The need to go to failure ...

[sk*]

Anyone know who came up with the concept? Was it just an ego thing or based on some scientific evidence?

Just making this thread because muscles will adpot to the weight weather you go to failure or not. Are there any studies that show going to failure helps the muscles grow better?

I usually go to failure too, just curious.

-sk

 

[JollyRogers]

I usually go to failure too

 

[SofaGeorge]

I always go to failure... but there is a difference between failure and ABSOLUTE FAILURE. DC adherants go to absolute failure.

Powerlifters don't need to go to failure. Bodybuilders do.

 

[sk*]

Powerlifters don't need to go to failure. Bodybuilders do.

Hmm, why do you say that?

-sk

 

[SofaGeorge]

Hmm, why do you say that?

-sk

I've seen many top powlifters who don't go to failure.

I worked out at Gold's Venice (the Mecca) for years. I never met a single top pro who didn't go to failure every set. I used to see them train every single day... day after day. The top guys ALL go to failure.

So what do I base it on - what I've eyeballed. (Also the fact that the bb'rs who say you don't need to go to failure usually look like crap on a stick.)

 

[coolcolj]

eh - I don't get it

 

[casualbb]

there any studies that show going to failure helps the muscles grow better?

Nope.

Was it just an ego thing or based on some scientific evidence?

Probably the former.

Failure training isn't necessary for growth. I'd go so far as to say it's not even desirable, as it cuts into recovery time.

-casual

 

[sk*]

Failure training isn't necessary for growth. I'd go so far as to say it's not even desirable, as it cuts into recovery time.

-casual

When I started training, I didn't understand the concept of failure so I never did it. I grew like a weed, but you can probably say it was due to my "newbie powers." I might give a higher volume training without going to failure a shot and see how it goes.

-sk

 

[sk*]

Dead wrong. I defy anyone to show any real world top body that doesn't go to failure. The people who argue that you don't need to go to failure always look like shit.

powerlifters don't need to go to failure. Any bodybuilder that doesn't is an out of shape amature every time.

Well ronnie didn't really go to failure on a lot of lifts in his video ...

-sk

 

[SofaGeorge]

Nope.



Probably the former.

Failure training isn't necessary for growth. I'd go so far as to say it's not even desirable, as it cuts into recovery time.

-casual

Dead wrong. I defy anyone to show any real world top body that doesn't go to failure. The people who argue that you don't need to go to failure always look like shit.

powerlifters don't need to go to failure. Any bodybuilder that doesn't is an out of shape amature every time.

 

[IronLion]

I do a lot of stuff to failure...I use it as a way to increase my strength endurance...there may be no science behind it but if I can develop the capacity to do more in a given period of time I can train more efficiently

 

[louden_swain]

I like to train to failure on one set. . .the building set.

However, there are times when I don't train to failure. Training to failure for me provides a personal challenge. . when expect to only get 6 reps. . .I am able to get 9. I like to ask myself how far I am willing to go.

 

[casualbb]

So because the top guys do it it's right? That's some flawed logic.

I defy anyone to show any real world top body that doesn't go to failure.

Heard of Boris Kleine? He's won German heavyweight a few times as well as recently an International Grand Prix in Norway. Dunno if that's "top world" but it's not bad.

There are some shots of him at the norway show on the HST boards: http://www.hypertrophy-specific.com/cgi-bin/ib3/ikonboard.cgi?;act=ST;f=14;t=878;hl=boris+kleine

-casual

 

[IronLion]

Hey Sofa why should he post pics if you don't have any posted...

 

[SofaGeorge]

So because the top guys do it it's right? That's some flawed logic.
-casual

No... but because everybody who looks great does it (pro or not) and most people who don't look like shit... well... logic stands that failure is important to developing optimum muscle mass for bodybuilders. (Not powerlifters)

How many years of experience do you have? You seem adamant about your point. Can you post pics of yourself demonstrating that your training method has led you to outstanding results?

Most times when I ask this question I get answered with - Well, I'm not there yet.

The guys who are THERE go to failure. This is what I've seen over the last 25 years. The guys who don't go to failure NEVER get there. Period.

 

[SofaGeorge]

Hey Sofa why should he post pics if you don't have any posted...

What makes you think I've never posted my pic?

 

[IronLion]

where is it?...just asking

 

[coolcolj]

Muscular failure is more an endurance thing rather than a growth trigger.
I don't train to failure - I have posted numerous before and after pics/ progress pics -

Wether I look good or not is besides the point, that's all down to genetics and diet, training won't change the shape of your muscles.

The main thing is - am I not getting bigger training the way I do?
That has to be a big fat yes

Everyone in my gym just about trains to failure - I seem to be making far better gains than all of them, and yet I don't train for hypertrophy - go figure.

 

[SofaGeorge]

where is it?...just asking

Go hunt them down. I'm not interested in them. You are.

 

[SofaGeorge]

Muscular failure is more an endurance thing rather than a growth trigger.
I don't train to failure - I have posted numerous before and after pics/ progress pics -

Wether I look good or not is besides the point, that's all down to genetics and diet, training won't change the shape of your muscles.

The main thing is - am I not getting bigger training the way I do?
That has to be a big fat yes

Everyone in my gym just about trains to failure - I seem to be making far better gains than all of them, and yet I don't train for hypertrophy - go figure.

I'd be more curious to evaluate your definition of failure. The times I have seen people who looked good that didn't train to "failure" they didn't consider failure "failure" unless they went to "absolute failure" (i.e., forced reps and negatives after complete exhaustion.) That isn't failure... that is absolute failure. There is a huge difference. Failure is defined as MMF - momentary muscular failure. You've done your last rep. It doesn't require you to force and strain beyojnd that limit?

So since you don't go to failure... how many more reps could you do? 5? 7? 10?

Why are you quitting when you can do 10 more reps?

Why don't you raise the weight and do the same number of reps with higher weight?

Not training to failure does not make any sense to me... and I don't see the people who bodybuild who don't go to faliure getting great results - ever. I see many powerlifters get great results not going to failure - never bodybuilders.

 

[casualbb]

How many years of experience do you have? You seem adamant about your point. Can you post pics of yourself demonstrating that your training method has led you to outstanding results?

Most times when I ask this question I get answered with - Well, I'm not there yet.

Is any of that relevant? Do you want to criticize the message or the messenger? Because the truth is any training method has some big guys to support it. Would it really make a difference if I were 250 and ripped? Because I can get a couple of guys like that to come say the exact same thing I'm currently saying. Does that add credibility?

Do you want to argue the science? Or just anecdotes? Just because a bunch of people do something doesn't make it correct. 200 years ago all the top doctors thought bloodletting was an appropriate way to treat illness. Now in retrospect that seems quite extreme, but at the time they were following the exact same idea -- do it because everybody else is.

I have no trouble with failure training, just with people saying "it's the only way to go."

-casual

 

[sk*]

I see many powerlifters get great results not going to failure - never bodybuilders.

I fail to see the logic on how one can benefit from it but the other can't. With increased strength comes increased lbm right? When you get stronger, your muscles need to increase in size to help support more and more weight.

I would say that a lot of top powerlifters have more lbm than top bodybuilders. Thing is, they lose a lot of the size if they try to cut and don't necessarily end up doing so good in bb competitions ... although many do great.

Strength and size come hand in hand. I never got bigger without gaining strength.

-sk

 

[crew9]

So because the top guys do it it's right? That's some flawed logic.



Heard of Boris Kleine? He's won German heavyweight a few times as well as recently an International Grand Prix in Norway. Dunno if that's "top world" but it's not bad.

There are some shots of him at the norway show on the HST boards: http://www.hypertrophy-specific.com/cgi-bin/ib3/ikonboard.cgi?;act=ST;f=14;t=878;hl=boris+kleine

-casual

That guys is very impressive yes. I have no doubt that people can make great gains if they don't train to failure. The fact I could post a ton of pics of people who look better or similar who do train to failure so showing one pic doesn't do much.

 

[crew9]

I fail to see the logic on how one can benefit from it but the other can't. With increased strength comes increased lbm right? When you get stronger, your muscles need to increase in size to help support more and more weight.

I would say that a lot of top powerlifters have more lbm than top bodybuilders. Thing is, they lose a lot of the size if they try to cut and don't necessarily end up doing so good in bb competitions ... although many do great.

Strength and size come hand in hand. I never got bigger without gaining strength.

-sk

You think powerlifters have more lean mass than bodybuilders???? No size and strength don't always go hand in hand.

 

[casualbb]

Well no that was just in response to sofageorge saying "I defy anyone to show any real world top body that doesn't go to failure."

I was like "okay, here's one."

 

[coolcolj]

Sofa george - I have a good reply to your questions - but it will take a while to type out

 

[Zander1983]

Sofa george - I have a good reply to your questions - but it will take a while to type out

Type away please

 

[JollyRogers]

Does this look like I went to failure?

This is how I go to failure when I do go to failure, example of one of my failure workouts.


Monday - Chest/Tri
(Today)

1#
-Incline Bench
Warmup 145lbs 1x8
245 2x4 +half rep each

2#
-Flat Bench
275 1x1
315 1x4
275 2x4
245 2x8

3#
-Decline
225 2x8

Tri

4#
-Weighted dips w/ 25lbs plate
1x6
1x5
1x4
1x3
-Without weight 1x4

5#
-Overhead press
68lbs Dumbell
1x5 sitting
1x4 stand
1x3 sitting
1x2 stand

 

[MeatHead57]

i go to complete failure on everything accept your core moves i try to go 2 under failure so i have enough energy to get the heavier weight up then on your light weight high reps i go to absolute lose your breath and pass out kind of failure. to get the heavier weight up its worked for me through bulking iv gained muscle and stayed cut.

 

[sk*]

You think powerlifters have more lean mass than bodybuilders???? No size and strength don't always go hand in hand.

I'm talking about the guys who squat 1000lbs. I bet some/many of them have more lean mass than ronnie. Thing is everyone starts at a certain strength level and progresses up at a certain pace, I believe this has to do more with genetics than anything else.

-sk

 

[T-Rage]

I think we all have a different definition of what failure is.

For example if I'm benching 190 lbs. for 8 - 12 and the 7th rep is feeling pretty difficult then I'll stop after the 7th rep. I don't consider this failure.

If I had attempted an 8th rep it may have taken me 12 seconds to struggle and get it up. Is this failure? Or is true failure when I attempt my 9th rep and can't even move it from my chest?

My point being is that I believe it is better to stop at 7. I think that if I went for 8 and struggled for 12 seconds that it would be detrimental in terms of possible injury and more uneccesary damage.

I would stop at 7 come back my next week and most likely get 8 which means I'm progressing and thats the bottom line.

 

[louden_swain]

I'm talking about the guys who squat 1000lbs. I bet some/many of them have more lean mass than ronnie.

-sk

Not at all.

 

[sk*]

Not at all.

Hmm, have any of their stats? Would be curious.

-sk

 

[sk*]

I think we all have a different definition of what failure is.

For example if I'm benching 190 lbs. for 8 - 12 and the 7th rep is feeling pretty difficult then I'll stop after the 7th rep. I don't consider this failure.

If I had attempted an 8th rep it may have taken me 12 seconds to struggle and get it up. Is this failure? Or is true failure when I attempt my 9th rep and can't even move it from my chest?

My point being is that I believe it is better to stop at 7. I think that if I went for 8 and struggled for 12 seconds that it would be detrimental in terms of possible injury and more uneccesary damage.

I would stop at 7 come back my next week and most likely get 8 which means I'm progressing and thats the bottom line.

Yea, good post. My defenition of failure is how sofa described absolute failure. My defenition of not training to failure means if it gets a little bit hard to push the weight than stop.

-sk

 

[Shark01]

If I had attempted an 8th rep it may have taken me 12 seconds to struggle and get it up. Is this failure? Or is true failure when I attempt my 9th rep and can't even move it from my chest?

Yes, this is considered a failure rep by most authorities. Stopping after a completed rep just because "it was difficult" is not. Training to failure is incredibly stressful, thats why there is so much opposition to it. Its much easier to do a bunch of sub-optimal sets. But some guys are so genetically and chemically gifted that they can grow from almost anything. I am not, so I have to bust it on EVERY SET.

For casual, there are studies that prove HIT methods are superior, in fact there is a 400+ page book full of them called "Maximizing Your Training", a great read, if a little clinical since a bunch of MDs and PhDs wrote it.

These threads are always pretty funny, Its like walking into a gym and seeing 90% of the people who have no clue what they are doing, and the 10% who are intelligent and working hard.

 

[MOD]

...............

SofaGeorge if failure is so great why stop at concentric? why not go to static and eccentric failure as well?

 

[T-Rage]

One other very important point. We are always looking for cause effect relationships and we always fail to consider the intangibles.

For example for all we know those who go to failure who look amazing...

They may just be so dedicated to lifting that they follow all of the so called proven principles such as going to failure. It may not be going to failure that makes them exceptional. It may be the fact that they are serious, consistent and determined and that is what gives them such good results. We can't simply say that it is because they are going to failure. There are simply too many other variables to consider.

 

[Bulldog_10]

Re: ...............

SofaGeorge if failure is so great why stop at concentric? why not go to static and eccentric failure as well?

Those should only be incorporated once every week at the MOST.

And size and strength do not come hand in hand. Most bodybuilders do high reps, because that is hypertrophy training...not to say that they never lift heavy because they DO...variation is key. If you train one way, you gain one way. If you always lift heavy, you'll be strong, but you won't get too big...and you'll overtrain. If you always lift light, high reps...you'll grow at first, but you won't get much stronger...and you'll overtrain.

VARIATION is the key to growth. Train to failure sometimes, don't do it other times...but don't keep doing the same thing. Go with heavy weights, low reps for a month, then go lower weights, high volume for a month...then do something different.

And don't say one way works and one way doesn't work...because everything works to a different degree, for different people, at different points in their training.

 

[sk*]

Re: Re: ...............

Those should only be incorporated once every week at the MOST.

And size and strength do not come hand in hand. Most bodybuilders do high reps, because that is hypertrophy training...not to say that they never lift heavy because they DO...variation is key. If you train one way, you gain one way. If you always lift heavy, you'll be strong, but you won't get too big...and you'll overtrain. If you always lift light, high reps...you'll grow at first, but you won't get much stronger...and you'll overtrain.

VARIATION is the key to growth. Train to failure sometimes, don't do it other times...but don't keep doing the same thing. Go with heavy weights, low reps for a month, then go lower weights, high volume for a month...then do something different.

And don't say one way works and one way doesn't work...because everything works to a different degree, for different people, at different points in their training.

Back it up bro ... (the comments about high/low rep training)

And variation if the key to mind tricks. Altering your workout helps the mind cope with it and, imo, that is why you grow better ... it isn't because the "body" feels the variation but moreso the mind. IMO.

-sk

 

[b fold the truth]

Finding the right amount of intensity and volume is the key to your progress. It takes time to find that.

B True

 

[sk*]

Finding the right amount of intensity and volume is the key to your progress. It takes time to find that.

B True

That's probably the most important part of training ...

-sk

 

[casualbb]

For casual, there are studies that prove HIT methods are superior, in fact there is a 400+ page book full of them called "Maximizing Your Training", a great read, if a little clinical since a bunch of MDs and PhDs wrote it.

do you want to post some? I'm not gonna go out and buy the book.

Since nobody wants to listen to me listen to animalmass instead:

That being said I can now continue...HIT popularized by Mike mentzer (hope this doesnt open up the proverbial can of worms!)is based on the premise that If you don't take your sets to failure, then you are not presenting your body with the stimulus to adapt because you can perform the appropriate amount of reps. Therefore as you take your reps to failure, you are presenting the stimulus by forcing your body to cope with something that it cannot do (remeber the original post!). Consequently you adapt because you have forced yourself to do something that it simply cannot do...seems logical and simple right! But you have to ask yourself, why are so many powerlifters muscular if they dont train to failure? as with olympic lifters!

...I take you back to the theory of rate coding..essentially you fail in an exercise because there are not sufficiently rested muscle fibres to perform the task...at the end of the set the only fibres that arent fatigued are the low threshold high endurance motor units..which dont have the neccessary force producing capabilities to perform the work.

I take you back now to the theory of supercompensation and the subesequent breakdown and buildup theory that dictates that muscle damage (catabolism) has to occur for the increase in proetin synthesis to occur!...

...Research has shown that the most muscle damage occurs during the negative paotion of the exercise (sarcomere popping!)...this is because less muscle fibres are recruited to perform the eccentric movemnt resulting in a greater stress on those fibres...consequently by increasing the time that the muscle fibres are under tension (most tension is generated during -ve portion) there in theory is a better stimulus for muscle growth! ... from this it seems that more tension can be generated by taking a set to failure than stopping short because it would take longer to perform! keep this in mind!

...Back to rate coding (seems pretty important doesnt it?) as the moment of failure draws closer the CNS will innervate all the motor units it can to perform the reps and fire them as often as it can...however as fatigue sets in there is a reduction in firing frequency (up to around 70-80% I think!), consequently the rate of twitching is not high enough to continue the exercise...thus failure occurs.

...back to neural factors...as a nueron fires it has to release the neurotransmitter Acetyl Choline so that the message can be carried...as mentioned previoulsy the electrical current is passed down the axon due to the na+ and K+ (when people refer to electrolites in sports drinks like gatorad, lucozade, these is what they are refering to), and the K+ Na+ atp ase pump... as failure approaches (lack of firing) the electrolites become taxed...as failure occurs these are virtually depleted...it is speculated that another of the major factors in fatigue is the inability of the motor neurons to create and release acetylcholine (ACh) fast enough so that transmission of the action potential can be maintained from the neron to the muscle...

It can be said that ability to produce force is dependant on power speed and frequency of the 'electrical impulse elicited by the CNS to contract a muscle...as fatigue develops there is a mared decrease in the speed of these signals, as this occurs inhibitory mechanisms (mentioned previuos) stop further contrcations occuring....

...However due to emotional factors lke psyching oneself up it is possible to extend the time until these inhibitory mechanisms take effect(fight or flight syndrome)...there is a ditinct relationship between this and catecholamine levels...

...Therfore I hope that you can see that failure may not occur due to the peripheral (muscle) factors but the Central ones...failure may not be due to muscular fatigue but neural inhibition...the CNS does this for one simple reason: SO THAT IT CAN REST AND RECOVER!

...If we are to believe the supercompensation theory muscle fibers need to produce appropriate tension for a long enough period of time to cause damage breakdown...this has the effect of growth factors to be released in the cells Calcium levels within the cell must increase toperpetuate both Catabolism and the required anabolic effect. Growth stimuli may also be provided by the fatigue metabolites building up (phosphate and hydrogen ions) due to elevated levels of lactic acid . Please note that [none] of these reactions occur because of muscular failure!

It may become evident that failure is actaully detrimental (note to John this would neccessiate the two factor theory, that has always been rejected by bodybuilders) because too much stress occurs (especially if inadequate rest intervals are used)...this would facilitate the increasing levels of fatigue resulting in a faster establishment of the Overtraining syndrome!

-casual

 

[SofaGeorge]

Re: ...............

SofaGeorge if failure is so great why stop at concentric? why not go to static and eccentric failure as well?

There are many top physiques that have demonstrated that it can be VERY effective to do that. (i.e, training to ABSOLUTE FAILURE) This is the World of Dorian Yates and Mike Mentzer.

Then there is FAILURE. This has produced top physiques too. This is the world of Frank Zane and Arnold.

Then there is NOT GOING TO FAILURE. Sorry... I can't name any legends here.

Bottom line... you have arguements that people can make on paper... but when it comes to real world results the bodybuilders with great foundation physiques ALL go to failure. I've seen the results of sub-failure training for more than 25 years. These guys NEVER look as good as the bodybuilders who push it to the end.

B-Fold is 100% correct, though. The real key is finding the optimal level of intensity that is going to push your personal growth to its limit. That isn't going to fit into anyone's predefined workout philosophy.

 

[casualbb]

Then there is NOT GOING TO FAILURE. Sorry... I can't name any legends here.

How about all great powerlifters?

Seriously, why should what makes powerlifters big NOT make bodybuilders big? We're all humans. They don't have different kinds of muscles.

-casual

 

[sk*]

Seriously, why should what makes powerlifters big NOT make bodybuilders big? We're all humans. They don't have different kinds of muscles.

-casual

Yea, I was trying to argue this before. How come it will work for one and not the other?

-sk

 

[SofaGeorge]

Yea, I was trying to argue this before. How come it will work for one and not the other?

-sk

Muscle mass and the strength of the muscle don't equate.

I know many 200 lbs powerlifters who easily out lift 260 lbs pro bodybuilders.

The pro bodybuilder's that I saw at Gold's Venice had much more muscle mass than strength. I saw pro bodybuilders struggling with weights that amateur powerlifters would use for warm ups.

Logic doesn't always equal real world results.

 

[Mike_Rojas]

Muscle mass and the strength of the muscle don't equate.

I know many 200 lbs powerlifters who easily out lift 260 lbs pro bodybuilders.

The pro bodybuilder's that I saw at Gold's Venice had much more muscle mass than strength. I saw pro bodybuilders struggling with weights that amateur powerlifters would use for warm ups.

Logic doesn't always equal real world results.

Isn't that because their bodies are bloated from all the drugs?

 

[Bulldog_10]

Re: Re: Re: ...............

Back it up bro ... (the comments about high/low rep training)

And variation if the key to mind tricks. Altering your workout helps the mind cope with it and, imo, that is why you grow better ... it isn't because the "body" feels the variation but moreso the mind. IMO.

-sk

It's a fact bro...needs no backing up (damnit, I sound like nelson!). Your body adapts to your training routine after about 2 weeks...so your workouts become inefficient. It is optimal to change it up every 4 weeks...check out some articles on periodization.

 

[casualbb]

But you're missing the point. Despite training for strength, what powerlifters do makes them quite big. Obviously one doesn't need to train to failure to get big, otherwise there'd be no big powerlifters.

Your argument ignores that.

-casual

 

[Bulldog_10]

But you're missing the point. Despite training for strength, what powerlifters do makes them quite big. Obviously one doesn't need to train to failure to get big, otherwise there'd be no big powerlifters.

Your argument ignores that.

-casual

You're going to grow no matter how your train (barring OVER-training), the question is what makes you grow MORE. Obviously if you train for strength, you're gonna get stronger, and grow...but if you train for growth, you'll grow more, but won't be as strong. However, you can't just train one way, or you're not going to gain at all after a while...that's why people hit plateaus.

 

[Debaser]

Powerlifters don't need to go to failure. Bodybuilders do.

I'm sorry, but casual couldn't be any more right. Muscle is muscle. Though it's been proven both empiristically and theoretically that you don't need to train to failure for growth, you site that "if legends don't do it it doesn't work." This statement is so fundamentally flawed I'm not sure why you're trying to use it to make a point.

Just so you know Paul Dillet and Flex Wheeler train like candyasses. But since they do lots of drugs and have incredible genetics (by the way, I don't know many "legends" that don't have these, so it doesn't really matter how they train does it?), they prosper anyway and become huge.

On a closing note, I'll display some pictures of those who just won't go that extra mile to failure, and are thus small:

 

[SofaGeorge]

I'm sorry, but casual couldn't be any more right. Muscle is muscle. Though it's been proven both empiristically and theoretically that you don't need to train to failure for growth, you site that "if legends don't do it it doesn't work."

You put this statement in quotes... but I can't find it quoted anywhere on this thread. Who said it?

 

[Debaser]

I paraphrased. You know exactly what I meant, and the rest of my post (which you ignored) absolutely still holds water.

 

[SofaGeorge]

I paraphrased. You know exactly what I meant, and the rest of my post (which you ignored) absolutely still holds water.

When you say that I know "exactly what you meant" - my perception is that you do not understand the issues being discussed, you "paraphrase" them out of context, and do not have real world insight to support your beliefs...

...so I really don't think we are on the same page.

Your arguement "holds water" for you. It struck me as inane and not worth debating further.

 

[MOD]

...............

personally I found that if I traing to failure my strength goes up like clockwork. with sub failure training I just didn't see the strength increases. more weight = more trauma = more hypertrophy? if you're not doing a program that has you set out a weight progression scheme like HST, then training to failure is the only way to go ( for me ) in my oppinion. I personally can't stand not giving it my all, since half of the fun is challenging yourself.

 

[Debaser]

All right, I'll try again with no paraphrasing:

The people who argue that you don't need to go to failure always look like shit.

Now, see my post above. You think they look like shit?

 

[sk*]

Re: Re: Re: Re: ...............

It's a fact bro...needs no backing up (damnit, I sound like nelson!). Your body adapts to your training routine after about 2 weeks...so your workouts become inefficient. It is optimal to change it up every 4 weeks...check out some articles on periodization.

Everything needs backing bro ...
I asked you to support your other claim though, that higher reps are better for "looking better." Why not do sets with 100reps, 1000reps?

Oh and like I said, it's the mind that gets used to it ... not so much the body directly.

-sk

 

[Mike_Rojas]

I used to see guys go to failure on every set of benches, and week after week they used the same weights.

How many people train to failure on squats anyway? I think if you took a weight and did a set of around 8-10 reps to failure on squats you'd probably lose form bad and injure yourself.

 

[sk*]

Muscle mass and the strength of the muscle don't equate.

I know many 200 lbs powerlifters who easily out lift 260 lbs pro bodybuilders.

The pro bodybuilder's that I saw at Gold's Venice had much more muscle mass than strength. I saw pro bodybuilders struggling with weights that amateur powerlifters would use for warm ups.

Logic doesn't always equal real world results.

Well the lifts aren't exactly the same lifts ...
For example, look how a bb bench differs from a pl bench ...

-sk

 

[Bulldog_10]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ...............

Everything needs backing bro ...
I asked you to support your other claim though, that higher reps are better for "looking better." Why not do sets with 100reps, 1000reps?

Oh and like I said, it's the mind that gets used to it ... not so much the body directly.

-sk

If by mind you mean neuromuscular system, then yes...the mind has something to do with it. And 100 reps, 1000 reps? Come on bro...be reasonable.

And what makes you think it's the mind and not the body? How many physiology classes have you taken? How many articles, books, texts, lectures, etc. have you read/seen on the subject?

It's the body...ever hear of overtraining? Periodization? Adaptation?

 

[sk*]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ...............

If by mind you mean neuromuscular system, then yes...the mind has something to do with it. And 100 reps, 1000 reps? Come on bro...be reasonable.

And what makes you think it's the mind and not the body? How many physiology classes have you taken? How many articles, books, texts, lectures, etc. have you read/seen on the subject?

It's the body...ever hear of overtraining? Periodization? Adaptation?

How come 12reps is better than 3 reps for better "defenition"? If it is true than 100reps should be better, right?

I'll argue the mind over body another time ...

-sk

 

[Bulldog_10]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ...............

How come 12reps is better than 3 reps for better "defenition"? If it is true than 100reps should be better, right?

I'll argue the mind over body another time ...

-sk

12 reps isn't better than 3 reps for definition...i never said anything like that. That's more of a diet thing.

The mind/body thing, not even an argument...it's fact, not opinion.

If you want I'll quote a few things for you...might take a while...but i'll do it.

 

[Bulldog_10]

Here are a couple things to hold you over...There is a shitload I could type up...but I'm tired, and typing sucks. So you can feel free to find the rest yourself.

This is from “Weight Training: A specific Approach”

“Due to central nervous sytem overadaptation, monotonous routines will limit (muscle) adaptation and progress, even though overwork may not be the cause…The basic principles of training are frequency, duration, intensity, variation, and most importantly, specificity. These principles must be considered in all training programs; applying them properly reduces the potential for overtraining. The concept of periodization, originally proposed by Matveyev in 1961, embodies and manipulates these basic training principles in a manner that reduces the potential for overtraining and brings performanceto optimum or peak levels…Generally, overtraining can be reduced through variation in volume (frequency and duration) and intensity (average weight), and through variationin the amount of techniqueand other specialized work performed…Further studies, primarily European sports scientists, strongly suggest the establishment of volume and intensity variations on the mesocycle (months) and microcycle (weekly) level further reduce the possibility of overtraining and enhance performance peaks…Volume is high at the beginning of the beginning of the period and decreases toward the climax; intensity begins relatively low and increases…To date seventeen research projects investigating the effectiveness of this model compared to other training programs have been completed…two papers have been published describing the basic concepts and presenting some of the early data and observations about the superiority of this model of strength-power training over more traditional methods.”

“Hypertrophy stage:
During this phase two important adaptations, BEYOND THOSE OF TYPICAL PROGRAMS, can be expected to occur. The first is a positive change in body composition. High volume training (8-12 reps/set) has been shown to produce greater gains in LBM (hypertrophy) and greater decreases in percentages of fat than low volume training. Increases in muscle mass (hypertrophy) increase an athlete’s potential to gain strength and power. A second important adaptation occurring with high volume training is an increase in short-term endurance…”

This is from “five steps to increasing the effectiveness of your strength training program” By Charles Poliquin, one of the best strength and conditioning coaches in the world.

“One must note that strength training programs lose their efficiency after only TWO WEEKS since the body adapts very rapidly to the stress of training loads…A common mistake seen in strength training programs…is linear intensification, that is, moving ever increasing intensities.”

 

[Debaser]

VARIATION is the key to growth.

I have to disagree here. Variety is what causes lots of trainees to get nowhere. You'd be surprised how many people will something like this:

3 weeks WSB
Musclemag 5 day volume split for a month
HIT for 2 weeks
Half a cycle of HST
Flex massmonster program

When they haven't gained 20 lbs in 2 weeks, they feel like their program isn't working. They can't even devote 12 weeks to a routine. In doing so they neglect the absolute most-important rule for building muscle:

Weight progression.

Whether it's consistant strength gains or progressive loading (HST) the principals are the same. You need to be adding weight to that bar constantly. If you've reached the point where your gains are stalled and everything else is in top shape (diet, rest, willpower etc.) then you need to take some time off, then start back up again with less weight than before. This is called intensity cycling. It is all about working towards a common goal: more iron.

I mean, if variety were the key to growth, why are there so many continually successful DC, HST, and westside trainees? Generally the people that want to mix it up, are on a traditional split. Since many of these are ineffective or inefficient, they believe that their body has somehow adapted to it, and need to try something else. When in fact all they needed all along was a more productive training protocol.

 

[sk*]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ...............

12 reps isn't better than 3 reps for definition...i never said anything like that. That's more of a diet thing.

The mind/body thing, not even an argument...it's fact, not opinion.

If you want I'll quote a few things for you...might take a while...but i'll do it.

From my understand what you are saying by this:

"If you always lift heavy, you'll be strong, but you won't get too big...and you'll overtrain. If you always lift light, high reps...you'll grow at first, but you won't get much stronger...and you'll overtrain."

is that higher reps are better for bodybuilders while lower reps are better for strength athletes. Am I misunderstanding?

-sk

 

[Bulldog_10]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ...............

From my understand what you are saying by this:

"If you always lift heavy, you'll be strong, but you won't get too big...and you'll overtrain. If you always lift light, high reps...you'll grow at first, but you won't get much stronger...and you'll overtrain."

is that higher reps are better for bodybuilders while lower reps are better for strength athletes. Am I misunderstanding?

-sk

yeah, that's pretty much it...but it's not so cut and dry...i was exaggerating. You'll grow either way...it's just that different things are BETTER for different goals.

If you read "weight training: a specific approach" you'll see what I'm talking about. There are a shitload of other books, articles, etc out there that say basically the same thing, but I like that one in particular. Check it out if you can find it.

 

[sk*]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ...............

yeah, that's pretty much it...but it's not so cut and dry...i was exaggerating. You'll grow either way...it's just that different things are BETTER for different goals.

If you read "weight training: a specific approach" you'll see what I'm talking about. There are a shitload of other books, articles, etc out there that say basically the same thing, but I like that one in particular. Check it out if you can find it.

I've heard the theories on it, I just miss the point on why???????

If 12reps is better for purely muscle building (and not so much strength), then wouldn't 100reps be even better?

Out of curiousity, when was that book written and by who?

Thanks.

-sk

 

[Bulldog_10]

I have to disagree here. Variety is what causes lots of trainees to get nowhere. You'd be surprised how many people will something like this:

3 weeks WSB
Musclemag 5 day volume split for a month
HIT for 2 weeks
Half a cycle of HST
Flex massmonster program

When they haven't gained 20 lbs in 2 weeks, they feel like their program isn't working. They can't even devote 12 weeks to a routine. In doing so they neglect the absolute most-important rule for building muscle:

Weight progression.

Whether it's consistant strength gains or progressive loading (HST) the principals are the same. You need to be adding weight to that bar constantly. If you've reached the point where your gains are stalled and everything else is in top shape (diet, rest, willpower etc.) then you need to take some time off, then start back up again with less weight than before. This is called intensity cycling. It is all about working towards a common goal: more iron.

I mean, if variety were the key to growth, why are there so many continually successful DC, HST, and westside trainees? Generally the people that want to mix it up, are on a traditional split. Since many of these are ineffective or inefficient, they believe that their body has somehow adapted to it, and need to try something else. When in fact all they needed all along was a more productive training protocol.

You're right, if you don't give something a sufficient time trial, then no you will not see great gains. But I'm not talking about switching between training styles...just varying your volume and intensity.

So you're not really switching programs, you're staying with the same program (periodization). It focuses on training the neuromuscular system as a whole, instead of just the muscle...which people all too often don't do.

 

[Bulldog_10]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ...............

I've heard the theories on it, I just miss the point on why???????

If 12reps is better for purely muscle building (and not so much strength), then wouldn't 100reps be even better?

Out of curiousity, when was that book written and by who?

Thanks.

-sk

Well, because if you do 100 reps, the intensity would be pretty much zero...12 reps is in the high zone. The way you say it, you could also say, "if going low reps is good, why not do -3 reps?" It's just not feasible.

I actually don't know who wrote the book...they gave us excerpts from it in the suggested readings for the Strength and Conditioning staff at my school. There are a few chapters that I have in front of me, but it doesn't say who wrote it.

 

[sk*]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ...............

Well, because if you do 100 reps, the intensity would be pretty much zero...12 reps is in the high zone. The way you say it, you could also say, "if going low reps is good, why not do -3 reps?" It's just not feasible.

The intensity will be high towards the last few reps bro ...

If you do, for example, incline dumbbell bench with a weight that you can do for 12reps ... do you even feel the first rep? I know that the first few reps don't even affect me. Just pointing that out to say that there is no intensity in the first few reps in a higher rep range training ... so how is it good for bb purposes? Again, if 12 is better than 3reps ... wouldn't 100 be better than 12reps?

-sk

 

[Bulldog_10]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ...............

The intensity will be high towards the last few reps bro ...

If you do, for example, incline dumbbell bench with a weight that you can do for 12reps ... do you even feel the first rep? I know that the first few reps don't even affect me. Just pointing that out to say that there is no intensity in the first few reps in a higher rep range training ... so how is it good for bb purposes? Again, if 12 is better than 3reps ... wouldn't 100 be better than 12reps?

-sk

Intensity is NOT a measure of "hardness" or whatever you're trying to say. Intensity is a measure of AVERAGE BAR WEIGHT.

 

[sk*]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ...............

Intensity is NOT a measure of "hardness" or whatever you're trying to say. Intensity is a measure of AVERAGE BAR WEIGHT.

Bro, the whole point of the word intensity is that you have an "intense" workout, it isn't just the bar weight.

Intensity is the bar weight PLUS how many repetitions you do.

What I am trying to get at is that, it is possible to do a workout in 100rep range and have a very intense workout.

-sk

 

[Bulldog_10]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ...............

Bro, the whole point of the word intensity is that you have an "intense" workout, it isn't just the bar weight.

Intensity is the bar weight PLUS how many repetitions you do.

What I am trying to get at is that, it is possible to do a workout in 100rep range and have a very intense workout.

-sk

Ugh...you have no idea what you're talking about. Intensity = average bar weight. Volume = reps x sets.

 

[SofaGeorge]

I mean, if variety were the key to growth, why are there so many continually successful DC, HST, and westside trainees? Generally the people that want to mix it up, are on a traditional split. Since many of these are ineffective or inefficient, they believe that their body has somehow adapted to it, and need to try something else. When in fact all they needed all along was a more productive training protocol.

Very valuable and underappreciated point!

Trivia to add to it: Arnold Swarzzenegger never changed his routine. He liked doing the same thing every time (despite what he may have said in some Wieder articles.) Hence, he always did the same routine... day in day out... year in year out. He still does basically the same routine today that he did in 1975. (He's dropped the volume and the amount of weight.)

What did he change... only the amount of weight he did and the number of reps. He always tried to do a little more... one more rep... 5 more pounds.

(Let me add to this - I shake up my routine constantly... but I've learned how to correctly incorporate variety. I don't have variety work against me.)

 

[sk*]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ...............

Ugh...you have no idea what you're talking about. Intensity = average bar weight. Volume = reps x sets.

Let's say your bench for 12 reps is 100lbs (lol), would doing 5reps with 100lbs be any intense? I don't think so. You need to include the number of reps so you can call it intense or not.

-sk

 

[Bulldog_10]

What did he change... only the amount of weight he did and the number of reps. He always tried to do a little more... one more rep... 5 more pounds.

Exactly! I'm not saying change up your entire workout routine...just the intensity and volume.

 

[JollyRogers]

omg this thread is still going??? I just got back from the bar

 

[Bulldog_10]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ...............

Let's say your bench for 12 reps is 100lbs (lol), would doing 5reps with 100lbs be any intense? I don't think so. You need to include the number of reps so you can call it intense or not.

-sk

The DEFINITION of intensity = average bar weight. Yes, doing 12 reps will be harder, because you are doing more VOLUME. Not more intensity. This is driving me crazy.

 

[sk*]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ...............

The DEFINITION of intensity = average bar weight. Yes, doing 12 reps will be harder, because you are doing more VOLUME. Not more intensity. This is driving me crazy.

Bro, maybe in some skewed defenition of bodybuilding wording you are right, but that isn't the defenition that will come up in the dictionary. I think you see my point, it isn't how you define intensity ... point is you can get an "intense workout" (intense, as the english word) from 100rep range.

-sk

 

[Bulldog_10]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ...............

Bro, maybe in some skewed defenition of bodybuilding wording you are right, but that isn't the defenition that will come up in the dictionary. I think you see my point, it isn't how you define intensity ... point is you can get an "intense workout" (intense, as the english word) from 100rep range.

-sk

but can you curl 2 dumbells, as in stupid people, for 100 reps?

 

[sk*]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ...............

but can you curl 2 dumbells, as in stupid people, for 100 reps?

Please read what I said, cause obviously you aren't getting it.

Here is one defenition of the word intensity provided by Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary:

"The amount or degree of energy with which a force operates or a cause acts; effectiveness, as estimated by results produced."

And please don't patronize me.

-sk

 

[Mike_Rojas]

You guys love to argue. This is good stuff.

 

[Bulldog_10]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ...............

Please read what I said, cause obviously you aren't getting it.

Here is one defenition of the word intensity provided by Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary:

"The amount or degree of energy with which a force operates or a cause acts; effectiveness, as estimated by results produced."

And please don't patronize me.

-sk

I don't mean to be a dick, I really don't. But it is obvious that you have no clue what you are talking about. And if i wanted to look up dumbell, I'm sure it would say something along the lines of "stupid person." We're talking about training, so we're talking in training terms...not every day language.

But if you want to get technical: that definition of intensity is right on, does it say anything about the distance through which the force operates? nope. So intensity is the amount of weight, reps is the amount of distance through which the weight is moved.

Take some courses in exercise physiology and get back to me.

 

[IronLion]

position = a definite point in space
velocity = the rate of change of postion
acceleration = the rate of change of velocity
jerk = tha rate of change of acceleration

force = ma

work = ma (s2-s1)
delta s being the change in distance

work is what is important when considering any weightlifting output

 

[casualbb]

Gentlemen, please.

*sk: there are two definitions of intensity

1. Intensity as a %age of 1RM. This is how the whole strength training world goes about definiting intensity. This is how strength coaches and strength athletes (eg Bulldog_10) will use the word, and generally the more valid definition.

2. The bodybuilding definition, as some vague concept relating to how difficult you perceived the workout to be. Generally the more severely the exercises were taken to failure, the more "intense" the workout. This is not taken very seriously in the strength world, where nobody trains to failure.

So make sure you specify which you mean when you say "intensity."

-casual

 

[sk*]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ............

I don't mean to be a dick, I really don't. But it is obvious that you have no clue what you are talking about. And if i wanted to look up dumbell, I'm sure it would say something along the lines of "stupid person." We're talking about training, so we're talking in training terms...not every day language.

But if you want to get technical: that definition of intensity is right on, does it say anything about the distance through which the force operates? nope. So intensity is the amount of weight, reps is the amount of distance through which the weight is moved.

Take some courses in exercise physiology and get back to me.

Man, do you hear yourself talking? I am not even arguing half the stuff you are. I am not even sure what you are trying to prove.

Point is, 100reps can be "intense" just like 1, 3, 6, 8,or 12 can be. Okay?

My original question was, how come 12reps (you can replace 12 with X if it makes you feel better) is better than 3 and better than 100 for bb purposes?

-sk

 

[Bulldog_10]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ........

Man, do you hear yourself talking? I am not even arguing half the stuff you are. I am not even sure what you are trying to prove.

Point is, 100reps can be "intense" just like 1, 3, 6, 8,or 12 can be. Okay?

My original question was, how come 12reps (you can replace 12 with X if it makes you feel better) is better than 3 and better than 100 for bb purposes?

-sk

Because it produces the best results.

 

[sk*]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ....

Because it produces the best results.

That's cool and all, I just wanted to hear a reasoning on why you think it produces best results ... not just anecdodal evidence.

-sk

 

[endpoint]

Gentlemen, please.

*sk: there are two definitions of intensity

1. Intensity as a %age of 1RM. This is how the whole strength training world goes about definiting intensity. This is how strength coaches and strength athletes (eg Bulldog_10) will use the word, and generally the more valid definition.

2. The bodybuilding definition, as some vague concept relating to how difficult you perceived the workout to be. Generally the more severely the exercises were taken to failure, the more "intense" the workout. This is not taken very seriously in the strength world, where nobody trains to failure.

So make sure you specify which you mean when you say "intensity."

-casual

word up

 

[Bulldog_10]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

That's cool and all, I just wanted to hear a reasoning on why you think it produces best results ... not just anecdodal evidence.

-sk

It has been shown in various studies. If you read the quote from that book i posted a while back, you'll see this:

"high volume training (8-12 reps/set) has been shown to produce greater gains in LBM..."

It's just from experimental evidence, there are lots of reasons behind it...i'll see if i can find specifics.

 

[crew9]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ...............

The intensity will be high towards the last few reps bro ...

If you do, for example, incline dumbbell bench with a weight that you can do for 12reps ... do you even feel the first rep? I know that the first few reps don't even affect me. Just pointing that out to say that there is no intensity in the first few reps in a higher rep range training ... so how is it good for bb purposes? Again, if 12 is better than 3reps ... wouldn't 100 be better than 12reps?

-sk

The first reps do affect you or you wouldn't find the last ones hard.

 

[sk*]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ...............

The first reps do affect you or you wouldn't find the last ones hard.

True, I ment you don't use the same "intensity" to push the first 2reps like you use the "intensity" to push the last 2reps.

-sk

 

[collegiateLifter]

Gentlemen, please.

*sk: there are two definitions of intensity

1. Intensity as a %age of 1RM. This is how the whole strength training world goes about definiting intensity. This is how strength coaches and strength athletes (eg Bulldog_10) will use the word, and generally the more valid definition.

2. The bodybuilding definition, as some vague concept relating to how difficult you perceived the workout to be. Generally the more severely the exercises were taken to failure, the more "intense" the workout. This is not taken very seriously in the strength world, where nobody trains to failure.

So make sure you specify which you mean when you say "intensity."

-casual

I've got 4 as per Science and Practice... he says

1) magnitude of resistance (like your def 1)
2)number of reps per set
3)number (or percentage) of repetitions with maximal resistance
4)workout density



----

my 2 cents on the debate is that most big athletes train somewhat near failure.

most BBers train to failure, fine.

the WSB guys dont goto failure on assistance excercises, but on maximal effort work, like in the seminar tapes, dave says notice the straining, thats what you want, the strain. Thats working at near failure and to my understanding sometimes they miss lift, but they don't fail on purpose.

among other things, training near or till failure helps with motor unit recrutment, which can facilitate hypertrophy but is not needed for hypertrophy itself.