How close do you train to failure?

[TomJ]

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.

IMO and experience
if your goal is frequency, then youre better off scaling back your volume to a recoverable level, rather than sacrificing intensity.

if youre training with 5 working sets at 2 RIR, assuming the last 5 reps are those that stimulate the most hypertrophy, that gives you 15 reps of adaptation stimulation.

you could get the same theoretical hypertrophic response from 3 sets to failure, with far less other fatigue factors that come from unnecessary volume.

so in the RIR model, youre literally doing more, to achieve the same or less.

 

[RowdyBrad]

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

I have done similar it seems, if they are all like the couple I looked up and basically failure program with 6-7 days between body parts being worked. Of course failure isn't a problem when you have that much time in between workouts of the same part (for me at least).

Right now I hit each bodypart 3 times per week and my recovery seems to be perfect for me up until the overreaching week. I can usually do only 2 of those weeks before needing a deload week.

I will also say I have made a huge focus on not just moving the weight, but actually trying to use the muscles i want to be used. That has helped overall as well.

 

[Oakley6575]

IMO and experience
if your goal is frequency, then youre better off scaling back your volume to a recoverable level, rather than sacrificing intensity.

if youre training with 5 working sets at 2 RIR, assuming the last 5 reps are those that stimulate the most hypertrophy, that gives you 15 reps of adaptation stimulation.

you could get the same theoretical hypertrophic response from 3 sets to failure, with far less other fatigue factors that come from unnecessary volume.

so in the RIR model, youre literally doing more, to achieve the same or less.

I just went on a volume binge to see how I liked it and felt this exact way.

I just seem to do best with one working set and a back off.

 

[TomJ]

Of course failure isn't a problem when you have that much time in between workouts of the same part

Recovery time is more directly effected by working volume, than intensity.

thats why i preach full intensity, with maximum RECOVERABLE volume.

you get the most bang for your buck and your time, without even in theory leaving progress on the table

 

[transcend2007]

Recovery time is more directly effected by working volume, than intensity.

thats why i preach full intensity, with maximum RECOVERABLE volume.

you get the most bang for your buck and your time, without even in theory leaving progress on the table

Do you train using the Dorian Yates / Mike Mentzer high intensity low volume method ... or more like Arnold with 6 days / 2x per day training high volume ... or somewhere in between ... ?

 

[RowdyBrad]

Recovery time is more directly effected by working volume, than intensity.

thats why i preach full intensity, with maximum RECOVERABLE volume.

you get the most bang for your buck and your time, without even in theory leaving progress on the table

I was more addressing the frequency. It seems that even with the blood and guts style, or like 3-4 sets to absolute failure, trying to do it again 2 days later would be too much for me to recover from. Of course, you adapt and will likely get more recovered faster, but that is the style of lifting I have done in the past and for me personally I did not like it as much and did not seem to progress as much during the same time period.

I am also open to it being me that was the issue, sometimes a different method may work better for an individual based on it just "not clicking" with one style versus the other. I definitely wouldn't say any style is wrong and like you mentioned, consistency is king.

 

[Oakley6575]

Do you train using the Dorian Yates / Mike Mentzer high intensity low volume method ... or more like Arnold with 6 days / 2x per day training high volume ... or somewhere in between ... ?

He just answered this in the post above yours.

 

[RowdyBrad]

I do wonder how RPE can alter things. Lots of people seem to quit at "failure" which would realistically be a 2-1 RIR. Most people seem to assume they are working harder than they are, especially in the intermediate and below levels.

 

[turkey_sandwich]

The number of years you have trained has NOTHING TO DO with your training level

this is an interesting topic.

can't be years, you can spend years doing it wrong. you said that.

is it an elite level of strength? if that was never your goal, you could be advanced but not have reached those numbers?

is it not meant to be a descriptor of how good you are, but rather an indicator of how you respond to training stimulus?

 

[TomJ]

Do you train using the Dorian Yates / Mike Mentzer high intensity low volume method ... or more like Arnold with 6 days / 2x per day training high volume ... or somewhere in between ... ?

I dont follow any real preconceived training templates. Me and my coach switch training blocks frequently when we feel that things have stagnated, or our goals change.

Its kind of a modified PPL and a bro split combined in a way. it doesnt easily fit comfortable into a single template.

Here is my entire current training block. Every working set taken to failure unless noted otherwise.

 

[TomJ]

The above training block is personalized to me, weve tried a number of approaches, but have been working with eachother for a year and a half now and weve learned what works, what doesnt, whats too much, and whats the most we can do and still recover

 

[transcend2007]

I dont follow any real preconceived training templates. Me and my coach switch training blocks frequently when we feel that things have stagnated, or our goals change.

Its kind of a modified PPL and a bro split combined in a way. it doesnt easily fit comfortable into a single template.

Here is my entire current training block. Every working set taken to failure unless noted otherwise.

View attachment 38150
View attachment 38151

View attachment 38152
View attachment 38153View attachment 38154
View attachment 38155
View attachment 38156
View attachment 38157
View attachment 38158

Most DEF NOT low volume ... !!!

Thanks, great info directly on thread topic ...

 

[Andrewgen_Receptors]

you are intermediate (at most)

If your opinion of 'advanced' is 'someone who has competed multiple times', and 'logged for decades' - then I'll be intermediate for another 19 years.

I won't compete and probably won't log for decades, so tell me what I need to do so you'll view me as advanced, because that matters to me a lot.

 

[buck]

In my building years i trained every work set to failure the best i could. And it seem that is still the best method. Less sets will be needed with this approach it seems then doing more sets but leaving reps in reserve. But as long as the weight being used continues to rise either will most likely work. The type of training a person likes and is willing to do will probably work the best. But i also find it rare to find a person that actually works to failure. Most leave reps in reserve and i see the results that most people get.

 

[TomJ]

Most DEF NOT low volume ... !!!

Thanks, great info directly on thread topic ...

again like i said, low vs high volume have zero relation with intensity.

this is a product of working over a year with someone figuring out how to cram as much work into my training which i could still recover, and still complete the training sessions.

we experiments with lower volume, higher frequency, but i was just recovering too fast and the load it was putting on ym joints wasnt fun.

so this is what we arrived to that still maintained the intensity, while cramming as much volume in that i can recover from, without so much frequency that my joints and tendons cant recover.


some people cant handle this much volume in a single session because their training capacity just isnt there, so they need more frequency. other people can handle much more, but it leaves them sore for the whole week.

training intelligently is a balancing act of multiple variables to get the best balance of work vs recovery.
its just my stance that intensity, is not one of those variables, and should be constant.
if you add intensity in as a variable, then you now have a whole other metric to balance on an already delicate balance.

 

[transcend2007]

If your opinion of 'advanced' is 'someone who has competed multiple times', and 'logged for decades' - then I'll be intermediate for another 19 years.

I won't compete and probably won't log for decades, so tell me what I need to do so you'll view me as advanced, because that matters to me a lot.

Sorry to me be more clear .. competed / were massive (or in incredible shape) ... there were people here in the past who were advanced like Hurt - Cashout and others who were younger but clearly advanced ... again AR ... not taking anything away from you ... you are far more along than most .. but I am sure you agree likely a few years from being advanced ...

 

[Andrewgen_Receptors]

I am sure you agree likely a few years from being advanced

I think 'advanced' would usually mean someone with an FFMI north of 25 or so. https://ffmicalculator.org/ agrees



You're welcome to pull your own qualifications from wherever you did, but I think most who plug their info into this site end up leaving with hurt egos. I think if you plug mine in, you might change your opinion.

Or maybe not, who knows?

 

[TomJ]

Sorry to me be more clear .. competed / were massive (or in incredible shape) ... there were people here in the past who were advanced like Hurt - Cashout and others who were younger but clearly advanced ... again AR ... not taking anything away from you ... you are far more along than most .. but I am sure you agree likely a few years from being advanced ...

"beginner, novice, advanced, elite"" are all subjective metrics at the end of the day.
what i may consider advanced or elite, might not be what others consider advanced or elite.

its just a function of knowledge/experience. Someone can have decades of experience, but very little knowledge, and some can have a lot of knowledge, with very little experience.

if it comes to a bout between the two, experience wins.
i dont personally believe anyone has to compete to be considered elite or advanced.

Hany rambodt is arguable the most successful BB coach of all time, but was never even an intermediate level competitor. No one in their right mind would say hes not an elite level coach.
at the same level, there are tons of really really strong motherfuckers that will never step foot on a platform.

 

[transcend2007]

I think 'advanced' would usually mean someone with an FFMI north of 25 or so. https://ffmicalculator.org/ agrees

View attachment 38159

You're welcome to pull your own qualifications from wherever you did, but I think most who plug their info into this site end up leaving with hurt egos. I think if you plug mine in, you might change your opinion.

Or maybe not, who knows?

Excellent point AR ... we all have our own goals and outcomes we are seeking ... it not my place to tell you what your stage of development is ...

 

[Oakley6575]

again like i said, low vs high volume have zero relation with intensity.

this is a product of working over a year with someone figuring out how to cram as much work into my training which i could still recover, and still complete the training sessions.

we experiments with lower volume, higher frequency, but i was just recovering too fast and the load it was putting on ym joints wasnt fun.

so this is what we arrived to that still maintained the intensity, while cramming as much volume in that i can recover from, without so much frequency that my joints and tendons cant recover.


some people cant handle this much volume in a single session because their training capacity just isnt there, so they need more frequency. other people can handle much more, but it leaves them sore for the whole week.

training intelligently is a balancing act of multiple variables to get the best balance of work vs recovery.
its just my stance that intensity, is not one of those variables, and should be constant.
if you add intensity in as a variable, then you now have a whole other metric to balance on an already delicate balance.

This is what I don't understand about people following a strict split or program and calling it gold. Based on where you are with your nutrition, drugs, sleep, etc. you are going to recover differently. So add volume to the muscle groups that recover faster and do the opposite to muscles that aren't recovering in time. Each person is going to have a different "program" that is ideal for them. And that same person is going to have different volume needs at different times of the year.