Cutler: "In my 20 years of training, I've never trained to failure on any set. Ever."

[emeric delczeg]

IMO, going down below 5 reps to failure is about the hardest thing you can do to your body. High reps burn like hell but they don't cause much damage to your body. Sometimes it even feels like you get that adrenaline surge like someone would get while in a life vs death situation.

Going really heavy and hitting failure or close to it while using something like 90% to 95% or more of your 1rm max wipes you out. Do 3 sets of squats like that and you feel like it is time to pack up and go home. Some of the night time leg workouts I did I would barely be able to drive home, and then once in bed at home I would lie there and my legs would be twitching for hours. High reps don't do that.

I have been training longer then some of you. Just go to the gym and lift heavy as you can in correct form, some days you fill stronger than lift heavier, some days when you don`t fill stronger lift less. Is no secret train hard, smart and eat and sleep to recover.

 

[Elvia1023]

Some of the night time leg workouts I did I would barely be able to drive home, and then once in bed at home I would lie there and my legs would be twitching for hours. High reps don't do that.

I kinda disagree with this. Well I agree that low reps to complete failure is one of the hardest things you can do to your body. But I disagree that high reps can't do the same. I guess it all depends upon how far someone can go. I have known guys who can lift super heavy for low reps but get them to try high reps with heavy weight and once they feel that burn they can't cope and fail far before they could have gone.

I don't mean light weights though. I mean stuff like 1.5-3 plate squats or 5-8 plate leg press. So nothing really heavy but enough weight there and going for at least 25 controlled reps. You have to go to a special place and for me it's harder and more painful than lifting a heavier weight for 5 reps. Again it's all about the intensity. Even with an isolation movement such as leg extensions it can destroy you. Obviously squats and other compound movements even more so. I done 50 reps with 6 plates on leg extensions last week (after doing 50 with 2, 3, 4 and 5) and I couldn't stand up and was shaking on the floor. I barely made it home and it was a 5 min walk plus my legs were burning in bed and that is just leg extensions and very high reps That was just a bit of fun but I don't think it's needed. But sure decent weight for 20-30 reps on legs is a different kind of hard.

 

[FK86]

IMO, going down below 5 reps to failure is about the hardest thing you can do to your body. High reps burn like hell but they don't cause much damage to your body. Sometimes it even feels like you get that adrenaline surge like someone would get while in a life vs death situation.

Going really heavy and hitting failure or close to it while using something like 90% to 95% or more of your 1rm max wipes you out. Do 3 sets of squats like that and you feel like it is time to pack up and go home. Some of the night time leg workouts I did I would barely be able to drive home, and then once in bed at home I would lie there and my legs would be twitching for hours. High reps don't do that.

100% agree with you. Meadows did a video pointing out that training with that high of a ORM does not require failure as the high threshold motor units are recruited right away because of how heavy the load is. I think this is the argument for Waterbury's 10 x 3 and why powerlifters most certainly stay away from failure.

In my own training that's the conclusion I came to based on observation. 6 reps to failure; the set is "easier" to complete, but I'd feel like I got hit by a truck. 12 reps to failure; the set itself really sucks as you have lactic acid, mental fortitude, and a greater TUT to get through, but when it's over I feel pretty damn good. I've found progress is more consistent in the higher rep range as well. Turning 4 reps into 8 reps is more difficult than turning 12 reps into 16 reps despite both being a 4 rep gap. Really low rep improvements are largely neural. Plus exercises I was previously getting nowhere with I'm now finally starting to see results.

 

[RamboStallone]

I have been training longer then some of you. Just go to the gym and lift heavy as you can in correct form, some days you fill stronger than lift heavier, some days when you don`t fill stronger lift less. Is no secret train hard, smart and eat and sleep to recover.

That's what I do lol, if I go to lift and feel weak, I drop the weight and up the reps 12-16. If I am feeling stronger, I will keep the reps low but go the heavier approach, which means cutting off first 2 sets at 10-12 for an 6-10 as heavy as can go for 3rd set. Full body training, very efficient.

 

[LK3]

I agree with all sides in a sense. Ideally you want progressive overload over years with perfect execution. You want to be lifting some heavy ass weight and going for it everytime you are in the gym. However Kal makes some great points and you can still train super heavy and not go to what I call 100%. 100% to me is someone like Tom Platz and I see next to none one train that hard. But is going that far better... generally I don't think it is (even if I do that myself). Although I love some forced reps, partials, pauses, drop sets etc etc.

Training is everything and I train brutally hard but I think nutrition goes way above training. But it's stupid stating that as it's like not you have to pick one or the other you simply put 100% into all areas if possible. Nevertheless I see loads of guys training hard in my gyms and the reason they don't change much year to year is their nutrition. Another is they stay natural and there is only so far many can go natural.

Obviously it's not just nutrition it's everything but I think nutrition can take you a much longer way. Someone posted a twin scenario so I will just for fun and you have 2 twins and 1 trains brutally hard moving up in weights with a crap diet and the other trains with light weights pumping the muscle with a great diet increasing in cals over time. I think the twin with the better diet and lighter training will go much further than the first twin. Although it should go without stating just maximize all areas and those scenarios are pointless a bit like if you could only use 2 steroids what would they be threads.

Yes genetics comes into things but forget the elites. They can eat dirty and look ripped or use 5kg db's for curls and have 21 inch arms. However I see loads of guys with well developed physiques who train very light. It surprises me how weak they are. They would improve with heavier weights. But I could also throw more protein at them and carbs throughout the day and I know they would blow up still benching 2 plates max.

Regarding the thread well it's been mentioned and many seem to forget where they come from. I have seen Jay Cutler train very heavy in vids. Although as Kal pointed out you can do that and not go to failure. But I think the statement taken from Jay is simply wrong as I have seen him do forced reps and push it many times so it's not like he hasn't got to failure. Even Dexter Jackson who I use as an example of this sort of thing a lot and he is so lazy in the gym getting passed db's and getting his seat adjusted for him etc. Even Dexter now is pushing heavy ass weight because he knows he needs to if he stands any chance of winning a big show ever again. This is especially true to stop his legs from shrinking due to age so he is pushing the plates on leg press etc. So whilst I state all the above it should be fucking obvious guys should be training hard/heavy if they want to maximize gains.

I do see a lot of people (including pros) and they don't go to failure. They have at least a rep left in them and they stop. Ones definition of failure can also come into things as well. I watch Dorian Yates vids and think he could have gone further on some sets which some may think is obscene. But you have a guy like Tom Platz who simply goes crazy and lifts until he can't move the weight another inch so it's all relative. Most pro's train to positive failure though and that's obvious from their vids. Some such as Lee Haney done things differently but I think most today push it to the max and that's part of the reason guys are bigger.

one lil thing that kinda jumps out at me in your post ( before i read the rest here ) is the perception of training hard.

lets not talk about pros because how many have those genetics and or actuallly train with pros?

i think ppl try to emulate the ideas they catch of "pros" from these short videos.

just like they often go with the perception of training hard rather then the reality of training hard.

i think the reality of training hard is learning intensity in the gym but also leanring to get the fuck out of the gym and do the rest. so many guys spend lots of tiem in the gym yelling n throwing around big wieghts when they could prob cut the gym time in half do 30% of the "work" sets and grow more.

idk maybe its just my perception of things but keeping workouts painfully simple and boaring and following whatever method of progressive overload works best for your situation seems to put the size on.

what i hear kal saying too is sorta that. the size came before. putting that size back on after the fact becomes insanly simple after years of doing it, but that isnt how it got there in the first place.

im sure i would be bigger in general had i stayed with those same sorta principles rather then looking towards the other more fun stuff, not saying thats good or bad just is.

my only point is i think the hard work is more then just movement. hardest thing is to deal with the head. lol

 

[LK3]

Unfotunately, and I say that because I used to love lifting heavy, I don't think the amount of weight used is as critical as how hard you actually push the muscle. Now maybe this is partly because I went heavy when I was younger but I've lost all that size and gained it back several times, each time using less weight and better technique. I'm actually probably pushing further into the painzone now than I ever have, but the weights are like 60% as heavy, the form is perfect, and the reps are 8-15 (usually 12-15 on heavy compound movements). If I could do it all over, I think I would have tried to go lighter and push harder, and I think the longevity that would buy me would be superior for overall results in the long run.

Ultimately, I think the current generation is obsessed with "looking cool" while in the gym, the highest insult to a millennial is to call them a "try-hard." No one wants to go too hard in the gym. I see what looks like this in even "hardcore" bodybuilders sometimes (i.e. no one wants to be caught grunting in the gym or sweating for that matter).

And heavy/light is all relative. Remember Ronnie actually trained light, for him. 10 reps on everything, all that powerlifting stuff was rarely done later in his career, mainly just for the camera. If you watch Ronnie get 10 reps with those 200lb dumbbells, he is solid as a rock and probably stopped a couple reps short of "balls to the wall" failure. I've seen several IFBB pros doing that same thing with the 200 or lighter, they are struggling like crazy and shaking all over the place.

no one talks about squatting til they puke anymore!!! lol

wtf those discusting gym threads used to be one of my favortie things!!!

that sort of mentality is not around anymore... anyone remember "skullfucked" he had some great gym stories. lol:headbang:

 

[Kaladryn]

No doubt a single set to failure works for some. But the idea that not training to failure means you arent training hard and heavy, that you dont like working out with intensity, etc, is just plain silly. I love getting amped as shit in the gym, gripping some extremely heavy weight, and forcefully throwing it around with good form and a tight squeeze. It's athletic, like I am on the football field, playing middle linebacker for the Baltimore Ravens or something. And staying away from failure means I stay in this "hard and heavy" psyched up mode for a lot longer than just one set.

I can tell you love lifting, so many people in the gym like this, none of them go near failure, they just like to look and feel cool while lifting "heavy" weight. I don't call this going hard, I call it phoning it in, this is what I'm talking about and complaining about and everyone else is too nowadays, no one trains really hard, everyone stops way short of failure, it's more about the lifting then the results.

I keep seeing cns mentioned in this thread. Does anyone here actually have any research or supporting documents to confirm cns fatigue as a real thing? All I ever seem to find is people's opinions and it's like a 50/50 split as to whether it's real or bro science.

I think you are confusing "adrenal fatigue" with "CNS overtraining" they are completely different. One is considered made up (although it isn't always) and the other is a real thing you can find in EVERY TEXTBOOK. Are you too lazy to even read the wiki on it? It's the depletion of neurotransmitters.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_nervous_system_fatigue

What you are saying is as ignorant as saying "dehydration isn't real" or that dumb ass politician that recently tried to say "germs aren't real because I can't see them."

I believe lifting heavy in the 3-5 rep range requires a certain amount of energy and a mindset that a lot of people dont have.

High reps are ONLY easier if you don't push hard, 3-5 reps is SO MUCH easier than sets of 10+ that are actually close to true failure. (no one ever reaches true failure without a life or death situation).

Any gym bro can lift heavy, every gym bro does, 95% of them get shit results and don't train hard.

It's called training for a reason. I think, sometimes we forget what that means and we start to get hung up on things like..."if I weigh this much, I'll look this way" or "If I can bench this much, I'll be in this place". When all is said and done, it's a simple mathematical equation. Weight x Reps x Sets = total work volume

Thank you all for this thread. It's been a real eye opener for me and shown me that I'm just going through the motions and not really "training" at all. I'm too fucking old to be wasting my time and it was really a wake up call.

I know you are being sarcastic, but I'm not taking it that way, I think are you describing exactly why most people don't progress consistently in the gym past a certain point. You have to get SO MUCH MORE in-depth and specific.

IMO, going down below 5 reps to failure is about the hardest thing you can do to your body. High reps burn like hell but they don't cause much damage to your body. Sometimes it even feels like you get that adrenaline surge like someone would get while in a life vs death situation.

Going really heavy and hitting failure or close to it while using something like 90% to 95% or more of your 1rm max wipes you out. Do 3 sets of squats like that and you feel like it is time to pack up and go home. Some of the night time leg workouts I did I would barely be able to drive home, and then once in bed at home I would lie there and my legs would be twitching for hours. High reps don't do that.

You need adrenaline for every heavy set, imagining life or death situations is a good way to do it, usually fear of injury is enough if the weight is heavy. You aren't actually getting fight or flight levels though, that would probably cause injury.

100% agree with you. Meadows did a video pointing out that training with that high of a ORM does not require failure as the high threshold motor units are recruited right away because of how heavy the load is. I think this is the argument for Waterbury's 10 x 3 and why powerlifters most certainly stay away from failure.

In my own training that's the conclusion I came to based on observation. 6 reps to failure; the set is "easier" to complete, but I'd feel like I got hit by a truck. 12 reps to failure; the set itself really sucks as you have lactic acid, mental fortitude, and a greater TUT to get through, but when it's over I feel pretty damn good. I've found progress is more consistent in the higher rep range as well. Turning 4 reps into 8 reps is more difficult than turning 12 reps into 16 reps despite both being a 4 rep gap. Really low rep improvements are largely neural. Plus exercises I was previously getting nowhere with I'm now finally starting to see results.

This is because you aren't going close enough to failure on the high reps sets, it's MUCH harder to reach close to true failure on high reps, you can always do more if you are willing to suffer.

As for the motor units, that is too long of a post for me to break down why high reps recruit more fiber, but let me just say that no one is getting even close to "full" recruitment.

 

[FK86]

This is because you aren't going close enough to failure on the high reps sets, it's MUCH harder to reach close to true failure on high reps, you can always do more if you are willing to suffer.

If I dumbbell curl until my arms don't move and can only turn my wrists at thigh level, get stuck under the bar on a pressing movement, and have the levers on a machine not move like this: https://www.instagram.com/p/Byxk9a8lOv0/

How much further can I go?

 

[maldorf]

Really low rep improvements are largely neural. Plus exercises I was previously getting nowhere with I'm now finally starting to see results.

I agree. Once I started to incorporate some heavy 5x5 regimes and power lifting I was able to blow past strength and size barriers that had held me for a year or more. For me at least it is what my body needed to grow.

 

[FK86]

I agree. Once I started to incorporate some heavy 5x5 regimes and power lifting I was able to blow past strength and size barriers that had held me for a year or more. For me at least it is what my body needed to grow.

To clarify, I meant that when I switched to higher reps that's when I started to improve on certain exercises. Low reps on squats, leg presses, and almost all chest presses I wasn't really getting anywhere in terms of progression until I upped the reps.

 

[maldorf]

High rep vs low rep

Go into the gym and squat a weight that is 95% of your 1rm. Get a good spot and go all the way to positive failure. Do that for 3 sets. Maybe even do a few drop sets where you drop the weight down 90 lbs and rep out till failure again.

Compare that to doing a set of 30 reps on squats to failure, which I have done too. Sure the high rep is tough while you are doing it, but a few hours later I could hardly tell that I had lifted.

With the heavy weight I would be beat up for at least another 5 days before I could even think of hitting legs again. There is a lot of damage done to the body. To me that is what is tough. Most guys doing that kind of weight will stop short of failure too, out of fear of injury.

 

[Beti ona]

Go into the gym and squat a weight that is 95% of your 1rm. Get a good spot and go all the way to positive failure. Do that for 3 sets. Maybe even do a few drop sets where you drop the weight down 90 lbs and rep out till failure again.

Compare that to doing a set of 30 reps on squats to failure, which I have done too. Sure the high rep is tough while you are doing it, but a few hours later I could hardly tell that I had lifted.

With the heavy weight I would be beat up for at least another 5 days before I could even think of hitting legs again. There is a lot of damage done to the body. To me that is what is tough. Most guys doing that kind of weight will stop short of failure too, out of fear of injury.

It's quite simple, do a streng program and go to a powerlifting meeting where you try to take records. On the day of the competition, you are doing very little work in terms of volume, but if it reaches your limits, you will feel total destroyed for the following days.

That will never happen with a high volume training, because work hard the muscles do not hit the organism as much as work the entire support system: joints, ligaments and CNS.

 

[Elvia1023]

For me it comes back to insensity. For legs I still train "heavy" even if that's higher reps. I use some pausing as well to grind out more reps. Although I should state my leg training isn't high reps just talking about my opinion if it takes it out of you as much as lighter reps. Most of my training is 8-15 reps. I have done a lot of 4-8 rep stuff as well. Never tried to get strong on singles-doubles though. Occasionally I throw some really high rep stuff in but mainly for legs.

Again though it's the intensity and I literally see next to no one train with this intensity for higher reps. Leg pressing 10pps for 30 reps will destroy most people. That's just an example and weight and reps mean nothing as we are all different. The ROM and rep speed are just as important. Again I have done very heavy weights for lower reps and it kills me but of course it would. But the higher rep stuff is just as hard to recover from for me. Again numbers and sets etc mean very little and it's all about intensity but supersetting 2-4 leg movements for 10-20 reps each at heavy weight and you will be struggling to get off the toilet 3 days later.

I do agree about powerlifting meets and how much it would take it out of you (esecially the CNS). But seriously I would love to train legs with some of you and I bet you wouldn't be able to move for a week. I honestly can't even be bothered training like that again as it's too hard but if I ever meet someone from here we are training legs at higher reps and high volume as well

 

[Kaladryn]

One of the most important things you can learn in resistance training: failure is always mental, in another place, at another time, in another state of mind, you can always push harder.

Go into the gym and squat a weight that is 95% of your 1rm. Get a good spot and go all the way to positive failure. Do that for 3 sets. Maybe even do a few drop sets where you drop the weight down 90 lbs and rep out till failure again.

Compare that to doing a set of 30 reps on squats to failure, which I have done too. Sure the high rep is tough while you are doing it, but a few hours later I could hardly tell that I had lifted.

With the heavy weight I would be beat up for at least another 5 days before I could even think of hitting legs again. There is a lot of damage done to the body. To me that is what is tough. Most guys doing that kind of weight will stop short of failure too, out of fear of injury.

1. doing the same weight on multiple sets always seems pointless to me.

2. did you REALLY fail at 30? You mean there was NO WAY you could do 1 more rep? because I know if I picked a weight I could do for 30, and I failed, I could easily find a way to do another rep.

3. do you know about the 20 rep, 1 set squat workout that was popularized in the 90s? Pick a weight you think you can squat for 10 reps, your "10rm" then squat it for 20 reps. You do one set and you are done. This is one of the hardest things I have ever done, WAY harder than sets I've done that are over twice as heavy.

 

[thethinker48]

One of the most important things you can learn in resistance training: failure is always mental, in another place, at another time, in another state of mind, you can always push harder.



1. doing the same weight on multiple sets always seems pointless to me.

2. did you REALLY fail at 30? You mean there was NO WAY you could do 1 more rep? because I know if I picked a weight I could do for 30, and I failed, I could easily find a way to do another rep.

3. do you know about the 20 rep, 1 set squat workout that was popularized in the 90s? Pick a weight you think you can squat for 10 reps, your "10rm" then squat it for 20 reps. You do one set and you are done. This is one of the hardest things I have ever done, WAY harder than sets I've done that are over twice as heavy.

Using the same weight for multiple sets without going to complete failure is still going to create an adaptation; albeit you can’t go much further from there solely on that, but combined with say one exercise that focuses on PL, and one on maximizing metabolic overload, it can work well.

I think it’s a good way to increase work capacity and target growth outside of an overload standpoint.

JM uses this in many of his programs too


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Kaladryn]

Using the same weight for multiple sets without going to complete failure is still going to create an adaptation; albeit you can’t go much further from there solely on that, but combined with say one exercise that focuses on PL, and one on maximizing metabolic overload, it can work well.

I think it’s a good way to increase work capacity and target growth outside of an overload standpoint.

JM uses this in many of his programs too


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I can't think of a reason I would ever do a second set with the same weight unless something went wrong with my first set. What would I be after? I won't be stronger on my 2nd set will I?

1. If I am stronger on my 2nd set, would wouldn't I want to make my previous set lighter so I could be even STRONGER?

2. If I'm weaker on my 2nd sets, what is the point? I won't achieve more overload, I might as well go lighter and get more out of exercise in ways other than overload.

3. If I'm the same strength on my 2nd set, they the weight must be so light, neither set will produce overload.

I did multiple sets with the same weight sometimes in my first 10 years of bodybuilding, but in the last 20 years of bodybuilding, I never have except rare cases that had a reason.

 

[maldorf]

One of the most important things you can learn in resistance training: failure is always mental, in another place, at another time, in another state of mind, you can always push harder.



1. doing the same weight on multiple sets always seems pointless to me.

2. did you REALLY fail at 30? You mean there was NO WAY you could do 1 more rep? because I know if I picked a weight I could do for 30, and I failed, I could easily find a way to do another rep.

3. do you know about the 20 rep, 1 set squat workout that was popularized in the 90s? Pick a weight you think you can squat for 10 reps, your "10rm" then squat it for 20 reps. You do one set and you are done. This is one of the hardest things I have ever done, WAY harder than sets I've done that are over twice as heavy.

I used to do a workout like that for squats, it was a good one. You end up doing a long string of rest pause reps. I do think that is an excellent workout. I used to do 2 or 3 sets of that for squats in one session. Definitely all I needed for legs. Wish I could do that now, but my heart would give out.

 

[thethinker48]

I can't think of a reason I would ever do a second set with the same weight unless something went wrong with my first set. What would I be after? I won't be stronger on my 2nd set will I?

1. If I am stronger on my 2nd set, would wouldn't I want to make my previous set lighter so I could be even STRONGER?

2. If I'm weaker on my 2nd sets, what is the point? I won't achieve more overload, I might as well go lighter and get more out of exercise in ways other than overload.

3. If I'm the same strength on my 2nd set, they the weight must be so light, neither set will produce overload.

I did multiple sets with the same weight sometimes in my first 10 years of bodybuilding, but in the last 20 years of bodybuilding, I never have except rare cases that had a reason.

Volume is a form of overload

If you can handle do 225 for 10 reps, and are able to do 3 sets of 10 with 225 later down the road, you have caused an adaptation.

You are looking at load and reps as the only form of overload. Volume is also in there.

Volume is a limiting form of overload as you reach that ceiling fast, but like anything: can be used as part of a program.

And I'm with you when it comes to DC progressive overload type of training; that's my preferred approach as well, but I've learned not to marry myself to one idea or approach.

 

[Crazy_jay]

I can't think of a reason I would ever do a second set with the same weight unless something went wrong with my first set. What would I be after? I won't be stronger on my 2nd set will I?



1. If I am stronger on my 2nd set, would wouldn't I want to make my previous set lighter so I could be even STRONGER?



2. If I'm weaker on my 2nd sets, what is the point? I won't achieve more overload, I might as well go lighter and get more out of exercise in ways other than overload.



3. If I'm the same strength on my 2nd set, they the weight must be so light, neither set will produce overload.



I did multiple sets with the same weight sometimes in my first 10 years of bodybuilding, but in the last 20 years of bodybuilding, I never have except rare cases that had a reason.

You dont consistently do the same weight or shouldn't anyways. If you hit the same weight and reps for 3 sets, then next time you bump the weight. Eventually you'll hit a point where you fail to get say 3 sets, 10 reps, might get 10,9,8, so next time weight stays same and you hit a 10,10,9, weight stays the same, all the sudden the weight you couldn't hit 3x10 on two weeks ago, you can now. Means you've built strength in the muscle and the next time you preform that exercise, weight should be increased. Straight sets are common in a lot of workout programs.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[maldorf]

I can't think of a reason I would ever do a second set with the same weight unless something went wrong with my first set. What would I be after? I won't be stronger on my 2nd set will I?

1. If I am stronger on my 2nd set, would wouldn't I want to make my previous set lighter so I could be even STRONGER?

2. If I'm weaker on my 2nd sets, what is the point? I won't achieve more overload, I might as well go lighter and get more out of exercise in ways other than overload.

3. If I'm the same strength on my 2nd set, they the weight must be so light, neither set will produce overload.

I did multiple sets with the same weight sometimes in my first 10 years of bodybuilding, but in the last 20 years of bodybuilding, I never have except rare cases that had a reason.

Doing a typical bodybuilder routine, I would always do my heaviest set the first set when I am fresh and strongest. So that part of what you said makes sense to me.

In the 5x5 program though, you are building strength. The program I used, was also used by Fred Hatfield, would have you start out with 5x3 the first week. Each week you work up one more rep with the same weight, and then the weight would go up after that. It worked better than any other routine I ever did, for strength and overall size. He called it the Russian system.

Here is a program that is similar, but perhaps updated since I did it back in the 80s.
https://liftvault.com/programs/lift-specific/russian-squat-routine-spreadsheet/

Doing a powerlifting routine like this, some of the sets are easy but the last one is tough. The point I think we should all understand is that going to failure in the gym is hard no matter how you do it, high or low rep. I would argue though that to me lifting low rep to failure is a lot harder on the body and so is "tougher" to me because of that. Doing high reps sets I never got wrecked so bad that my muscles were sore for 7 days straight.