Failure?

[kylem]

is going to failure every set going to make u grow more? wouldnt this shock the muscle more

[Goby 1]

kylem,

Milford, CT? I used to live in West Haven.

I wouldnt go to failure on every set. Its too much and will lead to overtraining and joint issues. I learned the hard way. I believe going to failure on the last heaviest set of an exercise. For example, if ur hitting bi's and doing Barbell curls, inclines, and preacher curls, u would just hit failure on the last set of each exercise. So, it would be 3 failure set total for bi's. This is just my opinion though.

later

[kylem]

no kidding man lol where about are you now? and so if i pick a weight and can do 10 reps to failure and i only want 8 ur sayin stop at 8 before failure? and does this help with gaining?

[kylem]

Bump

[Rs4race]

I could probable pick up a 45 and rep it 10 times on the first set but on the second set I would probable only get 7 reps.

The situation you want is something like. You rep the weight 10 times ok, second set 10 reps is hard, and third set you could only get 8. thats the kind of failure you want.

[kylem]

i usually increase the weight every set

[Rs4race]

yeah you could do that too.

[m_risinger]

do warmup sets first, then one set to failure

[Rhino63]

do warmup sets first, then one set to failure

I agree, your last set should always be to failure. First set should be much lighter then you can do, sets in between should be pushed close to failure but not neccesarily until you drop the weight on you. I pick a weight I think I can do about 8-10 and increase the weight every set so that my last set i am reaching failure with the lower end of my rep range.

I have read many articles that say that training to failure every set shows NO significant benefit from stopping a rep or two before failure.

[Nitric Oxide]

I agree, your last set should always be to failure. First set should be much lighter then you can do, sets in between should be pushed close to failure but not neccesarily until you drop the weight on you. I pick a weight I think I can do about 8-10 and increase the weight every set so that my last set i am reaching failure with the lower end of my rep range.

I have read many articles that say that training to failure every set shows NO significant benefit from stopping a rep or two before failure.

I always go to failure every set for a few reasons

1. obviously I think it helps (good reason huh lol)
2. I like the feeling of pushing myself
3. I think it helps vascularity ALOT

One thing that came to mind when I first read this thread is the time in pumping iron when arnold says you only build the muscles the last few reps of your set. I'm not saying I'm right I'm just telling u what I think for others and me to learn more.

[all pro]

http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=3245561

[Rhino63]

I always go to failure every set for a few reasons

1. obviously I think it helps (good reason huh lol)
2. I like the feeling of pushing myself
3. I think it helps vascularity ALOT

One thing that came to mind when I first read this thread is the time in pumping iron when arnold says you only build the muscles the last few reps of your set. I'm not saying I'm right I'm just telling u what I think for others and me to learn more.

Personally, I usually come pretty close to failure unless I under estimated the weight i can lift and start gettin too high reps... I read that it doesnt help, however, i like reaching failure... and mentally i don't feel like I worked out hard enough if I don't get to failure...and you're right arnold knows best haha

It's really just opinion at this point, all i know is the harder you work the better the results will be!

[Nitric Oxide]

Personally, I usually come pretty close to failure unless I under estimated the weight i can lift and start gettin too high reps... I read that it doesnt help, however, i like reaching failure... and mentally i don't feel like I worked out hard enough if I don't get to failure...and you're right arnold knows best haha

It's really just opinion at this point, all i know is the harder you work the better the results will be!

ya working harder = more results

one of the posts above stats you should NOT go to failure and increase weight slowly and do the last set to failure.

compare this with

starting out with a weight that you go to failure for the first 3 sets
then bump down a little weight and go to failure on the last set

how much difference do you guys think there will be in progress?

Me personally I don't think it will vary that much...as long as you lift hard. I see it as this...as long as your muscles are the same amount sore or worked evenly does it matter how you got there? (unless you do the same routine and its time to change it up)

[Rhino63]

ya working harder = more results

one of the posts above stats you should NOT go to failure and increase weight slowly and do the last set to failure.

compare this with

starting out with a weight that you go to failure for the first 3 sets
then bump down a little weight and go to failure on the last set

how much difference do you guys think there will be in progress?

Me personally I don't think it will vary that much...as long as you lift hard. I see it as this...as long as your muscles are the same amount sore or worked evenly does it matter how you got there? (unless you do the same routine and its time to change it up)

If you chose one or the other I agree I don't think it will vary much... but do both and and switch it up every few weeks... thats hhere you'll see a difference....complacency is the anti muscle

[all pro]

Recent Question to Charles Poliquin on the MBN member's board.....

"Working to failure". Do you recommend it for long-term use? The reason I ask is that I like (love!) going to failure on each and every set, except warm ups of course. I find it an easy indicator of strength gains/losses from workout to workout, recording everything including time between sets. Is there 'room' for it in your 'Intensification/Accumulation' phases? Also, I've been lifting for about 3 months now, making consistent strength gains on this 'failure' system, up until 3 weeks ago.
Now, each workout, I am weaker than the one before. I've changed little in my diet during this period except my protein powder, now being 'Optimum Nutrition 100% Whey' which has significantly fewer carbs but more protein than its predecessor; have also upped my EFA's (essential fatty acids).


So, if anything at all, that I can really see here, is a lower intake of carbs.

Could this be my problem, or have I been overtraining i.e. to failure for too long, or both? It's slowly driving me crazy trying to figure it out..please help!!!
?
And here's Charles Poliquin's answer...

Let's define absolute muscle failure. The first step in defining this term is to review the fact that there are three types of muscle contraction: concentric, isometric and eccentric.

When a muscle shortens, it is called a concentric contraction, like when you raise the barbell in curls by shortening the elbow flexors.

When you lower the same barbell, your muscle lengthens - perform an eccentric contraction.

Finally, a muscle can also contract without changing the joint angle or also known as an - isometric or static contraction, like in the case of a gymnast holding an iron cross.

Isometric contractions are normally 10-15% stronger than concentric contraction, while eccentric contractions are as much as 75% stronger than concentric contraction, with the average between 25 to 40% greater than the concentric contraction.

In other words, if you can curl 100 lbs, you can hold 110-115 lbs at pretty much any angle in the range of motion, and can lower safely 125 to 140 lbs.

There are three types of muscular failure, one associated with each type of contraction One is known to fail concentrically when one cannot raise the weight, to fail statically when one is not able hold the weight at any given point in the range of motion, and to fail eccentrically when to not able to lower the weight under control at a given tempo.

When one reaches failure on all three types of muscular contraction, he is known to have reached ?absolute muscle failure?.

Rarely you will find athletes who train to this level of failure - simply because it's masochism has fallen out of grace.

Since there are three types of contraction, there are three degrees of failure.

You can train to just concentric and/or static and/or eccentric failure. Typically, the higher the degree of failure (closer you approach total eccentric failure), the less you can control the weight, and hence common sense will tell you that exercise performance is not being safe anymore.

Your muscles simply cannot generate enough strength to control the weight, thus you are predisposing yourself to injury.

To answer your question, is it absolutely necessary to achieve muscle growth? Certainly not, just look at the hypertrophy of powerlifters and Olympic lifters, they rarely if ever train to failure and yet achieve significant hypertrophy in the trained muscles.

The only people that I have seen make significant gains on ?absolute failure? had the following in common:

1. They were amphetamines user like Ritalin who disguised their animalistic training drive by claiming it is was instead influenced by the readings of German philosophers and/or listening to Wagnerian music prior to training, Please don't piss on my leg and tell me its raining.

2. They were severe exogeneous androgen users i.e. 2,000 mg to 3000 mg of various testoterones a week, and 100-300 mg of orals a day (i.e. Dianabol and Anadrol)

3. The obsession with making progress in training loads leads to improper technique. They all ended up tearing one or more of the following: biceps, pec, lat and quadriceps. One Mr. Olympia finalist, tore a biceps training in this fashion while loosely curling an 85 lbs on a Scott bench, while a more reasonable weight in good form would have been 65 lbs.

4. They all suffered from adrenal exhaustion and paranoia, probably because of the abuse of 1.

Training to absolute muscle failure is a concept that has been around for about the last 25 years or so. Mike Mentzer and Nautilus machine inventor Arthur Jones were the initial proponents of this training methodology.

It gained rapid popularity because it went strongly against the grain of the training methodology popular in the bodybuilding meccas of Northern Europe and Southern California.

In the early seventies, we were told to do 20 sets a bodypart, two workouts a week per bodypart, and only take Sundays off .

So obviously doing only 1-2 sets per bodypart 2-3 per week in full body workouts was considered either heresy or something valid to look at.

Since then, many training systems have been used. In my opinion, training to absolute failure should be used vary sparingly, maybe once every 8 weeks should suffice, and only after a very progressive warm-ups.

Systematic variations in both intensity and volume, not training to absolute failure are the keys to muscle growth.

In certain training methods like German Volume Training, one does not need to reach concentric failure on every set. Unless specifically mentioned you can assume that every set prescribed is a work set. Therefore you should reach concentric muscle failure.

However I also believe that many trainees fail to achieve their training goals by exhausting their neuro-endocrine.

You know the type of trainee that does a 6 seconds isometric contraction after failing to complete the concentric range.

A principle is always for long-term use. Hence the name principle.

Yes, you are overtraining.

[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.

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.

[all pro]

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.

[LegendKiller22]

This is good stuff, thanks alot for posting this....!!! It shows that there is always soo much more to learn....