Training to Failure... Your Thoughts?

[Primal]

Hi all! Noticed the forum didn't have any post on this (or not one that I could find anyway)... What are your thoughts on training to failure and do any of you guys do it? Once again, it seems people are really one sided on whether they think it is useful or not. What do you all think?

-Primal

[scottlove]

Personally, I like to go to failure on my 2 working sets on pretty much every exercise and every bodypart. Only to the point where I have to cheat the last couple reps when doing back or bi's but when working chest, shoulder's or quads, my partner will help with the last couple and I may even go into forced negatives on chest. My way of thinking has always been, if you're not going to failure, then you're not pushing your muscle to do something that it can't already do, so why would it grow?

[Nirus]

I think i depends on weight, if your talking a 5 or less rep set then I think its not beneficial but if your repping out a weight then those last few are the ones that matter. different kinds of failure

[Praetorian]

Training to failure is necessary of you are trying to increase strength and overall muscle size. You just don't need to train every set to failure...its about utilizing these techniques correctly.

P

[Primal]

Training to failure is necessary of you are trying to increase strength and overall muscle size. You just don't need to train every set to failure...its about utilizing these techniques correctly.

P

So, if I trained to failure on my very last set of every muscle group, do you think this would be beneficial to the growth of the muscle? I used to train to failure when I was just starting out (ie. 3 months in) but I ended up burning out really badly with the lack of sleep and school. I've been afraid to try it again. Plus it is hard now that I don't have my lifting partner with me to take me to the end reps.

-Primal

[Praetorian]

No that's completely the wrong set to go to failure. You should go to failure on the first set and possibly the second set....why...because you are utilizing the most weight and you are strongest at that point so it is much more efficient. If you dont go to failure on at least a couple sets then get used to being relatively unimpressive. Ask for spot on failure sets.

P

[scottlove]

No that's completely the wrong set to go to failure. You should go to failure on the first set and possibly the second set....why...because you are utilizing the most weight and you are strongest at that point so it is much more efficient. If you dont go to failure on at least a couple sets then get used to being relatively unimpressive. Ask for spot on failure sets.

P

May I add, when I said my two working sets, I didn't mean those were my last 2 sets, I usually do a couple sets for higher reps after those 2 working sets.

[Primal]

No that's completely the wrong set to go to failure. You should go to failure on the first set and possibly the second set....why...because you are utilizing the most weight and you are strongest at that point so it is much more efficient. If you dont go to failure on at least a couple sets then get used to being relatively unimpressive. Ask for spot on failure sets.

P

Oh yeah, this makes a lot more sense when you put it that way. Thanks Prae! Hahaha and thanks for the clarification scottlove!

-Primal

[Praetorian]

Training to true failure is very difficult...most people think they train to failure but the dont. If it was that easy you would see a lot more huge guys then you do now. Getting big and strong isnt rocket science....its quite simple really lift heavy weights, train with crazy intensity, be consistent (never ever utter the sentence...I'm just getting back into it), be consistent with eating and use good nutrition habits, get 8 hours sleep every night, and be prepared to be EXTREMELY uncomfortable because its painful, exhausting, and takes a long time to do.

P

[Primal]

Training to true failure is very difficult...most people think they train to failure but the dont. If it was that easy you would see a lot more huge guys then you do now. Getting big and strong isnt rocket science....its quite simple really lift heavy weights, train with crazy intensity, be consistent (never ever utter the sentence...I'm just getting back into it), be consistent with eating and use good nutrition habits, get 8 hours sleep every night, and be prepared to be EXTREMELY uncomfortable because its painful, exhausting, and takes a long time to do.

P

Right, yeah! Just trying to learn as much as I can on the different techniques I can use now and later on in the future to reach a better physique... Thanks with all the help!

-Primal

[O-Train]

Always training to failure will lead to a decrease in performance and diminishing returns. It is not necessary to produce adaptation. With that being said, a correctly planned training program should be like training almost to failure with each working set. The difference is in the planning. I know Prae recently mentioned that you should know exactly what you are going to be doing in the gym before you get there and I agree. You should have a good understanding of your 1RM and use a program that incorporates some kind of cycle or periodization with clear goals. That's without getting into a whole new discussion on what failure means. Kind of like the analogy with the "full" jar filled with rocks, then you add the gravel, then the sand etc...

Most people who have been training a year or two will see better gains in a higher rep range at around 60% 1RM. This is because their body isn't well adapted to higher intensity/weight. So failure to them is different than failure to me, is different than failure to Prae, and is largely based on perceived exertion. In simplistic terms, it is more advantageous for beginners to achieve adaptation with volume than with intensity.

[Primal]

Always training to failure will lead to a decrease in performance and diminishing returns. It is not necessary to produce adaptation. With that being said, a correctly planned training program should be like training almost to failure with each working set. The difference is in the planning. I know Prae recently mentioned that you should know exactly what you are going to be doing in the gym before you get there and I agree. You should have a good understanding of your 1RM and use a program that incorporates some kind of cycle or periodization with clear goals. That's without getting into a whole new discussion on what failure means. Kind of like the analogy with the "full" jar filled with rocks, then you add the gravel, then the sand etc...

Most people who have been training a year or two will see better gains in a higher rep range at around 60% 1RM. This is because their body isn't well adapted to higher intensity/weight. So failure to them is different than failure to me, is different than failure to Prae, and is largely based on perceived exertion. In simplistic terms, it is more advantageous for beginners to achieve adaptation with volume than with intensity.

Interesting synopsis O-train, but I don't really understand what you mean by the last two sentences. You say that failure is different to you as to Prae as to me but is it really? We all fail out at a certain time do we not? Regardless of weight, we all get to a point that we cannot get our body to lift the weight without the help of a spotter so failure should be the same for us all should it not? I think failure would be an independent variable, even if the body isn't well adapted to the weight. Also, what do you mean that ' it is more advantageous for beginners to achieve adaptatoin with volume than with intensity.'? Isn't the point of going to failure (or close to it) exerting yourself to the fullest potential?

Thanks for your opinion!

-Primal

[O-Train]

The weight in itself isn't the important part. A novice lifter simply may not be able to produce the necessary feedback in terms of stress which results in optimal adaptation. Thus the need to supplement with increased volume vs. intensity. The reasons could be several: mental toughness, body awareness and coordination, which really equates to improved neuromuscular pathways, and the strengthening of accessory/stabilizer muscles which may be slower to adapt.

If we take failure to mean concentric failure, as in the inability to concentrically complete what we all agree to be a full range repetition, then yes, failure is failure. However, if we tie this meaning to the body's perceived level of exertion, meaning the stimulus/stress/demand, then the response elicited is different in each and every person. The people who can "burn out" the fastest from over-training are those that are most highly trained. This is when the line becomes fine and proper training, nutrition etc etc... really becomes important.

This is a really simple concept for me but it may not come across that way so I'll use an analogy. Lets say 3 people are all in a studio painting instead of lifting weights. One person is a beginner, one is intermediate, and the last is a master painter. All 3 produce a painting (the production of one painting equates to failure). Is it reasonable that the beginner's crappy painting will sell for the same amount as the master's painting? No. So if the beginner painter wants to make as much money as the master they better be willing to produce more paintings (volume) because they lack the necessary skill (intensity). Make sense?

To actually answer your question. You should train to failure, but not all the time, and it should be in the context of a program with a well defined goal. Ideally you shouldn't be training to failure for the sake of working hard. However, in the absence of meaningful structure it is probably better to train hard and burnout or rest than to not push yourself.

[Primal]

The weight in itself isn't the important part. A novice lifter simply may not be able to produce the necessary feedback in terms of stress which results in optimal adaptation. Thus the need to supplement with increased volume vs. intensity. The reasons could be several: mental toughness, body awareness and coordination, which really equates to improved neuromuscular pathways, and the strengthening of accessory/stabilizer muscles which may be slower to adapt.

If we take failure to mean concentric failure, as in the inability to concentrically complete what we all agree to be a full range repetition, then yes, failure is failure. However, if we tie this meaning to the body's perceived level of exertion, meaning the stimulus/stress/demand, then the response elicited is different in each and every person. The people who can "burn out" the fastest from over-training are those that are most highly trained. This is when the line becomes fine and proper training, nutrition etc etc... really becomes important.

This is a really simple concept for me but it may not come across that way so I'll use an analogy. Lets say 3 people are all in a studio painting instead of lifting weights. One person is a beginner, one is intermediate, and the last is a master painter. All 3 produce a painting (the production of one painting equates to failure). Is it reasonable that the beginner's crappy painting will sell for the same amount as the master's painting? No. So if the beginner painter wants to make as much money as the master they better be willing to produce more paintings (volume) because they lack the necessary skill (intensity). Make sense?

To actually answer your question. You should train to failure, but not all the time, and it should be in the context of a program with a well defined goal. Ideally you shouldn't be training to failure for the sake of working hard. However, in the absence of meaningful structure it is probably better to train hard and burnout or rest than to not push yourself.

Great analogy, this makes sense. I'll think I'll train to failure only when I'm feeling really good about about a muscle group or when my MMC is on point, just to avoid destroying my NS. So I'll do it about 2-3 times on big muscle groups every 2 weeks.

Thanks O-Train!

-Primal