that sounds good, agree on that totally
1 Like
NO ONE is saying not to go To Failure. Option 2 is TO Positive Failure.
It’s the “Or Beyond” (Option 1) that’s being challenged.
Option 1 ‘is to failure’ , failure is when you fail during a rep.
Stopping before you actually fail, (option 2) isn’t going to failure.
But stopping short is superior it seems, less CNS drain, with the same or even better results. This study showed slightly better results from avoiding failure.
The aim of this study was to compare the effects of resistance training to muscle failure (RT-F) and non-failure (RT-NF) on muscle mass, strength and activation of trained individuals. We also compared the effects of these protocols on muscle architecture parameters.
A within-subjects design was used in which 14 participants had one leg randomly assigned to RT-F and the other to RT-NF.
Each leg was trained 2 days per week for 10 weeks. Vastus lateralis (VL) muscle cross-sectional area (CSA), pennation angle ( PA ), fascicle length (FL) and 1-repetition maximum (1-RM) were assessed at baseline (Pre) and after 20 sessions (Post).
The electromyographic signal (EMG) was assessed after the training period. RT-F and RT-NF protocols showed significant and similar increases in CSA (RT-F: 13.5% and RT-NF: 18.1%; P < 0.0001), PA (RT-F: 13.7% and RT-NF: 14.4%; P < 0.0001) and FL (RT-F: 11.8% and RT-NF: 8.6%; P < 0.0001).
All protocols showed significant and similar increases in leg press (RT-F: 22.3% and RT-NF: 26.7%; P < 0.0001) and leg extension (RT-F: 33.3%, P < 0.0001 and RT-NF: 33.7%; P < 0.0001) 1-RM loads. No significant differences in EMG amplitude were detected between protocols (P > 0.05).
In conclusion, RT-F and RT-NF are similarly effective in promoting increases in muscle mass, PA, FL, strength and activation.
Only if you define it that way.
It’s all about defined terms. We need defined terms to avoid confusion, so everyone understands each other.
When researching “exercising to failure” or (in our case) clarifying HIT’s set/rep method, you must define failure, which is what we’re attempting to do.
For Example: This week, I spoke with a world-renowned strength coach about a training plan, and training to failure came up in the conversation. He told me that whenever he tells his athletes to “take a set to failure,” he always means to do as many complete positive reps as possible – and never to attempt a rep they aren’t confident in completing.
That’s his definition of failure.
I believe everyone here understands and agrees with the definitions of Failure 1 and 2.
Are you suggesting that we not use the terms Failure 1 and 2?
If so, would you prefer Failure and Exhaustion?
The context is concentric reps, so let’s not add redundant terms.
We don’t need a study to confirm what’s already understood.
And isn’t that what Darden and I have been trying to get across?
1 Like
I imagine some define failure as something other than ‘failure’, I’m just going by how Jones, Darden, and even Mentzer (who got his info. from Jones) defined it, along with the logical idea that going to failure means, well, going to failure.
I myself wouldn’t use failure 1 and 2, I wouldn’t try to redefine failure but we sure can redefine ‘HIT’ to mean what it actually sounds like it means. ‘High Intensity Training’, not maximum intensity but ‘high intensity’.
Sure you may not need a study but isn’t it nice to see that even science and research backs what you and Darden are talking about now? I posted that to support your views…
And yes, it’s what you guys are trying to get across, which a few times I’ve posted how I think it’s a great direction to go, and a direction I myself have went for a very very long time, posted about, and even mentioned in my articles from many many years ago, so I’m for sure on board with this new direction of HIT.
Thank you.
1 Like
Is it? Why?
I disagree. Option 2 is Positive Failure — stopping when you KNOW you cannot complete another concentric movement in good form. When you’ve been training long enough — and we both have — you KNOW.
If you are arguing that “Failure” doesn’t actually occur in #2, then that’s just Semantics. Look at it this way: I take the set up until I get a clear sign that Failure is right in front of me and then I stop. I train up TO Failure. Not through it, not into it, TO IT.
simon- Right as your saying " I take the set up until I get a clear sign that Failure is right in front of me and then I stop" your stopping right before failure. Training ‘to failure’ means you hit failure.
I’m not saying it matters for stimulation , as it doesn’t, but that is how failure has been defined in the HIT community since the 70’s. It’s how Darden defines it in his past books and articles, etc.
And that’s the whole idea of these newer ideas, to not actually hit failure.
The problem here is that many people have an incorrect assessment of whether they will be able to do another repetition with the correct form. Many of these people, especially when training with an assistant, make an attempt and are convinced that they are capable of one more repetition, and sometimes two. Yes, it may be slower and much harder, but the technique stays good. Not everyone is so advanced as to know unmistakably when to stop.
You’re missing my explanation. I walk right up to Failure and bump my nose on it. Then I stop. That’s ‘To Failure’ as far as I’m concerned — the words are right there in my explanation.
- If you choose to actually try a rep that you know you won’t complete, that’s your business.
- If you didn’t know the rep was going to to fail, I can see that as a surprise fail. Also, that you need more experience.
I saw it, yes you get right up close to failure without actually failing on a rep, that’s ‘close to failure’. It’s very close, but it’s still close not ‘to failure’. It’s like saying I went to the store, I got right up to the parking lot but stopped before I pulled in. Here is what Darden says in MM in 10 weeks.
@simon_hecubus @nw-lifter i think what you guys need is a front squat off.
2 Likes
This has NOTHING to do with someone’s previous definition(s). I train up TO Failure.
Circular Argument → You’re not listening to me and I’m done listening to you. Agree to Disagree.
Good Day, Sir!
1 Like
Ha-Ha!!!
LOL omg, yes I got it, you had said earlier you train to failure then clarified you train to the last full rep before the failed rep. Yes right up almost to failure. I get what your saying. That’s not ‘to failure’ that’s right up almost to failure. Failure means you hit failure, it’s pretty simple logic. It’s not a previous definition, it’s what the language means. Train to failure = training to failure. Failure = failing on a rep.
What your doing is just as good, and probably better, if you want to call it ‘to failure’ that’s fine, I don’t but no worries, it doesn’t really matter anyway except stopping before the failed rep is superior IMO and tis the whole point of what Tim and Darden are talking about now. To avoid actually hitting failure.
LOL not sure if that would help how terminology is used lol
1 Like
Man, I should have TM and (C) “intensity porn.” But that’s ok, because I’m going to use “failed rep” as much as I can;) as in “avoid the…”
1 Like
Probably true, i’m mostly being a grumpy old man. These threads just wind me up so my instinct is to poke a little bit of fun.
Edit: to clarify: i appreciate the original intent of the thread, anything that moves away from the “No True Scotsman” nature of these things is good in my book.
2 Likes