To Train to Failure or not to, what is better?

Personally, I believe it is possible to stimulate optimal growth from 1 set as long as you are developed enough, although not many (especially without chemical assistance) have the drive/personality etc to be able to perform their best on just one.

Have heard it said that the set which over-loads the muscle the most (compared to before) is the growth producing set, any others are “worthless”/draining. And the reason why Yates recommends beginners/intermediates to do 2 sets is for more opportunities of getting a productive set.

I know that ones like C_C (who as far as I know, doesn’t take boat loads of assistance), prefers just one set to failure, and like many advanced lifters who respond well to this, finds that extra sets leads to diminishing results (if the sets are intense enough).

Hitkiller very nice,but let me ask you somthing, in what portion did you make most of your gains? do you believe you could reach that level STARTING with 1 set style? (the n00b comment is for people who actually start with 1 set to failure). do you train like that on all of your exercises?

I have yet to see someone who got huge with JUST HIT, most will tell you they trained with shit load of volume for years (or atleast followed some lowish volume powerlifting programs).

lol. pwned

more power to the statement that everything works when done with intensity and given the right amount of time.

[quote]Hitkiller wrote:
hanban wrote:

[quote]

I always LOL @ n00bs who say the best way to train is 1 set to failure Yates style. come show me your progress in 4-5 years with that shit method.[/quote]

Me after 4 years of training, and 2 years of “1 set to failure Yates style”[/quote]

Do you fail to replace any of your light bulbs in those 4 years?

[quote]Hitkiller wrote:

[quote]hanban wrote:
Hitkiller very nice,but let me ask you somthing, in what portion did you make most of your gains? do you believe you could reach that level STARTING with 1 set style? (the n00b comment is for people who actually start with 1 set to failure). do you train like that on all of your exercises?

I have yet to see someone who got huge with JUST HIT, most will tell you they trained with shit load of volume for years (or atleast followed some lowish volume powerlifting programs). [/quote]

Most of my gains came as soon as I began HIT training back in late 1998. When I first began working out in early 1997 weighing a mere 140lbs. I began the usual 3 X 10, 3 times a week routine and gradually moved to split routines, increasing the volume and frequency, I did gain a modest amount of mass, (I went from 140lb to 160lbs) but stagnated and remained and that weight with the same modest lifting stats. Dorian Yates came over in mid 1998 and I attended his seminar and I took notes of his advice, training style, diet, techniques etc. I put it all together,I studied how he trained, his approach to diet, rest and recovery. Not just Dorian, i also read and studied Mike Mentzers, Arthur Joness and Fred Hatfields articles. Then a few months later I began training using HIT.

So to answer your question, the portion of time I made most of my gains was from mid 1998 onwards to the photos above taken in 2001 where I weighed 222lbs at 5’7 but by no means “huge”. Do the math though, thats 62lbs in approx 2 and a half years. Its certainly not advisable for someone who is just starting out to begin using 1 set to failure because it takes time to correctly perform each excersise properly and see how there body reacts to weight training, like anything the basics must be mastered before moving on to more “exotic methods”. Its unreasonable to think that your going to come across someone who trained soley with HIT from the very first time they picked up a dumbell.

For me its the most efficient way to train, to gain a good amount of muscle over a shorter period of time, but the training sessions must be brutal, nutrition has to be dead on and plenty of rest and recovery. I was never afraid to take a an extra day off or even a week off on occassions.

Again this is what works best for ME.
[/quote]

Well HIT can be used in many ways, some may do light warm up sets and some may ramp up to a top set (what you did?) wich is not what i meant with 1 set to failure because the volume is still there.
however , fair enough, my views on 1 set to failure are still putting it way behind higher volume training, but props to you for showing pics and doing what works for you.

i never understood how HIT really works. I mean people say its only set to failure , but i already do that (i do about 2-3 ramp sets and then my last set to failure) and it really doesn’t seem as hard as people make HIT look to be.

I retract my retraction!

[quote]Raffy wrote:
i never understood how HIT really works. I mean people say its only set to failure , but i already do that (i do about 2-3 ramp sets and then my last set to failure) and it really doesn’t seem as hard as people make HIT look to be.

[/quote]

lol

To add to that ^

Many think that intensity = load on the bar, but for most HIT advocates, it involves intensive techniques (could be reduced rest, rest pause style, forced reps etc). Also, tension is emphasised much more (not explosiveness/bouncing etc which some are quite fond of), so the muscle is stressed/overloaded more than the tendons etc.

An example would be when a trainee comes to a HIT coach, the coach would usually reduce the load, get the trainee to focus more with tension on the muscle (often slowing the movement down…which that alone, increases the muscle’s TUT/volume). So the intensity doesn’t come from breaking your back as such, but from the mental fortitude of the style of training (pushing through when you think that you should stop etc).

So the thought of using a huge weight (that you’ve EARNED/mastered) isn’t as daunting when you consider all that.

[quote]Raffy wrote:
i never understood how HIT really works. I mean people say its only set to failure , but i already do that (i do about 2-3 ramp sets and then my last set to failure) and it really doesn’t seem as hard as people make HIT look to be.

[/quote]
It’s possible you might not be strong enough to really kill yourself over one set to failure. I see this all the time weaker guys killing themselves over sets and it’s like it never happened a few minutes later whereas the stronger guys are done.

I see . It seems like someone would progress much faster on HIT since they aren’t that exhausted from the previous warm up sets.

[quote]Raffy wrote:
I see . It seems like someone would progress much faster on HIT since they aren’t that exhausted from the previous warm up sets.[/quote]

Gee…unless fatigue has a whole hell of a lot to do with maximum muscle growth.

[quote]Hitkiller wrote:
hanban wrote:

[quote]

I always LOL @ n00bs who say the best way to train is 1 set to failure Yates style. come show me your progress in 4-5 years with that shit method.[/quote]

Me after 4 years of training, and 2 years of “1 set to failure Yates style”[/quote]

good work,buddy.

[quote]Hitkiller wrote:

[quote]Raffy wrote:
i never understood how HIT really works. I mean people say its only set to failure , but i already do that (i do about 2-3 ramp sets and then my last set to failure) and it really doesn’t seem as hard as people make HIT look to be.

[/quote]

To me, HIT is pushing that one set to total muscular failure meaning that your are no longer able to lift the weight (positive part of the lift) nor are you able to hold the weight in the contracted position, nor you are able to lower the weight,(the negative portion) once those three elements of the lift are exhausted then it safe to say that you have taken the set to total muscle failure.

[/quote]

I have done ,and will do again ;-), some heavy eccentric reps ,after the all out rest pause set,training alone I can count “just” on rest pause,partials reps and eccentrics (plus isos of course) but it’s enough.
what i can’t really understand of the (so called) dualism HIGH volume vs HIT is that one says shit of the other side,but it’s not a faith war,both protocols could be used with fun and gains.
more ,i would say that shifting from HV to HIT (ND VICEVERSA) avoids training plateaus and gives you a more open (training) mind…
use the head not the ego.

[quote]Hitkiller wrote:

[quote]Raffy wrote:
i never understood how HIT really works. I mean people say its only set to failure , but i already do that (i do about 2-3 ramp sets and then my last set to failure) and it really doesn’t seem as hard as people make HIT look to be.

[/quote]

To me, HIT is pushing that one set to total muscular failure meaning that your are no longer able to lift the weight (positive part of the lift) nor are you able to hold the weight in the contracted position, nor you are able to lower the weight,(the negative portion) once those three elements of the lift are exhausted then it safe to say that you have taken the set to total muscle failure.

[/quote]

I have done ,and will do again ;-), some heavy eccentric reps ,after the all out rest pause set,training alone I can count “just” on rest pause,partials reps and eccentrics (plus isos of course) but it’s enough.
what i can’t really understand of the (so called) dualism HIGH volume vs HIT is that one says shit of the other side,but it’s not a faith war,both protocols could be used with fun and gains.
more ,i would say that shifting from HV to HIT (ND VICEVERSA) avoids training plateaus and gives you a more open (training) mind…
use the head not the ego.

Why so much talk about Yates. Ok yes HIT works… great.

Jay Cutler and Phil Heath dont train HIT style.

wtf is this debate about

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]Raffy wrote:
I see . It seems like someone would progress much faster on HIT since they aren’t that exhausted from the previous warm up sets.[/quote]

Gee…unless fatigue has a whole hell of a lot to do with maximum muscle growth.[/quote]

As in progress i meant strength. So yes if you aren’t as fatigued you’ll be stronger on that last set…

You’re the biggest asshole on this forum lol. You’re e-penis must be very huge.

I think that too many worry about HOW to get there instead of getting there. There is no one that disputes that steadily increasing the amount of load you can handle will result in increased muscle mass.

HIT may be a good change of pace, if at the end of a cycle you can do more reps with more weight. Periodization will result in hypertrophy if you can move more weight for the same work load in a cycle.

[quote]Raffy wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]Raffy wrote:
I see . It seems like someone would progress much faster on HIT since they aren’t that exhausted from the previous warm up sets.[/quote]

Gee…unless fatigue has a whole hell of a lot to do with maximum muscle growth.[/quote]

As in progress i meant strength. So yes if you aren’t as fatigued you’ll be stronger on that last set…

You’re the biggest asshole on this forum lol. You’re e-penis must be very huge.[/quote]

Except this is the bodybuilding forum, where ‘progress’ means ‘muscle gain’ and not strength on your lifts.

The original statement as you meant it also needs to be qualified. Who’s to say you couldn’t train with pre-exhaust, short rest periods, TUT and not come out with similar strength gains in a non-fatigued state.

That was PX being nice to you.

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:
I think you should post a recent picture of yourself[/quote]
[/quote]