Training to failure discussion

[Cornfed]

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?

Another reason might be to allow you to get stronger at particular exercises by training them more often, thereby enhancing muscular coordination. Another might be to lessen the possibility of injuring yourself.

[ExpensiveUrine]

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

I have. When I used to do weightlifting, I added a hypertrophy phase (for about 5-6 weeks) to my training if I wanted to move to the next weight class or if I find myself to be stuck at the bottom of the weight class. Then I'd go back to improving strength for my olympic lifts, ect.

So if I was 71 kgs in bodyweight, I'd be in a 69-77kg class, then I'd want to be as close to 77 kgs as possible.

Anyway, the results, before I retardedly injured my back for the second time which caused 6 month lay off from training, were ~ 3-5 lb lbm during that 5-6 week period. Also, I wasn't as anal back then about diet.

[ExpensiveUrine]

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

When the time comes.

[Varven]

well my conclusion:

4 - 6 weeks training to failure,

followed by2 weeks training short of failure.

I believe Ash and a whole lot of DC'ers already do this sorta thing ...

[ExpensiveUrine]

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

Yeah, in turn it allows you to use more frequency/volume per bodypart which links to the stuff on protein synthesis above, as long as you intelligently apply progressive overload.

EDIT: Mind you, you'll have to EXPERIENCE failure to know what it feels like and then train 1-2 reps short of failure.

[Varven]

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

Yeah, in turn it allows you to use more frequency/volume per bodypart which links to the stuff on protein synthesis above, as long as you intelligently apply progressive overload.

EDIT: Mind you, you'll have to EXPERIENCE failure to know what it feels like and then train 1-2 reps short of failure.

I gather when you talk about achieving progressive overload you mean ensuring weights used are steadily increased ?

[Growth]

Hmmm, what about this. Say both twins are clinically idential in all attributes, now we all know that feeling when your not sure if you should go that last rep, so lets say both twins reach the point where they know the next rep may not go up, also you need to realise that training to failure means that on the last rep you actually fail. So lets say its bench press, they are both on say their 5th rep and both can tell the next rep may not go up, the first twin stops at this point obviously to avoid the chance of going to failure. Now two things can happen to the second twin, either cant complete the movement and fails, or he completes it and proceedes to fail on a consequent rep, more than likely the next one.

So whats the benefit in this case, in the first option the rep wasnt even completed, and in the second he manages one more rep perhaps, is that rep going to be significant? , was the CNS stressed much by the failure in option one? Is the first twin benefiting from a reduction in CNS stress, and or recovery time? Does the fact that the first twin stopped early mean that he will perform better on other exercises that day because he stopped short?, i know in my experience going for that last rep can be very taxing.

Personally i love training to failure, and i usually fail quite often, the scenario given is alot more complex than it looks, there are heaps of variables to factor in.

[deegee]

I am in the training to failure and then having a period of training just short of failure, camp. I think you need to try a variety of training techniques to see what works best for you.

[ExpensiveUrine]

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

Yeah, in turn it allows you to use more frequency/volume per bodypart which links to the stuff on protein synthesis above, as long as you intelligently apply progressive overload.

EDIT: Mind you, you'll have to EXPERIENCE failure to know what it feels like and then train 1-2 reps short of failure.

I gather when you talk about achieving progressive overload you mean ensuring weights used are steadily increased ?

Overtime, yes. So if you're training in a 6-12 rep range or whatever and you use weight that allows you to complete 6RM with that weight, you keep doing it until you achieve 12 RM with that weight. THEN INCREASE.

Load seems to be the primary factor, but just remember the OVERTIME thing. I could also increase reps, like I did above, which in turn affects the load. I could also increase the volume, be it total volume or per exercise(which will affect total volume anyway). Likewise I could increase frequency, say from 2 days/week to 4days/week. There're many possibilities.

Now, if you excuse me, my eggs and tuna are waiting to be fried.

[Growth]

Now, if you excuse me, my eggs and tuna are waiting to be fried.

mmmm yum :grin:

[ExpensiveUrine]

Hmmm, what about this. Say both twins are clinically idential in all attributes, now we all know that feeling when your not sure if you should go that last rep, so lets say both twins reach the point where they know the next rep may not go up, also you need to realise that training to failure means that on the last rep you actually fail. So lets say its bench press, they are both on say their 5th rep and both can tell the next rep may not go up, the first twin stops at this point obviously to avoid the chance of going to failure. Now two things can happen to the second twin, either cant complete the movement and fails, or he completes it and proceedes to fail on a consequent rep, more than likely the next one.

So whats the benefit in this case, in the first option the rep wasnt even completed, and in the second he manages one more rep perhaps, is that rep going to be significant? , was the CNS stressed much by the failure in option one? Is the first twin benefiting from a reduction in CNS stress, and or recovery time? Does the fact that the first twin stopped early mean that he will perform better on other exercises that day because he stopped short?, i know in my experience going for that last rep can be very taxing.

Personally i love training to failure, and i usually fail quite often, the scenario given is alot more complex than it looks, there are heaps of variables to factor in.

Damn, my fingers are burnin' calories today.

Okay, so...

Twin(1) achieved an estimate 4RM by not going to failure.

If twin (2) completes the movement and failes.....It'll be his true 5RM.

==OR==

If twin (2) manages one more rep and fails.....It'll be his true 6RM. (He got stronger)

In MY opinion, it comes down to long-term trend. Acute-training shit like this, day to day basis, won't be as important as long-term effects.

It won't hinder his gains if he failed on that day. But if you keep CONSTANTLY failing and failing on every set of an exercise until your ass bleeds then you're bound to overtrain sooner or later, my bet's on sooner.

Like I said in that other thread of ours, I'm not ANTI-FAILURE. (Anti-HIT'ard, maybe.) But just fail sensibly, not on EVERY exercise/set and on occasional basis.

[ExpensiveUrine]

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

What about overall volume then ?

If you decrease intensity (%1RM) and increase frequency (days of training per week), you're adding more volume through that extra day of training or whatever, aren't you?

If you decrease intensity(%1RM) while keeping the same frequency (bodypart 2X/week), you'll add more total volume to accomodate for that intensity decrease.

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 ?

Split them.

E.g.

Monday -- Legs - 10 sets.

Thursday -- Legs - 4 sets (LIGHT).

Or, on Monday you could train in a strength rep-range (1-5) on Monday, which would indicate a higher % of 1RM (means more sets) and on Thursday you could train for sarcoplasmic hypertrophy (12-15 reps) which would indicate a lower % of 1RM. (means less sets)

Does any of the above make sense?

[Marcus]

I am in the training to failure and then having a period of training just short of failure, camp. I think you need to try a variety of training techniques to see what works best for you.

This is what DC Training advocates. A 6-8 week blast where you go all out. Then two weeks of cruising, where you don't train to failure & just take it a bit easier to let the CNS recover.