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?
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?