Neural Factors of Fatigue and How to Manage Them

[FortifiedIron]

http://www.avantlabs.com/page.php?pageID=238&issueID=19

Shabang! That should be a nice blow to some of you HIT guru's.. I've been waiting for him to put this article out for about 8 months now!

Kc

[Heisman]

GREAT read. It definitely sheds light on training to failure. I was kind of hoping for his program though.

I've waited this long, I can wait a little longer.

[hyp3r3xt3nsion]

good read

[Rexer]

Actually, FI, it clearly says that HIT is not that bad...

[Jcfreak_02]

I am so glad I am not a HIT guru at the momment.

[Wheelies]

Awesome article. Makes alot of sense and actually covers some things Ive been wondering about my own training. I especially liked this part:

Neural drive and fatigue is also directly linked to the individual’s state of arousal. It’s thought that this is because many of the structures that are responsible for motor output are the same structures that are responsible for emotion and arousal in humans, such as the basal ganglia and the reticular activating system (28). Having to get “psyched up” for a lift week after week can contribute to the neurological fatigue due to that fact. Many former Eastern bloc countries implanted this knowledge when designing their routines, having athletes avoid emotionally-taxing lifts as much as possible. They make a distinction between the “training max” and the “competition max,” with the former requiring little if any mental preparation. The arousal factor will prove to be the most telling in terms of how severely taxed the CNS is at any time, as focus and motivation can be easily determined by most people (not to mention manipulated by various supplements and well, “other” substances).

Basically what I got from the article as a whole is that,

1)training to failure can have benefits, but they arent as big of a deal as some would make it seem.

2)You can train to failure, just not all the time, and you should cycle intensity levels so that you dont inflict neurological fatigue on yourself.

[Beansent]

i stay away from training to failure entirely. i dont wanna risk damaging my CNS even if the risk is minute. training to failure is not that big of a deal to me.

[Heisman]

Originally posted by Beansent
i stay away from training to failure entirely. i dont wanna risk damaging my CNS even if the risk is minute. training to failure is not that big of a deal to me.

You should be more concerned about injury from failure then you should be from your CNS getting burned out, but I agree that I don't plan to go to failure anytime soon.

[FortifiedIron]

Originally posted by Wheelies
[B]Awesome article. Makes alot of sense and actually covers some things Ive been wondering about my own training. I especially liked this part:




Basically what I got from the article as a whole is that,

1)training to failure can have benefits, but they arent as big of a deal as some would make it seem.

2)You can train to failure, just not all the time, and you should cycle intensity levels so that you dont inflict neurological fatigue on yourself.

Bingo

Kc

[Rexer]

Wheelies finally realized that training to failure is not the superior method, lol. J/k bro

[Wheelies]

Originally posted by Rexer
Wheelies finally realized that training to failure is not the superior method, lol. J/k bro

Where did that come from?

[Rexer]

From a year ago when I adbised some guy not to go to failure and you jumped on me saying that there is no evidence that not going to failure is superior to going to failure. Now you see why.

[Wheelies]

Originally posted by Rexer
From a year ago when I adbised some guy not to go to failure and you jumped on me saying that there is no evidence that not going to failure is superior to going to failure. Now you see why.

But still, I dont see any physiological reason not to, even in the article it says that a guy that struggles to get his last rep vs. a guy that just racks it with ease is going to see better reslutls in the long run, just not a big difference.

I was more intrigued from the mental standpoint of the article which I agree with. And I thinkI remeber that thread, and my point was that the one guy had been deadlifting the same amount of time as me and he wasnt going to failure, while I was and my weight was a considerable amount more than him...and I think he weighed more than me.

But yes, I am trying to be less dogmatic with my training as of late.

[Rexer]

Well, it depends whether you will nto go to failure at all, use it to your advantage or go to failure all the time.
Hm, I think I remember something with a deadlift. It is very relative to what extent one would progress, the question is how one would progress better. Nop need to argue anymore though

[Wheelies]

Originally posted by Rexer
Well, it depends whether you will nto go to failure at all, use it to your advantage or go to failure all the time.
Hm, I think I remember something with a deadlift. It is very relative to what extent one would progress, the question is how one would progress better. Nop need to argue anymore though

K..

[PowerManDL]

The basic point about failure vs. non-failure that I was trying to make was to establish that, yes, there is a slightly greater training effect by pushing it to the limit, but that greater effect is off-set by the greater need for recovery.

Bear in mind that this isn't an on/off switch though. It's incremental-- doing 1-2 sets to the limit during the week is a big difference from doing 10.

The gist of the article is that you have to balance it, because there are benefits and drawbacks to both approaches.

[Heisman]

Originally posted by PowerManDL
The basic point about failure vs. non-failure that I was trying to make was to establish that, yes, there is a slightly greater training effect by pushing it to the limit, but that greater effect is off-set by the greater need for recovery.

Bear in mind that this isn't an on/off switch though. It's incremental-- doing 1-2 sets to the limit during the week is a big difference from doing 10.

The gist of the article is that you have to balance it, because there are benefits and drawbacks to both approaches.

Cool bro. You need to post here more.