Training to Failure Vs. Not Training to Failure

[musclemd]

Hi,

In quite a similar way to powerlifters I'd imagine. I cannot speak for the majority of powerlifters, but I'd say that it is generally acceptable to suggest that a majority of powerlifters do not train to failure - they train to peak. That said, they gets heaps and heaps stronger.

Referring back to my example of EZ curls.

Point A: 110lbs x 10 reps x 1 set (last rep is a cheat rep)

Point B: 135 x 8 reps x 4 sets (absolutely no reps were taken to concentric failure)

I'd say that this is a very successful case of progressive overload. If it's not then the end desire was still achieved at any rate: quality muscle gain. I let my body dictate progression and did not try to force it too much.

I fully appreciate what Pitbull and others are saying. Looking at Pitbull's avatar, clearly, going to failure is definately working for him.

However, for a lot of lifters, in my experience, going to failure is detrimental. That's not an excuse for someone to cruise through a workout though; you've got to be true to yourself and get to a point where you know that you're 1-2 reps shy of true concentric failure.

For me, going to true concentric failure led to nothing but disappointment, frustration, pain, and in a state of constant lethargy. Not going to failure has led to increased emergy, increased motivation and, above all, constant gains.

I don't think that this is a one size fit all game.

All I'm saying is if you're smashing your tits off in the gym, and everything else is in order, and you're still not gaining, try backing off the failure training and let your body dictate progression rather than forcing it.

True- mix things up.

 

[Love_to_Bodybuild]

Hi,

for the last 3 years of training, I've trained every muscle and set (usually 2 per muscle) to failure. I've experimented with doing this 1, 2 & 3 times per week.

For the first three weeks, I'd gain strength rapidly, but thereafter I'd stagnate and even regress in strength - very disheartening.

Nevertheless, I kept this up for 3 years because I read on the internet that anything less and than failure means that you're not training hard enough.

However, after watching some of Lee Priests videos I decided to not train to failure, and to increase volume. I have maintained an abbreviated training routine with the same exercises but now with increased but moderate volume (6 sets over two exercises), and not to failure.

Strength gains and bodyweight gain have been linear for about 11 weeks now.

I have no doubt that by switching to a lower volume higher intensity approach I'd make rapid gains again but only for a few workouts, and then I'd definitely regress. Sure, periodisation could be an idea, but for me, a few workouts of strength before regresing isn't worth messing with the linear gains I'm getting on the lower intensity.

I suppose I'm putting this out there for those who, like me, kept hitting brick walls and stagnating by training to failure.

Anyone else feel the same?

I believe in hit that you have to go to a certain point to stimulate and reach new muscle growth.

Ive trained so hard a decade or so ago i got some injuries so I cant push as hard sometimes esp on previously injured body parts so in that case do what you can if it means more volume try that

ive been trying occlusion training on a bicep that's been giving me trouble.


you cant go all out all th time or youll get injured. Thats when you back off on intensity or volume or both giving your body a break, then repeat

 

[maldorf]

you cant go all out all th time or youll get injured. Thats when you back off on intensity or volume or both giving your body a break, then repeat

Not only that, but over training does exist. Some say that there is only under eating, but that is hogwash. When I was in college I managed to over train myself pretty bad for about 2 months or so. I know I was overtraining because I was in the gym hard for about 1 1/2 hours a day and worn out after each workout. Very sore muscles etc. In fact I was only training each body part once a week. that was common back in the late 80s, and by the time I came back to train a body part the next week it would still be sore from that last time I trained a week earlier. I ate about as much as I could too. I did put on a bit of weight but my strength and size a bit actually went down during that period. Once I did that I learned and never did that again. I layed off a bit for awhile and before I knew it I was growing again. Being young I was very enthusiastic toward training.

 

[Love_to_Bodybuild]

Not only that, but over training does exist. Some say that there is only under eating, but that is hogwash. When I was in college I managed to over train myself pretty bad for about 2 months or so. I know I was overtraining because I was in the gym hard for about 1 1/2 hours a day and worn out after each workout. Very sore muscles etc. In fact I was only training each body part once a week. that was common back in the late 80s, and by the time I came back to train a body part the next week it would still be sore from that last time I trained a week earlier. I ate about as much as I could too. I did put on a bit of weight but my strength and size a bit actually went down during that period. Once I did that I learned and never did that again. I layed off a bit for awhile and before I knew it I was growing again. Being young I was very enthusiastic toward training.

yup recovery plays a role as well, how much food, how many hormones, anabolics and/or androgens youre on, when the last time you had a nice break from very intense training. Ceertain times recovery will be better than others and you can train more frequently.

Im a believer in instrictive training, to some degree, like this weekend my gf wants to do something satur. I took off two days ago, and on a cycle and gonna to try and train thures-calves, chest triceps, and fri-upper legs so I can have an off day on satur, im gonna try; however if my body is so worn out and tells me know Im flexible with it and may have to revise things

 

[herculeus]

Lets define failure as this and get some dialogue going on this.

Failure being doing sets to concentric positive failure (form failure). How many working sets to form failure are you guys taking over bosy part?

I know there are some that take 12-16 plus sets to positive failure and others that take 1-2 sets to failure per exercise so a total of 6-8 sets to failure but they will consider that high volume because of all the sets they did prior to the last 1-2 sets of failure. So the meaning of volume seems to be different from person to person.

 

[PitbullTank]

Lets define failure as this and get some dialogue going on this.

Failure being doing sets to concentric positive failure (form failure). How many working sets to form failure are you guys taking over bosy part?

I know there are some that take 12-16 plus sets to positive failure and others that take 1-2 sets to failure per exercise so a total of 6-8 sets to failure but they will consider that high volume because of all the sets they did prior to the last 1-2 sets of failure. So the meaning of volume seems to be different from person to person.

well lately with giant sets- 5-7 exercises, 10 reps, past positive failure on almost all sets with assisted reps... performed back to back with maybe 20 sec max time in between...... running 2 cycles of 2 different circuits...

my DC/Hit type rotation would be 4-6 exercises, 1-2 sets each, 1 set ~8-12 rep, 1 set 12-20 rep, all positive fail...

 

[IronSlag]

I train just short of 'form failure.' Training to concentric failure like most seem to only causes me to plateau real quick...

 

[brutus69]

the study, one of many, showing light weights done to failure are superior or equal to heavy weights.
their protocol was 4 work sets, same weight each set. done to failure as defined as the point where another full-range rep wasnt possible.
no partials or negatives or shit like that.
i wont go low as 30 percent of 1rep max as a working set. 60 percent of 1rep was shown as the most effective amount of contractile tension for optimum protein synthesis response in other studies
i been reading a bunch of them lately as well as the rebuttals re faulty paramaters, failure to control for variables, etc. but this study was done twice and has the most support.
Low-Load High Volume Resistance Exercise Stimulates Muscle Protein Synthesis More Than High-Load Low Volume Resistance Exercise in Young Men

 

[Love_to_Bodybuild]

Hurt my knee again and thought it was better

I hurt it in september 17. did physical therapy and very light stuff for a while what didnt bother it.

started pushing again. Did my first set to failure last week hack squats 3 plates and 10 per side for 12, ass to ground. next day and whole week afterward knees been in pain. im a delivery driver and can it hurts moving it back and forth from gas pedal to when i stop and get out

did legs yesterday had to do very light and still hurt I love training to failure on legs and not being able to do this bc i may hurt myself like I did

in the time my leg as hurt and had to go lighter I lost like 5 lbs . My legs are big. Since feb inve been prepping for competition season and watched my weight stay the same and me get leaner and leaner. Im convinced some of them pounds were from my legs.

 

[FK86]

I also have a greater sense of well-being, and a much increased appetite since not training to failure.

This has been on my mind as of late. That training to failure could be affecting my mood, behaviour, and outlook on life. I’ve been following a low volume, high intensity, high frequency approach to training consistently for the last 18 months and while I’m absolutely destroying my logbook, I’ve seen very little in the way of hypertrophy. Some of the better accomplishments I’ve made are adding 90 lbs to my hack squat, 70 lb to my deadlift, and 70 lb to my lying leg curl.

Most lack of progress comes down to diet, but as someone weighing in the 180-190 range throughout this time and consistently putting away 4000 calories of bodybuilding foods while adhering to a cardio schedule, green tea, and food combinations; three times it resulted in a bigger waistline. I would also take 12-14 days off completely from the gym every 6-8 weeks.

Progressive overload is paramount to continued success in this game. That I will always believe in and for me I can’t understand why someone wouldn’t want to get stronger. However, I see the comments in this thread about not being able to know or progress unless you go to failure. With enough experience one can determine if they have 1 or 2 reps left. If on a 10 rep max rep 9 is one in the tank and the next time rep 10 is one in the tank with rep 11 being the new max (failure) that’s still progress.

Then of course most intensity adherents state that warm-ups are warm-ups and only the top set matters because all preceding poundage has been done before and does not stimulate growth. But are those sets really useless? If there was absolutely no risk of injury and we can go to the top weight right away, would that one set stimulate growth? I don’t think so, personally.

As an example: if someone was working up to 405 x 8 in the squat for their top set, that gives them a one rep max of about 510. If they do a warm-up, feeder, pyramid whatever you want to call it set with 315 that’s roughly 60% of their one rep max, which has been shown to be a sufficient load in stimulating hypertrophy. So, they have done it many times before, but wouldn’t it still have merit?

Another thing that’s been racking my brain is how most of the arguments on frequency seem to be with the notion that a growth response has one value, “x” we’ll say. That doing 6 sets for back (and recovering) twice a week is better than 12 sets once a week. Is it? On paper it is. But what if the 12 sets once a week created a greater growth response such that one guy trains body parts 52 times a year and adds 30 lb to his frame and the other trains them 104 times a year, but only adds 20 lb?

Ultimately, we’re all different and have to find what works for us. I think I'm due for a change.