I looked it up, doesn’t give any info beyond what you said here and it specifically refers to the study on men. Now I want to know what the deal is with the study on women, but I see nothing about it being retracted.
There is other research showing more or less the same thing, James Krieger did a metanalysis of volume studies and concluded that something like 8-10 work sets (not necessarily to failure, but not more than a few reps short) per workout was optimal for hypertrophy for most people. So even if Barbalho’s studies are flawed, the conclusion wasn’t far off from what other people have found.
Failure has always puzzled me. Maybe it’s my own misunderstanding or the was it is used has changed.
I’ve always thought failure meant you’re pinned to the bench, crumpled up under a squat attempt, or the bar just went the wrong way no matter how hard you tried to make it do what you wanted. Or pushing until something pops.
It seems to be used a lot differently now. From complete failure (above) to even a little wonky.
Writers and people say “Going to failure is bad for xyz reasons” without defining the extent of failure.
I imagine this came about as a means of being able to give easier to follow directions and observations.
We understand what “real” failure is, but we also observe that tons of trainees think they reached failure when they really have 2,3, sometimes even 6 reps left in them if they were to REALLY push themselves. So you tell a guy to do 3 sets to failure and they’ll grow, they do 3 sets to perceived failure, leave a bunch of reps on the table, don’t grow, and tell you that you’re full of crap.
So instead you redefine failure to mean when form falls apart because you can at least KNOW when that’s happening and it gives an easier baseline to establish.
It’s why I tend to not worry about studies that are done by observing the impact on trainees. There’s so much of an individual and human element that goes into exercise execution that it’s rare you can get 2 people to do it the same way, let alone a larger sample size.
And even then, I know I personally can do a leg extension by either contracting my quad and getting the muscle recruited as much as possible OR I can just force my connective tissues to take on the load and swing my leg forward, and both will move the machine and look like a leg extension. Same with skull crushers. Took a while for me to figure out how to make it not bug my elbows.
There’s a lot going on under the hood that is hard to capture.
Look, failure is when you promise yourself, I mean really convincingly promise yourself, that if you lift the damn thing just one more time, you get to have a date with the lady of your dreams (or some variation on that theme), and then you fail to meet that challenge…
Failure at the gym is when I get half way and it won’t move anymore. Failure at home gym is when my neighbor calls the cops because of the screaming and the bar wouldn’t move anymore. Failure is what the safeties on the squat rack are for and why the plates are big enough that they won’t crush your scull. Also why floor press is better than bench press when you don’t have a spotter. Lol.
Because learning how to use equipment provides a new challenge compared to raw, multiply even more so than single. I would do it if I had a team and the time, because after 20 years of it, raw is getting boring.
Would love to hear you expand more on this-especially what you figured out what worked for you with skull crushers and how to not make them bug your elbows. Is it similar to what you described for the leg extensions? Focusing more on using the muscle/flexing the weight up? I had to cut skull crushers out for way too long and have been able to finally add them back in recently, but only after doing something else first to warm them up (like close grip bench) then as a superset do the skulls right after. I realize it is highly individualized, but I have gotten value from reading some of your descriptions before.
