How to Go to Failure?

Training Bodybuilding
41

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Oh, and as for your “crazy” squat drop-set, yeah, that sounds brutal. I’m pretty happy with my current routine, so I don’t think I’ll be trying it any time soon (though it does sound like “fun”). I’d also pretty much guarantee that I’d be making some serious noise doing it if I did try it. ;)[/quote]

If you ever do, keep the tempo relatively quick as long as possible. Once you stop moving after a certain point it’s damn near impossible to move. Also have a bench strategically placed nearby so you can pull yourself over to it fairly quick. It will definitely disturb the pleebs watching you crawl across the floor trying to find someplace to grope yourself into a seated position. I’m not kidding.

EDIT: BTW, anybody who thinks this is self abuse for the sake and spectacle of it, try it for a few leg workouts and see if your legs don’t grow noticabely. I wouldn’t do it all the time, but it’s great for a 4-6 week plateau breaker or serious change of pace. Also, whatever leg work you do next is bound to seem easier. I usually do 6-8 fail/3 or 4 more fail and 3 or 4 more. You may have to mix up the plate configuration so you can drop enough to keep going effectively. You also need intelligent and reliable partners who can pull the plates quickly and smoothly.

42

350×525 28.5 KB

This guy would disagree with you.

So would Viator, Oliva, Mentzer, Dante Trudell, CT, Dr. Darden, the late Arthur Jones and quite a few others (myself included).

Yes, I realize that there are authors on this site who don’t advocate training to failure. And from a sports specific viewpoint HIT might actually suck (though there is some pretty interesting anecdotal evidence to even refute that claim). But, if we’re talking about bodybuilding (building muscle being the primary goal), then there is a ton of evidence to support the contrary.

You have to face the fact that all of the above men either built an impressive physique themselves (a couple of them were Mr. Olympia at one time) or helped build some impressive physiques. To then turn around and suggest that these men were somehow wrong is a little foolish IMO. Not to mention that many of the same principles are still being applied today and are still producing results.

43

I’m not a HIT disciple like some of the close minded cultists still seen floating around, but in the very, very beginning HIT changed my life and forever convinced me of the validity of it’s principles. I could’ve been their poster boy. I made more progress in 30 days spending a grand total of 90 minutes a week in the gym than I had in the previous 6 months. I don’t use those principles all the time, but they are never far from my heart or outta reach in my toolbox.

44

And Dorian stated somewhere that he started to really grow only when he began to use some of the HIT principles aplied to himself.

45

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:

Scott M wrote:
Lorisco,

Are you being serious?

I was actually being serious and there are a number of trainers / authors on this site that agree with me.

But I think it is how you define “failure”. My statements were related to absolute failure in the context of low volume high intensity work, basically the HIT method.

Going to failure after one set is much different than multiple sets to failure. The level of CNS activation is much higher in a one set to failure routine. So it is basically neural failure and not contractile tissue failure. I know many see it as the same, but I believe that it is much different.

When you do one set to failure all your HTMU’s are still fairly fresh. So you have most all of them functioning at a high level of force. With this high level of force and you still are reaching absolute failure on one set the rate coding is crazy. This in turn makes the GTO more sensitive and the result is that it shuts down the action quicker.

But with multiple sets to failure the HTMU’s are already fatigued and not producing a high level of actual (not perceived) force. This lower level of force does not make the GTO feel that you are in eminent danger of ripping your arms off, so it is less sensitive and the action is limited by actual muscle fatigue (metabolites, etc) and not neural activity (GTO).

So in my experience going to failure (cannot lift the load no matter how hard you try) on one set (HIT style) will slowly cause you to have a more sensitive GTO, which will limit you strength gains progression. But going to failure with a multiple set routine will not cause this GTO sensitivity.

This is another reason why HIT sucks!

This guy would disagree with you.

So would Viator, Oliva, Mentzer, Dante Trudell, CT, Dr. Darden, the late Arthur Jones and quite a few others (myself included).

Yes, I realize that there are authors on this site who don’t advocate training to failure. And from a sports specific viewpoint HIT might actually suck (though there is some pretty interesting anecdotal evidence to even refute that claim). But, if we’re talking about bodybuilding (building muscle being the primary goal), then there is a ton of evidence to support the contrary.

You have to face the fact that all of the above men either built an impressive physique themselves (a couple of them were Mr. Olympia at one time) or helped build some impressive physiques. To then turn around and suggest that these men were somehow wrong is a little foolish IMO. Not to mention that many of the same principles are still being applied today and are still producing results.

[/quote]

There are countless studies that show HIT (one set to failure) is not as effective as multiple sets to failure. I don’t have a problem with going to failure on multiple sets because it is a contractile protein failure, not a neurological motor unit failure that occurs after one set. In a nutshell, the problem with HIT is that it produces too much stimulus for the neurological systems and not enough stimulus for the contractile protein system.

So what occurs is that you initially make good gains until your CNS gets overtrained. Once this occurs you will stagnate because your CNS will not allow you to activate the contractile protein to the level required to continue to progress. That is why for long term gains a multiple set system works better because it does not trash your CNS, which allows for continued stimulation of the contractile protein.

Referencing a few genetically gifted individuals as proof is not supportive of HIT. It only supports their genetics. And to be honest the list on the other side of the debate is much longer. But again, that is irrelevant. It doesn’t mater what works for world class genetic freaks. What matters is what works for the other 90% of the population.

Lastly, I’m not saying HIT doesn’t work. It works like anything else, just not as long.

The best use of HIT is to cycle in and out of it. After all, it is the variation in training methodology that supports long term gains, not the religious adherence to a program that has ceased to deliver results for the sake of the few genetic freaks.

46

The take home HIT-ish principle for me is pounding the fatal shit out of a muscle group directly no more than once a week in most cases. That may or may not include post failure intensity techniques, but often does. I know this is not properly HIT. Even in my most devoted HIT days I did 2 working sets after warm ups and did a more open split than the HIT guys called for.

That worked for almost 2 years during which I gained 40+ lean pounds. I started at a soft 157 pounds at 6’2 and wound up an ultra shredded 205-210 or so. IF ONLY I would not have gotten afraid to eat and stalled like I did I probably would never have slipped into a funk for over a decade.

47

[quote]Otep wrote:
best way to go to failure:

Don’t use a spotter.

Trust me, you’ll get the weight up.[/quote]

One time doing a bench i didnt get the weight up — i had to let the wieghts slide off of the end (and i was in a second floor apartment so the downstair neigbors werent to happy - oh well - live and learn).

At any rate, ever since, i make sure i dont fail on the last rep when doing bench; one good way to push beyond failure safely when by yourself is to do strip sets.

48

[quote]Lorisco wrote:

There are countless studies that show HIT (one set to failure) is not as effective as multiple sets to failure. I don’t have a problem with going to failure on multiple sets because it is a contractile protein failure, not a neurological motor unit failure that occurs after one set. In a nutshell, the problem with HIT is that it produces too much stimulus for the neurological systems and not enough stimulus for the contractile protein system.
[/quote]

I actually recall reading several studies that basically said that if you were going to go to failure, that doing so for 1 set was the best way to go. That’s the problem with studies, if you look you can find studies to support basically any viewpoint you want.

However, looking at actual concrete examples (such as the guys that I mentioned) is a much more reliable method of deducting what works and what doesn’t.

That might have been your experience, but there are quite a few others who continue to make gains with a HIT approach (perhaps not Arthur Jones’s actual program, but using many of it’s principles).

There are quite a few individuals with average genetics who have made some pretty impressive gains using a HIT approach. That said I was not trying to suggest that volume training doesn’t work. Both methods have their success (and disaster) stories. What’s important isn’t trying to prove that one or the other doesn’t work, but instead experimenting and finding which method works best for you.

I don’t really think that you can make predictions about how long a program will work. There are plenty of people who continue to make gains on HIT inspired programs for years. Whether a program can continue to produce gains is more based on proper deloading, rest and dietary methods than the format of the program itself.

I’m also not proposing a “religious adhereance” to any program. But, if a program is giving you fantastic results, why wouldn’t you stick with it?