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.