Will failure send a signal to adapt regardless

[buck]

Wut?

Sorry for the typo
So you are saying that no more muscle fibers are recruited throughout the set then. And it is just the same number of fibers firing for the whole set.

 

[Type-IIx]

No, they didn't tire out. But there very well be as many firing 1st and last rep, just not the same units. We talked about this once before in relation to muscular maximum contractile force. It's very difficult to know where that is (aka total muscular failure). Is it the point where it hurts too bad? Where you can't deliver enough blood/oxygen to the cells? Where ATP is spent? And when is that point reached? This is why a doctor long ago suggested beta-blockers as not good for bodybuilders.

Let's say you just completed a set that you felt was 100%. Maybe a personal record. Would you be surprised if I told you getting pumped with a truckload of epinephrine before that set would have possibly increased neurotransmission enough to pull off another rep or two? Or maybe taking a beta-blocker would have blunted neurotransmission just enough to prevent that final rep. Or maybe electrolytes were off just enough. Or maybe epi- and norepinephrine were not optimal (adrenal fatigue).

We discussed how people have performed amazing feats of strength under life or death circumstances. So much so, that they ripped tendons off bone. This is what makes what was said earlier so relevant. The only thing that matters inside that muscle or muscle group is that you were able to recruit more fibers than at a previous point (ideally, any previous point). That's progressive. That's going to cause cell growth and volumization (hypertrophy). Possibly even activate sat cells and create more motor units overall (hyperplasia).

Progressive training is key and the only caveat to that progression is consistency. You may feel like you worked as hard as last week but if you didn't recruit more muscle fibers, you didn't.

The fact is, we can activate very specific amounts of motor units to perform very specific tasks, tie our shoelaces, thread a needle, or play ping pong. An ape can't do these fine motor skills because the moment the message comes from the brain, far too many motor units are recruited making things clumsy. I know when I was at my biggest and strongest, I was clumsy as hell. People would say, "You don't know your own strength." Hopefully, some of you have felt that. Missing a doorway by a few inches and slamming a shoulder into the wall? A baboon or a horse doesn't know it's own strength or limits either. But a normal human does and has fine motor skills.

The same motor skills that have delivered us to the top of the food chain, are the same motor skills that will have us ravaged in the wild within a few months if we didn't have them.

This is right. Selective recruitment is interesting (e.g., a vertical jump preferentially activating type IIX fibers without recruitment of lower order motor units).

Also: practically speaking, the effects of adrenaline and catecholamines generally have a major influence on strength and power. Competitive weightlifters would be remiss to base their training weights on lifts attained in competition for the very reason that those weights are too far beyond what they can reach in a relaxed state (without the environment of competition that provokes a potent catecholamine response). Elite weightlifters harness the effects of catecholamines, whereas those of amateur or lower rank find the effects too stressful.

 

[Biggerp73]

The thing about failure is, it's impossible to achieve. No matter how hard you push, someone could put a gun to your head and you'd be able to get a little more. In theory of course there is a limit, that's just the laws of physics and thermodynamics, but in practice no human being is ever teaching true muscular failure.

 

[OuchThatHurts]

This is right. Selective recruitment is interesting (e.g., a vertical jump preferentially activating type IIX fibers without recruitment of lower order motor units).

Also: practically speaking, the effects of adrenaline and catecholamines generally have a major influence on strength and power. Competitive weightlifters would be remiss to base their training weights on lifts attained in competition for the very reason that those weights are too far beyond what they can reach in a relaxed state (without the environment of competition that provokes a potent catecholamine response). Elite weightlifters harness the effects of catecholamines, whereas those of amateur or lower rank find the effects too stressful.

Precisely my point. The idea of total muscle failure is only muscle failure that was reached under one specific set of circumstances. That could be jumping high enough to reach a 10ft branch to escape a hungry lion on your ass or trying to unscrew the lug nuts on your car in the driveway. And there is a boatload of things you can do to increase that recruitment, natural or unnatural and achieve new heights in your class. Smelling salts was a big one for me. Hormonal agents alone acting at the AR? Not so much. Maybe the CNS activation those substances also provided.

 

[OuchThatHurts]

The thing about failure is, it's impossible to achieve. No matter how hard you push, someone could put a gun to your head and you'd be able to get a little more. In theory of course there is a limit, that's just the laws of physics and thermodynamics, but in practice no human being is ever teaching true muscular failure.

Exactly.

 

[marssel]

Spot on if you ask me.

I'll answer this question with another question: what if your 10 reps consisted of better quality contractions leading to the muscle being under more tension per rep than during your 12 reps set? Wouldn't that lead to muscle growth? I'm sure it would.

Automatically translating mechanical tension into weight on the bar is too simplistic imo.

Absolutely time under tension is one of the most basic tenets of muscle growth, how or if it relates to strength I don’t know or care as bodybuilding is always better if you can grow more or equal muscle with less weight as weight is what destroys our joints. Plus real world the difference between a 400 lb or 500lb bench is what bragging rights. Personally I prefer the pump and would rather chase that than numbers I pretty much never count my reps it’s all chasing the pump and pain.

 

[FK86]

https://www.professionalmuscle.com/forums/index.php?threads/honestly-there-is-a-secret-to-growth.60986/page-12#post-1966730

 

[Mufasa123]

I always view TUT as an extension of volume or amount of mechanical work. Needs intensity (%1RM not "feels" - ie load) and needs volume. TUT itself just kind of falls out as seemingly significant. Better to leave it out as intensity, volume and frequency are the properly defined variables.

 

[OuchThatHurts]

Mechanical tension is more important than tut. Load matters. There’s a reason we can’t get massive just with 2x25lb plates and a bar.
The pump is nice but has nothing to do with muscle growth.
So you don’t think if going from a 400 to a 500 lb press would result in a much larger chest?

There's also a reason we can't get big just by lifting maximal weight for a single rep.
Load and TUT are both vital components of hypertrophy and strength.
A skin-splitting "pump" is more than nice. It's vital to intramuscular vascularity, recovery, and growth.
A 400lb and 500lb flat press with two different individuals could easily yield equal muscle mass (by weight) with just a 25% more advantageous musculoskeletal attachment.

 

[Fa Seeshus]

The thing about failure is, it's impossible to achieve. No matter how hard you push, someone could put a gun to your head and you'd be able to get a little more. In theory of course there is a limit, that's just the laws of physics and thermodynamics, but in practice no human being is ever teaching true muscular failure.

Exactly, and there is a certain point at which it is not worth it... At least striving for it every single time. I loved all the Mentzer stuff growing up, but listening to his training partner Larry Pollock talk about their workouts gave me a slightly different perspective. The sheer amount of stims (Pollock claims) Mentzer was pounding before the workouts was pretty nuts.

 

[juggy38]

Here’s my take….

Progressive overload is moreso the proof of proper stimulus/recovery/adaptation.

If you CAN add load to the bar, your training is working. But just adding load to the bar isn’t DRIVING stimulus.

I think about the Texas method.

5x5 Monday.
2x5 Wednesday
1x5 ME Friday.

Many weeks the 5x5 weight was held the same, and even repeated, the stimulus was high enough to create adaptations. You checked if it was enough stimulus via fridays workout. If you added load, the week was a win.

If you didn’t….either Monday was too easy and time to increase load….ORRR Monday was way too fucking hard and you need to LOWER stimulus.

Friday was progressive overload…but it was more a litmus test to your whole program. And obviously a ME 5 rep squat will drive adaptations, im just saying progressive overload EVERY workout isn’t required to drive adaptations.

5x5 at 385lbs week 1….almost killed you, week 2, it was terrible, week 3…it was hard. Week 4, you owned it…..you definitely adapted 3-4 weeks, now time to add load.

 

[junker]

i wondered the exact same thing. also, i wonder if thats a 12 rep failure set, and 3 rir is just as effective as failure, why even try to add weight all the time? u could do that exact same weight and rep count for weeks, graduallly getting stronger so eventuallly that o rir goes to 1 rir, then 2 rir, then 3 rir....still doing the original weight and reps as week one, and each time u get the same mps stimulis as the first week u went to failure.
if thats true one only need add some weight every now and then eh? like once a month add 5 pounds. then hit failure and start again increasing rir when u can til your at 3 rir.....