Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
train to failure or no?
- Thread starter AlwaysOn
- Start date
needtogetaas
New member
if youre on a cycle then train till you cant move thats what I allways do.
riverrock
New member
I also believe its a myth in that its necessary for results. However, that doesn't mean you don't push yourself right out, because you have to. As a result, the only way to ensure you put maximum effort in is to drive yourself to the limit and that generally means failure to complete another rep
riverrock
New member
I bet that confused you even more, so here it is more bluntly - Bodybuilders are lazy bastards and would love to duck out of having to do 10 murderous reps, when they can do 5 instead even though their body is capable of doing a few more. Failure means you definitely gave it 100%.
AlwaysOn said:
One time I did it. After watching Yate's training tape, I thought "Why Not?".
One or two warm-up sets and then one final set to failure. I can't be him, but I can be a shadow and that's an improvement.
I lasted about 6 workouts. It was just too draining on my nervous system. And I was picking up some nasty injuries ... nothing big, just those little tears that bug the sh*t out of you. I grew! But recovery was taking over my life.
Guinness5.0
New member
Here's my $.02-
The CNS takes longer to recover from aset to tailure than your muscles do, so if your training revolves around training to failure, your recovery rate will be "screwy". I think a better way is to regulate volume and intensity so that you load up your body (CNS and muscles) over a period of weeks, then allow the two to recover simultaneously (you'll still be training heavy- don't get me wrong). It's called the dual factor theory (thoguh there are other names for it) and there's tons of posts about it on here that can give you a good idea about how/why it works. Check
www.higher-faster-sportsl.com
specifically the article entitled "how to benefit from planned overtraining" for more info.
The CNS takes longer to recover from aset to tailure than your muscles do, so if your training revolves around training to failure, your recovery rate will be "screwy". I think a better way is to regulate volume and intensity so that you load up your body (CNS and muscles) over a period of weeks, then allow the two to recover simultaneously (you'll still be training heavy- don't get me wrong). It's called the dual factor theory (thoguh there are other names for it) and there's tons of posts about it on here that can give you a good idea about how/why it works. Check
www.higher-faster-sportsl.com
specifically the article entitled "how to benefit from planned overtraining" for more info.
sandman_007
New member
i've always trained to failure for 2-4 working sets per exercise. I believe it is an excellent way to build muscle mass if you are eating and resting properly.
I've got the best results from doing this- However i must say that i very rarely train more than 4 days per week. Recovery is so important...
Many people believe they are at failure and they really aren't. You are only at failure when you cannot lift the bar no matter how hard you try- However sometimes i will train towards a secondary failure, when my form gets bad and i am not working the target muscle anymore.
I've got the best results from doing this- However i must say that i very rarely train more than 4 days per week. Recovery is so important...
Many people believe they are at failure and they really aren't. You are only at failure when you cannot lift the bar no matter how hard you try- However sometimes i will train towards a secondary failure, when my form gets bad and i am not working the target muscle anymore.
Singleton
New member
The guiness guy has a good point.
Well, if you feel like trusting research by a man named Drinkwater, here is some:
Training leading to repetition failure enhances bench press strength gains in elite junior athletes.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...d&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15903379&query_hl=1
What they found is that in training conditioned athletes 3x/week to failure on flat bench.
The NF group did 8x3
The RF groupd did 4x6
The workload total was the same.
The to failure group got stronger, according to the result. I assume they took another strength test at the conclusion of the experiment, but they did not say that. Not a great abstract.
Here's another comparing forced reps with to-failure training:
==================================================
Acute hormonal and neuromuscular responses and recovery to forced vs maximum repetitions multiple resistance exercises.
Ahtiainen JP, Pakarinen A, Kraemer WJ, Hakkinen K.
Department of Biology of Physical Activity, University of Jyvaskyla, Jyvaskyla, Finland. [email protected]
Acute hormonal and neuromuscular responses and recovery three days after the exercises were examined during the maximum repetitions (MR) and forced repetitions (FR) resistance exercise protocols in 16 male athletes. MR included 4 sets of leg presses, 2 sets of squats and 2 sets of knee extensions (with 12 RM) with a 2-min recovery between the sets and 4 min between the exercises. In FR the initial load was chosen to be higher than in MR so that the subject could not lift 12 repetitions per set by himself. After each set to failure the subject was assisted to perform the remaining repetitions to complete the 12 repetitions per set. Thus the exercise intensity was greater in FR than in MR. Both loading protocols led to the great acute increases (p < 0.05 - 0.001) in serum testosterone, free testosterone, cortisol and GH concentrations. However, the responses in cortisol (p < 0.05) and GH (p < 0.01) were larger in FR than in MR. The decrease of 56.5 % (p < 0.001) in maximal isometric force in FR was greater (p < 0.001) than that of 38.3 % in MR (p < 0.001) and force remained lower (p < 0.01) during the recovery in FR compared to MR. The larger decrease in isometric strength in FR than in MR was also associated with the decreased maximal voluntary EMG of the loaded muscles. The data indicate that the forced repetition exercise system induced greater acute hormonal and neuromuscular responses than a traditional maximum repetition exercise system and therefore it may be used to manipulate acute resistance exercise variables in athletes.
According to research performed at the Sports Science Laboratory, University of Delaware, glutamine doesn't work:
===================================================
The effects of high-dose glutamine ingestion on weightlifting performance.
Antonio J, Sanders MS, Kalman D, Woodgate D, Street C.
Sports Science Laboratory, University of Delaware, Newark, Delaware 19716, USA.
The purpose of this study was to determine if high-dose glutamine ingestion affected weightlifting performance. In a double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover study, 6 resistance-trained men (mean +/- SE: age, 21.5 +/- 0.3 years; weight, 76.5 +/- 2.8 kg(-1)) performed weightlifting exercises after the ingestion of glutamine or glycine (0.3 g x kg(-1)) mixed with calorie-free fruit juice or placebo (calorie-free fruit juice only). Each subject underwent each of the 3 treatments in a randomized order. One hour after ingestion, subjects performed 4 total sets of exercise to momentary muscular failure (2 sets of leg presses at 200% of body weight, 2 sets of bench presses at 100% of body weight). There were no differences in the average number of maximal repetitions performed in the leg press or bench press exercises among the 3 groups. These data indicate that the short-term ingestion of glutamine does not enhance weightlifting performance in resistance-trained men.
Not that that has anything to do with training to failure. It came up in my search result and I thought I should post it up.
Well, if you feel like trusting research by a man named Drinkwater, here is some:
Training leading to repetition failure enhances bench press strength gains in elite junior athletes.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...d&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15903379&query_hl=1
What they found is that in training conditioned athletes 3x/week to failure on flat bench.
The NF group did 8x3
The RF groupd did 4x6
The workload total was the same.
The to failure group got stronger, according to the result. I assume they took another strength test at the conclusion of the experiment, but they did not say that. Not a great abstract.
Here's another comparing forced reps with to-failure training:
==================================================
Acute hormonal and neuromuscular responses and recovery to forced vs maximum repetitions multiple resistance exercises.
Ahtiainen JP, Pakarinen A, Kraemer WJ, Hakkinen K.
Department of Biology of Physical Activity, University of Jyvaskyla, Jyvaskyla, Finland. [email protected]
Acute hormonal and neuromuscular responses and recovery three days after the exercises were examined during the maximum repetitions (MR) and forced repetitions (FR) resistance exercise protocols in 16 male athletes. MR included 4 sets of leg presses, 2 sets of squats and 2 sets of knee extensions (with 12 RM) with a 2-min recovery between the sets and 4 min between the exercises. In FR the initial load was chosen to be higher than in MR so that the subject could not lift 12 repetitions per set by himself. After each set to failure the subject was assisted to perform the remaining repetitions to complete the 12 repetitions per set. Thus the exercise intensity was greater in FR than in MR. Both loading protocols led to the great acute increases (p < 0.05 - 0.001) in serum testosterone, free testosterone, cortisol and GH concentrations. However, the responses in cortisol (p < 0.05) and GH (p < 0.01) were larger in FR than in MR. The decrease of 56.5 % (p < 0.001) in maximal isometric force in FR was greater (p < 0.001) than that of 38.3 % in MR (p < 0.001) and force remained lower (p < 0.01) during the recovery in FR compared to MR. The larger decrease in isometric strength in FR than in MR was also associated with the decreased maximal voluntary EMG of the loaded muscles. The data indicate that the forced repetition exercise system induced greater acute hormonal and neuromuscular responses than a traditional maximum repetition exercise system and therefore it may be used to manipulate acute resistance exercise variables in athletes.
According to research performed at the Sports Science Laboratory, University of Delaware, glutamine doesn't work:
===================================================
The effects of high-dose glutamine ingestion on weightlifting performance.
Antonio J, Sanders MS, Kalman D, Woodgate D, Street C.
Sports Science Laboratory, University of Delaware, Newark, Delaware 19716, USA.
The purpose of this study was to determine if high-dose glutamine ingestion affected weightlifting performance. In a double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover study, 6 resistance-trained men (mean +/- SE: age, 21.5 +/- 0.3 years; weight, 76.5 +/- 2.8 kg(-1)) performed weightlifting exercises after the ingestion of glutamine or glycine (0.3 g x kg(-1)) mixed with calorie-free fruit juice or placebo (calorie-free fruit juice only). Each subject underwent each of the 3 treatments in a randomized order. One hour after ingestion, subjects performed 4 total sets of exercise to momentary muscular failure (2 sets of leg presses at 200% of body weight, 2 sets of bench presses at 100% of body weight). There were no differences in the average number of maximal repetitions performed in the leg press or bench press exercises among the 3 groups. These data indicate that the short-term ingestion of glutamine does not enhance weightlifting performance in resistance-trained men.
Not that that has anything to do with training to failure. It came up in my search result and I thought I should post it up.
2BIG4URMOM
New member
I'm old school, I believe in forced reps, training to failure and then some. All I think about when lifting is concentrating on squeezing every drop of blood into whatever body part I am working.
I also rotate and do medium weight with high reps on occassion to shock the muscle.
I also rotate and do medium weight with high reps on occassion to shock the muscle.
Similar threads
