Old Forum Training to failure vs not training to failure

[SupermanBeyond1938]

I'm sure we've all seen studies supporting both concepts but I was wondering if maybe they could both be right? I mean could it actually be more based on the individual than for the general population?

Just a thought and was wondering what the rest of you think.

 

[crash123]

there's a time and place.  the problem is the overload society we live in believes training to failure all the time must be best.  what doesn't kill me makes me stronger.  by always training to failure one is destined to fail.  follow a program.  one that leaves you fresh after most workouts.  throw in a test every once in a while and see what you are made of.  then get back to the grind.  that's my 2 cents.

 

[SupermanBeyond1938]

Well I look at Body By Science and a lot of people say they have gotten results from it and people have gotten good results from Pavel's routines so both can't be wrong.

 

[Norski]

Both methods use different mechanisms as to how they work (and everything works for 6 weeks)

Body by Science focuses on Sarcoplasmic growth - the mitochondrial dense "goo" that surrounds the muscle fibers, some of the muscle fibers themselves will grow as well.

StrongFirst focus on the nervous system - neural mylination, synaptic facilitation and myofibralar density - the body's nerve wire shielding, "circuit efficiency" and the side effect is the muscle fibers themselves grow in numbers, also creating a bit more sarcoplasmic "goo."

A sarcoplasm emphasized program will produce rapid (yet much more temporary) size gains and it's not uncommon to see strength gains.  It works, but not forever.  However, if you were to hop onto one for a quick 2-4 week cycle between traditional strength cycles you could really help yourself out because of all the extra mitochondria (and therefore ATP) you'd get from the extra sarcoplasm.  In addition, these programs tend to increase capillary density (blood vessels, yo) in the target muscles so your recovery ability will improve.

I've tried both methodologies of training and sided with StrongFirst because I like the "practice" aspect of it and ..good luck finding a competitive lifter be it power, oly, or strongman that lifts to failure and has even an entry level poundage let alone a record breaking total.  "Reverse engineering what the best do naturally" is the name of the game here.

I hope this helps.  They're both valid forms of lifting, just for different goal terms.  StrongFirst for performance, Body by Science for bodybuilding and a bit of performance.

Also, it's interesting to note that both Arnold and Ronnie Coleman had very respectable powerlifting careers before they ever got into bodybuilding.  Coleman did most of the work required for his physique by building his 800lb deadlift.

Fun to think about.

 

[Mike E]

The same thing may mean something different to different populations. To the highly motivated folks at SF training to failure may mean a near death experience.  To another crowd it may mean "I'm kinda tired, better quit now".   It depends on how much adrenaline you can recruit.  So I understand the question in the opening post.

 

[SupermanBeyond1938]

Fun to think about yes, makes me wonder what they will think of next.

 

[Mattsirpeace]

May I propose the Seven-Eleven Principle?  The benefit of going all the way to "eleven" on perceived effort is to discover that "seven" is the sweet spot.

 

[SupermanBeyond1938]

@ Conner I should have asked this earlier:

Why does it work for only six weeks and what happens after that?

 

[Bill Been]

A good analogy Pavel uses in "Power To The People" is walking into a house with a strange smell in it.  At first, it's not just noticeable, it's overpowering.  Then it's noticeable. Suddenly, you have to think about it to smell it.  Finally, you adapt and you can't smell it at all.  Like living near a paper plant or oil refinery - the locals don't notice it at all.  Adaptation.  Over time, a different or more powerful stimulus is needed.  Same with strength training.  Try to max bench press every time you get under the bar and your max will go up - for a while.  Probably about 6 weeks, unless you're a teenager.  After around six weeks your max will no longer increase, it may even start going backward, and a new stimulus is needed.  Since improvement of the 1RM is not possible indefinitely (should be obvious since if it was possible we'd have some 2,000 pound deadlifters around) StrongFirst embraces a paradigm of steadfast devotion to proper form which leads to safety (come back to train again tomorrow); intelligent programming (a series of pre-planned advances and retreats); and training heavy but well short of failure (trains the CNS to handle load, the mind to expect success, and allows recovery despite significant volume).

 

[kiwipete]

A couple of thoughts....

I think of  " Training to failure vs not training to failure" as the former is what you do when TESTING your physical quality and the later is what you do when BUILDING that physical quality.

You can't 'test' all the time because of the price of recovery is too great,  but those testing events do build a degree of further ability, if not in a physical sense then in a mental confidence of 'having been there'.

Training 'not to failure' is building the reserve of strength (or whatever quality you're working on) with a much more acceptable level of recovery required,  so you can do it more often.

 

 

 

[Pavel]

SB, hypertrophy theories abound—but they still remain theories.  we do not even know exactly how the muscle contracts—it is called the "sliding filament THEORY".

An overwhelming majority of the strongest people in the world (powerlifters, weightlifters, etc.) do not train to failure.  No other proof is necessary.