[Terminator LMG]

Simply stated in the title, is training to failure on every set necessary for maximum muscle growth? I have made tremendous gains over the years using this technique, but like every bodybuilder, I am always looking for better ways to train to maximize muscle growth. Despite the progress I've made, I can't help but wonder if I could have made it faster, and if training to failure on every set has lead to overtraining.

I usually perform 10 exercises on average for each bodypart; all sets taken to failure.

I have followed the "failure" philosophy because I have always believed that the best way to achieve muscle growth is to force the muscles to handle both more weight and more reps than they are use to handling. If you can handle a weight for a max of 12 reps, but stop at rep 10....well then, what's the point of that set because your muscles are use to handling it for 10 reps. 10 reps is nothing new or shocking, and therefore wouldn't elicit growth.

HOWEVER...on the other hand, I recently read an article in Ironman Magazine (Dec.2006) with a research study that found that subjects who trained to failure on every set of each each exercise showed lower levels of serum testosterone and IGF-1, and higher levels of IGFBP-3 (a binding protein of insulin), than subjects who didn't train to failure on every set of every exercise. Subjects in both groups gained similar amounts of strength.

Izquierdo, M., et al. (2006). Strength training leading to failure induces insulinlike growth factor 1 reduction and IGFBP-3 elevation. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 38:S287

It seems to me that the long term effects of this is reduced muscle growth to the "natural" bodybuilder.

Also, there's part of me that CAN understand stopping a set at rep 10, rather than at rep 12 which would be failure with that weight. According to Ironman researchers Johnnathan Lawson and Steve Holman, there are 3 different types of muscle fibers. You have your low threshold muscle fibers that are usually the greatest in quantity and fire in the 7-9 rep range. You then have your medium threshold muscle fibers that fire in the 10-12ish rep range. And you have your high endurance muscle fibers that fire after the low and medium have fired, and they fire in the 13-15 or 20ish rep range.

So, if you stop a set short of failure, yet you're able to get the low and medium threshold motor/muscle fiber units to fire, thus resulting in growth stimulation, wouldn't that be sufficient for muscle growth? Granted you can't pick up a 15lb dumbell, curl 9 reps, and call it good. It would have to be a weight where you hit failure at 12 or so.

So, what is everyone's take on this? Train to failure on every set? Train to failure on the last set of each exercise? etc?

[glg]

Please explain your routine a little more. 10 exercises per body part and....?

Mutliple sets or 1 warm up & 1 working set?

I am most familiar with the Nautilus & Mentzer methods of failure routines and they only do 1 or 2 exercises per body part and have a substantial rest/recovery period between workouts.

Overtraining is always possible in any type of routine.

[spatch]

There are 3 points to weight training
Frequency (how often you hit each muscle)
Intensity (how much work each set places on a muscle)
Volume (number of sets)

It is imporatant to mix these up, as doing so will prevent plateaus. Keep in mind that when you increase one, you should decrease one of more as well.

When I go to complete failure on each set, I do no more than 8 sets in a 2 week period per muscle.

[Terminator LMG]

You'll have to excuse me. I"ve been reading a lot lately and doing a lot of research (both for pleasure in the pursuit of bodybuilding, and with college and finals week and all the studying that comes with it.)

Failure, as I had forgotten, is not really muscular failure. It is Central Nervous System failure...or crapout basically. When you can lift, push, and pull no more, it is your CNS that is failing, not your muscles. The crapout of your CNS is a protective mechanism to prevent complete muscular failure. Because if you brought your muscles to failure, you wouldn't be able to move that muscle at all. You'd be handicapped.

So, I should in effect re-phrase my question and ask this. How many reps shy of failure should you stop to effectively stimulate muscle growth? If you're working with a weight of 350lbs, and "failure" is at 12 reps, do you stop at rep 8,9,10,11???

[SoMdHunter]

Forget the silly name of this link, it has some good info on the various types of muscle fibers.

TeenBodybuilding.com - Shane Giese - Slow & Fast Twitch Muscle Fibers.

As for me, I train to failure only if I'm increasing the weights. As an example, tonight was my chest and tri routine and I've recently went up to the next DB weight size. I try to get 10-12 reps at a specific weight before I increase the weight again. Tonight I could only manage 7 reps until I hit failure. Next week I will shoot for 8 reps, and keep increasing until I get to 12. Then I shoot for 3 full sets at that weight. Some weeks I just don't "have it", but I don't intentionally set out to train to failure.

[spatch]

Originally Posted by Terminator LMG

You'll have to excuse me. I"ve been reading a lot lately and doing a lot of research (both for pleasure in the pursuit of bodybuilding, and with college and finals week and all the studying that comes with it.)

Failure, as I had forgotten, is not really muscular failure. It is Central Nervous System failure...or crapout basically. When you can lift, push, and pull no more, it is your CNS that is failing, not your muscles. The crapout of your CNS is a protective mechanism to prevent complete muscular failure. Because if you brought your muscles to failure, you wouldn't be able to move that muscle at all. You'd be handicapped.

So, I should in effect re-phrase my question and ask this. How many reps shy of failure should you stop to effectively stimulate muscle growth? If you're working with a weight of 350lbs, and "failure" is at 12 reps, do you stop at rep 8,9,10,11???

Nothing you said here changed my responce. Go with high intensity (giong to where you cant do any more reps on your own) and low frequency/volume, or go high frequency or volume and go, say, 2 reps away from failure.

BTW- if you are looking for muscle growth, use a 6-8 rep range IMO. 12 reps wont build muscle very fast.

[East1600Plus]

i always train to failure each set...seems to make the most sense to me make your muscles tear as much as possible and get as much out of them as possible

[Terminator LMG]

Originally Posted by East1600Plus

i always train to failure each set...seems to make the most sense to me make your muscles tear as much as possible and get as much out of them as possible

That's always been my philosophy as well. Train to failure, force your muscles to handle more of a workload than they are use to, etc.

How many sets do you do for say biceps or chest or back when you're pushing/pulling/lifting till you can't get another rep?

[Terminator LMG]

Originally Posted by spatch

Nothing you said here changed my responce. Go with high intensity (giong to where you cant do any more reps on your own) and low frequency/volume, or go high frequency or volume and go, say, 2 reps away from failure.

BTW- if you are looking for muscle growth, use a 6-8 rep range IMO. 12 reps wont build muscle very fast.

I agree with your original response. When you say high intensity with low volume, how low of volume are you talking?

6-8 rep range however I have to disagree somewhat with you for optimal levels of building mass. While it is true that the majority of muscle fibers in the major muscle groups are those of low threshold motor units, there are those fibers present that respond to a higher number of reps only. The number of those high endurance fibers may not be as great in quantity as those fibers that respond to a 6-8 rep range, but they do contribute to the overall mass present. So neglecting the high endurance fiber in your training doesn't make any sense to me if you're trying to achieve your muscle's fullest potential in size.

Look at Olympic sprinters like Ben Johnson. The guy was VERY muscular for a sprinter. Now granted he was suckin' down the horse juice (winstrol), but all of his work and workouts were stressing purely those high endurance muscle fibers...and look at the level of muscular development he achieved by doing so! He grew, and he was muscular!! What I'm getting at is that those people who do not train their high endurance fibers are robbing themselves of optimal gains in muscle mass.

[spatch]

Originally Posted by Terminator LMG

I agree with your original response. When you say high intensity with low volume, how low of volume are you talking?

6-8 rep range however I have to disagree somewhat with you for optimal levels of building mass. While it is true that the majority of muscle fibers in the major muscle groups are those of low threshold motor units, there are those fibers present that respond to a higher number of reps only. The number of those high endurance fibers may not be as great in quantity as those fibers that respond to a 6-8 rep range, but they do contribute to the overall mass present. So neglecting the high endurance fiber in your training doesn't make any sense to me if you're trying to achieve your muscle's fullest potential in size.

Variety is very important in bodybuilding. Changing up your rep ranges will give you benefits.

Originally Posted by Terminator LMG

Look at Olympic sprinters like Ben Johnson. The guy was VERY muscular for a sprinter.

Look at Ronnie Coleman who usually does very low reps.

To recap, switch up your rep ranges, with 6-8 being your most common range.

[glg]

i think we also need to define failure. There is inability to perform a rep completely on yoyr own without cheating, with cheating, wiith a spotter failing on the positive portion of the lift and with a spotter failing on the negative portion of the lift.

Maybe more but those are the ones that come to mind. When I am thinking of going to failure I am using a spotter and failing on the positve portion of the lift. With the last 2-3 reps being assisted more than a touch by the spotter.

[spatch]

Originally Posted by glg

i think we also need to define failure. There is inability to perform a rep completely on yoyr own without cheating, with cheating, wiith a spotter failing on the positive portion of the lift and with a spotter failing on the negative portion of the lift.

Maybe more but those are the ones that come to mind. When I am thinking of going to failure I am using a spotter and failing on the positve portion of the lift. With the last 2-3 reps being assisted more than a touch by the spotter.

I am at failure in my oppinion when I can no longer complete a positive portion of a rep on my own. Rarley do I go beyond this point with the help of a spotter.

[East1600Plus]

Originally Posted by spatch

I am at failure in my oppinion when I can no longer complete a positive portion of a rep on my own. Rarley do I go beyond this point with the help of a spotter.

i do failure + forced reps which i love have my spotter help me rep out 2-3 more then on certain workouts ill do failure+ forced reps + end on a negative i love the pain!!

[Terminator LMG]

Originally Posted by glg

i think we also need to define failure. There is inability to perform a rep completely on yoyr own without cheating, with cheating, wiith a spotter failing on the positive portion of the lift and with a spotter failing on the negative portion of the lift.

Maybe more but those are the ones that come to mind. When I am thinking of going to failure I am using a spotter and failing on the positve portion of the lift. With the last 2-3 reps being assisted more than a touch by the spotter.

Good call. I tend to think of "failure" as the inability to perform another rep on the positvie portion of the lift no matter how hard you try to force out another rep. So that IMO encompasses the inability to even perform a cheat rep.

I will go even further and say that failure to me is when you cannot move the weight anymore. By that I mean you can't even move the weight 1/4 of the way up, or even an inch. That to me is failure; when the weight can no longer be moved an inch.

[Terminator LMG]

Originally Posted by spatch

Variety is very important in bodybuilding. Changing up your rep ranges will give you benefits.



Look at Ronnie Coleman who usually does very low reps.

To recap, switch up your rep ranges, with 6-8 being your most common range.

The ideal rep range will depend from person to person. Generally speaking it may be true that the majority of lifters will grow from the 6-8 rep range, but not everyone. I know people who simply don't respond to that few # of reps when they use it as their most common rep range. They require 9-12 reps in order to grow, and rarely go lower except when they're looking to increase strength. 9-12 reps provides them with enough time under tension to stimulate muscle growth, and that for them is around 35 seconds.

So to recap, switching up rep ranges is definitely important. But nobody should except that 6-8 is the golden rule without experimenting with their own unique physiology. They may find out that their body responds wonderfully to 6-8 reps, and they may find out that they don't. In which case they'll have saved themselves a lot of wasted time.

[CROWLER]

If we are looking at optimum rep ranges it makes you wonder about bicycle sprint specialists (you know the guys with HUGE quads) whose rep range is anywhere from 45 - 200 at high intensity and 6000 - 50,000 on lower intensity


CROWLER