth is to GROW. The key to growth, imo, is progression. Adding weight to the bar and adding weight to the scale. This is something that can be measured unequivocally, whereas "failure" is highly subjective. I know many people who don't use failure training much, if at all, myself included, and we have all grown. On the other hand I know many people who always train to failure and have experienced little growth in contrast. Sure, failure can be used as another tool in the toolbox, but to use it as the ONLY tool in the toolbox leaves out the tape measure... and you end up using a hammer to swat mosquitoes.



*the word we were looking for is ENSURES and not INSURES. However spelling it with every possible combination would eventually ENSURE that we spelled it correctly.

[N@tural1]

It's your choice of words that are throwing me off
Semantics , hence I misunderstand you

IMHO some sort of conciousness ( or consciousness ) is not needed for the cells to do their jobs.

Either the cells has the materials to perform it's chemical reactions or they does not.
Either the muscle is operating at a temperature and ph to maintain it's activities or it is not
Either hormones bound to receptor sites on the cells or they did not

These aren't decisions , they are yes / no scenarios.....

But any sorry for getting off the subject.

No apologies needed mate, it's just been a case of simple misunderstanding.

You are a knowledge person, thanks for your input, is biology/physiology part of your job?


bango skank - excellent post mate. Here's another one.

Redlining your car ensures you have gotten the most from every single gear.

[Orlando1234977]

I think it would be helpful for you to cite/specify where exactly you picked this up from and how you quantify it.

The link in post 20.

To quantify it, basically everybody has to take the info and apply it to suit their goals, genetics, lifting experience etc.. As I pretty much tried to point out, each method has it's positives and negatives, so it becomes a balancing act.

I think it would be inaccurate to suggest that avoiding failure doesn't contribute to strength, so long there is progression you'll get stronger.

First off, glad you agree with MOST points.

With this, I don't think I suggested that avoiding failure doesn't contribute to strength. In fact, the heavy sets 1-5 ntf are king for strength.

However, during higher rep sets (as we're discussing on this point so I'll keep it on topic), the closer to failure the higher the probability for more consistent progression. The more consistent the progression, the more strength. If you can skip right to obtaining consistent progression using higher rep sets ntf, than yes, you'll gain optimal strength. So, you're right, progression is what matters, the issues are what's used to get there.

[Orlando1234977]

THREE sets of 8-12. Failure should ONLY happen on the LAST set.

This is a protocal I like. If straight sets, that provides a good balance of work to intensity.

1 set (33.3333% of sets) is to failure (last set)
2 sets (66.6666% of sets) are not to failure (more overall workload than if all three were to failure)

[N@tural1]

To quantify it, basically everybody has to take the info and apply it to suit their goals, genetics, lifting experience etc.. As I pretty much tried to point out, each method has it's positives and negatives, so it becomes a balancing act.

Yep, spot on.

First off, glad you agree with MOST points.

We tend to get there eventually mate.

In fact, the heavy sets 1-5 ntf are king for strength.

Yep

However, during higher rep sets (as we're discussing on this point so I'll keep it on topic), the closer to failure the higher the probability for more consistent progression.

Generally speaking I can agree but I would add it still depends on the context of the program, and goals.

The more consistent the progression, the more strength. If you can skip right to obtaining consistent progression using higher rep sets ntf, than yes, you'll gain optimal strength. So, you're right, progression is what matters, the issues are what's used to get there.

Agreed.

1 set (33.3333% of sets) is to failure (last set)
2 sets (66.6666% of sets) are not to failure (more overall workload than if all three were to failure)

Nicely thought out Orlando.

[all pro]

This is a protocal I like. If straight sets, that provides a good balance of work to intensity.

1 set (33.3333% of sets) is to failure (last set)
2 sets (66.6666% of sets) are not to failure (more overall workload than if all three were to failure)

Straight weight sets. Typically in a 5 week cycle. If you started with your 10 rep max weight and tried to do 3x8 the first week and 3x9 the
second and 3x10 the third and 3x11 the fourth and 3x12 the fifth, you would just keep rerunning the cycle until you could complete all 3 sets. Then increase the weight by 10% and start again. I.A.R.T. uses the same cycle for it's HIT programs. I use it for assistance exercises and I used it for my beginners program that I posted here. At it's core it's dual factor programing used for to increase sarcoplasmic hypertrophy and endurance. Maximal strength or speed programs are programed differently. If you want to prevent a HIT program from stalling I highly recommend this method.

[gjohnson5]

It's your choice of words that are throwing me off
Semantics , hence I misunderstand you

IMHO some sort of conciousness ( or consciousness ) is not needed for the cells to do their jobs.

Either the cells has the materials to perform it's chemical reactions or they does not.
Either the muscle is operating at a temperature and ph to maintain it's activities or it is not
Either hormones bound to receptor sites on the cells or they did not

These aren't decisions , they are yes / no scenarios.....


But any sorry for getting off the subject.

God I'm all confused , LOLOLOL
Not sure how to word things at times

[Zoofus]

The link in post 20.

To quantify it, basically everybody has to take the info and apply it to suit their goals, genetics, lifting experience etc.. As I pretty much tried to point out, each method has it's positives and negatives, so it becomes a balancing act.

You know - I've read that paper and the purpose in the particular paragraph you quoted in #20 is not so much to support the method but to describe it for completeness and discuss how it is viewed/understood in popular culture (regarding method of repeated efforts: maximal/failure).

Here are some other notable quotes from the same section:

Sub-maximal efforts and repeated efforts
These methods differ only in the number of repetitions per set ? intermediate for sub-maximal efforts and maximal (to failure) for repeated efforts. The stimulation of muscle hypertrophy is similar between the two methods.

If the number of lifts is not maximal, mechanical work somewhat diminishes. However, if the amount of work is relatively close to maximal values (i.e., if 10 lifts are performed instead of the maximum 12 possible) then the difference is not crucial. It may be compensated, for example, by shortening the time intervals between sequential sets. It is a common belief that the maximal number of repetitions in a set is desirable, but not required, for inducing muscle hypertrophy.

Note the above paragraph where he refers to "a common belief" - he isn't supporting it. He's just stating it. Science and Practice is written in similar vein. The particular paragraph you quoted is another example of this as opposed to him stating facts. I would put a lot more weight into his factual comments about them being similar in effect. Additionally, the paper doesn't discuss overtraining and fatigue in the complete programming paradigm where management and cost/benefit is far more crucial especially as one advances. And this is the core of the issue.

Sure I can go and do 10 sets to failure and it will be to "some" degree stimulative than the 10 sets cut short (even if we rig the analogy and assume equal workload). But that's one training session and programming is never designed around a single training session because both fatigue and fitness are accruing over time and they must be managed.

In the final conclusion for that section it contrasts repeated efforts (both maximal/failure and submaximal not to failure) with the method of maximum efforts. So although I'll list the point and I think this is where you inferred that repeated efforts/maximal is better - just because it's below the particular paragraph you quoted doesn't at all mean failure is significantly better than not to failure within the context of repeated efforts. This is essentially the conclusion and wrap up of the entire repeated efforts section before we go onto dynamic.

In comparison with the method of maximal efforts, the method of repeated efforts has certain pros and cons. Three advantages are most important:
1. A greater influence on muscle metabolism and consequently on the inducement of muscle hypertrophy;
2. The greater sub-population of the trained MU?s (the ?corridor?, compare the two right columns in Figure 8); and
3. A relatively low injury risk.

Granted you may interpret this differently than I but Zat writes for completeness as he's trying to cover the field and educate. He commonly sites "opinion of the masses" but that doesn't mean he supports it or it is supportable at all.

[gjohnson5]

I agree in principal that failure isnt necessary.
However how does one learn high intensity without going all out???

I see what you mean by what is the point at which adaption happens. It's hard to pinpoint and all I can say is to ENSURE that you get there, is to log your weight training and use the PROGRESSIVE OVERLOAD in its many forms to ENSURE adaption happens.

However you wish to overload the muscle
1. rest - pause
2. isometrics
3. gaint sets
4. drop sets
5. eccentrics (negatives)
6. ballistics

I guess doesn't matter as long as your tracking your progress

[Orlando1234977]

You know - I've read that paper and the purpose in the particular paragraph you quoted in #20 is not so much to support the method but to describe it for completeness and discuss how it is viewed/understood in popular culture (regarding method of repeated efforts: maximal/failure).

Here are some other notable quotes from the same section:





Note the above paragraph where he refers to "a common belief" - he isn't supporting it. He's just stating it. Science and Practice is written in similar vein. The particular paragraph you quoted is another example of this as opposed to him stating facts. I would put a lot more weight into his factual comments about them being similar in effect. Additionally, the paper doesn't discuss overtraining and fatigue in the complete programming paradigm where management and cost/benefit is far more crucial especially as one advances. And this is the core of the issue.

Sure I can go and do 10 sets to failure and it will be to "some" degree stimulative than the 10 sets cut short (even if we rig the analogy and assume equal workload). But that's one training session and programming is never designed around a single training session because both fatigue and fitness are accruing over time and they must be managed.

In the final conclusion for that section it contrasts repeated efforts (both maximal/failure and submaximal not to failure) with the method of maximum efforts. So although I'll list the point and I think this is where you inferred that repeated efforts/maximal is better - just because it's below the particular paragraph you quoted doesn't at all mean failure is significantly better than not to failure within the context of repeated efforts. This is essentially the conclusion and wrap up of the entire repeated efforts section before we go onto dynamic.



Granted you may interpret this differently than I but Zat writes for completeness as he's trying to cover the field and educate. He commonly sites "opinion of the masses" but that doesn't mean he supports it or it is supportable at all.

I'm not saying I necessarily support it or not either. But, he's clearly stating the benefits,

"If the exercise is performed to failure (method of repeated efforts), the picture is changed in the final lifts. A maximal number of available MU?s is now recruited."

It's crucial to look at the diagram as well.

Even Kelei supports that strength is better obtained training to failure using the RE method as opposed to ntf with higher rep sets and he hardly trains to failure.

Though, with the added benefit of more MU's and strength, it's a balancing act because of what comes with it. CNS fatigue, less overall workload etc.
For Powerlifters, the benefit might not outweigh what comes with it. For bodybuilders that are NOT training hardcore 1-3RM lifts, it can easily be added to the program, but depends on the lifter's genetics/experience etc.

[Zoofus]

I'm not saying I necessarily support it or not either. But, he's clearly stating the benefits,

"If the exercise is performed to failure (method of repeated efforts), the picture is changed in the final lifts. A maximal number of available MU?s is now recruited."

It's crucial to look at the diagram as well.

Even Kelei supports that strength is better obtained training to failure using the RE method as opposed to ntf with higher rep sets and he hardly trains to failure.

Though, with the added benefit of more MU's and strength, it's a balancing act because of what comes with it. CNS fatigue, less overall workload etc.
For Powerlifters, the benefit might not outweigh what comes with it. For bodybuilders that are NOT training hardcore 1-3RM lifts, it can easily be added to the program, but depends on the lifter's genetics/experience etc.

If we are talking recruitment - you get full recruitment long before concentric failure (Enoka - Neuromechanics), past that it's rate coding and to the degree of training it's synchronization, but by the time you get to 80% or any of the last 5 reps in a repeated-maximal set - they are all recruited and are going to begin dropping in/out with higher frequency. What you do get at failure is a higher number of more fatigued motor units. I'll agree with that and obviously there's some additional energetic stimulus here even in a workload constant environment (just cost/benefit and programming efficiency). Also, we could go well beyond concentric failure and accrue even more fatigue in the MUs if we hit static failure and then eccentric failure (somehow safely), then do drop sets and forced reps in all of them until you burst. There's no limit.

There's really zero evidence for training strength using failure over non-failure (empirically looking at the world, it has not seen any success at the elite OL/PL levels) and if we are talking about high reps - that's typically to supplement the core strength training anyway and the only reason we'd even bother doing something so non-specific to the goal is limited capacity for heavy efforts (I'd say intense %1RM but if we are talking about failure I'm hesitant to blur that concept) but we are once again back to programming efficiency and managing fatigue. If you want to get good at pulling heavy singles, you should do it a lot but unfortunately that's a route that anyone with much experience quickly exhausts as it's too strenuous on the system. While I completely concede that failure might make an individual workout more stimulative under a constant workload regime it is that additional systemic fatigue that limits workload beyond that point (it isn't an accident that so many failure based programs are low volume and/or low frequency).

Also, just to be clear - I don't have anything against hitting failure. It should be expected at some point assuming one is trying to hit a personal best and that's the proper point to start hammering on the barrier in a program. What I am against is mindlessly training to failure all the time under a belief that there is some Mentzeresque light switch event at concentric failure. Likewise, specifically making room for the additional fatigue at the expense of workload in thinking that failure is the key (workload in the absence of failure produces equivalent results whereas concentric failure with minimal workload (1-2 reps) doesn't work well at all.

I also have no idea who Kelei is.

[Orlando1234977]

If we are talking recruitment - you get full recruitment long before concentric failure (Enoka - Neuromechanics), past that it's rate coding and to the degree of training it's synchronization, but by the time you get to 80% or any of the last 5 reps in a repeated-maximal set - they are all recruited and are going to begin dropping in/out with higher frequency.

Is this true with higher reps as well?? I understand this to be true regarding sets where the largest fibers are recruited from the first rep, say 1-5.

Here's a scenario describing how I understand it from this http://abcbodybuilding.com/musclefiberspart2.pdf

"Think of it this way, if I am moving a sofa into a friends new home I want to be able to hold that sofa all the way from the moving truck and
upstairs( remember the laws of moving ). If its a flight of 10 super steep steps and the sofa is heavy, my body will have to recruit its fast twitch fibers. My moving technique is to use my hands as a grip and let my legs do all the work. On the first step my legs will begin recruiting my fast twitch IA fibers. By the 2 or 3rd step those nervous system does not recruit more motor units. This being the case the first set of fibers rest and more IIA's are recruited. Along with these, a number of fast twitch IIB's are called into play( again to maintain my fluent motion upstairs). As my journey continues more IIA's and IIB's are recruited until by the last step they have all come into play if failure is reached. Therefore this is a perfect example of recruitment designed to maintain a desired amount of force. The same occurrence
was also taking place with my grip on the sofa. More and more motor units had to be called into play in order to maintain my grip on the sofa. Consequently this is actually the most used method of recruitment applied to bodybuilding circles for reasons explained shortly."

Larger units are recruited as smaller ones drop off until there simply isn't a large enough unit to support the load. The common argument AGAINST this, is if the largest units are recruited last, shouldn't the set be easiest?
No. Here's my explanation.

Think of the units recruited from small to large in terms of money.

5 singles drop off, bring in the 5. 2 5's drop off bring in the 10. Two 10's drop off bring in the 20. 2 20's and a 10 drop off bring in the 50. 2 50's drop off bring in the 100. Let's say the 100 is the largest unit you have, when that fatigues, there's nothing left to replace it with, failure of the set. (Larger units called in as smaller ones fatigue, the size principle).

Unfortunately I won't be able to continue this for a few days, I'm off to freeze my ass off for the week.

[N@tural1]

Zoofus and Orlando

You guys are both correct and thanks guys for your posts in the thread.

It depends on rep range but my understanding is that there is still max recruitment before actual failure at any rep range. But yes higher threshold MU are called into play as already recruited MU's fatigue and lose force production.

Orlando please can you link to part 1 of that article? Thx!

Zoofus, Kelei is an extremely knowledgeable member of the board.

[Zoofus]

Is this true with higher reps as well?? I understand this to be true regarding sets where the largest fibers are recruited from the first rep, say 1-5.

You know, while I was eating some dinner earlier I started thinking that when we are talking about eliciting a strength response and training for strength, I'm working from a contested barbell lift (OL/PL) mentality and where we are disconnecting is that you are talking about strength gains in more general capacity increases in higher reps.

Anyway, for most weights the above is true (unless we are talking about some very high rep ranges), your 5RM is a 5RM at any point in time. So if you are training with 10 reps, after your 5th rep you now have a 5RM load on there and should be seeing all motor units going and the nervous system kicking in with higher rate coding. But if we assume 80% is the cutoff here (somewhere south of 5RM) then yes fiber types are recruited sequentially and by the time you hit 80% of a point in time maximum voluntary effort they are all in.

I think we actually agree except that now that I know where we are disconnecting, I'll go a step further and say that pushing on the failure limit for an experienced trainee is generally the end of your training cycle for a given rep target. Basically if you are training sets of 10, you might start lower and then incrementally increase on a weekly basis until you are setting new personal bests or hitting failure. And this is where you'd keep increasing it and fighting against failure to push through further increases. This is a pretty standard way that I'd approach something for most people and I think this fits what you are saying.

Tying back in to my stance on training specifically for failure (as opposed to a natural occurrence in the training cycle), you won't see a continuous to failure push last very long in most normal rep ranges that's why you try to make small increments of progress before you come up hard against this limit. Very hard to make progress using this method exclusively once you get some experience so most will start lighter and effectively increment up until they are doing repeated effort/maximal at the end right up until they stall or start regressing.

Of note, a lot of the more "advanced" failure advocates that do try to train to failure all the time wind up swapping around exercises like mad or training in very high rep ranges where training muscular endurance actually works a lot better with this method and workload is still high (low sets/failure hits but lots of reps in a set) albeit not at what most would consider a good relevant rep range and fails to carry over significantly to one (the more experienced you are the more specificity you'll require to improve). These are the guys who will always have some kind of whacked out record like squatting XXX for 38 reps and routinely work at 15 reps and above during a good part of the year. What you will never see, and what they never point out is that the outrageous feat at 38 reps, while damn hard and impressive in its own right, never translates down into a 1RM, 5RM, and very rarely a 10RM.

Anyway - enjoy your trip, stay warm and happy holidays.