Train till failure ?

It seems the ego way has worked well for many decades for most everyone yet the science way as you call it is more new and is not really proven. Juicing allows for less than good training and diet yet still getting results.
 
The “science” way shows hypertrophy is related to proximity to failure. Train to failure OF THE MUSCLE not the movement.

So basically it's always better to do more sets with a lower weight to failure instead of doing heavy weight with a bad posture to failure?
 
If @Millard wants to clear it and repost it I'm happy to restart that discussion.

But I'm not going to double post without an okay first.

I get hard from a good training discussion so I'm all for starting that discussion up again
@Millard I believe it the quality of the article, from personal perspective and beliefs, would be beneficial to have a separate thread from the banned person that broke the discussion. I don't say I agree with everything but it is great for discussion.
 
I was thinking science has shown anything within 5 reps of failure spurs hypertrophy. I believe the issue with going all the way to failure and beyond is you are unable to both repair damage AND get new growth because your recovery ability is not unlimited. Massive doses of gear may change this of course.
 
By staying anywhere from 1 to 5 reps from failure, you should be able to recover faster and thus add more volume. If your doing PPL I would highly suggest trying this. If you're going to failure on most sets and doing PPL in my experience it's only a matter of time before you burn out. You can still train hard af without going all the way to failure. If you can't get another rep while keeping perfect form, stop there. Just my opinion.
 
By staying anywhere from 1 to 5 reps from failure, you should be able to recover faster and thus add more volume. If your doing PPL I would highly suggest trying this. If you're going to failure on most sets and doing PPL in my experience it's only a matter of time before you burn out. You can still train hard af without going all the way to failure. If you can't get another rep while keeping perfect form, stop there. Just my opinion.
What is beneficial to adding more volume?

Not getting another rep while keeping perfect form is the definition of failure for most. But you need to be honest with yourself and know what failure feels like.
 
What is beneficial to adding more volume?

Not getting another rep while keeping perfect form is the definition of failure for most. But you need to be honest with yourself and know what failure feels like.
Valid point. It does take experience to know where failure is for you. And why add more volume? Because you will get bigger.
 
Valid point. It does take experience to know where failure is for you. And why add more volume? Because you will get bigger.

Not according to the current data.

Most people would agree that volume is far more fatiguing than intensity.

If you assume the last 5 reps to failure are the main hypertrophy driving reps:

3 sets of 15 reps taken to failure would equate to 15 quality, hypertrophy driving reps (the last 5 reps from each set)

If you choose to stop 2 reps prior to failure, 3 sets of 15 would only be 9 hypertrophy driving reps (3 from each set) to make up for this disparity you would need to do 5 sets of 15 two reps shy of failure to get the same 15 quality reps.


Which is more fatiguing? The 3 sets taken to failure? Or the 5 sets taken to almost failure?


Volume is far more fatiguing than intensity and will only have a negative impact on recovery time as opposed to keeping volume moderate and intensity high with training to failure.
 
Not according to the current data.

Most people would agree that volume is far more fatiguing than intensity.

If you assume the last 5 reps to failure are the main hypertrophy driving reps:

3 sets of 15 reps taken to failure would equate to 15 quality, hypertrophy driving reps (the last 5 reps from each set)

If you choose to stop 2 reps prior to failure, 3 sets of 15 would only be 9 hypertrophy driving reps (3 from each set) to make up for this disparity you would need to do 5 sets of 15 two reps shy of failure to get the same 15 quality reps.


Which is more fatiguing? The 3 sets taken to failure? Or the 5 sets taken to almost failure?


Volume is far more fatiguing than intensity and will only have a negative impact on recovery time as opposed to keeping volume moderate and intensity high with training to failure.
I appreciate your input. I do have to disagree when you say volume is more fatiguing. In my opinion intensity is far more fatiguing. I've tried many styles of training and HIT type training is far more fatiguing even though you do less volume. However I am over 40 so my recovery is far inferior to a younger guy, so that's definitely a factor. At the end of the day most training works to some degree, especially with gear in the mix. For myself, stopping short of failure (yes, RIR training) is FAR more effective and I feel better physically on a day to day basis.
 

Sponsors

Latest posts

Back
Top