Training to Failure

[Guest guest]

On May 23, 2010, at 6:27 PM, david flees wrote:

> Oh a new controversial debate....

Telle -- I don't know if it's new but it sure needs defining.

> It seems pretty clear [???telle] what this study is analyzing, i

> do feel that training to failure of a positive contractiong is

> beneficial as long as a negative is carried out after that failure.

Telle -- In " dogcrap " [DC] (training is this a peer review word yet?)

is a long negative done at the end of each exercise period and before

the next rep after a brief rest or just done on the las rep of a DC set?

> It has been proven in studies that eccentric (negative) contraction

> of an exercise is focused upon for every rep will cause more

> hypertrophy and cellular damage.

Telle -- AS in every rep of every set with isokinetic or inertial

resistance? And number of sets per session and week?! Or is that what

you're asking -- the studies most often tell of sets and training

sessions per week. And, typically, there seems like there is an awful

lot of sets and sessions?

> What do you think the number of exercises, sets, reps, and rest, was

> incorporated in this program. I know the training style i follow

> (Dogcrapp training) you do 3 rest pause sets with 6-8 second

> negatives and each set is to failure, but only one 3 [second I

> assume] rest paused set per bodypart. This technique [telle -- and

> how many tiems pre week and execises per body part] has given me

> plenty of rest and fantastic growth. I am very eager to see what

> others have to say on this topic.

First don't change a thing until success begins to stall before

changing -- or maybe just change exercises every 4-? sessions. Second

is a 6-8 second eccentric the limit time before eccentric speed can be

controlled?

Jerry Telle

Lakewood CO USA

[Guest guest]

Found this on the Clarence Bass site at

http://www.cbass.com/Effortbasedtraining.htm that has relevance to lifting

to failure.

* More Support for Effort-Based Training*

* Even Light Resistance Builds Muscle—If Lifted to Failure *

Many find it hard to believe that the same training effect can result from a

20-rep maximum effort and a 5-rep all-out effort. The idea that effort—not

reps or poundage--is the critical factor just doesn’t square with their

notion of strength training. They read about the Carpinelli and Jungblut

review studies, but can’t bring themselves to accept the conclusions. See

our earlier articles: http://www.cbass.com/Carpinelli.htm and

http://www.cbass.com/LiftingWithEffort.htm

Dr. Winett reported in *Master Trainer* (www.ageless-athletes.com)

on a new study from McMaster University in Canada that strengthens the case

for effort-based training. The study, by A. Burd and his

colleagues, is abstracted in the journal *Medicine & Science in Sports &

Exercise* (May 2009). Unlike the obscure “size principle,” it’s

straightforward and easy to understand.

The study looked at how muscle formation (muscle protein synthesis) is

influenced by training load. Resistance training breaks down or damages

muscle tissue, which the body repairs and rebuilds with protein and other

nutrients. If the resistance is sufficient, the restored muscle tissue is

bigger and stronger than before.

Study participants did leg extensions three different ways, resting for

several days between exercise modes. They did 4 sets with 90% or 30% of

one-repetition maximum. (1RM is the maximum resistance that can be lifted

one time.) For both loads (90% & 30%), sets were continued to failure. For

90% load, failure came at 5 reps; and for 30%, failure was about 23 reps. In

the third mode, the 30% load was lifted only 14 times, well short of

failure.

If effort is the key factor determining muscle formation, one would expect

the same result for 90% and 30% carried to failure, but not for the 30% sets

stopped well short of failure. And that’s what the researchers found. A

light weight (30% of maximum) lifted lightly did not stimulate muscle

formation, while the same weight lifted to failure did.

Muscle protein synthesis (MPS) for 90% and 30% carried to failure was 241%

greater than for 30% stopped 9 reps short of failure. Training with 30% of

1RM—but not to failure—produced negligible increase in MPS.

“These findings support the notion that heavy and light training loads may

elicit similar training-induced increases in hypertrophy provided exercise

is performed to maximum failure,” the researchers concluded. They believe

the greater increase after exercise at 90% and 30% to failure “is likely

related to recruitment of more type II [fast twitch] muscle fibers *not

activated*” with 30% lifted well short of failure. (Emphasis mine)

The size principle would, of course, predict that sub-maximal effort would

not activate the larger fibers, which come into play after activation of the

smaller slow-twitch fibers—and only for the most difficult tasks. The body

protects itself by using only the fibers required, keeping the larger fibers

in reserve for fight-or-flight situations. Makes perfect sense for a time

when survival was often in the balance.

In modern times when survival is rarely at issue, it means we have to exert

our muscles in exercise to maintain and build strength. Sub-max effort means

sub-max strength. That’s what “use it or lose it” is about.

Maximum effort can be achieved with both light and heavy resistance. This

study shows that light resistance will build muscle if lifting is continued

until effort is required. You can use 30 pounds or 100 pounds, as long as

there is a good effort at the end of the set. Put another way, resistance

doesn’t even have to be moderate—light will suffice for muscle building. The

choice of resistance is yours—but you still have to work at the end to build

muscle.

(As usual, I have simplified these findings for clarity. It should also be

noted that this is a small study peer reviewed only for presentation at a

conference. The citation above is for the abstract alone.)

Teri Pokere

Brisbane, Australia

On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 3:25 PM, Jerry Telle <JRTELLE@...> wrote:

>

>

>

> On May 23, 2010, at 6:27 PM, david flees wrote:

>

> > Oh a new controversial debate....

>

> Telle -- I don't know if it's new but it sure needs defining.

>

> > It seems pretty clear [???telle] what this study is analyzing, i

> > do feel that training to failure of a positive contractiong is

> > beneficial as long as a negative is carried out after that failure.

>

> Telle -- In " dogcrap " [DC] (training is this a peer review word yet?)

> is a long negative done at the end of each exercise period and before

> the next rep after a brief rest or just done on the las rep of a DC set?

>

>

> > It has been proven in studies that eccentric (negative) contraction

> > of an exercise is focused upon for every rep will cause more

> > hypertrophy and cellular damage.

>

> Telle -- AS in every rep of every set with isokinetic or inertial

> resistance? And number of sets per session and week?! Or is that what

> you're asking -- the studies most often tell of sets and training

> sessions per week. And, typically, there seems like there is an awful

> lot of sets and sessions?

>

>

> > What do you think the number of exercises, sets, reps, and rest, was

> > incorporated in this program. I know the training style i follow

> > (Dogcrapp training) you do 3 rest pause sets with 6-8 second

> > negatives and each set is to failure, but only one 3 [second I

> > assume] rest paused set per bodypart. This technique [telle -- and

> > how many tiems pre week and execises per body part] has given me

> > plenty of rest and fantastic growth. I am very eager to see what

> > others have to say on this topic.

>

> First don't change a thing until success begins to stall before

> changing -- or maybe just change exercises every 4-? sessions. Second

> is a 6-8 second eccentric the limit time before eccentric speed can be

> controlled?

>

> Jerry Telle

> Lakewood CO USA

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

I think the researchers have failed to note one reason why this tactic is a

favorite among bodybuilders - the prevalent use of PEDs to support the overloads

makes it feasible. Standard, non PED using gymrats or other athletes not

engaging in such enhanced recovery strategies would find the general failure

training leads to breakdown and I'd think it would start before you get 6 weeks

through overall, depending of course on what move and how much...and your

experience level etc.

In the long run, I've personally rejected training to failure in moves due to

the injury potential and evaluation of risk/reward. " Always leave 1 rep in the

gym when you go " is the advice that appears to help stay in the game versus

risking being sidelined - when a person is lifting heavy over the span of years,

I think there are even fewer reasons to use forced reps and other superfailure

moves.

I think they also haven't noted that bodybuilders do not necessarily use heavy

weights - they may use a light weight and engage in super long sets and thus a

failure with the weight isn't as major as a powerlifter using a 3 rep max weight

for example....

Say you use 10 lbs on a biceps curl. For you, this weight can be easily used for

20 reps, with no stress. You then take it to failure at say, 30 reps. Your buddy

then helps you force out a couple of more. You will be sore, you will have

damaged the muscle and other muscles involved a bit too - but what will you

really gain? (you may not be comfortable for a couple of days at work too,

lol...) If you're still sore 3 days later, you miss the next workout - or find

you have grip issues on another move?

Instead of the biceps curl - you do bench press. You do your 3 rep max lift -

and aim at a 4th rep - with the spotter aiding you and you grind it out, shaking

and essentially everything you have. Yes, you did a PR set...but what have you

gained here? Later that day you start to feel the side effects - and in some

ominous places, like your shoulders, joints, rotator cuffs...? The pain doesn't

dissipate and you find yourself on the shelf, missing training days due to the

one overload workout?

If you are doing a thousand reps to nowhere, why make it 1001?

Would it not make more sense to load a weight that challenges consecutively and

then rep to having 1 rep remaining, and make a conscious effort to stay

uninjured and able to make your training days?

I believe that training to failure and the conspicuous attention-getting of

forced reps makes this appear an attractive strategy but generally I'd rather

see people make good training programs without such injury-heavy notions...

the Phantom

aka Schaefer, RMT/CMT, competing powerlifter

Denver, Colorado, USA

Training to Failure

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

[Guest guest]

Colleagues,

I think we can expect the HIT jedis to respond to this latest study the same way

they have dealt with others: by selectively citing any aspect of it that can be

used to support their methods, no matter how marginal.

They'll disregard the larger finding and context. Any attempt to point these out

will be deemed irrelevant.

The spin usually makes for a good sideshow as long as you don't take it

seriously. Anyway let's keep our focus on what matters...

Regards,

Plisk

Excelsior Sports

Shelton CT

www.excelsiorsports.com

Prepare To Be A Champion!

[Guest guest]

,

I have not posted in a long time but will say that as an athlete, Personal

Trainer, and Coach, I have enjoyed your knowledge and input for quite some

time.  Having said that, I will have to disagree with your take on training to

failure.  I am currently coaching American Football over here in Germany and

have a meeting shortly to discuss our win yesterday.  Ravensburg Razorbacks vs

The Jeanna Hansfrieds we won 42-21.  I'll get back to you soon.  Keep up the

good work.

Offensive Coordinator

Ravensburg Razorbacks

Ravensburg, Germany

Sua Sponte

________________________________

From: " deadliftdiva@... " <deadliftdiva@...>

Supertraining

Sent: Wed, May 26, 2010 4:35:44 PM

Subject: Re: Training to Failure

 

I think the researchers have failed to note one reason why this tactic is a

favorite among bodybuilders - the prevalent use of PEDs to support the overloads

makes it feasible. Standard, non PED using gymrats or other athletes not

engaging in such enhanced recovery strategies would find the general failure

training leads to breakdown and I'd think it would start before you get 6 weeks

through overall, depending of course on what move and how much...and your

experience level etc.

In the long run, I've personally rejected training to failure in moves due to

the injury potential and evaluation of risk/reward. " Always leave 1 rep in the

gym when you go " is the advice that appears to help stay in the game versus

risking being sidelined - when a person is lifting heavy over the span of years,

I think there are even fewer reasons to use forced reps and other superfailure

moves.

I think they also haven't noted that bodybuilders do not necessarily use heavy

weights - they may use a light weight and engage in super long sets and thus a

failure with the weight isn't as major as a powerlifter using a 3 rep max weight

for example....

Say you use 10 lbs on a biceps curl. For you, this weight can be easily used for

20 reps, with no stress. You then take it to failure at say, 30 reps. Your buddy

then helps you force out a couple of more. You will be sore, you will have

damaged the muscle and other muscles involved a bit too - but what will you

really gain? (you may not be comfortable for a couple of days at work too,

lol...) If you're still sore 3 days later, you miss the next workout - or find

you have grip issues on another move?

Instead of the biceps curl - you do bench press. You do your 3 rep max lift -

and aim at a 4th rep - with the spotter aiding you and you grind it out, shaking

and essentially everything you have. Yes, you did a PR set...but what have you

gained here? Later that day you start to feel the side effects - and in some

ominous places, like your shoulders, joints, rotator cuffs...? The pain doesn't

dissipate and you find yourself on the shelf, missing training days due to the

one overload workout?

If you are doing a thousand reps to nowhere, why make it 1001?

Would it not make more sense to load a weight that challenges consecutively and

then rep to having 1 rep remaining, and make a conscious effort to stay

uninjured and able to make your training days?

I believe that training to failure and the conspicuous attention-getting of

forced reps makes this appear an attractive strategy but generally I'd rather

see people make good training programs without such injury-heavy notions...

the Phantom

aka Schaefer, RMT/CMT, competing powerlifter

Denver, Colorado, USA

Training to Failure

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

[Guest guest]

Not sure if I agree. What is " true " muscle failure - tissue rupture? It's

also common to see bodybuilders / some athletes to perform " compensatory

actions " or " overflow " to other muscles during certain exercises.

Regards

Carruthers

Casler writes:

That is a good question. And I'm not sure I agree either (with a TRUE

failure that is) I was using the term " TRUE " to expose what it IS NOT, more

than what it IS.

I would be hard pressed to define a TRUE failure since there are SO MANY

levels of set termination that are considered muscle failure, when they

clearly are not.

Rigor mortis?

Regards,

Casler

TRI-VECTOR 3-D Training Systems

Century City, CA

-II-----II-

[Guest guest]

Greetings ,

See below:

On May 30, 2010, at 8:19 AM, Krieger wrote:

> 1. Effort is a subjective quantity that cannot be measured. In fact,

> perceived effort can change while force production and motor unit

> recruitment remain the same.

Telle -- which implies that effort can be measured, albeit if not

subject/ively recognized. Every article, research and anecdotal, I've

read recognize the fact that we humans are very little aware of what

is going on within and around us.

I train one lady who displays amazing differences in effort when, if

I'm on cue, I influence her psyche -- apparently beyond her conscious

awareness. I purport one way, not usually used as an effort indicator,

is when I have hands on the bar and say something which encourages her

to do more -- how I can tell how much effort has changed by my

tactile, proprioceptive and kinesthetic sensations. Efforts not as

easily recognized visually. That is visually on the bar -- the efforts

do seem to correlate with facial expressions. Experimenters of the

above " perceived effort can change while force production and motor

unit " .

> recruitment remain

..

> 2. Carpinelli confuses motor unit recruitment with stimulation of

> adaptation.

Telle -- Can you briefly define " stimulation of adaptation " ?

Krieger: A better paper to look at, and one that was actually

pubished, is Kumar et al (JAP, 2009), who clearly showed increasing

protein synthesis responses with increasing weights up to 60% 1-RM

(and possibly 75% 1-RM in younger subjects).

Telle -- In your obviously vast experience, what might researchers

look at besides protein synthesis? Is selective hypertrophy of

different fiber types observed for different protocols? Does anyone

use inertial loading? Has anyone bothered to compare inertial and

isokinetic loading? Or even blends of isokinetic and inertial? And

finally(?) are interpolated twitch recruitment patterns equal to

highly motivated recruitment patterns. I seem to remember that either

expressed force was equal to or slightly above motivated force? (which

brings up even more questions)

Thanks,

Jerry Telle

Lakewood CO USA

Krieger <Yngvai@...

Subject: Re: Training to Failure

Date: May 30, 2010 8:19:23 AM MDT

Supertraining

Reply- Supertraining

I would like to add that Carpinelli's article on the supposed misuse of

the " Size Principle " is flawed in many ways. I wrote a detailed article

on this in the September 2009 issue of Alan Aragon's Research Review

(alanaragon.com). Some of the problems with Carpinelli's viewpoints:

1. Effort is a subjective quantity that cannot be measured. In fact,

perceived effort can change while force production and motor unit

recruitment remain the same.

2. Carpinelli confuses motor unit recruitment with stimulation of

adaptation.

3. He misinterprets research by Behm to support his viewpoint

4. Data by Kumar et al clearly showed loading does affect the magnitude

of protein synthesis, even when all sets are taken to failure

5. He references about 20 papers that supposedly show no significant

difference in strength gains with different loads, but he ignores the

concept of type II errors, he misquotes some of the studies, leaves

conflicting information out of some of the studies, fails to mention

that all the studies are on untrained subjects (who are more sensitive

to a variety of training stimuli), leaves 6 studies out that do show

significant differences, and even quotes 2 studies that are actually

data from the same study.

Krieger

Founder, Weightology, LLC www.weightology.net

Editor, Journal of Pure Power www.jopp.us

Redmond, WA

[Guest guest]

-

Agreed on the primary point of appearance not necessarily translating to

performance in sport related activities.

I think though that a good many are led to believe they will look like the cover

guys in bodybuilding mags without drugs - and that's not a realistic

expectation. I've run across too many competing bb over the years leaning

heavily on " 800 mg of ibuprofen a day and Vitamin D... " . where the D stands for

Deca...sigh. Too many overtrained and frustrated gymrats too continue to believe

the myth and be appearance driven.

As for the Nautilus reference in a manner not a nuclear submarine or marine

creature (grin), you don't date yourself, you prove yourself aware of the

history of the machines now popularly used and by some folks overused....

I used the machines with insufficient progress before I became entranced with a

barbell and the chalk dust enveloped my soul....and wrapped me in the powerful

garb of strength.

The Phantom

aka Schaefer, RMT/CMT, competing powerlifter

Denver, Colorado, USA

Re: Training to Failure

Schaefer wrote:

I think the researchers have failed to note one reason why this tactic

is a favorite among bodybuilders - the prevalent use of PEDs to support

the overloads makes it feasible....

-----

,

You're absolutely right. In my experience it also appeals to many drug free

folks too. Lots of people seem to be influenced bodybuilders' methods regardless

of chemical use.

As best as I can tell, it boils down to a couple of beliefs. One is the notion

that explosive training is unsafe; another is that there's cause-and-effect

between fatigue and fitness. Those are two notorious 'Nautilusprinciples' from

decades ago.

Of course those who train for appearance rather than performance also may not

experience the poor transfer to activities like running, jumping etc. Without

even having negative feedback as a guide, unfortunately there's always ignorance

and misunderstanding to lean on.

Just some observations. I probably dated myself w/ that Nautilus comment?

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