Training to failure and rep ranges

gnolan

From what i understand, the best way to build muscle is to shock it into growth, increasing weight, increasing reps, and really grinding out the hard reps.

With this in mind, is training to failure not the ideal way to train? I realise that this is safety-dependent, power rack for squats, and maybe db's for benching. Its understandable that people would not, despite the presence of the power rack, want to become the centre of attention by falling on their ass with a loaded bar crashing onto the bars above them. Ignoring this, is it not the best way to train, pushing yourself until you can do no more?

At the moment, i 5x5 my squat, 3x5 deadlift, failure on preacher curls, inverted rows, chins and push-ups. My bench is a weak point for me. I'm primarily interstested in looking good, so have decided to start out 5x5 on a specific weight. When thats achieved, go to 3x8; which first time round may go something like 8,8,6; essentially failure on the last rep, when i know that if i let the bar go down again it won't come back up. Then maybe 3x10. When thats done, up 2.5kg, and start 5x5 again.

Is there any logic in this progression? Why is it usually the assistance exercises you see being done to failure and not the big three? Is it all about safety?

Hanley

gnolan wrote: »

Is there any logic in this progression? Why is it usually the assistance exercises you see being done to failure and not the big three? Is it all about safety?

It's all about recovery!!

As a beginner you might get away with training to failure, but as your progress and become stronger/more neurologically efficient, an all out effort on squats or deadlifts can take a long time to recover from.

The more time you spend recovering, the less time you spend training. Which isn't good....

gnolan

Hanley wrote: »

It's all about recovery!!

As a beginner you might get away with training to failure, but as your progress and become stronger/more neurologically efficient, an all out effort on squats or deadlifts can take a long time to recover from.

The more time you spend recovering, the less time you spend training. Which isn't good....

Right. So you're safe enough going to failure on the assistance exercises cause they'll only really fatigue an isolated muscle, and not on the big three cos you'll just be plain bo||oxed?

If fatigue was not a factor, which it undoubtedly always is, would this be the ideal way of increasing size and strength?

Do progressive rep increases and the subsequent increase in load on the bench make any sense for my goals, i.e. get bigger?

It would appear i have a lot of questions!

Hanley

gnolan wrote: »

Right. So you're safe enough going to failure on the assistance exercises cause they'll only really fatigue an isolated muscle, and not on the big three cos you'll just be plain bo||oxed?

Pretty much.... smaller muscle recover quicker and still tired ones can be worked around. Can't really do that with squats or deads since pretty much ALL your muscles were involved!

If fatigue was not a factor, which it undoubtedly always is, would this be the ideal way of increasing size and strength?

Well....maybe??

But if you're not fatigued, then how do you know you've worked hard? Fatigue, on some level is inextricably linked with strength and growth increases, since they're brought about by pushing your body to do something it hasn't done before in some way!

Do progressive rep increases and the subsequent increase in load on the bench make any sense for my goals, i.e. get bigger?

Absolutely. It's exactly what I'm doing for my bench too.

It would appear i have a lot of questions!

Don't we all....

gnolan

Well thanks, that clears things up a good bit. I was always planning on keeping my squat and DL at 5x5 and 3x5, simply because i'm wrecked after them, and last time i 5x5'd a heavy deadlift (heavy for me!) i had to lie down in the shower. I've seen yourself and a few others promoting 20 rep squats, but to be honest, i'd probably suffer doing 20 BW squats! Besides, i'm too broke to buy new jeans for what i'm sure would be "shredded velocity legs", or "explosive glazed hams", or something else men's fitness would say.

I'll stick to the bench progression anyway. I'm embarrassed to say i only bench 40kg 3x8, and maybe just 47.5 5x5. It is proportionate enough to my squat, but i still don't like it. Hoping to get it up to 60kg within a few months now that i've committed to a program.

_Nuno_

Fatigue is not the main thing. Plenty of bodybuilders in the 30's and 40's got big naturally without ever going to failure. Micro-trauma to muscle fibres is what really causes growth, and that comes from mechanical stress, not from failure or fatigue.

Have a look at the HST site. There are good articles there with actual references to research done in the last decade or so that shed much light into why muscle growths.

Training to failure was just a way bodybuilders and supplement selling magazines use to try to hide steroid use and blame the poor chap that doesn't grow to freaky levels using their protein for their lack of results. You don't train hard enough they say. You have to go beyond failure, etc.,...

cowzerp

Training to failure actually teaches your nervous system to shut down when the stimulus reaches that again, the same results can be achieved and improved upon by simply stopping just before failure!

its not the muscle that fails in most cases but the nervous system shutting your body down, this is like an in built safety mechanism, your body knows what its capable of and wont allow more, by avoiding failure you can boost up your shut down point!

its complicated but thats dumbed down as much as i can do..

Train to failure if failure is your goal!

rubadub

Hanley wrote: »

The more time you spend recovering, the less time you spend training. Which isn't good....

But if you know you will not be training is it best to be recovering for all that time?

e.g. if I am heading off for a weekend and know I will not be training for say 4 days I might do heavy negatives, I can have DOMs for several days later so figure I am recovering all this time.

Training to failure actually teaches your nervous system to shut down when the stimulus reaches that again, the same results can be achieved and improved upon by simply stopping just before failure

I would go to what I call failure sometimes, but I wonder if my failure is equal to others idea. e.g. I see videos of the likes of arnie training with a head that is set to explode, yet he still gets more reps in. I reckon I am not going nearly as hard as him. Others talk of puking up, I have never been near that!

Also I wonder about doing negatives and if they are as taxing as going to failure. e.g. say I could do 10 chinups max, now if I do 10 it is to failure, so I could do 9, then I can easily do more negatives. I wonder how many equal the failure. Are the negatives a better way to tax the muscles while keeping the CNS fairly OK.

I mentioned something similar in the morning workout thread. That I can manage about 80-90% of weight or reps in the morning that I could later on. So by doing negatives in the morning I am working the muscles as much as I would later on. So I wonder if they truly are "forced reps", since I am more than capable of doing them if fuelled up.