[quote]Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
So… When are you guys gonna marry?
hides
[/quote]
lol
[quote]Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
So… When are you guys gonna marry?
hides
[/quote]
Son of a… shakes fist 
Yeah, does sound like it… 
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
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. 
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.
[/quote]
Yes, of course there is a relationship between intensity and volume and the more intense the training the less volume can be performed. I’m certainly not arguing against that.
Different people will have different work capacities though, so it still comes down to actually trying out the workout and seeing for oneself whether they can progress with it or not. What one person might thrive on might crush another. And what might be just the right amount of volume for one, might be well below another’s capacity.
This is regardless of whether “failure” is actually met or not. Again, it comes down to experience and common sense.
And honestly, most people wouldn’t be able to perform 7 good (meant intense) work sets for a given muscle group and progress with that model anyhow. Most guys do anywhere from 2-4 exercises per muscle group and ramp up to 1 top set per exercise. So, that’s 2-4 good sets per workout.
Only a few volume freaks like Bauer and Waylander would be able to do 7 truly intense sets per body part and still progress at a rapid rate with that program.
And that’s even if you are talking about stopping the set after that last slow, grinding, successful rep. The act of bringing the bar back down and attempting one more rep (which is undoubtedly going to fail), failing, and then having someone lift the bar off of you (because if all they’re doing is adding minimal assistance to allow you to still lift the bar, then you’re doing “forced” reps which is a different animal than just “going to failure”) isn’t all that much more stressful on the nervous system.
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
And honestly, most people wouldn’t be able to perform 7 good (meant intense) work sets for a given muscle group and progress with that model anyhow. Most guys do anywhere from 2-4 exercises per muscle group and ramp up to 1 top set per exercise. So, that’s 2-4 good sets per workout.
Only a few volume freaks like Bauer and Waylander would be able to do 7 truly intense sets per body part and still progress at a rapid rate with that program. [/quote]
Personally I believe this is because of being told they cannot do it. Or not taking sufficient rest. Or not building up to it.
Unless of course by “truly intense” you mean following practices that I said one has to avoid if one wants to do this.
Doing 7 sets were the last rep done was indeed the last one that could be done successfully (in most cases) is doable.
(The reason I say most cases is that there will be times in which the weight and capacity at the moment are such that it’s an on-the-edge situation: it’s neither clear that another rep could not be done, as the weight was not quite heavy enough for that to be the case for the reps in fact done – e.g. the reps actually completed, you could have gotten with a trace more weight had that been the case – but also neither is it clear that yet another rep could be done at all or there is a certainty that it would be an absolutely vicious, highly draining grind with excruciatingly slow bar speed and certainty to have smoke coming out of the ears due to burning-out, frying nerves, then you don’t do it. So in those cases it may be that not every possible rep was done. But in most sets the weight is not at that exact on-the-edge value, but is light enough for so-many, but too heavy for so-many-plus-one.)
Indeed. That kind of approach absolutely prevent using such volume.
So that was my point. If someone uses the expression “go to failure” as did that fellow with the recently-read post that had it that the last rep being difficult – but it did not sound that he meant blood-and-guts struggle, just quite difficult – to squeeze out comprised “going to failure,” then with that use of words one can “go to failure” every set without this necessarily preventing high volume.
But if one means what you described, then high volume is absolutely prevented, and so the answer as to whether one can do it becomes completely the opposite.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
And honestly, most people wouldn’t be able to perform 7 good (meant intense) work sets for a given muscle group and progress with that model anyhow. Most guys do anywhere from 2-4 exercises per muscle group and ramp up to 1 top set per exercise. So, that’s 2-4 good sets per workout.
Only a few volume freaks like Bauer and Waylander would be able to do 7 truly intense sets per body part and still progress at a rapid rate with that program.
Personally I believe this is because of being told they cannot do it. Or not taking sufficient rest. Or not building up to it.
[/quote] Why try to build up to it if so many are way more successful doing less… And thus placing less overall stress on the joints/tendons?
If I can get up to 280+ via doing a lot of sets under working weight per exercise… Or very few… Well, which approach am I going to choose?
One could do that with fairly low reps like 63 or so, or 55… Or MM’s version of 55, which is basically 25 + 3 more sets… But generally, people who use these approaches successfully (i.e. a lot of powerlifters) stop a rep or so short of failure…
As for higher reps… Just because it’s doable doesn’t mean that it’s a good idea to do it, really.
Even guys like Bauer don’t do 7 or so work sets to failure or near failure per exercise when using 6+ reps. It’s simply not very conductive to strength gain in that rep-range… Maybe some can do it, but again, why bother?
If you want to make the argument “High Intensity is the Only Way” then go right ahead.
Why bother with higher volumes?
Oh, well, there are a lot of powerlifters using volumes such as I am talking about. There are a lot of great bb’ing routines that use such volumes.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
If you want to make the argument “High Intensity is the Only Way” then go right ahead.
Why bother with higher volumes? [/quote] Not “why bother with higher volumes” as such, but "why bother with higher volumes of sets under workload performed to concentric failure or very close to it per exercise than just about anyone who is successful in this game performs?
[quote]
Oh, well, there are a lot of powerlifters using volumes such as I am talking about. [/quote] You were talking about this:
[quote]
Doing 7 sets were the last rep done was indeed the last one that could be done successfully (in most cases) is doable. [/quote]
And that is not really what most powerlifters do as far as I can tell.
Again, when using rep schemes such as 63 or 55, they tend to stop at least a rep short of concentric failure on each set.
Ed Coan went to concentric failure (or close to it)… But only did around 2 sets under workload per exercise on many of his routines.
Edit: Talking about his bench/CGP/incline routines, mostly. Dunno about the coan philippi cycle, as I’m not familiar with it [
In this case, I honestly just don’t know of any powerlifters who do something like 7 or more sets under workload to concentric failure or very damn close to it per exercise…
I’m not trying to force any “low-volume forever” view on you or anything (add to that that routines such as the ones most BB pro’s use are generally considered high volume for some reason… And still they just don’t do anything like you’ve mentioned).
I’m seriously just curious as to which of today’s guys (successful powerlifters or bodybuilders) you think do that many sets under workload to conc. failure/close to it per exercise… Or have done so for long periods of time. [quote]
There are a lot of great bb’ing routines [/quote] Very few pro’s do something like that. (I can’t think of a single one). I’m not saying “be intense or go home” or anything like that. I simply am not seeing Ronnie or anyone else who is a successful bodybuilder, even the high volume guys like Bauer, do 7 hard sets per exercise. If, of course, you’re talking about 7 total sets under workload per bodypart, then yeah, sure, some do quite a bit more and with success. But judging from what you’ve wrote below, that’s not what you meant.[quote] that use such volumes.
The idea that no one can do seven hard sets, or there is no valid reason to do so, is wrong. Or if one prefers, a very blinkered view.
[/quote] Well, don’t you want to elaborate on that a little?
I’m open for discussion… Don’t see me as an enemy or something.
My opinion is based both on personal experience, that of those I’ve helped with training and of course also on what I’ve seen almost all successful people do!
Once again, even the guys on this forum who use high volume with success do not generally follow parameters such as the ones you specified. They either do less sets or stop shy of concentric failure from what I have seen/heard/read.[quote]
I don’t know why you chose to make a point against what I was saying by adding a parameter of “6+ reps,” which I did not say. For example what I had in mind with the 7 set example was 7 sets of five. [/quote]
You didn’t specify how many reps you were talking about, so I first discussed what I thought about using lots of sets to concentric failure/or near with low reps (imo 5 or less) and, afterwards, went on to discuss the use of high sets to conc. failure/close to with high reps (imo 6 or more, which is why I mentioned “6+”).
I did not add 6+ to change anything you said as such… Maybe my wording wasn’t what it should have been…?
/edited.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
And honestly, most people wouldn’t be able to perform 7 good (meant intense) work sets for a given muscle group and progress with that model anyhow. Most guys do anywhere from 2-4 exercises per muscle group and ramp up to 1 top set per exercise. So, that’s 2-4 good sets per workout.
Only a few volume freaks like Bauer and Waylander would be able to do 7 truly intense sets per body part and still progress at a rapid rate with that program.
Personally I believe this is because of being told they cannot do it. Or not taking sufficient rest. Or not building up to it.
Unless of course by “truly intense” you mean following practices that I said one has to avoid if one wants to do this.
[/quote]
Maybe in some cases that’s true, in many others though, they know from experience that they can’t do that and still make substantial progress from workout to workout.
There is no shortage of exposure to high volume BB’ing routines out there these days. Just pick up any muscle mag and you’re sure to find at least a couple (each month). I highly doubt that the vast majority of lifters who have started lifting within the past 30 years has not at one time done a high volume BB’ing routine.
And yeah, I’m sure that with enough rest and time spent building up to it that perhaps one could progress. But at what cost in terms of time and rate of progression?
Why spend all that time on building up to being able to handle that volume when you could have spent that time doing less volume and instead focused on improving strength/muscle? Why do a workout that’s going to take you a week and a half to recover from in order to be able to beat your previous performance (on a regular basis), when you could have done less volume and progressed more frequently?
Work capacity still comes into play as well. Even among the elite you will find different numbers of sets, different frequencies of training and varying degrees of “intensity”.
Hey, if someone can do that and progress at a good rate, more power to them. I’m not saying it’s impossible, just that from my experience most people’s rate of progress slows when doing that many “work” sets, I know mine does.
Sure, and again I understand that your point is about semantics, and that if you really try to dissect someone’s words a lot of different meanings can be extrapolated.
But I don’t know (maybe you do) the context of that person’s statement.
Neither of us truly know for certain whether that last rep completed was a slow, grinding, maximal effort lift or just fairly difficult. Neither of us know whether attempting another rep could have been potentially dangerous either.
I personally don’t spend all that much time focusing on semantics because I would drive myself nuts trying to dissect people’s words that much and it wouldn’t really help me out any to do so IMO. If semantics are something that matters that much to you (which they seem to be) then I guess I can understand your frustration.
How about “do as many reps as possible” instead of “go to failure”? That suggests performing reps until another one cannot be successfully performed (whether one actually fails or not is based on saftey).