Posted: 2/8/2007 9:36:24 AM EDT
|
What do you consider as "failure"? Does failure mean going until you can complete a full rep but estimate that you could not complete another? Or does it mean complete muscle failure that you physically cannot move the weight any further? I usually keep going until I can't move the weight anymore on everything except squats and bench. I think what I am actually doing on the last rep is a "partial". I never really thought about it before. I am probably overtraining. I feel like I'm shortchanging myself if I don't give it 100% on every set though. Also, on a workout program it says to increase the weight when you can do 3x8 but does that mean move up when you can do 8 full reps on the first set or on the last set? Because I move up when I can do 8 full reps on the first set but I may only be getting 5 and 4 reps on the 2nd and 3rd sets. Or does it mean to increase the weight when you can do 8 reps on all 3 sets? Because if I can do 8 reps on the 3rd set, the chances are I could do 15 on the 1st set so why stop at only 8? I hope this wasn't too confusing 
|
Since I'm just a wannabe, I'll take a stab till the experts get here.  
Failure typically means when you cannot complete the rep you are doing.
So many factors determine if you are overtraining or not... most important thing is to give yourself adequate recovery time, especially when training to failure or doing things like drop sets to failure. Unless you're "unnatural" I would not train a body part to complete failure more than once a week.
It means when you can do the three complete sets of 8 reps. |
|
About 2/3 down Training to failure over training For part 3, listen to your body. if you can do more weight than do it. If your tired then lighten up. dont hold yourself to a cut and dry formula. |
|
I have discovered the best way to gauge my progress and make the fastest gains is to train to failure EVERY set on EVERY exercise EVERY time. I never train differently. I also almost never change exercises. If I do say DB flat bench I might do a weight say 100 lb dumbells 10 times. I could not get an 11th. Someties it is because I actually fail on my attempted 11th rep or it is because I know with 100% certainty through years of training that I CANNOT do another rep no matter what so I just dont try. My second set will be typically 2 reps less than the first one. I usually get say 8 reps on the second set but it may be 7 or 9. I usually get 2 reps less on the last set (6) but it may be 5 or 7. Barring injury or layoff or lack of propper diet or sleep I ALWAYS increase one of those sets by a rep on every exercise. I might only get 8,6,4 one week and the next get 8,6,5 but one of the reps will always increase. When I can do 11 reps on the first set I increase weight and never do that weight again or I will simply not gain muscle at an optimum pace. It has been a very successful formula for me. I only lift once a week on a bodypart. I must use ECA before the workout to push that hard. I never do more than 3 exercises on a body part and I have to split my exercises up with pushes and pulls to recover. So for Mon I would do Bench/Bi and do 3 sets of Bench, 3 sets of curls, 3 sets of incline, etc. which allows more recovery between each exercise on the bodypart. If I dont do it that way I end up overtrained or cant lift worth a damn on later exercises because I am so burned out. I do not believe I "learn to fail" or "suffer central nervous system burnout" or any of that crap. I also dont think I could summon the energy to do this level of work without the ECA. I never do negatives or drop sets. Lifting lighter weight is counterproductive to maximising strength and muscular gains IMO. Marathons do not make strong muscles. |
|
A quick contrary opinion, I feel training to faillure definitely slows my gains. Note I'm not bodybuilding, I'm more interested in athletic performance, and that could be part of the explanation, Certainly, the concept of training to failure has taken root much more in bodybuilding than in athletic programs where most think it's a barrier to performance (obviously there are exceptions, though even the exceptions thin out as you go from amateur to pro). HIT is the most common theory associated with training to failure. Some opposing viewpoints: http://www.deepsquatter.com/strength/archives/ls12.htm http://www.charliefrancis.com/contributors/charlie_francis/ http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/drsquat7.htm |
What kind of gains are you looking for? IMHO going to failure is the best way to induce hypertrophy. |
I love T-Nation for there articles. Their articles are written by respected members of the training comunity, at BB.com there is some good info, but you have to figure out what is good and what isnt, because anyone can write an article there. |
|
That is a good article. Here's another I found but it seems to be geared more towards general athletes www.timinvermont.com/fitness/failure.htm I train the way DevL described but it's started to get too stressful and taking the fun out of it. It's like tring to beat your best 5k time every time you go for a run. |
Thats the fun part.  It will be all worth it when you can see the changes in the mirror.
|
+1, by the book formulas are only for beginners, gives you something to go by. If your training for a very spefic goal, monitoring/logging your workout sessions is ok. But for overall fitness i prefer to follow my instincts. Instinctive training (listening to your body) is the way to go. |
| Don't train to failure. It's that simple. Always end with one or two reps still in the bag. Training to failure does induce hypertrophy just not the kind you want. (Unless your training as a serious body builder, nothing wrong with that if thats your goal) Your central nervous system is a huge part of strength training. Training to failure constantly is a surefire way to zap you CNS. Besides why teach your muscle to fail. |
I agree. The thing is, most people here -- Remman for example -- *are* doing bodybuilding. Absolutely nothing wrong with that, just good to know what the goals are up front before you state whether failure should be sought or not. Going to failure has definitely more acceptance among bodybuilders, and I have to assume that they know what they're doing, and are using what works for them. There's a reason going to failure has little acceptance in athletic programs where the strength & conditioning program is just an adjunct to sports performance. The few exceptions seem to be a few college football teams, where performance is important but so is hypertrophy. If I were bodybuilding, I'd likely try out a failure routine to see how it works for me. To answer your earlier quesiton, Remman, my training is focused on top strength and power for my size. I'm mostly happy with my size, actually letting myself put on some pounds now, but for the most part I'm focused on strength, power, speed, muscular endurance with only minor weight gain. |
|
95% + the guys I see who want strength and not weight, even guys who compete in weight class restrictions, could add 5-10 lbs of muscle and drop the same in fat. If you dont look like you belong on the cover of a magazine you should be training to failure. That means essentiually everyone on this forum. Bodybuilding gaining more size than strength is crap. Saying it happens is a lie. Zapping your CNS from training to failure is crap. Saying it happens is just a flat out lie. Hypertrophy IS strength and is the limit of your strength potential. Hypertrophy IS explosiveness because strength is explosiveness. Hypertorphy is EVERYTHING. It is why we lift weights. I have met MANY guys who talk about not wanting to gain size but only strength. I have never met the guy who actually would benefit from a non hypertrophy inducing workout. Professional MMA guys, college football players, professional boxers, weekend warriors, you name it. None of the guys who claim this have actually hit the limit of size they can gain because they are 6% body fat and just too damned muscular to afford to get bigger... none of them. The ones who are close to 6% would be better off in a higher weight class as far as perfomance goes anyway but dont want to make the sacrifices the improved body would require. THE ONLY TIME SOMEONE SHOULD EVER CONSIDER A NON HYPERTROPHY INDUCING WORKOUT IS WHEN YOU ARE GOING TO BE UNHEALTHY F YOU LOSE ANYMORE FAT AND YOU CAN AFFORD TO GAIN ANY MORE WEIGHT. So if you are at 6'2" and you want to do a weight class of 205 you should be about 220 lbs at 6-8% body fat. You can shed water to get down to 205 at 5-6% for the competition and focus on training the nervous system as you prepare and not hypertophy. Id dont think anyone on this forum is in that kind of shape. YOU CANNOT GET A STRONGER BODY BY LIFTING "HEAVY BUT NOT TO FAILURE" THAN YOU CAN BY LIFTING FOR HYPERTROPHY AND LATER SWITCHING TO STRENGTH BASED TRAINING. I want that point to be clear to everyone. Hypertrophy is hypertorphy. You will not suffer from permanant "big but weak" muscles training for hypertrophy. In fact you will get to your maximum size faster that way and can lift for pure strength after you are finished growing. I repeat. Lifting for anything bu hypertorphy is counterproductive to your long term goals. It is the WRONG way to lift. Dont listen to lies like bodybuilding training is not good for athletic performance. Excessively large muscles are not good for performance. Anyone here think their muscles are excessively large? Perhaps not lifting to failure is for you then. For everyone else lifting to failure is the answer. Sorry for the book but I have to dispell the biggest myth I KNOW is a MYTH because I was suckered into it for a long time. |
|
Strongly disagree, and so would trainers and athletes in most sports. The reason that, in any particular weight class, the strongest or most powerful don't look like bodybuilders, is because they lift different than bodybuilders. Not that bodybuilders are not strong -- you lift weights and get big muscles, you're going to be stronger than you were (although you may sacrifice other characteristics like speed if you're not careful). That doesn't mean a powerlifter at the same weight with smaller looking muscles won't be much stronger. Plain and simple, if your primary motivation is to get big, lift like a bodybuilder. You'll gain strength along the way. If your primary motivation is strength and power for sports, lift for strength and power even though your muscles won't get bigger nearly as fast. The results between a program meant to optimize myofibrillar hypertrophy and one meant to optimize sarcoplasmic hypertrophy is usually easily noticeable to someone who switches between them. This isn't myth or unproven, it's rock solid: a workout optimizing on muscle size preferntially grows the sarcoplasm and noncontractile proteins, which does not result in the same strength increases as a strength program. This is well-studied and not controversial. Again, this is not to say that a bodybuilder won't gain plenty of strength along the way. But this being also the self defense forum, it's presumptuous to assume everyone here is also trying to maximize for size rather than strength. |
Look if you are looking for strength and power only, take a look at what the powerlifters are doing. They train at low reps with heavy weight , to FAILURE. Other wise your body will not adapt and make you stronger, simple as that. If you are not taxing (failure) your body, then you will not make your body change because it doesnt need to. Simple as that. |
I can only say BS. What you are saying is "well proven" is actually utter crap. Lies told often enough will be universally thought of as "the truth". The studies behind the tripe you are suggesting are fact are some form of fallacy of logic, lies told to make money, taken out of context, or misquotes. I used to believe as you, I considered a career in the sports science field. I read all the BS about periodisation, sarcomere vs sarcoplasm gains, etc. When that crap didnt offer up results that took me to the head of the pack I had to reevaluate why the other guys are stronger and faster than me. Why are they making faster progress? Why are they the ones with the full ride scholarships? Even looking back into the studies directly that the books I read were based on I found nothing but LIES. I will give ONE example but I could offer up a hundred. There was a study that suggested that bodybuilders have less fast twitch growth thanpowerlifters due to training regimine. THERE WAS NO CONTROL FOR THAT IDEA TO BE PUT FORTH. No mention of the ACTUAL training regimine or watching it over a period of time for change. You see to be "sucessful" as a powerlifter you must be gentically gifted with great fast twitch fibers and good muscle atachment points for leverage. This is a prerequisite to be successful. Just like a high percentage of slow twitch fibers and a large heart is a prerequisite for sucessful endurance running. ANY statistical sample of powerlifters will show more fast twitch fibers than ANY other group because it is defacto requirement to be a powerlifter in the first place. To me its obvious in that study the powerlifters had GENETIC or other differences more than likely. This brings me to powerlifters. They are powerlifters because they are born strong and develop that talent. Guys with pretty bodies get into bodybuilding. Being pretty is not required to be a successful powerlifter and being strong is not required to be a successful bodybuilder. For any statistically valid sample the bodybuilders will ALWAYS look better and the powerlifters will ALWAYS be stronger on the average. To ever mention powerlifter vs bodybuilder is ridiculous to use as an example. Its not the TRAINING its the GENETICS. When it is not the gentics its the drugs. Very little of the differences in bodybuilders and powerlifters muscles is from the TYPE of training being done. Now realising power lifters dont have different strength potential from the lifting regimine but from gentics and gentics means everything you can be both pretty AND strong and explosive. Trainign to be a bodybuilder WILL NOT make you weaker or slower. Read that again. TRAINING TO FAILURE FOR MORE THAN 6 REPS WILL NOT MAKE YOU WEAK OR SLOW. You know there is this real strong guy name Marius... he looks like a body builder. Oh, wait... he WAS a professional bodybuilder and is the "World's Strongest Man"! How can that be when he obviously is nothing but a pile of water and reticulum!?!? Oh, and are we going to say that Kevin Randleman and Phil Baroni are not explosive mixed martial artists or not strong because they look like bodybuilders? Oh yeah... Phil WAS a professional bodybuilder. Those guys are some of the strongest and most explosive guys in the sport! Now I have no doubt that lifting heavy will make you stronger IN THE SHORT RUN. This strength is quickly gained and is the result of neuromuscular adaptations. You can also shed a tiny bit of "water weight" from your muscles because of your reduced need for glycogen, creatine, etc for extended work loads. Its only use should be to make weight. These are not physiologic changes that take moths or years to take place either. They are short term. To end I will share this fact. Bodybuilding will get you stronger at a faster rate than powerlifting in the long run though powerlifting will give more strength up front. You wil not aonly gain ore sarcoplasm but more actin and myosin. You do not end up being weaker than the guy next to you who did all heavy lifting with some misguided illusion of sarcomere only growth, you end up stronger with VERY SIMILAR muscles. To ME bodybuilding is about gaining muscle at the fastest rate possible. I put forth what I found through lots of reading followed by trial and error is best for that. It has never failed to work for anyone who has tried it that I have worked with. It is a simple concept that works in the real world. That is what means the most to me. |
Ridiculous. Powerlifters don't use bodybuilding techniques, and they are the best at powerlifting. O-lifters don't use bodybuilding techniques. Boxers don't use bodybuilding techniques. A simple quick trip to a forum where trainers and athletes can be found -- either online or at the gym -- is all that's needed to confirm this. At this point, I agree we're at an end, once we get to the point where you're advocating max hypertrophy for people who compete in weight classes, we're too far apart to discuss anything further I think. Westside has plenty of articles online, they're reasonably good at this stuff. I encourage folks to read the links I put in my first response, then talk to some actual powerlifters and go from there. Just keep in mind powerlifting, too, is different from just using your S&C program as an enabler for another sport or activity. |
Remman, I agree it's good to look at powerlifters for strength (I am relieved that you aren't arguing that bodybuilding is what strength athletes should do, see above). Before I examine that, I'll repeat that for an athlete in another sport, the strength program is an adjunct, not an end in itself. If I do my strength program and then can't do my skill work in the ring or on the court or field, my strength program isn't doing me any good. A powerlifter will have different needs than other athletes, because powerlifting *is* his sport, he doesn't have to go do skill work later tonight or tomorrow. Okay, let me start with a quote from Louie Simmons, who knows a thing or two about powerlifting:
So, at least some powerlifters -- and arguably, Westside produces some of the best in the world -- are not going to failure, at least all the time. Westside does some failure work, only in certain cycles, and only for "auxilliary" exercises, not the main exercises like bench, squat, etc. Failure doesn't seem to be required for adaptation to happen. Note also -- going back to DevL's point that bodybuilding is better than powerlifting for strength development -- that powerlifters NEVER do soley what you said: high weights, low reps. Obviously, that's what they do for the strength part of their program. But max strength requires significant power development (another reason why DevL's argument about bodybuilding doesn't work). Power is usually developed with low weights (~50% of 1RM) moved maximally fast. Power idevelopment is critical, another difference with bodybuilding. I realize you get this, but evidently not everyone on the thread does. So: - If your S&C program is an adjunct to another sport (i.e., your sport isn't bodybuilding, powerlifting, or O-lifting), you need to gain strength and power as the primary target, without leaving yourself shot to do the most important thing: skill and endurance work in your primary sport. Failure *is* rough on the CNS; if your skill work suffers, change. - Even all powerlifters don't go to failure. If you talk to trainers in other sports, you'll find even less going to failure. Again, I have no argument that failure might be the right thing to do for bodybuilders. There may be powerlifting schools that do it too. My experience and expectation is that as your S&C program becomes an enabler for another sport rather than an end in itself, the less wise it is to run your CNS into the ground in the S&C program -- which is why you don't see a lot of it from advanced trainers in other sports. |
|
Here is the problem. You are taking the quote out of context. They are talking about their aux lifts that they dont take to failure. The reason they do this is so they can take their primary competing lifts to failure and not be to fatigued when performing them. They are doing this so the rest of their body doesnt start to become a weak point. Basically to maintain what the muscles that they are working. They do take their primary lifts to failure, because they want to become stronger faster in their primary lifts. You cant do that by not going to failure. On a side note, if a westside powerlifter has a weak point, you can be damn well sure that they will be going to failure on their weak point training. For anyone not competing in powerlifting, you dont want to train like one. They are traing for 3 lifts and 3 lifts only. Bench, deads, and squats. When they do those lifts they do them in a way to use as much of their body as possible inorder to complete that lift. So when they bench, they dont keep there back flat. They arch. So they are training to do 3 seperate movements. This is not good if you are looking for overall body strength. So unless you are training to power lift, talking about powerlifters is a mute point. Now from a bodybuilders perspective. Bodybuilders also do powerlifts, but with dif technique. That is because we are trying to work the muscle not just move heavy weight. When we do a squat we keep our feet closer together and go deeper to focus more on the quads. When we bench, we keep our backs flat to focus more on the pecs and not the lats. So when a person trains like a bodybuilder, they work the body in such a manor that we can be strong in multiple exercieses not just 3. So if you are looking for total body strength, train like a bodybuilder. It will make your body develop faster for your goals of being strong in every aspect of your body, not just 3 movements. The best way to do that is to go to failure on every lift and hit your body from dif angles not just 3. |
(Repeated Effort is what their failure method) Clear enough, right? Failure is done with auxiliary exercises, not the main ones.
For a sports S&C program, absolutely agree that full body work is the way to go. The interesting thing to learn from powerlifting is, if hypertrophy isn't your goal, how to train for max strength & power, both of which are required for most sports-based programs. That typically involves a different volume than a BB program, in particular lower reps for strength movements, and the addition of power movements. Maybe I'd be more accurate in saying, "you want to work the entire body, eliminating isolation exercises where possible, maximizing for a balance of strength, power, speed, and muscular endurance." Full body emphasis for sure, and if that makes it like a bodybuilder workout to you, fine with me. But unlike a bodybuilder, your program will emphasize qualities other than hypertrophy and will likely have different volume, in particular if you compete in a sport with weight classes. Anything that makes your skills work suffer because of long recovery times should be avoided. |
|
OK, kinda off topic, but I fixed one of Westside's trainer's cars today & he gave me a monster jug of protein & passes for the upcoming Arnold Classic. The manager is a friend of mine too (700 lb bench last month) and invited me to train with them for free, but I'm afraid I'll tear up some of my 40 year old joints Not too many 40 year olds maintain themselves &/or train as hard as I do, but these guys kill themselves in the gym. I train for longevity in my other job (firefighting) and I mix things up every couple weeks, usually listening to my body. Light weight/high reps when I'm having abnormal joint pain, hard & heavy when I'm feeling good, typically a 4 day/week split.
|
Have fun. I would love to be able to train with those guys for a few months. It would be nice change for awhile. |
He says they dont go to failure on their aux lifts
First off BB training may not be what you think it is and what you read in the muscle mags. For most BBers the key is to gain a good base of muscle mass which includes compund lifts and quality aux lifts with a lower volume inorder to gain total body muscle mass. The pros you see that do a lot of isolation exercises and a very high volume is not what most BBers do or need. This holds true to 90% of amatuer athletes. With this added muscle mass comes strength, endurance, power, and speed. Training to failure is the fastest way to accomplish this. I will agree with you on one point. During your season, you do not want to interfere with your sports training. So the type of training I recomend should be done off season. During season, training should be to maintain what you have. IMHO |
Heh, quotes directly from Westside, with seemingly different statements, since the other quote says clearly that they don't go to failure on the main lifts. I think the explanation is: on the main lifts, they never go to failure, the cycles they use for those lifts do not include failure. On the auxiliary lifts, sometimes they go to failure (repetition effort cycle) and sometimes they don't, hence the vague "best way to answer this".
You could be right that my sense of what BB is off ... beyond the discussion about failure, I've been surprised about some of your recommendations (compound lifts, heavy weight), which is the exact right answer for an S&C program for athletics also, IMO. My sense, again, is that the volume is different -- 5x5 being a typical volume for an athletic strength program, whereas I see things like 5x8 and 5x10 for bodybuilders (again, I could be misinformed on that). 5x5 definitely targets strength gains over size gains by minimizing sarcoplasmic hypertrophy relative to something like 5x10. And again, athletes should do power work, I could be misinformed but I haven't seen BBs do power work.
I agree that at the beginning, everything increases speed & power, but once you get past that point, you must target speed and power separately using fast movements. Pure strength work does not only not increase speed after that point, but will cannabilize it if you're not working speed separately. And, it's been proven by the powerlifters that after that beginning phase, you must train power separately. You won't find many (any?) powerlifters who disagree -- separate power work is required, and that's applicable directly to a sports-based S&C program because in most sports, power is at least as important as (often more important than) strength. That is why all S&C programs for athletics have a power component, I'd challenge you to find an advanced trainer of amateurs or pros who don't do power. It's a must.
The problem is, many sports don't have a season proper. For combative sports, I suppose things like golden gloves could vaguely be considered in-season, but really you'll be fighting all year. The reason you will not find the trainers -- who know much more about training amateur fighters than most here -- doing failure work is simple enough: go do your heavy compound lifts to failure, then spend your evenings sparring and doing skills work, and see how long it is before both your skills work and strength work start to suffer. Interesting discussion regardless, thanks! |
sure
The volume you speak of is off. Typically you want to train in the 6-12 rep depending on exercise and what you are doing. Set wise is 3-4max. Granted some genetically gifted folks do more and get away with it, but the vast majority dont. Alot of young BBers do the 5x5 program and gain lots of muscle. It may be for strength, but it produces muscle. By power work do you mean power lifts focusing on explosiveness? Because most BBers do that. Its the only way to get good muscle density.
Of course if you want to be fast you have to train for it. I never said BBing strength training was the end all to training for every sport. But most people other than elite athletes are going to get to the point where they have SO much muscle that they will see deminishing returns in their sport.
Im not a fighter, I just played lots of team sports and wrestled for a while. So Im not really familar and cant comment. Thanks for the discussion. Cheers Remman |
I do 5x5, I've been getting bigger for sure, though not as much as when I was doing a 10-8-6-10 pyramid, while my strength gains definitely improved by going to 5x5. It makes sense, you lift heavier weight, you get stronger faster.
Not to mention a big improvement in recruitment, which in turn brings dividends back to the strength program. Yes, by power work, I mean explosiveness -- olympic lifts, dynamic effort, plyos, etc. I've never seen a BB do power work, which may speak more about the quality of gyms I go to. I had no idea BBs do power work based on what I've seen. Joe |
Head of what pack? There will always be stronger and faster athletes, which DOES NOT mean that they will be better. Anyone confused on that issue needs to stay in the gym and off the field. Without getting into a big discussion (I'm headed out the door), I have three words for you: sport specific training. Blake |
Go to a real BB gym and you will see it. I do power lifts all the time. I bench, deadlift, squat, clean, and rarely snatch. Any successfull BB does them. They have too. The plyos not so much, but that is not really a benifical exercise if you are BBing. I used to do them all of the time when I played soccer, but when I got into BB I stopped. |
|
This argument between bodybuilders and other strength training people is not new. I just agree to disagree. Just want to point out a few things that guide my training. Also I'm not an expert and by no means a Sandow or a Saxon. All hypertrohpy is not the same: myofibril hypertrophy: increase in density of muscle fibers (will eventually lead to a size increase) sarcolpasmic hypertrophy: increase in cytoplasm (or making the actual fibers bigger) An example would be an engine: if you wanted more horsepower you wouldn't necessarily just keeping a bigger engine. You would maximize the performance capabilities at the engine size you have. Look at a gymnast. They are some of the strongest athletes by weight. What they do necessitates maximum strength with minimum body weight. They also become skilled in new sports faster than most athletes. Also you shouldn't underestimate the role of the CNS in strength training. It is the basis of strength. It is the actuator and the governor of the muscular system. The CNS just like any other system of your body can get fatigued. It can also be trained and developed for good or for ill. I have nothing against bodybuilding as a end in itself. Everyone should do what they want. I just don't care that much about the visual aspect of strength as much as the functional aspect. Training to failure just doesn't fit with my training goals: lift as heavy as you can, as often as you can while staying as fresh as you can. |