Routine and FAILURE Help!

[quote]Benway wrote:
Okay, he’s doing 9 sets for legs, and he’s also doing 9 sets just for biceps… I would imagine for the ordinary person, that the amount of training volume to stimulate an appreciable number of muscle fibers in the entire upper leg would exceed the amount of training volume necessary to stimulate an appreciable number of muscle fibers in the biceps.

So why have an equal amount of training volume for two muscles of hugely disproportionate size?[/quote]

Are you fucking serious? Are you just clueless as to how people have trained to get big over the last 50 years? Since when is 3 different exercises for biceps uncommon? I have done the very same since DAY ONE. I am amazed you all have complicated something this simple as if you need to increase volume just because a muscle group is bigger. If I am going heavy enough, I torch both muscle groups doing on average 3-4 exercises for each.

I do 3-4 exercises FOR ALL MUSCLE GROUPS.

One more time, I would LOVE to see your development considering all that you object to is exactly what got me big in the first place.

That doesn’t mean I agree with his overall setup either because I see no reason for ANY beginner to act as if they need 4 fucking rest days a week.

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
Yes, I didn’t mean to say it should never be done (to continue sets until an attempted rep actually is failed, despite true effort to complete it. As opposed to just deciding to at that point let a spotter help, though if he were to scream “FUCK YOU, BITCH!” and storm off, you actually probably could finish the rep with blood and guts effort. Those that routinely end sets this way – oh, I need a spot now – generally really are not failing, especially if they do any substantial volume of work.)

Well, I don’t know about others, but I could not finish the next rep without putting myself at serious risk of injury (and even then I don’t know). But I hear what you’re saying.

For example, ordinarily if lending a spot, I supply minimum possible upward force that sees the rep indeed resume going up again.

Often this is a matter of ounces. (By the way, I deliberatey generate a visual appearance of apparently doing somewhat more than that, with isometric tensing. The lifter probably assumes I’m giving significant assistance.)

I don’t really believe the lifter could not have generated a few more ounces with force of will.

He says he “went to failure” but no, he just decided to let the spotter assist at that point.

Another reason for saying this is bar speed. Whether lending the spot myself or – much more common – seeing others do it, the bar speed doesn’t follow the pattern that is the case with true maximal effort. When truly working as hard as possible, the bar speed starts getting really slow, and progressively so. I don’t see this happening with the spots. The grinding-through-extreme-effort phase just is being omitted, the vast majority of the time. Rather it goes from working-not-that-hard to “time for a spot.” Failure does not occur, but rather decision to not work any harder.

I’m not saying YOU do that in a set you describe as being to failure: I’m saying that there is such a thing as letting the spotter help without it being in any proper way a matter of failure having occurred.

I’m not saying either that they should have insisted that I wait till they were clearly blowing circuit breakers and having smoke come out of their ears – actually failing – before lending the spot.

Just saying that I don’t think they are in fact continuing to failure.
[/quote]

Sure, I definitely see that occurring as well. I also see spotters basically lifting the bar for someone and saying “It’s all you!” But that’s getting somewhat off topic.

I was simply saying that sometimes people purposely don’t go to failure due to saftey reasons, not because they are purposely deceiving people by saying they go to failure, but not actually doing so. Or that they are doing so because they are wimping out.

I think we are pretty much in agreement on the subject though.

Agreed… and actually I wasn’t thinking there are any that deliberately avoid failing and know they do so, but tout to people that they “train to failure.”

Rather I believe that those that use the phrase, when not ever (or only rarely) actually doing so, somehow deceive themselves into believing that they “train to failure” in all these sets. Or perhaps it would be more accurately said that they have become deceived by a “you have to ‘train to failure’” cultural myth.

Also perhaps it’s become an idiomatic expression, rather like “raining cats and dogs” or “cut the muster,” used with absolutely no thought to the meaning of the words. If so, the idiomatic meaning is, unfortunately, variable and may mean almost anything.

Anyway, so far as being clear about things goes: the vast majority of successful strength athletes do not frequently if ever intentionally exert maximal effort unsuccessfully (genuinely trying to complete the rep but failing to do so) and most successful bodybuilders don’t do that every set either, if indeed frequently at all.

The OP should consider that definitely unnecessary.

HOlY shit! I didnt mean to start a WAR!!!

First off, YES, i have been training a while. I havent done this routine but I want something similar/ a 3 day split!!!

I just want to know:

A: should i go to failure all sets or just the last?

B: Yes, I do 9 sets for LEGS and BIS but, this is because I usually squat HEAVY so by the time I do lunges and shit my legs ARE fried! And I actually do 5x5 for squats and DEADS.

heres my stats:

5 11’ 204 at 14% bf

1rp maxs
bench=320
Squat= roughly 450
Deads 405

so I would consider myself THAT weak

[quote]small2big1 wrote:
HOlY shit! I didnt mean to start a WAR!!!

I just want to know:

A: should i go to failure all sets or just the last?[/quote]

There wasn’t a “war,” unless you consider presentation of information and points of view perhaps contrary to yours to inherently be a war against you.

What there was, was discussion on a key point highly relevant to your question. It doesn’t seem to have taken, though.

Op, if you’re looking for a 3-way, check the one I posted in the “ramping or not?”(or so) -thread…

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
small2big1 wrote:
HOlY shit! I didnt mean to start a WAR!!!

I just want to know:

A: should i go to failure all sets or just the last?

There wasn’t a “war,” unless you consider presentation of information and points of view perhaps contrary to yours to inherently be a war against you.

What there was, was discussion on a key point highly relevant to your question. It doesn’t seem to have taken, though.[/quote]

Sorry I worded that wrong! Im glad I got all of the info! (thank you all). I just didnt excpect it to get any feedback.

dont you guys remember Bill Roberts?

he’s the same guy who gave everyone a huge argument about the same subject last time it came up. dont feed troll plz

No problem, small2big1.

Anyway, the thing is that if your meaning is actually truly putting the best you can do into completing your reps and continuing the sets until actually failing despite this best effort, then absolutely not, you should not be attempting this every set. That would be a recipe for burnout.

If instead your meaning is “oh, doesn’t feel like I can get another rep” so another is not tried, or you do try a rep but halfway up it’s feeling like it would get too hard so you quit and immediately lower it, or you have a spotter and the set ends when you decide to let the spotter help – not because you truly put max effort into it and failed – then heck, you can do that every set if you want.

Not that you should, but you could, as it does not cause burnout as there is no actual max effort that actually fails. Which is draining.

Live, call me a troll all you want, but by doing so you are demonstrating only your ignorance or other lacks.

[quote]small2big1 wrote:
*****MONDAY=Chest/Bis
Bench 3x6-12 maybe a drop set of light weight for a bunch of reps
Incline 3x6-12
Flies 3x8-15
Dips 3x amap
BB curls 3x6-12
Hammers 3x6-12
Preachers 3x6-12

I posted my routine below, dont know how good it is. But my main concern is the debated issue of going to failure, currently I go to failure EVERY set and EVERY excersise. I dont increase the weight I just keep it the same and do 3-4 sets to failure…usually like 10,8,6,4. But would it be better to do like 4x8 where only the Last set is hard?

*****WEDNESDAY=Legs/Shoulders
Squat 3x6-12
Lunges 3x 15 steps
Leg Curls 3x6-12
Miltiary seated Press 4x6-12
Lat Raises 3x8-15
Cable Uprights 3x6-12

*****FRIDAY=Back/Tris
Deads 4x6-12
Rows 3x6-12
Uprights 3x6-12
LatpullDowns 3x6-12
Cable Pulldowns 3x6-12
Rope overhead pulls 3x6-12
DIPS AGAIN???
[/quote]

(1) Too many reps, too many exercises

(2) Eat more

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:

Also perhaps it’s become an idiomatic expression, rather like “raining cats and dogs” or “cut the muster,” used with absolutely no thought to the meaning of the words. If so, the idiomatic meaning is, unfortunately, variable and may mean almost anything.
[/quote]

I honestly don’t think it’s as idiomatic as that though. In most cases that I’ve seen when serious lifters say they “go to failure” they mean that they go until another rep cannot be completed successfully.

In cases where saftey is not an issue, that literally means attempting a rep and failing to lift it successfully. In cases where saftey is an issue that means stopping the set when they know (from years of experience) that they could not perform another rep successfully, or at least without putting themself at an unnecessary risk for injury.

Again, I don’t know.

Now, admittedly quite a few of these guys train in a very similar manner, don’t go to failure on every single set (most use ramping sets with which going to failure on every set would be counterproductive), and there are certainly others who don’t go to failure even as often as these guys, but then the others generally don’t say that they go to failure.

You also have to remember that most of the videos that you see are taken close to competition time, so saftey is even more of an issue (so BB’ers may stop short of failure, when in the off season they might go for that one more rep and actually fail).

Nowhere did I say that no one who uses the expression actually trains to failure (though they don’t do it on vast numbers of sets, as that doesn’t work)… I said that many who use the phrase do not actually strive maximally yet fail to move the wait, but terminate or get a spot prior to this.

The main problem is that usage is inconsistent. When someone says “Should I train to failure on every set?” (for example, let’s say they are training multiple sets per exercise) it is impossible from this to tell what they have in mind, impossible to tell what the question actually is.

If a person answers according to one meaning, but the question is asked with a different meaning in mind, nothing good comes of this.

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Nowhere did I say that no one who uses the expression actually trains to failure (though they don’t do it on vast numbers of sets, as that doesn’t work)… I said that many who use the phrase do not actually strive maximally yet fail to move the wait, but terminate or get a spot prior to this.
[/quote]

You said, “the vast majority of successful strength athletes do not frequently if ever intentionally exert maximal effort unsuccessfully (genuinely trying to complete the rep but failing to do so) and most successful bodybuilders don’t do that every set either, if indeed frequently at all.”

I was just using examples to suggest that it’s actually used more frequently than you seemed to be suggesting. No, they don’t do it on every set, but then the vast majority of successful BB’ers use “ramping/pyramiding” and not straight sets, so going to failure on every set wouldn’t make sense.

[quote]
The main problem is that usage is inconsistent. When someone says “Should I train to failure on every set?” (for example, let’s say they are training multiple sets per exercise) it is impossible from this to tell what they have in mind, impossible to tell what the question actually is.

If a person answers according to one meaning, but the question is asked with a different meaning in mind, nothing good comes of this.[/quote]

I understand what you’re saying about inconsistency and different meanings and you make a good point. But really the only thing making it complicated is a lack of ability to think for oneself, and an over-reliance on so called “experts” (I’m not directing this at anyone in particular, just saying/agreeing there is a lot of false information out there which confuses people) on the part of impressionable newbies.

If people just observed how successful BB’ers actually train, put the same level of intensity and consistency into their training, and understand the importance of eating there would be a lot less confusion and a lot more big, strong, successful BB’ers out there and a lot less confused “hardgainers” over-stressing about minutia.

Which I think was kind of what you were trying to say, and again, we agree.

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
Nowhere did I say that no one who uses the expression actually trains to failure (though they don’t do it on vast numbers of sets, as that doesn’t work)… I said that many who use the phrase do not actually strive maximally yet fail to move the wait, but terminate or get a spot prior to this.

You said, “the vast majority of successful strength athletes do not frequently if ever intentionally exert maximal effort unsuccessfully (genuinely trying to complete the rep but failing to do so) and most successful bodybuilders don’t do that every set either, if indeed frequently at all.”

I was just using examples to suggest that it’s actually used more frequently than you seemed to be suggesting. [/quote]

Really? I don’t tend to see powerlifters in their training deliberately trying for reps that they strain against, doing their best to complete, and fail to lift.

I see bodybyuilders ending sets in the way I described, which they may call failing but when there’s no failure, at least not most sets, I don’t agree with calling it failing.

One has to try, to actually fail. I think one might say one also has to legitimately try, not half-hearted try, otherwise it’s more quitting than “failing.”

I read a post here just yesterday in which a frequent poster explains how he “fails” on the fifth rep, and then explains how he squeezes up the 5th rep but it’s really hard. All in the same sentence!

That’s not failure! Unless one likes calling red “yellow,” up “down,” and left “right.”

Also, a person not trying another rep because you’re convinced he can’t get another is not failure, because he didn’t even try. But how many lifters call this “failure”? Nope, rather it is (successfully) doing as many reps as possible. Not failing.

I also described before other things that aren’t failing.

Now if you want to tell me that most successful bodybuilders or lots of them anyway in fact do try as hard as they can, stall on the weight, fight it but it doesn’t go – yes, their best effort failed, it is indeed failure – you can tell me that but I don’t believe it, and actually I don’t think you would tell me that.

Rather, as I was saying, they “go to failure” without, uh, going to failure, at least in most sets.

Practices that in fact don’t have any failure in them at all may be called going to failure by some, but it’s a misnomer.

Anyway, genuinely fail at a lot of reps in a lot of workouts and this is a great way to burn yourself out, and in fact most do not do this. Rather they use alternate practices that I described that don’t have them failing, at least not on most sets.

If it were only causing difficulty when people failed to think for themselves, that would not be so much of a problem because everyone, one hopes, could address that. But the problem is worse than this, because one cannot tell what a person means what he is writing or saying in most cases when he uses this phrase, unless he is very detailed. Most people assume that others mean by something the same as what they mean, but this is often not so.

And generally speaking when the person hears or reads replies, he also will not know what the reply means. He’ll assume the meaning is according to his own, but it may well not be.

Let’s say the person, by meaning “go to failure,” means what the above-described fellow means. He means he squeezed out the last rep but it was hard. (Oh, the inhumanity – hard reps.)

On the other hand, let’s say that when you use the phrase, you mean genuinely trying to get another rep, fighting it as if there were a real chance, continuing to truly strive for it even as the bar speed gets very slow – because sometimes the bar speed can be very, very slow and the rep still can, with blood and guts, be completed – and only end the set when you just flat cannot move the bar upwards any more no wmatter what, for love or money.

Unless the two of you explain to each other how your meanings are totally different, isn’t his question on how many sets he might “go to failure” on get a completely confusing and misleading answer – to him – if you reply according to your meaning?

post pics Mr Bill Roberts, i want to see what 16 years of your training principles have accomplished.

You call me a troll and then issue me orders?

Don’t think so.

However, inasmuch as you clearly don’t have the mental capacity to engage what I’m saying on any substantive basis, which would be the way anyone that had the capacity would do it, I suppose you are doing the best you can.

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
You call me a troll and then issue me orders?

Don’t think so.

However, inasmuch as you clearly don’t have the mental capacity to engage what I’m saying on any substantive basis, which would be the way anyone that had the capacity would do it, I suppose you are doing the best you can.[/quote]

pix or gtfo.

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
Nowhere did I say that no one who uses the expression actually trains to failure (though they don’t do it on vast numbers of sets, as that doesn’t work)… I said that many who use the phrase do not actually strive maximally yet fail to move the wait, but terminate or get a spot prior to this.

You said, “the vast majority of successful strength athletes do not frequently if ever intentionally exert maximal effort unsuccessfully (genuinely trying to complete the rep but failing to do so) and most successful bodybuilders don’t do that every set either, if indeed frequently at all.”

I was just using examples to suggest that it’s actually used more frequently than you seemed to be suggesting.

Really? I don’t tend to see powerlifters in their training deliberately trying for reps that they strain against, doing their best to complete, and fail to lift.
[/quote]

I posted a couple videos of two successful guys who complete in powerlifting (so it’s safe to call them powerlifters), Justin Harris and Matt Kroc deliberately trying for reps that they strain against, but fail to lift.

And if you don’t think that they fail at attempts while say working up to a 1 RM attempt (which Westside calls for on a weekly basis) then I’d have to wonder what type of experience you have witnessing powerlifters train. Yes, that’s slightly different, but it’s still technically training to failure.

Again, there is a risk/reward ratio that one has to take into account. Someone who has been lifting for decades knows by feel if the weight is going up or not without their form getting ugly and risking injuring themself. What might look like a “half hearted try” might be more of an intelligent judgement call on the lifter’s part upon attempting the lift.

It’s still failure because they could not have completed that rep without completely altering their form and risking injuring themselves, which would be stupid on their part if they’re looking at things on a long term basis. Again, like I said before, common sense.

So, he’s saying that he would not have made a sixth rep and thus reached failure after the 5th rep. Not that difficult to understand really. Agree that his wording wasn’t great though.

Again, context. Is it safe to attempt another rep? If not then they’re just being smart. Also, if they’ve been lifting for a while they know whether or not they could have gotten that next rep, then don’t need to attempt it. Surely you must know this.

I really think you’re making this more complicated than it needs to be.

Lots of them do. Not all of them surely, but lots of them (providing it’s safe to do so).

Yes, it certainly can burn you out, which is why most systems that make heavy use of it also make use of some sort of periodization.

I don’t know who is making it all that complicated. If it’s safe to give another rep a shot, go for it, if not, don’t. I haven’t really seen too many people say otherwise.

Again, is there a competant spotter available? Can the lifter maintain an acceptable level of saftey in completing that last rep? Was the last rep completed that very, slow grinded out rep?

Common sense and actually observing successful lifters who utilize the “style” of training that you’re drawn to should answer any of these uncertainties.

[quote]
Unless the two of you explain to each other how your meanings are totally different, isn’t his question on how many sets he might “go to failure” on get a completely confusing and misleading answer – to him – if you reply according to your meaning?[/quote]

Only if he has no common sense or experience of his own and/or experience observing successful BB’ers. It certainly wouldn’t confuse me, but then I try to be very specific when I reply to people anyhow, so I generally don’t have that problem.

Well, it seems you don’t agree there is in practice a communication problem resulting from complete different intended meanings by different people, and their often not understanding that others won’t interpret their statements as they intend them but rather as they use them themselves.

Fair enough, not everyone has to agree on the existence of such things. :slight_smile:

But still, I think that if a person asks a simple question such as “should” he “go to failure” on all sets and his meaning is totally different than yours, then your reply will be to a different question than what he is actually asking.

Also, it’s not simply a safety issue as you say.

A given sound training plan might be designed around doing some substantial number of reps of hard work for the given bodypart. Might be 24 reps total, might be 35. Might be 100. For example perhaps it is 7 sets of 5, whether all one exercise or varied. What the number is will depend on the plan. And it may not be a particular number but rather a number of sets at a given weight or plan of weight increase. My point doesn’t depend on the exact number.

As you know, if you put not only absolutely maximal successful effort (completed reps) into every set, but on top of this strive at another rep and genuinely fail on it, ah, you ain’t gonna be doing seven good sets. (As in this particular example.) You’ll be shot way early.

So if the question is “Should I ‘go to failure’ on every set” and your meaning involves, reasonably enough, there actually being failure if you call it going to failure, the answer is no.

But if your meaning is like the fellow who described the last rep being quite hard as his idea of “going to failure” then the answer can be “yes.” It can be a productive and workable plan to do that number of sets all for as many reps as – successfully – possible.

Different answer, according to how one uses that phrase.

No, it’s not just safety. It has a ton to do with the volume of work that can be done.

And for example in this thread, we still have no idea what the OP’s idea of “training to failure” is, and thus no one can know if their answer applies to his real question.

So… When are you guys gonna marry?

hides