Poll _How often do you train to failure??

[Phaded]

only certain days i cant do legs or chest to failure cause i dont have a spot.. but arms shoulders and back is all done to failure..

 

[bigthrower]

i have been lifting and coaching for over 23 years, and i now believe that going to failure is counterproductive, and going close but leaving some gas in the tank for the next training session is better.

 

[stevius]

If you're doing a squat or deadlift then a lot of muscles are involved, so when we speak of failure we're talking about exhausting a particular muscle, because not all the muscles involved in a compound exercise fail at once.

Who on this board can say to me that their quads fail first, or their lower back or hips during a squat? When you say your legs fail, which part of your legs? If your supporting tissue goes first, sure you can carry on a less-than-perfect set, working through exhaustion, but is there any good reason to do this?

Training in-the-red is a sure way to need more recovery than you should. Failure means diminishing returns, because the cost in recovery outweighs the benefit of hitting all available supporting muscle tissue. To push past your physical limit you can still stop short of your limit while putting more work into a set while you're at 100%. If you have false limits or don't know your true potential as a lifter, that is a different matter.

On the other hand if you want to drive with four flat tyres running on metal with sparks flying from the wheels, go for it.

 

[s8nlilhlpr]

i have been lifting and coaching for over 23 years, and i now believe that going to failure is counterproductive, and going close but leaving some gas in the tank for the next training session is better.

I agree with you. Most of my tripples I know I can rep them for 5, but I keep adding weight every week little by little.

 

[coreyb]

Failure is more of a nervous system event than a muscular one -- the nervous system (which causes the muscles to contract via signals from the brain) cuts you off before the muscles are truly 'done'. The real problem with going to failure with regularity is that the nervous system takes longer to recover than the muscles. You can train much more frequently (i.e. squattng 2-3x/week instead of once) by doing more sets short of failure. More frequency = more workload = more stimulus.

I wouldn't say that one should never go to failure, but to do so at nearly every workout is counterproductive. I almost never squat less than twice per week, and I use heavy weight and decent volume. I have made the best gains of my life by avoiding failure for the most part (unless really pushing for a PR or something) and relying on constant, incremental improvements on the big lifts.

Failure is less detrimental on smaller lifts by nature, as there is far less nervous sytem activity involved in a curl than a deadlift or squat.

^^^^
I second the " I have made the best gains of my life by avoiding failure for the most part (unless really pushing for a PR or something) and relying on constant, incremental improvements on the big lifts."

I know tons of guys that train to failure a couple times a week and they're not progressing even close to as fast I am on the 3x5 program.

 

[Jayhawk21]

I used to train to failure on every set. Thought it was what I was supposed to do. Not for me. The last set I now go to failure, such as the 5x5, and this is MUCH better. I am setting personal records and gaining weight. I think training to failure on EVER set is pointless if you are trying to bulk. It is just going to hinder your results IMO

 

[justchilling]

every day

 

[Papa Lion]

going to failure isn't nec always about muscle growth sometimes it's just good for the mind... ie mental toughness

 

[layinback]

every set every time. incorporate negatives and forced reps once or twice a month. we can and do disagree on all most everything but success in training is 100% dependent on INTENSITY.

 

[ghettostudmuffin]

The better my understanding of fitness/fatigue theory and periodization the more lifting makes sense to me.

I used to be a huge fan of training to failure and Mentzer/Arthur Jones.

Now that I have learned more I realize there are major issues with those theories.

It's been documented that training at I believe 55-80% of your 1 rep max uses all your fibers, but that you need enough reps and sets to ensure that you damage them enough to get a positive response.

1-2 all out to failure sets may damage the muscles enough, but it will also exact a heavier than necessary toll on your nervous system.

This is pretty much why you can do a Heavy Duty program with like 4-6 exercises balls out crazy hard for long periods of time, but only if the workout is like once a week to every 9-10 days. It's because you absolutely thrashed your nervous system.

So now what you got is less than optimal frequency, volume and stimulus to your muscles because you're terrorizing your nervous system rather than strengthening it and increasing it's capacity.

This is probably why so many people even with decent physique's can't make it to a really advanced level. They are pounding away their muscles with excessive and redundant volume while at the same time hammering their nervous system by going to failure every set of every exercise.

This is classic over-training.

While HIT and Heavy Duty attempt to address this they go about it the wrong way using a flawed and simplified view of the bodies handling and adaptation to stress.