Training to Failure

[Guest guest]

Training to Failure and Beyond in Mainstream Resistance Exercise Programs

Willardson, M; Norton, Layne; ,

Strength & Conditioning Journal., POST AUTHOR CORRECTIONS, 7 May 2010

Abstract:

SUMMARY: INTENTIONALLY REACHING FAILURE DURING RESISTANCE EXERCISE SETS IS A

COMMON PRACTICE THAT MIGHT BE MOST BENEFICIAL FOR STIMULATING HYPERTROPHY.

HOWEVER, FAILURE TRAINING PERFORMED TOO FREQUENTLY CAN RESULT IN REDUCTIONS IN

THE RESTING CONCENTRATION OF TESTOSTERONE AND CONTRIBUTE TO THE OVERTRAINING

SYNDROME. THE RESEARCH SUGGESTS THE GREATEST EFFECTIVENESS WHEN FAILURE TRAINING

IS PRACTICED CONSISTENTLY OVER 6-WEEK CYCLES, INTERSPERSED WITH EXCLUSIVE

NONFAILURE TRAINING CYCLES OVER EQUAL PERIODS. COACHES SHOULD CONSIDER ATHLETES'

TRAINING STATUS AND GOALS AND THE POINT IN A YEARLY TRAINING CYCLE TO DETERMINE

WHETHER SETS ARE TO BE PERFORMED TO FAILURE OR ENDED SHORT OF REACHING FAILURE.

CONCLUSION

Intentionally reaching failure during resistance exercise sets is a common

practice in recreational and sports conditioning settings, despite relatively

few studies that have directly compared failure versus nonfailure training

approaches. Anecdotally, the benefits are strongly supported among bodybuilders.

The research does indicate that training to failure and beyond with

partner-assisted

repetitions and descending sets might be most beneficial to hypertrophyoriented

training programs because of greater acute secretions of growth hormone.

However, further longitudinal research is necessary that specifically compares

failure versus nonfailure approaches to validate the link between acute

elevations in anabolic hormones and hypertrophy. Failure

training performed too frequently may result in decreased resting levels of

testosterone and increased resting levels of cortisol, which are

counterproductive to hypertrophy. Therefore,

training to failure can and should be periodized just like other

well-established prescriptive variables (e.g., intensity, volume—number of sets,

repetition range).

Trained lifters may tolerate sets to failure with greater frequency versus

untrained lifters. The current research suggests that performing sets to failure

may provide greater gains in absolute strength, hypertrophy, and localized

muscular endurance when practiced

consistently over 6-week cycles, interspersed with exclusive nonfailure cycles

over equal periods. When power production is the objective, training to failure

should be discouraged and

coaches should consider athletes' training status and goals, and the point in a

yearly training cycle to determine whether sets are to be performed to failure

or ended short of reaching failure.

================

Carruthers

Wakefield, UK