Training to failure

[slesh]

Great post!

And something you said, every single final set was taken to failure. I can for sure see the reasoning behind that! But now everyone is on the hypetrain of training every single set to failure instead of doing more volume.

Why can’t you do heavy volume and still train to failure lol? I think you’re overcomplicating this…

 

[luki7788]

Why can’t you do heavy volume and still train to failure lol? I think you’re overcomplicating this…

Justin Compton did high volume and training to failure at the same time - but I don't know if it's a good example because he's a superhuman

 

[Cerberus777]

I believe the effectiveness of training to failure can only be truly measured
if you control all the variables: food, sleep, supplements, AAS, GH, insulin,
etc., . . . don't change them.

For instance, to say that you are bigger now and you using less weight
and not training to failure is ignoring, not mentioning the above valuables.

If you are bigger now and using less weight could be and usually is
related to the amount of 'drugs' you are taking, the amount of food you
eating, sleeping better, etc. then the training to failure or not.

In the past you may have been using more weight, were big and muscular
and now you are bigger and more muscular now using less weight weight,
I'll bet you are more taking drugs and eating more / better, doing a better
job of controlling all the variables.

Isn't that what we are constantly preaching here, controlling all the variables?

I don't think is overly complicated. More people put far more thought into their cycles.

And I like Dom's post.

What luki was saying is if you do a press and move the weight by contracting your pecs as hard as you can, and doing the negative by slowly releasing the contraction. And do this until you can't any more than allow the triceps to do more support for a few reps. You will get better results with using less weight(you will have to)

 

[bbxtreme]

How does this topic still get brought up so many times is beyond me.

Hany says it best- “we want to stimulate, not annihilate the muscle”.

AJ and I train the same way now still. We will use heavy ass “controlled” top sets and go to true failure.

We will also “chase the pump” on certain exercises to fully hit failure.

As we get older we learn to train smarter. Most guys definition of “failure” isn’t true failure. You better be seeing God if you’re at true failure, or wishing you were.

Anyone who needs an education of what true failure is should go back and watch John Meadow’s YouTube videos on RIR and then ask yourself… “am I really training to failure”.

 

[bigzzz]

Why can’t you do heavy volume and still train to failure lol? I think you’re overcomplicating this…

I don’t think a lot of people truly know what failure is. When you do this for a few sets on legs you are shot, impossible to do high volume that way.

 

[Flex500]

It seems like the hype that everything needs to be trained to failure seems to subside.

A lot more people walk away from it because it seems to be very taxing for the CNS and you are pretty much spent after the first excercise.

I sometimes apply it now for assistance movements towards the end of the training, and for the most part stay 1-3 reps away from failure. Growing and recovery seems to be a lot better this way.

Thoughts on this and do you also see the switch in your area?

There are a million ways to slice and dice it, but at the end of the day from what I learned in college to every study I can find...most roads lead to mechanical tension = muscle growth. I get there are these crazy high volume studies and all that but when you read them they are not as fulfilling as people insinuate and the road against points to highest degree of tension + recovery = max muscle growth.

Nobody should be frying their cns going to failure. Dante has been doing it for decades as have all his followers, the list seemingly goes on forever. I'm not endorsing the late year Mike Mentzer program of workout one set to failure every century with cake as your base diet (I'm being facetious), but it does seem to me you figure out the number of sets you need to go to all out highest degree of mechanical tension and then balance that out with enough recovery.

In real life when I work with clients and they say they do HIT and are "fried" (CNS and joints) I see them doing two things together: 1) they lift like a monkey f****** a football. IE Sam Sulek (I love the kid, no offense), branch warren, etc. and 2) they do too much volume. Slower, deliberate, controlled reps with a full pause and it solves all these problems.

Like Luki's example...I used to go to the gym every leg day and throw on 585 for a top set on squats. Now I don't go over 365 with bigger legs and less drugs, no fried cns and the best my knees have every felt. 3-4 second descent, full 2 second pause, and up. Not super slow, not super light but at 41 my joints feel better than they did at 21 and I'm growing on 200mgs of test a week.

 

[alfresco]

What luki was saying is if you do a press and move the weight by contracting your pecs as hard as you can, and doing the negative by slowly releasing the contraction. And do this until you can't any more than allow the triceps to do more support for a few reps. You will get better results with using less weight(you will have to)

100%, I certainly agree, but there are other ways to get big . . . my point.

 

[luki7788]

High volume and practically all sets very, very close to failure - this is absolutely not Dorian-style training but no one will say that Compton trains here with RIR lol

the same here - controlled repetitions but each set was damn close to failure

 

[Cerberus777]

100%, I certainly agree, but there are other ways to get big . . . my point.

True. If you train hard and progress it. You'll get bigger. Even if it's one additional second negative on. Each rep. If nothing changes nothing with change is my motto. Something has to progress for growth.

 

[buck]

As long as the muscle is stimulated enough so the brain thinks the best thing is to grow more muscle then the mission is accomplished as i see it. Failure seems the easiest way to be assured of that. In my early decades of lifting all sets were to as close to failure as i thought i could get. Whether i did high volume or HIT training or anything else. I loved the struggling to achieve. I think anything can work to a degree. But what is optimal and will get one there the fastest is probably what most want. And there is no way to know optimal when dealing with people from my experience. These days i just take things as close to failure as i think my joints can tolerate without doing more damage.

 

[qbkilla]

Just my opinion, I go to failure. But I don't squat, dead, heavy flat bench etc. but machines, arms, shoulders etc I see no reason not to for the average person, those movements aren't going to "fry" your cns.

But obviously people have built great phyques, hell even some people have put in a decent amount of size using calesthenics/prison shit. Although most sets aren't to failure I think that shits doing something more than burning fat to make you look more muscular. Just my opinion but a back day of 90 chins 1x a week is going to hit the lats harder than 1 rest pause on the lat pulldown followed by a top and back off set on the tbar

 

[Dens228]

I don’t think a lot of people truly know what failure is.

I wish I had a dollar for every post that includes this statement.......
And another dollar for every thread that debates training to failure vs not
And one more dollar for every thread debating volume vs intensity and how they're mutually exclusive........
I'd have generational wealth and everyone would still follow their confirmation bias and think the other view is wrong.

Carry on......................

 

[Eguz22]

High or low volume, I always look for the failure.

Now, it's not the same failure for in a quads extension as it is in a squat. But these very intense exercises are just that, so intense that I don't think you need the same kind of total failure as with isolation exercises.

And it's not the same for a bicep curl as it is for a skull crushers, where you can injure yourself unless you have an assistant.

Or compare a dumbbell row to an incline dumbbell press.

It is less dangerous to look for failure in pulling exercises than in pushing exercises.

 

[buck]

Short of tearing a tendon or rupturing a muscle failure would be questionable in my opinion. Everything else is subjective.

 

[qbkilla]

High volume and practically all sets very, very close to failure - this is absolutely not Dorian-style training but no one will say that Compton trains here with RIR lol

the same here - controlled repetitions but each set was damn close to failure

I think high volume and failure is a great way to train not sure why so many people think if you switch from low to high volume you now might use rir. People assume high volume to failure will lead to overtaining but they forget most high volume guys use shorter rest intervals and higher reps. So each set, even if taken to failure, isn't as taxing on the body.

Example 3 heavy sets 8-10 close grip bench to failure, 3 minutes rest..may hit the cns harder than

3 rounds of cable press down supersetting with 3 sets of skulls. Short rest use a weight that failure is 12+ reps

I feel like option 2 would create a better stimulus yet tax the cns less

 

[luki7788]

I think high volume and failure is a great way to train not sure why so many people think if you switch from low to high volume you now might use rir. People assume high volume to failure will lead to overtaining but they forget most high volume guys use shorter rest intervals and higher reps. So each set, even if taken to failure, isn't as taxing on the body.

Example 3 heavy sets 8-10 close grip bench to failure, 3 minutes rest..may hit the cns harder than

3 rounds of cable press down supersetting with 3 sets of skulls. Short rest use a weight that failure is 12+ reps

I feel like option 2 would create a better stimulus yet tax the cns less

exactly

 

[Flex500]

One more thing to keep in mind. Most of us here are chronic lifters just driving sarcoplasmic hypertrophy at this point almost exclusively. Going in, getting a pump, taking more drugs, and eating carbs will keep that train running and running and running and running....and running and running. For a very long time.

I think, overall, it's fairly accepted at this point we are all mostly driving in that direction which is why we have some disagreement on what works. A lot of what is working here is smoke and mirrors for many members (which is probably ok because that's what we are after).

MND size limit, repeated bout effect etc. for the large majority of us where are just chronic lifters taking drugs, eating carbs and driving sarcoplasmic hypertrophy.

 

[Oldwhitedude]

There are ways to manage fatigue when training everything to failure:

1) Deleverage yourself. We're ideally not talking low bar squats and sumo deadlifts here, use exercises which bias the muscle you're focusing on. High bar smith machine squats with a pause and RDLs with a full stretch. Alongside machine and cable work where it's safe to fail and beyond.

2) Use higher reps on average. I stick to top sets of 15 to 20 on most things. That's a very different weight and feel than doing heavy 5s for example.

3) Manage your volume and frequency. Intensity is I feel the foundation of the routine, adjust the volume and frequency so you can go all out.

I don't know as much as a lot of you guys, but that's just my take. I think it's important for me to push it as hard as I can.

 

[aHarness]

Of course, I do not recommend this type of training to people who still have a lot of muscles to build - here I would simply focus on getting stronger in the hypertrophic repetition range of 5-20

I think a big reason for this too is because younger lifters don’t know HOW to get that level of stimulus out of that low of weight. It’s a skill for sure that develops with time.

Personally, the longer I’ve trained the less I focus on the weight I’m using and the more I emphasize just feeling the target muscle and trying to make the set as intense as possible.

 

[aHarness]

What luki was saying is if you do a press and move the weight by contracting your pecs as hard as you can, and doing the negative by slowly releasing the contraction. And do this until you can't any more than allow the triceps to do more support for a few reps. You will get better results with using less weight(you will have to)

And training with this approach is training like a true bodybuilder imo