Staying within your anaerobic threshold will yield the best results. It is the fast-twitch muscle fibers that have the primary function of the contractions within a muscle group that is under great resistance and use more phosphate than glucose...and will also hypertrophy in a greater degree of response than slow-twitch muscle fibers will. However, some individuals though, do not HAVE fast-twitch fibers as the dominant makeup of their muscle groups or certain muscle groups. Instead, they have more slow-twitch, "endurance type" fibers that do not hypertrophy as much. But they do. Going short of having your dominant fiber type determined by an anatomist, simply experimenting to find your "prescription" for reps is all you can do.
Wow. You may as well be a bot with that cut and paste response.
Whatever that is. I wrote it.
Before that; I learned it in 10th grade biology class.
I've heard that it's more about total weight lifted than a particular rep scheme.
you can call me "ozzie" for short.
I'm conflicted about that. The NSCA-CPT book I have actually had a whole paragraph about how going to failure might be counterproductive, which is weird, but I'm not a strength scientist so I have no idea who to trust.
Saw that now. Gotcha.
I think it is easier for a beginner to recover and go this far and still makes gains, since the beginner is no where near using the weights/loads and having the inroads and recovery issues that more advanced trainees are doing. They hit 90%-100% failure pretty quickly and are spent because they do not have the recovery to keep beating the horse like more advanced trainees do. That is why so many differing tests can show results. Because they use novices and novices/untrained respond to almost any type of protocol and training.
This is again where I see some training science(s) and laws, kind of getting in the way of just...
- Going to gym (showing up is the most important thing, most failures are not stapled to)
-Lifting weights up (too much enphasis put on how many reps, how many exercises, how many angles...)
- Going home and eating (nuff said)
-Going back to gym 2 days later and lifting more (adding weight to the big compounds, is one of, if not the most important point, if one one to keep getting bigger and stronger)
Failure is the loss of the ability to properly execute another repetition to the exact same technique as the previous rep; typically full range. Grading it on a curved scale for the advanced trainer's preference doesn't change the definition it is what it is as a training principle as devised by Weider...not me I'm just the messenger. Gotta draw the line somewhere. Beyond that is rest pause, forced reps, cheating techniques, descending sets and partial reps.
That post means nothing because that is an opinion of what failure is to you or the article you read. It's not hard to find 10 others with a different definition. In any case, this horse could get really beat.
I don't like or agree with training to failure, so for me it doesn't matter. I just think that there are different schools of thought to it and it's effectiveness for any level of experience.
It's not an opinion, it's a method of a training principle standardized over 70yrs ago and outlined by Joe Weider, in his encyclopedia of modern bodybuilding...it's over 600 pages btw. Failure is failure...you can complete another full rep or you can't. There's only one way to say it.
Failure to an untrained person is of course obvious but, will most likely have less overall inroad or systemic effect than a trainee using heavier loads. That is why beginner programs can have one training the entire body 3x per week with say 3x 8-10, and seeing progress nearly weekly for a good period, as recovery is fairly quick for the majority of them.
Failure in the bi curl and failure in the squats, are going to elicit 2 totally different outcomes IMO. So almost everyone can go to failure in the bi curl and recover in a day or so whereas, failure in the squats, different. I have done failure in the curls many times, using Mentzer's negs and eccentrics and all of that. They never beat me up 2-4 days later, like a good heavy set of squats would, even taken to "almost failure" not even actual failure.
So what I am saying, is.. sure you can talk about failure, but it all depends on the trainee, the exercises, their levels and how uncomfortable they are willing to make themselves.
Your older way rings of some HITish Jones/Mentzer one set to failure stuff. Most trainees will do better with a bit more volume, frequency and less super high intensity stuff, since the higher intensity stuff, drains the CNS and training becomes drudgery instead of fun.Right now, I'm experimenting with finding out if it's better to hit a muscle group within a couple of days less rest than I used to but with a little less emphasis on total exhaustion of it per workout; rather than beating the crap out of it and then taking more days off before doing it again. I think before it seemed like after a while I was just resting for too long, sometimes because even after the 4th or 5th day I was still sore.
* This has been a long going debate, before there has even been and internet. (from SuperSlow, HIT, Dr Ken, Bob Whelan to Mike and Arnold and I am going to guess it was more successful to some of those BB'ers, because of the extra PEDS they were using in comparison to us mere mortals. I trained protocols like Mentzer's /Viator's Intensity For Immensity stuff, years ago)
I am going to guess you will find your new protocols will perhaps work(at least for a while but not forever) It is like Dan John says. Everything works, for about 6 weeks then nothing seems to work. Progress will never happen in a linear fashion forever, especially as you get more and more advanced and adapted. The human body grows in spurts and by differing and changing stimuli.
Good point...going to failure on squats even gets ya down to your toes! And it's pretty dangerous. I only do those to a mediocre level anymore, hardly even 200lbs...had a major back surgery in 2007 that put me out of training to hardly at all till about 4 months ago. Before that, ya I WAS employing some HIT principles only in the sense of "less is more" for a few years, I gained some strength and about 16lbs. And a lot of joint pain...lol