I saw an interesting tid-bit in one of the Mags (I read a lot of them, so I forgot which one!)
Anyway…the author stated that failure isn’t the point where one can’t perform another concentric rep, but is that point in which one cannot perform another concentric rep with both full range of motion and correct form. In other words, performing those last few “back-ripping, hernia-inducing” biceps curls isn’t taking a set to failure; you probably reached true failure before that point.
My thoughts are that you read other muscle mags and take them seriously! But, all humor aside, failure is an often debated term (I don’t know why), but it can generally be defined into three groups. First of all, you have concentric failure-when the weight dosen’t go up anymore. Next comes isometric failure, when you can’t hold the weight in one place and it starts to drift downward. And finally, comes eccentric failure, when you can no longer control the weight for a predetermined count (going down). As far as what the author of the article was reffering too, I would classify that as concentric failure, without breaking form (which is when most trainies in the gym I feel should terminate their lift).
People can define words however they like.
If you want to, you can define “failure” as meaning, “earning between one and two million dollars per year,” as “going to the grocery store,” as “falling asleep,” or whatever you want. You can even write magazine articles insisting that your definition is what the word “really” means.
However, the important points are whether
when using the word, others will understand it according to the meaning you have in mind; and also, if there is room for debate in that matter, according to what makes sense.
The word failure ordinarily means attempting to do something but not succeeding in it.
So to me, any lifter who does succeed in doing each thing (rep) he tries to do, and nonetheless wants to call this failure, is twisting the English language.
But if the question is not, “What is failure?” but rather, what is usually the best point to terminate a set that is intended to a highly productive working set, in my opinion that is where the most reps
possible with correct form have been done,
and, if it is possible to end the set with
a negative, with that negative having been
well performed and probably emphasized. I do not (for reasons explained above) consider
this to be “failure” in any way, shape, or form.
Thanks, Bill! Just bustin’ your chops a little… You HAVE to know that you’re one of the most valuable contributors to this site. I’ve learned loads of valuable information from you that I probably would not have learned simply by reading. So again…thanks!
I’m always looking for those small, but profound ways in which I can maximize both my workouts and nutrition…and I think that it all begins with proper rep and set execution. Poor execution at this most fundamental level , and I think you can end up with some very non-productive workouts.
Question; do you tend to perform all your reps and sets in this fashion? Last sets only? Only periodically? What you point out seems like the way to go…Thanks!..
If doing two sets of an exercise, I tend
to leave a rep off the first set compared
to what might be done, UNLESS my performance
is a little disappointing and to achieve
my target I must do all the reps possible;
and then do all reps possible on the second
set.
If doing say five sets, then the first set
is typically held back according to expected
performance on the last couple of sets.
If doing say three sets, it’s pretty much
intermediate between those.
I’ve also followed the method with two
sets of both being maximal. For me personally,
the difference in gains seems subtle if it
exists at all. I have been tending towards
this method during especially intensive training periods lately in favor of the other, “just because” (in other words, superstition that it might work better, and nothing more than superstition.)
