working out Twice a day so that muscle failure is achieved - bad idea?

[NsomNiak]

Hey guys. *I'm still new to working out and I'm thinking about working out twice a day (12 hours apart) TEMPORARILY to make sure that I do the resistance exercises to failure. *I searched the forums and found 1 similar post, but it didn't really answer my questions. *Based on what I have read so far, it seems like doing this would be detrimental to my progress as far as growing muscle. *However, there's some days when I just don't get enough time in the morning workout to do each exercise to failure...at least not yet. *I'm still figuring out what weight to use for each exercise so that I max out at 8 reps and it takes a while for a new guy to figure all that out. *Once I know my weight for each exercise, I can go back to once a day workouts. *I just don't want to have to wake up at 4 AM to start each day (have to be at work at 8). *What do you think? *Thanks in advance..

[Jack3d26]

Instead of doing more that sets you back, why don't you keep to less (for now) that keeps you moving forward? And it only takes 1 workout to know exactly what your 8 rep limits are, it isn't rocket science. I don't know how many people are going to agree with this twice a day stuff, it sounds destructive to me. But hey, it's just advice.

[NsomNiak]

Instead of doing more that sets you back, why don't you keep to less (for now) that keeps you moving forward? And it only takes 1 workout to know exactly what your 8 rep limits are, it isn't rocket science. I don't know how many people are going to agree with this twice a day stuff, it sounds destructive to me. But hey, it's just advice.

Yeh', thanks for the advice. *I think you're right. *Common sense tells me that it's not a good idea and that it'll hurt progress. *Plus, you make a good point - after a week, I'll know what my 8 rep limits are for each exercise of each workout. *I guess I just needed to hear it from someone else before I really listened to my conscience.*

edit: *What's the deal with all these asterisks? *This new layout sux.

[Hodzic12]

hmm good question, I think that it really matters on the intensity of the workout and what your doing, for example if your doing a heavy chest workout in the morning, and then you get some cardio in at night ( or whenever your doing these) it should be fine, but if your doing a heavy chest routing in the morning and another one in the afternoon that could be bad for you. In my opinion i wouldnt do two workouts to begin with it just doesnt sound right.

if Im wrong someone please correct me, anyways hope I helped buddy!

[Jwhite310]

I'd say twice a day is too much. Sometimes ill do one muscle group in the day get bored and do another smaller one at night but i have never done the same muscle group twice in one day.

[NsomNiak]

hmm good question, I think that it really matters on the intensity of the workout and what your doing, for example if your doing a heavy chest workout in the morning, and then you get some cardio in at night ( or whenever your doing these) it should be fine, but if your doing a heavy chest routing in the morning and another one in the afternoon that could be bad for you. In my opinion i wouldnt do two workouts to begin with it just doesnt sound right.

if Im wrong someone please correct me, anyways hope I helped buddy!

I'd say twice a day is too much. Sometimes ill do one muscle group in the day get bored and do another smaller one at night but i have never done the same muscle group twice in one day.

Cool. *Yeh'...if I did an extra cardio at night, that would probably be ok but I'm now thinking about how the five or six hours of sleep I'd get between tonight's workout and the morning workout just wouldn't work out if I'm doing intense workouts to failure. *Thanks for the replies.

[Lackeos]

Why is your objective to reach failure? Why isn't it to get stronger or more muscular?

[NsomNiak]

Why is your objective to reach failure? Why isn't it to get stronger or more muscular?

Wow, thanks for the aware. *I just spent a good hour reading old posts on here about why training to failure is not necessary for progress/growth. *I wanted to train to failure because that's what my old trainer advocated a few years ago. *Now I see that's not necessary. *Thanks brah. *Repped..

[DCSpartan]

failure simply meand youcant do any more reps. You dont need multiple workouts to achieve this.

[aspengc8]

Why is your objective to reach failure? Why isn't it to get stronger or more muscular?

Guess what happens when you reach failure? You get stronger and more muscular. Is it the only way, no. Does it work, absolutely.

[musikguy72]

Guess what happens when you reach failure? You get stronger and more muscular. Is it the only way, no. Does it work, absolutely.

This is why someone new to the site like me has such a hard time sifting through all the contradictory opinions. I've been reading in the stickies that is NOT a good idea to go to failure as it is too hard on the CNS and you will stall faster. A link to a study I've posted below seems to agree with this assessment.

So what am I missing here?

http://w w w .ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16410373

[IsaacLucas]

Hey guys. *I'm still new to working out and I'm thinking about working out twice a day (12 hours apart) TEMPORARILY to make sure that I do the resistance exercises to failure. *I searched the forums and found 1 similar post, but it didn't really answer my questions. *Based on what I have read so far, it seems like doing this would be detrimental to my progress as far as growing muscle. *However, there's some days when I just don't get enough time in the morning workout to do each exercise to failure...at least not yet. *I'm still figuring out what weight to use for each exercise so that I max out at 8 reps and it takes a while for a new guy to figure all that out. *Once I know my weight for each exercise, I can go back to once a day workouts. *I just don't want to have to wake up at 4 AM to start each day (have to be at work at 8). *What do you think? *Thanks in advance..

Yeah man, not entirely a good idea. I'd keep it to once a day. You have to realize that the time AFTER you workout is when your muscles are rebuilding themselves. They need that time, and if you interupt that with working out just hours later, well...not good. My 2 cents. No homo.*

[aspengc8]

This is why someone new to the site like me has such a hard time sifting through all the contradictory opinions. I've been reading in the stickies that is NOT a good idea to go to failure as it is too hard on the CNS and you will stall faster. A link to a study I've posted below seems to agree with this assessment.

So what am I missing here?

http://w w w .ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16410373

Your not missing anything. Part of the bodybuilding experience is finding what works for YOU. Some people like training to failure, some don't. Personally, it works for me and that's all I care about.*

[CookAndrewB]

Your not missing anything. Part of the bodybuilding experience is finding what works for YOU. Some people like training to failure, some don't. Personally, it works for me and that's all I care about.*

Works so well that you rushed right out to post your lifting stats and pictures and videos to back up your claim?

Training to "failure" is a tool, and has limited usefulness. Part of a balanced training program? Perhaps. The sole methodology to build a big strong physique? Nope... not at all.

Guess what happens when you reach failure? You get stronger and more muscular. Is it the only way, no. Does it work, absolutely.

Ok, case and point. Grab a 2lb DB and curl it until failure. Think you will get stronger? You will have DOMS... I'm almost certain of that, but as a training stimulus for gaining strength, you have to have some tight controls on what "failure" means, and how it is applied. Failing at 2 reps has a very different connotation than failing at 20 reps.

Still, if we know that someone can make progress without all of the collateral tissue damage, then why would we encourage that? What goal does that support?

[aspengc8]

Works so well that you rushed right out to post your lifting stats and pictures and videos to back up your claim?

Training to "failure" is a tool, and has limited usefulness. Part of a balanced training program? Perhaps. The sole methodology to build a big strong physique? Nope... not at all.


Ok, case and point. Grab a 2lb DB and curl it until failure. Think you will get stronger? You will have DOMS... I'm almost certain of that, but as a training stimulus for gaining strength, you have to have some tight controls on what "failure" means, and how it is applied. Failing at 2 reps has a very different connotation than failing at 20 reps.

Still, if we know that someone can make progress without all of the collateral tissue damage, then why would we encourage that? What goal does that support?

I pretty much assumed that no one that is after a above average physique would consider using light weight with high reps like your example. I guess I should have pointed that out. I don't need to post pics or videos to prove training to failure, or any sort of intensity techniques work. What relevance does lifting stats even bear when it comes to bodybuilding? As far as intensity techniques go, they have already been proven by many, many successful bodybuilders.

What it all boils down to is what the OP prefers. He can train any way he wants as long as its the right combination of volume, frequency & intensity.*

[CookAndrewB]

I pretty much assumed that no one that is after a above average physique would consider using light weight with high reps like your example. I guess I should have pointed that out. I don't need to post pics or videos to prove training to failure, or any sort of intensity techniques work. What relevance does lifting stats even bear when it comes to bodybuilding? As far as intensity techniques go, they have already been proven by many, many successful bodybuilders.

What it all boils down to is what the OP prefers. He can train any way he wants as long as its the right combination of volume, frequency & intensity.*

Actually, if you understand that strength and size have a causal relationship, then it has a lot of bearing to the argument. In fact, the very first thing you pointed out is that nobody would use light weight if they wanted a world class physique. Amazing that it is "irrelevant" when I bring it up, but you so quickly prove my point. I'll go ahead and assume you can prove both points with video/picture evidence... That you train "intensely" with heavy weights and that the result has been an amazing physique!

Take your time, I'll wait.

[aspengc8]

Actually, if you understand that strength and size have a causal relationship, then it has a lot of bearing to the argument. In fact, the very first thing you pointed out is that nobody would use light weight if they wanted a world class physique. Amazing that it is "irrelevant" when I bring it up, but you so quickly prove my point. I'll go ahead and assume you can prove both points with video/picture evidence... That you train "intensely" with heavy weights and that the result has been an amazing physique!

Take your time, I'll wait.

I'm not sure I understand what this has to do with training a muscle to failure? Your anti-hiit, I get it. No problem. But are you saying that its impossible to build a good physique by training to failure?

[NsomNiak]

I'm not sure I understand what this has to do with training a muscle to failure? Your anti-hiit, I get it. No problem. But are you saying that its impossible to build a good physique by training to failure?

Strong join date. From what I've been reading on here, training to failure can cause more muscle damage. We all know that you build muscle by tearing existing muscle fibers, but too much/chronic damage can delay growth which would delay the time to progress. Amirite?...

[Lackeos]

Strong join date. From what I've been reading on here, training to failure can cause more muscle damage. We all know that you build muscle by tearing existing muscle fibers, but too much/chronic damage can delay growth which would delay the time to progress. Amirite?...

Muscle damage isn't what's important here. It's more like... doing one set to failure is going to stimulate growth more than one set not-to-failure, but less than multiple sets not-to-failure, and it will burn-out your CNS a lot faster than not-to-failure sets. The more you tax your CNS, the more deloading / recovery will be required. It's a poor ratio of stimulating growth to CNS fatigue. More steps backwards and fewer steps forwards.

[CookAndrewB]

I'm not anti-HIT, not in the way that you are implying. It is a tool, but not the only tool. There are some scenarios where it makes a lot of sense to me. For instance, I would actually be all for most people using a HIT type protocol for small muscle group isolation exercises, like bicep curls. I would rather see people do that relatively infrequently, but really training it to failure when they do. A) it is very safe to train bicep curls to failure B) it would keep people from doing tons of unnecessary bicep work and C) it REALLY doesn't matter if you try to get your biceps stronger by curling, so long as you are getting your row/pullups stronger. The bicep will really get plenty of heavy stress, low rep work there already.

I never said it was impossible, but rather failure isn't the goal.
The goal is to produce muscle.
The goal is to provide stimuli that produce growth.
The goal is NOT to produce a lot of collateral damage just for damage sake.
The goal is to recover and provide the next round of stimuli as quickly as possible, and you can't do that when you are recovering from a lot of pointless tissue damage. Tissue damage that didn't get you any positive net effect in the end.

If we wanted to build an addition on a house, we might have to knock out a few walls. That damage makes sense, in order to get some progress on building the addition. That is how I would view "normal" training stimulus. There is some damage, but it is a necessary "evil" if you will. Training to failure every single time is like wanting to build an addition, but using dynamite to blow the back half of your house off. It accomplished the goal that the first scenario also met, but it did a bunch of worthless damage and required more clean up, more repair (not NEW addition, just repair to existing house that was fine).