# Progressive Overload Vs Failure



## Breda (May 2, 2011)

It's probably already been done but which do you think is more important for hypertrophy?

Heard many people say bring the muscle to the point of failure and the jobs done and i've heard if you're getting stronger you're getting bigger... I don't know what to believe.

What do you think... Serious debate, scientific answers are welcome

Edit: fcuk it!


----------



## MRSTRONG (Apr 18, 2009)

failure for hypertrophy .


----------



## BigBarnBoy (May 7, 2011)

Id say maybe abit of both mate?

As your progressively overloading with increased weights over time then you can use increasing weights to take a muscle to failure.

I personally think variety of training types, reps, sets, weights, rest etc all leads to better gains


----------



## aaronrugby (May 14, 2011)

failure for hypertrophy, because you want to stimulate the growth mechanism then go home (mike mentzer - hit)


----------



## bdcc (Aug 15, 2011)

Failing in the gym is a short term process i.e., per set, progressive overload is not, it is a long term process.

I would struggle to find any serious strength coach who doesn't think you need to use progressive overload i.e., increasing the weight, increasing the reps, lengthening the TUT per set, increasing the volume, increasing the speed etc, you need to provide stimulus to adapt. If you are not using progressive overload you are essentially using the same stimulus on a session-to-session basis.


----------



## MRSTRONG (Apr 18, 2009)

bdcc said:


> Failing in the gym is a short term process i.e., per set, progressive overload is not, it is a long term process.
> 
> I would struggle to find any serious strength coach who doesn't think you need to use progressive overload i.e., increasing the weight, increasing the reps, lengthening the TUT per set, increasing the volume, increasing the speed etc, you need to provide stimulus to adapt. If you are not using progressive overload you are essentially using the same stimulus on a session-to-session basis.


however going to failure requires progressive overload .


----------



## Milky (Nov 30, 2008)

I never go to failure apart from my last exercise.... the rest l use the overload method..

IMO failure is to just make sure that muscle is well and truly busted..


----------



## bdcc (Aug 15, 2011)

ewen said:


> however going to failure requires progressive overload .


This isn't technically true. If you find someone who has completely stagnated on their routine they may reach failure at the same point in each workout i.e., 8th rep of 100kg bench press, with all other variables being the same.

He would be failing in his session, but not progressively overloading in the long term.


----------



## MRSTRONG (Apr 18, 2009)

bdcc said:


> This isn't technically true. If you find someone who has completely stagnated on their routine they may reach failure at the same point in each workout i.e., 8th rep of 100kg bench press, with all other variables being the same.
> 
> He would be failing in his session, but not progressively overloading in the long term.


leymans .... this week i hit failure on 8th rep on 4th set of bicep curls 72 hours later after the rest and growth period being that nutrition is spot on failure would be 9th rep or more therefor i have attained progressive over load through failure while training for hypertrophy .

training for strength requires the muscle to be progressively over loaded rather than taken to failure big difference .


----------



## bdcc (Aug 15, 2011)

In that example progressive overload is used, yes.

If someone has stagnated they can fail at the same point on each set and therefore are failing but not overloading progressively, hence the latter being much more important.

In my first post I was pointing out that failure does not necessarily require progressive overload.


----------



## MRSTRONG (Apr 18, 2009)

bdcc said:


> In that example progressive overload is used, yes.
> 
> If someone has stagnated they can fail at the same point on each set and therefore are failing but not overloading progressively, hence the latter being much more important.
> 
> In my first post I was pointing out that failure does not necessarily require progressive overload.


i get everything your saying but you went on about strength ... the op was about hypertrophy


----------



## bdcc (Aug 15, 2011)

Needed for both.


----------



## Breda (May 2, 2011)

The op has now been edited... Carry on!!


----------



## Dirk McQuickly (Dec 29, 2010)

Breda said:


> The op has now been edited... Carry on!!


I liked it better before


----------



## Breda (May 2, 2011)

The people have spoken (chilli) op has reverted back to the op... If strenght should be included just say so.... Carry on!


----------



## Dirk McQuickly (Dec 29, 2010)

for what it's worth, I always thought it was progressive resistance for strength and failure for hypertrophy.


----------



## Wevans2303 (Feb 18, 2010)

Personally I like working comfortably within my max for a set number of repetitions, I normally stop 1 rep short of failure.

I'm a believer in overloading over time and working within yourself is the easiest way to do it. I also dislike leaving a whole week between training a muscle.

If you eat to gain size and successfully overload each week for a year, your gunna be sh!t strong a lot bigger, as for plateauing I have only hit a wall when I have been training to failure (even one set) and have yet to stall training to the rep before failure.


----------



## Barker (Oct 1, 2009)

You only have to look at the guys doing worlds strongest man to realize both kinds of training will put decent size on you.


----------



## Driven Sports (Jul 15, 2011)

There isn't actually that much research indicating that failure training is necessary for growth at all. In fact it is quite thin on the ground. There is, however, a lot for mechanical loading (i.e. progressive overload) and metabolic stress.


----------



## Wardy211436114751 (Jan 24, 2011)

Are we talking about compound movements here?

I think there are variables such as how long you have been training for, whether you are trying to bulk or not etc


----------



## Thunderstruck (Sep 20, 2010)

stimulate don't annihilate........


----------



## Hayesy (Aug 15, 2011)

well i like a muxture and it seems to be doing well for me at the moment.

drop sets are one one imo for anything


----------



## need2bodybuild (May 11, 2011)

I personally have noticed that if i've gone to failure on an exercise, say bench for example and i've not been able to re-rack the weight and had to leave it on the safety bars, i stall and am not any stronger a week later.

I've noticed when using progressive overload i'm more likely to keep getting stronger week on week. I only use failure on the last week before a deload now.


----------



## Brownz (Mar 31, 2011)

Breda said:


> It's probably already been done but which do you think is more important for hypertrophy?
> 
> Heard many people say bring the muscle to the point of failure and the jobs done and i've heard if you're getting stronger you're getting bigger... I don't know what to believe.
> 
> ...


In my opinion & experience always push to failure mate u want the actin and myosin fillaments to rip like **** and repair themselves to get bigger (hypertrophy) I always use progressive overload (12reps 30kg 8reps 35kg 6reps 40kg) and they have both not failed me but trust me people say its 90% diet 10% training mate slap them across the face then tell the police Brownz said to do it and if theres a gbh lawsuit in a crown court im showing up with 10 gypsys and a bag of swans to throw at them it is *100% DIET 100% TRAINING* just to get that in your head :smartass:


----------



## Dirk McQuickly (Dec 29, 2010)

Brownz said:


> In my opinion & experience always push to failure mate u want the actin and myosin fillaments to rip like **** and repair themselves to get bigger (hypertrophy) I always use progressive overload (12reps 30kg 8reps 35kg 6reps 40kg) and they have both not failed me but trust me people say its 90% diet 10% training mate slap them across the face then tell the police Brownz said to do it and if theres a gbh lawsuit in a crown court im showing up with 10 gypsys and a bag of swans to throw at them it is *100% DIET 100% TRAINING* just to get that in your head :smartass:


but that makes 200%


----------



## MRSTRONG (Apr 18, 2009)

i train for strength in my eyes progressive overload is the only way to train for strength .


----------



## pnut82 (Sep 21, 2011)

I try and incorporate both, I'm sure I read somewhere a while back that constantly training to failure will have a negative affect on muscles, making it harder to push through sets as physically and mentally you are used to failing so give up quicker. This makes sense to me but I like to keep mixing it up anyway!!!


----------



## Breda (May 2, 2011)

When I say failure I mean to the point where you start to lose form and recruit other muscles to help move the weight


----------



## MRSTRONG (Apr 18, 2009)

Breda said:


> When I say failure I mean to the point where you start to lose form and recruit other muscles to help move the weight


thats not failure , true muscular failure is got through forced reps and negatives .


----------



## hackskii (Jul 27, 2003)

It's all about an adaptive response to stimulation.

I train to failure so I can get in and out of the gym.

If at the end of some period of time I am no stronger, I change exercises, or go from bar to dumbbell, or change rep ranges, or frequency, or what ever.

Progressive overload is nice, and let's face it, the strongest guys in the gym are the biggest as well.

Volume, frequency, and intensity all are in the mix for training, as long as you are not over training, or under training you will gain.

It's all about an adaptive response to the stimulus given to the body.

Some guys like volume, some like intensity, but you can do both.

Idea really is to offer enough stimulation for an adaptive response, then let the body rest to grow.

Much stimulation = more rest

Little stimulation = less rest

finding out just what suits you best for growth, stick with that.


----------



## Breda (May 2, 2011)

Ok then so wouldnt my thought of what failure is and progressive overload go hand in hand because in order to overload you would have had to have failed previously. Ie 6 reps one session then 7 or 8 the next if you get me


----------



## eezy1 (Dec 14, 2010)

how can u not train to failure? i always push out as many reps as i can. 12-15 being my cut off point but final set just goin til i cant do another rep


----------



## hackskii (Jul 27, 2003)

ewen said:


> thats not failure , true muscular failure is got through forced reps and negatives .


Well, yes and no.

Once you warm up and get used to the heavier weight without going to exhaustion/failure, you can fail without negatives or drop sets.


----------



## MRSTRONG (Apr 18, 2009)

hackskii said:


> Well, yes and no.
> 
> Once you warm up and get used to the heavier weight without going to exhaustion/failure, you can fail without negatives or drop sets.


lol scott

again yes and no ...the negative will always be stronger than the positive


----------



## MRSTRONG (Apr 18, 2009)

Breda said:


> Ok then so wouldnt my thought of what failure is and progressive overload go hand in hand because in order to overload you would have had to have failed previously. Ie 6 reps one session then 7 or 8 the next if you get me


that was exactly my point before m8 .


----------



## hackskii (Jul 27, 2003)

If you set your rep range to what you are training at like lets say 8 to 12 reps, and you do a lift after you are warmed up, failure can come with your last rep.

Doing negatives and force reps require a spotter, and going to failure you dont need a spotter.

Failure is when you can not do another rep, adding in negatives or drop sets tap past failure.

Now granted, low carb dieting will effect failure do to ATP stores, but in the end it is still failure.


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

Assuming diet contains enough nutrients for growth, all that matters IMO is each workout you stimulate the muscle and you do this repeatedly over time. The important aspect of stimulating to force an adaption is that each exercise reaches a point of extreme difficulty - not necessarily failure. Adaptation is stimulated long before failure kicks in, and this should be obvious to most people who train. If failure was required to cause hypertrophy adaptation then the most efficient route to mass would be trying to lift a weight that you can't even get a single rep on, just move a little bit and then fail before the rep is completed.

The most organised route to continual stimulation is a straight progessive overload approach, but its not the only route - take the muscle to a point of failure or extreme effort each workout and it will adapt each session, even if each session you use different weights/rep schemes to achieve a point of muscular difficulty.

Studies seem to suggest anyway that periodised training results in faster overall strength gain than straight progressive overload, and certainly this is the way most olympic lifters and powerlifters train. As for whether periodised training is also best for hypertrophy, personally I think it's at least as good and might well be better longer term. The main issue with non periodised progressive overload is that eventually the body, as part of its adaptation, almost develops a degree of insensitivity to the exercise (often called a 'plateau') and after a while the adaptive response gets smaller and smaller unless something is changed other than simply a slight progressive increase in loading. Keep the exercise more varied than a simple small progressive increase in loading and plateauing is held at bay much more efficiently.


----------



## Breda (May 2, 2011)

ewen:2511644 said:


> that was exactly my point before m8 .


Gotcha!

Let me throw another scenario out there... You've reached the end of your last set but you've got more in the tank, do you keep goin until you fail, do you stop and increase weight next time or do you do both... What do you think would be more beneficial?


----------



## MRSTRONG (Apr 18, 2009)

you learn for next time to up the weight until you hit the desired effect , doing not enough is the same as doing too much its finding the middle ground , however that middle ground is different for us all ..


----------



## hackskii (Jul 27, 2003)

Breda said:


> Gotcha!
> 
> Let me throw another scenario out there... You've reached the end of your last set but you've got more in the tank, do you keep goin until you fail, do you stop and increase weight next time or do you do both... What do you think would be more beneficial?


Both, stopping a bit early and moving the progression later down the road might even allow for more room for strength.

Its something like this.

You buy a pig, you pick it up every day, and lets say after a year it is 100 pounds, and you pick it up every day.

After 2 years it is 200 pounds, you pick it up every day.

After 3 years it is 300 pounds and you still pick up the pig.

Now if the pig got to 300 pounds in 6 months you might not be able to pick it up.

Your adaptive response was exceeded by your bodies ability to recover.


----------



## MRSTRONG (Apr 18, 2009)

Dtlv74 said:


> Assuming diet contains enough nutrients for growth, all that matters IMO is each workout you stimulate the muscle and you do this repeatedly over time. The important aspect of stimulating to force an adaption is that each exercise reaches a point of extreme difficulty - not necessarily failure. Adaptation is stimulated long before failure kicks in, and this should be obvious to most people who train. If failure was required to cause hypertrophy adaptation then the most efficient route to mass would be trying to lift a weight that you can't even get a single rep on, just move a little bit and then fail before the rep is completed.
> 
> The most organised route to continual stimulation is a straight progessive overload approach, but its not the only route - take the muscle to a point of failure or extreme effort each workout and it will adapt each session, even if each session you use different weights/rep schemes to achieve a point of muscular difficulty.
> 
> Studies seem to suggest anyway that periodised training results in faster overall strength gain than straight progressive overload, and certainly this is the way most olympic lifters and powerlifters train. As for whether periodised training is also best for hypertrophy, personally I think it's at least as good and might well be better longer term. The main issue with non periodised progressive overload is that eventually the body, as part of its adaptation, almost develops a degree of insensitivity to the exercise (often called a 'plateau') and after a while the adaptive response gets smaller and smaller unless something is changed other than simply a slight progressive increase in loading. Keep the exercise more varied than a simple small progressive increase in loading and plateauing is held at bay much more efficiently.


very good post .

off season german powerlifters used GVT to push the boundaries of the plateau (different topic i know) however its the same principle as periodised training .

i use both strength training and to failure also high rep low weight to build both types of fibers .


----------



## Breda (May 2, 2011)

hackskii:2511696 said:


> Both, stopping a bit early and moving the progression later down the road might even allow for more room for strength.
> 
> Its something like this.
> 
> ...


Pig analogies now lol... What next?

That makes perfect sense man


----------



## hackskii (Jul 27, 2003)

Breda said:


> Pig analogies now lol... What next?
> 
> That makes perfect sense man


I could not think of another analogy, I could have used something different but the end would be the same:lol:

My wife used to pick up your daughter when she was heavy, to the point at one point she could hold our daughter longer than me.

I just thought she had been doing it for so long she was stronger than me in that, and I do train.

Better?


----------



## Breda (May 2, 2011)

hackskii:2511745 said:


> I could not think of another analogy, I could have used something different but the end would be the same:lol:
> 
> My wife used to pick up your daughter when she was heavy, to the point at one point she could hold our daughter longer than me.
> 
> ...


Pigs... Kids.... It's all the same to me mate :whistling:

Just admit your wife is stronger than you, I'll think no less of you... Well maybe a little bit


----------



## hackskii (Jul 27, 2003)

Breda said:


> Pigs... Kids.... It's all the same to me mate :whistling:
> 
> Just admit your wife is stronger than you, I'll think no less of you... Well maybe a little bit


She is pretty strong for how small she is.

I would get the worst bicep pump of a lifetime and would have to drop her to the ground and switch sides.

Its bad technique too:lol:


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

hackskii said:


> I could not think of another analogy, I could have used something different but the end would be the same:lol:
> 
> My wife used to pick up your daughter when she was heavy, to the point at one point she could hold our daughter longer than me.
> 
> ...


lol, with the original analogy of the pig you are following the ancient greek wise geeks in their wisdom my friend... I think it was a guy called Milo of Kroton who was a legendary strongman and wrestler in ancient greece, and its said he picked up a baby bull everyday until it was fully grown and with it he gradually adapted to and developed the strength needed as he went.


----------



## hackskii (Jul 27, 2003)

Dtlv74 said:


> lol, with the original analogy of the pig you are following the ancient greek wise geeks in their wisdom my friend... I think it was a guy called Milo of Kroton who was a legendary strongman and wrestler in ancient greece, and its said he picked up a baby bull everyday until it was fully grown and with it he gradually adapted to and developed the strength needed as he went.


Dammit, I know I heard that before.

Yes, that is the one, I just remembered it.

I remember hearing the pig one probably about 30 years ago.

And the one with the sand in the hand that makes callouses as an adaptive response.

Nothing new under the sun.


----------



## martin brown (Dec 31, 2008)

eezy1 said:


> how can u not train to failure? i always push out as many reps as i can. 12-15 being my cut off point but final set just goin til i cant do another rep


I have tried not to fail a rep for the last 5 years! But I must admit I have failed the odd one - probably less than 1%.

Failure isn't necessary for growth that's for sure. There's also a big difference between training until you cant get another rep - and training to/past failure. Most of the people I see day in day out training to failure and then getting their bro to help them with another 4 reps don't grow


----------



## Driven Sports (Jul 15, 2011)

Thunderstruck said:


> stimulate don't annihilate........
> 
> View attachment 63686


http://www.getds.com/20110301174/Blog/stimulate-dont-annihilate


----------



## Driven Sports (Jul 15, 2011)

Brownz said:


> In my opinion & experience always push to failure mate u want the actin and myosin fillaments to rip like **** and repair themselves to get bigger (hypertrophy) I always use progressive overload *(12reps 30kg 8reps 35kg 6reps 40kg)* and they have both not failed me but trust me people say its 90% diet 10% training mate slap them across the face then tell the police Brownz said to do it and if theres a gbh lawsuit in a crown court im showing up with 10 gypsys and a bag of swans to throw at them it is *100% DIET 100% TRAINING* just to get that in your head :smartass:


If you're referring to a single workout here then I think you are confusing "pyramiding" with progressive overload. Progressive overload is the act of incrementing weight/reps over many workouts, not a single workout.

As for causing the microtrauma to muscle fibers, while in theory it seems sound, in evolutionary terms it makes little sense that muscle damage has to be a requisite for remodelling and strengthening. As Dtlv74 said in his post above, it is about stimulation. Stimulation does not require damage.


----------



## Breda (May 2, 2011)

Good read mate thanks for that


----------



## richgearguy (Jun 23, 2011)

Interesting thread. I find the whole issue of intensity, failure, stimulation, etc, key to muscle building. But surely 'stimulation' needs to be defined more precisely, otherwise there will be those who will think muscle building can be achieved as described here: :scared:

http://www.toneamatic.com/


----------



## Driven Sports (Jul 15, 2011)

richgearguy said:


> Interesting thread. I find the whole issue of intensity, failure, stimulation, etc, key to muscle building. But surely 'stimulation' needs to be defined more precisely, otherwise there will be those who will think muscle building can be achieved as described here: :scared:
> 
> http://www.toneamatic.com/


I recently wrote about the ideal rest interval betwee sets in a three-part series (links below). Next up is a series about frequency, volume and intensity. I hope you all find them insightful.

http://www.getds.com/20110922297/Blog/the-hustle-between-sets-part-1-muscle-fuel

http://www.getds.com/20110923298/Blog/the-hustle-between-sets-part-two-metabolic-stress-and-hypoxia

http://www.getds.com/20110924299/Blog/the-hustle-between-sets-part-three-what-is-best


----------



## Breda (May 2, 2011)

Will be reading through those later :beer:


----------



## bdcc (Aug 15, 2011)

Driven Sports said:


> *If you're referring to a single workout here then I think you are confusing "pyramiding" with progressive overload. Progressive overload is the act of incrementing weight/reps over many workouts, not a single workout.*
> 
> *
> *
> ...


The debate on whether failure is necessary for growth can happily go on and on but I don't think anyone argues against the fact progressive overload is needed. It seems that some people are confusing what progressive overload is. I am glad you pointed this out.

Progressive overload and failure don't have to be mutually exclusive, maybe it is confusing people as it is posed like a one or other scenario.



richgearguy said:


> Interesting thread. I find the whole issue of intensity, failure, stimulation, etc, key to muscle building. But surely 'stimulation' needs to be defined more precisely, otherwise there will be those who will think muscle building can be achieved as described here: :scared:
> 
> http://www.toneamatic.com/


I agree with this 100%. Saying "stimulate, don't annihilate" means nothing because it doesn't qualify anything. Some people have used it in this thread when debating whether someone should go to failure. Does this mean that for them, straining on a bicep curl is ok but if they try again and fail they have moved from stimulation to annihilation?

It doesn't technically mean anything and people derive their own conclusions from it.

My own view on things is that, as the DS article states, you have to progress from one session to the next. If someone fails on their last set of every workout but still progresses from session to session at an adequate rate then good for them. If other people stop short of failure and make progress then that is fine as well. There are so many aspects on recovery that could influence the outcome on whether failure is necessary it isn't going to be a clear answer.


----------



## Wardy211436114751 (Jan 24, 2011)

Dtlv74 said:


> Assuming diet contains enough nutrients for growth, all that matters IMO is each workout you stimulate the muscle and you do this repeatedly over time. The important aspect of stimulating to force an adaption is that each exercise reaches a point of extreme difficulty - not necessarily failure. Adaptation is stimulated long before failure kicks in, and this should be obvious to most people who train. If failure was required to cause hypertrophy adaptation then the most efficient route to mass would be trying to lift a weight that you can't even get a single rep on, just move a little bit and then fail before the rep is completed.
> 
> The most organised route to continual stimulation is a straight progessive overload approach, but its not the only route - take the muscle to a point of failure or extreme effort each workout and it will adapt each session, even if each session you use different weights/rep schemes to achieve a point of muscular difficulty.
> 
> Studies seem to suggest anyway that periodised training results in faster overall strength gain than straight progressive overload, and certainly this is the way most olympic lifters and powerlifters train. As for whether periodised training is also best for hypertrophy, personally I think it's at least as good and might well be better longer term. The main issue with non periodised progressive overload is that eventually the body, as part of its adaptation, almost develops a degree of insensitivity to the exercise (often called a 'plateau') and after a while the adaptive response gets smaller and smaller unless something is changed other than simply a slight progressive increase in loading. Keep the exercise more varied than a simple small progressive increase in loading and plateauing is held at bay much more efficiently.


Great analysis!

Thats what I referred to about length of time training etc being a factor as early on you can achieve greater results I believe by just constantly progressive overloading but once your body has started to adapt and plateau its time to switch it up to periodization I guess.


----------



## hackskii (Jul 27, 2003)

martin brown said:


> I have tried not to fail a rep for the last 5 years! But I must admit I have failed the odd one - probably less than 1%.
> 
> Failure isn't necessary for growth that's for sure. There's also a big difference between training until you cant get another rep - and training to/past failure. Most of the people I see day in day out training to failure and then getting their bro to help them with another 4 reps don't grow


I remember guys in the gym that get a spot every single set, and once you spot them you now are their own spotter.

I hate that, it upsets me to no end guys go too heavy and I have to lift the weight off of them.

One guy I told to just use a weight he could handle and leave me alone, he got upset but hell, it would ruin my workout and then I went as far to try to avoid him.


----------



## martin brown (Dec 31, 2008)

hackskii said:


> I remember guys in the gym that get a spot every single set, and once you spot them you now are their own spotter.
> 
> I hate that, it upsets me to no end guys go too heavy and I have to lift the weight off of them.
> 
> One guy I told to just use a weight he could handle and leave me alone, he got upset but hell, it would ruin my workout and then I went as far to try to avoid him.


It's even more annoying when you lift the weight off them and they, red faced, boldy state "just three more!".

That's normally when I walk away....


----------



## hackskii (Jul 27, 2003)

martin brown said:


> It's even more annoying when you lift the weight off them and they, red faced, boldy state "just three more!".
> 
> That's normally when I walk away....


But on a good note, it will help you with rack pulls:lol:


----------



## richgearguy (Jun 23, 2011)

I've been thinking about this topic a bit more. In the 11 months or so that I've been back weight training, my forearms have come along nicely, and have certainly kept up with other muscle groups. The thing is, I never work my forearms directly, and certainly not to failure. But the weights of dumbbells and barbells that I use have increased fairly steadily. So in the case of forearm development it would seem failure is not that important for increases in size and strength.


----------



## hackskii (Jul 27, 2003)

richgearguy said:


> I've been thinking about this topic a bit more. In the 11 months or so that I've been back weight training, my forearms have come along nicely, and have certainly kept up with other muscle groups. The thing is, I never work my forearms directly, and certainly not to failure. But the weights of dumbbells and barbells that I use have increased fairly steadily. So in the case of forearm development it would seem failure is not that important for increases in size and strength.


That and you probably are genetically gifted to have big forearms, my calves are huge yet I have only worked them a couple of times in the last 30 years.


----------



## musio (Jan 25, 2008)

This isan interesting read from Lyle McDonald on this subject..

http://staff.washington.edu/griffin/failure.txt

EDIT a 4 part article series on this subject which in essence says you shouldn't train to failure.

http://jasonferruggia.com/training-to-failure-part-1/

http://jasonferruggia.com/training-to-failure-part-2-lessons-from-the-old-school/

http://jasonferruggia.com/training-to-failure-part-3-the-answers-become-clear/

http://jasonferruggia.com/training-to-failure-part-4-beginners-athletes-the-training-environment/


----------



## musio (Jan 25, 2008)

And...some more good reading

http://community.myprotein.com/content/training-failure-jamie-bolton-798/


----------



## Driven Sports (Jul 15, 2011)

hackskii said:


> That and you probably are genetically gifted to have big forearms, my calves are huge yet I have only worked them a couple of times in the last 30 years.


In all my experience I have unfortunately come to terms with what is basically the calf genetic lottery. There are some guys have amazing calves and never train them, or train them half-****d. There are some guys with amazing calves that train them hard and end up with world-class calves. What I have realised, however, is that those of us that started with ****ty calves can at best make them "decent". In other words, if you have ****ty calves now you'll never have "great" or "amazing" calves despite long-term regular weight training. Thus, the calf genetic lottery.


----------



## hackskii (Jul 27, 2003)

Driven Sports said:


> In all my experience I have unfortunately come to terms with what is basically the calf genetic lottery. There are some guys have amazing calves and never train them, or train them half-****d. There are some guys with amazing calves that train them hard and end up with world-class calves. What I have realised, however, is that those of us that started with ****ty calves can at best make them "decent". In other words, if you have ****ty calves now you'll never have "great" or "amazing" calves despite long-term regular weight training. Thus, the calf genetic lottery.


Totally, look at black men, they have high calves, but for some reason this is better for sprinting, and jumping.


----------



## Bamse (Feb 5, 2011)

I think this question is largely academic: extremely few people actually do go all the way to failure. 99% of us just go to what we think is failure, which is when the muscle more or less shuts down. (There is a biomechanical explanation of this, but I hope someone else can provide it...)


----------



## Breda (May 2, 2011)

hackskii:2527701 said:


> Totally, look at black men, they have high calves, but for some reason this is better for sprinting, and jumping.


Agree with you both I have been cursed with black man's calves and they will never be "decent", they are ridiculously high but I can run fast and jump relatively high... I didn't win the calf genetic lottery


----------



## hackskii (Jul 27, 2003)

Breda said:


> Agree with you both I have been cursed with black man's calves and they will never be "decent", they are ridiculously high but I can run fast and jump relatively high... I didn't win the calf genetic lottery


I got massive calves, yet I cant jump for nothing.

I remember I was walking along in short pants and some black guy asked me how I got my calves so big.

I told him I never worked them and they just are that way.

On cycle they pump up so bad I cant even walk.


----------



## Breda (May 2, 2011)

hackskii:2528055 said:


> I got massive calves, yet I cant jump for nothing.
> 
> I remember I was walking along in short pants and some black guy asked me how I got my calves so big.
> 
> ...


I'm jealous mate.

Legs in general is something that black fellas aren't gifted with apart from the odd few. We can get our quads and hams up to a very good level but we have to put the work in, calves on the other hand... Well....


----------



## hackskii (Jul 27, 2003)

Awe mate, don't be jealous, I have a small Willie:lol:


----------



## Mr_Morocco (May 28, 2011)

my legs are natty big especially my quads, starting training them properly only for the last few months and now the jeans i used to wear are tight as f*ck, its not always a gift


----------



## GorillaGrips.co (Oct 4, 2011)

You can Overload a number of times in a workout, you can only go to failure once in a workout. Might want to look at Tabata training? Depends whether you want; go purley cosmetic hypertrophy or get some muscle that you can really use and adapt it to high blood lacatate levels. Either way, food stuff, alcohol consumption will have massive bearing on growth and repair. SOrry, not sure I've answered the question but maybe food for thought.

Good luck.

Russell


----------



## Glassback (Jun 18, 2010)

hackskii said:


> Awe mate, don't be jealous, I have a small Willie:lol:


Sat in bed reading the intelligent posts before I nod off and saw this, I actually wee'd a little. Top drawer that Hack.


----------



## richgearguy (Jun 23, 2011)

What's the best workout for a small willie, overload or failure?


----------



## hackskii (Jul 27, 2003)

Glassback said:


> Sat in bed reading the intelligent posts before I nod off and saw this, I actually wee'd a little. Top drawer that Hack.


Well, having a small Willie has it's advantages you know.

It makes my waist look bigger.

I mean.

Oops

Well, that didn't go over well.

Nothing to see here, move along.



richgearguy said:


> What's the best workout for a small willie, overload or failure?


Stretching/pulling exercises, works a charm.


----------



## Dirk McQuickly (Dec 29, 2010)

^^ don't use chalk.


----------

