Training to failure vs. RIR, a new study

[xpoc]

This makes it about as clear as mud lol. Brad Schoenfeld study just published:
» Do You Need to Train to Failure: Insights From Our New Meta-Analysis (lookgreatnaked.com)

 

[maldorf]

Nice study using 15 previous studies. My one question is, what did the studies consider to be failure? To me true failure would require a training partner in order to achieve. Most of us that think we train to failure really dont because we train alone. Perhaps this might be a factor that would widen the gap in the results one way or the other. I think his study here is the first one I have read looking into this question of training to failure or not.

 

[emeric delczeg]

Nice study using 15 previous studies. My one question is, what did the studies consider to be failure? To me true failure would require a training partner in order to achieve. Most of us that think we train to failure really dont because we train alone. Perhaps this might be a factor that would widen the gap in the results one way or the other. I think his study here is the first one I have read looking into this question of training to failure or not.

I would be more interested

This makes it about as clear as mud lol. Brad Schoenfeld study just published:
» Do You Need to Train to Failure: Insights From Our New Meta-Analysis (lookgreatnaked.com)

To bed that negative training was not included in the research.

 

[danieltx]

I'm glad Schoenfeld included this:

As you gain training experience, the need to train closer to failure becomes increasingly more important. Although it’s difficult to provide specifics, I’d say that at least some sets need to be within a rep or so of volitional failure. I’d also speculate that for highly trained lifters (e.g. competitive bodybuilders), there is a need to take some sets to failure to optimize muscle-building.

I think there are a lot of guys today getting into bodybuilding via more scientific channels and I feel their strict adherence to science will prevent them from reaching their goals, or limit their perspectives on training / diet / drugs / etc. so much that they never reach their true potential. They take studies, get a general conclusion (like skipping over this part about how failure is important at advanced levels because they're not there yet), then think that's the way to do things. It's hilarious and frustrating to see fans of someone like Dr. Mike Israetel, who strictly adhere to his guidelines, posting their extreme ROM exercises and physiques on Instagram, as almost none of them have a significant amount of muscle mass.

'But science says...' - yeah, and real-world bodybuilders say, 'That'll never get you to our level.'

John Meadows made a great post about this recently and I'm quoting it below - https://www.instagram.com/p/CJtYw5iF4fO/

I never ever would have made it to where I did in bodybuilding, becoming a pro and placing in several pro shows, if I had the never go to failure, never push yourself too hard belief that is being pushed right now in our space. I am 100% ok with this line for novices and intermediates, but not people who i would consider to be beyond those stages. If you think this mentality will enable you to reach your ultimate level of potential, you will be disappointedin the end. Focus on recovery, and use high intensity/failure and beyond failure training wisely for sure, but there is a place for it. There are many "scientists" like @fortitude_training, @coach_kassem and @biolayne that I know that also believe in going really hard as well as simpleton meatheads like me. You just don't know what you are capable of until you really give it everything. There is also an an emotional and psychological benefit to knowing you did something you didn't even know you were capable of. Keep cranking.

 

[xpoc]

Nice study using 15 previous studies. My one question is, what did the studies consider to be failure? To me true failure would require a training partner in order to achieve. Most of us that think we train to failure really dont because we train alone. Perhaps this might be a factor that would widen the gap in the results one way or the other. I think his study here is the first one I have read into his question of training to failure or not.

When I put my training cycles together I factor this in when it comes to exercise selection. I train alone. I can easily achieve "failure" when I use machines such as Hammer Strength chest press, as opposed to using a barbell bench press. But, it is truly difficult to gauge "failure" on exercises like pull downs (too easy to cheat) or rows & deadlifts (too dangerous to push failure).

 

[maldorf]

When I put my training cycles together I factor this in when it comes to exercise selection. I train alone. I can easily achieve "failure" when I use machines such as Hammer Strength chest press, as opposed to using a barbell bench press. But, it is truly difficult to gauge "failure" on exercises like pull downs (too easy to cheat) or rows & deadlifts (too dangerous to push failure).

Just having a partner there to push you is good too, maybe get that extra rep or two. I felt like working out with a guy that was stronger helped me. My squat jumped up a lot when I was training alongside a guy with a 750 squat.

With a partner I usually took advantage of it and worked past failure, doing forced reps. Research on that would be good too.

 

[buck]

I spent over 30 years taking every work set to failure. And to find out I could have spent less time wrecking my body and achieved as much or more would be a little depressing. But I enjoyed always pushing myself. I see many guys training with what appears to be little intensity or not to failure to me but make good gains. And drugs do help but maybe there is something to not going all out all the time.

 

[brutus69]

with every study result u have a minority that fall outside the conclusions. meaning they didnt get the results others did...cuz not everyone's the same. and how many studies contradict other studies? stronger by science parsed like, 17 studies and concluded "it all depends"
look at all the youtube "experts" and "trainers." meadows says this, jeff nippard the science guy says that greg doucette yells the other...mike israeltel hard blinks something else...
all experts who espouse different ways to get big and strong, and often contradict each other...oh, and some new one i found, ryan huniston, who says high reps are the only way to go.
high frequency matters. no,now it doesnt. intensity over volume? maybe.
heavy weights matter, now no. progressive overload matters, now not so much...
i made the mistake of following study results for the last year and a half and got nowhere.
what got me big and strong? 4-8 reps positive failure, low frequency.
why'd i change to volume and rir and high frequency? cuz studies told me to.
why'm i going back to my old ways? cuz i want results. my way

 

[Fit2Serve]

Nice study using 15 previous studies. My one question is, what did the studies consider to be failure? To me true failure would require a training partner in order to achieve. Most of us that think we train to failure really dont because we train alone. Perhaps this might be a factor that would widen the gap in the results one way or the other. I think his study here is the first one I have read looking into this question of training to failure or not.

you can absolutely go to failure even if u train alone.
just a few exercises u can achieve failure on by urself:
squats, leg curls, leg ext, pulldowns, pull ups, bicep curls, tricep extensions.....

there are prob a thousand or more exercises u can fail at w out a partner. dips, push ups, dumbell press, laterals, upright rows.... on and on
-F

 

[Rainmanisback]

T

Nice study using 15 previous studies. My one question is, what did the studies consider to be failure? To me true failure would require a training partner in order to achieve. Most of us that think we train to failure really dont because we train alone. Perhaps this might be a factor that would widen the gap in the results one way or the other. I think his study here is the first one I have read looking into this question of training to failure or not.

That's not failure, that's beyond failure. Failure is a simple concept: failure means you are not able to do another rep with good form period, it's not that complicated. And there are many technics as you know that allows you to go beyond failure without a partner.

 

[maldorf]

T

That's not failure, that's beyond failure. Failure is a simple concept: failure means you are not able to do another rep with good form period, it's not that complicated. And there are many technics as you know that allows you to go beyond failure without a partner.

Many exercises like squats and leg press you can't go to failure unless you want to dump the weight. Good chance of getting injured as well.

 

[maldorf]

you can absolutely go to failure even if u train alone.
just a few exercises u can achieve failure on by urself:
squats, leg curls, leg ext, pulldowns, pull ups, bicep curls, tricep extensions.....

there are prob a thousand or more exercises u can fail at w out a partner. dips, push ups, dumbell press, laterals, upright rows.... on and on
-F

True, I was thinking about big lifts like squats and bench. Good chance of injury on those, at least I'd never risk failing on those lifts on purpose. Certainly very foolish.

 

[lookslikesausage]

i think if you train alone and like going to failure, utilizing machines often makes a lot of sense and is a safer way to do it. When it comes to strength, which is a skill, training to failure can be detrimental because it can limit the amount of sessions you can do in a week, month, year, etc. Failure affects recovery (makes it harder) and as a result, you won't be able to train as often. I think for natty bodybuilders though, training more often is important but less so for enhanced bodybuilders. And yeah...going to failure on a squat or deadlift, you're asking for trouble.

 

[xpoc]

True, I was thinking about big lifts like squats and bench. Good chance of injury on those, at least I'd never risk failing on those lifts on purpose. Certainly very foolish.

agree. if you truly go to failure on squats (example) the bar should come tumbling off your back. tons of youtube vids of guys blowing out knees, breaking their spines and nearly dying doing this. NOT SAFE. with everything there is a risk and reward factor. going to failure on bar dips= low risk. going to failure on squats= high risk. i am 50+ now and have been in the game since 1984. it is a marathon not a sprint. look for exercises that give you high reward and LOW risk.

 

[xpoc]

Here is the question I still ponder. For an advanced guy (10+ years of serious training) which scenario would be more beneficial for hypertrophy (I will use dips as an example):

A. Bar dips with bodyweight. 1 rest pause set to failure 3x. Let say you get 22 reps to failure...rest 20 seconds...get 9 reps to failure...rest 20 seconds....get 5 reps to failure for a total of 36 reps.

B. Bar dips with bodyweight. 6 sets of 12 reps. standard rest time of 1-2 mins between sets. none to failure but a total of 72 reps. double that of the above. sure the first 1-3 sets were not that hard but by the time you got to set 6, you BARELY got 12. ultimately you did twice the amount of reps.

I have brought up this similar scenario before and Dante produced a study that suggest A would be more beneficial. Does this latest study suggest otherwise? I don't mean to overthink things, because ultimately I am guessing both scenarios would work. I just like drilling down into the minitua as which would be more ideal.

 

[hawkmoon]

Isn't this what most of us do guys?
I think Brad is laying out the case for 99% of the population, and being sure to include caveats for the weirdos like us:

There are numerous strategies to employ failure training in a program. For example, you can perhaps limit its use to the last set or two of an exercise…perhaps use it selectively on certain exercises (see below)…perhaps reserve its use for higher rep sets (see below)…perhaps periodize its implementation across workouts or training cycles (see below)…the possibilities are almost endless. Thing is, no study has yet endeavored to study these possibilities, so all we have to go on at this point is anecdote and logical rationale.

-and-

It is conceivable that when lifters get increasingly closer to their genetic ceiling, a greater intensity of effort is required to achieve muscular gains.​

 

[FK86]

I think if you have a poor response to training and are natural or low dose, you're going to have to endure brutal, true-failure workouts to make changes and accept that you can/should only be doing it three days a week. Anytime I've strayed from that it's never been as rewarding.

 

[USMuscle9403]

I think if you have a poor response to training and are natural or low dose, you're going to have to endure brutal, true-failure workouts to make changes and accept that you can/should only be doing it three days a week. Anytime I've strayed from that it's never been as rewarding.

It's certainly been the case with me as I progress. I envy guys who actually CAN still make nice gains while leaving reps in the tank. I need to see Satan, talk to Jesus and beg God for mercy all in the same set if I ever wanna see any gains.

 

[TheOtherOne55]

Here is the question I still ponder. For an advanced guy (10+ years of serious training) which scenario would be more beneficial for hypertrophy (I will use dips as an example):

A. Bar dips with bodyweight. 1 rest pause set to failure 3x. Let say you get 22 reps to failure...rest 20 seconds...get 9 reps to failure...rest 20 seconds....get 5 reps to failure for a total of 36 reps.

B. Bar dips with bodyweight. 6 sets of 12 reps. standard rest time of 1-2 mins between sets. none to failure but a total of 72 reps. double that of the above. sure the first 1-3 sets were not that hard but by the time you got to set 6, you BARELY got 12. ultimately you did twice the amount of reps.

I have brought up this similar scenario before and Dante produced a study that suggest A would be more beneficial. Does this latest study suggest otherwise? I don't mean to overthink things, because ultimately I am guessing both scenarios would work. I just like drilling down into the minitua as which would be more ideal.

THIS is the ultimate scenario and is usually how I train. WHEN I CAN, and depending on BP, I enjoy and overall prefer hitting 1-2 hard working sets where I take that muscle group to complete failure. That can be through RP methods like you are using above, or just 2 working sets where I make sure I'm pushing out partials at the end to realllly get that last bit out.
OR
I extend the volume and don't train to complete failure. I tend to do this on BP's where it can be freaking dangerous. Like many people mention above—training legs to complete failure can run the risk of realllly injuring yourself. So rather than doing squat and Leg press hacks (i train by myself) until the weight collapses on me, i take it to 1-2 RIR and do it for 3-5 sets.

Its the same concept as LISS vs HIIT. ALLL OUT and shorter...or 75% for longer. BOTH seem to work for the most part and i think more people have real trouble doing the "complete failure" part rather than the RIR. To the average gym goer, failure is 5 3 RIR. And 3RIR is more like 8RIR.

 

[nothuman]

Brad is one of the top people to listen to when it comes to training science