Training to Failure

Bigger Stronger Leaner Competitive Bodybuilding
21

[quote]marcusxavier wrote:
mertdawg wrote:
One thing here is that training to failure can mean different things. I do not train to failure and I honestly do not want to miss reps on large exercises, but I may push my muscles to their short term limit.

I was thinking exactly this. This may be ignorant but: Do we have a std. definition for failure? Is it incapacity to lift 50% of your normal weight for that exercise? Or is your muscle hurting/extreme pump/lack of energy that doesn’t let you wash your back?[/quote]

I think ‘training to failure’ in this topic means not being able to complete the last rep of an excersie.

22

Ok, by failure I mean, typically not able to complete a further repetition on a particular set or failing during a particlar rep due to momentary muscular failure.

I appreciate the muscles in themselves are not the only thing involved in lifting or ‘failure’ but let’s not get too deep into it where we start talking about emotional factors and minor tangible and intangible factors like your neighbours dog dying which raised stress levels or the fact the gym were playing Coldplay and that caused a maximal strength reduction.

I understand that much of the argument against training to ‘failure’ is based upon concrete proof that underlying negative physiological changes in basal circulating anabolic and catabolic hormones result from training in this manner, at least for a certain time period.

There are studies showing that training to failure results in reductions in resting concentrations of IGF-1 (and elevations in IGFBP-3), cortisol levels are elevated and testosterone levels can drop.

However there are also some studies that show training to failure and the momentary physiolical state causes GH signalling factors.

But the reason I started the thread was I hoped someone would add some scientific input, because there are clearly for’s and against’s from the endocrinological point of view.

23

1 problem with training so hard that you need 7 days recovery is that at this level, swelling causes vasoconstriction and active blocking of blood flow around the muscle. 7 days off in this state is literally going to prevent the building blocks of muscle from getting to the muscles, or waste products from being removed. If I trained to failure like this, I would want to do some very light blood flow facilitating workouts (at least 1) in the day or days after. Studies show that blood flow to a muscle is way down 8 hours post workout, and 24 hours post, so I’d at least want to do a quick light set of say 30 reps at 30 percent at about 24 hours post.

Also, studies have shown that removal of damaged cellular material from a trained muscle is FINISHED within 48 hours after an intense workout. That is a factor of the immune response, and the cellular mitotic cycle.

Also, the way most of the research is going, growth hormone production caused by any intensity of training is insignificant for muscle growth. You produce more GH with one excellent-not in pain-nights sleep than in a workout, and I think whether you like it or not, training your muscles at this intensity will interfere with sleep. Plus, if blood flow is blocked, no GH is going to get to the muscle anyway.

[quote]Doc Stig wrote:
Ok, by failure I mean, typically not able to complete a further repetition on a particular set or failing during a particlar rep due to momentary muscular failure.

I appreciate the muscles in themselves are not the only thing involved in lifting or ‘failure’ but let’s not get too deep into it where we start talking about emotional factors and minor tangible and intangible factors like your neighbours dog dying which raised stress levels or the fact the gym were playing Coldplay and that caused a maximal strength reduction.

I understand that much of the argument against training to ‘failure’ is based upon concrete proof that underlying negative physiological changes in basal circulating anabolic and catabolic hormones result from training in this manner, at least for a certain time period.

There are studies showing that training to failure results in reductions in resting concentrations of IGF-1 (and elevations in IGFBP-3), cortisol levels are elevated and testosterone levels can drop.

However there are also some studies that show training to failure and the momentary physiolical state causes GH signalling factors.

But the reason I started the thread was I hoped someone would add some scientific input, because there are clearly for’s and against’s from the endocrinological point of view.

[/quote]

24

[quote]mtotry wrote:
I always wonder about this:

if I do a workout with say 200lbs…

workout failure (A)

200lbs 4 sets of 10 reps

Workout not to failure (B)

200lbs 4 sets of 9 reps

its almost the same work with no chance of overtraining…if I continually improve my numbers over the long haul…I think it would make sense to do work out B…dont get me wrong I train to failure more often then not…but im starting to talk myself out of it by using this example…

what do you guys think?[/quote]

So with the 4 x 10 you are only reaching failure on the last rep of the last set, right? So what about 1 x 15 versus 4 x 9 where you have something left at the end. I would prefer 4 x 6 with 10% more weight, but still keeping 1-2 reps in the tank on the last set.

25

I have not tried the training to failure approach much myself. So I cannot comment much on it. It’d be like my saying the last gen. RX7 engines were the best! However they did perform great. But today many are sitting in junkyards are have had the engine rebuilt well before 50k miles. But I dirve a 300zx.

The reason I am not a fan of training to failure is simply CNS depression. It would take much longer for the CNS to recover if trained to failure. Which would mean longer more longer periods off from the gym before commencing the next workout. Assuming you want full CNS recovery per a better training effect.

But I do not doubt it efficacy or place ina training program. All things can work until a given time. Example RX7

Trust this makes sense.

PS: I’m not starting a thread over RX7’s. Its simply an observation with my experiance with sports cars.

26

Wankel.

Anyway, training to mmf, (momentary muscular failure not male male female), is probably an unrealistic goal on many exercises like Squat and Deadlift. I suppose it has its place more in exercises like presses and rows, or chins and curls.

27

[quote]Doc Stig wrote:
Wankel.

Anyway, training to mmf, (momentary muscular failure not male male female), is probably an unrealistic goal on many exercises like Squat and Deadlift. I suppose it has its place more in exercises like presses and rows, or chins and curls.

[/quote]
I semi-agree with this. The “mmf” should be alot greater on isolation movements then on compound lifts.

Or, the greater the load, the less failure you should aim for.

28

[quote]Ryu13 wrote:
Doc Stig wrote:
Wankel.

Anyway, training to mmf, (momentary muscular failure not male male female), is probably an unrealistic goal on many exercises like Squat and Deadlift. I suppose it has its place more in exercises like presses and rows, or chins and curls.

I semi-agree with this. The “mmf” should be alot greater on isolation movements then on compound lifts.

Or, the greater the load, the less failure you should aim for.
[/quote]

True isolation perhaps never really exists, and what can happen on many lifts is that stabilisers and suchliek can fatigue before the ‘target muscle’.

For instance if you train a bench press on the smith machine and go to falure, then go to barbell bench to failure then to dumbell bench press, the strength loss isn’t as great as as if you’d just done three sets of straight dumbell bench press because the stabilisers are not fatiguing in the earlier exercises as much as the dumbell press.

Also we have the factor of the mind in training to failure. Many people’s head bails out and induces a sort of failure before mmf, that i’m sure of.

29

There is no such thing as “muscular failure”. A muscle does not fail to contract; it’s force production just drops off until falls below the level needed to accelerate the weight.

Also, there is no reason to believe that lifting to failure stresses the CNS (relative to not failing). The fatigue that leads to failure is related to metabolic events within the muscle cells, not “CNS fatigue”.

30

[quote]marijuology wrote:
There is no such thing as “muscular failure”. A muscle does not fail to contract; it’s force production just drops off until falls below the level needed to accelerate the weight.

Also, there is no reason to believe that lifting to failure stresses the CNS (relative to not failing). The fatigue that leads to failure is related to metabolic events within the muscle cells, not “CNS fatigue”.[/quote]

Well its just terminology, its not an exact description of the process. I mean when someone says they spunked up they don’t fuckin say I had contractions of the genital tract from epididymis through seminal ducts to seminal vesicles.

[/quote]

31

[quote]Doc Stig wrote:
I mean when someone says they spunked up they don’t fuckin say I had contractions of the genital tract from epididymis through seminal ducts to seminal vesicles.
[/quote]

That’s what I say.

Anyway, I think going to failure on the last set has its benefits and drawbacks. I think if you go to failure on the first set that you do, you are not going to see long term benefits.

I have no clue about the fine details on this subject, but I have noticed the following on a personal level.

  1. DOMS keeps me motivated. It makes me feel like I accomplished something.

  2. When I keep “a couple in the tank”, it’s hard to judge a couple. When you go to failure, you know you’re at failure.

  3. Progress is easier to measure. If I fail at rep 8 this week and rep 10 next week, we have progress.

  4. If I’m training for strength, I don’t go to failure. I do train so that the last rep is the rep before failure.

  5. If you only go to failure on the accessory exercises, this reduces the load on the CNS (my theory, anyway).

I rotate failure in and out of my routine depending on what my needs are. I have found it works for me for hypertrophy and endurance, but not for strength. I think frequency works better for me for pure strength.

Of course, this could all be crap.

32

Is their any other way to train besides complete muscle failure? Oh yeah, but thats called half-assed.

33

[quote]Doc Stig wrote:

Well its just terminology, its not an exact description of the process. I mean when someone says they spunked up they don’t fuckin say I had contractions of the genital tract from epididymis through seminal ducts to seminal vesicles.
[/quote]

To some it’s just unimportant semantics, but others, such as those who were arguing about the definition of failure, might find it to be a meaninful distinction. Also you know how the HIT crowd is about definitions you I find it kind of ironic that they keep saying something as dumb as “muscular failure”

34

[quote]suppenthusiast wrote:
Doc Stig wrote:

Well its just terminology, its not an exact description of the process. I mean when someone says they spunked up they don’t fuckin say I had contractions of the genital tract from epididymis through seminal ducts to seminal vesicles.

To some it’s just unimportant semantics, but others, such as those who were arguing about the definition of failure, might find it to be a meaninful distinction. Also you know how the HIT crowd is about definitions you I find it kind of ironic that they keep saying something as dumb as “muscular failure”

[/quote]

The definition of failure, and what I am calling muscular failure, for want of a better phrase is not being able to perform a full rep in any given set.

What is more ironic is every of the few posts you have made have been fuelled by vitriol and like some other guy said go write a letter to Oprah you aren’t even interested in bodybuilding. I’m sure there is a BMW forum for your somewhere, thats Bitchers, Moaners and Whingers.

35

[quote]E-man wrote:
Is their any other way to train besides complete muscle failure? Oh yeah, but thats called half-assed.[/quote]

Who said it was half-assed ?

36

Here’s my take on training to failure.

Assuming that I was using the exact same load, tempo and rest periods - a series of sets to failure would look like this for me:

12 reps, 8 reps, 6 reps.

If I didnt go to failure it would look like this.

10 reps 10 reps 10 reps.

Going to failure I only get 26 reps and without failure I get 30 reps.

Initially that seem to indicate that NOT going to failure would be the better option because both volume and density are higher while load is matched.

Oddly enough I’ve made better strength gains when I DID go to failure. I think its because going to failure, even at higher reps, has a “max effort” effect to it.(relax westside puritans, I know its not a “real” max effort)

37

[quote]MarcAnthony wrote:
Here’s my take on training to failure.

Assuming that I was using the exact same load, tempo and rest periods - a series of sets to failure would look like this for me:

12 reps, 8 reps, 6 reps.

If I didnt go to failure it would look like this.

10 reps 10 reps 10 reps.

Going to failure I only get 26 reps and without failure I get 30 reps.

Initially that seem to indicate that NOT going to failure would be the better option because both volume and density are higher while load is matched.

Oddly enough I’ve made better strength gains when I DID go to failure. I think its because going to failure, even at higher reps, has a “max effort” effect to it.(relax westside puritans, I know its not a “real” max effort) [/quote]

Well, to be fair, volume and density are not that higher in the second case. Plus, the weight is not that heavy (~10RM) anyway.

Doing sets not to failure should enable you to use more weight (intensity) and for higher volume. For example, you could’ve added 10-15lbs and tried 4-5 sets of 8.

On the other hand, going to failure (or near failure) really does have that “max-effort” effect. But, you won’t be able to train for more than 2-3 sets; reps will drop sharply and total volume will be much lower.

The solution: accumulation/intensification; something that every T-Nation reader is probably familiar about.

Finally, I believe it boils down to this: after a few years of training, you will have a pretty good idea of whether you will make that next rep or not. Deliberately failing on that last rep will do you more harm than good.

38

[quote]marijuology wrote:
There is no such thing as “muscular failure”. A muscle does not fail to contract; it’s force production just drops off until falls below the level needed to accelerate the weight.

Also, there is no reason to believe that lifting to failure stresses the CNS (relative to not failing). The fatigue that leads to failure is related to metabolic events within the muscle cells, not “CNS fatigue”.

[/quote]

Actually, “CNS fatigue” is an important factor when discussing this topic.


Spinal and supraspinal factors in human muscle fatigue.

Gandevia SC.

Prince of Wales Medical Research Institute, Prince of Wales Hospital and University of New South Wales, Randwick, Sydney, Australia.

Muscle fatigue is an exercise-induced reduction in maximal voluntary muscle force. It may arise not only because of peripheral changes at the level of the muscle, but also because the central nervous system fails to drive the motoneurons adequately. Evidence for “central” fatigue and the neural mechanisms underlying it are reviewed, together with its terminology and the methods used to reveal it. Much data suggest that voluntary activation of human motoneurons and muscle fibers is suboptimal and thus maximal voluntary force is commonly less than true maximal force. Hence, maximal voluntary strength can often be below true maximal muscle force. The technique of twitch interpolation has helped to reveal the changes in drive to motoneurons during fatigue. Voluntary activation usually diminishes during maximal voluntary isometric tasks, that is central fatigue develops, and motor unit firing rates decline. Transcranial magnetic stimulation over the motor cortex during fatiguing exercise has revealed focal changes in cortical excitability and inhibitability based on electromyographic (EMG) recordings, and a decline in supraspinal “drive” based on force recordings. Some of the changes in motor cortical behavior can be dissociated from the development of this “supraspinal” fatigue. Central changes also occur at a spinal level due to the altered input from muscle spindle, tendon organ, and group III and IV muscle afferents innervating the fatiguing muscle. Some intrinsic adaptive properties of the motoneurons help to minimize fatigue. A number of other central changes occur during fatigue and affect, for example, proprioception, tremor, and postural control. Human muscle fatigue does not simply reside in the muscle.

Full-text:

http://physrev.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/81/4/1725

39

[quote]slotan wrote:
Doing sets not to failure should enable you to use more weight (intensity) and for higher volume. [/quote]

Higher intensity - yes. Higher volume - no.

To me it’s clear that training to failure should only be used as either a ‘break-in’ method or a max effort to test out where you are. Otherwise I don’t see a place for it as a mainstay in training. Because other than not having any scientific basis for it’s benefits we do know one scientific negative - it slows down recovery big time. Also it gets you tired during the workout much faster. These alone are reason enough not to do it.

40

[quote]Majin wrote:
slotan wrote:
Doing sets not to failure should enable you to use more weight (intensity) and for higher volume.

Higher intensity - yes. Higher volume - no.
[/quote]

Did you miss that I was talking about training not to failure? Intensity (% of RM) and number of sets can be higher if the effort is not maximal.

To failure:
10 reps to failure
7 reps to failure
5 reps to failure
total = 22 reps @10RM
RPE = high
recovery time needed = 6-7 days

Not to failure:
5 sets x 6 reps
total = 30 reps @7-8RM
RPE = medium
recovery time needed = 3-4 days