I came across this, written by Bodybuilder X … I found interesting tidbits from Dr. Ellington Darden that explain a lot. He has had quite a bit of success using subfailure training on some of his clients. He actually had one guy gain 39 pounds of muscle training like that. He says Arthur Jones actually experimented quite a bit with it as well and got very good results, but they never wrote about it.
Would you please elaborate?
I’m not sure who this guy is talking about?
He’s a guy who’s been around the champs, and involved in bodybuilding for decades. In the article he speaks about the value of sub-failure, especially the success you and Arthur had with it.
I’m guessing the link to the article was removed? Any hints as to how to find it via google?
Muscle-Building Myths Exposed! Part 1 and Part 2 on ironmanmagazine .com
found it…
so this part?
" IM: I’m a big believer in stretch-position exercises for muscles, like incline curls for biceps, overhead extensions for tri’s and so on, because I’ve seen research that correlates stretch overload to dramatic increases in muscle mass. I think Arnold and Platz were in tune to that instinctively. What about training to failure?
BBX: I found interesting tidbits from Dr. Ellington Darden that explain a lot. He has had quite a bit of success using subfailure training on some of his clients. He actually had one guy gain 39 pounds of muscle training like that. He says Arthur Jones actually experimented quite a bit with it as well and got very good results, but they never wrote about it.
When I trained with Mike and Ray Mentzer, we did 12 sets for chest, but they counted only four sets. We did seven sets for triceps, but they counted four sets. HIT proponents would say that several of those sets were warmups and were not productive sets. I know they sure pushed pretty close to the edge on those so-called warmups, but if Jones actually proved that sets completed not to failure build muscle, why would we assume that warm-ups are not productive sets? Am I missing something?"
then it says this…
" M: No, you’re right. According to muscle-fiber physiology, the all-or-none principle states that a fiber either fires completely or not at all. So from that standpoint a lot of fibers are firing all out even with light weights and not going to failure. Did most of the pros you trained with go to failure on their work sets? What about Padilla?
No, that is NOT what the all or none principle is pointing to. It’s pointing to a fiber twitch, not that a fiber fires with full tension or not at all. Everyone gets that wrong…(sorry that idea always bugs me when mis-used )
Fibers CAN fire and do fire, with variable tension.
Email directly to me from Roger Enoka
Good morning Ron,
It is important to realize that motor units are probably never achieve a fused tetanus during a voluntary contractions. The rate at which action potentials are generated is only ever sufficient to produce an unfused tetanus, which is less than the maximal force a motor unit can produce. Of course, the force produced by a motor unit during an unfused tetanus can range from low to high, but it is never maximal. We do not know why rate coding is never enough to achieve a fused tetanus.
I hope this helps.
Roger M. Enoka, Ph.D.
Professor
Room W205B, Ramaley
Department of Integrative Physiology
354 UCB
University of Colorado
Boulder, CO 80309, USA
I wonder how long ago this conversation was supposed to have taken place? Seems unlikely that Dr. Darden would forget that he had a client gain 39lbs of muscle using subfailure training…
yeah … sounds misconstrued or something…
Okay, okay. This guy is referring to my six-month study with Dave Hudlow, which is reported in my book The New High Intensity Training (2004). You can read the summary on pages 212 and 213.
I would not, however, classify this study as involving sub-failure training. And Arthur Jones never, in my memory, experimented successfully with sub-failure training.
Thanks for clearing that up Ellington. It didn’t quite sound right.
I would classify most of the UF Medx Lumbar and Cervical studies as, “sub-failure”. Such is necessary for rehabilitative exercise.
Speaking of sub-failure training, I’ve tried several things. Furthermore, after re-examining the force velocity curve , as it applies to muscle cross bridge activity, I corrected my viewpoint that Super Slow repetitions were not favorable to cross bridge activity. To avoid prolonged time in the glycolytic energy system , where Hydrogen ions are produced, I limit length of sets to 1 minute. A SuperSlow rep is 20 seconds in length, so a maximum of 3 reps ends a set,
While experimenting, I tried just 1 SuperSlow rep. This seems very easy on any subsequent fatigue. 1 rep only! Sub-Failure.
@atp_4_me
Clarify this please; are you training using only one repetition, or was that something you just tried?
I used to do similar too. I used 10/5 SS cadence and 3-4 reps per set. But it’s really all just the same as doing regular speed reps for a higher rep count. SS is just freaken tedious and takes away so much concentration worrying about the speed and timing of each rep. 10 million other lifters all got big and never measured rep speed.
Ya fuck that… I control the eccentric simply to standardize technique / form and minimize injury risk, then controlled concentric as hard as possible
I’m very sorry for any confusion on my part. Please forgive my poor literacy attempts.
I have converted to SuperSlow for now. This is due to rethinking the force velocity curve as regards increased muscle cross-bridge activity afforded by slower repetitions. I go for a minimum of a 10 second concentric and eccentric movements. I try to limit eccentrics to 20 seconds.
I believe any sets lasting longer than 1 minute in duration invites an acidic environment which curtails muscle fiber activity. 3 proper SuperSlow reps meets exactly the 1 minute Time Under Load. Of interest is a 30 second TUL which would necessitate a 5/5 Slow 3 reps . The number 3 has always emphasized intensity , such as 3 strikes and your out- 3 times a lady- knock 3 times on the ceiling…one gets the point.
On trying to perfect my SuperSlow form I did some single reps. I did one rep leg presses and pulldowns. I was shocked that these single SuperSlow reps had no effect on perceived fatigue and regular set workouts. The SuperSlow single reps are done with the same weights as regular workout sets and could be done daily so it feels. So far the extra practice sets have not interfered with workout performance.
I use a MAG 12 inch pulldown bar which has eliminated elbow pain, and eliminated the need for any forearm training. This bar has surely enhanced SuperSlow pulldown performance. I do 3 rest pause negative only reps on my Nautilus double chest machine. I use 20 seconds eccentrics. Single practice reps work well here also.
I m wondering if these single 20 second reps interspersed between a LISS Assault bike might be a very good cardio & recovery method.
Hope this helps
Marc
I seem to thrive on the “tediousness “ of SuperSlow reps , as I concentrate on going slow and smooth. I have used a lap timer set to monitor rep speeds. I’m sure my rep speed exceeds 10 seconds at times, even though I don’t time sets much anymore. I do count down mentally my negative-only reps.
for sure, some people enjoy it, it drive me nuts but many thrive on it 
Oh and just to note, slow reps with less than full effort (like everything before failure), may have the potential for more cross bridging, but the actual tension created is directly proportional to the total cross bridges attaching in a muscle. Each cross bridge exerts a known ‘same’ force , so total actual tension = total number of cross bridges regardless of the speed the muscles are contracting.
So, for example, if you put 100 lbs on the bar and apply say 101lbs of force, so the bar is moving slowly, you’d have some number of cross bridges attaching. If you then used that same 100 lbs but applied 110 lbs of force so the bar was moving faster, there would be more cross bridges and higher muscle tension with the faster reps.
The only time the rep speed becomes an issue, is when you need absolute maximum tension, then the bar naturally moves slow ‘because’ all cross bridges are attaching and taking the smallest steps up the actin filaments.
I agree with you, but it doesn’t change the force-velocity curve graph. With all being said, slower reps are advantageous even for athletic endeavors. I don’t think there is anything magical about 10 second reps, just laser focused attention to smooth slow repetitions. On the last rep (3 reps in my case) an isometric hold during the eccentric tells one to increase the resistance.