If your on a typical "bro-split" 1x /week bp then yeah failure training on at least your last 1 or 2 sets is for most people important.
If however you respond better to high frequency routines or are trying out one, then you'll have to leave a rep or 2 in the tank on most sets.
All of this is really predicated on your recovery capability. Failure surely can stimulate the most growth due to more damage, BUT what good is it if your net negative muscle synthesis because of a ****ty week of sleep and nutrition and other life stresses???
I would have to say Muscle Media 2000, that is where I actually started leaning some real sh!t back in the day, Weider, not so much
Remember Body for Life by Bill Phillips? Was a big push back in the 90's. It never caught on and stuck but I learned a lot from his stuff, Arnolds Encyclopedia of Bodybuilding, and a program we did in high shcool called Bigger, Faster, Stronger (no relation to the documentary). Good times!
you must finish every set with the last couple of reps reasonably difficult to accomplish in good strict form, if you leave a couple of reps in the tank then you,re not exhausting your muscles enough in order to grow bigger and it will take you longer to gain muscle. i feel its the last couple of reps when done correctly can make a difference.
I have to say this thread has been a revelation to me. I've always taken every set to failure or very near (been training
for 30 years with only a few lay offs...mostly after we had kids) and assumed all bodybuilders did this (hence the concepts of
forced reps, negative reps, drop sets, sevens, etc.). It's true that I've always followed a more Dorian Yates/Mike
Metzer philosophy of few sets per body part, and only one-time-per-week training each body part, but I'm wondering if I've
left some potential gains on the table by over training.
I think I'm going to take a week off training and then restart using a higher-volume/rarely-to-failure routine for a while and see if
I notice any gains (or losses). Taking a week off is going to be its own form of torture for me. I'll have to do extra cardio just
so I don't feel like a lazy slob.
training to failure isn't a must, however for me, I only train about once every 3-4weeks so it needs to "all out" , however it's real,real tough to go to failure on lighter weight squats and deads,and (push-ups?) utterly brutal.
If you go rep to failure on almost every set for every exercise like me then you'll need much more recovery time, meaning you train each muscle 1x a week. I always thought people running a 2x a week program were crazy because there is just not enough recovery time, you'll always feel sore AF, but then I discovered those people don't train to failure hence they become less sore and more able to workout 2x a week, so do whatever feels good for you
If you go rep to failure on almost every set for every exercise like me then you'll need much more recovery time, meaning you train each muscle 1x a week. I always thought people running a 2x a week program were crazy because there is just not enough recovery time, you'll always feel sore AF, but then I discovered those people don't train to failure hence they become less sore and more able to workout 2x a week, so do whatever feels good for you
Based on what's being reported here (as well as what I've viewed in many of the training videos of the pros), it looks like each philosophy has its merits. It would probably be a good idea to swap training philosophies every so often as a way to get past plateaus. For example, I'm at a plateau following the HIT philosophy (few sets, failure on every set, long recovery times) so I'm going to try the more traditional higher volume, lower intensity for a while. Someone who's been doing the more traditional style and is at a plateau could probably benefit from a switch to HIT.
Last edited by TJC85; 01-21-2013 at 08:59 AM.
Reason: reworded
Discounts & Deals - Sign Up!
Weider would be proud of you BH!
Bookmarks