going to failure

[SJC]

what is everyones opinion on going to failure for both strength or mass gain purposes should it be done reguarlly or is it best avoided??

[Dominik]

This topic has been argued to failure, believe me. It's a bodybuilding method, period. Like dropsets, supersets, pre-exhaust, etc. Many of the pros train that way but with much higher volume than is prescribed by failure training systems like HIT. For strength training it's not necessary. In fact, I'd go so far as to say it's counterproductive. Read this thread.

So why go to failure? Let's say you're using a load of 70% of 1RM and the target muscles have a similar threshold for total MU recruitment and exhaustion. By reaching concentric failure, you've recruited and exhausted all FT MUs. However, beyond 80%, the load is great enough to do this to all muscles without reaching failure. Going to failure at this point is now like pushing the engine of your car to redline and not shifting gears. You're subjecting the CNS to unnecessary fatigue. You've recruited all fibers so what is your goal now? To try and further exhaust the CNS? Why?

I'll quote Zatsiorsky again: "...a trainee should “learn” to either decrease inhibitory output or enhance excitatory output from the central nervous system (CNS) while exercising and thereby gain strength. This learning is more successful if the trainee is fully recovered from the previous activity, not fatigued."

Going to failure induces greater fatigue. With heavier loads this is even more pronounced and not only interferes with rest times between sets but can have a cumulative effect that affects workout scheduling (consider many HIT trainees who train once a week). So why do it if you're using a load that recruits and exhausts all FT motor units without going to failure? What does it achieve other than induce unnecessary fatigue? The facts are all there.

[STUCKUP]

Some say Yes some say No, I personally prefer it because it lets me know from week to week if I'm getting stronger. I like knowing at every workout if I'm able to add weight or not. I have a physically demanding job so I have to be carefull how I lift because it's VERY easy to get burnt out that way but I've still managed to gain 10 lbs. since June. I know it's not much for 6 months but I wouldn't be able to do my job if I'm burnt out,,,,and at least I'm going forward.

[Madcow2]

This topic has been argued to failure, believe me. It's a bodybuilding method, period. Like dropsets, supersets, pre-exhaust, etc. Many of the pros train that way but with much higher volume than is prescribed by failure training systems like HIT. For strength training it's not necessary. In fact, I'd go so far as to say it's counterproductive. Read this thread.

So why go to failure? Let's say you're using a load of 70% of 1RM and the target muscles have a similar threshold for total MU recruitment and exhaustion. By reaching concentric failure, you've recruited and exhausted all FT MUs. However, beyond 80%, the load is great enough to do this to all muscles without reaching failure. Going to failure at this point is now like pushing the engine of your car to redline and not shifting gears. You're subjecting the CNS to unnecessary fatigue. You've recruited all fibers so what is your goal now? To try and further exhaust the CNS? Why?

I'll quote Zatsiorsky again: "...a trainee should “learn” to either decrease inhibitory output or enhance excitatory output from the central nervous system (CNS) while exercising and thereby gain strength. This learning is more successful if the trainee is fully recovered from the previous activity, not fatigued."

Going to failure induces greater fatigue. With heavier loads this is even more pronounced and not only interferes with rest times between sets but can have a cumulative effect that affects workout scheduling (consider many HIT trainees who train once a week). So why do it if you're using a load that recruits and exhausts all FT motor units without going to failure? What does it achieve other than induce unnecessary fatigue? The facts are all there.

AMEN!

Also, SJC, this is a really good thread on what specifically is happening as one goes to failure. Particularly NWLifter's posts: http://www.drdarden.com/readTopic.do?id=394848

That post will jive nicely with the others links

[LostProphet]

see thread in my sig for good info

[waynelucky]

Hi there all,

BEFORE THE INTERNET AND YEARS AGO BEFORE I KNEW ABOUT HIT, I TRAINED TO FAILURE, BUT MOST OF YOU DID, AND MADE GREAT GAINES

I go to failure 95% of the time and get GREAT results, for a man whom has trained from the age of about 11, and am now 44 and now training the HIT style tweaked.

think the CNS issue is very overrated, and I myself do very high sets on my split routine for a hitter, going to failure on just about 95% of sets, doing from 25 to 40 sets per week, I also work, go running, walking and do life, I find all the sets I do stimulates the CNS, as I feel at 44 like a spring chicken bursting with energy and life, as you may notice some of my other post were done very late, some as late as 3:00.

Nwlifter wrote on Drdarden.com,
Orderly Recruitment: All muscles rely on this, large or small, it's just the larger muscles tend to reach full recruitment at much higher effort levels. 85% or so.
Smaller muscles reach full recruitment at lower effort levels, 40-50% on average.

Practical use: The main 'good thing' to know about this, is that you do not have to worry if you 'used all your fibers' during a workout. If you reached 85% or more of maximum effort, (whether it be the first rep with 85% of 1RM or the 12th rep of a lighter set), you have indeed contracted all your fibers. Whether you used them enough for proper stimulation is another subject, BUT, you did recruit all your fibers.


Wayne,
However, as he also says, Just recruiting a fiber does not cause any of these factors related to hypertrophy. JUST RECRUITING ALL YOUR FIBERS DOES NOT MEAN YOU HAVE STIMULATED THEM TO GROW, in my and HIT’s opinion going to failure stimulates your muscles to grow far more than not going to failure

I think when training to failure your fatiguing the muscle as hard as possible, for the best results, stopping a couple reps short of failure and you put the CNS to sleep, or never wake it up and you come to a sticking point far quicker.


Wayne

[waynelucky]

Hi there all,

I have been on the bioforce program now for nearly 5 months, with outstanding results.

Tell bioforce (John casler) 6th or 8th best discus throw in the world, or any of the worlds leading athletes and strength athletes, that training to failure hurts the CNS, it only make you body thrive.

He did this kind of training on all bodyparts

Bioforce did this,
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 55) 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.

and Schedule was, Chest and back on Mon, Legs on Wed, and Arms/Shoulders on
Friday, so everything got at least 2 days off, and legs got a week off.

The Cardio consisted of HIT stair climbing. What is that? It is doing 20
flights of a 190 step outdoor staircase "non-stop" for "best time"
everytime. That is, each session was timed and the goal was to always go
faster. Fastest time being 41 minutes.

And this was not some 2 week or 6 week cycle. This lasted for over 9 months
of continuous training.


Wayne

[waynelucky]

Hi there all

You need to excite the CNS and metabolically prepares it the CNS needs to be "EXCITED", not put to sleep. Isn't this about intensity? Then train with INTENSITY!!!

Wayne

[Madcow2]

Wayne,
However, as he also says, Just recruiting a fiber does not cause any of these factors related to hypertrophy. JUST RECRUITING ALL YOUR FIBERS DOES NOT MEAN YOU HAVE STIMULATED THEM TO GROW, in my and HIT’s opinion going to failure stimulates your muscles to grow far more than not going to failure

It is only the extra work not the act of failure. More TUT or time under significant leverage. This is exactly why doing very heavy work with 3 reps doesn't work so well for hypertrophy yet doing 10 sets of 3 reps with moderate weight does. Hey, 10x3 = 30 reps. 8x4 = 32 reps. 6x5 = 30. The difference is the weight or more properly intensity as % 1RM that you are likely to be able to do the work in. It is not about cramming as much stimulus as possible into a single set - a construct the body doesn't recognize and is mainly limited by the CNS. It's about how much total stimulus the body is exposed to.

I think when training to failure your fatiguing the muscle as hard as possible, for the best results, stopping a couple reps short of failure and you put the CNS to sleep, or never wake it up and you come to a sticking point far quicker.
Wayne

The only thing failure has to do with is maximizing muscular work with a given weight in a single set. You can definitely fatigue a muscle far far more by increasing the number of sets than by trying to get a few more reps (i.e. welcome to why workload is a massively significant factor and regulated in program design among elite athletes the world over). That relatively small incrimental extra work inside a single set is simply more expensive from a fatigue/CNS standpoint and really overtraining is all about accumulated CNS fatigue. CNS fatigue is what limits are exposure to effective stimulus far far more than muscular recovery. This is the whole reason periodization exists because the central nervous system is the limiting factor. It's not like everyone does this for fun.

The bottom line is that there is evidence that training to failure all the time can certainly work and has worked fairly decently for some people. That said, in elite strength and sport, it is almost non-existent and no one is "training to failure" arbitrarily. I have seen a lot of stupid and sub-optimal stuff work well through hard work which is by and large the determining factor providing there isn't anything really wrong. That said, HIT and training to failure has been around for a long long time and is supposedly the "hardest work" according to them. However, their results in elite strength and athletics are for the most part non-existent, and we've been through this before.

This has all been rehashed in other threads. This is basic science and common knowledge around the world. Training to failure can work but it cannot in any way be supported as optimal from a scientific standpoint and really one is going to have a hard time concluding optimality from an empirical standpoint.

[waynelucky]

Hi there all,


Dominik wrote,
I'll quote Zatsiorsky again: "...a trainee should “learn” to either decrease inhibitory output or enhance excitatory output from the central nervous system (CNS) while exercising and thereby gain strength. This learning is more successful if the trainee is fully recovered from the previous activity, not fatigued."
Going to failure induces greater fatigue. With heavier loads this is even more pronounced and not only interferes with rest times between sets but can have a cumulative effect that affects workout scheduling (consider many HIT trainees who train once a week). So why do it if you're using a load that recruits and exhausts all FT motor units without going to failure? What does it achieve other than induce unnecessary fatigue? The facts are all there.

Actually, the facts are not there at all,
At first using the HIT style, you train 3 times per week.

I think Zat in the above is talking more about Olympic lifting and competition.

Again, you misunderstand how a advanced hitter works out,


There is absolutely "NO DOUBT" that a High Intensity, Single Set will stimulate a "high percentage" result in beginners and up to mid-level trainees. However, once you reach a large % of your "actual" CAPACITY, then the single set "will not" provide the enough stimulus. It cannot.


Dominik are you saying,
Going to failure induces greater fatigue. With heavier loads this is even more pronounced and not only interferes with rest times between sets but can have a cumulative effect that affects workout scheduling,
Therefore, are you saying it makes just no sense at all to tire the muscle with pumping sets before you're going heavy. If you desire a 2nd or a 3rd set start out with the heavy one for low reps when your muscle is fresh to achieve high muscle tension and then later perform the 2nd with high reps to stimulate the "support-systems" to a higher degree.

It’s funny you are all asking the questions I asked bioforce, so here are your questions with bioforces answers, and at first I did not agree with bioforce, but I have to admit he was so right in every aspect, and with all the answers he gave me, you might be a little offended by the following, as I am now say it to you, please don’t, as bioforce said all this to me, but if you read what he wrote, he is really pushing me to do the program, and a real nice person.

but in the end I was so wrong in all I stated below, and now so grateful, with the gains that I have and are still making, the training is brutal to say the least, but if you want it that bad, lets get brutal as possibly possible.


Hope the below helps like it helped me, but remember this training is really for advanced trainees,
There is absolutely "NO DOUBT" that a High Intensity, Single Set will stimulate a "high percentage" result in beginners and up to mid-level trainees. However, once you reach a large % of your "actual" CAPACITY, then the single set "will not" provide the enough stimulus. It cannot.


Franco wrote,
It makes just no sense at all to tire the muscle with pumping sets before you're going heavy. If you desire a 2nd or a 3rd set(I nowadays think it doesn't matter that much if it's the same exercise or another one for the same muscle), start out with the heavy one for low reps when your muscle is fresh to achieve high muscle tension and then later perform the 2nd with high reps to stimulate the "support-systems" to a higher degree.

In the below I asked John casler (bioforce) why not warm up with 100x10 and then go for 400 and work down, the exercise was the pull downs, and I think bioforce, did 300, 30 reps 365, 20 reps then 400 10 rep, something like that, cant find the post.

WAYNE wrote:

John, you work up in weight, why don't you start with a little warm up 100 x 10, then go for say 400 and work down ???


1) That's how girls work out (sorry ladies I'm just being stimulating)
2) It is a waste of energy and time, to do a "low effort" set, when I could
be stimulating a result
3) You don't seem to understand that this style of training ultimately makes
you stronger than you ever thought.

Also can you imagine the warming up with 100# and then jumping to 400#??? Why not just take a nap. Using 100# would make 400# feel like an absolute TON!!! You must be kidding? Right?

300# excites the CNS and metabolically prepares me for the "ASSAULT" on set #2, which prepares me for the final set.

Let me tell you, while I am lucky to be 6' 3" tall, I am not however, nor would I be considered, "genetically gifted".

Who do you know (in the world) who can claim over 30 reps with 300+ pounds in the pulldown or 20 reps with 365#??The reason I train that way is "because I can"!!!! And because I can, I did, and because I am no one special, I say "YOU" can too!!!

I really don't want to hear that "I can't lift that much after a good warm-up" song and dance, since I know it isn't true.

You really don't know if you can or not, because you haven't tried to, like I did. I tried, and I did. I can only make the assumption that other humans can too. Maybe you won't be doing 300#, but if you current max is 200#, just go for it and see.

This is training. It isn't a power lifting meet. If I was in a contest, and trying to do a 10 rep max, I would "not" compete with maximum rep warm-ups, but this is "TRAINING", not Competition.

Additionally what I also think you don't get, is that 300# (or whatever weight that is commensurate for you) moved as I described is "NOT" like 300# moved slowly. The amount of muscle tension during my 300# set "far exceeds" the tensions of a normal speed 400# set, and subsequently make it equally
important, if not more.

Each set is like a "stepping stone" to the next set. I know that if I got 29 reps with 300#, I could get 19 reps with 365#.

If I did 30 reps, then I could do 20 reps with 365#. If I cut it back and didn't make my "stepping stones", I didn't have it for the BIG set.

Do you know what kind of confidence you have after you just "slammed" 365# x 20? Well try to compare that to 100# x 10.

The CNS needs to be "EXCITED", not put to sleep. Isn't this about intensity? Then train with INTENSITY!!!

Don't be a wienie!!


WAYNE wrote:

As I can use more weight my full weight when not warmed up, warming up makes me weaker, so I start of with my heaviest then lower by a certain % when doing my drop sets, which is for about four weeks and have 8 weeks rest from drop sets, in-between I might do super slow, pre-exhaustion or lower reps
say 6.


Wayne wrote now 25/11/05 2.50
Whenever I tried to go up in weight before I only rested for about 1 minute, no wonder it did not work for me, now I tried it with 5 minutes between the sets, wow you gets so strong, adding weight to the second and third set.



John Casler writes:

If you can use more weight when not warmed up, you have not approached your potential. I used to think the same thing when I was a beginner, and couldn't get to the Max set fast enough, which led to bad form, injuries, and lower weights.

Additionally if warming up makes you weaker, then you are SO (out of shape)

TUT is only valuable to know if you know the Tn (tension) and how it relates to the tension stimulus needed to produce a result. The equation is "TIME" under "TENSION". Each of these need quantification in order to be result producing.

Simply calculating TUT and proclaiming it is adequate stimulus is not only "haphazard", but of no meaningful use.

While tension during faster reps does vary slightly due to positive and negative acceleration, the MMMT (momentary maximum muscle tension) is greater, and the "average" tension for each rep, is at least the same. This will depend on the exercise, and the amount of weight used. I am not talking about Olympic Lifting here.

( I HAVE TO CUT IN HERE, AS THE EXACT BELOW IS WHAT I DID THINK, AND THAT SENTENCE IS EXACTLY WHAT BROKE ME OUT OF THE TUT THING)
You mistakenly think that just having a muscle under tension is relevant, when the relevant aspect is the "amount" of tension a muscle is under, when
where, and for how long.

Wayne

[waynelucky]

Hi there all,

I think your very wrong in the below, my friend bioforce has actually trained not thought, or studied or read some study but actually trained with lots of the greats, Arnold, Mentzers, Coe, Yates, to say a few, worked out in the Westside camp, AND CAN PROVE IT, worked out with elite athletes, and has the 6th or 8th best ever discus throw, so I not really interested in what people JUST say, not being rud to you there madcow honest, but to many people who are against training to failure just SAY and claim all the elite athletes just do not train to failure, which is not the truth, maybe not all the time, as there can not be one program for all,


Madcow wrote
The bottom line is that there is evidence that training to failure all the time can certainly work and has worked fairly decently for some people. That said, in elite strength and sport, it is almost non-existent and no one is "training to failure" arbitrarily. I have seen a lot of stupid and sub-optimal stuff work well through hard work which is by and large the determining factor providing there isn't anything really wrong. That said, HIT and training to failure has been around for a long long time and is supposedly the "hardest work" according to them. However, their results in elite strength and athletics are for the most part non-existent, and we've been through this before.

This has all been rehashed in other threads. This is basic science and common knowledge around the world. Training to failure can work but it cannot in any way be supported as optimal from a scientific standpoint and really one is going to have a hard time concluding optimality from an empirical standpoint


Wayne replied,

Sorry but getting more out of a rep WILL and does do far more than doing extra rep, you have no hard evidence to back that up, I have above, and I myself, have traveled very much indeed, working out with a lot of very different top athletes. Got a unofficial world record myself but that is another story.

Honestly fed up with this CSN crap.


Madcow wrote,
The only thing failure has to do with is maximizing muscular work with a given weight in a single set. You can definitely fatigue a muscle far far more by increasing the number of sets than by trying to get a few more reps (i.e. welcome to why workload is a massively significant factor and regulated in program design among elite athletes the world over). That relatively small incrimental extra work inside a single set is simply more expensive from a fatigue/CNS standpoint and really overtraining is all about accumulated CNS fatigue. CNS fatigue is what limits are exposure to effective stimulus far far more than muscular recovery.

Wayne

[waynelucky]

Hi there all,

Read what Zat wrote in S. and P. of S. T. page 100,

The muscle and the CNS adapt only to the load placed upon them. This method should be used to bring forth the greatest strength increments. CNS inhibition, IF IT EXISTS, (ZAT WROTE THAT NOT ME), is reduced with this approach.

Main words are Zat said, if CNS inhibition exists.

Wayne

[teenwantsmass]

what is everyones opinion on going to failure for both strength or mass gain purposes should it be done reguarlly or is it best avoided??

you will get a lot of arguments over this one.

based on what i've read (mainly from Madcow and Dom) there is NO reason to go to failure with a load greater than 80% of your 1 rep max, which is around 5-6 reps for most....if you do go to failure, you increase the probability of injuring yourself, and you will also stress the CNS unnecessarily.

for loads less than 80%, my opinion is that you should at least go near failure most of the time, and to failure at least some of the time because:

1. how can you go "near failure" if you don't know where that is because you've never gone to failure? so you have to train to failure for some period of time to know your limits
2. if you don't go to at least near failure you won't know if you've recruited all fibers
3. here's the debatable part: going to failure *can* help with strength increases....some people disagree with this...but from my own experience, i find that gains in strength seem to come faster when i train to failure...same thing with my training partner...experiment to see if this works for you...some guys thrive on it for quite awhile, other guys just can't recover from it if they use it for more than a little while

good luck!

[Madcow2]

Wayne - apparently in all your travels and your unofficial world record (I don't imagine it was in a contested lift by the way), how have you not encountered CNS issues and limitations? Granted I think BBers are morons and don't understand overtraining at all, but this is what CNS is all about. I mean, periodization deliberately induces overreaching (i.e. just before overtraining) and manipulate CNS fatigue - if this doesn't exist, how come it's so goddamn dependable and infinitely repeatable training cycle to training cycle. Do you have any idea how common this is? I mean, dual factor theory is pretty much univerally agreed upon in the educated world and periodization essentially stems directly from it. Do you think the entire world is making this crap up, organizing training around it, and then pretending to experience results in line with expectations for fun? I wish that were the case. It's a pain in the ass having to plan this stuff out and I'm sure a lot of guys would rather not have to deal with it.

Really, I understand you've traveled a bit. I understand you train with HIT and really love it. I understand you are very proud of your success and the success that others have had using various flavors of HIT. However, what is becoming blatantly apparent is that you don't understand very much about basic science and the way training is conducted and organized all over the world in elite athletics. This is standard stuff and it has been covered for you multiple times by many people here.

There is no 'maybe' about the limitations the CNS imposes on training, it is infinitely repeatable and easily provable. Hell run Smolov's 4x per week loading cycle protocol and see how long you last - it should be easy for you since HIT is so hard, CNS inhibition is a fallacy, and any type of higher volume is so easy. Most elite athletes are crushed by 3-4 weeks, I guarantee you will learn all about CNS fatigue. If not Smolov I'll be glad to throw you one of mine as Smolov only includes the squat overlay. I actually ran a similar experiment myself once to get better familiarity with CNS fatigue and symptoms along the path to overtraining - lasted 8-9 weeks even running it moderately before nearly dropping dead. Very educational even for someone who knew this in advance. Reading your posts, I'd imagine it will be an enlightening ah-ha moment where you come back here saying "holy ****, you guys were right. I feel like garbage - is this what accrued systemic fatigue is like. I didn't even know I had a CNS, no less that it's condition could make me feel good and perform well or like total garbage and perform horribly if it's overworked" And we will respond "Duh. This is why it imposes limitations on training and is tracked so meticulously."

[Madcow2]

Just thinking again Wayne, really at your age with your professed knowledge of training you absolutely need to know about the CNS and get some experience. Since you've never encountered any issues and basically have the experience of being superman, to really be credible in citing your own personal experience of never having encountered it, you owe it to yourself to at least run an experiment and try. We can come up with something easily that doesn't even include training to failure. You talk about all your experience and knowledge gained but to never once encounter this is pretty unbelievable so really I'd think you'd want to learn something and try it. Set aside some time, let us know your current lifts, and the times you can train. I guarantee you will be drastically broadened by the experience because I will show you what CNS fatigue is all about. Actually I can do this a lot faster if you have enough training time. It is very easy to bury a lifter, and coming from HIT - your tolerance to workload is going to be pretty paltry.

[dookie1481]

Well then, I'm certainly subscribing to this link.

[Dominik]

Hi there all,

Read what Zat wrote in S. and P. of S. T. page 100,

The muscle and the CNS adapt only to the load placed upon them. This method should be used to bring forth the greatest strength increments. CNS inhibition, IF IT EXISTS, (ZAT WROTE THAT NOT ME), is reduced with this approach.

Main words are Zat said, if CNS inhibition exists.

Wayne, Zatsiorsky's first language is Russian, so bear in mind there are instances where certain sentences could have been phrased a little more clearly.

When he says "if it exists," he is talking about the threshold for CNS excitation. Simply put, a powerlifter who regularly trains with 1-2RM (maximal) loads have a lower level of CNS "inhibition" than a bodybuilder who has spent all his time training with moderate submaximal loads and suddenly decides to start using maximal loads. The degree of CNS "inhibition" will be much higher. In other words, a bodybuilder who spends all his time training around 70-80% will have a highly inhibited 1RM. It will be a lot lower than what would be possible with regular maximal effort training. Fatigue, GTO threshold, fear of injury, fear of missing a lift, etc., all reduce the "excitation" level.

[Dominik]

Dominik are you saying,
Going to failure induces greater fatigue. With heavier loads this is even more pronounced and not only interferes with rest times between sets but can have a cumulative effect that affects workout scheduling,
Therefore, are you saying it makes just no sense at all to tire the muscle with pumping sets before you're going heavy. If you desire a 2nd or a 3rd set start out with the heavy one for low reps when your muscle is fresh to achieve high muscle tension and then later perform the 2nd with high reps to stimulate the "support-systems" to a higher degree.

For bodybuilding, you can do whatever you like. There's a whole bunch of so-called "intensity techniques" many people believe stimulate hypertrophy. My take on it is experiment, and stick with what works and discard what doesn't. Personally, the only reasons I do lighter sets before heavy sets is to avoid injury (and I haven't been injured yet) and because I find everything is neurally "firing" better when it comes time to hit my heaviest targets. I also don't take the lighter sets to failure.

For strength however, which is the primary reason for using heavier weights, there is absolutely no benefit IMO to going to failure. If it has a place, it's probably in the 60-70% range in a low volume routine, and on the final set of an exercise rather than on all sets.

Consider the typical BB pyramid set approach, starting at high reps and pyramiding down to low reps. The lighter sets taken to failure will most likely compromise your ability to build strength with the final heavy set(s). You might be aiming for 85-90% of 1RM but wind up using less weight because of neural and metabolic fatigue. To me it's a pointless exercise. The HIT equivalent is probably pre-exhaust. Same deal. For the heaviest set/exercise, you want to be as "fresh" as possible.

[Defiant1]

The answer to this is really pretty simple.

In the days before we understood how fiber recruitment worked, training to failure was a logical argument based on the premise that the longer you trained with-in a given "set", the more fibers you were working, and the more you were fatiguing a muscle.

But that premise was FALSE.

Past a threshold load, which varies from muscle to muscle, all fibers that are going to be recruited will be recruited at the start of the movement, both FT and ST, or more correctly, all motor units including the largest. As fibers fatigue, further contraction is enabled by rate coding, or increased nervous impulse.

Now, below this threshold load, small motor units will start the movement, then the larger m/us will kick in. After they are all recruited, the same thing happens as in the above example; further contraction is enabled by rate coding.

The problem with "failure" is that it is a major event from a nervous/endocrine perspective. It causes the nervous system to inhibit further contraction, initially acutely but eventually chronically. It also causes less efficient future contraction via the Hebbian mechanism.

Since 100% of fibers can NEVER be endogenously recruited, the message is clear:

Hard training (to stress the muscle)
but not to failure (to avoid cns/endocrine stress)
Using several sets (again, to stress the muscle as 100% fiber recruitment is not possible)
Limiting workload per day so that the muscle can be trained again when it is ready, not when the "system" has recovered from the workout.


The above is not an endorsement of 30 sets per bodypart, though if one can do it and recover to train the muscles frequently than do it (70s style). It also does not prohibit "abbreviated workouts" McRoberts style IF THAT IS REALLY ALL ONE CAN HANDLE. The problem is there are many doing "abbreviated workouts" to help recovery, yet training to failure and beyond which HURTS RECOVERY MORE THAN VOLUME DOES netting a zero sum gain.

Bottom line, do as much as one can while not training to failure for maximum results for the individual.


It's time to get past this "training to failure" nonsense, which was ALWAYS a theory, and start talking about optimizing our training past the basics.

[teenwantsmass]

The problem with "failure" is that it is a major event from a nervous/endocrine perspective. It causes the nervous system to inhibit further contraction, initially acutely but eventually chronically. It also causes less efficient future contraction via the Hebbian mechanism.

the problem with defiant1 logic again is that it doesn't explain how it is that some people can train to failure 2x week and don't suffer from CNS burnout...like i said, it's obvious that for some training to failure is too much stress, but for others it obviously isn't.

Since 100% of fibers can NEVER be endogenously recruited, the message is clear:

Hard training (to stress the muscle)
but not to failure (to avoid cns/endocrine stress)
Using several sets (again, to stress the muscle as 100% fiber recruitment is not possible)

? defiant1, WTF are you talking about??? 100% of fibers are recruited from the first rep if the load is heavy enough...you said so yourself!

and obviously fiber recruitment in and of itself isn't the be and end all for muscular growth, or else we could all do 1 reps of a 5RM for one set, then go home

Limiting workload per day so that the muscle can be trained again when it is ready, not when the "system" has recovered from the workout.

The above is not an endorsement of 30 sets per bodypart, though if one can do it and recover to train the muscles frequently than do it (70s style). It also does not prohibit "abbreviated workouts" McRoberts style IF THAT IS REALLY ALL ONE CAN HANDLE. The problem is there are many doing "abbreviated workouts" to help recovery, yet training to failure and beyond which HURTS RECOVERY MORE THAN VOLUME DOES netting a zero sum gain.

? "zero sum gain"..implies that this approach doesn't work, but we have people on this board who are successful that way like drush and ahnold

and it's obvious that the vast majority of genetically "normal" people do very poorly on those 70s style high volume routines...they are passe...the effective approach is to incorporate periods of higher volume and lower intensity using periodization as madcow and dom have said

Bottom line, do as much as one can while not training to failure for maximum results for the individual.


It's time to get past this "training to failure" nonsense, which was ALWAYS a theory, and start talking about optimizing our training past the basics.

okay, so let's start talking about "optimizing our training" then....nah, i know you won't reply because you don't "owe" me anything...fine, i don't care, do what you like and scream at me for being "stupid"

[Defiant1]

Past a threshold load, which varies from muscle to muscle, all fibers that are going to be recruited will be recruited at the start of the movement, both FT and ST, or more correctly, all motor units including the largest. As fibers fatigue, further contraction is enabled by rate coding, or increased nervous impulse.

100% of the fibers that are going to be recruited during the movement. As I said, 100% recruitment of the TOTAL muscles fibers is impossible endogenously.

And you are correct, the best way to train is to cycle periods of lower volume with higher volume via periodization.

The whole idea of periodization is to avoid systemic stress while maximizing muscular stress in the case of bodybuilding.

HIT in concept does the opposite. It maximizes systemic stress, while minimizing relative muscular stress due to it's protocol.

[waynelucky]

Hi there all,

Comp when down, had to buy a new one, just setting it all up.

Fiber recruitment "IS NOT" relevant to growth or strength except that to grow and get strong a fiber "must" be recruited.

However, recruitment alone is not the key to maximal stimulus. The "level of stimulus" in both Maximum (or adequate) Tension and Duration are the significant factors.

My (bioforce) program provides "Maximum Recruitment", Maximum Momentary Muscle Tension, Maximum Duration of Tension, Maximum CNS Involvement, and Maximum Fatigue/Retirement.

Very few other programs are designed to address all these "KEY" stimulants to Hypertrophy and Strength.

Regards,

John Casler
TRI-VECTOR 3-D Force Systems
Century City, CA

Failure "IS NOT" the answer to maximum gains. It is also not harmful to the CNS.

I'll try and find time to write a bit.

Regards,

John Casler
TRI-VECTOR 3-D Force Systems
Century City, CA


There will be more to follow.

Wayne

[LostProphet]

o/t clear out ur pm's DF1

[clive]

I try my best and go to failure, but keeping strict form, as soon as I feel I’m losing the form I know it’s time to stop.
I feel I’m not giving my all if I don’t push myself to the limit.

[waynelucky]

Hi there all,

Clive or anyone have you tried bioforces program, Direct Compensation Training, its mostly for advanced trainers, but anyone can use it.

WOW.

Wayne

[humpty_dumpty]

If I don't end a set trying my hardest to move a weight and fail in the 4-10 rep range its a warmup.

[waynelucky]

Hi there,

madcow and defiant you there,

Wayne

[Madcow2]

Hi there,

madcow and defiant you there,

Wayne

I'm here Wayne but to be honest - you don't believe in CNS or systemic fatigue and have never encountered it in your training or travels or with people whom you've met. That means, you don't believe in dual factor or fitness fatigue theory and likely think the entire world's (minus you and everyone you've met) use of periodization managing the fatigue factor is a waste despite a lot of evidence on all fronts. On one hand you mistakenly say Zatsiorsky doesn't believe so it isn't true (meaning to you he is credible on the subject of training), and on the other Zatsiorsky is all about dual factor theory (so his credibility should stand here also depsite his views being homogenous). That kind of puts us at a critical impass.

If you don't want to take Zat's word for it, if you have no experience with CNS fatigue, and if you don't want to validate it yourself, talk to other people (maybe not in the HIT world) or change your views in any way - I can't really see us making headway. This is kind of a first base critical understanding of training theory. I respect your right to not believe in it despite fairly overwhelming evidence but we don't share a common understanding of the human body and the training effect at a very basic essential level. Not to be a dick but, I can't really see where we can go or what purpose continuing this conversation would have. We've isolated the issue in our different views and it seems unresolvable.

[LostProphet]

Stickied since a lot of people ask this question and its an interesting subject.

I personally used to train to failure every workset and had done for years, but I have recently seen the light thanks to DF1 + others and realised this is not optimal for my goals.

[waynelucky]

Hi there all,

Just a quick one going somewhere.

Madcow, overtraining and the breakdown of the CNS is possible I am not saying it is not, all I am saying is that failure, as long as you don’t overdo it, will not bother the CNS but only exited it.

Hi there to the ones whom have got better gains on not training to failure, maybe you were overdoing the failure, or simply your body started to grow as you were not training to failure, thus the body sort of had a rest.

Or you are the type of person who’s body means that going to failure is to hard for it, I do not mean that in a put you down type of way, but its just how your body works, people like this would thrive on say one week to full failure and two weeks not to failure.

Damn got to go.

Wayne