Are you training hard enough?

[herculeus]

I'm curious on what everyone's thoughts are on on training to failure vs different levels of training intensifies.

The definition of failure in the way I am referring, as it seems everyone has a different take, is Failure being when you can't complete another rep with good form (concentric/positive failure).

I know there are a lot of those that train high volume and every set to positive failure (form failure). Then there are those that leave reps in the tank, and those that take the last set of each exercise to positive failure.

Lee Haney said atimulate don't anihikate, in which he didn't always go to positive failure.

What are your thoughts guys? Do you believe in taking all sets to positive failure or do you believe in leaving reps in the tank?

I have talked to a pro at my gym (Debi Laskowski) and she said she trains high volume 12-20 sets all sets to positive failure.

But my question is that is taking each set to positive failure counter productive to hypertrophy? Would it be better to leave some reps? In my mind, I have a hard time sometimes stopping short. Lately I have been taking compound movements to positive failure for 1-2 sets and then all sets of isolation to failure.

Here's a couple links on the subject

https://www.muscleandstrength.com/articles/is-training-to-failure-necessary[/url]

http://www.intensemuscle.com/showthread.php?t=43243[/url]

 

[bg091593]

I'm curious on what everyone's thoughts are on on training to failure vs different levels of training intensifies.

The definition of failure in the way I am referring, as it seems everyone has a different take, is Failure being when you can't complete another rep with good form (concentric/positive failure).

I know there are a lot of those that train high volume and every set to positive failure (form failure). Then there are those that leave reps in the tank, and those that take the last set of each exercise to positive failure.

Lee Haney said atimulate don't anihikate, in which he didn't always go to positive failure.

What are your thoughts guys? Do you believe in taking all sets to positive failure or do you believe in leaving reps in the tank?

I have talked to a pro at my gym (Debi Laskowski) and she said she trains high volume 12-20 sets all sets to positive failure.

But my question is that is taking each set to positive failure counter productive to hypertrophy? Would it be better to leave some reps? In my mind, I have a hard time sometimes stopping short. Lately I have been taking compound movements to positive failure for 1-2 sets and then all sets of isolation to failure.

Here's a couple links on the subject

https://www.muscleandstrength.com/articles/is-training-to-failure-necessary[/url]

http://www.intensemuscle.com/showthread.php?t=43243[/url]

The sets I don't take to failure are warm up sets. I always train for complete failure.

 

[herculeus]

So how many sets are you taking to failure in a workout? Can you lay an example of what you do? Just curious to see what others are doing

 

[suppdude]

So how many sets are you taking to failure in a workout? Can you lay an example of what you do? Just curious to see what others are doing

4-6 max working sets for me. Depends if using RP, muscle rounds, or any other intensifier. Most are just straight max sets though.

Said this before, but if only I had this mentality when I was younger.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[herculeus]

So 4-6 working sets to positive failure per muscle group. Now is this because you follow FT Training (saw your comment about muscle rounds)?

Or are you doing 4-6 sets to failure per muscle group with multiple exercises 3-4 exercises? Are you doing more frequency (2x a week) or just once a week at 4-6 sets.

4-6 max working sets for me. Depends if using RP, muscle rounds, or any other intensifier. Most are just straight max sets though.

Said this before, but if only I had this mentality when I was younger.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[lntense]

The person with good genetics is always going to have better results. To say that doubling or tripling the time in the gym is going to be better is showing that you dont get it. This is EXACTLY how you should train with "bad" genetics. Maximize your training.

So what you're saying is Arnold and bodybuilders from the golden era would have possibly had better physiques if they had cut their training duration and frequency down because they weren't maximizing their training?



I think a lot of guys just use this lesser is more, in regards to training, as a cop out and rely more heavily on drugs and other things.

 

[lntense]

I'm curious on what everyone's thoughts are on on training to failure vs different levels of training intensifies.

The definition of failure in the way I am referring, as it seems everyone has a different take, is Failure being when you can't complete another rep with good form (concentric/positive failure).

I know there are a lot of those that train high volume and every set to positive failure (form failure). Then there are those that leave reps in the tank, and those that take the last set of each exercise to positive failure.

Lee Haney said atimulate don't anihikate, in which he didn't always go to positive failure.

What are your thoughts guys? Do you believe in taking all sets to positive failure or do you believe in leaving reps in the tank?

I have talked to a pro at my gym (Debi Laskowski) and she said she trains high volume 12-20 sets all sets to positive failure.

But my question is that is taking each set to positive failure counter productive to hypertrophy? Would it be better to leave some reps? In my mind, I have a hard time sometimes stopping short. Lately I have been taking compound movements to positive failure for 1-2 sets and then all sets of isolation to failure.

Here's a couple links on the subject

https://www.muscleandstrength.com/articles/is-training-to-failure-necessary[/url]

http://www.intensemuscle.com/showthread.php?t=43243[/url]

Now imagine if Haney had trained like Coleman. He would have been even more freaky.


Given he might not be able to walk in his old age.. but that's not the point I'm getting at.

 

[devenidas]

I'm curious on what everyone's thoughts are on on training to failure vs different levels of training intensifies.

The definition of failure in the way I am referring, as it seems everyone has a different take, is Failure being when you can't complete another rep with good form (concentric/positive failure).

I know there are a lot of those that train high volume and every set to positive failure (form failure). Then there are those that leave reps in the tank, and those that take the last set of each exercise to positive failure.

Lee Haney said atimulate don't anihikate, in which he didn't always go to positive failure.

What are your thoughts guys? Do you believe in taking all sets to positive failure or do you believe in leaving reps in the tank?

I have talked to a pro at my gym (Debi Laskowski) and she said she trains high volume 12-20 sets all sets to positive failure.

But my question is that is taking each set to positive failure counter productive to hypertrophy? Would it be better to leave some reps? In my mind, I have a hard time sometimes stopping short. Lately I have been taking compound movements to positive failure for 1-2 sets and then all sets of isolation to failure.

Here's a couple links on the subject

https://www.muscleandstrength.com/articles/is-training-to-failure-necessary[/url]

http://www.intensemuscle.com/showthread.php?t=43243[/url]

Lee Haney said that i agree indeed.

but then Lee priest also said you want bigger chest, delts, arms whatever you got to "punish" it.

Annihilate = Punish

Leigh was heavy wt and decent volume too. He didnt shy away from absolutely slaughtering it.

for Levrone its heavy HEAVY wt blunt force trauma and not much and volume but then he is a genetic Kryptonite. People hate on him and think he is going what SHOULD NOT be done according to text book but then text book does not apply to him. He may injure himself can happen. cant guaranty. no on can. but is he going to re-invent the wheel and try to get in contest shape any other way instead of how he prepped for truck load of IFBB PRO shows wins ? I dont think so. Man is smart. He is not dumb. He is "replicating" the same process the best he can.

my point is we cant look at the what worked for these genetic elite and just take it as "the word".

I am not suggesting u personally take it that way at all, i am just saying in general as a whole bb community. People tend to stick to the notions and beliefs.

The upshot is we have to experiment on our unique DNA makeup given to us and work out and see what type of training our bodies respond to and stick to it.

Experimenting is the key in this game while keeping a meticulous record of the changes in the various variables to track back our steps and see what worked better and what did not deliver comparatively.

All the best to you.



Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

 

[suppdude]

So 4-6 working sets to positive failure per muscle group. Now is this because you follow FT Training (saw your comment about muscle rounds)?



Or are you doing 4-6 sets to failure per muscle group with multiple exercises 3-4 exercises? Are you doing more frequency (2x a week) or just once a week at 4-6 sets.

I don't do much muscle rounds but will add them in from time to time.

4-6 max sets consisting of 2-3 movements. Again, mostly its 6 max working sets but will drop to 4-5 if I do a RP set or some other intensifier.

I hit everything twice a week.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[devenidas]

This is one that escapes easy answer as is is so hard to be truly objective.

How do you know you are training hard enough?



As long as you are implementing the principle of progressive overload. Some sort of progression in ..

-wts even if its 1.25 kg extra each side
-extra reps
-advanced training techniques add-on
sets

Stagnation is NOT good mentally, physically, emotionally, spiritually. We got to constantly evolve and principle of progressive overload will tell you where you are at.


Ever seen stagnated water in a little pond ? Sure you have. We all have. It fucking rots, stinks and looks filthy. Free flowing water in a river on the other hand is fresh.


When do you finish and know u done ?



When you loose the pump. You can try to switch a move diff exe but after few sets you would know your arms or chest or legs whatever have had it then its time to stop. high reps sets can be done to fill engorge muscle with blood ....

but a squeezed dick looks deflated and beat up for a reason. Its had a good time and its done! Time to wrap up and punish it harder the next time lol

My 0.2

This is one that escapes easy answer as is is so hard to be truly objective.

How do you know you are training hard enough?
Most of us train to failure - or beyond using various techniques.

DC rest-pause, forced negatives, drop sets, etc.

But how do we REALLY know?

I know after moving heavy weight and 2 rest pause intervals I feel drained.
When I finish 6 reps with 405 on rows, take a 15s break, grab two more reps, 15s and 2 more reps....well I am pretty done. But should I recover and go for more...and was that last 2 all I really had to give? It felt like it, but was it really?

Is that enough to stimulate growth or do we need to go back and do more working sets? Or does this merely impact our recovery?

I ask because this always puzzles me as it is so hard to define.
The mind to muscle connection in activating muscle fibers and having the guts to go all out is extremely hard to measure.

As I think going all out in your working sets is the only way to stimulate new growth I am always pushing while being mindful not to injure myself.

But where is the line between too much and not enough?
And how can you really know you have given it 100%

Curious on insights of the forum...

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

 

[Equalizer]

A little more:

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xjbWjzeWl6I&t=119s"]Workouts - YouTube[/ame]