Training to failure discussion

[Ash]

I found this thread on the Professional Muscle forum - it's quite an interesting discussion about training to failure:

http://www.professionalmuscle.com/forum ... hp?t=12977

"Take a set of identical twins. Identical eating habits. One always trains to failure, the other stops 1 rep short of failure. What would you expect the difference in physiques to be regarding muscle mass? In bodyfat level?"

Any thoughts?

[Varven]

Ive always been taught that if you dont FORCE your body by shocking it, it wont grow. Therefore stopping short of failure wont place it under as much stress as someone who trains to failure. Thus less adaptation, in this case less muscle mass or strenght. Does that seem logical ?

[Growth]

Theres a discussion on training to failure here if anyone hasnt seen it yet,

http://www.nzbb.co.nz/forum/viewtopic.php?t=324&start=0

IMO there are benefits of both training to failure and not training to failure, as for the hypothesis of what the twins' muscle mass and bf levels would be; i would say over a short period of time, say the study was only for a few months, that the twin that went to failure would come out better off. Over a longer period of time, say a year, you may find the twin going to failure may suffer from CNS overtraining etx which may be detrimental to his gains.

[ExpensiveUrine]

I'd say Conan21 pretty much hit the nail on the head. Much like the stuff we've been discussing in our training-to-failure thread. CNS is the one firing muscle fibers. For those who still don't know what CNS is, it's Brain and Spinal cord. If you place tremendous fatique/stress on your CNS, overtime, you'll meet overtraining. This can be seen as a decrease in performance. Ever wondered why people who overtrain feel like not exercising or losing motivation to exercise? It's because the brain is affected through CNS.

BTW, someone who reads about/trains HIT, can you post the frequency of HIT please.

I'm under impression that HIT training would be infrequent(taking long periods of time between workouts.) because of the CNS overtraining, which links to Conan's post again about frequency.

[jono]

ive always trained to failure. ive always made gains. infact i make gains ONLY when i train to failure.

heres a awesome pic for this topic :grin:

[Marcus]

I think the key to building a physique is progression - both in diet & exercise (i.e weights used).

I just can't see how one can not train to failure & still build muscle - for us naturals anyway. I've always trained to failure & believe that combined with a good diet this way of training will produce the best gains.

[ExpensiveUrine]

ive always trained to failure. ive always made gains. infact i make gains ONLY when i train to failure.

Seems a little contradictory. If you've always trained to failure, how can you compare it to the non-failure training if you haven't done any?

[Ash]

Ive always been taught that if you dont FORCE your body by shocking it, it wont grow. Therefore stopping short of failure wont place it under as much stress as someone who trains to failure. Thus less adaptation, in this case less muscle mass or strenght. Does that seem logical ?

Very logical but if the weights you use are constantly increasing, then your body is being constantly shocked into new growth, regardless of whether or not you're pushing to failure. If you went from squatting 100kg for 8 reps (when you could do 10) to squatting 250kg for 8 reps (when you could do 10), then you would definitely have put on some muscle.

The question is how much less growth would you get compared to training to failure (if any)?

[jono]

ive always trained to failure. ive always made gains. infact i make gains ONLY when i train to failure.

Seems a little contradictory. If you've always trained to failure, how can you compare it to the non-failure training if you haven't done any?

i have tried training not to failure.. not for very long though.

[Ash]

I thought one of the most interesting parts of the discussion on Professional Muscle was this:

"Difference in physiques between 1 twin who can do 6 reps but stops at 4 or 5, or other twin who trains to failure with 12-15 reps."

So the 2nd twin is training to failure - will he grow more than the one who isn't?

[Ash]

i have tried training not to failure.. not for very long though.

What were your results like?

[ExpensiveUrine]

ive always trained to failure. ive always made gains. infact i make gains ONLY when i train to failure.

Seems a little contradictory. If you've always trained to failure, how can you compare it to the non-failure training if you haven't done any?

i have tried training not to failure.. not for very long though.

And did you compensate by adding more volume to your non-failure training?

EDIT: Or at least increase frequency of training?

[Varven]

So basically are you guys saying by decreasing intensity, you can increase frequency and still achieve growth.

What about overall volume then ?

For instance right now I train each body part once a week at a volume of major muscles recieveing 12 - 14 work sets with most of my sets going to failure.

If I was to change, an example would be :

work each body part twice a week, not to failure. what about the sets: does it remain at a total of 12 - 14 sets split up over 2 sessions OR

12 - 14 sets during each of the sessions ?

[jono]

i have tried training not to failure.. not for very long though.

What were your results like?

in my opinion no where no as good as training to failure

[jono]

Seems a little contradictory. If you've always trained to failure, how can you compare it to the non-failure training if you haven't done any?

i have tried training not to failure.. not for very long though.

And did you compensate by adding more volume to your non-failure training?

EDIT: Or at least increase frequency of training?

i did more sets, but still trainined once a wk per bdypart

[Ash]

So basically are you guys saying by decreasing intensity, you can increase frequency and still achieve growth.

I'm not saying anything, I am just a curious type who likes to look outside ye olde square. :grin:

I've got to do a whole lot more reading and some experimenting before I'll settle on not training to failure. Hell if I could, I would keep training beyond failure with negatives, RP sets and static holds but it fries my system too quickly.

Makes me wonder though, if it's all about weight progression and increased strength, then how important is it to always train to failure?

[Marcus]

I think if you were to start not training to failure you would need to look at your reasons for doing so.

Building muscle is hard work, if it was easy everyone would do it. So if you are looking for a way of making your training easier then you obviously don't want the muscle bad enough, or you've been watching way too much informercials where you can build amazing abs in only 3 seconds a day.

I can understand if you have a lot of injuries. Using Ash as an example. You might find it beneficial by not training to failure, but still ensuring you are progressing.

[jono]

I'm not saying anything, I am just a curious type who likes to look outside ye olde square.

I've got to do a whole lot more reading and some experimenting before I'll settle on not training to failure. Hell if I could, I would keep training beyond failure with negatives, RP sets and static holds but it fries my system too quickly.

Makes me wonder though, if it's all about weight progression and increased strength, then how important is it to always train to failure?

i find that i make strength gains by going to failure

[ExpensiveUrine]

I thought one of the most interesting parts of the discussion on Professional Muscle was this:

"Difference in physiques between 1 twin who can do 6 reps but stops at 4 or 5, or other twin who trains to failure with 12-15 reps."

So the 2nd twin is training to failure - will he grow more than the one who isn't?

Okay.

If twin (1) can do an estimated 6RM with a given load, it's fair to say that it's about 85% of his 1RM%. Which would primarily indicate STRENGTH training with a myofibrillar hypertrophy overlap. The type of hypertrophy you'd see in a powerlifter.

If twin (2) trains with a 12-15 RM load, once again estimated % of 1RM would be 67-65% respectively. Which seems to accompany myofibrillar & sarcoplasmic hypertrophy, but more so sarcoplasmic hypertrophy. The type of hypertrophy you'd see in a bodybuilder. [Hence the "He's big but not strong" argument.]

Now, did they say the twins were untrained to begin with?

If so, twin (1) will be using much heavier loading than twin (2), he'll get stronger in a shorter time period due to neural components.

You'll have to remember that if a subject is untrained, they will get stronger not because their muscles are experiencing high degree of hypertrophy but because their CNS is becoming much more efficient at adapting to the loading parameters (weight). Thus the increase in weight, usually seen in studies with untrained individuals, is due to neural components. Hypertrophy kicks in later on.

BTW, I can't get my head around why they'd make them do that style of training, while keeping other variables similar. Makes sense to keep the training similar as well, while only varying the concentric failure.

[Ash]

I think if you were to start not training to failure you would need to look at your reasons for doing so.

Building muscle is hard work, if it was easy everyone would do it. So if you are looking for a way of making your training easier then you obviously don't want the muscle bad enough, or you've been watching way too much informercials where you can build amazing abs in only 3 seconds a day.

I can understand if you have a lot of injuries. Using Ash as an example. You might find it beneficial by not training to failure, but still ensuring you are progressing.

I love training to failure - that's the best part of the workout for me but I am more in love with results. So if there is an alternative, I'll look at it.

Can't say I am convinced though - especially in a scenario where your diet and sleep patterns are good enough to cover training to failure. :roll:

[Marcus]

I'm addicted too. There's nothing like that feeling when leaving the gym, knowing you've pushed yourslef past the limit. And you get to eat now.

[ExpensiveUrine]

i have tried training not to failure.. not for very long though.

And did you compensate by adding more volume to your non-failure training?

EDIT: Or at least increase frequency of training?

i did more sets, but still trainined once a wk per bdypart

Next time, try splitting the volume accordingly and training that bodypart twice a week.

E.g. Say you train your back with 10 sets/workout/week. Make that 5 sets/workout/2xweek, for that bodypart without failure. But make sure you don't go as heavy on the second workout, as you did on the first workout. Does that make sense?

EDIT: Remember than Protein Synthesis ceases within 48 hours or so. So if you train a bodypart ONCE a week, you're going 7 days without training the same muscle. (BTW, I'm aware that there's an overlap between exercises in a sense that a certain muscle might be hit two times week ect.) What that means is that you're growing for 2 days and not growing (or not as much) for the other 5 days. IE - you're losing time when you could be growing as a result of that 5 day delay in training for that muscle group. Likewise, you're detraining in those 5 days, which means less adaptation to a stimuli (training).

[Marcus]

So ExpensiveUrine have you trained like this in the past? What sort of gains?

[Pseudonym]

What is the advantage in NOT training to failure? Is it just to prevent the CNS from becoming overworked?

If that's the only reason, isn't this avoided by taking a week off every now and then? Or even changing the routine so the focus is on something different?

Provided CNS recovery time is allowed for, surely the intensity you can work the muscle with, the better?

[jono]

And did you compensate by adding more volume to your non-failure training?

EDIT: Or at least increase frequency of training?

i did more sets, but still trainined once a wk per bdypart

Next time, try splitting the volume accordingly and training that bodypart twice a week.

E.g. Say you train your back with 10 sets/workout/week. Make that 5 sets/workout/2xweek, for that bodypart without failure. But make sure you don't go as heavy on the second workout, as you did on the first workout. Does that make sense?

EDIT: Remember than Protein Synthesis ceases within 48 hours or so. So if you train a bodypart ONCE a week, you're going 7 days without training the same muscle. (BTW, I'm aware that there's an overlap between exercises in a sense that a certain muscle might be hit two times week ect.) What that means is that you're growing for 2 days and not growing (or not as much) for the other 5 days. IE - you're losing time when you could be growing as a result of that 5 day delay in training for that muscle group. Likewise, you're detraining in those 5 days, which means less adaptation to a stimuli (training).

i really doubt ill change what im doing any time soon, im making big gains as it is