How close do you train to failure?

[TomJ]

His own book (Scientific Principles of Hypertrophy Training) shows that training to failure is most effective. They just go into fatigue management, which is where the RIR stuff comes into play.
A few clippings...
View attachment 38143
View attachment 38144

the second figure is a purely subjective, arbitrary metric.
how do you quantify "fatigue" generally other than be purely bullshitting it

 

[Badleroybrown]

It would make more sense to just deload tbh. Fatigue management can be accomplished through routes that don't involve leaving reps in the tank.

It is irrelevant if you and I have different working weights and reps to get to failure. What remains constant is that you REACH FAILURE.

Yes, unless it is a specific lift with a specific purpose - but even those are very rare for me.
I've trained sub-failure before and thought more volume was the answer... it wasn't. I started training to failure and watched my physique take off.

So question.

If you work every warm up set to failure how many warm up sets do you do…??

If if you do every one to failure how do you have any left to get the most out of your working sets..?

I think you need to check or recheck what you do..

Warm up sets are just that..
To warm up your body part you are training.

Ie. chest. Trying to warm up tri’s and shoulders and even the lats if you bench properly..

So if you have say 135 pounds in the bar why would you take that to a failure lets say 20 reps…

And then you do another wu set of 150 for maybe 15.. then you hit falure…
This makes no sense..
Why would you not blast out 135 for ten then 150 for 10 and maybe one more warm up then go right into your working sets…this way you have enough in the take to take the heavy weight.
Whatever that would be for you and push it to falure..

By doing every warm up to falure it will leave you beating yourself out of reps or weight during your working sets..

I could be way off on my
Thinking… but don’t
Think I am..

 

[transcend2007]

the second figure is a purely subjective, arbitrary metric.
how do you quantify "fatigue" generally other than be purely bullshitting it

Fatigue could be represented in different ways ... and I do agree to could be considered arbitrary or subjective ... but I can attest to some workouts finding it more difficult to achieve the same number of reps or even weights ... I also agree with @snake that that I approach things differently in my mid 50's even than I did in my mid 40's ...

I understand that everyone approaches their workout differently ... but I'll admit the idea of more volume / less intensity does resonate with me - I do not see it as easier at all as workout times actually increase .. I am not looking for my workouts to be easier ... but to literally looking avoid injury and miss many fewer workouts ... while still getting results ....

 

[Andrewgen_Receptors]

If you work every warm up set to failure how many warm up sets do you do…??

you misinterpreted the question and response. I work NON-warmup sets to failure. I had it confused at first on first read too.

I don't warmup to failure.

FWIW, I agree that if one were to work a warmup weight to failure, that it would have hugely negative impacts on the working set.

 

[Badleroybrown]

Ok I re read it again.. thank god you don’t take wu to failure

Thank god.

 

[TomJ]

Fatigue could be represented in different ways ... and I do agree to could be considered arbitrary or subjective ... but I can attest to some workouts finding it more difficult to achieve the same number of reps or even weights ... I also agree with @snake that that I approach things differently in my mid 50's even than I did in my mid 40's ...

I understand that everyone approaches their workout differently ... but I'll admit the idea of more volume / less intensity does resonate with me - I do not see it as easier at all as workout times actually increase .. I am not looking for my workouts to be easier ... but to literally looking avoid injury and miss many fewer workouts ... while still getting results ....

Adding more volume, doesnt mean to necessarily take from intensity.

you can work the higher rep ranges, and still reach failure.

i look at intensity as being the constant, with volume and frequency being the variable to tweak to mitigate injury while maximizing recoverable training.


my training philosophy is training to failure on working sets and top sets, and titrating volume and frequency up to the point that its recoverable, but only barely.
if im still beat up by the time its time to hit a muscle group again, then i know my volume is too high and need to dial back a bit, if im recovering several days before the next session, then i know i need to add some more working sets in.

 

[TomJ]

you misinterpreted the question and response. I work NON-warmup sets to failure. I had it confused at first on first read too.

I don't warmup to failure.

FWIW, I agree that if one were to work a warmup weight to failure, that it would have hugely negative impacts on the working set.

lol a warmup to failure is just a working set /shrug

 

[RowdyBrad]

I follow the RP style of training. I, as a high beginner - low intermediate, find it to be amazing for strength and growth so far. I go 2 RIR, then 1RIR, then failure on each set. Either go back to 2 RIR the next week or if needed a 1 week lighter load.

I used to try to do each set to failure, or same weight each set that ended up being junk volume. Their style seems to really help people that are already having issues with training properly like myself. The RIR method, if you know your actually RIR level, is super helpful.

0 RIR is full failure that can't make the rep complete. 1 RIR is what most consider failure because it is the last complete rep you can do. 2 RIR means you can complete 1 more Rep. It is easier to guage than it may seem, especially in the 8-12 range, for me at least.

I think people hear RIR and just assume it is pretty low effort, but if you go to complete failure and have a guage of your actual RIR level, it is still about as heavy as you can go and still recover.

I have had more progress with this, during a cut, than I have in all the years of on and off lifting. It could just be that for me, the rules and info make more sense and the increased volume and frequency is what my body personally likes.

 

[TomJ]

my impression is that a lot of people wrongfully corollate "intensity" with weight.

a 30 rep set taken to failure is still maximum intensity as is a heavy set of 8.

 

[TomJ]

I have had more progress with this, during a cut, than I have in all the years of on and off lifting.

this is why. you can do whatever training methodology you want, but f you half ass it and are inconsistent, your arent getting anywhere

 

[RowdyBrad]

So why do they train their clients to failure despite going against their own recommendations?

He posted a reply to this exact question the other day. I wanted to reiterate that the videos where they go to actual failure or beyond is in the "peak week" or last day of their meso cycle where they go to failure and then likely deload the next week.

 

[RowdyBrad]

this is why. you can do whatever training methodology you want, but f you half ass it and are inconsistent, your arent getting anywhere

Absolutely. But, by on and off, I mean being consistant for a year or so and then flaking. This cut has been a consistant 6 months, so a lesser time period than before even during the ON periods. The higher volume and frequency seems to be key, the RIR just helps me guage progress better for myself.

Previously I thought I was doing higher volume, but I am doing more now with better results for me.

 

[transcend2007]

I follow the RP style of training. I, as a high beginner - low intermediate, find it to be amazing for strength and growth so far. I go 2 RIR, then 1RIR, then failure on each set. Either go back to 2 RIR the next week or if needed a 1 week lighter load.

I used to try to do each set to failure, or same weight each set that ended up being junk volume. Their style seems to really help people that are already having issues with training properly like myself. The RIR method, if you know your actually RIR level, is super helpful.

0 RIR is full failure that can't make the rep complete. 1 RIR is what most consider failure because it is the last complete rep you can do. 2 RIR means you can complete 1 more Rep. It is easier to guage than it may seem, especially in the 8-12 range, for me at least.

I think people hear RIR and just assume it is pretty low effort, but if you go to complete failure and have a guage of your actual RIR level, it is still about as heavy as you can go and still recover.

I have had more progress with this, during a cut, than I have in all the years of on and off lifting. It could just be that for me, the rules and info make more sense and the increased volume and frequency is what my body personally likes.

Great point RB ... there is NO doubt a huge difference in training levels (skill levels) here ... like you even though I have been working out for years .. I consider myself intermediate (which is why I pose these type of threads) I am always trying to improve and learn from other men even though many may be younger than me they are far more advanced in their training methodology ... this is my favorite thing about this forum and I appreciate all the input here.

 

[transcend2007]

my impression is that a lot of people wrongfully corollate "intensity" with weight.

a 30 rep set taken to failure is still maximum intensity as is a heavy set of 8.

Yes but training volume would like be far higher with the 30 set (I am not recommending sets of 30 reps) .. just to say this is one of the big differences between sets of 4 to 6 reps and ... and 10 to 15 ... intensity may be similar ... but many say that higher volume (within reason) to create the maximum hypertrophy ...

 

[RowdyBrad]

my training philosophy is training to failure on working sets and top sets, and titrating volume and frequency up to the point that its recoverable, but only barely.
if im still beat up by the time its time to hit a muscle group again, then i know my volume is too high and need to dial back a bit, if im recovering several days before the next session, then i know i need to add some more working sets in.

That is Israetels training philosophy in all aspects, except he believes to peak to a week of failure instead of each week. It is mainly for recovery reasons, to keep moving forward instead of over reaching above recovery. But the rest is exactly what he says as far as backing off if needed and adding more of needed.

I am not sure how someone can recover if they actually hit failure for multiple weeks while lifting 2 to 3 times a week for each part. Especially if not using any performance enhancers. I think that is a big benefit for people that may not recover optimally or are natural as well.

 

[TomJ]

Yes but training volume would like be far higher with the 30 set (I am not recommending sets of 30 reps) .. just to say this is one of the big differences between sets of 4 to 6 reps and ... and 10 to 15 ... intensity may be similar ... but many say that higher volume (within reason) to create the maximum hypertrophy ...

form the data we currently have from the studies on hypertrophy models, the last few reps before failure (0-4 or 5) contribute the overwhelming majority of actual hypertrophic response. Volume alone as a variable contributes very little to actual hypertrophy.
neither weight, nor volume are direct stimulators of hypertrophic response in isolation, its a function of both in the form of mechanical tension.

so in practice this looks like;

if the last few reps are the ones that stimulate the vast majority of adaptation, you want to get every one of them (training to failure). What we refer to as intensity.

from there we add volume to get close to our maximum recoverable volume to make the most of our training and recovery periods, in the form of more sets, more frequency, or more movements.

since only the last few reps are the truly functional ones, 5 sets of 30 reps, and 5 sets of 12 reps, both taken to failure, are equal in volume from a hypertrophic response perspective.


from there we modulate our selected weights, rep ranges, and number of sets to reach a level of volume that contributes the most to our growth, avoids unnecessary cardio and CNS fatigue (sets of 5 to failure are far more taxing on your CNS, and sets of 30 are far more taxing on our cardio), and still allows us to recover properly for the next training session.

if a deload is needed, that means weve been training above our maximum recoverable volume. this is fine for some that prefer to have breaks, but are not strictly necessary if your training is kept at or just bellow your maximum recoverable volume.

for our older members, joints and tendon fatigue comes in to play with a lot of people, for these cases, deload weeks make sense to give joints a break if their training volume is such that their muscle group is recovered in time, but have tendonitis or joint pain start to become limiting factors. This can also be alleviated with keeping the absolute load (weight on the bar) lower to keep the joint and tendon strain still within recoverable levels.

 

[Andrewgen_Receptors]

I guess I'm confused.

@transcend2007 @RowdyBrad if both of you self-identify as beginner/intermediate, why would you keep defending a system getting shit on by folks with more than a decade of training experience on you?

Have either of you actually ran a Failure-Based training template? DC, Fortitude, JP, Blood N Guts, etc?

 

[RowdyBrad]

Why would I keep repping a system getting shit on? I thought we were just having a discussion, not debating or arguing a system. Maybe I missed the part where we were pushing any certain style of lifting versus talking about failure and training at our various levels.

Also, it's possible that what works well for newer lifters will not work optimally for advanced lifters and vice versa. Every one is different.

 

[Oakley6575]

UNLESS

You train Full Body 3x per week, each muscle to failure but only 1 working set per muscle.

Just saying.

We are saying the same thing here. Its all based on diet and drugs too. If you can take something to failure, and it is recovered within two days, his whole thing is frequency. You dial your intensity back to guarantee frequency. Thats how he thinks.

 

[transcend2007]

I guess I'm confused.

@transcend2007 @RowdyBrad if both of you self-identify as beginner/intermediate, why would you keep defending a system getting shit on by folks with more than a decade of training experience on you?

Have either of you actually ran a Failure-Based training template? DC, Fortitude, JP, Blood N Guts, etc?

I said intermediate ....

The number of years you have trained has NOTHING TO DO with your training level ... many have trained for over a decade and are still hardly even at the beginning level ... to be an advance lifter in my opinion would be someone who has not only competed by won a number of competitions ... or be a level of Snake or Bricks who we've seen have obtained very impressive bodies and have decades of serious work logged ...

To be clear AR you are intermediate (at most) ... not taking anything way from you ... you've clearly made fantastic progress the last 12 months and your log is awesome ...