How often one can train to failure seems to depend on how long it will take for the CNS (Central Nervous System) to recover but I’ve yet to see any studies etc on this.
Could some of you guys link to scientific studies, articles etc covering this?
Thanks!
Nobody?
The reason I ask is because of those training philosophies where you’re not supposed to go to failure are based on the CNS and the time it takes to recover.
Without actual facts and studies it’s pretty pointless and just becomes guess work.
Have you read any of Waterbury’s stuff? He has studied quite a lot about the CNS and has written quite a bit about it both here and in his book.
I’ve read some of his stuff, here’s a quote:
“. You can’t train to failure on every set and expect to recover within 48-72 hours.”
So apparantely he uses this figure “48-72 hours” which makes me wonder if the CNS would be recovered after, let’s say 96 hours (4 days) if so, it would be perfectly allright to train for example legs to failure once every 4 days, or twice every 8 days…
And a lot of people don’t train legs more than once a week as it is, so that makes me wonder why one should NOT train to failure when it seems perfectly allright to do so…
Confusing.
[quote]Cleareyes wrote:
I’ve read some of his stuff, here’s a quote:
“. You can’t train to failure on every set and expect to recover within 48-72 hours.”
So apparantely he uses this figure “48-72 hours” which makes me wonder if the CNS would be recovered after, let’s say 96 hours (4 days) if so, it would be perfectly allright to train for example legs to failure once every 4 days, or twice every 8 days…
And a lot of people don’t train legs more than once a week as it is, so that makes me wonder why one should NOT train to failure when it seems perfectly allright to do so…
Confusing.[/quote]
how many sets to failure? i don’t think anyone knows too much about the CNS yet to have the exact number of sets equals certain days of rest, etc blah blah. You just gotta listen to your body and u can learn how long YOUR CNS takes to recover…
[quote]Cleareyes wrote:
Without actual facts and studies it’s pretty pointless and just becomes guess work.[/quote]
Even with studies there’s guess work (aka getting to know your limits as an individual) involved.
For example, it takes me ~three weeks for my CNS to fully recover form a max effort deadlift. So I never max out in that lift more than every three weeks. In between max effort intervals I work on pulling speed and muscle building work.
Exersize science is a young discipline and ‘evidence’ changes at a quick pace.
Spend some time trying out different ideas and get to know what works best for YOU.
It will be different for everybody, and will depend on volume, intensity, and exercise selection.
For example, going to failure with 50% of your 1rm will be much less taxing than going to failure with 75% of your max. In addition, while squats can destroy your CNS even when not going to failure, I don’t think there is much to worry about taking a set of curls to or past failure.
I have yet to read a failure vs non-failure case study where the failure group excelled over control group.
[quote]unearth wrote:
For example, it takes me ~three weeks for my CNS to fully recover form a max effort deadlift. [/quote]
You talking about a 1RM? And how can you tell it takes three weeks?
[quote]wressler125 wrote:
It will be different for everybody, and will depend on volume, intensity, and exercise selection.
For example, going to failure with 50% of your 1rm will be much less taxing than going to failure with 75% of your max. In addition, while squats can destroy your CNS even when not going to failure, I don’t think there is much to worry about taking a set of curls to or past failure.
I have yet to read a failure vs non-failure case study where the failure group excelled over control group.
[/quote]
Yes it will be different, still HOW much different can it be? If it’s 48 hours for one, 72 for another, or even 168 for a third that still means they ALL can go to failure at least ONCE every week.
I have read no failure vs non-failure case studies at all. Feel free to link to some so I can check it out.
But if you’re right that there’s NO benefit going to failure, over stopping let’s say 2-3 reps from failure, then we have nothing to worry about. My impression is that most training philosophies focus on the benefit of failure and consider it better, that’s the whole point. If all these people, and all those theories are wrong, then that’s great - less effort, better results.
It’s confusing though, someone like Waterbury saying:
“For single joint exercises, I think training to failure is okay and sometimes beneficial”
And then saying
“I’ve never seen a situation where training to balls-out failure resulted in more hypertrophy than simply training with a moderate balance of intensity, volume, and speed.”
I know Frederick Hatfield uses different intervals of recovery depending in the intensity and muscles. Legs and back are 3,4,5 days while others are 2,3,4 where the first number is an easy workout, then intermediate, then very intense. Im not sure if he uses the CNS or the muscular recovery for the numbers, but they seem to follow how most people feel. I have a feeling that there is simply not enough scientific data for a real conclusion about the general population’s CNS recovery ability.
[quote]Cleareyes wrote:
wressler125 wrote:
It will be different for everybody, and will depend on volume, intensity, and exercise selection.
For example, going to failure with 50% of your 1rm will be much less taxing than going to failure with 75% of your max. In addition, while squats can destroy your CNS even when not going to failure, I don’t think there is much to worry about taking a set of curls to or past failure.
I have yet to read a failure vs non-failure case study where the failure group excelled over control group.
Yes it will be different, still HOW much different can it be? If it’s 48 hours for one, 72 for another, or even 168 for a third that still means they ALL can go to failure at least ONCE every week.
I have read no failure vs non-failure case studies at all. Feel free to link to some so I can check it out.
But if you’re right that there’s NO benefit going to failure, over stopping let’s say 2-3 reps from failure, then we have nothing to worry about. My impression is that most training philosophies focus on the benefit of failure and consider it better, that’s the whole point. If all these people, and all those theories are wrong, then that’s great - less effort, better results.
It’s confusing though, someone like Waterbury saying:
“For single joint exercises, I think training to failure is okay and sometimes beneficial”
And then saying
“I’ve never seen a situation where training to balls-out failure resulted in more hypertrophy than simply training with a moderate balance of intensity, volume, and speed.”
[/quote]
when he says single joint he means isolation exercises like concentration curls or calve raises. this will do little to affect ur cns cuz this exercises only affects a small group of muscles. Going to failure on Deadlifts or Squats or another large compound exercises like that is a different matter…or so i’ve heard.
[quote]Cleareyes wrote:
unearth wrote:
For example, it takes me ~three weeks for my CNS to fully recover form a max effort deadlift.
You talking about a 1RM? And how can you tell it takes three weeks?
[/quote]
Yes, a one rep max.
Through self experimentation, I’ve found that if I try to max out more than every three weeks in the deadlift my 1RM performance suffers considerably.
This is also some what of a moving target (~ stands for approximate).
If you’re new to training the deadlift you will probably find that you can max out more often without diminished performance. And there are many other variables than just 'training age".
Ultimately, the only way you’re going to find out what you can handle is to get in the gym and see what happens.
[quote]
when he says single joint he means isolation exercises like concentration curls or calve raises. this will do little to affect ur cns cuz this exercises only affects a small group of muscles. Going to failure on Deadlifts or Squats or another large compound exercises like that is a different matter…or so i’ve heard.[/quote]
yes. but the question is why he says:
“I think training to failure is okay and sometimes beneficial” "
apparantely he see something in training to failure that is different than not training to failure (after all)
and if indeed going to failure is prefered, over not going to failure, it should be in all our interests to go to failure as often as we can. this is why the question about CNS comes in so we easier can find out.
[quote]
Yes, a one rep max.
Through self experimentation, I’ve found that if I try to max out more than every three weeks in the deadlift my 1RM performance suffers considerably.
This is also some what of a moving target (~ stands for approximate).
If you’re new to training the deadlift you will probably find that you can max out more often without diminished performance. And there are many other variables than just 'training age".
Ultimately, the only way you’re going to find out what you can handle is to get in the gym and see what happens.[/quote]
Allright personally i cannot relate to 1RP the lowest i go is 4-5 reps. and at this time im going for mass, rather than strength.
[quote]Cleareyes wrote:
when he says single joint he means isolation exercises like concentration curls or calve raises. this will do little to affect ur cns cuz this exercises only affects a small group of muscles. Going to failure on Deadlifts or Squats or another large compound exercises like that is a different matter…or so i’ve heard.
yes. but the question is why he says:
“I think training to failure is okay and sometimes beneficial” "
apparantely he see something in training to failure that is different than not training to failure (after all)
and if indeed going to failure is prefered, over not going to failure, it should be in all our interests to go to failure as often as we can. this is why the question about CNS comes in so we easier can find out.[/quote]
I think he is thinking of the people reading his article. If they are new or inexperienced and he says you should train as often as possible to failure…well u get the idea. You need to gain experience going to failure and learn how often you can go to it. This is a complicated subject to explain to newbies so maybe he was just trying to err on the safe side regarding training to failure.
[quote]Cleareyes wrote:
Yes it will be different, still HOW much different can it be? If it’s 48 hours for one, 72 for another, or even 168 for a third that still means they ALL can go to failure at least ONCE every week.
[/quote]
Exactly 62.5 hours. Is that what you want? This is not an exact science, it is an art. Stop obsessing and go lift heavy. If the next time you feel run down and weak, then don’t lift so heavy the following time. Are you expecting a graph or something?
[quote]Cleareyes wrote:
when he says single joint he means isolation exercises like concentration curls or calve raises. this will do little to affect ur cns cuz this exercises only affects a small group of muscles. Going to failure on Deadlifts or Squats or another large compound exercises like that is a different matter…or so i’ve heard.
yes. but the question is why he says:
“I think training to failure is okay and sometimes beneficial” "
apparantely he see something in training to failure that is different than not training to failure (after all)
and if indeed going to failure is prefered, over not going to failure, it should be in all our interests to go to failure as often as we can. this is why the question about CNS comes in so we easier can find out.[/quote]
Hi ClearEyes,
First, why do you want to go to failure? Do you understand what it is, on a physiological level?
If you don’t know why one would purposely go to failure, or what it means to go to failure on a physiological level, then I’d strongly suggest that you go back and read over more strength training, and/or exercise physiology, articles/texts.
To put it very simply there are 3 accepted methods of recruiting your maximal number of Motor units/muscle fibers. They are:
So, you see that lifting to failure is just one of 3 possible methods of recruiting the maximal number of motor units that you can voluntarily recruit. It’s not necessary however. And tends to be more taxing, and thus requiring of more recovery, than the other two methods.
That’s why CW suggests that you stay away from failure for the most part, especially with big compound movements like DL’s, Bench, Squats, Oly Lifts, etc…
Also, you’ll notice that although he does say that “for smaller muscles/isolation exercises it’s ok to go to failure and sometimes beneficial”, for the most part he has you staying away from failure in the majority of his routines. Notice he says it’s “ok” and “SOMETIMES beneficial”, not better or always beneficial.
Like someone mentioned above going to failure on a set of preacher curls isn’t going to put a huge strain on your CNS, and therefore won’t take much time to recover from. Oh, and I have ready several studies (don’t have any links to them at present) where researchers found that going to failure was only beneficial if only done on 1 (usually the final) set. If done more than that it actually decreased performance.
Personally I rarely if ever to to failure. Yet my performance keeps improving and if my diet is good (which admittedly isn’t always ideal) I continue to build lean mass.
Hope that helps.
Good training,
Sentoguy
Researchers don’t even fully understand what CNS fatigue IS, much less how to accurately quantify it. Everybody is going to be speaking from anecdotal experience, whether individual or from a coaching perspective.
Sento; yes it’s one of three methods, question is if they’re all equally good, or if one would be better than the other? considering that the majority of training methods over the years + the majority of the lifters has going to failure as the method of choice, it leads to that it might just be the better of the three.
When Waterbury says it’s sometimes beneficial, apparantely he believes it’s MORE so than not going to failure, so in a way he TOO believes it’s the method of choice (at least some of the time, and at least for smaller muscle groups)
I haven’t seen of the studies you’re talking about, feel free to link. And my original question is still unanswered - studies of cns recovery.
When someone like Waterbury comes up with “48-72 hours to recover” he must base this on SOMETHING. I like to know what this something is.
[quote]Cleareyes wrote:
considering that the majority of training methods over the years + the majority of the lifters has going to failure as the method of choice, it leads to that it might just be the better of the three.
[/quote]
Are you basing this on what you see in the gym, or what you think is going on in the world?
If it’s what you see in the gym, then why are you on here looking for more information? Taking that logic, you could just do what you see everybody else doing… The majority of the lifters I see do a steady routine of bench press 3*10 followed by squat rack curls.
If it’s because you are looking for better techniques, then you should know that the top weightlifters in the world do not go to failure. Top powerlifters rarely go to failure with reps over 3, and every video of competitive bodybuilders I’ve seen has them doing their reps and putting the weight down…
Besides that, there is no BEST method. Stop making this into black and white. Utilize all 3 methods.