going to failure

[Madcow2]

Such a derogatory remark deserves compensation in the form of rep points...

I'm locked out until I spread it around as I gave you some the other day for a good post. I tend not to have much reason to give points and it's usually the same people saying intelligent stuff so it might be a while before I can get you back. Not much I can do about it, either the system needs to be changed or the average posting quality must rise.

[Resilience]

I'm locked out until I spread it around as I gave you some the other day for a good post. I tend not to have much reason to give points and it's usually the same people saying intelligent stuff so it might be a while before I can get you back. Not much I can do about it, either the system needs to be changed or the average posting quality must rise.

I was just pulling your leg a bit

[slippy]

I think the science bit is useful, but it doesn't substitute for practical experience. In fact, without the practical experience, you won't understand the big picture science is giving you.

I could argue "to fail or not to fail" from a physiological point of view, but it'll be like me explaining how Troy Polamalu was exposed badly in Pittsburgh's Cover 3 scheme against Seattle. (C'mon dude, just because you get the green light to blitz every down doesn't mean you should stop tackling!) You may nod and consider that minutie, but it still doesn't change that the whole game was a screwjob, and that either Holmgren or Hasselback is a total fool/tool with time management. In other words, having this specific knowledge doesn't help the bigger picture if you don't see that your picture really dropped the frigging ball.

These are two really technical, but useful articles. Your brain will explode, but you'll get smarter during the recovery phase.

This covers cellular signalling, especially the role of transduction.

http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/par68.htm

Difficult, but excellent overview of the hypertrophy process, linking the energetic theory with the stress mechantransduction theory.

I really like this article, actually, and thought about doing a "laymen's summary" of it in order to force myself to read through the details.

http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/par26.htm

[Dominik]

What i don't understand is why some people have the urge to continuously bang-on about training to failure for... ??

See the topic of the thread. "Going to FAILURE." The key word is failure which is why it's being discussed.

Is it necessary for hypertrophy & strength? How often should you go to failure? Is one set to absolute ballbusting failure superior for growth to performing several sets shy of failure? Or doing multiple sets and only taking the last to failure? These are all valid questions.

What has always fascinated me about the 'failure movement' if you could call it that, is the promise of similar or better results with shorter workouts or less volume, and by training less frequently.

So as I said earlier, forget the studies conducted with a small group of untrained athletes, who is using this approach in the real world and getting results? Does it work for the majority of people who discover it (it's had over 30 years to establish itself so you can't say it's something that's still waiting to catch on), or is it more of a niche program? Does it work better as an occasional program (i.e. for deloading) or can it be effective all year round? Is it more suited to beginners or advanced trainees? Who among the pros is using it? Who is winning events? Is it being used outside bodybuilding and with how much success?

Once again, all valid questions.

I like my car analogies so I'll continue. I care about what's going on in the real world. Sure what the manufacturers say about their cars or aftermarket products and what the magazines that review them say interests me, but I want to see real results. I know money talks so any "test" can be corrupted to sell products. If someone is advertising a new product for my car, like a twin-turbo kit for a 6L engine, I'd be more inclined to say "hey, I'll wait to see who is using out there on forums and down the track before I fork out for it." Now if I'm seeing guys consistently pulling high 10's or low 11's with that thing down the track I might think it's worth buying. If it falls well short of what it was promised to do, or is unreliable, I'll avoid it.

Which brings me full circle. I've heard a lot about the theory behind training to failure. The whole one-set, all-out, not almost all-out, 8-12 sets every 5-7 days, etc. for advanced trainees, and when I compare that to what I'm currently doing, it's a lot less work. So what would compel me to try it is seeing compelling results in the real world. That's why I feel I've always asked valid questions, regardless of how some people with a cult-mentality have responded. It's perfectly acceptable to ask "who is using it out there?" and "is it better than what I'm currently doing?"

[Resilience]

See the topic of the thread. "Going to FAILURE." The key word is failure which is why it's being discussed.

Is it necessary for hypertrophy & strength? How often should you go to failure? Is one set to absolute ballbusting failure superior for growth to performing several sets shy of failure? Or doing multiple sets and only taking the last to failure? These are all valid questions.

I'm not a big fan of single set training, but again, it's not to say it can't be effective for someone else - if single set training happens to be productive for a certain person then you can't really scrutinise something that's producing results.

A quick word about using failure in general:. I think that when applying failure (or any other method) your main concern should be knowing your limits - that takes time and experience.

What has always fascinated me about the 'failure movement' if you could call it that, is the promise of similar or better results with shorter workouts or less volume, and by training less frequently.

So as I said earlier, forget the studies conducted with a small group of untrained athletes, who is using this approach in the real world and getting results? Does it work for the majority of people who discover it (it's had over 30 years to establish itself so you can't say it's something that's still waiting to catch on), or is it more of a niche program?

I think you're confusing failure with HIT. Have you ever trained to failure for several weeks? (and failure is not a program)

Does it work better as an occasional program (i.e. for deloading) or can it be effective all year round?

This is obviously a question for the individual who is applying it - what you must comprehend is the effects upon the CNS. Similar to maximal effort method, the repeated effort method if applied above your tolerance levels for a prolonged period of time will eventually lead to overtraining.

Edit: I wouldn't recommend it for deloading, no.

who is using this approach in the real world and getting results?

There are plenty who use failure as part of their training - take a look at Clarence Bass.

Is it more suited to beginners or advanced trainees?

Again a question for the individual - my view is that those new to weights can perform more failure training than those more advanced.

Who among the pros is using it?

Who gives a ****? - are you a qualified athlete? If failure training produces results use it.

[Big Bamboo]

A quick word about using failure in general:. I think that when applying failure (or any other method) your main concern should be knowing your limits - that takes time and experience

Exactly right. So for example, how can you say you stop one rep short of failure (as prescribed by some programs) if you don't know where failure is? And to do that you need to train to failure for some significant period of time.
This is obvious and shouldn't be debatable.

Quote:
"Originally Posted by _Dominik_
What has always fascinated me about the 'failure movement' if you could call it that, is the promise of similar or better results with shorter workouts or less volume, and by training less frequently.

So as I said earlier, forget the studies conducted with a small group of untrained athletes, who is using this approach in the real world and getting results? Does it work for the majority of people who discover it (it's had over 30 years to establish itself so you can't say it's something that's still waiting to catch on), or is it more of a niche program?"

I think you're confusing failure with HIT. Have you ever trained to failure for several weeks? (and failure is not a program)

Right. A lot of programs call for training to failure. It's not just a "HIT thing".

And the other thing is that a little research will show you that there are TONS of studies done, many with *trained athletes*. To ignore this body of work means you're really missing out.

Quote:
Originally Posted by _Dominik_
"who is using this approach in the real world and getting results?"

There are plenty who use failure as part of their training - take a look at Clarence Bass.

A *lot* more than that. We're *thousands* of competitive athletes. Not to mention the non-competitive guys on this board.

Quote:
Originally Posted by _Dominik_
"Who among the pros is using it?"

Who gives a ****? - are you a qualified athlete? If failure training produces results use it.

I agree. Should we all train like the current champion pro-bodybuilders who have incredible genetics, and are pumped up on huge amounts of drugs? It's obvious their genetics and drugs allow them to progress *despite* their terrible programs that would never work for the rest of us. It's nice to see for e.g., that to failure programs work really well for guys like Viator, Yates, etc., but I'm sold when I see NATURAL guys with AVERAGE genetics get great results on a program. And obviously quite a few are successful training to or near failure.

[Dominik]

I think you're confusing failure with HIT. Have you ever trained to failure for several weeks? (and failure is not a program)

When I said 'failure movement,' I was obviously referring to HIT for the most part, but also any program based on the same principle: trying to squeeze maximum results out of the least amount of work, which in that case is specifically 8-12 sets every 5-7 days for advanced trainees. The whole "all-out, not almost all-out" philosophy. The notion you can get similar or better results doing less. Who wouldn't want that?

There are plenty who use failure as part of their training - take a look at Clarence Bass.

Once again, there is nothing wrong with training that way if you know what you're doing and it's working for you. re: Clarence Bass, it's worth mentioning that he does incorporate some form of periodization into his training.

Who gives a ****? - are you a qualified athlete? If failure training produces results use it.

If nobody gave a **** what any professional was doing, nobody would buy any instructional material written by a pro would they? If Tiger Woods made an instructional video or book on golf, should I ignore his advice because he's a pro? Or a book on driving by Michael Schumacher? Of course not. If you ultimately want to be the best you can be, it can't hurt to look at what the best are doing. Not to copy them verbatim, but to get an understanding of where they are at.

This is where steroids enter the debate and we're informed "don't pay any attention to what the pros are doing." There are a lot of guys on these forums using anabolic steroids. Should I ignore their advice because I don't use them? That's ridiculous. Steroids allow someone to train longer, recover faster, and it amplifies their results. The exercises are the same. You can pretty much take any workout they're doing and scale back the volume.

The irony with HIT is on one hand they're saying ignore what the pros are doing but are quick to mention the small handful of pros who trained with HIT, all of whom used a truckload of anabolic steroids, to sell the system. You can't have it both ways.

My question is this. If you'd like to ultimately become a pro bodybuilder or powerlifter, wouldn't you at least be curious to know how certain training methods are working in the real world at a more advanced level? If a training system is rarely used in pro bodybuilding or powerlifting, wouldn't you be asking yourself "okay, how far will it take me if those guys aren't using it?" I think it's a valid question.

[Big Bamboo]

Two things:

1. I just checked the version of the HIT FAQ I have (not the 11 year old version Dominik is touting) and the training frequency recommendation for advanced athletes is 1 time/4-6 days (full body). So stop saying "this is what the HIT FAQ says" when you don't even have it. You've been caught several other times on this, like the "HIT FAQ doesn't address 'explosiveness'" nonsense.

2. How many powerlifters perform "speed work", i.e, doing really rapid light weight squats/deads/benches? I spoke to several guys who are *big time* powerlifting followers and they say this is complete bull****. To say "the majority of PLers do speed work" doesn't sound like a fact to me. PROVE IT. Not just "Westside guys do it". You said THE MAJORITY. Sounds like you are bullsh*tting us yet again. Didn't you say Ed Coan does all this speed work? Where does it say that?

[Dominik]

Two things:

1. I just checked the version of the HIT FAQ I have (not the 11 year old version Dominik is touting) and the training frequency recommendation for advanced athletes is 1 time/4-6 days (full body). So stop saying "this is what the HIT FAQ says" when you don't even have it. You've been caught several other times on this, like the "HIT FAQ doesn't address 'explosiveness'" nonsense.

2. How many powerlifters perform "speed work", i.e, doing really rapid light weight squats/deads/benches? I spoke to several guys who are *big time* powerlifting followers and they say this is complete bull****. To say "the majority of PLers do speed work" doesn't sound like a fact to me. PROVE IT. Not just "Westside guys do it". You said THE MAJORITY. Sounds like you are bullsh*tting us yet again. Didn't you say Ed Coan does all this speed work? Where does it say that?

1. The copy I have says "Last update: May, 1999." Not 11 years old. (Btw, once every 4-6 vs. once every 5-7 days isn't a big difference.)

2. Coan/Phillipi Deadlift Routine

"Speed sets" are indicated clearly.

A search for speed bench + powerlifting on Google returned 78,400 results. Knock yourself out.

The keywords "speed bench" returned several hundred threads on the Powerlifting/Strongman forum. Go talk to them about HIT over there and see how well it goes down.

[Dominik]

Just for kicks, let's re-visit your very first post on BB.com a little over 4 months ago.

Hi Everyone,

I'm a 1st year Engineering student and I've been lifting consistently for 3.5 years now. My routine worked pretty well for me in high school...but things are different now in college. I trained with a 5 day on, 1 day off split, which worked well for me. But I'm swamped with school work now, plus my girlfriend wants my time too

I'm finding it really hard to go to the gym that many times a week now. I talked to a friend of mine that used to train with me when we lived in the same city. He's a bit older than me and also in college.

He said he had the same problem and he found this "HIT" stuff. Get this: he says he only works out 2 times a week and he's somehow still gaining!

I find this hard to beleive. I've never heard of such a thing. Does this actually work?

I don't want to maintain, I want to GAIN still. The big selling point for me with the HIT stuff is that IF it works I can still gain and have enough time for school. Does HIT work for gaining or just maintaining?

Is there a good HIT book I can read? I went to the bookstore and saw stuff by Mike Mentzer and some guy last name is Dardan? Are those worth buying? What's the difference between them?

My friend says he downloaded an ebook "HIT FAQ" from hardtraining.com for $20. Is it worth it?

I'm confused, which source of info is the best for HIT?

Thanks a lot!

BB

Gee, haven't you come a long way from being the "confused" noob stumbling around for information on HIT?

It's like a kid taking the training wheels off his dragster with the big banana seat one month and doing laps with Valentino Rossi the next. Give me a break.

Is anyone out there actually buying this bull****?

[W8isGR8]

Heh.......owned...........again

[Big Bamboo]

Gee, haven't you come a long way from being the "confused" noob stumbling around for information on HIT?

Who said I was confused? I trained for years without doing "HIT", specifically training 2x/week. I'm hardly a "newbie". I've been training since I was 16. I just didn't know the term "HIT", and neither did anyone else I know.

And yes, I've learned a *lot* over the last few months, and I've posted my learnings from Google and other sources online, including from people here like slippy.

Is anyone out there actually buying this bull****?

Nope, I think people are on to you now, Dominik. When you get desperate you always go nuts and spew your tired old "$19.95 HIT FAQ" line. It's your modus operandi.

You're obsessed with Ron/HIT. Just look at how badly you came off in the MN thread. You jumped in and said nothing about the ACTUAL TOPIC, i.e., MN.
You just spewed your standard anti-Ron/HIT nonsense. How many people took you to task over that one.

Face it, you haven't been able to prove ONE single point in your arguments. The worst is you first pretend that science supports you, then when a TINY bit of research on my part shows that you have NOTHING, you change your position to, "Well, instead I'm going to base what I say on what is most popular right now."

You really need help with your obsession. I feel bad for ya.

[Defiant1]

Now he is "Big Bamboo"...

When you step away, and look back....it is truly comical.

And pathetic.

By the way..

What's up guys? Dom, Madcow, W8?

[Dominik]

Now he is "Big Bamboo"...

When you step away, and look back....it is truly comical.

And pathetic.

By the way..

What's up guys? Dom, Madcow, W8?

Long time no see my friend I'm learning to clear out my mailbox these days. Bring me up to speed when you get the chance.

As you can see, BB.com's #1 troll is back to doing what he does best.

[Dominik]

Who said I was confused? I trained for years without doing "HIT", specifically training 2x/week. I'm hardly a "newbie". I've been training since I was 16. I just didn't know the term "HIT", and neither did anyone else I know.

And yes, I've learned a *lot* over the last few months, and I've posted my learnings from Google and other sources online, including from people here like slippy.

Hmm, let's see...

You just said you "trained for years without doing "HIT", specifically training 2x/week."

So you've been training 2x a week with HIT since 16 but in your first post when talking about a friend who "discovered" HIT...

"Get this: he says he only works out 2 times a week and he's somehow still gaining!

I find this hard to beleive. I've never heard of such a thing. Does this actually work?"

Hmm, that doesn't quite add up does it?

You said you'd never heard of such a thing. Never?

You also said 3 weeks ago that you're "22 years old now," but your profile says Age: 21, [September 13, 1984], and in your first post 4 months ago said you've been training for "3.5 years." Even if you started training just before turning 17, that's longer than 3½ years.

Having trouble remembering your lies Ron???

So finally, let's get this straight. You knew absolutely nothing about HIT, zero, in your first post, you're bumbling around looking for some info on HIT, asking people whether the "HIT FAQ" is worth it for $20, then you decide to buy it, and here you are a few months later, an expert on every football coach who trains with HIT, you're quoting from Enoka's book on neuromechanics, you're grilling me over studies like "Behm & Sale," I mean, is there anything you don't know about HIT? You could practically write a book on it, couldn't you? And you learned this all in what, a few months? That is truly remarkable don't you think?

[Big Bamboo]

Hmm, let's see...

<Yawn>

Should I list all the things you've lied about/misled people/exaggerated?

That would take too long. Hey, but just for fun, how about how I'm on "ignore"? That lasted a long time, didn't it?

You're so desperate, Dominik. You're *OBSESSED* with Ronreclifterresilomoppet and the "19.95 HIT FAQ" which you've never seen. You now think what, EIGHT people are all the same identity? How many more are there out there????

Maybe someone just has to say this to you bluntly: GET OVER IT.

[Dominik]

<Yawn>

Should I list all the things you've lied about/misled people/exaggerated?

That would take too long. Hey, but just for fun, how about how I'm on "ignore"? That lasted a long time, didn't it?

You're so desperate, Dominik. You're *OBSESSED* with Ronreclifterresilomoppet and the "19.95 HIT FAQ" which you've never seen. You now think what, EIGHT people are all the same identity? How many more are there out there????

Maybe someone just has to say this to you bluntly: GET OVER IT.

The truth is you are on ignore. There's a link on the right of every hidden post that says "view post." If I feel like it, I click on it. The best part is I can read threads that load faster and if I feel like viewing your latest insults, I have that option. If I feel like having a troll free day, I won't click on it. Simple.

Let's get down to business...

Say whatever you like about me, but I'm not a compulsive liar/salesman/troll like you are Ron (Rob Spector). Not only are you being fed lines from your buddies at Cyberpump, you resort to posting under multiple profiles in an attempt to hijack threads and win arguments. They don't come much lower than you.

Instead of attacking me, how about explaining all your lies to your legion of fans? Or would that take all day?

[Resilience]

If nobody gave a **** what any professional was doing, nobody would buy any instructional material written by a pro would they? If
Tiger Woods made an instructional video or book on golf, should I ignore his advice because he's a pro? Or a book on driving by Michael Schumacher? Of course not. If you ultimately want to be the best you can be, it can't hurt to look at what the best are doing. Not to copy them verbatim, but to get an understanding of where they are at.

So a book by Ronnie Coleman or Dorian Yates would be equally acceptable? - if Tiger Woods has a coach i would buy his book ahead of Tigers.

This is where steroids enter the debate and we're informed "don't pay any attention to what the pros are doing." There are a lot of guys on these forums using anabolic steroids. Should I ignore their advice because I don't use them? That's ridiculous. Steroids allow someone to train longer, recover faster, and it amplifies their results. The exercises are the same. You can pretty much take any workout they're doing and scale back the volume.

Unless they have several years experience of training naturally, yes i would be skeptical as to what they say (unless i knew otherwise) - i'm skeptical anyway, that's just me.

The irony with HIT is on one hand they're saying ignore what the pros are doing but are quick to mention the small handful of pros who trained with HIT, all of whom used a truckload of anabolic steroids, to sell the system. You can't have it both ways.

I wouldn't consider myself an HIT enthusiast, far from it - the repeated effort method is just a tool to be applied as one sees fit.

My question is this. If you'd like to ultimately become a pro bodybuilder or powerlifter, wouldn't you at least be curious to know how certain training methods are working in the real world at a more advanced level? If a training system is rarely used in pro bodybuilding or powerlifting, wouldn't you be asking yourself "okay, how far will it take me if those guys aren't using it?" I think it's a valid question.

If i was interested in pursuing a career in pro BB, yes i would delve into what the competition is doing - don't forget the huge amount of drugs being used by pro BB - it can be difficult to see the wood through the trees. Anyhow, you cannot say a certain method does not work (for you) unless you've applied it within your own training and therefore have experience of it - no sports scientist can do that for you.

[kingfish3]

i decided to do set after set after set yesterday and not do anything to failure. Took me 2 hours just to almost sweat. I could of done this holding my breath. I dont even feel like i lifted weights. BEing a mentzer man im just tougher than anyone else just like all my former volume clients that are not hitters are also tougher now.

[all pro]

Training to Failure The Final Rep

The Final Rep
Reprinted with the permission of Charles I. Staley, B.Sc., MSS - www.S
taleyTraining.com
The notion of "training to failure" is perhaps one of the most
revered practices in the modern bodybuilder's "toolbox." But
interestingly, this training method seems unique to bodybuilding.
In other iron sports, such as Olympic weightlifting, powerlifting,
and throwing, athletes develop enormous levels of muscle mass
without training to failure, at least not in the way that most
bodybuilders would define it. This observation, coupled with the
fact that many elite-level bodybuilders do not embrace this
practice, warrants a second look at this concept.

Birth of a Paradigm

Many credit Arthur Jones (the inventor of Nautilus equipment) with
developing and popularizing the "one set to failure" paradigm.
Jones argued that bodybuilders should work to the point of
momentary failure, using one set per exercise/per session, rather
than using multiple sets of multiple exercises. But Jones's
commercial success may been potentiated by a long-standing
tradition among young trainees (particularly men) who, in the
absence of qualified supervision, regularly trained to failure as
an intuitive way of obtaining objective feedback about their
progress. Whenever an additional rep could be performed with a
given weight, the trainee was psychologically reinforced, which
further entrenched this "habit."

Unfortunately, it also reinforced poor exercise form and the tremendous
frustration that set in when, after several months of monotonous
training, the inevitable plateau set in. This frustration then paved the
way for numerous ill-conceived commercialized training "systems" that
emerged over the past several decades. The result is an endless cycle of
unsupervised trainees switching from one miracle method to another, in
an endless search for the "perfect program."

Before we criticize Jones or the authors of the many programs available
today, it may be necessary to revise our expectations of what a training
method should and shouldn't do. Remember that nearly any training method
can be effective, at least temporarily, for the following reasons:

1) Beginners will make short-term progress with any training method,
provided they aren't injured in the process.

2) Many people train in a very monotonous manner, rarely changing acute
exercise variables such as choice of exercise, order of exercise, rest
periods, and load (volume and intensity). When such a person changes
programs, they will progress, at least temporarily.

Conversely, NO training program is perfect because:

1) Everyone is different. No two people respond exactly the same to a
given program.

2) The body will eventually accommodate to any program, and when it
does, you hit a plateau.

The conclusion that might be drawn from these points is that all methods
can be viewed as "tools" which have a certain degree of utility when
used in the proper proportion and in the right context. The problem is
when a proclamation is made that "This is the perfect program for all
people all of the time!"

DEFINITIONS

A significant impediment to discussing this issue is the lack of
consistent working definitions for several terms which are germane to
the discussion at hand:

What is "Training to Failure"?

The very definition of "training to failure" needs considerable
clarification. Does it mean concentric failure? Eccentric failure?
Inability to complete another repetition in good form? (and what is
"good form?") Inability to maintain the desired tempo (speed of
execution)? Are we referring to failure of the cellular, or neural
system? Failure of the stabilizers, or prime movers? (Please see the
sidebar entitled "Training to Failure: Traditional and Revised
Definitions" for a closer look at these questions).

For the purposes of this discussion, "training to failure" describes
training in a manner where each set is continued to the point where
further concentric repetitions "in good form" cannot be completed under
the lifter's own volition. Second, the notion of failure is inexorably
linked to the magnitude of effort and ability to withstand pain and
fatigue- both of which are subjective qualities.

What is "Good Form?"

While the amount of resistance, number of sets and reps, etc.,
constitute the quantitative element of training, good form (or exercise
technique) can be seen as the qualitative element. Exercise technique
includes range of motion, tempo, and control over the resistance being
lifted. For the sake of variation, bodybuilders should plan for regular
variations in tempo and range of motion. Such variations help to break
through strength and hypertrophy plateaus. Control, however, should
never be sacrificed, especially for the purpose of "eking out" another
repetition. For the sake of this discussion, "good form" will be defined
as "exercise performance which is consistent with pre-determined
objectives concerning range of motion, tempo, and control of the
resistance". Using this definition, it is not considered bad form to
lift a weight through a partial range of motion, as long as you
pre-determined that the repetitions would be performed in that manner.
On the other hand, if you planned to do parallel squats, and start
losing depth due to fatigue, this would be considered bad form.
Similarly, if you plan for a certain tempo (duration of each repetition)
or even rest period, it would be considered bad form to alter these
parameters in the middle of a workout.

What is Intensity?

Sports scientists and bodybuilders often assign two very different
meanings to this term. In the sports sciences, intensity is usually
defined as the difficulty of the work performed, expressed as a
percentage of 1RM (One repetition maximum), or an athlete's maximum
poundage for a single repetition for any given lift. Using this
definition, if an athlete has a 1RM of 400 pounds in the leg press, a
set performed with 350 pounds is more "intense" than a lift performed
with 300 pounds, regardless of how many reps were performed, how close
the set came to failure, or how much mental effort was applied.

Most bodybuilders, on the other hand, define intensity as the magnitude
of effort applied to a task. Using this definition, a leg press of 300
pounds might be more intense than a set with 350 pounds, if a greater
effort was applied to that set.

For our purposes then, we will distinguish between "extrinsic" intensity
(or, the magnitude of the external load) and "intrinsic" intensity (or,
the magnitude of effort applied against that load). It's important to
recognize that extrinsic intensity is objective, and intrinsic intensity
is subjective. In other words, we can measure the weight on the bar as a
percentage of maximum, but when someone claims that they "went to
failure," we have to take his or her word for it.

Objectives and Methods of Training

For bodybuilders, the object of training is muscular hypertrophy. The
methods used to accomplish this objective are dictated by various
training principles, most notably the principle of progressive overload.
Fatigue, and occasionally failure, are unavoidable by-products of these
methods. Viewing fatigue and/or failure as an objective of training (as
many bodybuilders do) is masochistic and counterproductive.

The hallmarks of successful training are long-term consistency and
progression. But progression must be gradual- very gradual- if it is to
be consistent. Many athletes insist on always taking a set to utter
failure, even if it's not necessary to achieve a new personal record.
But these same athletes neglect to project these gains into the future,
which reveals the impossibility of continuing these gains. As an
example, if you manage to put 5 pounds a week on your squat, this
equates to 20 pounds a month, and 240 pounds a year. If this could be
continued for even three years, you would be a national level
powerlifter, with size to go along with it! A better approach is to
achieve very small increases in load on a regular basis, even though you
won't reach failure. These smaller increases are easier for the body to
adapt to, and recuperate from. Taking each and every set to complete
failure is like trying to run a marathon at sprint speed- after a very
short period of sprinting, you'll have to slow down considerably, if you
expect to finish the race.

[all pro]

Training to Failure The Final Rep Part 2



The Downside of One Set to Failure

As stated earlier, few training practices or techniques are good or bad
in the absolute sense. Most often, it's a matter of application and
context. Performing all sets to failure (or, trying to) is particularly
problematic, for the following reasons:

1) Insufficient training volume for hypertrophy development.

Many studies have confirmed that metabolic changes associated with
muscular hypertrophy are best instigated through loading by high
volumes, whereas neural adaptations are best brought about through high
intensity loads.

Training volume is calculated in pounds lifted per unit of time. If you
plan to lift a certain weight for 5 sets of 5 reps, only the last set
would approach concentric failure- if you went to failure on the first
set, the subsequent sets would have to be performed with significantly
less weight. This decreases volume, which can negatively impact muscular
hypertrophy. International strength coach Charles Poliquin observes that
for any two athletes on the same basic program, the athlete who uses a
higher volume will have greater hypertrophy (1). This observation may be
due in part to increased levels of anabolic hormones which are
associated with multi-set (as opposed to single set) training (2).

A second factor to consider with respect to the training load is that
there is a limit to how long you can achieve progressions in intensity,
but increases in volume can be achieved for a much longer period. For
example, after about 9-10 years of solid training experience, you'll
arrive at (or very close to) your maximum lifts (1RM's). Past this
point, it becomes nearly impossible to increase the training load
through increases in intensity. It's much more feasible at this point to
increase training volume (by adding reps and/or sets). In this way, you
can continue to make gains in muscle mass.

2) Injury potential, both acute and chronic, increases.

Noted exercise scientist Paul Ward warns that training to failure
results in ischemic reperfusion, or oxygen deprivation, followed by
oxygen perfusion. This results in massive free-radical damage to DNA and
cell membranes.

International Sports Sciences Association co-founder Dr. Sal Arria
cautions that many soft tissue injuries occur when failure terminates a
repetition in mid-stroke. "When the weight on the bar exceeds the
muscle's ability to lift it, something has to give and usually, it's the
musculotendonous junction" One of the most important functions of a
spotter is to stay alert and keep the bar moving in order to avoid such
injuries, according to Arria.

According, to powerlifting legend Fred Hatfield, if fatigue is so great
that stabilizers and synergists (which typically tire faster than the
prime movers) become too fatigued to allow maintenance of proper form,
you're asking for trouble.

3) Potential for overtraining increases.

Louie Simmons, well-known coach to many elite-level powerlifters finds
that taking sets to failure "has an ill-effect on the central nervous
system," which delays recovery. Simmons is noted for producing scores of
high-ranked lifters with relatively low-intensity training

4) Regular failed attempts lead to a reduction in a lowering of the
Golgi Tendon Organ (GTO) excitation threshold (3).
Successful lifts which are above what the body is used to will raise the
excitation threshold of the Golgi Tendon Organ, while failed attempts
tend to lower it. What this means in bodybuilding parlance is that the
more often you miss a lift, the more likely it is that you'll miss it
again in the future.

Is Training to Failure Necessary?

Clearly, it is not. The overriding concept is that, like all training
methods, training to failure is a tool. No tool should be used all the
time for all applications. But used judiciously, it can be a useful
training method. Any training program which plans for progressive
resistance, consistency, and variation is likely to produce success.
Recommendations

1) Plan and document your training. If your best effort in the bench
press is 225 for five sets of five repetitions, your goal should be to
surpass that effort- either by getting five more pounds for 5x5, or by
getting a greater volume with the same weight. When you do, you'll
progress, even if you don't go to failure on each and every set. Keeping
a training log is a must in order to know what barriers you're trying to
surpass. Use one!

2) Use and apply strictly defined technique parameters for yourself.
Cheating (by utilizing co-contraction from non-targeted muscles) only
encourages inefficient movement patterns, poor posture, and potentially,
injuries. Your technique on the last rep should be identical to the
technique you use on the first repetition.

3) Progress is a function of gradually increasing your training load
over time- not how "trashed" you feel after a workout.

4) Careful attention to acute program variables can have a big impact on
how much volume you can comfortably tolerate. Here are two examples:

a) Muscles can be worked more thoroughly by first training in an
unstable environment (i.e., free weights) which challenge the
stabilizers, and then moving to a stable environment (i.e., machines)
(4). To test this for yourself, first do a set of dumbbell bench presses
to fatigue. Next, load a barbell with the same weight, and immediately
do a set. You will find that you can lift this weight, despite failure
on the DB bench. Next, go to a machine bench press, load it with the
same weight, and you'll find that you can continue even further. This
phenomenon is an example of "stabilizer failure," meaning that the motor
cortex will limit neural drive to the prime movers when it senses that
the body is unable to stabilize a load. This phenomenon has vast
implications for the majority of trainees who primarily work prime
movers through machine exercises only.

b) Because fatigue is specific5, greater workloads are possible if sets
of contrasting exercises are performed back to back, as opposed to
finishing all sets for a particular exercise before proceeding to the
next. As an example, if you plan to perform bench presses and lat
pulldowns in the same session, sets 1,3,5, etc., would be bench presses,
and sets 2,4,6, etc., would be lat pulldowns. The more distant the two
muscle groups are from one another, the greater the reduction in
residual fatigue. Still another method of reducing fatigue is to
alternate between low repetition sets, which fatigue primarily the
nervous system, with high repetition sets, which fatigue primarily the
metabolic system. The low repetition sets facilitate greater neural
drive, which carries over to the high repetition set, allowing a greater
overall workload to be performed.

c) Except for beginners, a linear progressions of training load, where
the athlete attempts to add resistance each and every workout, result in
early stagnation and loss of improvement. A more productive approach is
a "three steps up, one step down approach" (6) which allows for periodic
regeneration and continued improvement.

5) For hypertrophy development, remember that muscles consist of more
than just contractile fibers. Use a variety of repetition ranges to
stimulate all elements of the muscle cell- including sarcoplasmic
volume, capillary density, and mitochondria proliferation. (sarcoplasmic
hypertrophy)

6) It is especially important to recognize the qualitative components of
a good set- elements such as the feel, control, and overall mastery of
the movement. Over-reliance on achieving the maximum number of
repetitions at any cost is an invitation to injury and long-standing
technique errors. A useful guideline is "Once you find yourself
cheating, you're already beyond failure!"

7) Stick to conventional or "basic" training methods until they no
longer yield results. If your neuromuscular system experiences every
strength training method known to science in your first year of
training, what will you do when you hit a plateau? Save "advanced"
methods, such as partial repetitions, eccentric training, and ballistic
methods for later, when you're advanced.

[all pro]

Training to Failure: Traditional and Revised Definitions

The majority of trainees define training to failure as continuing a set
of repetitions (including both the concentric and eccentric portions of
the rep) until no further repetitions are possible without a
considerable erosion of form, or assistance from a partner, or both.
Frequently, after concentric failure is reached, the trainee will
continue the set, either by cheating (utilizing co-contraction from
additional muscle groups), or with the help of a partner by either 1)
completing a certain number of eccentric-emphasized reps, 2) performing
"forced reps" (i.e.., utilizing help on both the concentric and
eccentric portions of the reps), or performing "strip sets," meaning,
the partner continues to reduce the weight on the bar until no further
repetitions can be completed.

Other authors (7, 8) have rightly pointed out the fact that failure is
specific to fiber type. As an example, you may select a heavy weight,
and reach failure after performing 3 repetitions. While no further
repetitions are possible with this weight, it would still be possible to
lower the weight (as in a strip-set) and continue even further.

Olympic lifters terminate their sets when the ideal tempo and/or
coordination erodes beyond acceptable parameters. For this reason,
Olympic lifters rarely if ever utilize spotters, even on their heaviest
maximum attempts, since (at least in theory) the worst thing that can
happen is that the last rep will be slower than desired.

Is One Set Really Enough?

Many proponents of the "one set to failure" method justify their claims
by suggesting that one set is sufficient to recruit a maximal number of
motor units. While this may be true (although there is little solid data
to support this statement), this approach assumes that simply recruiting
a motor unit once is sufficient to fatigue it, which is a prerequisite
to hypertrophic adaptations. For beginning trainees, it may be that
single exposures to a training stimulus are sufficient to provoke an
adaptation. But athletes with even moderate experience are likely to
require multiple exposures (sets) in order to fatigue the target motor
units (9). Hypertrophy of other biological tissues is accomplished not
by stressing the tissue close to its limits, but by applying a stress
which is slightly beyond what it normally encounters. Bone, as an
example, hypertrophies when a force equaling approximately one-tenth
it's breaking point is applied (10). This example supports the
contention that gradual progression is the ideal method for achieving
muscular growth.

[9cyclops9]

i decided to do set after set after set yesterday and not do anything to failure. Took me 2 hours just to almost sweat. I could of done this holding my breath. I dont even feel like i lifted weights. BEing a mentzer man im just tougher than anyone else just like all my former volume clients that are not hitters are also tougher now.

Nobody cares, dumbass.

[GYM-ADDICT]

For me, the max growth comes from goin 2 failure.it has different effects on different people.but i say if not always u need to have atleast one set where u just don count the reps and go to failure.

[9cyclops9]

I wonder, after all the science and expert opinion that has been posted in this thread, how someone can really come on here and say "for me, failure works best." It doesn't make sense.

[Dominik]

I wonder, after all the science and expert opinion that has been posted in this thread, how someone can really come on here and say "for me, failure works best." It doesn't make sense.

I'm at the point where I don't really care anymore.

If people want to expend more effort for similar results (or even inferior results), they can be my guest. I mean you've got people who do it because that's all they know, people who are too stubborn or afraid to change anything, people who don't understand or follow any pattern for load progression or intensity/volume variation, people who feel some ideological (more like religious) connection to a training system, people who have a "prove to me (with science) that it doesn't work" mentality, and people who feel anything less than going for broke, hitting "redline" on every set, whatever you want to call it, is a half-assed effort.

At the end of the day, all that matters is whether you're growing and the poundages are going up. I'm growing, I'm getting stronger, so why should I care what they're doing? In many respects, it's like that old saying "you can lead a horse to water..." Maybe it will click for some of those guys in a few years, or maybe it never will. Makes no difference to my life.

[Sarge Jones]

Gotta love the random factor theory.

Morons.

"do whut workz 4 uuu!1"

[waynelucky]

Hi all,

apparently Wayne has known all about fitness/fatigue theory since he was born

Not sure where you get that idea, please bring my quote back that says that, I know not at all about fitness/fatigue theory, and I am quite a shy and not at all big headed person and would never say anything of the kind, actually when all my friends years ago wanted be to go for a world record actually it was my shyness and non bighead attune that stopped me from doing it, I just did not want any attention, sorry if you think that way, more will be said on this later.

Please stay out of my posts,

After using this program to the extreme and achieving (what I felt) were unbelievable results, I have no emotional attachment to low rep loads.

Again I can only point out 405 x 18 reps in the squat, over 30 reps with 300# in the pulldown, 10 reps with 235 in the standing curl, 20 reps with 265 in the Close grip Bench press......

These are a display of POWER beyond what I ever believed possible. A 560# squat might look stronger, but from a "pure power" aspect it pales in comparison.

Which one builds more strength? Which one causes more hypertrophy? I think when you run out of gains; DIRECT COMPENSATION will surprise the hell out of you, as long as you can get past the mental barriers of using so much weight for so many reps and the pain involved.

Training to Failure: Is One Set Really Enough?

Many proponents of the "one set to failure" method justify their claims
by suggesting that one set is sufficient to recruit a maximal number of
motor units. While this may be true (although there is little solid data
to support this statement), this approach assumes that simply recruiting
a motor unit once is sufficient to fatigue it, which is a prerequisite
to hypertrophic adaptations. For beginning trainees, it may be that
single exposures to a training stimulus are sufficient to provoke an
adaptation. But athletes with even moderate experience are likely to
require multiple exposures (sets) in order to fatigue the target motor
units (9). Hypertrophy of other biological tissues is accomplished not
by stressing the tissue close to its limits, but by applying a stress
which is slightly beyond what it normally encounters. Bone, as an
example, hypertrophies when a force equaling approximately one-tenth
it's breaking point is applied (10). This example supports the
contention that gradual progression is the ideal method for achieving
muscular growth.

I know you did not write the above and you may know what I am going to post, but just thought I would say.

As most know now, all fibers are recruited on the first few reps.

I think it seems the majority of people whom train to failure get good results, better then people who don’t, but none of the people who train too not to failure will put their results down, below is the results that can be achieved when training to failure.

1, please do not overdo it.
2, if training to failure is hard on you a progress slows down use, not to failure on every other workout.
3, take a full 7 to 10 days rest ever 4 months.

I mean I applied taking each set (usually 3-4) to failure.

For example if it was arm day, I would usually warm up with 135 x 15 then 205 x 15, then 225 x 5 in the CGBP (close grip bench press). I would super set this with standing E-Z Barbell curls with 105 x 15, then 135 x 15 then
155 x 15.

Well I decided to make all the sets "to failure" and things changed.
I started with 135 x 30, 205 x 15, 235 x 10 on the close grip bench super set with then 105 x 30, 135 x 15, 155 x 10 in the E-Z Curl

Hey for some "old guy" (over 50) those were pretty respectable, and you
could see I wasn't "slakin"

After around 6 months of this (give or take) I ended up:

235 x 30, 275 x 15, 325 x 5 in the CGBP and 165 x 30, 205 x 15, and 265 x 6 in the E-Z Curl

Most every workout I would also do a final set of each where I would "drop" down and do a set of "very strict" stop at the top, and stop at the bottom and pause reps.

315 x 5 CGBP (dead stopping each rep on my chest)
205 x 10 EZ curls (dead stopping each rep at the bottom)

The pump after the first set will be like no pump you have ever had!!!! BUT....you have to commit to working in the pain/burn zone on the first sets.

So don't get the idea that this is a "high rep" program. All I did, was make the warm-up set count, as well as the "approach" set.

Wayne

[waynelucky]

Hi there all,

From you part of the universe Dominik, I will be there for three days next wekk with a bit of luck.

EinWulf wrote:
That's interesting....but the Aussies have other things to say

=================================
http://www.findarticles.com/..._65/ai_n6237328
=================================


Bodybuilders frequently train to failure when they work out--it's how they define intensity. Powerlifters and other strength athletes, on the other hand, define intensity by the amount of weight they lift; they rarely train to failure. Yet if your goal is to build strength, you may want to think more like a bodybuilder. Thanks to researchers at the Australian Institute of Sport (AIS) in Canberra, it now appears that going to failure is important for maximizing strength gains. The question is: How often should you go to failure when lifting? That's exactly what the Australian research team recently set out to discover.

Failing Science | Aussie scientists performed two studies to address the failure question. In the first, they had athletes perform either four sets of six reps (with failure being reached on the last set) or eight sets of three reps (without ever reaching failure) on the bench press. At the end of the study, the failure group demonstrated double the strength increase (about 10% vs. about 5%) of the group that did not train to failure. The second study looked at the amount of failure required to maximize strength. Three groups of athletes trained for six weeks on the bench press. Group 1 trained with four sets of six reps (reaching failure about four times per workout), Group 2 trained with eight sets of three reps (reaching failure about two times per workout) and Group 3 trained with 12 sets of three reps (reaching failure about four times per workout). Despite the difference in the amount of times they reached failure in each workout, all groups had an increase in strength of about 6%, less fatigue was reported on the to failure athletes, by about 25% less then the athletes not reaching failure, we will study this more.

SUCCESS IN FAILURE

This graph shows the percent increase in bench-press strength observed in relation to the number of times failure was reached. Although this graph uses data from two different studies, it's easy to see which method works best to maximize strength. Training to failure is a must, but too much is counterproductive.

Wayne irrupted
Yes to much can be counterproductive, that is why you should use not to failure on every other workout.

HOW TO FAIL TO SUCCEED

BASED ON THE RESEARCH from AIS, if you're training to maximize strength, consider going to failure only on the last set of the exercise. Training to failure more than once will not lead to better strength gains and may actually limit your progress. Not going to failure at all also appears to limit the amount of strength you will gain.

Wayne irrupted
Interesting they say training to failure on all sets is just the same as training to failure on the last set, this all depends on a lot, if your advanced a beginner, if you train once per week or three times per week, but if your doing three sets one warm up one work set and one to failure set, that is a fantastic way to train, whatever the gains from training to failure far outrun the not to good gains on the not to failure.

BY JIM STOPPANI, PHD.


Wayne irrupted
They should have had the people training to failure and the people training not to failure use the same reps and sets, PLEASE SEE BELOW. I am for training to failure, but this was not a fair study.


Aussie scientists performed two studies to address the failure question. In the first, they had athletes perform either four sets of six reps (with failure being reached on the last set) or eight sets of three reps (without ever reaching failure) on the bench press. At the end of the study, the failure group demonstrated double the strength increase (about 10% vs. about 5%) of the group that did not train to failure.

Wayne

[all pro]

Wayne irrupted
They should have had the people training to failure and the people training not to failure use the same reps and sets, PLEASE SEE BELOW. I am for training to failure, but this was not a fair study.
Wayne

Then why did you post it. You knew the test was invalid. Thanks for adding more useless info.