# Is Failure Necessary For Hypertrophy?



## Natural1

This article is not in anyway an "anti-failure" message, however I will be looking at the subject of "training to failure" subjectively, and logically.

It's the belief of some that taking a set to complete and utter momentary muscular failure (MMF) is a requirement to stimulate a muscle to hypertrophy. Some are of the opinion that at MMF there is some kind of "trigger" or "switch" that gets flipped which stimulates muscular hypertrophy.

First of lets define the three types of muscular failure.

1/ *Concentric failure.*

This is when the muscle is no longer able to move the weight in the concentric (positive) portion of the lift.

2/ *Static failure.*

This is when the muscle is no longer able to hold the weight in a static (no movement) position.

3/ *Eccentric failure.*

This is absolute failure, the muscle is now so fatigued that it's unable to even perform the eccentric (negative) portion of the lift. The muscle is now incapable of lowering the load under control.

For the most part when the term "failure" is used it's usually referring to concentric failure. And it's this type of failure that I willl be discussing in this article.

Is MMF necessary or even optimal for everyone to hypertrophy?

Muscle tissue doesn't "know failure". Muscle doesn't know or understand "a set"

It's only us that realize failure and plan out bio-mechanical work (muscle contractions) into organized structures called "sets and reps"

All muscle tissue is capable of is:

1/ Generating force through bio-mechanical work.

2/ Tension induced micro trauma.

2/ Work induced metabolic fatigue.

It doesn't matter if a lifter performs one set to MMF or multi sets not to failure, so long there is enough bio-mechanical work of the 2a - 2x muscle fiber types to cause enough micro trauma and metabolic fatigue for sarcoplasmic hypertrophy, then there will be increase in both size and strength.

Failure in itself is merely a fatige based event, not a stimulus for hypertrophy, it simply means that within that set you've reached the point of fatigue where the muscle is no longer able to generate force greater than that of the load on the bar.

Some argue that at the point of MMF, you've done all you can to stimulate adaption, this isn't entirely accurate, lighten the load, rest/pause 20 seconds or allow someone to spot you, and you'll get a few more reps. You could even go beyond concentric failure and hit static and/or eccentric failure. These techniques allows you to perform even more bio-mechanical work than simply stopping at MMF, so clearly MMF is not the point where you have done all you can possibly can within a single set.

When training to MMF and/or using set extending techniques like the ones mentioned above, you work your central nervous system (CNS) very hard. You're are essentially "redlining" your CNS which for the inexperienced can often result in over-training, neural fatigue and some may find that progress comes to a quick and abrupt halt.

Regardless of what some believe there is no "magic switch" that triggers at MMF, and failure is merely an event due to fatigue and not in itself a stimulus for hypertrophy, therefore it makes sense for beginners and some intermediate lifters to induce more bio-mechanical work, fatigue and micro trauma through the use of a multiple set approach while staying 1-2 reps shy of failure. This will provide a high muscular work to CNS fatigue ratio.

Now I am in no way saying that MMF should always be avoided, far from it! For some, low volume to failure training works great. These are usually advanced lifters that have built up the CNS capacity to be able to generate great intensity and are able to recover, but even then such training is usually periodized and deloads used to allow accumulated fatigue to dissipate.

MMF does have it's benefit. It's a very effective tool for enhancing CNS output due to the fact that at MMF, similar to a 1 rep max, you are exerting maximum available force. So failure training enhances neural efficiency and strength. This is one of the reasons that very low volume/high intensity programs work so well for those with the ability to generate a lot of neural effort, these are usually advanced and experienced lifters.

The point here is that MMF in itself is not the stimulus or even a requirement for hypertrophy. So what is?

I'd like to repeat/highlight an important point:

So long there is enough bio-mechanical work of the 2a-2x muscle fiber types to cause enough micro trauma, and metabolic fatigue to produce sarcoplasmic hypertrophy, then there will be an increase in both size and strength provided that volume, intensity and frequency are effectively managed.

I specifically mention the 2a-2x fiber types as these are the muscle fiber types that we use to move moderate to heavy loads.

An increase in bio-mechanical work is achieved by either an increase in volume with the same load, an increase in load with the same volume, a combination of both, or even increasing work output per unit of time (work density). These equal THE answer for the stimulus of continued muscular hypertrophy - Simple and basic progression!

Some claim that intensity rather than workload is responsible for hypertrophy, this is inaccurate, the only reason that any program works be it high volume or low volume/high intensity is because there must be some workload, failure can be avoided and progression made, however no workload equals no progression.

Summary.

1/ Failure in itself is an event not a hypertrophy stimulus.

2/ Muscle doesn't know failure, MMF is simply a fatigued based termination to a set.

3/ Failure increases neural strength and efficiency.

5/ Keep progressing and increasing workload and/or work density.

There are many ways to manipulate bio-mechanical work using various set and rep schemes which will likely better suit beginners to intermediate lifters. Also, various set and rep schemes can have an influence on the type of hypertrophy that occurs. I shall write some information on this soon.


----------



## scottacho

great read mate + rep


----------



## Guest

Good post.

However it does over look the benefits of going to failure to a great extent.

The final rep is the rep that requires 100% effort so of course training to failure is superior, however, the point that i agree with is you have to cycle such training and certaintly not take every set to failure and/or beyond.


----------



## Guest

A skeletal muscle has three levels of strength. There is a positive level,which is the raising of the weight and the weakest of the three levels; thereis a static strength, which allows us to hold a weight at some given point inthe range of motion and is the middle strength level; and there is the negativelevel, which is the strongest and allows us to lower more weight than we can raise or hold in a static position.

In order to induce maximum growth stimulation in the muscles you

must train them as hard as possible. This can only happen when the muscles

are trained to a point of total failure by exhausting all three strength levels

in a given set. Carrying a set to a point where you can no longer complete

another positive rep is not training to total failure.

Once you've exhausted your ability to raise a weight, you still have

considerable strength left in your negative level. Unless you were to continue

after having exhausted your positive level, by performing negative reps till

failure, you will not achieve maximum growth stimulation.

Choose a weight for your exercises that allows you to perform

approximately six strict positive reps. Once you reach the point where you

couldn't possibly do another positive rep, have someone assist you in

performing two forced reps. If you haven't got a training partner, you can

"cheat" two additional reps in some exercises. After the two forced reps,

have your partner lift the weight into the top contracted position for you to lower. The first few negative reps will be easy, but as soon as you find

yourself losing control of the downward movement of the weight, terminate the set, rather than risking serious injury. Those who train alone will find it

extremely difficult to perform negative reps at the end of regular positive sets. These people should train as hard as possible by going to a point of

positive failure and including cheat reps whenever possible.

Do not include these negative reps every workout. Since they raise the intensity of effort and impose great stress on your body, your chances of

overtraining are greater. You might train your muscles no more than once a week with the inclusion of these negative reps.


----------



## Guest

well that copy and paste did not go to plan 

words of the late great Big Mike M


----------



## Natural1

romper stomper said:


> well that copy and paste did not go to plan
> 
> words of the late great Big Mike M


Who was wrong about some things.


----------



## Guest

Natural1 said:


> Who was wrong about some things.


 Overall frequency and diet, nothing else.


----------



## Xtrainer

He was a bit of a genius if you ask me. Although I can definitely train more frequently than he recommends and still feel rested.


----------



## Guest

Xtrainer said:


> He was a bit of a genius if you ask me. Although I can definitely train more frequently than he recommends and still feel rested.


 Mike had his flaws namely becoming a amphetamine addict which made him close minded. His theorys are so fvcking solid its not even funny ESPECIALLY for the natural trainer or drug assisted trainer when he is off gear. Minimal gym time yet maximum stimulation. Take what he taught, take info from the DC method and even from the HST method and then most importantly learn your own body and apply as needed. 

Volume training not to failure is great for contest prep this is what i am doing now. If i took my sets mainly to failure i couldnt train every day and do two cardio sessions on top of school work!


----------



## Guest

dutch_scott said:


> mentzer and yates didnt train to failure like they said, only maybe dante (doggcrap) as he does x reps, negd and iso's till total failure,
> 
> yates ive asked and he said no he did volume with last set to positive failure.
> 
> it all works,
> 
> great read tho


 Thats not what Yates did on Blood n Guts he trained 1-2 reps beyond positive failure.

Depends what you call failure, reaching absalute failure in even the negative portion is madness if done more frequently than lets say every 6 weeks. I have experimented intensively with failure in the past year mainly on my training partner as his variables are easy to control, too much failure training and NO progress is made EVER! Cycling the various possibilities for failure gives amazing gains with the least amount of training time ie in the offseason some of our work outs would be less than 20 minutes.

DC does not reach complete failure only complete positive failure including resting between mini sets which is actually similar to fst-7 sets only done with massive weights in a different way the rest period is the same.

That said i am not arguing with you as i agree with what your saying:lol: i find this subject very interesting and i think i really have a solid grasp for most lifters on how often to reach failure (especially natural trainers as i have mainly trained drug free people). Now the very high rep training like TT does is new to me and a whole new challange to learn, which also works very well. I had in the bast done the bio style work outs with 50 rep sets ext but after reading TT training i have started doing several sets with this many reps but less overall intensitity and weight and it does work great for the enhanced athlete.


----------



## Tall

Con said:


> Good post.
> 
> However it does over look the benefits of going to failure to a great extent.
> 
> The final rep is the rep that requires 100% effort so of course training to failure is superior, however, the point that i agree with is you have to cycle such training and certaintly not take every set to failure and/or beyond.


1 rep from failure is enough, the key is the strain or level of effort put into the last rep so you don't fail.


----------



## Guest

dutch_scott said:


> yates i thought like bent rows didnt even enduce failure, more like fatigue...
> 
> his style and wat he preached like on leg press, hacks etc never added up
> 
> dc's adved methods, are like so:
> 
> posotive failure then as any negs as it takes for neg failure, then a drop set, then iso's, so i call this as close to total failure, i will email him as i did work some stuff he gave me years ago.
> 
> its called the ot failure training, trevor smith rip did it, so did matt duval, lots of strip sets, isos, negs, and forced reps where even the neg has to be helped
> 
> wat is the tt 50 rep stuff? i feel dumb cos i see him a few times a week never asked?


 Yeah not beyond failure on moves like bent rows as this is dangerous but yes on incline bench ext.

TT basically gave me a high rep calve routine using several sets of 50 but i have also read about how he doesnt count reps and goes with higher reps at times. I have been doing it and it works well its completely different to normal training.



Tall said:


> 1 rep from failure is enough, the key is the strain or level of effort put into the last rep so you don't fail.


 Disagree There are many ways to succesfully train, i made some great gains i went through a plateau when i did Trevor Smith BFT training (failure then up to 8 forced reps drop reach normal failure then up to 8 forced reps then again failure and up to 8 forced reps in one set. The set takes up to 5 minutes and you only do 1-2 working sets per body part once per week)


----------



## Guest

dutch_scott said:


> ive done the bft which i wrongly sited as oft... was good but, i lost size on arms...


 Completely not needed to train like that on a genetic gift like your arms:lol:.

It worked the best for my quads and delts.


----------



## Guest

dutch_scott said:


> Hey i have done a few sets of 15 on bis recently so not entirely a gift!!!
> 
> why do u feel it worked best for weak bodyparts?


 It is an effective stimulas however it taxes your cns dreadfully so to do it on a strong point of your physique would be a mistake. For instance my back grows no matter what i do, if i did this training for my back then my cns would be greatly taxed so come chest day which is my weak point i would be put in a position i would not want to be in.

It is impossible to blast every muscle every week at 100% full intensity but if you alternate hard/heavy/intense work outs with simple cruise work outs then this problem is over come. My back i train hard every second training cycle(6 days) while i hit chest hard two out of three training cycle. Same goes for quads only i always put full effort into this muscle the only difference is i have 3 different work outs which alter the movements and rep range to keep my self from burning out.

Keeping track of work outs would be impossible with out a training journal, i have 99% of all my work outs for the past 5 years written down to be looked back at any time.


----------



## marticus

Con said:


> Mike had his flaws namely becoming a amphetamine addict which made him close minded. His theorys are so fvcking solid its not even funny ESPECIALLY for the natural trainer or drug assisted trainer when he is off gear. Minimal gym time yet maximum stimulation. Take what he taught, take info from the DC method and even from the HST method and then most importantly learn your own body and apply as needed.
> 
> Volume training not to failure is great for contest prep this is what i am doing now. If i took my sets mainly to failure i couldnt train every day and do two cardio sessions on top of school work!


Hi con, agree with your last comments, You must enjoy your workouts, Failure training can be pretty scary. Take it from someone who was left for dead by Casey Viator, at arthur jones, R and D, in Deland, Florida, 1983. Demonstrating Nautilus. Which i imported. Still have nitro today. Also worked with Boyer coe, and Ellington Darden. The one set system i had to modify to 2 sets, was leaving customers in shock. I do try to sometimes go to failure on say the last set of a 15,12,10, whatever. Think you should make every rep count, after your warm up. Still a 3 set max man. myb:thumbup1:


----------



## Natural1

The point here guys is that there are two reasons for taking a set to failure.

*Improve neural efficiency

*Recruit the higher threshold motor units

The HTMU's really don't care if they're recruited via a fatigue based recruitment (failure), a tension based recruitment or a velocity based recruitment (high effort accelerated reps). In any case, they are recruited and worked.

The point of the article was to explain that while failure is a useful tool, it's certainly not a necessity and in some cases where higher levels of workload are required, something to be avoided much of the time.


----------



## dantheman

i disagree.


----------



## Natural1

dantheman said:


> i disagree.


With?


----------



## hackskii

But, your article does not address one of the most important things for intensity.

Its ability to increas GH and test output.

The responce from volume with low intensity to high intensity does not have the bang for the buck in GH output.

Not to mention, HIT allows you to get in and out of the gym in a timely mannor, longer training elivates a catabolic responce from cortisol.


----------



## essexboy

Natural1 said:


> The point here guys is that there are two reasons for taking a set to failure.
> 
> *Improve neural efficiency
> 
> *Recruit the higher threshold motor units
> 
> The HTMU's really don't care if they're recruited via a fatigue based recruitment (failure), a tension based recruitment or a velocity based recruitment (high effort accelerated reps). In any case, they are recruited and worked.
> 
> The point of the article was to explain that while failure is a useful tool, it's certainly not a necessity and in some cases where higher levels of workload are required, something to be avoided much of the time.


 where do you get this rubbish from? can you cite the scientifc papers?you are stating that failure is to avoided most of the time? therefore you are recommending not to train hard.higher levels of workload required? what rubbish.if you work hard enough you cant tolerate more work.your problem mate, is that you read too many muscle comics.Next time your in the gym perform 1 set of 20 rep squats IN PERFECT FORM , till failure.Have breather for 2 minutes then perform 1 set of deads to failure.then tell me you need more.Attempting to appear celebral by posting "scientific" papers, just underlines your inadequencys.


----------



## essexboy

hackskii said:


> But, your article does not address one of the most important things for intensity.
> 
> Its ability to increas GH and test output.
> 
> The responce from volume with low intensity to high intensity does not have the bang for the buck in GH output.
> 
> Not to mention, HIT allows you to get in and out of the gym in a timely mannor, longer training elivates a catabolic responce from cortisol.


nice post Hack.Its a mystery to me why more bb, cant grasp the simple fact that muscle grows in response to trauma occuring in the mechanism.No differenty than the formation of blisters in response to burns.Train hard as possible stimulate the severest response.you can pour luke warm water on your legs forever, without change. Pour on a litre that has boiled first, then see what occurs.


----------



## Natural1

hackskii said:


> But, your article does not address one of the most important things for intensity.
> 
> Its ability to increas GH and test output.
> 
> The responce from volume with low intensity to high intensity does not have the bang for the buck in GH output.


It's something to consider, like I said, the post wasn't an anti-failure message. it's just important to realize that it's not a necessity or even optimal depending on the lifter, level and goal.



hackskii said:


> Not to mention, HIT allows you to get in and out of the gym in a timely mannor, longer training elivates a catabolic responce from cortisol.


HIT does = an effective time efficient workout but it's not accurate to suggest that anything longer than a typical HIT workout is less productive.


----------



## Natural1

Essexboy. Not sure why the personal attack and hostility but I shall adress your point.



essexboy said:


> where do you get this rubbish from? can you cite the scientifc papers?you are stating that failure is to avoided most of the time?


It depends on the goal, level and specific routine. If a lifter is training HIT or DC then failure is required as part of the program. Thats said, failure is not a requirement for strength or hypertrophy. You could simply attempt 2 reps with a 1 rep max, fail and go home if failure was suffient. Muscular workload is of greater importance.



essexboy said:


> therefore you are recommending not to train hard.higher levels of workload required? what rubbish.if you work hard enough you cant tolerate more work.


You're right, hence why programs that require failure are low volume, but, this is not the ONLY way to progress. Low volume requires adding weight as addition workload, this is fine so long you can train to get stronger on a continual basis. As we all know this does not last forever. At some point adding more workload through volume can be the better option.



essexboy said:


> your problem mate, is that you read too many muscle comics


I don't read any "muscle mags"



essexboy said:


> Next time your in the gym perform 1 set of 20 rep squats IN PERFECT FORM , till failure.Have breather for 2 minutes then perform 1 set of deads to failure.then tell me you need more.


I agree with you that a single set of 20 on squats is more than enough. This brings me to an interesting point I raised on another forum that I shall mention here.

Can you explain to me what's wrong with the 3x5 or 5x5 set/rep schemes? They both total 15 or 25 reps which is the same volume as a single set of 15 or 25 reps.

For example. A HITer may perform a 20-25 rep set of squats or leg press, this is ok because the 20-25 rep are contained within a single set. 5x5 however is NOT acceptable as you're performing 5 sets BUT, rep volume is the SAME!

Differences?

1x25 will require a lighter load that 5x5 so tension per rep is less, however there is longer continuous time under load (TUL) resulting in greater fatigue which contributes to sarcoplasmic hypertrophy. Obviously there will be myofibrillar hypertrophy from the mechanical work of performing 25 reps. Fiber type upper 1 and 2a dominant.

5x5 is possible using a greater load therefore there is greater tension per rep which results in greater myofibrillar hypertrophy but due to less continuous TUL there is less metabolic fatigue so less sarcoplasmic hypertrophy. Fiber type 2a and 2x dominant.

Both 25 reps both slightly varying goals. So why is one acceptable and the other not?

You see it's not so much an issue of how many sets are required, total reps are of more importance.



essexboy said:


> Attempting to appear celebral by posting "scientific" papers, just underlines your inadequencys.


No need for that man. I'm all up for dicussing training etc in an adult manner, but unprovoked insults are not warrented.


----------



## hackskii

Only problem I can see is there are muscle groups that have more fast twitch fibers than others, using higher reps at this point may be counter productive, like lets say hamstrings for instance.

Hamstrings have more fast twitch fibers than lets say the quads.

This is why heavy dead lifting would hit more fast twitch fibers than lets say targeting the quads for higher reps as they contain fewer fast twitch fibers.

Even this will vary to one body type over another.

Women predominantly have less fast twitch fibers than men, so the lifting rep ranges would change.

I dont buy the whole you need this many number of reps for this or that, due to the fact that ATP stores go low on the longer reps, you wont be able to use as much intensity due to loss of fuel.

Much like the blister comment, if you dont stimulate the muscle enough, you wont get the adaptive responce one may be looking for.

On the other hand, if you do too much stimulation you would need more recovery time or next time in the gym you tap into the recovery which is not the responce one may be looking for either.

But lets face it, all routines need to be changed for a continued responce one may be looking for.

Varying the rep ranges, exercises, bar, DB, frequency everything helps the body to adapt to another angle in regards to diffrent responces.

I like your writing style myself, and I am not really into the sarcoplasmic hypertrophy thing, I do feel that guys that get big fast using volume tend to lose that muscle pretty damn quick when they quit.

Whereas someone that lifts heavy has a nice mature strong muscle that keeps size long after exercise stops.

I know a black guy that did reps for biceps and triceps and his arms exploded, he got them so big so fast, he quit and in like a month it looked like he didnt even train.

My deal now is beings I will be 50 this year, have been lifting since I was 15 years old, I train smart now so that I can keep doing this forever till I die.

Heavy trining takes a freaking toll on the body, I have tons of injuries, but then again I dont ego lift anymore like before.....lol

Nice article, I like the way your write.

I still think that one needs a hormonal responce from training.

It is documented that men that do resistance training have higher test levels, same as long distance endurance athletes have lower testosterone levels, many very low.

Look at a sprinter compaired to a long distance runner, they look better, have more muscle, and also have less bodyfat.

That is the bodies adaptive responce to specific training.


----------



## essexboy

Natural1 said:


> Essexboy. Not sure why the personal attack and hostility but I shall adress your point.
> 
> It depends on the goal, level and specific routine. If a lifter is training HIT or DC then failure is required as part of the program. Thats said, failure is not a requirement for strength or hypertrophy. You could simply attempt 2 reps with a 1 rep max, fail and go home if failure was suffient. Muscular workload is of greater importance.
> 
> You're right, hence why programs that require failure are low volume, but, this is not the ONLY way to progress. Low volume requires adding weight as addition workload, this is fine so long you can train to get stronger on a continual basis. As we all know this does not last forever. At some point adding more workload through volume can be the better option.
> 
> I don't read any "muscle mags"
> 
> I agree with you that a single set of 20 on squats is more than enough. This brings me to an interesting point I raised on another forum that I shall mention here.
> 
> Can you explain to me what's wrong with the 3x5 or 5x5 set/rep schemes? They both total 15 or 25 reps which is the same volume as a single set of 15 or 25 reps.
> 
> For example. A HITer may perform a 20-25 rep set of squats or leg press, this is ok because the 20-25 rep are contained within a single set. 5x5 however is NOT acceptable as you're performing 5 sets BUT, rep volume is the SAME!
> 
> Differences?
> 
> 1x25 will require a lighter load that 5x5 so tension per rep is less, however there is longer continuous time under load (TUL) resulting in greater fatigue which contributes to sarcoplasmic hypertrophy. Obviously there will be myofibrillar hypertrophy from the mechanical work of performing 25 reps. Fiber type upper 1 and 2a dominant.
> 
> 5x5 is possible using a greater load therefore there is greater tension per rep which results in greater myofibrillar hypertrophy but due to less continuous TUL there is less metabolic fatigue so less sarcoplasmic hypertrophy. Fiber type 2a and 2x dominant.
> 
> Both 25 reps both slightly varying goals. So why is one acceptable and the other not?
> 
> You see it's not so much an issue of how many sets are required, total reps are of more importance.
> 
> No need for that man. I'm all up for dicussing training etc in an adult manner, but unprovoked insults are not warrented.


firstly one rep , is not en ough.you have to create in road. yuo cannot do this with one rep.for the upper body 6/15 reps seems to be appropriate. for the lower body 15/20 seems to work well.you said it all. 20 rep squats are enough.the problem with 5x5 etc, is that it dilutes hard work.You have to hold back.this board is awash with trainees(natural)not making progress.The human body wants to maintain homestatis.Additional muscle is expensive to maintain, gently nudging it, is not enough.you need to create a situation whereby you force growth.you constantly pepper your posts with "technical terms" you say myofibrillar hypertrophy,just say growth, it means the same thing.

your last comment; reps are more important is laughable.when i say 20 , its just a goal.Use 18, 21.if you want.the important issue is to subject the system(notice i didnt say muscle) to an extreme stimulus, and create inroad.so if i do 5x6 with 20lbs squats thats more reps, so that is more productive eh? thats what your saying.ill say ti one more time for you.VOLUME IS NOT IMPORTANT.Ask Con the guys a monster, who trains 1 set.

You have been influenced by the w/o of the muscle comics.if you care to read up on the pre-steroid era, you willl see how those guys,(reeves grimek)trained.you will also find that most top bodybuilders do train to failure.its just that they do a varying amount of warm ups preceeding the set that sets the growth mechanism in to motion.the fact they can do this and recover, is due to the fact that they posess above average recovery abilties and steroids.if your not afforded this gift, or dont want to use gear, then you have to preserve your recovery.i train twice weekly, do now diredt arm work, yet my left arm is 17 /58th.why is this so? because as hack states, i trigger the test, hgh response by killing myself in the gym.i dont use gear, and i have average genetics.

In our gym, we put newbies on the same routine, regardless of age/drug use/genes.everyone gets the same treatment.The freaks grow like weeds, the less fortunate dont, but they are generally happier, as in many cases its the first time they have seen ANY IMPROVEMENT.Fillling minds with science, just puts more doubts in peoples minds.No free lunches in this world.just a diet of squats, chins dips & deads.


----------



## Natural1

essexboy said:


> firstly one rep , is not en ough.you have to create in road. yuo cannot do this with one rep.for the upper body 6/15 reps seems to be appropriate. for the lower body 15/20 seems to work well.


Yep, agreed.



essexboy said:


> you said it all. 20 rep squats are enough.the problem with 5x5 etc, is that it dilutes hard work.You have to hold back.this board is awash with trainees(natural)not making progress.


I think maybe you didn't get the comparison. I'll try and explain it as simply as I can. This is the important part - *all a muscle fiber can do is contract - *nothing more nothing less. It doesn't "know" how we arrange these contractions (muscular work) into sets/reps, it just performs muscular work through contractions. As you approach failure two things are happening, you are exerting greater CNS output (higher effort) and you are recruiting the high threshold motor units and muscle fibers namely the type 2x fiber types. This is known as a - *fatigued based recruitment of the 2x fiber types* - When these fibers are recruited, they are worked. This however is not the only way to 1/ Produce high force and effort. 2/ Recruit the 2x fibers. They can be recruited and worked right from the first rep if the load is heavy enough and the contraction speed fast enough. In the 1x25 example they are recruited via fatigue (size principle) during 5x5 they are recruited out of sheer necessity to move heavier loads. The fibers don't "know" nor do they care HOW they were recruited and worked, so long they *have been* recruited and worked enough, there will be protein degradation and micro trauma which after all is the goal in weight training.



essexboy said:


> The human body wants to maintain homestatis.Additional muscle is expensive to maintain, gently nudging it, is not enough.you need to create a situation whereby you force growth.


Very true but I addressed this in my comments above.



essexboy said:


> you constantly pepper your posts with "technical terms" you say myofibrillar hypertrophy,just say growth, it means the same thing.


I like to clarify the two types of hypertrophy (growth). Myofibrillar hypertrophy is a result of micro truama caused my bio-mechanical work (contractions). Sarcoplasmic hypertrophy is growth of the sarcoplamic fluid due to metabolic fatigue. This is why 1x25 and 5x5 although totaling the same rep volume, offer a differing stimulus.



essexboy said:


> your last comment; reps are more important is laughable.when i say 20 , its just a goal.Use 18, 21.if you want.the important issue is to subject the system (notice i didnt say muscle) to an extreme stimulus, and create inroad.


Absolutely. Enough muscular work must have taken place to cause micro-truama and fatigue. Can be done in a single set, doesn't have to be.



essexboy said:


> so if i do 5x6 with 20lbs squats thats more reps, so that is more productive eh? thats what your saying.


5x6 may well cause more micro trauma than 5x5, there's lots to consider. There will be slighty more TUT per set so greater fatigue, there will probaly be greater total workload than 5x5. You seem to be of the belief that muscular work is not the stimulus. As I said before, if muscular work is not important and achieving failure is, then simply attempt to bench 2000lbs and fail and watch your muscle grow!



essexboy said:


> VOLUME IS NOT IMPORTANT.


Then why won't you grow on failing to lift 2000lbs? You achieved failure correct? What was missing...?



essexboy said:


> Ask Con the guys a monster, who trains 1 set.


I believe you, and him, nowhere have I said that low volume high intensity training doesn't work. I think you misunderstand my intent.



essexboy said:


> You have been influenced by the w/o of the muscle comics.


Are you asking me or telling me?



essexboy said:


> if you care to read up on the pre-steroid era, you willl see how those guys,(reeves grimek)trained.


Reeves trained full body at a volume that would likely bury the average lifter.



essexboy said:


> you will also find that most top bodybuilders do train to failure.


I usualy don't like to make a comparison to top pro bodybuilders. As you know these guys take huge amounts of anabolics and are blessed with gifted genes. That said a lot can be learned from the pro's. It's interesting to note that olympic lifters do not lift to failure, many power lifters also avoid failure but they don't lack muscle growth. I also know that natural pro Layne Norton uses failure as a tool not a rule.



essexboy said:


> its just that they do a varying amount of warm ups preceeding the set that sets the growth mechanism in to motion.


You will be very hard pushed to find any evidence of a so called "growth mechanism" that magically kicks in at failure. There is no "switch" that gets flicked on at failure. Muscular hypertrophy is plain and simply a result of the repairing of micro truama caused to the fibers of a muscle from performing bio-mechanical work (contracting/producing force). The concept of some "magic rep" that flips the growth switch is not based in science.



essexboy said:


> the fact they can do this and recover, is due to the fact that they posess above average recovery abilties and steroids.


I'm glad you agree.



essexboy said:


> if your not afforded this gift, or dont want to use gear, then you have to preserve your recovery.i train twice weekly, do now diredt arm work, yet my left arm is 17 /58th.why is this so? because as hack states, i trigger the test, hgh response by killing myself in the gym.i dont use gear, and i have average genetics.


Recovery is certainly an important part of a program. If you have found that 2x per week works for you thats great. The plus side of not making training to failure a necessity is that it allows you to perform more work without the drain on the CNS. The idea of HIT is to exchange "workload" for "effort" to produce maximum results. The reasoning being that WORKLOAD is what causes the need for recovery time, not EFFORT. The problem is, it is the exact opposite. Neural effort is what causes the need for increased recovery, not workload. A great example of this is training with max singles. Workload is low, but neural effort is high. Yet these can only be done infrequently. Can you do too much workload? Of course. But your body can take a very large workload as long as effort is moderated.

*Example:*

Weightlifters

Gymnasts



essexboy said:


> In our gym, we put newbies on the same routine, regardless of age/drug use/genes.everyone gets the same treatment.


I wouldn't agree with that. There is no one "uber program" or "one size suits all"



essexboy said:


> The freaks grow like weeds, the less fortunate dont


Maybe the "less fortunate" would do better training another way.



essexboy said:


> Fillling minds with science, just puts more doubts in peoples minds.No free lunches in this world.just a diet of squats, chins dips & deads.


Nothing wrong with a bit of science and physiology. It helps attain an acurate understand of the deeper side of training and it's applications which is better than following philosophy and "bro-science"


----------



## essexboy

mate,firstly, you dont have to patronise me,by explaining it as simply as possible.im not a fcukin idiot. im not going to spend anymore of my time, reposting my posts in response to your posts.Im using examples of thirty plus years of experience.If you want to try and argue the minuta, then thats your choice.Using science is not relavant. you theorys on why muscles grow, are the same as mine theory.Nothing has been proven the process that occur have not been realised.Ill use my lifes experience.You display predictable "more is better" thought processes.If you cant grasp it, then fine,but dont chuck science about to make yourself feel better.

Oh and one last thing.Natural bodybuilders.If you believe that these "natural champs" are drug free, your barking.I personally know two natural champs, whove done more drugs than aerosmith, do you know how to spell gullable? End.


----------



## Natural1

essexboy said:


> mate,firstly, you dont have to patronise me,by explaining it as simply as possible.im not a fcukin idiot.


I don't recal saying that I thought you "fcukin idiot"



essexboy said:


> im not going to spend anymore of my time, reposting my posts in response to your posts.


It's your choice if you do not wish to discuss this subject.



essexboy said:


> Im using examples of thirty plus years of experience.


Then tell me more about your "universal" training system.



essexboy said:


> If you want to try and argue the minuta, then thats your choice.Using science is not relavant.


I disagree. Science and physiology enable us to better apply a stimulus based on tensions and fatigue.



essexboy said:


> you theorys on why muscles grow, are the same as mine theory.


Much is to be learnt but much we know.



essexboy said:


> You display predictable "more is better" thought processes.If you cant grasp it, then fine,but dont chuck science about to make yourself feel better.


It's a pity you don't wish to learn a little more about the deeper side of training and instead mock those that do. Regarding more is better. A lifter can rep 300lbs 10 times in "x" amount of time, in time he can rep the same load 20 times in the same time period. This is an increase in work capacity and work density, you think his muscle will grow smaller as a result of this increase? Science aside sometimes we need just a little common sense.



essexboy said:


> Oh and one last thing.Natural bodybuilders.If you believe that these "natural champs" are drug free, your barking.I personally know two natural champs, whove done more drugs than aerosmith, do you know how to spell gullable? End.


Where did I say I belive that ALL claimed naturals are drug free? However I also do not attribute every claimed natural success that do not use one singe set to failure to drug use either, to do such would be creating your own reality.


----------



## marso

I actually thought it was a decent article Nat, and coming from someone like me, as you know is a fair compliment...


----------



## essexboy

Natural1 said:


> I don't recal saying that I thought you "fcukin idiot"
> 
> your post was patronising.try re-reading it.the text assumes "im simple"
> 
> It's your choice if you do not wish to discuss this subject.
> 
> normally i wouldnt.
> 
> Then tell me more about your "universal" training system.
> 
> its not universal, as some allowances have to be made.the basic strategy is constant though.We dont send out information willy nilly im afraid.You cant describe it, you have to experience it, posting it here would merely give licence to distort and critisicise, so why would we?
> 
> I disagree. Science and physiology enable us to better apply a stimulus based on tensions and fatigue
> 
> see your doing it again.tensions/ fatigue? so your now stating that YOU KNOW ENOUGH to apply a more effective regime?please expand.Sorry to tell you the current state of the art has just been published. And guess what? its virtually identical to what we do.
> 
> Much is to be learnt but much we know.
> 
> well that was pointless. see above.
> 
> It's a pity you don't wish to learn a little more about the deeper side of training and instead mock those that do. Regarding more is better. A lifter can rep 300lbs 10 times in "x" amount of time, in time he can rep the same load 20 times in the same time period. This is an increase in work capacity and work density, you think his muscle will grow smaller as a result of this increase? Science aside sometimes we need just a little common sense.
> 
> Deeper side? Its very simple.Train hard, rest harder eat well.
> 
> Where did I say I belive that ALL claimed naturals are drug free? However I also do not attribute every claimed natural success that do not use one singe set to failure to drug use either, to do such would be creating your own reality.


See your doing it again. Making assumtions that I need to learn from you.There is likely nothing you could tell me, unless you have an idea why i have trouble with excessive fat deposits on my lower back..What is work density/capacity?these words are not accurate in the context.You mean more which is define as volume.So were back to where you started.it makes no sense.it was an example.my own reality, well whos reality do i exist in, other than my own? are you on drugs?


----------



## Natural1

marso said:


> I actually thought it was a decent article Nat, and coming from someone like me, as you know is a fair compliment...


Hey mate. Thx for the compliment 

Shame others are.. shall we say a little closed minded on the subject. WOW at that "other" board we post on.. just WOW!

Cheers for poppin mate.


----------



## Natural1

essexboy said:


> What is work density/capacity?these words are not accurate in the context.


They are in perfect context.

Work density refers to the amount of muscular work performed within a time frame. if you can perform more work in the same you have increased *work density*.



essexboy said:


> You mean more which is define as volume.So were back to where you started.it makes no sense


It's not as straight forward as just "adding volume", you can add volume by adding sets or reps but taking as much time as you want. Density refers to work performed per unit of time.

Not bad for someone that apparently "can't teach you anything"


----------



## marso

Natural1 said:


> They are in perfect context.
> 
> Work density refers to the amount of muscular work performed within a time frame. if you can perform more work in the same you have increased *work density*.
> 
> It's not as straight forward as just "adding volume", you can add volume by adding sets or reps but taking as much time as you want. Density refers to work performed per unit of time.
> 
> Not bad for someone that apparently "can't teach you anything"


As for the other board mate, words fail me..... :whistling:

In reference to your comment I think you are referring to more work performed per unit of time, ie: if one performs more contractions in a given time load within reason and geared specifically towards hypertrophy, then the muscle is performing more mechanical and metabolic work, (which is good) which in theory causes more micro trauma and can lead to greater hypertrophy...

Is muscular failure a requirement for growth? absouletely not..as how does one expain the results of those that have achieved tremendous results without going to failure ( the its all drugs and genetics card won't count)....Failure ( or intensity of effort) is a variable, much the same as frequency and volume which make up the TOTALITY of one's workout demands, these need to be regulated and adjusted in accordance with the indiviudals tolerances and needs, ie: periods of over reaching (more intense training via the use of force reps, statics, etc) and by increasing either volume (within limits) and even frequency as this ties in with premise and first stage GAS, as to invoke a greater alarm reaction....one then also has to condisder the cost benefit ratio of such exercise, hence the need for slight increases and noting the results to produce and optimal outcome..the hard bit is getting this all right, which ain't easy...


----------



## Natural1

I'm in full agreement marso, good post.


----------



## dtlv

Failure isn't at all necessary for hypertrophy - scroplasmic hypertrophy in particular is best developed by higher reps, lower loads, short rests and training near the lactate threshold. Myofibrilar hypetrophy is better developed through heavier loads and more time between sets to replenish atp and energy substrates.

The important thing to remember with hypertrophy training is to hit all the fibres and train both ways, whereas if developing strength is more of a priority than hypertrophy there's less value in doing so much higher rep and pump training.

I also think that consistent and regular progression is more important than failure... although training to failure is good once in a while. I think periodised routines like HST are excellent for this, employing phases of high and low reps, constant progression and sessions taken to failure and others not.


----------



## hackskii

Dtlv74 said:


> Failure isn't at all necessary for hypertrophy - scroplasmic hypertrophy in particular is best developed by higher reps, lower loads, short rests and training near the lactate threshold. Myofibrilar hypetrophy is better developed through heavier loads and more time between sets to replenish atp and energy substrates.
> 
> The important thing to remember with hypertrophy training is to hit all the fibres and train both ways, whereas if developing strength is more of a priority than hypertrophy there's less value in doing so much higher rep and pump training.
> 
> I also think that consistent and regular progression is more important than failure... although training to failure is good once in a while. I think periodised routines like HST are excellent for this, employing phases of high and low reps, constant progression and sessions taken to failure and others not.


Nice post, well thought out.


----------



## Wee G1436114539

No, not required for hypertrophy at all, and detrimental in terms of neural fatigue reducing potential training frequency with stimulating loads.

Good posts btw Natural1.

cheers,

GL


----------



## hackskii

Hey wee, nice to see you back man.....Nice post too.


----------



## Tinytom

nice points raised here by all.

just goes to show that theres lots of different ways to stimulate muscle growth.

myself i do sets that go to failure and i do sets at a heavy weight where i reach 20 reps or 10 reps.

variation is the key and hitting all the different theories is preferable to following one approach IMO


----------



## defdaz

Natural1 said:


> Hey mate. Thx for the compliment
> 
> Shame others are.. shall we say a little closed minded on the subject. WOW at that "other" board we post on.. just WOW!
> 
> Cheers for poppin mate.


Mate, sorry but you do come across as a bit of a 'know-it-all' to be honest. I have no idea of your background (I have a degree in nutrition, physiology and biochemistry) but in your opening post you make a lot of statements that just aren't proven. Muscle hypertrophy is still a very poorly understood phenomenon and while knowledge is improving all the time there's still a great deal that is to be discovered or confirmed. Heck, they still can't even decide whether hyperplasia occurs in adults!

I like you term 'work density' lol (work over time is called power). I know what you're getting at and agree completely. :lol: Get in the gym, hit the muscles with just the right amount of anaerobic stress to trigger a maximum amount of hypertrophy whilst causing the least amount of damage to be repaired first. This really is the golden question and most people will spend their entire training lives trying to reach this ever changing (due to diet, environmental stress, other activities, rest etc.) optimum.

My personal opinion is that some people over-emphasise the detrimental effects going to positive failure can have on recovery. Really, as you say, there's little difference from a muscle physiology and biochemistry point of view between getting that last rep out or stopping one short.

For me, the doubt of not going to failure, of not knowing how many more reps you could have got, of whether you're training 'hard' or not are plenty enough reason for going to failure on my main sets. The psychological ramifications of your training are not to be underestimated lol! :whistling:


----------



## Uriel

Can you really quantify "Failure". It's more subjective than objective surely. Like defining pain.

There is a massive psychological input and one mans failure may be different from another. Infact the same man on a different day may fail at a different poin in a set


----------



## Guest

Uriel said:


> Can you really quantify "Failure". It's more subjective than objective surely. Like defining pain.


The point where you can no longer perform a rep by one self with a certain weight:whistling: That said some people do give out too easily especially when using higher reps......


----------



## Uriel

That's what I mean mate - it's a motivational thing - I see a lot of people training well inside their comfort zone and I think pushing yourself is obviously an important aspect in stimulating growth.

These people may however "Think" they are training to failure.

It's too easy to say "til you can no longer perform a rep" because I can assure you on your "last rep" of a set when you have failed - if I said I was going to cut your balls off if you didn't do another 2.....I think you'd do them.....that's the motivational aspect. So did you really fail the first time?


----------



## Uriel

Anyway to answer the original queerie.

I personally don't think failure training is required for growth but you need to push your self a bit (a little bit or a big bit) to maintain stimulation for growth


----------



## Guest

Uriel said:


> That's what I mean mate - it's a motivational thing - I see a lot of people training well inside their comfort zone and I think pushing yourself is obviously an important aspect in stimulating growth.
> 
> These people may however "Think" they are training to failure.
> 
> It's too easy to say "til you can no longer perform a rep" because I can assure you on your "last rep" of a det when you have failed - if I said I was going to cut your ball off if you didn't do another 2.....I think you'd do them.....that's the motivational aspect. So did you really fail the first time?


Lol, very true mate. This is why most people look like ****


----------



## essexboy

Con said:


> Lol, very true mate. This is why most people look like ****  [/quote
> 
> Im in agreement with the theory, that there exists a definate crossover point wherby growth is stimulated.Where this point is , or even if it is constant among the populus no-one knows.Perhaps, faliure isnt neccesary.Perhaps the crossover point is 78.3% of effort. maybe its 97.55%. the problem is,no-one knows the EXACT point(if it is constant), and besides its impossible to measure anything less than 100% ie total failure, anyway. So train to failure. You will then be assured of having reached the crossover point.For me, im totally comitted to this theory.Alaso i only perform one set per movement.Herein exists my motivation! I only have "one shot" otherwise my effort is wasted.this way i perform every set, with a gun to head mentality.


----------



## essexboy

marticus said:


> Hi con, agree with your last comments, You must enjoy your workouts, Failure training can be pretty scary. Take it from someone who was left for dead by Casey Viator, at arthur jones, R and D, in Deland, Florida, 1983. Demonstrating Nautilus. Which i imported. Still have nitro today. Also worked with Boyer coe, and Ellington Darden. The one set system i had to modify to 2 sets, was leaving customers in shock. I do try to sometimes go to failure on say the last set of a 15,12,10, whatever. Think you should make every rep count, after your warm up. Still a 3 set max man. myb:thumbup1:


Martin. im sure there is not a top bb alive who could survive being pushed through a Jones full body w/o, like Casey was subjected too.Perhaps this is why around 1986 Jones changed his mind , from 3x weekly training 12 sets to twice weekly 8 sets.i currently am using a nitro circuit once a week, 5 exercises full body routine.Supersmooth units.only issue is ive maxed out the leg press, which is not hard to do.


----------



## Natural1

Sometimes we have to use what knowledge we have and some basic common sense so I'll offer you my thoughts for what's its worth.

It's important to understand firstly that all a muscle fiber can do is contract/relax, nothing more nothing less. It doesn't know if it's being recruited in a failure rep or the first rep or on a 1 rep max or even throwing a light weight (stone) it knows nothing it can only contract in response to a degree of CNS output and relax.

Each contraction will contribute to the total amount of micro-trauma (protein degradation) which requires protein synthesis to be repaired (sarcomere hypertrophy)

The side effect of all this bio-mechanical work is metabolic fatigue (fuel/substrates etc) which contributes to the hypertrophy of the metabolic aspects of a muscle (sarcoplasmic hypertrophy)

By the time you're at the final rep in a failure set all available motor units/fibers have been recruited and the CNS is attempting to fire them at their highest firing frequency although due to actual fiber fatigue many will no longer be responding. In other words rate of contraction and protein degradation has gone DOWN while CNS effort and hence fatigue has gone UP.

Now nobody is saying don't train hard, nobody is saying don't ever train to failure. What I'm suggesting is to be aware of the relationships of tension and fatigue and the resulting stimulus and be aware of the potential of the constant use of failure training to limit actual muscular work.

Another thing to consider. HIT advocates believe that it's hitting failure that triggers growth.

While a max effort attempt which includes both a 1 rep max or the last rep in a failure set does indeed have benefits in as much as it increases neural efficiency, it's completely irrelevant to significant hypertrophy.

If it was high CNS effort/output of that last failure rep that triggers growth the exact same trigger would occur during other times of high CNS activity which includes both a 1 rep max (ME) and moving a submax load as fast as possible (DE).

The fact which is supported in both science and empiricism is that it's the RE method of lifting that induces the most hypertrophy because of the extra workload (muscular). Whether failure (high CNS effort) is attained is irrelevant to this goal.


----------



## godsgifttoearth

as far as i can make out. no one has actually posted any science to back up any of the claims made in this thread.

http://jap.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/100/5/1647

*'Differential effects of strength training leading to failure versus not to failure on hormonal responses, strength, and muscle power gains '*

'The purpose of this study was to examine the efficacy of 11 wk of resistance training to failure vs. nonfailure, followed by an identical 5-wk peaking period of maximal strength and power training for both groups as well as to examine the underlying physiological changes in basal circulating anabolic and catabolic hormones. Forty-two physically active men were matched and then randomly assigned to either a training to failure (RF; n = 14), nonfailure (NRF; n = 15), or control groups (C; n = 13). Muscular and power testing and blood draws to determine basal hormonal concentrations were conducted before the initiation of training (T0), after 6 wk of training (T1), after 11 wk of training (T2), and after 16 wk of training (T3). Both RF and NRF resulted in similar gains in 1-repetition maximum bench press (23 and 23%) and parallel squat (22 and 23%), muscle power output of the arm (27 and 28%) and leg extensor muscles (26 and 29%), and maximal number of repetitions performed during parallel squat (66 and 69%). RF group experienced larger gains in the maximal number of repetitions performed during the bench press. The peaking phase (T2 to T3) after NRF resulted in larger gains in muscle power output of the lower extremities, whereas after RF it resulted in larger gains in the maximal number of repetitions performed during the bench press. Strength training leading to RF resulted in reductions in resting concentrations of IGF-1 and elevations in IGFBP-3, whereas NRF resulted in reduced resting cortisol concentrations and an elevation in resting serum total testosterone concentration. This investigation demonstrated a potential beneficial stimulus of NRF for improving strength and power, especially during the subsequent peaking training period, whereas performing sets to failure resulted in greater gains in local muscular endurance. Elevation in IGFBP-3 after resistance training may have been compensatory to accommodate the reduction in IGF-1 to preserve IGF availability.'

*'Acute hormonal responses to heavy resistance exercise in strength athletes versus nonathletes.'*

'The aim of the present study was to investigate acute hormonal and neuromuscular responses and recovery in strength athletes versus nonathletes during heavy resistance exercise performed with the forced and maximum repetitions training protocol. Eight male strength athletes (SA) with several years of continuous resistance training experience and 8 physically active but non-strength athletes (NA) volunteered as subjects. The experimental design comprised two loading sessions: maximum repetitions (MR) and forced repetitions (FR). MR included 12-RM squats for 4 sets with a 2-min recovery between sets. In FR the initial load was higher than in MR so that the subject could lift approximately 8 repetitions by himself and 4 additional repetitions with assistance. Before and after the loading protocols, blood samples were drawn to determine serum testosterone, free testosterone, cortisol and growth hormone concentrations, and blood lactate. Maximal voluntary isometric force and EMG activity of the leg extensors was measured before and after the loading as well as 24 and 48 hrs after the loading. The concentrations of the hormones measured increased significantly (p < .01-.001) after both loadings in both groups. The responses tended to be higher in FR than the MR loading and the increases of testosterone concentrations were significantly (p < .01) greater in both loadings in SA than in NA. Both loading protocols in both groups also led to neuromuscular fatigue observable with significant acute decreases in isometric strength by 32-52% (p < .001) and in maximal iEMG (p < .05-01) associated with large increases in blood lactate. These data suggest that, at least in experienced strength athletes, the forced-repetition protocol is a viable alternative to the more traditional maximum-repetition protocol and may even be a superior approach.'


----------



## ali stewart

Im a big fan of the science behind bodybuilding but my biology 'A' level has failed me. after reading that im still not sure what the conclusion was. Is failure better or not?

i thought it said if you are used to weights then failure produced more results but it was inconclusive whether it was the extra weight or the failure point that acutally did it. sorry if being a mong just need clarification.


----------



## godsgifttoearth

ali stewart said:


> i thought it said if you are used to weights then failure produced more results but it was inconclusive whether it was the extra weight or the failure point that acutally did it. sorry if being a mong just need clarification.


as far as im aware, after reading quite a few studies on this. there is no right or wrong.

both non failure and failure methods will both result in similar gains, with perhaps the best gains in strength going to non failure (but the differences are fairly small). both result in increased strength for reps, which results in greater muscle size through sarcoplasmic and/or myofibril hypertrophy.

basically. find something that works for you consistently (volume and intensity wise). which basically means, you're adding weight every workout. or atleast beating the previous work rep total. if this is using 5 reps avoiding failure by a long way, or using forced reps and hitting failure totally. it doesnt matter, aslong as you are progressing, which is the key in both terms of strength and size increases.


----------



## Natural1

There is no "trigger" that occurs by reaching failure, this can simply be proven by observing the fact that numerous lifters progress without or rarely reaching failure. An often used counter argument used by HITers when I say this is typically "then why not stop at rep 5 of a 12 rep max and still progress". This shows a lack of understanding of what happens during a set to failure. A few points.

1/ No one ever suggested not taking a set up to the point of high effort reps (near failure)

2/ For significant hypertrophy to occur there must be sufficient work of the 2a-2x muscle fiber types. Heavily working the type 1 fiber types only would be endurance training.

3/ In a slow-moderate paced set to failure there is a fatigue based recruitment of the 2a-2x fibers meaning as lower threshold fibers fatigue and drop force production the CNS recruits higher threshold motor units/fibers to continue force production so obviously in this example a set must continue into fatigue for the 2a-2x to be recruited.

4/ Numerous studies have shown that the high threshold motor units are recruited BEFORE failure occurs at up to 85% of max effort and even as low as 50% in some muscles.

5/ If a load is heavy enough and rep speed fast enough (or attempted fast) the 2a-2x fiber types will be recruited from rep 1. This is a tension based recruitment of the 2a-2x fibers.

6/ If there was some trigger that the body recognized purely in the act of reaching failure exactly the same would occur if you attempted 2 reps with a 1 rep max, failed, and went home but for the most part this would result in minimal if any hypertrophy.

If there's any information to the contrary based in science I'll be glad to read it.

I don't think many of us stop a set while still finding it easy. That said some protocols based on cumulative fatigue may include doing so.


----------



## PurpleOnes

Really good thread and explained well the different types of muscular failure :thumb:


----------



## nWo

PurpleOnes said:


> Really good thread and explained well the different types of muscular failure :thumb:


Nice 3+ year bump, fella :lol:

Too much "science" in this thread, at the end of it all you just have to try different approaches and find what works for you. Personally, I've found the Yates style beyond failure type training to produce strength and mass increases better than anything else I've ever tried. I'm aware though that this approach might not be best for someone else. Either way, if you're smart, you'll balance volume and intensity - basically, you can choose to take one working set to the point of total muscular failure in lieu of volume, or if you avoid training to failure by stopping with a couple of reps left in the tank, you might choose to perform 5 sets per exercise to create adequate stimulation. Many people go somewhere inbetween.

I think training to failure on multiple sets is counter-productive, though. Maybe 2 sets to positive failure is okay, but any more than that and you're just eating into your recovery ability for negligible amounts of extra stimulation. I'd say one set to positive failure with 2-3 ramp-up sets (so 3-4 sets total) is a nice happy-medium.


----------

