Hi CT. I made a post in the bodybuilding thread and it was recommended that I ask you. Why do we as lifters train close to failure? Wouldn’t it be more advantageous to do 2 sets of five reps instead of 1 set of ten reps? What are the biological reasons that one set of ten close to failure would be better? Thanks a Ton if you do answer this! Anyone else feel free to chime in on my question I would love any responses!
[quote]DoIEvenLift wrote:
Hi CT. I made a post in the bodybuilding thread and it was recommended that I ask you. Why do we as lifters train close to failure? Wouldn’t it be more advantageous to do 2 sets of five reps instead of 1 set of ten reps? What are the biological reasons that one set of ten close to failure would be better? Thanks a Ton if you do answer this! Anyone else feel free to chime in on my question I would love any responses![/quote]
Its all about muscular tensions and fatigue management. If you do 2x5 you will be less fatigued and so able to produce more force per rep on average than 1x10.
Higher force = Higher tensions = stimulating high threshold motor units = more strength & size
CT & Charles Staley write alot about performance over fatigue and this fatigue management technique is a simple way to approach it.
If I’m understanding OP’s question, he’s wondering why the 1x10 would be PREFERRED over the 2x5 more “forceful” reps. Probably because fatigue is needed for size adaption. Although, maybe CT can chime in, if a weight is heavy enough it doesn’t matter.
Practically - what happens if you do:
- 80% of 1 RM, sets of 3-5, all day until you get bored. ~50 reps.
- 80% of 1 RM, sets of 3-5, density work (focusing on doing more and more in less time).
- 80% of 1RM, multiple straight sets to failure (8-12 reps).
I don’t like training straight sets to failure because it’s so punishing. If I had it my way, I’d do #1 and just “practice” strength work all day while accuring lots of volume at a heavy weight. However, if I don’t maintain “density” or train “close to failure” during this, I SUSPECT size gains will be minimal. But I don’t know, haven’t bothered to try for an extended period of time
There are several pathways to stimulating growth.
And although I generally do not advocate training to failure (as it was mentioned earlier, I focus on high performance, not high fatigue training to stimulate gains) I can play Devil’s advocate and say that there is some benefit to training close to, or to failure. It is not necessary to stimulate growth and strength gains, but that doesn’t mean that it doesn’t work.
Failure is often due to one of these factors:
-
Accumulation of metabolites in the muscle that makes it harder to recruit muscle fibers. For example when lactate and hydrogen ions accumulate in the muscle as a result of a series of intense contraction, the muscle becomes acidic which makes it much harder for the nervous system to recruit motor units to do the job.
-
Hypoxia (lack of oxygen) can also cause failure. When the oxygen debt is too high, muscle fiber recruitment is also harder and without oxygen energy production is limited.
-
The muscle fibers recruited might be too fatigued to continue producing enough force to complete the reps and the remaining fibers (slow twitch fibers, which are more fatigue-resistant) might not have the force-production capacity to take over.
So failure can be beneficial… well, it’s not the act of reaching failure that is the stimulus, but rather what happens when you go there that is. For example the closer you get to failure the higher the production of metabolites and metabolites have been linked to an increase in the production of local growth factors. The same could be said about hypoxia.
Furthermore, some pathway that can have an impact on muscle growth is highly dependent on the time under which a muscle is put under tension (ERK pathway). And normally a set where you do to failure or close to hit has the muscle under tension for a longer time.
So I would say that it is not the act of going to failure that is effective, but rather the biochemical phenomenons that can occur in the process of going to failure.
So there is no doubt that a lighter set where you do more reps and create more fatigue can stimulate muscle growth just as well as heavier lifting. However strength gains will be inferior and from my own experience, the look is not the same (not as hard looking as doing heavier work). And going to failure makes it much harder to modulate volume and frequency. It is very easy to go overboard with that type of training and prevent gaining because of it.
[quote]-Sigil- wrote:
I don’t like training straight sets to failure because it’s so punishing. If I had it my way, I’d do #1 and just “practice” strength work all day while accuring lots of volume at a heavy weight. However, if I don’t maintain “density” or train “close to failure” during this, I SUSPECT size gains will be minimal. But I don’t know, haven’t bothered to try for an extended period of time
[/quote]
From my experience training like you mention (just practice strength work) will…
-
be effective to improve muscle mass and can actually make you lose fat… but only for the first 2 or 3 weeks. After which you wont gain much size from this approach.
-
will be very effective to build strength and more interestingly, build strength that will “stay with you” (can be maintained for a longer period of time even if you stop training and wont fluctuate up and down as much) IF you also test yourself from time to time.
-
Wille give the muscles a harder look (if you are lean enough).
Sigil, how do you structure your # 1 option for all day training? A set on the hour? Half hour? Etc. 2 sets, same time frames? I know, or assume, your normal daily activity would affect the timing of your sets. Just curious as to how you lay your all day workout out.
Option #1 was my musing for a venice beach or other tropical lifestyle - bask in the sun, do a bunch of reps, walk around, eat food, do more reps etc. Realistically, I was thinking of a method I read about recently by the author of the HRV method (and I think article was featured on JC Deen’s blog). On the deadlift and squat for instance, you’d pick 80% RM and then just do singles. The caveat is to never feel “over intense”, basically using RPE of 6, and amassing a bunch of singles this way.
Done on big lifts and worked progerssively, it improves your strength, technique, and (as CT explains) possibly physique, at least in the short run. That was what I was thinking…
Option #1 was my musing for a venice beach or other tropical lifestyle - bask in the sun, do a bunch of reps, walk around, eat food, do more reps etc. Realistically, I was thinking of a method I read about recently by the author of the HRV method (and I think article was featured on JC Deen’s blog). On the deadlift and squat for instance, you’d pick 80% RM and then just do singles. The caveat is to never feel “over intense”, basically using RPE of 6, and amassing a bunch of singles this way.
Done on big lifts and worked progerssively, it improves your strength, technique, and (as CT explains) possibly physique, at least in the short run. That was what I was thinking…
Sigil, interesting, thanks.