Think about this one

[Conan21]

JBK and MR. P

its not really that simple.

those last 1 or 2 reps really aren't working the muscle that much extra. full fiber recruitment was occuring well before that last rep.

a person can adapt just fine without going to failure. nothing about that last rep does anything magical to your body to make it adapt/grow. alot of people have build very big muscles and alot of strenght w/o going to failure.

the minimal amount of extra taxation that might occur from that failure rep or forced rep does more harm than good when u factor in CNS fatigue. so if you use some volume and always train a lil shy of failure you can be sure to really work the fibers but mimize CNS strain and enhance recovery and the rate at which you can train that muscle again. also training to big time failure does'nt allow the fibers to fire as strongly on subsequent sets.

not trying to argue with anyone, i just have fun talking about this stuff.

 

[nandro]

okay, i've read all of the replies and here is mine. phil asked what will be the difference in physiques and bodyfat. everyone is throwing way too much science and theory around where it really isn't that significant to me. The answer in my opinion would be "no noticable visual diffierence". I doubt one would appear to be bigger or more defined than the other. there probably would be a strength difference, but this is not the question phil asked.

 

[Mr Pickles]

also training to big time failure does'nt allow the fibers to fire as strongly on subsequent sets.

not trying to argue with anyone, i just have fun talking about this stuff.

what if i dont do subsequent sets?

i do one set of incline press to failure, then one set of flat DP press to failure, then set of flyes to failure... chest is done.

three sets... chest is done... i dont think i overtrain or dip into CNS too too bad... i train each body part about 3 times in a two week period

The answer in my opinion would be "no noticable visual diffierence". I doubt one would appear to be bigger or more defined than the other. there probably would be a strength difference, but this is not the question phil asked.

that's a valid point. lol.. immediately, yeah, no difference... long term under ideal conditions... i dunno about body fat (disregarding BMRs and all that) changing but muscle wise... i would ASSUME that the failure guy would be bigger... and as Phil said, they're not overtraining

 

[asim]

Its interesting. If both are making strength gains yet one is goin to failure and the other is not then are they both progressing in the same gains in muscle mass? It could be right. Do you really have to go to failure to make gains? If you add 10lbs to the bar everytime but just keep going for 5 reps and dont fail then arent you going to build muscle?

 

[PHIL HERNON]

I see

okay, i've read all of the replies and here is mine. phil asked what will be the difference in physiques and bodyfat. everyone is throwing way too much science and theory around where it really isn't that significant to me. The answer in my opinion would be "no noticable visual diffierence". I doubt one would appear to be bigger or more defined than the other. there probably would be a strength difference, but this is not the question phil asked.

I see you and CONAN21 thinking along the same lines. I tell you something, CONAN21 is giving us a leson here, we all need to pay attention. In response to Pickles post about the body doing something it already knows what to do, when you do 12-15 reps to failure, you are doing reps that the body already knows how to do. Here is a thought to ponder. Does the muscle shutting down contractile ability because of the overload of lactic acid from ATP production, thus making those last reps unbearable (failure), stress out the CNS more than the first reps? Will I have better adaptability resources from extra muscle mass or just better conversion of ATP from going to failure?

 

[jawbreakerkid]

The reason I said I was torn before after reading Conan's post is because I have gained LBM both ways with very good success. The greatest gains I ever attained were from stopping before failure, so here I am arguing against my own successes. Good stuff Conan.

 

[Fastandfurious]

The one training to failure will get stronger and heavier.Possibly will also hit a plateau sooner but no matter what he will be stronger when he hits it and stronger when he gets out of it.
Possibly the plateau will be overcome by decreasing frequency of workout or total sets.

The one stopping short of failure will be leaner and not as strong.The plateau he will hit will be overcome by slight increase in total sets per workout.

 

[PHIL HERNON]

Tell me this

If I can do a weight 20 times this week, keep practicing that lift and am able to do 30 reps 3 months from now, are my muscles bigger then?

 

[hardkor]

I don't think so....

If I can do a weight 20 times this week, keep practicing that lift and am able to do 30 reps 3 months from now, are my muscles bigger then?

Not at that rep amount. I think at 20+ reps, your improvements will be more muscular endurance than actual strength.

So to answer your original question about one twin going heavy and stopping at rep 4 or 5 when he can get 6, as aposed to the other going to failure at 12-15. I think the lower rep guy will be bigger because at that rep range, he's getting stronger but still causing hypertrophy. He doesn't need to go to failure as he can still get stronger with heavy weight in that rep range.

I think a stronger muscle is bigger muscle within 4-12 reps. Anything lower will lead to more strength and very little or no hypertrophy. Anything higher than 12 will lead to more muscle endurance and less hypertrophy if any. However, i think with legs, higher reps can lead to more hypertrophy.

 

[PHIL HERNON]

So

Not at that rep amount. I think at 20+ reps, your improvements will be more muscular endurance than actual strength.

So to answer your original question about one twin going heavy and stopping at rep 4 or 5 when he can get 6, as aposed to the other going to failure at 12-15. I think the lower rep guy will be bigger because at that rep range, he's getting stronger but still causing hypertrophy. He doesn't need to go to failure as he can still get stronger with heavy weight in that rep range.

I think a stronger muscle is bigger muscle within 4-12 reps. Anything lower will lead to more strength and very little or no hypertrophy. Anything higher than 12 will lead to more muscle endurance and less hypertrophy if any. However, i think with legs, higher reps can lead to more hypertrophy.

So 3 reps going to failure will build no muscle whatsoever, just strength? 13 reps to failure will build very little muscle, just muscle endurance? If that is what you said, as I read it, describe muscle endurance.

 

[flexmaster]

i love this place!

...just enjoying watching this all go down. this place is great!

 

[jawbreakerkid]

I just want to be held

 

[Mr Pickles]

I just want to be held

i'll rent "the notebook"

we can spoon

 

[Leviathan]

So 3 reps going to failure will build no muscle whatsoever, just strength? 13 reps to failure will build very little muscle, just muscle endurance? If that is what you said, as I read it, describe muscle endurance.

One things for sure: if a person goes from leg pressing 200 lbs for 15 reps to 800 lbs for the same number of reps over the course of a few years of steady work, they aren't just building endurance. They will have some damn nice quads.

BBing history has plenty of examples of athletes that have used higher reps and gotten plenty of thick muscle: Sergio Olivia, Johnny Fuller, John Brown, Tom Platz (50 rep squat workouts!), Danny Padilla (sets of 12), Nimrod King, Momo Benaziza, Jean-Paul Guilliem (sp?), Thiery Pastel, Vince Taylor, and just recently, Idrise Ward-el, Will "World" Harris, Bob "Chic", and King Kamali are all known for regular use of higher rep protocols.

 

[Leviathan]

also, on this failure being necessary bit...

Bbing is the only sport you see this as being a "requirement". Sprinters don't sprint to failure to become faster, same with swimmers, long jumpers, shot putters, etc. What makes the differences is the gradual increase of loads used over a period of time.

Personally, I never really got the growth I was looking for until I started pulling back on all the failure stuff and left a couple reps in the tank, regardless of rep range that I have been using. To each their own I guess.

 

[Hiramabiff]

One things for sure: if a person goes from leg pressing 200 lbs for 15 reps to 800 lbs for the same number of reps over the course of a few years of steady work, they aren't just building endurance. They will have some damn nice quads.

BBing history has plenty of examples of athletes that have used higher reps and gotten plenty of thick muscle: Sergio Olivia, Johnny Fuller, John Brown, Tom Platz (50 rep squat workouts!), Danny Padilla (sets of 12), Nimrod King, Momo Benaziza, Jean-Paul Guilliem (sp?), Thiery Pastel, Vince Taylor, and just recently, Idrise Ward-el, Will "World" Harris, Bob "Chic", and King Kamali are all known for regular use of higher rep protocols.

I Agree, but those guys are/were genetics wonders, hell they would grow off of any routine. The original question was this: "Take a set of identical twins. Identical eating habits. One always trains to failure, the other stops 1 rep short of failure. What would you expect the difference in physiques to be regarding muscle mass? In bodyfat level?"

1. There is not adequate data to say exactly what it is about lifting a weight X number of times that causes it to grow.


Check this out: If you look at tradesmen who perform heavy manual labor,
you often see large scale muscular hypertrophy caused by much lower than
maximal work. However, their work requires large amounts of submaximal
work (time under tension) which also seems to stimulate growth. I.E. Short of failure. Now many persons whom perform this type of labor will be: 1. Thick and strong. 2. Carrying higher bodyfat more than likely, based on diferent factors. So growth will occur without muscular failure occurring. Now the truth:

THE PRIME STIMULUSfor any type of adaptation which is progressive overload. Obviously, regardless of how much total time under
tension (or total time vs. muscle torque or however you want to
describe it), if you don't progressively overload the system (by
adding weight to the bar, or performing more reps, or moving more
slowly, or doing more sets or whatever) you will not get further
adaptation. TWIN ANALOGIES:

1. Short periods of sun exposure will give you a tan. However,
stay out in the sun too long, or go out in an area where the sun's
rays are very intense (like near the equator), even for a short
period of time, and you get a burn.

2. Sprinters often show large amounts of muscular hypertrophy.
However, they never sprint to "failure", where they can't sprint
any more. Many powerlifters and Olympic lifters also do not
train to failure, and they show large amounts of muscle mass.
What about Olympic gymnasts? They have huge upper bodies, and
yet they don't do anything to failure.

So will the "higher repping twin experience muscular hypertrophy? YES
Will it be on the same scale? No..... Endurance..YES .Maybe leaner too.

Who cares about endurance? ( Mr higher rep twin). When you're interested in muscular hypertrophy, endurance is not what you're looking for. Anyway,
higher-rep sets may cause a slight increase in the size of Type I fibers, but this difference would be barely noticeable. Also,endurance training can cause Type II to Type I fiber conversion,which is not something you want if you're looking to get bigger and stronger . So, even if you get a slight increase in Type I fiber size, you may get a decrease in overall muscle size since you can get the Type II to Type I conversion, (Type II fibers are much larger than Type I fibers).

I'll continue later.

 

[hardkor]

Hey Phil...

why don't you tell us what your conclusion to this is! Inquiring minds would like to know!

 

[Hiramabiff]

There are many reasons why you may not want to go to failure:

1.Going to failure will dramatically reduce training volume,and science has demonstrated a direct correlation between training volume and muscular hypertrophy.
If one is doing multiple sets to failure, the weight will have
to be significantly reduced on each set due to fatigue, reducing
the amount of overload that can be placed upon a muscle for each
successive set.

2. Fatigue is not the main component of the stimulation of
muscular hypertrophy. The main mechanism behind tissue remodeling
is the damage caused by the eccentric portion of a muscular
contraction. Again, sets to failure will dramatically increase
fatigue and cause weight reductions on sets, reducing the overload
and eccentric-induced damage that can be inflicted upon muscle
fibers.

3. Heavy sets to failure can cause a dramatic drain upon the
CNS. This dramatically increases recovery time and may reduce
training efficiency.

4. I have yet to see hard evidence that training to failure is more beneficial than not traning to failure. Failure is NOT what causes hypertrophy.

So the answer is: YOU should not go to failure all the time, but by mixing it up, i.e periodize your programs you will ensure continous HYPERTROPHY!!

 

[SFINX]

Talking about failure...what is the definition of failure?...forced reps,negatives or just muscular failure?

 

[vitor]

You have 2 21 year old naked female twins, both with asses in the air, twin A is 5'7 110lbs, twin B in 5'7 120 with a slightly larger ass, which one do you destory first?