all posts post new thread

Old Forum The exact mechanism as to why we should not train to failure?

Status
Closed Thread. (Continue Discussion of This Topic by Starting a New Thread.)

jaybros729

First Post
Hello everyone,

I know that many times it is suggested that one should not train to momentary muscular failure when training for strength. I however have seen no evidence scientifically that supports this viewpoint( not to say that there isn't evidence).

momentary muscular failure = completing repetitions of a particular exercise until you can no longer achieve another repetition using correct form/technique. This happens way sooner then true failure which is when you literally can not lift the weight.

What are the mechanisms physiologically for why we should not train to failure? I have seen almost no evidence. And the mechanisms that people have suggested have almost no evidence.( one example is that of hebbian mecahanisms). Also another problem I see is that many people cite research to me by russians, or other foreign scientists, but I can not get any of the primary research to see if there research design, metrics, question being studied, etc. actually helps to prove what they are saying. I just do not think we can trust research that we do not have access to.

I love the science behind why these things occur and really hope someone has some good stuff for me to research

 
 
how about not training to failure for strength, just works better than training to failure?

At least in my experience ;-)

and loads of other coaches/athletes
 
I basically agree with Stephen's response, although I think training to (or near) failure can have its place in limited doses and circumstances.

Strength training is largely an empirical craft. Understanding of physiological mechanisms may be interesting, and useful in some circumstances, but are not really necessary, and may actually be distracting.

It's the input and the output that are important, not what happens inside the black box.

Your question also raises a practical dilemma. How do you know when you can not do another repetition with good form? What constitutes "good" form anyway (people argue violently about this), and where do you draw the boundary across which form is no longer "good"?

Knowing that you have reps left in the bank means that, wherever you draw the line, you are never going to cross it.

 
 
According to Chad Waterbury, the exact mechanism is not well understood--the best we can do at this point is speculate. You'd be hard pressed to find someone more on the cutting edge of this specific issue than CW. Sorry!  (Chad's in the don't train to failure camp btw)
 
For me it's always been the greater chances of injury. Then alot of "strength" moves doesn't lend themselves well for flirting with failure, squatting benching and pressing overhead to name a few.
 
I know it's not what the OP asked, but I'll add some of the subjective/qualitative factors that I think generally favor not training to failure:

Greater likelihood of maintaining good form (presumably lowering injury risk).

Less muscle soreness.

Less interference with ability to play sports and do other activities.

Easier to recover from.

Allows more frequent training.

Allows better sustained long term progress.

Psychologically easier. Punch the clock, do the work, go home.

Easy Strength is all about this.

 
 
Jerry, let us go about it the other way: where is the evidence that it is needed?—It does not exist.  Empirical evidence shows that the strongest powerlifters and weightlifters do not train to failure.

Neurologically, failure does not make any sense—you practice failure.  As for hypertrophy, we still do not know the exact mechanism.  we do no even know if the cross bridge theory is correct.  According to one credible theory that carries weight in Russia today, testosterone and HGH get to the nucleus and kick off the transcription.  Supposedly, free creatine acts as a catalyst for the process and hydrogen ions make the membrane porous for the hormones to get in.  Practically, for stimulating FT hypertrophy it all comes down to intense work in that significantly exhausts the CP within 20-s0sec.  Enter heavy fives.  But we already know that, thanks to John McCallum and other empiricists.

Scientific theories change.  Empirical observations remain and just get refined.  Much of the Soviet sports science is empirical.

 

 
 
All science involves research, but not all research is true science.  This is why there are so many contradictory studies, especially in the world of exercise physiology. Part of the problem too is that some things are qualitative, not quantitative; measuring only takes us so far.

To piggyback on Pavel's point, what discipline besides strength sports encourages repeatedly failing? Certainly not music, dance, or gymnastics. Why should getting stronger follow different principles than any other skill?

If you really want to go to failure (I can't imagine why, but each to their own), try it and see if it works for you.  If this time next year, you're pulling 2.5 bw deadlift, pressing bodyweight (or achieving whatever your particular goals are), and you're healthy and happy, great, what you're doing is working for you.  If not, though, might want to rethink it.

There are lots of cliches about this, reinventing the wheel, standing on the shoulders of giants, etc, but they make a good point, find someone who's good at what you want to be good at, and listen to them. I find Pavel, Dan John, David Whitley, Marty Gallagher, Thomas Kurz, et al good models to follow, and doing so has worked out well for me.
 
auto mechanic forearms, climber lats, sprinter butt, lumberjack traps, soccer player calves... the empirical evidence is astounding. "But you're just talking about hypertrophy, not strength!" Try arm-wrestling a manual laborer, even one that you outweigh by a considerable margin...
 
Jerry, I am a musician.  I practice.  I train my strength the same way.

No musician practices until they can no longer play - it defies common sense, it would drastically increase recovery time, drastically increase the risk of injury, and is counter-productive neurologically - when you practice, you try to do the same thing over and over so that it becomes easier and you can then move on to slightly more challenging task.

Jerry, if you haven't read "Easy Strength" by Pavel and Dan John, now would be a very good time for you to do so.  If you don't have time to read the whole book, just read Chapter 3, Easy Strength.  And if you don't have time for that, just read the first 5 or 6 pages of Chapter 3 - it should answer your questions.

Last but not least, you say, "I just do not think we can trust research that we do not have access to."  That's what Pavel gets the big bucks for.  :)  If you are an exercise scientist professionally, that's another matter, but for the rest of us, Pavel has done the work already and, speaking for myself, at least, I have no need to attempt to repeat what he has already done.

-S-
 
Wow awesome!

Thanks to Mr.<a title="View Pavel Tsatsouline's profile" href="http://www.strongfirst.com/users/pavel/">Tsatsouline</a> and to everyone else who responded I really appreciate the input and extra thoughts. I am glad I got great responses.  And a double thanks to Mr.Tsatsouline and others for delving into some of the scientific limitations that are encountered.

Good stuff y'all.

Jerry A. Yono

 
 
Status
Closed Thread. (Continue Discussion of This Topic by Starting a New Thread.)
Back
Top Bottom