New Study on Failure Training

[Protobuilder]

Hopefully you smart guys will have something to say about this:

DIFFERENTIAL EFFECTS OF STRENGTH TRAINING LEADING TO FAILURE VERSUS NOT TO FAILURE ON HORMONAL RESPONSES, STRENGTH AND MUSCLE POWER GAINS.


J Appl Physiol. 2006 Jan 12;

Izquierdo M, Ibanez J, Gonzalez-Badillo JJ, Hakkinen K, Ratamess NA,
Kraemer WJ, French DN, Eslava J, Altadill A, Asiain X, Gorostiaga EM.

The purpose of this study was to examine the efficacy of 11 weeks of
resistance training to failure vs. non-failure, followed by an
identical 5- week peaking period of maximal strength and power
training for both groups as well as to examine the underlying
physiological changes in basal circulating anabolic/catabolic
hormones.

Forty-two physically-active men were matched and then randomly
assigned to either a training to failure (RF; n=14), non-failure
(NRF; n=15) or control groups (C;n=13). Muscular and power testing
and blood draws to determine basal hormonal concentrations were
conducted before the initiation of training (T0), after 6 wk of
training (T1), after 11 wk of training (T2), and after 16 wk of
training (T3). Both RF and NRF resulted in similar gains in 1RM bench
press (23% and 23%) and parallel squat (22% and 23%), muscle power
output of the arm (27% and 28%) and leg extensor muscles (26% and
29%) and maximal number of repetitions performed during parallel
squat (66% and 69%). RF group experienced larger gains in the maximal
number of repetitions performed during the bench press The peaking
phase (T2 to T3) followed after NRF resulted in larger gains in
muscle power output of the lower extremities, whereas after RF
resulted in larger gains in the maximal number of repetitions
performed during the bench press.

Strength training leading to RF resulted in reductions in resting
concentrations of IGF-1 and elevations in IGFBP-3, whereas NRF
resulted in reduced resting cortisol concentrations and an elevation
in resting serum total testosterone concentration. This investigation
demonstrated a potential beneficial stimulus of NRF for improving
strength and power, especially during the subsequent peaking training
period, whereas performing sets to failure resulted in greater gains
in local muscular endurance. Elevation in IGFBP-3 following
resistance training may have been compensatory to accommodate the
reduction in IGF-1 in order to preserve IGF availability.

 

[TheOak84]

i dont get it... :/

 

[ebear]

Looks like the message is: training to failure improves "local muscular endurance", while non-failure training is better for strength and power. What are the consequences here for maximizing hypertrophy?

 

[Protobuilder]

Dunno, but not training to failure seemed to raise blood T levels, which I assume is good for hypertrophy.

 

[bignate73]

doesn't seem too profound:

training to failure increased the amount of reps you do... ooohkay, yep. more of an endurance base. endurance in whatever rep range.
not training to failure increased power output....seems right. more load when taking things to sub-failure.
IGF releases with more endurance based, repped out, failure sets...similar to a 20 rep set.
Test releases (androgen) were increased with more power oriented non-failure training.

its good to see a study that somewhat validates it.

 

[altimus]

jones and mentzer were no dummies

 

[36drew]

Um? Lift. Eat. Sleep. Repeat. Grow. Right?

 

[Kane Fan]

I thought most studiess howed similear things

 

[NorgePrecision]

Does this mean when I train to failure on the last 2 sets of my 5x5, I'm not going to see as good of results as if I lifted every set by myself without struggling too much?

 

[Hiatussin]

now I remember why I gave up lifting... all this bullcrap about which way to do it is better.

Take a method that worked for someone. Stick to it, do it well.
Once you stop progressing, take another method that worked for someone.

repeat. No need to study into it if you´re not into medicine and biology (you end up making an ass of yourself if you half-understand it and try to explain) and just keep pumping.

 

[thelion2005]

Looks like the message is: training to failure improves "local muscular endurance", while non-failure training is better for strength and power. What are the consequences here for maximizing hypertrophy?

Great question.

Sure puts a different spin on training if "less than failure" produces larger muscular gains.

And ... Does the addition of aas and/or hgh produce hypertrophy in all cases?

 

[needtogetaas]

Great question.

Sure puts a different spin on training if "less than failure" produces larger muscular gains.

And ... Does the addition of aas and/or hgh produce hypertrophy in all cases?

ding ding ding ding.
aas changes evry thing here.
i 100% garenty this studdy dident even think for a secound about it.
pick up anny book mag what ever.evry single one will tell you training well on ass has to be.LONG,HARD,STRENUOIS,AND AGRESIVE.SOUNDS LIKE TRAINING TO FAILER TO ME.
but i could be wrong.

 

[cheeseball]

Strength training leading to RF resulted in reductions in resting
concentrations of IGF-1 and elevations in IGFBP-3, whereas NRF
resulted in reduced resting cortisol concentrations and an elevation
in resting serum total testosterone concentration. This investigation
demonstrated a potential beneficial stimulus of NRF for improving
strength and power, especially during the subsequent peaking training
period, whereas performing sets to failure resulted in greater gains
in local muscular endurance. Elevation in IGFBP-3 following
resistance training may have been compensatory to accommodate the
reduction in IGF-1 in order to preserve IGF availability.

Notice, that the trained individuals who did not go to failure had lower resting cortisol concentrations, and higher resting serum testosterone concentrations. Whereas training to failure led to a loss in IGF-1 levels. Insulin like growth factor is important.

I think the take away message is not which is better, but rather, remember to not do one in excess because they both have benenfits. Training to failure is stressful for the body, so it's probably only a good idea for short periods of time. Where as non failure training can increase testosterone and decrease cortisol, which is exactly what most of us want.

 

[Guinness5.0]

but i could be wrong.

Go with that thought.
My training is brutal and rarely involves failure.

 

[Madcow2]

Notice, that the trained individuals

And one of the main issues with studies is exactly this. You don't get a sizeable sample of similar individuals in similar conditions who have significant weight training experience. In this study you get "Forty-two physically-active men." Would the results be the same for those with 8 years of training experience or a sample of elite lifters? Would there be a much more obvious difference or even decreases in an area?

This is the major problem with the applying a lot of this stuff to someone with several years of true dedicated training experience. A novice lifter on a general program will make hypertrophy, neural, speed, power, etc... increases simply because he is so adaptive (i.e. the synergy of which is "newbie gains"). Later on, a lot more specialization is required to further increase individual factors. This is actually why the research produced from the Soviets and Eastern Europeans is valuable and has seen widespread success and implimentation at high levels whereas all the studies on novices showing the efficacy of some limited range of motion or single set training doesn't work so well (being kind) when the experience and performance level is high.

 

[cheeseball]

Agreed madcow. The limit to many of the studies is the control of variables. Do you feel the studies results could be disregarded by some highly trained individuals? It seems the body would still have much of the same biochemical response to training. What would help, is if we knew what kind of failure they are talking about and rest periods. 3-6 rep failure, or 10-12 rep failure. Obviously the different rep ranges will give a different hormonal response. Also, like you mentioned, it would be nice to know how trained the trained individuals were.

now I remember why I gave up lifting... all this bullcrap about which way to do it is better.

You gave up lifting because everyone argued which way was better? That is pretty weak minded. Find out for yourself which way is better. Do you give up on everything because everything I've ever done, people argue which way to do is better. PIck one and figure it out~!

 

[TheOak84]

Looks like the message is: training to failure improves "local muscular endurance", while non-failure training is better for strength and power. What are the consequences here for maximizing hypertrophy?

well thats a given

 

[Madcow2]

Agreed madcow. The limit to many of the studies is the control of variables. Do you feel the studies results could be disregarded by some highly trained individuals? It seems the body would still have much of the same biochemical response to training. What would help, is if we knew what kind of failure they are talking about and rest periods. 3-6 rep failure, or 10-12 rep failure. Obviously the different rep ranges will give a different hormonal response. Also, like you mentioned, it would be nice to know how trained the trained individuals were.

I'm sure the full study likely has a lot of the details you mentioned. I'm guessing 'physically active' can mean anything although I'm sure it's also defined in the study. Physically active men and a group of men who have deliberately engaged in proper resistance exercise for an extended period can vary widely. A human body is a human body but after several years adaptation comes in very small increments that have to be deliberately coaxed. What might make zero difference or even be suboptimal during year one could be make or break at the top level. Unfortunately, setting something like this up is very hard so we wind up with a bulk of research that may or may not be pertinent. That said, this is a fairly interesting study that I'd be interested in at least skimming.

 

[Topside]

Cheeseball...in response to the type of failure, i have learned in physiology classes and i have read studies that have indicated that muscular failure between the 3 to 20 rep ranges elicits the same physiological response in the body. So whether the body fails at 3-6 or 10-12 it makes no difference. Sorry if this came out sounding bad im not trying to be a d*ck or anything. I am a believer in training to failure is really the only way to quantify intensity.

 

[Topside]

I've seen my body make great changes when training to failure as opposed to training short of failure each rep working in rull rom with a 202 cadance. Training at percentages of your one rep max is only the percentage for the first rep. So if you are working at 80 percent of ur 1RM and say u can hit 10 reps only that first rep in that set is working at 80% and the reps there after you do not know how hard you are really truly working

 

[Hiatussin]

You gave up lifting because everyone argued which way was better? That is pretty weak minded. Find out for yourself which way is better. Do you give up on everything because everything I've ever done, people argue which way to do is better. PIck one and figure it out~!

I just started again

I let the discussions get to me a bit too much in HS and i became kind of paranoid, you know, am i not wasting my time training x way... its very demotivating.

then I saw all the pinheads who trained a certain way because of "what it does to your black blood cells and how it expands your ribcage and how which kind of curl brings out which part of the bicep" and other anti-medical crap. I´m a med student and would explain to them how these systems dont even exist and they´d mock me since they were bigger than me.

I guess what really kept me from succeeding was a lack of motivation itself.

All this bullshit like should you move slow or fast, should you isolate or compound, should you be smooth or explosive, can you change the shape as well or only the size of a muscle... etc etc

each of these debates SUCKS and bugs me. I´m through paying any attention to them. There´s always some idiot with good genes and good motivation, who has the results that he accredits to some theory he can´t even spell.

Compound explosive movements are the most fun and that will be what I stick by.

 

[siamesedream]

I just started again

I let the discussions get to me a bit too much in HS and i became kind of paranoid, you know, am i not wasting my time training x way... its very demotivating.

then I saw all the pinheads who trained a certain way because of "what it does to your black blood cells and how it expands your ribcage and how which kind of curl brings out which part of the bicep" and other anti-medical crap. I´m a med student and would explain to them how these systems dont even exist and they´d mock me since they were bigger than me.

I guess what really kept me from succeeding was a lack of motivation itself.

All this bullshit like should you move slow or fast, should you isolate or compound, should you be smooth or explosive, can you change the shape as well or only the size of a muscle... etc etc

each of these debates SUCKS and bugs me. I´m through paying any attention to them. There´s always some idiot with good genes and good motivation, who has the results that he accredits to some theory he can´t even spell.

Compound explosive movements are the most fun and that will be what I stick by.

Glad to see you started up again. I'm pretty sure everyone can relate to the frustration you're talking about. I sure as hell know I can. The worst thing that can happen is to be convinced that you're working so hard for absolutely nothing.

 

[cheeseball]

Topside, you didn't come off as that at all. You may be right. I haven't really looked at it close enough, it just seems that there would be a difference perhaps. As far as the training to failure thing, I can say that I started limiting my training to failure to 6-8 weeks sessions. Then I go back to heavy, but controlled reps. I will push myself to the limit but then stop just before failure. And I've seen much better gains than training to failure all of the time. I'm saying this because I think a lot of individuals train that way too much. It can be overly taxing on the cns and the body as a whole. Eventually everything does adapt in the body.

hiatussin, I'm happy your back at it. I'm glad you've learned not to listen to everything. But also don't block out everything! Take things with a grain of salt and see what they become. There are alot of good researchers in the exercise field, but there is even more b.s. going around about this and that variable can make someone huge! good luck in med school, that is a tough thing to go through and maintain lifting!