Training to failure for one set per exercise elicits twice the strength gains as not training to failure (from article).Increasing the number of sets taken to failure from one set to two, three or four provides no more benefit than doing just one set to failure (from article). 70% this is the low-end of the optimal range when it comes to stimulating hypertrophy. This can be done either by doing regular sets close to failure (Thibarmy site).
Traning deadlift for 1 set at 70% 70 kg (around 11 or 12 reps) of 1RM 100kg to absolute failure. From fifth rep at 82% to eleventh at 100% is seven reps in full muscle activation range.
How much strength will be gaind from one workout in precentage or in kg lbs ( wolud that be anywhere near 5 kg) for novice lifter?
Using 4x3 (last set to failure) scheme 90% 90kg starting at 70% 70 kg means that 20 kg can be added without workout and be able to do, but how much strength will be gained from 70 to 90 doing four workout adding five kg every time?
Does traning to absolute failure really contributes to bigger straingth gains, does it leads to CNS burn out?
Off topic
Lifter can’t bench press 100 kg but can moveing it inch , he does pushing against barbell with weights (overcoming isometrics) for unknown sets and time. As time goes would he be able to push it higher and higher, or its just myth?
Strength is gained mostly at the angle being trained with isometrics, so while that positon will get stronger over time, the rest of the ROM will not gain.
Adaptations/gains from overcoming isometrics are almost exclusively neurological, very little, if any, muscle mass will be built. And that is important because while neurological adaptations do matter for strength, it’s still the size of the muscle that determine a muscle potential. What I find with isometrics is that strength is gained rapidly but plateau really fast.
The motor pattern in isometric actions as not the same as in dynamic ones.
And whenever you have these questions, ask yourself “are there ANY very strong people who achieved their strength primarily by training this way?”
If the answer is “NO” then it likely will not work well as a primary strength method.
Strength training as been popular for a very long time. Most things that can be done with a barbell has been tried. The methods that worked stood the test of time and are still with us. Those that didn’t work, went away.
Isometric training was actually very popular among weightlifters and powerlifters (Terry Todd wrote a good historical piece on that topic). But it quickly went out of style despite the primary strength magazines and the York guys pushing it hard. It’s popularity lasted for around 3-4 years. Then people figured out that it just didn’t work that well to increase full range strength and dropped it.
The two “test subjects” for isometrics were two American weightlifters, Louie Rickie and Bill Marsh. They made spectacular gains in their press (which was contested in weightlifting back then) and jerk. So every lifter, weightlifters and powerlifters in the US started using isometrics.
It was later found that Riekie and Marsh were also the two first Americans to use steroids. Actually both the isometric method and dianabol were developed by the same person, Dr. John Ziegler. Both lifters started using steroids and isometrics at the same time. It turned out that the reason for their gains was the steroids and not the isometrics… which is why steroids are still around and isometrics are very uncommon with strength athletes.
Had it really been effective, it would still be used a lot today, by elite lifters. It’s not.
There are purposes for isometrics (which is why in my omni-contraction system I use one day of isometric or stato-dynamic lifting) but it’s just not a great tool to increase full range strength.
Strength gains in a one week period can range from 0.25% to 2% depending on the level of the athlete, recovery and nutrition.
A novice lifter can increase strength 1 to 2% per week.
Which is why always adding weight to the bar every workout can’t work for a long time.
For example, if you bench 90kg, you can gain 0.9 to 1.8kg per week. Adding 5kg per week is thus not sustainable.
It can work for a few weeks, especially if you didn’t train to failure. Not training to failure means that you had reps in reserve, giving you room to add weight to the bar at your next session even if you didn’t gain enough strength to match the weight increase.
But every week you add more weight than the rate of strength gains, your sets will become closer to failure, until you hit the wall and you have no more room to add weight and your strength progression is to slow to keep up with the weights you add to the bar.
There is no shortcut to gaining strength. Look at what the strongest people are doing instead of trying to find a hidden secret method that for some reason hundreds of thousands of lifters missed, it will give you a better path on how to get strong.
Im interested in your:
1/2/4/6 using 80-92%
The progression might look like:
90-92% x 1
88-90% x 2
85% x 4
80% x 6+
(The objective is 6 reps, but if you can get 7 or 8, go for it, even if it means hitting failure.)
Is it good mainly for strength its 13 rep total + amrap, how to progres on this method rest time, adding weight, your experience with useing it for how long it can last?