Avoid training to failure???

[Longhorn85]

According to this article in Mens Health, (I know consider the source), it is more beneficial to do more reps at a managable weight than to keep adding weight and reach muscular failure. The article says to build fast twitch muscle fiber it is best to NOT reach failure.

Any thoughts on this?



http://aol.menshealth.com/fitness2/ironedout.shtml

 

[Thaibox]

I believe its CoolcolJ that has a lot to say about this topic. Bump for him.

Of their own accord....nice sig

 

[gettinlarger]

I dunno if Mens Health is such a reputable source.

 

[louden_swain]

I train to failure on most exercises and I have had good results.

 

[RusPA81]

I also train to failure on most exercises. Its when you start to train past failure to often and do to many forced reps when you overtrain and get into trouble.

 

[coolcolj]

well going to failure overtaxes the CNS more than the muscle - relatively speaking. Bad for recovery purposes

How many people do you see have perfect form when they hit failure or get close? nuff said

Look at how slow you lift the bar when you get near failure - low power output

ok if your BB'ing without any consequence for explosion, power and strength, then it won't matter much apart from recovery - but if you want to be an explosive and strong mofo - going to failure is the wrong way to go about it.

 

[backlash79]

mens health.....aka Shape for dudes....aka maxim with a few "workout" tips thrown in lol

 

[Lord_Suston]

it is true that going top failure will make you slower than training to subfailure with explosive speed. I do this routinely to gain speed while keeping on mass and adding strength, actually I am doing right now....

 

[Intenceman]

What a load of hooey. I only get gains anymore (I've been training 15 years) When I go beyond the status quo, which usually means going beyond failure. Just increasing weight a bit here and there and/or doing an extra rep or two doesn't provide enough of a shock to force adaptation- ie increased muscle size.
I don't agree that you have to train "explosively" -we aren't bombs, we are humans. That is possibly applicable to powerlifting and more so O lifting, but for building size, you can build it more safely by moving in a controlled manner. Can't build strength this way? Ridiculous- I have worked up to Squats with 515 for reps (615 for 4 half Squats) close grip pulldowns with 360 for reps, 315 smith machine inclines, 225 overheads, Hammer leg extensions with 470 for a few reps, etc. That's fairly strong, I would say.
Having said that, some people who don't tolerate high intensity stress as well - ie., those with poorer recovery ability, might benefit from doing say 3 subfailure sets as opposed to 1 or 2 to failure or post failure sets.

 

[thriller]

i wouldnt call it to failer what i do but i stop when im not going up as fast as the first rep. id be able to hit a couple more reps just not explosively

 

[Thaibox]

load of "hooey"?

I train to failure maybe 75% of the time because I respond well to it, and I like to.

However, what CCJ is explaining makes a lot of sense, and this is a common practice for many strength athletes. Don't try to discredit something like that with your own experience(something that has taken many to the top of the game), its not fair or valid.
And, with regards to your "15 years" of training, not only are your numbers very very low), but no 15 year vet would show his stats by stating what he does on leg extensions, smith machine, or pulldowns. And, if these are such an intregal part of your training, you have no right to be criticizing CoolColJ.

 

[needsize]

The way I train, my heavy sets of 5 arent to failure, they are heavy working sets but rarely to failure. But as I move through my workout and get to the higer rep sets, 8-10 reps, then I start to take my sets to failure. When I leave the gym I want my muscles taxed to the max, but I dont need to go to failure on every single set to do that

 

[coolcolj]

Don't get me wrong guys, I've been on both sides of the fence now

I used to be a train to failure HIT Jedi - and while it worked well, I knew something wasn't right because always felt like I was beaten to a pulp. Training slower and all that. Performance wasn't my main goal. After a while you just get sick of having to turn up at the gym and bringing it.

Then as time went on I had an argument with a friend over our training styles - as all HIT Jedi do
Around this time Performance became more of a goal to me, but size is always nice to have as well.
Something hit (heh) me when I started researching into training methods of elite sprinters and throwers - these guys can really move some iron and have explosiveness to burn.

I then experimented not going to failure, and lifting faster and the results blew me away.
Believe me it took me a lot of guts and determination to switch training styles, but I'm glad I did. Nobody likes to be proven wrong.
I didn't expect to get the gains I did in strength that I did in such a short period of time. And when you get stronger, don't expect your muscles to stay small either!
Heavier weights used will force your muscles to adapt accordingly.
I increased my standing long jump by 7 inches, and vertical jump by 4 inches soon after despite a 12lb rise in bodyweight - and more gains are continually coming.

Sure you have swallow your ego a bit and use lighter weights intially, but in no time at all you will be zooming over your old poundages.

I'm now using weights I once dreamed off - over the last 2 months my Incline dumbell went from 55 for 2 sets of 6, to 90lbs for 2 sets of 5. Not to failure of course. Granted there are many of you much stronger than me here, but for the time I've been training - 90lbs is like some kind of revelation to me. I have never gone higher than 65lbs on incline dumbells BP ever in my life until now.

When I trained to failure and used slow tempos I was stuck on 60-65 for a set of 6, and it seemed like I'd never get past that.
140lb dumbells (largest at my gym) for incline doesn't seem so far fetched for me now, I may even reach that by Christmas, such is the speed of my strength gains. And do you think my upper body will look the same as it does now when I hit 140s ?

Its all about seducing the gains out of your body rather than "raping" them out.

 

[JOKER47]

I believe I've asked this before, but it sounds like it warrants asking again.

How are you all defining "failure"? I lift to what I consider failure. I lift until I hear the little voice in my head say, "That's your last rep!". It's my last full complete rep with proper form. To me, anything beyond that is a forced rep, ie, going beyond failure.

How do the rest of you define "failure"?


Joker

 

[Intenceman]

load of "hooey"?

I train to failure maybe 75% of the time because I respond well to it, and I like to.

Good for you, so do I, which was my point.

However, what CCJ is explaining makes a lot of sense, and this is a common practice for many strength athletes. Don't try to discredit something like that with your own experience(something that has taken many to the top of the game), its not fair or valid.
And, with regards to your "15 years" of training, not only are your numbers very very low), but no 15 year vet would show his stats by stating what he does on leg extensions, smith machine, or pulldowns. And, if these are such an intregal part of your training, you have no right to be criticizing CoolColJ.

Firstly I can express whatever opinion I want to- its a free country and a free board. I don't feel bound to go along with the crowd, I'm not that low level a mentality. Having two college degrees and and 2 teaching credentials, plus a personal training certification I've done my homework.

I wasn't criticizing him at all- I don't even know him for pete's sake, but I don't buy into the don't train to failure thing- I did the conventional thing for 5 years- and it didn't WORK. As to training to failure, I and all of my clients train to failure at least very other workout and we ALL gain at least a rep or two or a few lbs ever other workout. Now as to the ridiculous notion that your choice of exercises reflects your ability to comment on different training methodologies-- what a load of hooey! I do what exercises I damn well please, not what people SAY to do. Bench Presses- totally useless for me, never got much out of them, at 6'3", I have such long arms that the movement doesn't hit my pecs well at all, but does get limited by the smaller triceps=- so out with that- after 5 years- gave them a fair shot bud. Deadlifts? I have done them 445 for 4 and 495 for knee levels, I mentioned Squats - they are a basic exrecise, ok I'll throw in barbell rows- though I am currently not doing them- last year got up to 365 for 5. Low? Funny, but Casey Viator or Mike Mentzer or Arnold Schwarzeneggar never did them with more than that- Frank Zane used a 100 lbs less, ever heard of them? What's wrong with pulldowns? Dorian Whats his Name does them- I'm low -oh, ok a whole 40 lbs less than he does them- and he's one of the strongest BB's around- and he juiced! As I type this I really am realizing how out of touch with the reality of genetically natural trainnees your post was, so never mind, you must be using juicer standards- heavy juicer or powrlifters, because I've NEVER seen ANYONE do 470 lb Hammer leg extensions, 360 lb pulldowns in an gym I was in- including Gold's venice a few times
I'm not a powerlifter, never claimed to be, not a great presser-I suck at pressing always have-wit long arms , always will be relatively low, my pulls however, are far from LOW, since they far exceed what I have seen anyone in the gym do. One guy came close on rows only got them up SINCE adopting this approach.

NOW as to how you should hav approached it instead of criticizing ME, You SHOULD look at rate of gain, and total gained since starting, that would at least make sense. I increased Incline press some 400%, Squats 390%, rows 600% etc. thats 4 times starting, almost 4 times starting, etc. since you seem to be critically imparired. Good day.

 

[coolcolj]

I believe I've asked this before, but it sounds like it warrants asking again.

How are you all defining "failure"? I lift to what I consider failure. I lift until I hear the little voice in my head say, "That's your last rep!". It's my last full complete rep with proper form. To me, anything beyond that is a forced rep, ie, going beyond failure.

How do the rest of you define "failure"?
Joker

I define failure as the inability to move the dumbell or bar at the desired bar speed, and not being able to complete a concetric repetition.

 

[teen1216]

Intenceman, good job on the lifts. I sure can't do em, but the most used way to develop power in top athletes by top strength coaches is not by training to failure. Bodybuilding is a much different story, so im not sayin training to failure is a bad thing either. My two cents.

 

[coolcolj]

exactly - read my original reply, I said for BB'ing it doesn't matter either way, but if your after improved performance and functional strength gains, going to failure is not required

 

[Longhorn85]

exactly - read my original reply, I said for BB'ing it doesn't matter either way, but if your after improved performance and functional strength gains, going to failure is not required

Thanks for all the replies/info. Not to defend Men's Health, but it does make a good read while on the john and every once in a while you learn something about fitness.

Since I am performance-oriented and I like to workout alone, this concept of sub-failure weight training is right up my alley.

By the way, my definition of failure in the weight room is when good form is compromised.

 

[Lord_Suston]

Failure, when you cannot lift the weight any more....

For performance I prefer not going to failure since the ripping action of muscle fibers slows down recovery time and the minus of getting to bulky to perform the desire sport....

But if I want size a failure here I come......

 

[Intenceman]

exactly - read my original reply, I said for BB'ing it doesn't matter either way, but if your after improved performance and functional strength gains, going to failure is not required

I understand your point, all I was saying is that for everyone , that simply isn't true- for me, I need to go beyond failure to improve significantly at this point going to subfailure results in zero progress for me at this point in the game- thats' all I said.
But what performance? I'm not a ball player or something is that what he is talking about? I do some boxing and intense training sure has helped THAT. My right jab can knock the heavy bag backwards hard-which I HAVE to attribute to increased neorological eficiency and explosivenss. For some people , what he is saying might be true- it's just not true for everyone.

 

[coolcolj]

Well performance as in jumping, sprinting, sports motion etc
Its well known that to be fast you have to train fast.
The thing is athletes have to do a lot of other stuff along with their weight training, going to failure would be pretty much toast their CNS. They don't have the luxury of waiting a few days before they have to perform.

BTW the author of that Men's Health article Charles Stahley knows what he is on about, he is quite a well known and respected trainer. But his article may have been watered down to suit the readership

 

[Longhorn85]

BTW the author of that Men's Health article Charles Stahley knows what he is on about, he is quite a well known and respected trainer. But his article may have been watered down to suit the readership

Took out some of the big words and added some cool pictures. Hey, it works for me, I'm a busy man and don't want heavy reading while I'm on the john.

 

[Intenceman]

That's where the confusion came in, I thought we were talking in a bodybuilding context, since it's a bodybuilding board, I thought. I'm not an athelete, I'm 42- long past needing any of that- I don't care how high I can jump, so I'm only interested in strength and muscle and for that I need to train past failure......but for competitive athletes I can see that.

 

[Longhorn85]

That's where the confusion came in, I thought we were talking in a bodybuilding context, since it's a bodybuilding board, I thought. I'm not an athelete, I'm 42- long past needing any of that- I don't care how high I can jump, so I'm only interested in strength and muscle and for that I need to train past failure......but for competitive athletes I can see that.

Well, it's called "Elite Fitness" so to me that addresses more than just bodybuilding. I am your age bro, and at 41 I am still performing, in 10Ks, Boxing, Army PT tests, City League Basketball, and just playing sports with my kids. Competition seems to bring out the best when it comes to fitness.

 

[Doktor Bollix]

I watched Dorian Yates training video "Blood and Guts" last week, and there's a guy who goes to failure. Most people who think they do have no idea.

The reason strength athletes don't train to failure is it causes Golgi tendon organ inhibition. The excitation threshold (the signal sent to your brain to stop your muscle from over-exerting itself and tearing off the bone) is actually lowered by training to failure. ie You are making yourself, from a neuro-muscular viewpoint, less efficient. That's where the phrase "Failure breeds failure" comes from.

In bodybuilding, where people try and promote sarcoplasmic hypertrophy and scar-tissue build up and not strength, it has a place, but the metabolic demands of recovery are not worth it compared to other methods, especially for the chemically unfortified.

I tried some Mike Mentzer routines for a while and gained some size but no strength and ended up overtrained and detrained at the same time.

BTW, we are not Bodybuilding fascists on this board. Some of the best contributors are not bodybuilders at all.

 

[Edu]

mentzer's routine is the best to gain masss and strengh in the same time, no doubt about it.

If you not go to failure, you will get strong but you won´t get big.

 

[Thaibox]

mentzer's routine is the best to gain masss and strengh in the same time, no doubt about it.

If you not go to failure, you will get strong but you won´t get big.

Okay tell that to all the strength athletes on this board that are making progress in both size and strength while not training to failure.

 

[Edu]

They gain mass not going to failure, but if they go to failure
They will gain more mass. Training like mentzer of couser.