WarbyD
Cant Squat Kunce
Kipping Bench for reps? CFers would be proud.
-
Join the Ausbb - Australian BodyBuilding forum The Ausbb - Australian BodyBuilding forum is dedicated to no nonsense muscle and strength building. If you need advice that works, you have come to the right place. This forum focuses on building strength and muscle using the basics. You will also find that the Ausbb- Australian Bodybuilding Forum stresses encouragement and respect. Trolls and name calling are not allowed here. No matter what your personal goals are, you will be given effective advice that produces results.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
Please consider registering. It takes 30 seconds, and will allow you to get the most out of the forum.
Failure not necessary for hypertrophy?
- Thread starter arthuroarti
- Start date
-
- Tags
- failure hypertrophy
Kipping Bench for reps? CFers would be proud.
Timeah
Captain Kunce
lol. just rest 20 seconds...then move grip to normal width. up she goes!
M@YHEM
Member
Cut and Paste because I didn't want to link to another forum.
This is not a anti failure post by any means, I use it myself at times. However there are some that think that taking a set to the point of momentary muscular failure is necessary to force the muscle to adapt through hypertrophy. Is this belief accurate?
Muscle doesn't know 'failure'
Muscle doesn't know 'a set'
It's only us in our minds that realize failure and plan out bio-mechanical work (muscle contractions) into organized structures called 'sets'
All muscle is capable of is:
1/ Producing bio-mechanical force.
2/ Inducing metabolic fatigue.
3/ Work induced micro trauma.
It doesn't matter if a lifter performs one set to failure or multi sets not to failure, so long there is enough bio-mechanical work to cause enough micro trauma to the muscle fibers, and metabolic fatigue to produce sarcoplasmic hypertrophy, then there will be increase in both size and strength.
Failure is merely an event not a stimulus for hypertrophy, it simply means that within that set you've reached a point of fatigue where the muscle is no longer able to produce a force greater than that of the load on the bar.
Some overly dogmatic advocates on failure training would say then at the point of failure you've done ALL you can to stimulate hypertrophy, this is inaccurate, lighten the load and you'll perform a few more reps, rest/pause 20 seconds and you'll get more reps, allow someone to spot you and you'll get a few more reps. These techniques allows you to perform even more bio-mechanical work than just stopping at failure, so clearly failure is not the point where you have done all you can possibly can within a set.
However there can be a problem with using these extra intensity set extending techniques. You are essentially redlining your CNS (central nervous system) and causing neural fatigue and likely for many progress comes to a quick and abrupt halt.
Solution, well as we've established, there is no 'magic switch' that turns on at failure, and failure is merely an event due to fatigue and not a magic hypertrophy stimulus or switch, therefore it makes sense to induce more bio-mechanical work, fatigue and micro trauma through muscle fiber contraction using a multiple set approach while staying 1-2 reps shy of failure.
That's not to say that failure should always be avoided, for some, low volume failure-rest/pause training works great, these are usually advanced lifters that have built up the CNS capacity to be able to generate great intensity and to be able to recover, but even then such training is usually periodized and deloads used to allow accumulated fatigue to dissipate. For most lifters in my opinion failure should be used as a tool, not the rule.
There is one point I must not over look regarding failure, failure can be an effective tool for enhancing neural strength adaptions due to the fact that at failure, similar to a 1 rep max, you are exerting maximum available force. So failure is a useful tool for enhancing neural efficiency.
The point here is that failure is not the only, or even optimal stimulus... So what is?
I'd like to repeat/highlight an important point:
So long there is enough bio-mechanical work to cause enough micro trauma, and metabolic fatigue to produce sarcoplasmic hypertrophy, then there will be increase in both size and strength provided that volume, intensity and frequency are effectively managed.
This is best served by either an increase in volume with the same load, an increase in load with the same volume, or a combination of volume/load increase. These equal THE answer for the stimulus of continued strength and hypertrophy - Simple and basic progression!
Some claim that workload is not the stimulus for strength/hypertrophy, this is also not quite accurate, the only reason that ANY program works is because there must be SOME workload, failure can be avoided and progression made, however no workload equals no progression.
Summary
1/ Failure is an event not a magic switch or THE hypertrophy stimulus.
2/ Failure increases neural strength and efficiency.
3/ In my opinion failure should be used as a tool not a rule (unless following a program specifically based on failure)
4/ There's no magic in failure, muscle doesn't know failure, only we do.
5/ Simply keep progressing and increasing workload (add weight and/or reps)
Manipulating the various set/rep schemes that are commonly used is useful in putting together a program based on our goals
This is not a anti failure post by any means, I use it myself at times. However there are some that think that taking a set to the point of momentary muscular failure is necessary to force the muscle to adapt through hypertrophy. Is this belief accurate?
Muscle doesn't know 'failure'
Muscle doesn't know 'a set'
It's only us in our minds that realize failure and plan out bio-mechanical work (muscle contractions) into organized structures called 'sets'
All muscle is capable of is:
1/ Producing bio-mechanical force.
2/ Inducing metabolic fatigue.
3/ Work induced micro trauma.
It doesn't matter if a lifter performs one set to failure or multi sets not to failure, so long there is enough bio-mechanical work to cause enough micro trauma to the muscle fibers, and metabolic fatigue to produce sarcoplasmic hypertrophy, then there will be increase in both size and strength.
Failure is merely an event not a stimulus for hypertrophy, it simply means that within that set you've reached a point of fatigue where the muscle is no longer able to produce a force greater than that of the load on the bar.
Some overly dogmatic advocates on failure training would say then at the point of failure you've done ALL you can to stimulate hypertrophy, this is inaccurate, lighten the load and you'll perform a few more reps, rest/pause 20 seconds and you'll get more reps, allow someone to spot you and you'll get a few more reps. These techniques allows you to perform even more bio-mechanical work than just stopping at failure, so clearly failure is not the point where you have done all you can possibly can within a set.
However there can be a problem with using these extra intensity set extending techniques. You are essentially redlining your CNS (central nervous system) and causing neural fatigue and likely for many progress comes to a quick and abrupt halt.
Solution, well as we've established, there is no 'magic switch' that turns on at failure, and failure is merely an event due to fatigue and not a magic hypertrophy stimulus or switch, therefore it makes sense to induce more bio-mechanical work, fatigue and micro trauma through muscle fiber contraction using a multiple set approach while staying 1-2 reps shy of failure.
That's not to say that failure should always be avoided, for some, low volume failure-rest/pause training works great, these are usually advanced lifters that have built up the CNS capacity to be able to generate great intensity and to be able to recover, but even then such training is usually periodized and deloads used to allow accumulated fatigue to dissipate. For most lifters in my opinion failure should be used as a tool, not the rule.
There is one point I must not over look regarding failure, failure can be an effective tool for enhancing neural strength adaptions due to the fact that at failure, similar to a 1 rep max, you are exerting maximum available force. So failure is a useful tool for enhancing neural efficiency.
The point here is that failure is not the only, or even optimal stimulus... So what is?
I'd like to repeat/highlight an important point:
So long there is enough bio-mechanical work to cause enough micro trauma, and metabolic fatigue to produce sarcoplasmic hypertrophy, then there will be increase in both size and strength provided that volume, intensity and frequency are effectively managed.
This is best served by either an increase in volume with the same load, an increase in load with the same volume, or a combination of volume/load increase. These equal THE answer for the stimulus of continued strength and hypertrophy - Simple and basic progression!
Some claim that workload is not the stimulus for strength/hypertrophy, this is also not quite accurate, the only reason that ANY program works is because there must be SOME workload, failure can be avoided and progression made, however no workload equals no progression.
Summary
1/ Failure is an event not a magic switch or THE hypertrophy stimulus.
2/ Failure increases neural strength and efficiency.
3/ In my opinion failure should be used as a tool not a rule (unless following a program specifically based on failure)
4/ There's no magic in failure, muscle doesn't know failure, only we do.
5/ Simply keep progressing and increasing workload (add weight and/or reps)
Manipulating the various set/rep schemes that are commonly used is useful in putting together a program based on our goals
nazzysmith
kuncesmith
Firstly glad your not injured...
However this highlights the flaws of shooting for reps you shouldn't.. And the problematic nature that can occur with failure training where form goes out the window.....
Notably im not saying we all need to be pussies and not train to failure...
RyanF
Member
Bench press isn't paleo enough for xfitters.
jj80
Member
Very well said...
arthuroarti
New member
would you say it is a good idea to fail on the last set only?
Lee Haney suggests to stimulate not annihilate and recommends to pyramid weight up to the last set:
Bench press: 5 x 8-10
1) 40 kg x 10
2) 55 kg x 10
3) 70 kg x 10
4) 80 kg x 10 - approaching failure
5) 85 kg x 8-9- failure
jj80
Member
Not sure, but this is generally what some routines do - e.g. 5x5 or any rep/set scheme involving x sets of y reps using the same weight. I guess it's a good way of getting in lots of volume, which does help.
I think those rep schemes and ones where you just do 'as many as possible' with a weight for x many sets have their advantages, but im not sure what these would be.
I just use a bit of both. I have downed my volume a little and gone to failure more now that I'm trying to cut.
Darkoz
-
This is a classic bodybuilding method, progressive overload.
The first couple of sets are considered as warmup sets to prepare your muscles for the upcoming work sets.
The last 2 or 3 sets are your actual work sets where you continue to lift until you can't anymore with decent form.
DKD
Private Dancer
IMO this workload isn't optimal for hypertrophy. If you're approaching failure on set 4 then I'd only see sets 4 and 5 as work sets and I don't reckon 18-19 reps is sufficient for hypertrophy.
arthuroarti
New member
arthuroarti
New member
All of the pros seem to do the same. They ramp up to the last two working sets.
Are you a pro?
wingman
Super M0derator
hes oni's brother so its likely
To fail or not to fail,
hmmmm school is out.
I have learnt that in anything failure is the Second step to sucess.
Why should lifting be any different.
We are living machines or we would have a swl and mwl stamped on us.
We have the ability to adapt and I say failure is definently needed as some people wouldn't know failure they think their getting close so they stop never knowing never pushing staying comfortable.
Regards,
G.
hmmmm school is out.
I have learnt that in anything failure is the Second step to sucess.
Why should lifting be any different.
We are living machines or we would have a swl and mwl stamped on us.
We have the ability to adapt and I say failure is definently needed as some people wouldn't know failure they think their getting close so they stop never knowing never pushing staying comfortable.
Regards,
G.
(in response to DKD's post that only 18-19 reps won't cut it)
There's 2 sides arthur.
While you may only need 1 set to stimulate the muscle for growth (see Dorian Yates/Mike Mentzer type training programs), can everyone perform that 1 set to its fullest potential to actually achieve that growth?
Training alone? Probably not, unless you use a smith machine/cables to help with drop sets and other things to take you past failure.
Even training with a partner, maybe not, particular given that the newer you are to training, the less ability you have to really feel the muscle being worked. I'm still working on it after 6 or 7 years, and suspect I will be for the rest of my days in the gym.
For me, I've recently started ramping instead of using straight sets. E.g. if my target is 27.5kg dumbbell shoulder press, I'll do a couple of warm up sets, then a couple of sets below that amount (20-25s) before hitting 1-2 (usually 1) all out sets to failure. My view is that the lead up sets still have you working hard and will stimulate growth (as they're still a good % of your 1RM) and the final set takes advantage of training to failure (or very close to). Trying to hit my working weight for 3 sets of say 10 reps, tends to lead to never hitting the target rep range on the 3rd set (due to a lack of muscular endurance?) and then not progressing.
Curious to hear people's thoughts on ramping/straight sets as it ties in directly with arthur's question.
There's 2 sides arthur.
While you may only need 1 set to stimulate the muscle for growth (see Dorian Yates/Mike Mentzer type training programs), can everyone perform that 1 set to its fullest potential to actually achieve that growth?
Training alone? Probably not, unless you use a smith machine/cables to help with drop sets and other things to take you past failure.
Even training with a partner, maybe not, particular given that the newer you are to training, the less ability you have to really feel the muscle being worked. I'm still working on it after 6 or 7 years, and suspect I will be for the rest of my days in the gym.
For me, I've recently started ramping instead of using straight sets. E.g. if my target is 27.5kg dumbbell shoulder press, I'll do a couple of warm up sets, then a couple of sets below that amount (20-25s) before hitting 1-2 (usually 1) all out sets to failure. My view is that the lead up sets still have you working hard and will stimulate growth (as they're still a good % of your 1RM) and the final set takes advantage of training to failure (or very close to). Trying to hit my working weight for 3 sets of say 10 reps, tends to lead to never hitting the target rep range on the 3rd set (due to a lack of muscular endurance?) and then not progressing.
Curious to hear people's thoughts on ramping/straight sets as it ties in directly with arthur's question.
Last edited:
Goosey
.
The process of working to failure was originally a question Arthur Jones was interested with in the 70's.
He knew that to stimulate muscle growth the work needed to be intense, back then and until now there is now measure as to the degree of intensity one needs to push to achieve this.
Going to momentary muscular fatigue does guarantee you you have done everything possible.
In the beginning he felt three full body workouts thre sets minimum were sufficient, towards the end of his life he changed his view to one workout a week on set.
He was quoted as saying that everyone responds differently and that his threshold of pain is higher than others, and the intensity is subjective but results are tangible.
He knew that to stimulate muscle growth the work needed to be intense, back then and until now there is now measure as to the degree of intensity one needs to push to achieve this.
Going to momentary muscular fatigue does guarantee you you have done everything possible.
In the beginning he felt three full body workouts thre sets minimum were sufficient, towards the end of his life he changed his view to one workout a week on set.
He was quoted as saying that everyone responds differently and that his threshold of pain is higher than others, and the intensity is subjective but results are tangible.
