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

[Biggerp73]

Every single picture of everyone's favourite bodybuilder shows them lifting ridiculously heavy weights yet no one wants to strive for these accomplishments. It's become quite clear that a lot of people today want the look without the work. I've always been the opposite. Strength is more important to me and arguably I should train like a powerlifter, but I prefer bodybuilding style workouts and am interested in hypertrophy more than a powerlifter.

I think if you took two twins and they were both 5'8, 170 lb, and did the same diet and training program with the following starting stats for 15 reps each

Twin A: 185 lb incline, 275 lb squat, 365 lb deadlift

Twin B: 275 lb incline, 365 lb squat, 455 lb deadlift

For this hypothetical example the twins are the same, but for whatever reason Twin B has the mitochondria to have greater starting strength. I honestly think after 6 months Twin B would be much bigger. Everything else is equal and they are both training as heavy as they can. You'd think it's all relative, but I've come to believe that it's not. Twin B's 365 lb squats for 15 reps offer greater mechanical tension and, in turn, a greater adaptive response than Twin A's 275 lb squats. Cutler was benching 315 when he was 16 years old and the cops of the Boston Police Department that trained at his gym were wondering what the fuck was going on. He applied his genetic gift to lifting for reps and he became a house overnight. Those of us that started with 95 lb inclines need no longer wonder why this process takes so long for us by comparison.

So if you want to stop sets short and train comfortably, please make sure you have freak levels of strength from your DNA because 4 sets of 10 with 135 lb will not elicit the same adaptive response as 4 sets of 10 with 365.

Obviously Twin B will be bigger. It's simple physics. And he would be bigger if he could use those weights for 10 sets of 15 reps rather than 2 or 3 sets. And stopping shy of failure allows him to use heavy weight without overtaxing the CNS, overtraining, etc, while using greater volume.

 

[DOGGCRAPP]

Obviously Twin B will be bigger. It's simple physics. And he would be bigger if he could use those weights for 10 sets of 15 reps rather than 2 or 3 sets. And stopping shy of failure allows him to use heavy weight without overtaxing the CNS, overtraining, etc, while using greater volume.

Yea...it is if you follow that guy (which you seem to follow) who seems to have an agenda that he is doing everything in the world to prove.

Im not on that agenda.

https://www.researchgate.net/public...hy_and_Strength_in_Trained_Men_-_Less_is_More

https://www.researchgate.net/public..._in_older_women_a_randomized_controlled_trial

 

[Elvia1023]

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.

 

[Kaladryn]

Instead of doing one set to failure with heavy ass weight, failing at say 10-12 reps, try doing 4-5 sets with the same heavy ass weight, doing ~8 reps.

Still heavy ass weight. Still intense as shit. But a WHOLE LOT more total tonnage and stress on the muscle. With less chance of injury. And more capability for recovery.

There are a lot of studies on this that support going to failure and a lot of both theoretic and practical evidence to support training to failure. That being said, I think there is a very simple reason "sub-maximal" training works for some: overtraining. If you are pushing some muscles or the CNS too hard (and I feel most are, either through too much training or too poor of recovery protocols-food,rest,etc) then you might get great results from sub-maximal training.

I personally think it's an excuse to go easy, I've heard some well-respected people in bodybuilding say that same thing.

 

[Biggerp73]

Yea...it is if you follow that guy (which you seem to follow) who seems to have an agenda that he is doing everything in the world to prove.

Im not on that agenda.

https://www.researchgate.net/public...hy_and_Strength_in_Trained_Men_-_Less_is_More

https://www.researchgate.net/public..._in_older_women_a_randomized_controlled_trial

I'm not sure who are you are referring to. Layne Norton? Jeff Nippard? Those are probably the only two guys I "follow" these days. But the advice about staying away from failure is something I got nearly a decade ago from a guy on a different forum.

The first study you posted said 5-10 sets. It seems these are working sets. Sounds more like a higher volume program. Isn't your system basically a single set to failure?

The other study was done on untrained older women and said that the results only applied "in the early stages" of RT.

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.

It might sound arrogant, and maybe you wouldnt get as good results from my way of training as you do yours (I am sure you know whats best for your body), but if what you like is having fun training hard and heavy, I guarantee you would have an absolute blast doing my method of non-failure training with me. Anytime you are in the Nor-Cal area, holler at me.

 

[Biggerp73]

There are a lot of studies on this that support going to failure and a lot of both theoretic and practical evidence to support training to failure. That being said, I think there is a very simple reason "sub-maximal" training works for some: overtraining. If you are pushing some muscles or the CNS too hard (and I feel most are, either through too much training or too poor of recovery protocols-food,rest,etc) then you might get great results from sub-maximal training.

I personally think it's an excuse to go easy, I've heard some well-respected people in bodybuilding say that same thing.

Yup non-failure definitely helps prevents over training

 

[Crazy_jay]

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.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[jeroendebleser]

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.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Good question. I've never seen any real evidence for it neither. Maybe you just get more tired training to failure and people attribute it to 'cns fatigue'?

 

[RamboStallone]

Are you guys looking for an excuse to train like pussies?

Just remember this...you are NOT Jay Cutler.

 

[Crazy_jay]

Are you guys looking for an excuse to train like pussies?

Just remember this...you are NOT Jay Cutler.

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. I personally like a 5 rep scheme but sometimes nagging joints dont allow it.

I can do 3 sets of 12, struggling to get the last few reps of last set and not have near the doms I will get doing 3 sets of 5 struggling on the last rep or two.

I also think there are just a bunch muscle pump whores out there, but that's what I save accessory work for.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[FK86]

Biggerp73, are you Conan21?

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.

Good question. I've never seen any real evidence for it neither. Maybe you just get more tired training to failure and people attribute it to 'cns fatigue'?

I don't have any studies and this is just my opinion (which I know either of you wasn't looking for), but I personally think it's real and that I've experienced it based on incurring sleep issues and insomnia. Training could be on point, calories could be adequate, and my logbook could be getting smashed, but new tissue is not being formed due to inadequate overall recovery. This will be individual, but as Big A said in 'Growth Principles for Beginners,' the muscles will not recover until the nervous system recovers. If your body is spending all of its resources trying to repair the nervous system all the time, you'll never hope to progress in hypertrophy.

Just remember this...you are NOT Jay Cutler.

Exactly. Lee Haney is another great bodybuilder, but these guys are so genetically blessed that they have no idea what actually works. He had his own column in FLEX years ago and I can't tell you how many times he talked about higher reps and certain exercises being for definition. Conditioning is achieved through diet and drugs, but he would talk about how pre-contest he would up his reps from 6-8 to 12-15 to "etch in detail."

 

[FK86]

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.

I disagree. I see people at the gym having no problem doing low reps, but pussing out if the reps get over 10. I recently changed my training to 12-20 SS and 20-30 RP. I catch guys bigger and stronger than me staring because they're wondering why I'm doing 17 rep rows, 20 rep squats, 13 rep deadlifts etc to true failure. Especially when rep 6 looks like it could be close to the end and I crank out 8 more to 14. The rest of the people I see train count to 5, 8 or 10 and then stop the set.

 

[Biggerp73]

Biggerp73, are you Conan21?

Nope

 

[Elvia1023]

This debate is a merry-go-round in a sense. One of the reasons is many have trained a certain way most of their lives. Lot's of guys are also set in their ways. There is merit with both sides and I do believe you can build your physique lifting lighter weights. Lighter weights doesn't mean easy workouts. An example could be 30 rep squats compared to 5 rep ones. Another could be incorporating giant sets. Although you should be trying to lift as heavy as possible for those 30 rep squats or giant sets and increasing the weight over time. Nevertheless there are many ways to increase intensity without lifting heavier as well. But I will always be a progressive resistance type of trainer in most ways.

Could guys like Johnny Jackson build their physique on light weights... I don't think so. They could get close but to get that thick dense muscle you have to lift some heavy weights. Again though heavy is relative and many lift big weights and the targeted muscle connection is lost due to the load being too big (still works though). I am from the UK and look at literally all the big names coming out of there now. They all lift huge weights with good form. Well not all of them good form and ego takes over but there is a reason for them training that way.

 

[marshallmadman]

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.

 

[andishehhank]

The idea is to choose a bodybuilding program that allows for huge strength gains, and go for it.

 

[IronLion2]

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.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Good question. I've never seen any real evidence for it neither. Maybe you just get more tired training to failure and people attribute it to 'cns fatigue'?

How do you propose we quantify CNS output? Can it,be done? Yes. Is it cost effective with valuable and precise take away? No

In the strength and athletic world we measure cns function by performing baseline drills. Meaning the athlete does the same dynamic movement before each workout to assess if he's becoming fatigued. Anything more in depth than that would need expensive equipment for testing and high level analytics.

TL;DR theres a reason we have no "evidence." If you think cns fatigue isn't a real principle go pick up supertrainning.

 

[IronLion2]

I'm not sure who are you are referring to. Layne Norton? Jeff Nippard? Those are probably the only two guys I "follow" these days.

You can do better, laynes okay but nippards a joke. They both just sift through other peoples research for microcasms.

 

[maldorf]

I disagree. I see people at the gym having no problem doing low reps, but pussing out if the reps get over 10. I recently changed my training to 12-20 SS and 20-30 RP. I catch guys bigger and stronger than me staring because they're wondering why I'm doing 17 rep rows, 20 rep squats, 13 rep deadlifts etc to true failure. Especially when rep 6 looks like it could be close to the end and I crank out 8 more to 14. The rest of the people I see train count to 5, 8 or 10 and then stop the set.

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.

 

[xpoc]

More than one way to skin a cat. Check out Serge Nubret's PUMP TRAINING. I don't think this is the most EFFICIENT way to get huge, but if you are going for that classic look (not the look of the bloated, short lifespan of some of the pros of today) I do feel for longevity, and overall health it could be the most EFFECTIVE:

https://www.t-nation.com/training/serge-nubret-pump-training