Uhmm, it’s literally a powerlifting template 
Have you given DC training, Fortitude, or maybe Jordan Peter’s work a shot? These are much more aligned with the type of failure training being discussed in this thread.
I disagree 
While a lot of people use 5/3/1 for powerlifting, I also would not call it a powerlifting template and I don’t think it was ever intended to be one. Especially if we are talking about the original 5/3/1.
I mean, that’s fine, but I’ve used 5/3/1 and actual failure based training templates - and they are definitely not the same. Not intending to argue as I actually do respect your opinion.
You should consider giving DC training a shot, sincerely. I think you will notice growth - as in, I don’t think anyone’s ever complained that DC training made them smaller.
What’s funny is I literally only ever see 5/3/1 discussed on TNation. Having trained at a handful of PL oriented gyms in Cali and Chicago, I’ve never actually talked to one competitive PLer that has used 5/3/1. If I ask, they either haven’t heard of it or just regard it as a generic strength template that’s good for gen pop, but won’t get them to where they want for their meets.
2 Likes
Appreciate it. I never took any of your posts as argumentative either.
I don’t think DC aligns with my goals anymore, but if I ever am looking to add size I will definitely give it a go. These days I’m more focused on strength-skill and improving range of motion and conditioning.
1 Like
Well, I can be the first competitive powerlifter (or former powerlifter) you’ve talked to who used it for a meet. This is how I know it isn’t a powerlifting template. Lol.
Nope, doesn’t count unless we meet and you tell me IRL 
1 Like
I would actually guess the average is around 44 lb given how they decay very slowly over the years of constant use. I suppose this calls for a standard error calculation as well then.
Precision weighted plates are considerably more expensive than typical gym plates. Some 45lb plates weigh as much as 46lbs, or so. Some are as low a 44lbs. Everything manufactured has variation within the product output. Everything! Precision plates cost additional money, and that is with a margin of error, which they would publish as + or - 0.0x pounds. In other words, they are not exactly 45.0000 pounds.
Through the years I have seen some extremes in popularity of failure training, in particular were “forced reps.” This went through a couple decades. I tried them and found them to plateau very quickly. I would see partners working out together on the bench press and by the end of a set the spotter had a greater trap pump than the bench presser had a pec pump, all the time the spotter say, “All you. You got this. All you.”
Between the two, failure vs volume, IMO, volume yields greater hypertrophy than failure training. The athlete that can endure the greatest volume, will achieve the greatest muscle hypertrophy. Enduring volume is genetic. We are not created equal. AAS and other gear allow greater volume tolerance, thus greater muscle hypertrophy. We can discuss this further if you like. I am not saying I am correct, but that seems clear the evidence that I have seen (for most all bodybuilders and those striving to become one.)
Truer words have seldom been said. Genetics is cruel. Before many of you unload on me, I am not saying that a person shouldn’t try, but there comes a time when a person needs to decide “to fish, or cut bait.”
2 Likes
Belief in what you’re doing is more important than the method in a lot of ways. I don’t actually think the method matters a great deal in the grand scheme of things over the long-term. Similar to what you have already said about switching things up, if someone has trained high volumes for a long time I have no doubt in my mind that spending a phase training to failure could be one of the individual’s best options. The inverse is also true.
I don’t believe this to be concrete. With all these different methods working right up to the top level, it says to me that mechanical tension is the primary driver of muscle growth. How you get there doesn’t matter, effective reps, taking a set or two to the limit, all that really matters is that you reach the level of it required for growth. The more you get out of a set, the less sets you need to do. It doesn’t mean that either way is right or wrong though. It’s an either-or thing. How do you like to train? What motivates you the most? I think trying to do either forever, never veering into the others path would be a mistake.
“Volume, Intensity, Frequency. Pick two of the options you enjoy the most and down-regulate the third.” - Paul Carter
IMO, to the extent that the person is strong, I believe volume is superior to failure for muscle hypertrophy.
That said, the lifter must get strong so that his sets and reps are moving sufficient weight to reach the upper limits of the lifter’s volume tolerance. The method the person uses to get strong is opened to what works best for the individual. I do know that powerlifters tend to not train to failure. I never did after the first year of floundering around trying singles every workout.
Another thought: Legs were always my lagging body part. Apart from my first year trying to powerlift, I never trained legs to failure. (With the exception of two individual instances and both were unintended.) I can’t image intentionally training squats to failure, or leg presses. I did always have a few more reps in me. On the isolation exercises for thighs I focused on feeling the contraction, and not on trying to build bulk, but sculpturing. Bulk is what the squats and leg presses were doing. I was doing high volume work (moving heavy weight for long distances, set by set.)
1 Like
Not to be argumentative, but does this not contradict your preference for volume?
2 Likes
I’m not necessarily going to disagree here, but i would clarify a few things.
- Some folks take failure to the extreme where they will work only one set and exercise per muscle, once every 2 weeks (mentzer style). I don’t think this is optimal.
- Other folks go the opposite way and train to failure way too much, like hitting 20+ sets to failure in a workout and training that way 6x a week. I also find this sub-optimal.
Excessive volume performed outside of a very near proximity to failure is effectively junk volume. I do believe that increasing the overall volume of sets to failure would be effective on an undulating basis. Scott Stevenson’s Fortitude Training does this starting at 1 set per exercise, moving all the way up to 3 sets per exercise - then resets. I actually know quite a few older (poor term) folks who use Fortitude Training as it’s fairly joint friendly and still allows progression and failure training. If you haven’t tried this, I would sincerely recommend looking into it.
The video posted actually shows similar or subpar results for strength results when training to failure. It’s interesting to see how far behind science is after the lifting community already figured it all out.
That was not my intent. My first year trying to powerlift did not end with a meet. I wasn’t near where I needed to be. Now, I am not saying that I reverted to high volume during the remaining years I powerlifted, only that I quit learning how to miss. I would do heavy weight, but no more than I could do without breaking form.
When I reverted to primarily bodybuilding, all my leg training was volume centered.
2 Likes
I freaking love Training to failure. I love Cluster sets, I love Drop sets. I seem to respond so well to high intensity+moderate volume+moderate frequency! I made okay progress on the original Heavy Duty, amazing progress on Fortitude Training, great progress on DC, and am currently making fantastic gains using Mountain Dog programming(despite being in a deficit). There’s something about the excitement of a hard set and pushing myself harder than I did before that really helps drive progress for me.
I’ve noticed that true HIT featured volumes too low for me to make progress to at max speed, but if I add some volume and periodize it à la Fortitude Training or Mountain Dog Training, I can make truly awesome progress in strength and muscle. I’m no expert on percentages or charts, but I can certainly harp on what has and hasn’t worked for me and speculate on what elements play into its success or failure.
2 Likes
Maybe Failure is like "the Pump"or a nice “Grinding Rep.”
When you do a Good (effective) set, you might get a nice pump. But you can’t just hand your arm off the back of a chair to get a sweet arm pump and expect your muscle to grow.
Maybe when you get a Good set in, the bar slows down and you gotta push hard. But trying to experience slow bar speed by just pushing Super Slow doesn’t do much.
And maybe when you get a good set in, your muscles get close to failing. But you can’t expect good growth chasing failure with forced rep, accentuated negative, drop sets.
1 Like
?
Agreed. Superslow has been debunked, if not by the results of those who use it - by more than one critical assessment of it.
What?
1 Like
Here’s another contribution to the conversation by someone who I consider to be a genius in the community, Dr. Scott Stevenson. There’s multiple ways to accrue your effective reps and achieve “effective time under tension” as Scott coined, but certainly training to failure is the most efficient way to get there.
2 Likes