Failure Training

[TheMac]

This has been a hot topic (for me at least) lately. I would be curious on some of your opinions on the subject.

What is "failure" in terms of resistance training?

What are the benefits?

What are the negatives?

Do the benefits of failure training outweigh the negatives?

Why do some strength coaches recommend it while others avoid it?

I would be curious to see what you guys think. I will post my opinion later /forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[book]

This is all in my opinion

-Failure training is for lagging bodyparts/prioritising bodyparts in terms of hypertrophy.
-Failure training should be avoided for body parts that aren't lagging - but this ties into my next point
-Failure training is rough. Not to sound offensive to anybody here but I don't believe anyone can HONESTLY be as intense on there 1st set of the week compared to there 150th+ (talking about build up of fatigue). While these later sets are still productive they're not as harsh on the CNS as previous sets. There is a big difference between 1 rep before failure and true failure
-Failure training, while not counter productive for strength gains, doesn't allow you to train as frequently and causes more fatigue. But on the other hand adding in a set or 2 too complete failure will help train better motor unit firing

all of this is my opinion though.

[TheMac]

*Added one more question, book sparked a good point, What is "failure"?

[book]

[ QUOTE ]
*Added one more question, book sparked a good point, What is "failure"?

[/ QUOTE ]

I would say "failure" is the inability to perform a concentric with a weight without assistance. So concentric failure is what I, and mostly everybody, refers to when talking about "Failure".

Then again theirs also eccentric and static failure too..but I consider employing them as a 'shock' or something to be added in on certain situations..not something to build a routine around.

[TheMac]

[ QUOTE ]


I would say "failure" is the inability to perform a concentric with a weight without assistance


[/ QUOTE ]

If i was still able to perform one more rep of Flat Barbell Press by arching my lower back and driving the bar up with my legs could that be considered failure?

Is the last rep of failure training always perfect form?

[jth16]

I've actually thought about this a good bit before.
I define 'failure' into different categories.
1. A point reached during a set in which you can't do a repetition with correct form.

2. A point reached during a set in which to perform a repetion you must 'cheat'

3. A point reached in a set in which you are assisted on the concentric portion of the lift and only do the eccentric either by yourself or with some assistance.

4. A point in a workout reached in which you can't perform a certain movement with or without assistance and without a prolonged rest peroid.
Say for example at the end of a strip set or austrian blitz.


The benefits of going to failure are that you know the muscle fibers being trained are exhausted completely. Which results in the most hypertrohpy/ hyperplasia.

The negatives would be failure is a pain in the butt to reach, and when you perform a set in the hypertrophy range (6-12+ reps) and achieve failure within the set, you aren't acquiring any central nervous system adaptations. It isn't that you won't become stronger, but your one to five rep max won't go up much.

I personally believe that the positives outweigh the negatives, for bodybuilders especially whom which aren't concerned with one rep maxes. In the words of Shawn Ray, "How much I can bench is irrelevant to me, as long as my muscles are growing and improving. When I'm up there on stage, it won't matter whether I can bench 100 pounds or 500 pounds."

I can't say I remember been around a strength coach and them saying to do or don't reach failure.
Although, I would guess it is that same as with bodybuilders, but opposite. /forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif Only train in the 1-5 rep range range without reaching failure, and a resting period of 3+ minutes. Because, strength athletes aren't concerned with muscle size.

I'm going to have to disagree with you book. I think failure should be reached every set, at least in one of the forms I defined, after doing a 1-3 sets of warm-up and stretching.

I implement both strength and hypertrophy geared sets into my workouts. I always do the strength sets first, because as book pointed out failure training causes more fatigue.

[book]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


I would say "failure" is the inability to perform a concentric with a weight without assistance


[/ QUOTE ]

If i was still able to perform one more rep of Flat Barbell Press by arching my lower back and driving the bar up with my legs could that be considered failure?

Is the last rep of failure training always perfect form?

[/ QUOTE ]

I would consider that a type of assited rep - you're putting yourself in a more favourable position and so less stress on the target muscle.

So good point - add "good form" or non-deviating form into my definition.

[TheMac]

Alright here are a few of my thoughts on the subject, i actually think it is cool that opinions are so varied on the subject /forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

The benefits of failure training is that you recruit a maximum amount of muscle fibers and motor units per set. Jacob Wilson (The Prez) gives us a great illustration of this:
[ QUOTE ]
In principle, lets say that your set lasts 30 seconds. You would begin by recruiting a wave of your relatively smaller motor units.
Note though that I say relatively, because 30 seconds of all out activity is very intense relative to normal activity, and highly anaerbic. So this first wave to come into play in the first few seconds would be full of fast twitch muscle fibers, particularly IIA. Out of this population, the motor units to fatigue out first would be larger, less fatigue resistant. The motor units with more fatigue resistance, which are on the smaller end of the units recruited, would continue to contribute to force output. Following fatigue of the intermediate fibers, more fast twitch muscle fibers that are larger and less fatigue resistant would enter into the lift, but these would fatigue even faster then the previous ones that dropped out, causing you to relatively rapidly recruit even larger motor units.

Here is an illustration

A. Lets say that muscle fibers range from 1 – 100s to fatigue as they each contain differing endurance properties ( in reality, some slow Mus much greater endurance time, showing dozens minutes without fatigue)

Say that you lift a weight at a speed of 1 second a lift. On first lift one division of MUS recruited and the second not. Slow fatigue resistant and some intermediate fibers recruited first. After several lifts, some of Mus are fatigued. The ones with the lowest endurance become exhausted. For example after 6 reps, only MUS with endurance time under 6 seconds are exhausted. Now new Mus are recruited. These new ones are fast nonresistant to fatigue. They become exhausted quickly. If only 10 lifts of 12 performed the entire MU population can be divided into 3 divisions

1. Mus that are recruited but not fatigued – If they are not fatigued then the stimulus may not be high enough for adaptation . All MUS having endurance above 10 s are in this category. Without special training ST fibers will not adapt well.


2. MUS recruited and exhausted – These r the main MUS subjected to a serious training stimulus in this set. These possess intermediate features. In this population, no slowest( recruited but not fatigued) or fastest Mus ( not recruited).

A key point is that the corridor of MUS subjected to a stimulus may be relatively narrow or relatively broad depending on the weight lifted and number of reps per set. One objective of strength program can be to increase subpopulation of Mus influenced by training or ‘ broaden the corridor ‘

3. Mus not recruited and therefore not trained – If you would have performed to failure the picture is changed in the final lifts. At failure a maximal # of available MUS r recruited.

All MUS r divided into two populations: exhausted and nonexhausted. The Training effect is substantial in first group only. If reps are 12 then all above 12 s fall into second group.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now the negative of failure training is the great amount of fatigue induced from it leading to a much more rapid progression to overtraining. This is not as great of an issue for people training a muscle group once a week but does become more of a problem once you reach 2-3 times a week.

In my own opinion i feel that failure training will slow progress if done on every set during a high frequency training program. With this in mind here is what i have came to think as "optimal".

Working to failure on the last set of an excercise will recruit fibers that would not be utilized in a non failure training set while keeping fatigue to a minimum. This also allows me to judge my progress by how many sets of a certrain weight i can keep at the same number of reps. If i reach failure earlier than i planned on it mighthint to me to lay off the volume a bit.

Also non faiure sets seem to be optimal for shocking methods, if you were to go to failure and then drop the weight you would need to drop it a lot to be able to keep going. By not training to failure before that drop endurance will be much better.

I want more opinions to keep comming through, this is great guys /forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

I agree with everything you wrote except..

[ QUOTE ]
Also non faiure sets seem to be optimal for shocking methods, if you were to go to failure and then drop the weight you would need to drop it a lot to be able to keep going. By not training to failure before that drop endurance will be much better.

[/ QUOTE ]

IMO certain shock methods like dropsets/supersets are only useful for hypertophy - so it would be better to leave your failure training to this type of work and put most of your non-failure training on heavier straight set work.

[rickck48]

Excellent question, and so far what I have read is awesome! I don't think I ever made it to complete failure, but I have been so sore that it took more time than normal to recoup! Failure to me is when you can raise a leg or arm or opther part becuase it is totally noon responsive from the reps! Just my opinion. /forum/images/graemlins/cool.gif

[TasteLikeChicken]

Well I agree that failiure is not beign able to complete the concentric portion of a rep with good form or not being able to hold weight in a static position like you guys said.This is normaly how I describe failiure, however there is another type of failiure.

Think of it for a second, once you can't lift a weight on the concentric, you are not lacking a lot of strenght to do so; a spotter could lift the rest of the weight in a bench press with two fingers. So in reality you didn't realy fail you still have most of you strenght for more sets. If you are lifting heavy weights few muscle fibers have been stimulated and failed. If you don't get all questions right on a test and did 90%, you didn't fail. I think this type of failiure would have to be attained though multiple stip sets to stimulate lots of fibers, to the point where you cramp up and the weight is irrevelant. Like if you are doing leg curls with 70lbs to concentric failiure, striped and did the same with 60,50 and 40lbs you may cramp up and no longer be able to curl your legs with 10lbs.

I think that eccentric failiure is not possible, it can't be calculated unless you a shooting for a specific time.

What about rest-pauses? To attain failiure wouldn't you have to utilise them as much as possible?

[book]

[ QUOTE ]
Well I agree that failiure is not beign able to complete the concentric portion of a rep with good form or not being able to hold weight in a static position like you guys said.This is normaly how I describe failiure, however there is another type of failiure.

Think of it for a second, once you can't lift a weight on the concentric, you are not lacking a lot of strenght to do so; a spotter could lift the rest of the weight in a bench press with two fingers. So in reality you didn't realy fail you still have most of you strenght for more sets. If you are lifting heavy weights few muscle fibers have been stimulated and failed. If you don't get all questions right on a test and did 90%, you didn't fail. I think this type of failiure would have to be attained though multiple stip sets to stimulate lots of fibers, to the point where you cramp up and the weight is irrevelant. Like if you are doing leg curls with 70lbs to concentric failiure, striped and did the same with 60,50 and 40lbs you may cramp up and no longer be able to curl your legs with 10lbs.

I think that eccentric failiure is not possible, it can't be calculated unless you a shooting for a specific time.

What about rest-pauses? To attain failiure wouldn't you have to utilise them as much as possible?

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you thinking about literal muscular failure where the muscle itself just cannot do nearly as much as it normally could (just getting that from your example)? Well IMO you could achieve such a state with non-failure as well, it would just take more..maybe a lot more..sets.

hopefully i got it right

[huskerwr38]

As for a person who uses failure training on every set, I feel that TheMac is right in some cases. I feel that it does lead to overtraining if you are training 2x per week. I think I have made a mistake by doing this, my body is kinda hurting right now. My shoulder, my elbow, my knee are all hurting constantly. But it is probably like a 2 out of 10 on the pain scale.
So, do you think that I should only go to failure on my last set when doing high reps? Or on low rep days? I do get very very tired when doing bench and I do 12 reps to failure. Then for my second set of 10 I have to lower the weight a whole lot. So I'm thinking that maybe just go to failure on my last set on high rep days. But what about low rep days? This is a very interesting topic.

[TheMac]

Low rep days can should be the same, the muscle does not need to be taken to failure to induce growth. I would also recommend putting everything you have into each rep when not failure training. An interesting point on the subject would be that there are three ways recruit a maximal amount of motor units in a single set according to Zatsiorsky's Science and Practice of Strength Training:
1. Lift a maximal load.

2. Lift a submaximal load as fast as possible.

3. Lift a submaximal load to failure.

So if we want to maximize motor unit recruitment but not train to failure eplosive training seems to produce the most benefit.

[War5475]

Wow great thougts guys! I want to interject somthing here.

1. I dont feel that certain types of lifting work for everyone. You need to find what works for you.

2. I feel that continued changing of reps, sets and failure, no failure are needed to stave off stagnation.

3. I have found that since i now lift by feel rather than any set weight, rep, set standard I grow much more.

All this said. I train alot with failure but never for more than two weeks at a time. Then i switch to a range of reps high, medium, low depending on what im trying to acheive. However most of the time i even throw the low rep stuff in there for a week or two just to keep my body off balance.

I really dont know any pro or trainer who recomends failure all the time. This would definatly end in overtraining.

I will just leave you with this variety is the spice of life and I have found that so goes body building.

[TasteLikeChicken]

Well, i'm not realy knoledgeable in this but what I described earlier is probably muscular failiure. I have heard a lot about the nervous system failing before the muscle so that was what I was trying to get at.

I think failiure can be vary important and like to lift something like 12,10,9reps going to failiure each time with not to much rest between sets. This seems to create a better pump than resting enough between every set to do the same amount of reps(this never made sense to me) or even worse upping the weight. It would seem that if you can totaly exaust the muscle better, in less time this way. Is this kind of failiure good for hypertrophy?

Failiure only seems to be realy exausting if you do alot of reps, so I doubt it would be overtraining. For a while I did one set of pushups a day 'till failure and got good results(although I know that it is not optimal).

[newbuilder]

I have always thought of failure in weight lifting when I can no longer move the weight the full range of motion - even with a cheat rep. The muscle has been drained and can no longer work.

[book]

I've been thinking about this over the last few weeks and have come to a few more ideas.

Well I've been cutting and IMO (this goes to TheMac) you were right that stuff like dropsets/supersets should not be taken to failure but close to it, on a cut though. IMO on a bulk (which im doing now) failure on EVERY set except for heavy 3-5 rep sets

Also I have been thinking about the different adaptions different programs bring out. Failure is probably more suited for programs that center on breaking down a muscle for a rebound effect (shock training, HIT, high volume training) while non-failure training is best suited for programs that mainly center around weight progression.

Overall though I think they're CAN be a happy medium but it also goes by individual feel as well. I've read about people making great strength gains going to failure and others better not going to failure. This to me shows that people have different tolerances for it so it's best to experiment (just like dieting and training styles) what works best for you.

Anyone wanna comment on my post? Feel free I'd love it.

[TheMac]

[ QUOTE ]

Also I have been thinking about the different adaptions different programs bring out. Failure is probably more suited for programs that center on breaking down a muscle for a rebound effect (shock training, HIT, high volume training) while non-failure training is best suited for programs that mainly center around weight progression.


[/ QUOTE ]

Great input book!

You touched on a very important part of my idea, goals. While on a bulk my goals change than on a cut due to my caloric consumption. While cutting it is way harder for our muscles to repair properly from a ton of damage and excess volume. The goal of a properly developed cut is to maintain muscle mass (or slightly improve it) while dropping bodyfat. Research seen in the tapering articles here at ABC show that intensity is the #1 factor for keeping these adaptions therefore while one is dieting keeping intensity at it's highest is of the utmost importance. In order for this to happen you may need to lower volume and use less demanding workouts as to not cause excess stress.

While on a bulk though i do believe that the body can take a lot more and it is not as large an issue as their are nutrients available to rebuild.

Just a though,

-Mac

[book]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Also I have been thinking about the different adaptions different programs bring out. Failure is probably more suited for programs that center on breaking down a muscle for a rebound effect (shock training, HIT, high volume training) while non-failure training is best suited for programs that mainly center around weight progression.


[/ QUOTE ]

Great input book!

You touched on a very important part of my idea, goals. While on a bulk my goals change than on a cut due to my caloric consumption. While cutting it is way harder for our muscles to repair properly from a ton of damage and excess volume. The goal of a properly developed cut is to maintain muscle mass (or slightly improve it) while dropping bodyfat. Research seen in the tapering articles here at ABC show that intensity is the #1 factor for keeping these adaptions therefore while one is dieting keeping intensity at it's highest is of the utmost importance. In order for this to happen you may need to lower volume and use less demanding workouts as to not cause excess stress.

While on a bulk though i do believe that the body can take a lot more and it is not as large an issue as their are nutrients available to rebuild.

Just a though,

-Mac

[/ QUOTE ]

/forum/images/graemlins/laugh.gif thanks for the reply.

On a cut I found that tapering back on less important body parts allowed my weaker ones to catch up a lot quicker. So instead of equally distributing my volume, I gave more sets to lowerback work, calf work, chest/shoulders/tricep work and found they grew just fine while I was able to maintain all my other bodyparts.

[Gain_is_Pain]

Just caught up on this thread and it is a really really interesting one.

Iwould agree that I would do more failure training whilst bulking as the increased nutrient intake would aid repair.

I also find I get a real big buzz from failure training - something to do with pushing myself to my limits.

[Ignoramus]

Definitely a matter of goals and situations. When I started lifting in hs, i went along with my coach's std 3 set of decreasing reps. i had a lot more time then and made decent gains. now im hitting 30 n i look fwd to the few workouts i can get in. personally for me, it is important that i get a full body workout so one set to failures is the most efficient and effective way to go for me.

Scientifically it adds up too. i forget where i got the article but one set to failure has shown to give 90% the gains of multiple set. once you have failed your muscles the effort it takes to do more just doesnt seem worth it. and if u dont take the muscle group to failure, the human body seems too effecient to want to build more muscle if it doesnt sense that it has to.

[D1ez]

I always believed that every set should be taken to failure, I maen if you aren't training to failure, what are you doing? tossing weights around for fun? anyone can do that, but not anyone has the intensity to reach 10-15 sets till failure

[Rain_Man]

i'd like to imput my view.

I had great gains while preforming moderate reps to near failure.

then on the last set preform it to complete failure and move on to the next exercise. it was motivating + challenging.

[Ignoramus]

[ QUOTE ]
i'd like to imput my view.

I had great gains while preforming moderate reps to near failure.

then on the last set preform it to complete failure and move on to the next exercise. it was motivating + challenging.

[/ QUOTE ]

having u tried going to failure on only one set (excluding warm ups)? be interesting to compare the gains.

[kokokolo]

indeed, there should be some studies on this...

I always thought that after warming up each set should go to failure at the very minimum. Then use as many shock methods as possible on each set as you have the energy and mental focus for.

I found it interesting that many of you say you dont do this. I think I might try not pushing myself so hard mentally. As Ive noticed that back when I didnt push myself so hard, I would walk out of the gym feeling really good and ready to do stuff, and with some energy. Where now I just wanna spaz out after working out and sit by my TV, completely tired and mentally drained /forum/images/graemlins/frown.gif

[book]

If you guys read our posts and a post I made in the training forum on muscle fibers, you'll see that you don't need failure to recruite a maximum amount of fibers. Provided this only occurs with heavy weights done explosively, it is an important tool to use when you work a muscle 2x a week. Also I use Poliquins definition of failure - "attempting to perform a repetition but not being able to complete it with good form" which is IMO true failure - It's not like my sets are a breeze and if anything heavy 3-5 rep compounds are just as tiring.

Shocks are IMO overrated - those quadroople drop sets may pump you up amazingly well but are causing the weight used on the next few sets to be a lot lighter. If you are able to row 135lbs for 10 reps, do you really think fatiguing yourself to thepoint where your 4th set has you only being able to work with 75lbsx10. Do you guys think consistently using a warm up weight will cause much growth? IMO to a certain point that do - but only a few shocks per workout are needed. Pump and fatiguing a muscle are 1 way to gain muscle, but are not the sole way too.

Look at most powerlifters - you ever see them doing dropsets/supersets? No and they're 99% more muscular then bodybuilders. I bet a lot of people here know guys in there gym who are massive that don't do any shocks and probably don't take a proper post workout shake because working out is about the weight you use, not the pump you get. You will be a lot bigger benching 315, squatting/deadlifting 405+ then just every workout trying to think of some way to "change it up"

[D1ez]

so how do you train, book? 4-6 rep range, basically max-ot style

[book]

[ QUOTE ]
so how do you train, book? 4-6 rep range, basically max-ot style

[/ QUOTE ]

In short I do one heavy workout and 1 light workout, though some times I cycle exercises too. For my upcomming split which is...

upper
lower
off

I'm going to cylce heavy deadlifts and heavy squats with a quad emphasis in the deadlift session and a hamstring emphasis in the squat session. But for my upperbody days I'll just do 1 session heavy and 1 session light. For me, so far, this type of training has realised me the best gains - especially in trouble spots like my chest/shoulders used to be

I'm still looking for something for calves though - while my calves have improved a lot over the last year I, imo, don't think DUP is very effective for them. So i'll try other stuff /forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif

I've actually done Max-OT before and believe what it teaches is great, but how it applies it is not so good.

[President Wilson]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
*Added one more question, book sparked a good point, What is "failure"?

[/ QUOTE ]


Then again theirs also eccentric and static failure too..but I consider employing them as a 'shock' or something to be added in on certain situations..not something to build a routine around.

[/ QUOTE ]

We actually run a cool eccentric failure test in our lab. Its called reactive failure. What happens is an individual is placed on a biokinetic machine, their limb is straped in and they exert force against the transducer that is on their limb (its a cuff attachted to their limb, attached to a force transducer), then immediately the machine pulls against the direction you contracted (so if you did a leg extension it trys to pull you into leg flexion). If you are stronger eccentrically you stop the machine from moving you into flexion. But eventually you can no longer produce enough force to resist and the machine lengthens your muscle.
Markers of muscle damage are high after that!

[Stamina]

As a beginner, I dislike the idea of failure training due to an increased risk of injury. I avoid it at all cost when doing heavy compound exercises like bench press, deads, squats, etc., because proper form is crucial in these and an incorrect rep might cost me a knee or a shoulder. I think it's fine for lighter isolated exercises like biceps curls or tri extensions provided you do failure training on the last sets with lighter weight. The bottom line is that the risk of injury outweigh any potential benefits of training to failure. For me, light and steady does it.

[D1ez]

Would training about one rep away from failure cause significantly less gains than going to true failure. Ive noticed lately I am pushing myself to my true limits and beyond. The problem is that I am getting very very sore, and have severe cases of DOMS, I just took a week off, came back (a little too hard) and now am too sore to have a normal workout. So if training close to failure will still produce hypertrophy and let me recover faster, then I will change my workout style.