[quote]Cleareyes wrote:
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.
[/quote]
Better? I think you’ll find that if you stick with this stuff long enough you’ll realize that there are very few if any absolutes. One method may be better in some situations. Another may be better for certain people. Yet another may be better for certain goals. Also, I’d also have to ask where you get the idea that the "majority of training methods and majority of lifters train to failure?
Westside guys don’t routinely train to failure. Gymnasts and the majority of other athletes don’t train to failure. If you’re basing this purely on the fact that the majority of routines found in Flex and M&F prescribe training to failure, then that’s only a small fraction of the whole. In fact, Ronnie Coleman has stated in several articles that I’ve read that he never trains to failure.
And as far as the majority of lifters training to failure in gyms. This is probably true, or at least it is of the majority of lifters that I encounter on a daily basis. However, this can generally be attributed to the fact that it’s the only method that they are aware of. And they have been wrongly informed that it is essential to gaining mass and strength.
If you read enough of Waterbury’s articles you’ll realize that he is really big on variety. His workouts have you constantly changing rep/set schemes and movement patterns. It only makes sense that he would also believe that occasionally going to failure for smaller muscle groups would provide a new stimulus to shock the muscles into further adaptation. But, to suggest that this means that he believes that this would be better is too much of an assumption. Beneficial does not necessarily equate to better.
Have you tried asking him directly in his locker room? If not, I’d suggest doing so.
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
One method may be better in some situations. Another may be better for certain people. Yet another may be better for certain goals.[/quote]
Is this a varation of the old comment “dude, whatever works for you man!” I thought we would get a little more specific than that, that’s kinda what discussions like this is for.
IF one method indeed may be better in some situations, let’s list those situations. IF one method may be better for certain people, then why is that, and who are these certain people? And IF it may be better for certain goals, then what are these goals? This is a BODYBUILDING site after all, so the goals bodybuilders share are pretty much the same for everyone.
Well considering this IS the BODYBUILDING’s think tank, I though that was obvious I was refering to bodybuilders. Not only do the majority train to failure, a lot of them train BEYOND failure using all kinds of techniques like forced reps etc.
I wouldn’t say all these people, for all those years, with the best built bodies in the world doesn’t know what they’re doing… that’s a pretty bold statement.
[quote]wressler125 wrote:
Stop obsessing and go lift heavy. [/quote]
Well that’s just it, I’m obsessed and want to discuss this in great detail. I don’t think a “dude go lift heavy man!”-comment has a place in a bodybuilding’s THINK-TANK.
[quote]Cleareyes wrote:
<<< Without actual facts and studies it’s pretty pointless and just becomes guess work.
[/quote]
Actual facts and studies aren’t always the same thing and in reality way too many times it’s the studies that are pointless in the sense that the conclusions are ever changing and often bare no resemblance to what is observed in the real world.
[quote]Cleareyes wrote:
Well that’s just it, I’m obsessed and want to discuss this in great detail. I don’t think a “dude go lift heavy man!”-comment has a place in a bodybuilding’s THINK-TANK.
[/quote]
While somewhat oversimplified that in essence is the best advice any beginner can receive and most assuredly does have a place wherever there are people who plan on getting past that stage of development.
Do yourself a favor today. Get un-obsessed with “great detail”, find yourself a good noob routine, couple that with some good food and rest and leave the “great detail” until it may actually have some meaning to you.
Trial and error, in other words time and commitment are the only way you will ever, EVER dial in a training philosophy that is best for you. Anybody who tells you otherwise doesn’t know what they’re talking about or is lying to you.
I don’t know how to put this without sounding rude, but my only concern for this particular discussion is to, in as much detail as possible, discuss failure vs non-failure and the recovery ability of the CNS.
That means all standard advice like “dude go work out” “find what works best for you” etc doesn’t belong in this discussion.
Thanks for trying to help me out, but that’s not what I’m looking for.
[quote]Cleareyes wrote:
I don’t know how to put this without sounding rude, but my only concern for this particular discussion is to, in as much detail as possible, discuss failure vs non-failure and the recovery ability of the CNS.
That means all standard advice like “dude go work out” “find what works best for you” etc doesn’t belong in this discussion.
Thanks for trying to help me out, but that’s not what I’m looking for.[/quote]
It’s your thread friend, but I’m promising you, a year from now whatever you think you’ve learned from this will have wasted your time at best or delayed your ability to utilize more productive information at worst.