# How many sets to failure per muscle??



## The doog (Aug 6, 2013)

*How many sets to failure do you do per muscle?*​
Every working set. 1327.08%Just the last working set. 1939.58%Only do one working set, but it's to failure. 36.25%Save a rep or two in the can. 714.58%The last two working sets are taken to failure.612.50%


----------



## The doog (Aug 6, 2013)

How many sets do you guys take to failure for each muscle? You hear some people say none, some say every working set.

i personally have always just ramped up till I hit failure, then stop. So as an example 20kg x 12, 25kg x 10 as warm ups. Then 35kg x 8, 37.5kg x 8, then 40kg till failure (6-8). Move onto the next exercise and drop the warm ups.

what do you guys do?


----------



## solidcecil (Mar 8, 2012)

I rarely go to complete failure, I normally stop when I know that I would need a spot on the next rep.


----------



## aad123 (Dec 7, 2011)

I will take all sets close to failure where I know I couldn't complete the next rep. On the final set I will go to failure and possibly add some rest pause reps but not all of the time.


----------



## Ian_Montrose (Nov 13, 2007)

solidcecil said:


> I rarely go to complete failure, I normally stop when I know that I would need a spot on the next rep.


^^This

I find if I go to absolute failure on a set my capacity for further work after that is greatly reduced so I tend to stop when I think my next rep will be the fail point.


----------



## eezy1 (Dec 14, 2010)

my final set of each exercise is always to failure

sometimes ill go every working set to failure aswell


----------



## The doog (Aug 6, 2013)

solidcecil said:


> I rarely go to complete failure, I normally stop when I know that I would need a spot on the next rep.


I train alone 90% of the time so this is technically how I also do it. I keep going till I know the next rep will pin me under the bar. I'll sometimes chuck in a couple more reps after a 10 second break if I miss my rep target.


----------



## PHMG (Jun 15, 2010)

I do partials on every set until the weight barely moves so i guess every set.


----------



## The Sweeney (May 8, 2014)

I aim to get 10 reps for each set, so with a new higher weight, I might get 10, 10, 8F, 6F, then eventually I'll be able to 4 sets of 10 which tells me to up the weight again - so generally failure comes in on the 3rd or 4th set.

Failing on every set leaves me too exhausted to give other exercises a fair shout to hit the muscle from a different angle.


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

The doog said:


> Then 35kg x 8, 37.5kg x 8, then 40kg till failure (6-8). Move onto the next exercise and drop the warm ups.


I'm not really sure of the point of the 35 kg and 37.5 kg sets there? They are still kind of warm-ups for the final set. Personally I always do sets across (like The Sweeney described), and lots of people do drop sets (so for your example e.g. 40 kg x8, 37.5 kg x8, 35 kg x8), but I'm not too sure it makes sense to do it the way round that you are?

If the point is to still be warming up or acclimatising to the heavier weight, then how about something more like 35 kg x2 then 3 sets of 6-8 reps @ 40 kg?

Or if you're taking a Dorian Yates one set to failure approach then 35 kg x 2 followed by your single set to failure at a higher weight than 40 kg, since you'll be able to go higher without being worn out by the extra reps at 35 and 37.5 kg.


----------



## The doog (Aug 6, 2013)

Ultrasonic said:


> I'm not really sure of the point of the 35 kg and 37.5 kg sets there? They are still kind of warm-ups for the final set. Personally I always do sets across (like The Sweeney described), and lots of people do drop sets (so for your example e.g. 40 kg x8, 37.5 kg x8, 35 kg x8), but I'm not too sure it makes sense to do it the way round that you are?
> 
> If the point is to still be warming up or acclimatising to the heavier weight, then how about something more like 35 kg x2 then 3 sets of 6-8 reps @ 40 kg?
> 
> Or if you're taking a Dorian Yates one set to failure approach then 35 kg x 2 followed by your single set to failure at a higher weight than 40 kg, since you'll be able to go higher without being worn out by the extra reps at 35 and 37.5 kg.


Ramping up is just another way to add some volume and warm up until you hit failure on the last set. I could just go 20kg, 30kg and 40kg till failure but that is only one hard set. It worked for Yates, but if you don't have Yates genetics and aren't pushing pash failure every workout then it might not be enough.

I used to train in the above style but add in another failure set at 10% less weight like the early Yates workouts. Still do this sometimes and on compounds it feels great.

I never liked the straight set approach of 3 sets of 40kg for example. For strength I think it's ok. Work up to a heavy weight and do 10 sets of 3 etc but for size it just seemed better to ramp.


----------



## Mclovin147 (Nov 11, 2013)

Failure whenever I use DB's

Every now and then with BB if I have a spotter.

First started out as noob using 7 reps as law, never exceeded 7 reps, but slowly learnt that somedays you just have more in tank and more is needed to workout properly.

Aim for 10 reps, but exceed it if I can basically


----------



## YOUNGMUSCLE (Mar 5, 2014)

I typically do high volume with lots of exercises, usually take compound movements close to failure.


----------



## simonthepieman (Jun 11, 2012)

solidcecil said:


> I rarely go to complete failure, I normally stop when I know that I would need a spot on the next rep.


This


----------



## Kristina (Apr 12, 2014)

This is going to be a real boring answer but... sometimes. Depends what I'm aiming for on the day but I generally do a lot of strength work at lower rep ranges (sometimes max 5 and usually a lot of 3, 2 and 1s)... but there are also days I'll be combining strength with pyramids and drop sets to take me to failure - so to summarise, I probably go to failure about half the time I train, not every training day.


----------



## nWo (Mar 25, 2014)

The doog said:


> I train alone 90% of the time so this is technically how I also do it. I keep going till I know the next rep will pin me under the bar. I'll sometimes chuck in a couple more reps after a 10 second break if I miss my rep target.


This is one of the many reasons I prefer dumbbell benches to barbells, there is no getting pinned under. I don't do any exercise in which it's unsafe to go to absolute failure tbh.


----------



## The doog (Aug 6, 2013)

I said:


> This is one of the many reasons I prefer dumbbell benches to barbells' date=' there is no getting pinned under. I don't do any exercise in which it's unsafe to go to absolute failure tbh.[/quote']
> 
> No squats?


----------



## nWo (Mar 25, 2014)

The doog said:


> No squats?


Yup I do, that's what safety pins are for :thumb: You can of course use them whilst benching if you have the equipment, but I prefer dumbbell benching anyway as I've found it way more effective for building chest mass.


----------



## Pancake' (Aug 30, 2012)

Train every set to complete failure.

Go Hard/Go Home!!!


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

The doog said:


> Ramping up is just another way to add some volume and warm up until you hit failure on the last set. I could just go 20kg, 30kg and 40kg till failure but that is only one hard set. It worked for Yates, but if you don't have Yates genetics and aren't pushing pash failure every workout then it might not be enough.


Dorian Yates' training method is rather different I feel. He advocates 1 or 2 warm-up sets before a single work set to failure. To me, the 35 kg and 37.5 kg sets are too close in weight to the final set to be considered warm-ups. Only you really know how it feels of course, but if by backing off the weight on the two earlier sets you are able to lift more on the work set, then this approach would fit more with what Yates advocates. Whether or not this works optimally is a separate question of course, although clearly it it did for him!

Drop sets increase the metabolic stress an time under tension without limiting the maximum weight lifted. It therefore makes sense to me that this may produce additional hypertrophy. I find it harder to make the case for work sets that gradually increase in weight.

Just explaining where I'm coming from, obviously do whatever you find works for you!


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

Youngstarz said:


> Train every set to complete failure.
> 
> Go Hard/Go Home!!!


When doing sets across, if I go to failure on the first set this limits the number of reps I can perform on subsequent sets and therefore reduces the total workload (weight x total reps). This is why I only go to failure on the final set of an exercise. I also make progression (in weight or reps) from one workout to the next a major goal, and I find only going to failure on the final sets works better for this. When I used to reach failure on earlier sets I found my progression was much more likely to stall.


----------



## The doog (Aug 6, 2013)

Ultrasonic said:


> Dorian Yates' training method is rather different I feel. He advocates 1 or 2 warm-up sets before a single work set to failure. To me, the 35 kg and 37.5 kg sets are too close in weight to the final set to be considered warm-ups. Only you really know how it feels of course, but if by backing off the weight on the two earlier sets you are able to lift more on the work set, then this approach would fit more with what Yates advocates. Whether or not this works optimally is a separate question of course, although clearly it it did for him!


The two sets at 35 and 37.5 are still working sets but just a way of taxing the muscle while building up to one failure set. Where as if you went from 30 to 40, 30 isn't really going to be all that hard. Where as the 40 you will only just get your reps. But then if you want to hit 6-8 reps again you would need to drop the weight used to 37.5. Where as when you ramp, you may fail with 37.5 at 10 reps, then 6 reps at 40. Or you might just fail at 40 x 9 reps in which case you would increase the weight used.

i liked training the yates way but adding an extra set to failure with 10% less weight, as I had no way to push past failure like he did (no partner). I believe this is how he started before dropping the extra set and pushing beyond failure.


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

The doog said:


> The two sets at 35 and 37.5 are still working sets but just a way of taxing the muscle while building up to one failure set. Where as if you went from 30 to 40, 30 isn't really going to be all that hard. Where as the 40 you will only just get your reps. But then if you want to hit 6-8 reps again you would need to drop the weight used to 37.5. Where as when you ramp, you may fail with 37.5 at 10 reps, then 6 reps at 40. Or you might just fail at 40 x 9 reps in which case you would increase the weight used.


What do you think is the advantage of doing the lower weight work set before the heavy set, rather than after it? That's the bit I can't see at the moment. Doing the additional work set afterwards would allow for a heavier (or higher rep) first work set. Or is your argument that after the heavy work set the muscle would be so fried that any additional sets would have to be a such a low weight as to not be useful?



> i liked training the yates way but adding an extra set to failure with 10% less weight, as I had no way to push past failure like he did (no partner). I believe this is how he started before dropping the extra set and pushing beyond failure.


This is probably telling you something obvious, but depending on the exercise the other thing that Dorian advocates is cheating movements to get the weight up at the end of the set, followed by a controlled negative. This can be done without a training partner.


----------



## Pancake' (Aug 30, 2012)

Ultrasonic said:


> When doing sets across, if I go to failure on the first set this limits the number of reps I can perform on subsequent sets and therefore reduces the total workload (weight x total reps). This is why I only go to failure on the final set of an exercise. I also make progression (in weight or reps) from one workout to the next a major goal, and I find only going to failure on the final sets works better for this. When I used to reach failure on earlier sets I found my progression was much more likely to stall.


I hear you with what you say and I do believe there is some truth in what you say, however for me personally? I always try to perform more reps or apply a progressive overload principle every workout, but I will always go to the point I just cannot do another rep. The way I see it, take away numbers, sets and reps. and think what does your body really understand? to stop @ 6 reps on deadlifts, so you can get 10 reps on the next given exercise? nope. it understands failure, breakdown and exhaustion/fatigue when it's ultimately finished. depends on goals entirely though. Training primarily for strength would be an example you wouldn't go to complete failure on every set imo.


----------



## YOUNGMUSCLE (Mar 5, 2014)

High volume pump sets or progression overload are the main two ways which both work


----------



## Danjal (Aug 4, 2009)

solidcecil said:


> I rarely go to complete failure, I normally stop when I know that I would need a spot on the next rep.


I'm the same. I don't need to go to failure to know when to stop. Plus I'm a bastard and I don't have any gym friends to spot me.


----------



## simonthepieman (Jun 11, 2012)

Youngstarz said:


> Train every set to complete failure.
> 
> Go Hard/Go Home!!!


I think I've trained to complete failure on a main compound maybe twice at most this year? Am I grounded?


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

Some people get a bit confused over the idea of failure. Failure occurs at different loadig intensities for different reasons - at very heavy low reps failure is caused by depletion of immediate ATP stores... at moderate reps it's depletion of ATP from PCr stores, and at higher reps when you experience a pump/burn failure is caused by accumulation of H+ ions at the neuromuscular nerve junctions interfering with nerve signalling.

In each situation when a muscle fails not all of the fibres within the muscle have themselves failed, but some will have and some won't - concentric failure is just the point where cumulative failure of fibres has reached the point where enough fibres to move the load temporarily cannot be recruited... and those fibres didn't just all switch off on the last rep but some will have failed on previous reps. The point of concentric failure is therefore a point of cumulative failure, not the point where suddenly there is a switch from no fibres failing to all of them failing.

One of the potential drawbacks of going to concentric failure on every set is that when a muscle does fail overall it has a greater effect on the CNS to reduce subsequent power output (ammonia and serotonin release is greater), so in many cases if you did three sets to failure you might not be able to work as many fibres over the three sets in total than if you went just shy of failure on each set.

In example, if I pick a load for an exercise where I'll fail at 10 reps on the first set and then did two extra sets, normally my reps would go something close to this: set 1 = 10 reps, set 2 = 7-8 reps, set 3 = 5-7 reps... would probably manage 23-25 reps in all.

If however I stop one rep shy of failure it typically goes like this: set 1 = 9 reps, set 2 = 8-9 reps, set 3 = 7-9 reps doing 24-27 reps in all.

I can do more reps with failure if I extend the rest times between sets but that is actually a reduction of exercise intensity as it results in a lower work/time ratio.

Am not against failure training, but I can't see any reason why doing it all the time is any more beneficial than going just shy of it. Other than when messing around with periodised training leading to deliberate short phases of overreaching the only time I'm ever likely to go to failure is on the last rep of a final set where it can be fun to crank that extra rep out. I just see that as fun though, and not necessarily beneficial.


----------



## musclemate (Sep 14, 2012)

That's like saying how long does it take for a woman to achieve orgasm. It depends on the woman and how you approach the task.

The same with training... It depends on the person, which muscle group your training and the intensity of your workout. Just move the weight with a full range of movement until you can't do them, then to partial reps... Then you should be fvcked... and satisfied...if you done it right.

Again like a woman. 

Apologies to our female brethren.


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

dtlv said:


> One of the potential drawbacks of going to concentric failure on every set is that when a muscle does fail overall it has a greater effect on the CNS to reduce subsequent power output (ammonia and serotonin release is greater), so in many cases if you did three sets to failure you might not be able to work as many fibres over the three sets in total than if you went just shy of failure on each set.
> 
> In example, if I pick a load for an exercise where I'll fail at 10 reps on the first set and then did two extra sets, normally my reps would go something close to this: set 1 = 10 reps, set 2 = 7-8 reps, set 3 = 5-7 reps... would probably manage 23-25 reps in all.
> 
> If however I stop one rep shy of failure it typically goes like this: set 1 = 9 reps, set 2 = 8-9 reps, set 3 = 7-9 reps doing 24-27 reps in all.


Interesting. That fits exactly with my own experience of reduced total achievable workload if I go to failure on early sets, but I've never thought about why this may happen biochemically.


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

i go to failure on every last working set of an exercise, i stop 1-2 reps short of failure on all other sets, this helps make sure my CNS is not to battered......

i have found though through coaching and/or watching others train that some people really do not go any where near muscle failure but think they do


----------



## night06 (May 1, 2014)

why do you guys always make rocket science out of it?


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

night06 said:


> why do you guys always make rocket science out of it?


Because it might seem 'obvious' that it is best to try your hardest all the time and take every set to failure, but the truth is this is not optimal. If people just said that, you (rightly) probably wouldn't believe it, which is why IMHO it is worth trying to explain why this is the case. You can of course just ignore it though!


----------



## night06 (May 1, 2014)

just trial and error, find out what works best for YOU

everyone is different.


----------

