Performance Based vs. Fatigue Based

[Sentoguy]

[quote]trextacy wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
Gumpshmee wrote:
Sentoguy, (if you’re still around)

I gave the fast to big discussion thread a read and at that point in time you seemed to be supportive of the notion that the DE and RE methods might at least have equivalent benefits for the purpose of bodybuilding. It seems as though your thoughts may have shifted on this matter and I wouldn’t mind knowing specifically what might have convinced you otherwise (if this is in fact the case).

I woke up. I thought CW’s theory (and at this point that’s all that it is) made sense from my understanding of kinesiology. So, I went around and observed (and tested it on both myself and on a few clients) to see if in fact what he was saying actually held water in the real world. Some of it worked, but a lot of what he was saying in that article didn’t hold true (like the 15 seconds total set time).

I am not arguing that the ME method could have benefits for BB’ing. There are a number of BB’ers who started out as powerlifters and wound up doing fairly well for themselves (Johnnie Jackson, Ronnie Coleman, need I say more). I’m also not arguing that the RE method is beneficial (this IS the traditional training to failure method). The DE method I think would only be beneficial for either helping someone learn how to recruit their HTMU’s, or to a powerlifter who lacked speed strength.

I’m still not saying that trying to lift the bar as fast as possible (on the concentric) isn’t beneficial. I do think that is beneficial. But, really that’s still just an over-complication (and in some ways a response to the whole tempo training craze) of how you would naturally just lift something. You wouldn’t purposely try to go slow (unless you had previously been told to), you would contract your muscles as hard as you could and lift the object (if it was anywhere even close to heavy).

Sentoguy:

On the fatigue thing- let’s say you are measuring progress by your last work set taken to failure (using Rest pause depending on the exercise). It sounds like what you are saying is that even though you may be adding weight to the bar on consistently on that last work set, it is still necessary (to grow) for you to fatique the target muscle(s) with the ramping/warm up sets? Is this what you are saying?
[/quote]

No. The ramping/warm-up sets are just priming your nervous system, getting blood into the muscles/joints, and acting as a specific warm-up. You do not need (or if you are doing RP even want, IMO) to fatigue the target muscle (significantly anyhow) during these sets to get them to grow. Your final work set (however you want to structure it) will be enough to fatigue your muscles and stimulate growth (assuming that you are using more weight, or doing more reps with the same weight).

[quote]
I train this way and usually expend some effort on my warmups (maybe even a few grunts and a breaking of sweat) but I’m definitely leaving something in the tank to break my PR. What are your thoughts on this conundrum (focusing on the last set vs. making sure that there is enough accumulated fatigue over all sets to ensure growth)?

Thanks in advance.[/quote]

Good for you, that’s how it should be. If you are killing yourself on your warm-up/ramp sets, then it’s going to limit your performance on the last “work” set. You don’t need to accumulate huge amounts of fatigue during the warm-ups (sorry if I made it sound like you did), your final set should be enough to fatigue and stimulate growth (provided you put enough effort into it).

[trextacy]

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
trextacy wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
Gumpshmee wrote:
Sentoguy, (if you’re still around)

I gave the fast to big discussion thread a read and at that point in time you seemed to be supportive of the notion that the DE and RE methods might at least have equivalent benefits for the purpose of bodybuilding.

It seems as though your thoughts may have shifted on this matter and I wouldn’t mind knowing specifically what might have convinced you otherwise (if this is in fact the case).

I woke up. I thought CW’s theory (and at this point that’s all that it is) made sense from my understanding of kinesiology.

So, I went around and observed (and tested it on both myself and on a few clients) to see if in fact what he was saying actually held water in the real world. Some of it worked, but a lot of what he was saying in that article didn’t hold true (like the 15 seconds total set time).

I am not arguing that the ME method could have benefits for BB’ing. There are a number of BB’ers who started out as powerlifters and wound up doing fairly well for themselves (Johnnie Jackson, Ronnie Coleman, need I say more).

I’m also not arguing that the RE method is beneficial (this IS the traditional training to failure method). The DE method I think would only be beneficial for either helping someone learn how to recruit their HTMU’s, or to a powerlifter who lacked speed strength.

I’m still not saying that trying to lift the bar as fast as possible (on the concentric) isn’t beneficial. I do think that is beneficial. But, really that’s still just an over-complication (and in some ways a response to the whole tempo training craze) of how you would naturally just lift something.

You wouldn’t purposely try to go slow (unless you had previously been told to), you would contract your muscles as hard as you could and lift the object (if it was anywhere even close to heavy).

Sentoguy:

On the fatigue thing- let’s say you are measuring progress by your last work set taken to failure (using Rest pause depending on the exercise).

It sounds like what you are saying is that even though you may be adding weight to the bar on consistently on that last work set, it is still necessary (to grow) for you to fatique the target muscle(s) with the ramping/warm up sets? Is this what you are saying?

No. The ramping/warm-up sets are just priming your nervous system, getting blood into the muscles/joints, and acting as a specific warm-up. You do not need (or if you are doing RP even want, IMO) to fatigue the target muscle (significantly anyhow) during these sets to get them to grow.

Your final work set (however you want to structure it) will be enough to fatigue your muscles and stimulate growth (assuming that you are using more weight, or doing more reps with the same weight).

I train this way and usually expend some effort on my warmups (maybe even a few grunts and a breaking of sweat) but I’m definitely leaving something in the tank to break my PR. What are your thoughts on this conundrum (focusing on the last set vs. making sure that there is enough accumulated fatigue over all sets to ensure growth)?

Thanks in advance.

Good for you, that’s how it should be. If you are killing yourself on your warm-up/ramp sets, then it’s going to limit your performance on the last “work” set.

You don’t need to accumulate huge amounts of fatigue during the warm-ups (sorry if I made it sound like you did), your final set should be enough to fatigue and stimulate growth (provided you put enough effort into it).
[/quote]

Thanks for the response. I was actually thinking about this last night during my workout.

I usually only do 3-4 warmup sets depending on the exerise. I get really focused on adding weight or reps my my PR, but I was wondering if I was “artificially” shattering my PR by not going very hard during the warm-ups…so, as long as I’m really just “priming” things for a RP set I should be stimulating growth optimally.

I usually start with 135 on bench regardless of where my PR is. I may do 12-18 reps on it depending on how I feel, but it isn’t really doing anything. Even my last warm-up isn’t too bad.

If I’m doing RP of 10-15 (total reps target) then I will probably do about 90% of my working weight but stop at rep 6…I find that’s just enough to be challenging but not fatiguing and gets me ready for the feel of the final weight.

Thanks.

[Gumpshmee]

Sentoguy,

So if I understand correctly, your point of view is similar to Tim Henriques in that unless the ability to produce force of the initially recruited motor units for the particular load is depleted then other motor units will not be recruited and remain untapped.

And that if the same load was lifted in numerous sets while avoiding the failure of each set then those units would remain untapped and unstimulated until the later sets by which time the force production of the initially tapped motorunits would be decreased due to volume (as opposed to due to the duration of a single set).

This seems sensible given that the assertion that motor units drop out is found to be incorrect (which it seems to be).

The advantage of the repetition method is that it allows us to access (as Tim Henriques put it) “normally dormant” motor units faster through the force depletion of “readily active” motor units through the duration of a set as opposed to volume of workload.

However, this relies on the notion that in order to stimulate the greatest hypertrophy the most important factor is the rapid depletion of a motor unit’s ability to produce force, rather than the maximization of work output.

From an evolutionary perspective this might make sense. For if fatigue management is in place so that a challenging load can be moved for a much longer duration the body may be less inclined to adapt to the load, because if fatigue management is in place then it doesn’t have the need to adapt even though the work performed with the load is greater.

This still relies on the notion that it is not the total work output that is more important for hypertrophy but the depletion of force production capacity of the motor units by the fastest means possible.

Which makes sense from a survival point of view, because there is no point in adapting to something that is not at least enough of a challenge to overwhelm the muscle’s ability to produce force.

This seems quite sensible and makes sense.

This is based on the thinking that it matters not to such a degree the “mileage” (so to say) of the motor units that causes the adaptation of the muscle, but the incapacitation of the motor units.

A small number of sets to failure and a large number of sets without failure may incapacitate all recruitable motor units, but depending on how muscle tissue actually adapts, either faster depletion will result in better growth, or depletion with higher work output (or mileage if you will) will result in better growth.

The first idea about adaptation makes sense if our muscles are “smarter” so to say. The second idea makes sense if the muscles only respond to their overall mechanical use at given force production rates.

If the first idea is true it does not necessarily matter if we’re limiting the total work output we may be able to perform through neurological fatigue.

I would be interested to know how Zatsiorsky defines fatigue, and if there has been any work done on the effects of varying levels of volume and fatigue.

Bill Roberts,

Thanks for the ideas with that program there.

[Sentoguy]

[quote]Gumpshmee wrote:
Sentoguy,

So if I understand correctly, your point of view is similar to Tim Henriques in that unless the ability to produce force of the initially recruited motor units for the particular load is depleted then other motor units will not be recruited and remain untapped.
[/quote]

No, not exactly. Again I didn’t really want to get so in depth with all of this theory stuff because, well I guess I’ve pretty much had my fill of it.

But since I’ve already opened up this can of worms, I’ll at least clarify what I mean.

I do not believe that you must deplete all of your smaller motor units to get at the big ones. That is simply how the RE method (traditional set to failure) approach allows you to get at them. Lifting a maximal weight and lifting a load as fast as possible will also recruit the largest motor units.

But, and here is the key piece to the puzzle, you must still fatigue as many motor units as possible if you want maximal growth.

Lifting an extremely heavy load will recruit all of the MU’s, but because it requires all of the MU’s to fire to be able to lift it, as soon as the largest MU’s fatigue you must terminate the set, leaving a substantial number of Mu’s unfatigued.

Lifting extremely heavy is also very CNS intensive and can be hard on the joints (especially as the weights continue to climb).

Lifting a moderately heavy load as fast as possible will also recruit all available MU’s, but again, if you stop your set when the speed slows down (hence the largest MU’s have begun to fatigue) you still leave quite a few MU’s unfatigued.

Lifting a moderately heavy load until failure will also recruit all available MU’s by way of lowering force threshold’s due to the presence of fatigue.

Now, if you lift a moderately heavy load as fast as possible, AND you take the set to failure, you pretty much guarantee that you have fatigued the largest number of MU’s possible in that one set. This is the method used by just about every successful BB’er out there.

You could of course do something like a triple drop set, which would fatigue yet more MU’s, or a triple rest-pause (DC style) to further fatigue the big and intermediate MU’s. But those are getting into more advanced methods.

And that if the same load was lifted in numerous sets while avoiding the failure of each set then those units would remain untapped and unstimulated until the later sets by which time the force production of the initially tapped motorunits would be decreased due to volume (as opposed to due to the duration of a single set).

If you lifted the weight as fast as possible (and it was heavy enough), then you would still recruit all available MU’s. Again though, unless you fatigue as many MU’s as reasonably possible you aren’t going to stimulate maximal growth.

And if you stop when the rep speed slows down, you will only wind up fatiguing the largest MU’s (which admittedly was CW’s whole idea in the first place).

I think this could be a great method for an athlete (heck Westside’s DE method is basically this and works very well for them), but for someone looking to build maximal amounts of muscle, IMO there are better ways to go about it.

For example, notice that in WS4SB the RE method is utilized, but the DE method is not. This is because this program is designed to put on weight/muscle, and obviously Defranco realizes that the RE method is better at that than the DE method.

This seems sensible given that the assertion that motor units drop out is found to be incorrect (which it seems to be).

The advantage of the repetition method is that it allows us to access (as Tim Henriques put it) “normally dormant” motor units faster through the force depletion of “readily active” motor units through the duration of a set as opposed to volume of workload.

I think the ability to push yourself and the mental barriers that it helps to break down are honestly the greatest benefit to training to failure (and beyond). I don’t disagree with Tim though that, especially for newer lifters, going to failure helps their bodies to tap into previously dormant MU’s.

However, this relies on the notion that in order to stimulate the greatest hypertrophy the most important factor is the rapid depletion of a motor unit’s ability to produce force, rather than the maximization of work output.

In order to stimulate hypertrophy period you must both stimulate and fatigue a MU. Again Zatsiorsky made this observation quite some time ago, and it’s pretty much been proven to be correct (via real world results).

CW’s whole premise with his FTB program was to focus solely on the HTMU’s (since they have the greatest growth/strength capacity). Again, I think it’s a great idea in theory, and still think that athletes (especially those who’s sports require explosive strength) would get good results with that program.

But it ignores the fact that the intermediate fibers, while not as larger or powerful as the large fibers, still have a substantial amount of growth potential.

The RE method will, by it’s very nature fatigue a larger number of total MU’s. Thus leading to more overall growth.

You can argue that point if you want, but again the evidence is on the side of the RE method.

From an evolutionary perspective this might make sense. For if fatigue management is in place so that a challenging load can be moved for a much longer duration the body may be less inclined to adapt to the load, because if fatigue management is in place then it doesn’t have the need to adapt even though the work performed with the load is greater.

I think I understand what you’re trying to say, but I’m not completely sure.

Are you saying that because fatigue is managed, even though the total work load is greater (from a mathematical standpoint), the body doesn’t actually have to work any harder to perform it, hence no increase in demand for adaptation?

This still relies on the notion that it is not the total work output that is more important for hypertrophy but the depletion of force production capacity of the motor units by the fastest means possible.

It’s based on the simple notion that getting more work done, but not having to work any harder to do it, doesn’t produce a greater stimulus for adaptation (growth).

Which makes sense from a survival point of view, because there is no point in adapting to something that is not at least enough of a challenge to overwhelm the muscle’s ability to produce force.

This seems quite sensible and makes sense.

Whew, good. I was about to pull my hair out there for a second with all of this abstract theorizing.

This is based on the thinking that it matters not to such a degree the “mileage” (so to say) of the motor units that causes the adaptation of the muscle, but the incapacitation of the motor units.

It has to do with “intensity” (or intensiveness if you don’t like the HIT definition). Your muscle’s adapt because the stress put on them is so great that they say "holy crap!

That almost killed us, we need to prepare ourselves so that if that happens again, we’ll be ready." The body wants to be as efficient as possible (it seeks “homeostasis”), and it wants everything that it does to be as easy as possible.

So, when it encounters something that is beyond it’s natural boundaries it will try to adapt itself to the demands of that activity (the SAID principle).

Now, volume can be a form of overload. If you check out Bauer’s thread in the T-Cell he does a lot of volume during his workouts. The thing is, that he also takes 90% of his sets to failure.

So, there’s lots of volume, but it’s not performed in a way as to make it as easy (manageable) as possible. It’s done in a way as to make it as difficult as possible.

[dankid]

I think sentoguy hit the nail on the head with his last response. I was looking through “Science and practice of strength training” again, and it seems that what sentoguy stated is very similar to what Zatsiorsky does.

But he does seem to leave the door open that “failure” is not necessary, but fatigue is absolutely necessary. In the section comparing the Submaximal effort method, and RE method, he states the following:

"The stimulation for muscle hypertrophy is similar for the two methods. According to the energetic hypothesis …, two factors are of primary importance for inducing a discrepancy in the amount of degraded and newly synthesized proteins.

These are the rate of protein degredation and the total value of performed mechanical work." THIS PART SEEMS TO BE OF IMPORTANCE "if the number of lifts is not maximal, mechanical work diminishes somewhat.

However, if the amount of work is relatively close to maximal values (eg. 10 reps with 12rm) then the difference is not really crucial. It may be compensated for in various ways, for instance by shortening time intervals between sequential sets.

IT IS A COMMON BELIEF THAT THE MAXIMAL NUMBER OF REPETITIONS IN A SET IS DESIRABLE, BUT NOT NECESSARY, TO INDUCE MUSCLE HYPERTROPHY."

He goes on to state that the drawback of the ME method, is that only the largest MU’s recieve a training effect. But he does mention that this type of training is still beneficial.

Lastly, he goes on to state that if the RE method is used to specifically target the LARGEST MOTOR UNITS, then it is highly important that the individual train with the intention of failure, because failure in this case is a sign that the largest MU’s have been fatigued.

But, since he specifically states that this is the case when training the largest MU’s, it makes sense that training without failure is also needed to target the more intermediate fibers.

I think in all of this, it is a good idea to understand which fibers your targeting in a specific set. There are likely two problems that many individuals will run into. 1- they are not recruiting their largest MU’s.

And 2- they are not adequately fatiguing all the intermediate MU’s. Fatiguing the largest MU’s is not a problem, IF THEY ARE ACTIVATED, because they fatigue very rapidly, but fatiguing the intermediate and even some smaller MU’s can be more difficult.

CW’s recomendations work great for recruiting and fatiguing the largest fibers, but if you always stop a set when the speed slows, your missing all the intermediate fibers. This will work great for a very fast twitch dominant person, but someone with less fast twitch fibers will have less than optimal hypertrophy.

After reading all of this, it seems that there are a few options IMO. They all have their implications and will differ based on the individual.

A)failure training- training to failure with a weight that allows you to recruit a large percentage of MU’s will fatigue the large fibers. Then you either have the choice of decreasing the weight, or reps on the next set, or proceeding right into a drop set to continue to activate and fatigue the intermediate fibers.

B)ME method, and Submaximal method-- Train heavy, and/or fast and stop sets when speed slows (CW’s recomendation) This will recruit and fatigue the largest MU’s. And in order to recruit and fatigue intermediate and smaller MU’s you can use the submaximal method, ie 10 reps with a 12rm.

Sets are not taken to failure, but larger volumes, and shorter rest breaks are used as stimulus to achieve fatigue in these fibers.

IMO the more a person leans toward the fast twitch side, the more they should do option B.

And if you are interested in shorter workouts, then option A may be better regardless of your genetics.

[Sentoguy]

[quote]dankid wrote:
Lastly, he goes on to state that if the RE method is used to specifically target the LARGEST MOTOR UNITS, then it is highly important that the individual train with the intention of failure, because failure in this case is a sign that the largest MU’s have been fatigued.

But, since he specifically states that this is the case when training the largest MU’s, it makes sense that training without failure is also needed to target the more intermediate fibers.
[/quote]

No, he says that because utilizing a moderate load will not recruit the largest MU’s unless the set is taken to failure.

Read through that article that I posted and you’ll see that the largest MU’s didn’t come into play until significant fatigue had accumulated (during the last couple reps of the set). That is how the RE method recruits the largest MU’s.

Also, the largest MU’s only need to come into play because the intermediate fibers have already fatigued and force needs to be maintained.

Doing the RE method will fatigue both the largest and some of the intermediate fibers (depending on how heavy/light the load is). You do not need to do submaximal sets to fatigue the intermediate fibers.

[Gumpshmee]

[quote]I think I understand what you’re trying to say, but I’m not completely sure.

Are you saying that because fatigue is managed, even though the total work load is greater (from a mathematical standpoint), the body doesn’t actually have to work any harder to perform it, hence no increase in demand for adaptation?[/quote]

I’m essentially saying that if fatigue is managed their is a possibility that the body does not detect a disturbance to homeostasis that is significant enough to elicit a hypertrophic adaptation (though I don’t believe it’s been scientifically established whether muscle fibers adapt based on the context in which work load was performed).

But it does make sense in the context of survival that the body is more likely to adapt in order to perform tasks demanded of it that it fails to do, than tasks demanded of it that it does not fail to do (fatigue management), as far as need is concerned.

There is however the chance that the body cannot determine the context of a contraction and it simply counts the number of contractions at various force outputs.

For example, if the fibers were made of bricks and each time they contracted beyond a certain force threshhold a number of bricks were taken away preportionate to the force produced, and then the bricklayer ordered enough bricks (plus a fraction of that number) to replace the bricks (essentially micro-trauma theory).

Then more work or contractions would equal more bricks. However, I’m sure it’s much more complicated than that.

Or muscle fibres could be more like fuses and it wouldn’t matter specifically how many times you ran current through the fuse, it only gets replaced if you burn it out, which occurs by passing a certain intensity threshold. Then there’s the possibility that Muscles have sensors in them that specifically tell them to grow when a certain threshold has been passed.

I think it matters to ask why the fibres become fatigued sooner in sets to failure even when they aren’t required to perform as much work (force times distance).

As they are our little force producing engines it also kinda makes sense that the more work we ask them to do for us as long as it exceeds the threshold of what is considered “normal” the more they will adapt to give us more work (as long as we allow them to recover).

The “more work is better theory” also sounds like it could be true, unless of course muscle fibres aren’t made of bricks, lol.

I’m pretty open to any of these ideas being true. One idea makes sense if you think about survival. The other idea makes sense if you think that it’s a question of output controlling input.

In the RE method all motor units can be fatigued. In the SE effort all motor units can be fatigued. Does work matter? It really comes down to our limited understanding of what excercise does to muscle fibers.

[dankid]

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
… You do not need to do submaximal sets to fatigue the intermediate fibers.[/quote]

You are absolutely correct Sentoguy. But Zatsiorsky himself even says that using submaximal sets and avoiding failure is still useful in training the intermediate fibers. Like I said, if you want the quickest method possible, sets to failure will definately get the job done.

Im not sure what the implications of submaximal sets that Zatsiorsky is implying are though. I imagine in training athletes, or anyone for strength endurance, it would be beneficial to do submaximal sets, and play around with rest breaks.

I understand what you said about the largest MU’s kicking in after the intermediate MU’s have been fatigued, but isn’t it largely dependant on the load used, and the duration of the set?

Zatsiorsky states a hypothetical continuum where there are motor units that are fatigued within 1 second, and 100 seconds. If a set only lasts 12 seconds, the only MU’s that are fatigued, are the ones that are both activated, and fatigued in 12 seconds of less.

If this is the case, then it makes sense that in a RE set to failure, the largest MU’s are always fatigued, and the longer the set, the more intermediate fibers fatigued.

This makes sense to me, and goes directly against what CW states about terminating a set after 15 seconds. The only thing is that CW is advocating mutliple sets, in which the force output will decrease each set, and cumulative fatigue of the intermediate fibers will likely build up.

Zatsiorsky also states the need to train in different rep ranges with the RE method, but whats the purpose of this. Wouldn’t you just want to always train with longer sets.

For exampe, wouldnt 60 seconds fatigue more MU’s than 30 second sets? Or would fatigue from lactic acid and depletion of enzymes and substrates likely end longer sets before a muscle was adequately fatigued.

Also, its a little unclear, because Zatsiorsky states the importance of protein degredation, and that moderate reps and TUT produce the best protein degredation. So is this saying that its not only important that a MU is fatigued, but also how much tension or work it can do before it is fatigued?

This would make sense. If you can train a group of MU’s to sustain more tension for a longer time before fatigue, then it will undergo more protein degredation and will grow more.

Also, whats the purpose of ever doing more than one set, if all the largest fibers can be fatigued in one set?

This has been a good discussion, im starting to see more of the benefits of the RE method for someone concerned with primarily size. I would like to see CW’s reasoning as to why the RE method is not enough for most people.

[Sentoguy]

[quote]dankid wrote:
I understand what you said about the largest MU’s kicking in after the intermediate MU’s have been fatigued, but isn’t it largely dependant on the load used, and the duration of the set?
[/quote]

Load and duration pretty much go hand in hand (unless breaks are inserted purposely) and yes, they do affect the fibers which will be fatigued during the set. But, if you stick within the “traditional” BB’ing rep schemes (anywhere from 4-20 reps) you are going to be fatiguing at least some intermediate fibers and, if taken to failure (and lifted as fast as possible), you will also fatigue the large MU’s.

Reps below 4 can be useful for building maximal strength (which can be beneficial for a BB’er), reps above 20 can be useful for both strength endurance and getting a lot of blood/nutrients into the muscles (which can also be beneficial for a BB’er). But that basic rep range has been the range that has been shown (through many decades of trial and error) to generally be the best range of repetitions for building muscle.

Zatsiorsky states a hypothetical continuum where there are motor units that are fatigued within 1 second, and 100 seconds. If a set only lasts 12 seconds, the only MU’s that are fatigued, are the ones that are both activated, and fatigued in 12 seconds of less.

If this is the case, then it makes sense that in a RE set to failure, the largest MU’s are always fatigued, and the longer the set, the more intermediate fibers fatigued.

Yes, that’s true. But again, if a set only takes 12 seconds total time, then only the largest MU’s are going to be fatigued. Good from a maximal strength/explosiveness standpoint, not so optimal from a maximal mass building standpoint.

This makes sense to me, and goes directly against what CW states about terminating a set after 15 seconds. The only thing is that CW is advocating mutliple sets, in which the force output will decrease each set, and cumulative fatigue of the intermediate fibers will likely build up.

Actually it’s exactly in line with CW’s methods. He clearly states in his articles that he is after the largest MU’s specifically. Terminating a set when the speed slows down (or after 15 seconds) will pretty much guarantee that the largest MU’s are the only ones getting fatigued.

If rest periods are kept short enough and sufficient volume is present, then perhaps the intermediate fibers will get some growth stimulation as well. Fatigue in those fibers will still be considerably less than would be present during an RE set though.

Only doing 15 second sets might work well for someone who is extremely FT dominant, but for anyone else, it’s gonna leave a large number of fibers unsufficiently fatigued (who also have a decent potential for growth) IMO.

CW is also of the belief that the intermediate fibers can adapt to take on the characteristics of either the type 2B, or type 1 fibers as well (depending on training style). Whether or not this is true, and whether this means that they will gain the ability to grow like the type 2B fibers, or simply become more reliant on anaerobic glycolysis (more like the type 2B fibers from an energy source perspective) hasn’t been proven conclusively yet (to the best of my knowledge).

Also, whats the purpose of ever doing more than one set, if all the largest fibers can be fatigued in one set?

Good question.

[Wilderman]

This has been a good thread and thought provoking. At the minimum we all have been familiarized with the factors that effect hypertrophy over the course of this discussion. Plus a few laughs, some of you guy crack me up.

Im no physiologist but my instincts tell me that pushing against my CNS threshold with failure sets has trained me to become more tolerant to the the stress levels. If our argument that managing fatigue would result in further hypertrophy because the subject could perform lifts total by avoiding fatigue, I would have to say that this factor may not have been evaluated for the failure training subject. If I am right, then the subject training to failure will develop a greater resistance to CNS overload and thus be capable of working with higher loads once this tolerance increases.

My experience tells me that higher load and progression are the key catalyst for hypertrophy along with diet and other factors. I believe that you can elicit hypertrophy working just short of failure. How else would all the big guys who train alone be getting big? They cant be training to “Failure” without a spotter on many of the key lifts so they have to be training submaximally yet still close enough to failure to cause the hormonal effects one benefits from for working at that intensity.

So, I vote for the subject training to failure producing greater hypertrophy results. I agree with many who have posted here that by pushing to “Failure” you will ultimately out pace the the non-failure trainer. Conservation of CNS will not out pace the subject training with a higher intensity who may very well be improving upon his tolerance to CNS fatigue as well as working with higher work loads.

Given all things equally, the subject lifting enough weight to come short of failure for an equal number of reps started his workout career with a lesser weight than the subject who started out his career working with a weight he would come to failure at the same rep count. So the second guy has an advantage from the start I say assuming the cumulative effects of the reps is more important to hypertrophy. Even with clustering sets and working the same weight over more sets I do not believe you can out pace the effects that failure training releases. Also as noted by other posters, this technique to cluster the reps in will require more time and all things were to be kept equal in this experiment except the one factor, training to failure.

[dankid]

One last thing that doesnt seem clear to me.

So we know that in order for there to be a stimulus for adaptation a MU must be recruited, and fatigued or at least highly activated. But whats not clear is how mechanical work and protein degredation play into this.

Zatsiorsky states that the primary limitation of the RE method is as follows: “The final lifts in a set are executed when the muscles are tired; thus, this training is less effective than lifting maximal weights.”

Is he just saying that this is the reason why the RE method is not as effective for strength?

Also, what about protein degredation and mechanical work. The total amount of protein degredation is a result of the rate of protein degredation and the amount of mechanical work. This would account for the 4-20 rep range being most beneficial for hypertrophy, but what about comparing 1 set vs. multiple sets? Here’s an example. Say you lifted 200lbs to failure in 20 reps. Most of the MU’s were recruited and fatigued, and the total amount of work is 4000lbs. Now im not sure if its correct to say this, but you might be able to say that since the largest MU’s were only recruited during the last 3-5 reps, that they actually only did about 1000lbs of work.

Ok, now take multiple sets, with the same weight. Instead of one set of 20, you do 3 sets of 15. Now the total work is 9000lbs. The only problem is that depending on the rest breaks, you may be missing all the largest MU’s and some of the intermediate ones. But if the last set is taken to failure, whether it be at 15 reps, or a little higher, then all are fatigued. But the only problem with this is that by the time you start recruiting your largest MU’s your force outputs have decreased drastically.

Also, it seems that comparing the RE method with the SE method is a lot like comparing steady-state cardio to interval training. Assume you were doing a steady state cardio in which after 10minutes you couldn’t go any longer. If you were to keep the duration the same, but add rest breaks, and increase the pace/intensity, you could still be just as fatigued after 10minutes, but as a result of greater intensity. Or you could keep the pace/intensity the same, and insert rest breaks, and do multiple sets, allowing you to perform more than 10minutes of work.

Doesn’t this show that the SE method is beneficial in increasing both work capacity and strength. So that when you do use the RE method, your able to do more reps with a given weight, or more weight at a given rep range?

So other than all of that, I think I have a much clearer idea of training for hypertrophy now. I still think i’ll use ME, SE, and RE training, but now i understand the intended purpose of each method a bit better. Its strange though that the RE method seems to be the absolute best option for pure hypertrophy, and I almost never see any author’s on this site advocating it. The SE method seems to be the mainstay of every program. I’d really like to know why.

[Sentoguy]

[quote]dankid wrote:
One last thing that doesnt seem clear to me.

So we know that in order for there to be a stimulus for adaptation a MU must be recruited, and fatigued or at least highly activated. But whats not clear is how mechanical work and protein degredation play into this.

Zatsiorsky states that the primary limitation of the RE method is as follows: “The final lifts in a set are executed when the muscles are tired; thus, this training is less effective than lifting maximal weights.”

Is he just saying that this is the reason why the RE method is not as effective for strength?

Also, what about protein degredation and mechanical work. The total amount of protein degredation is a result of the rate of protein degredation and the amount of mechanical work. This would account for the 4-20 rep range being most beneficial for hypertrophy, but what about comparing 1 set vs. multiple sets? Here’s an example. Say you lifted 200lbs to failure in 20 reps. Most of the MU’s were recruited and fatigued, and the total amount of work is 4000lbs. Now im not sure if its correct to say this, but you might be able to say that since the largest MU’s were only recruited during the last 3-5 reps, that they actually only did about 1000lbs of work.

Ok, now take multiple sets, with the same weight. Instead of one set of 20, you do 3 sets of 15. Now the total work is 9000lbs. The only problem is that depending on the rest breaks, you may be missing all the largest MU’s and some of the intermediate ones. But if the last set is taken to failure, whether it be at 15 reps, or a little higher, then all are fatigued. But the only problem with this is that by the time you start recruiting your largest MU’s your force outputs have decreased drastically.

Also, it seems that comparing the RE method with the SE method is a lot like comparing steady-state cardio to interval training. Assume you were doing a steady state cardio in which after 10minutes you couldn’t go any longer. If you were to keep the duration the same, but add rest breaks, and increase the pace/intensity, you could still be just as fatigued after 10minutes, but as a result of greater intensity. Or you could keep the pace/intensity the same, and insert rest breaks, and do multiple sets, allowing you to perform more than 10minutes of work.

Doesn’t this show that the SE method is beneficial in increasing both work capacity and strength. So that when you do use the RE method, your able to do more reps with a given weight, or more weight at a given rep range?

So other than all of that, I think I have a much clearer idea of training for hypertrophy now. I still think i’ll use ME, SE, and RE training, but now i understand the intended purpose of each method a bit better. Its strange though that the RE method seems to be the absolute best option for pure hypertrophy, and I almost never see any author’s on this site advocating it. The SE method seems to be the mainstay of every program. I’d really like to know why.[/quote]

First, what is the “SE” method? I know of the ME (maximal effort), RE (repeated effort) and DE (dynamic effort) methods, but have never previously heard of an “SE” method. I’m going to assume that you mean it to be “speed effort”?

As far as why the majority of articles don’t revolve around the RE method…well, it depends on what author you are reading. CT has mentioned and made good use of the RE method in quite a few articles. Poliquin has as well. So, some authors on this site advocate it still.

The thing is that not a lot of articles on this site are truly BB’ing oriented articles. Sure, some authors do talk about building muscle and claim their methods work. But generally speaking, they aren’t gearing their stuff towards serious BB’ers, but more so your average gym going weekend warrior types. For the average person who doesn’t want big “gross” muscles, or doesn’t want to be “unfunctional” (what a laugh that is) these programs will probably work quite well for them.

You also have to take into consideration the novelty factor. Everyone has heard of the traditional method of training to failure and anyone who has looked around at the real world knows how effective it is for building muscle (decades worth of BB’ers can’t be wrong). So, if you simply restate what people already know, you aren’t going to get much attention or make any waves in the BB’ing industry.

So, in an effort to get noticed, some people will say things or design programs that go against the grain. In some cases they truly believe what they write, and in their programs, and may even have very logical (and even scientifically valid) reasons for creating them. In others, they simply want to rock the boat and stir up discussion/controversy.

[dankid]

Sorry bout the confusion.

By SE method, I meant sub-maximal effort. I see what you are saying about the novelty factor and everything, but there are A LOT of people who just want to build muscle. And its very very rare to ever see a program that is based primarily on the RE method.

Isn’t stuff like Poliquin’s 10x10 more toward the submaximal effort method than the RE method?

I guess the only way for me to really see if the RE method is superior, is to give it a go. What is a good program that revolves primarily around the RE method?

[Gumpshmee]

Dogg Crap training probably fits that bill quite nicely.

[Sentoguy]

[quote]dankid wrote:
Sorry bout the confusion.

By SE method, I meant sub-maximal effort. I see what you are saying about the novelty factor and everything, but there are A LOT of people who just want to build muscle. And its very very rare to ever see a program that is based primarily on the RE method.
[/quote]

Again, it’s rare because the primary audience that the authors are catering to are not hardcore BB’ers who are interested in putting on the most muscle possible. But instead are “average Joes” who might be interested in building some muscle, but not freaky levels of muscle.

Isn’t stuff like poliquin’s 10x10 more toward the submaximal effort method than the RE method?

Yes, it is. But again, Poliquin’s primary audience is not BB’ers, it’s athletes. I think his stuff is good, but it’s not what I would necessarily tell someone to do if their primary focus was putting on as much muscle as possible.

[quote]
I guess the only way for me to really see if the RE method is superior, is to give it a go. What is a good program that revolves primarily around the RE method? [/quote]

There are literally thousands (probably more like millions) of BB’ers training using the RE method all over the world. You don’t need some sort of prewritten program, just follow the basic format that you see other successful BB’ers doing (Prof X has been kind enough to describe his training methodology several times, just do a search) and give the last set everything you’ve got. Add weight whenever possible, and when not possible, try to get more reps.

[Sentoguy]

[quote]Gumpshmee wrote:
Dogg Crap training probably fits that bill quite nicely.[/quote]

No, I actually would not suggest dankid to do DC. He is asking what a good program would be utilizing the RE method. If someone is that unfamiliar with how to train, then they are most certainly not ready for DC (and wouldn’t get the results out of it that they should anyhow).

[dankid]

Thanks sentoguy, youve been a big help here. I’ll look up proffesor x’s posts. Any thoughts on single set versus mutliple sets? If I was going to go the single set approach, would HIT style training be what id be looking at?

I was thinking a disadvantage to single set, would be overall work is lower, so calories burned might be lower, but since i usually have trouble taking in enough calories to build substantial muscle, a single set to failure might be good for me?

[Sentoguy]

[quote]dankid wrote:
Thanks sentoguy, youve been a big help here. I’ll look up proffesor x’s posts. Any thoughts on single set versus mutliple sets? If I was going to go the single set approach, would HIT style training be what id be looking at?
[/quote]

No, we are not talking about classic HIT style. That would mean one set total per muscle group, generally done circuit style and TBT.

Here is my thing with single set vs. multiple set…in my experience whenever I’ve tried a multiple set/same working weight program, my strength gains have always been painfully slow (if any). If I’m truly giving the first work set everything I’ve got, then I’m not going to be able to reproduce that that level of effort again multiple times (especially with relatively short rest). And, like I said, if I’m doing multiple exercises in a workout my progress is going to be slow to non existent from workout to workout.

Maybe that’s just me, maybe I’ve got poor recovery abilities. I know that Bauer uses multiple sets and it clearly hasn’t hurt his progress. But I do know quite a few other people who are similar to myself and seem to progress better ramping up to one all out top set per exercise.

You could try both if you want and see which works better for you.

[quote]
I was thinking a disadvantage to single set, would be overall work is lower, so calories burned might be lower, but since i usually have trouble taking in enough calories to build substantial muscle, a single set to failure might be good for me?[/quote]

Yeah, it might. Also, which do you think is going to produce better results doing endless sets with 200, or doing one all out set with 400 (obviously exaggerated numbers)? In other words, it’s not necessarily the volume that is of primary importance, but strength levels IMO. Sure, endless sets with 400 is going to be even better than one set with 400 if you can handle it. I can’t, maybe you can.

The one constant that you will find with almost every single person who built huge amounts of muscle is that they became considerably stronger on their primary exercises in the “hypertrophy range”. Some use high volume, some use low volume, they might use different splits, they might like different exercises, but they all pretty much got a hell of a lot stronger and ate like they were trying to gain weight.

[dankid]

Ok, so this isn’t very different than what ive been doing. Ive been doing something similar to Jay Ferruggia’s program. I do 2 sets per exercise, and always go for Pr’s. The only difference is that Ive been shooting for the 5-10 rep range, and i might likely go 10-15 instead.

An example of what Ive been doing is this:

warm up sets

SET1: Pullup BW+20 (if I get 10 reps, I add weight the next set, if not, I stick with the same weight)

I guess what I was doing is similar to the RE method and I just didn’t know it. I’ll do some more research on the RE method so that I understand it better. Zatsiorsky only briefly mentions it in his book.

Thanks again Sentoguy, I think youve steered me in the right direction again.

What do you think about shortening rest breaks as CW recomends for fat loss and/or hypertrophy.

For example, in a previous workout, i just did pushups with BW, and did 20 seconds of work, with 40 second rest breaks. Four sets was very hard, and I would likely need to either decrease teh working time, or increase the rest breaks. But the goal would eventually be to get to where I could keep the working time even and gradually decrease the rest breaks. Also, during the working time, im moving at a tempo thats pretty much as fast as I can.

I was thinking of alternating “heavy” workouts with these interval type workouts. I think it will work for me, because one of my big weaknesses is endurance due to lactic acid buildup, and doing this creates a ton of lactic acid. But im not sure, i’ll have to give it a try and see.

[Gumpshmee]

[quote]Gumpshmee wrote:
Dogg Crap training probably fits that bill quite nicely.[/quote]

[Edit]For advanced trainees.

I was just giving an extreme example.[/Edit]