Is Training to Failure Worse for Gains? | Educational Video | Biolayne
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 15 มิ.ย. 2024
- Study: tinyurl.com/mr8htwvj
Get my research review REPS:
biolayne.com/REPS
Get my new nutrition coaching app, Carbon Diet Coach: onelink.to/9h4d62
My research based supplements: www.outworknutrition.com
Get my books on how to lose fat: www.biolaynestore.com
Take my online course "The Science of Nutrition": chfi.click/laynenorton_online
Get Custom Workouts by me for $12.99/month:
biolayne.com/workout-builder/
/ laynenorton
/ biolayne
/ biolayne
I think the big takeaway here is that if you’re aiming for maximal muscle growth, you need to be CLOSE to failure. You don’t need to go all out every single set, however your sets should be challenging enough for your body to adapt.
Exactly. Literally time & time again it just comes down to progressive overload. Increase in reps, or load progressively so that fatigue accumulation is managed, the body has time to adapt in order to perform better by next session.
But if you go all out on every set, do you need progressive overload?
@@grog3514 you absolutely need to progressively overload over time to continue growing. I'd argue going all out in every set, on every exercise, all the time will actually hinder your progress since it'll practically fry out your CNS from excessive & chronic fatigue accumulation. Progressive overload is just that, "progressive", meaning it's small increments over time which helps manage CNS fatigue far more efficiently
@@SamC_182 does that mean increasing weight every set or each workout? When you deload, does that mean you don't go to failure and just do an easy workout?
@@grog3514 small, weekly progressions. Week 1 do 2x15 reps at 100 lbs. Next week do 105 for a 2x15 as an example. You can also progressive overload with reps and sets. Week 1 do 2x10-15 @100 lbs. Once you hit the top rep range, then go up in weight a little. A deload is usually done every 4-9ish weeks to allow your body to recover from the prior training block. There are many ways to deload from not going to the gym at all, to cutting volume or lowering weight. It’s basically an active recovery week which will allow you to come back stronger and push harder next block.
Powerful: "If you have never trained to failure, you will probably end sets 5 reps from where they are"
Maybe in compounds but stuff like leg extensions , curls, triceps etc is easy to train to failure.
I’ve found that statement to be accurate. I thought I was pushing hard then some dick lifted next to me and I had to put out. I was surprised how much I left behind. I also found adding 1 set and bringing it to failure was good for me as far as gains.
yeah learning this when I first started doing sets to actual, honest to god failure was humbling but very illuminating
This.
@@jammRJ you’d be surprised how many people still don’t go to failure even on those lifts. Workout out with different people and when they “think” they are done, go ahead and motivate them to do more….youll be very surprised how many more reps you can get someone to push out!
Lifting for 17 years and in the first half of my lifting I always trained to failure. The second half of my lifting years I decided to cut the reps short, what I experienced was my strength increased and I was able to recover from my workouts better when I went 2-3 reps close to failure. I also noticed I wasn't as fatigued or felt burned out the day after lifting. I'm thinking the central nervous system is able to recover better when you don't constantly push your workouts to failure. Just a couple reps shy of failure made such an impact in my training, that I was finally able to break that plateau.
How many sets per muscle group were you doing towards second half of your lifting years?
I've been lifting for 40 years and made some of the best progress of my life after a long layoff by doing one set per muscle group every day, to or beyond failure (full body every day, no rest days).
You said you werw able to recover better... well then what that really means is that you did not rest long enough between workouts period!
@@JerryCorreia76 Same amount. One thing I changed was how many rest days I have, when I was a newbie making beginner gains I was lifting 7 days a week for 2 hours a day. I definitley didn't allow myself suffecient recovery aka overtraining.
@@jmodified Interesting, I changed how many rest days I have which may have contributed to better recovery. I do 3 days on 4 days off, I found that it doesn't matter how long I hit that muscle group as along as it's not too intense, but I can do a 2-3 hour lifting session and the next time I ready to train again granted I take at least 3 days in between each muscle group.
I do the bloho method. 2 reps then sleep and play warcraft the rest of the day. It’s given me the lunch lady body of my dreams.
Has it already turned you into a hardcore black ops CIA opperative?
the guy is almost in his 50s, right now has done a nice recomp and is strong and knowleadgeable about lifting. I guess he said weird stuff in the past, but I guess you are not better than that by trolling ten years after.
That dude crawled into his cubby hole and hasn't made much noise. Why the need to keep bringing him up? Does online bullying of a mentally ill guy who is already defeated and humbled, minding his own business, make you feel good about yourself? You're even lower than him at this point.
@@williamblake5289 what are you yapping about bloho is a terrible person with a terrible physique terrible strength all while using gear btw, there is no defending the dude it's like jumping in front of a warzone as a human shield
@@DolphR wait, does he really use gear???
So nice to see a study done on people other than noob lifters, elderly, or sick people.
I might have skipped this one - if not for your comment.
Totally agree I'm 59 and we can adapt any exercise to suit great comment
Only a noob would believe this study has significance. It literally breaks laws of physiology.
Which law?@@user-em2nz8bp9g
Yes. People rule! The sick, beginning lifters and esp these damn elderly, not even people
what this study showed the most is that proper research design is possible (checking all the boxes and addressing potential issues). Hopefully this encourages many more studies around body building/nutrition that could be trusted without constant lingering doubts
Yes, the study design was well thought out. How many other studies expose that training to failure on every set can actually REDUCE your overall volume because the early sets fatigue the later sets?
What you said towards the end about if you never go to failure you don't know what it feels like is key. I see SO much people who feel like they're "Training close to failure" but the rep literally never even slows down. I think many people think "training to failure" means going until you think you can't do more which A) isn't 'failure cause you still completed the rep and B) you can probably do way more than you think. What a great study though!
even 2 or 3 forced reps might not be that much in real life since most likely you could have completed them if a bear would be threatening to maim you or a fire would burn you if you fail the rep 😂
Bring Zac on for a long unedited conversation, please.
that would be sick
Great idea
Second that , do it Layne
The thing about training to failure is it’s foolproof. Out of 100 guys maybe 5-10 know how to get close and benefit from that trade off and the rest are the ones you see looking the same after years.
I think after this study, as well as testimonials that fit the study's findings, it is safe to instruct new people to learn what failure is, then aim for 1-2 RIR. Training to failure is only foolproof for those ignorant of a better way, or too lazy to learn to identify RIR. And the trade off is that over the long run, the fatigue takes it's toll and who is the fool then?
I take the last set to technical failure and use that to gauge the effort of the first sets.
Now almost every two weeks we get a new 'study' that contradicts the one before,
which it seld is contradicted within another two weeks. How great!
I've changed drastically at different stages throughout my gym life. At 58, I now consider failure at the point I break form. Yes it's technically 3,4 RIR, but better than an optimal exercise would be a good plan with consistency.
Ive always said why would I train to failure?? I train for success...its so simple
You are missing a very crucial variable. It also depends on the muscle group. For example, biceps, forearms and calves are used heavily in daily life. They are used to heavy workouts. They need to be trained to the failure.
Chest muscles can be trained short of failure.
Have the people who did the study measured each muscle group separately between the test subjects?
Another advantage of applying your recommendation of taking the last set to failure is that it gives you a real world example of where "actual" failure is for you in this movement at this point in time. Without that you are simply going off your feelings. And in my 45 years of experience coaching beginners to high level athletes, humans are not very good at gauging intense and difficult things with their perceived emotions. And even for those that can, taking the last set to failure simply takes away any guess work so... Good advice mate.
55 here.Training 7 years.Not to failure here on compound lifts bench,squat,miltary.Arm curls close to failure etc.Feel much better after gym,still have energy.Heavier weight,less reps suits me.Still have muscle gain,much stronger.
Thanks for doing a video on this study. After watching, I see why you are so excited about this study. This is some GREAT information.
What a beautifully executed study. Thanks for sharing.
Excellent practical info! Thank you!🏋️
Really interesting. Thanks Layne.
Great study, great explanation of it's content. Thanks coach
That is awesome study! Thanks for that. Really important stuff
great vid! like always moderation is key...there are soooo many factors here...consistency over time is everything!!
Appreciate the upfront statement regarding your coach conducting the study. You might be biased about the study but you're upfront about it and that is better for all of us listening to you 🌟
Brilliant. "If you're going to train to failure, save it for your last set."
And compile that with the fact that you get the same level of gains from training every set to failure vs. 1-2 RIR, you can see what the absolute best method might be.
Actually you get a tiny bit more gains by going to failure, but we probably can all agree that the prolongued exhaustion and frying of the CNS isnt worth the gains that are literally almost equal to 1-2 RIR.
Well designed study. Wish there were more like this involving experienced lifters and competitors.
I feel like this just hammers home the point that training is about aligning, as best you can, a bunch of competing factors between intensity, recovery, volume etc and there is always a perfect spot where these lines all meet. But simply hovering in the idealist zone is the ideal. And the more volume, or intensity, or recovery you incorporate, or less, the closer or further those lines get from each other.
I think this speaks to Mentzer’s principles. Whatever your overall volume is, you just need 1 intense set to failure to build muscle.
In my opinion, only few people know what a true failure is. They think they have reached failure but still has some gas left in the tank.
I've been working out for over 30 years and I lift to failure on every set full body. Daily.
I never feel exhausted ...
such a great study design
For someone who does not understand research design.
The problem with that study is that their definition of failure is a “simp” failure… real HIT training goes way past failure with assisted concentrics
Agree, the study design here was gold standard. Nicely done.
without seeing the subjects it's difficult to see how the training was conducted. Real failure is like someone like Doug McGuff executing a set. If you train like that, it's just one set that's all that's necessary. I've been training for over 30yrs and it wasn't until i cut my volume even more and hiked up my intensity that i was able to put on 1 more pound of muscle over the course of 3yrs. Given i've already reached my genetic potential. Measured hydrostatically.
Failure...my wheelhouse
I always train to failure best way I can keep track of my lifts makes it super simple and gives me a target to beat next time
Full body? Push pull leg or upper low? How many sets and excercises per body part a week
@@freestyleliving4145 im kinda doing a test i only do 1 day every 7 days and its an entire upper body i traind 2 to 3 sets to failure all depending on how good my 1st and 2nd set is and if its worth a 3rd set i smash one out i dont train legs yet as i was in an accident and broke them so they are kinda messed up i just do 1 day on some basic moves on my legs basically squats and carv raises but mainly body weight with a little extra my legs really are not any good
btw im currently sore for 5-6 days after my session and i do go as hard as physically possible on my curls i set the bar so i can rack it and once i fail i rack it small squat to lift the bar unrack and do another extended eccentric
i used to train full body 3 times per week 3 years ago and i never got far but in the 2 months i have doing this new test ive had my partner saying how my boobs have grown etc and now my large shirts are tight round the bicep rather than tight round the belly
the way im looking at it is anything is better than nothing and this is proving to be better than what i have done in the passed btw if you love the gym and like going 5x per week this will probably be no good for you
for me after the effort i put in a need a week off before i go back as i feel like i have abused myself so much i would not be able to get in the gym any sooner anyway
I do the same thing training to failure at least on all my work sets, often beyond failure actually. And in the past year and a half, I have increased in reps, weight, or both on almost every exercise of every workout training Heavy Duty style averaging 15-20 minutes per workout.
As far as volume goes, I keep my work sets per workout very low. When I was working out once every 6-8 days, I averaged 5-6 total work sets per workout. Now that I have increased my training frequency to once every 4 days, I have cut the work set total to 3-4 total per workout.
I have been alternating workouts between upper and lower body but starting next week, I will be doing a push/leg/pull/leg workout sequence for the foreseeable future.
I am 51 years old.
Great video, thanks.
Great study
VERY useful, thanks for the knowledge!
Good info!
The purpose of training to failure is to take out the guesswork. Theres no question that you crissed the necessary intensity threshold to atimulate growth.
If its important that the set is "hard" and "intense", then why would you trade your hardest reps for more easier reps?
The other key is recovery. More intensity requires more recovery time, amd less frequency.
I alwayd did compound lifts with 1-2 RIR and isolation exercises to failure. Compound lfits are more fatiguing and form is more likely to breakdown when training to failure while isolation exercises usually done later in the session, arent as fatiguing and isnt dangerous to fail on them. This always made the most sense to me.
Great point! Training to failure on barbell squats is very different from tricep pushdown.
I do the same.Compound not failure,isolation closer/ failure.Works for me 55 years old👍
Great study design that demonstrates intuitive results. Although it may be better for muscle growth (based on meta analysis and other study designs) training to failure may not be optimal (based on decreased volume from neuromuscular stress). I think we’re doing a great job approaching this answer scientifically and I really like the recommendation of optional last set failure training in case there may be unnoticed benefit from failure training. IMO this is best of both worlds. When something is backed by science and just makes plain sense it’s hard to refute
Thanks again
I love that you commented on it being tested on men and women, but also as you said, most importantly they were comparing the difference between left/right leg 👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼 Great indicator of how studies should be carried out!
The point about losing reps going to failure is critical in my opinion. Many people don’t understand that when you take every set to failure you will lose reps at some point. If you don’t, you aren’t going to failure. Plus, there is a significant amount of CNS systemic fatigue going to failure too often. While I believe that going to failure is okay once in a while, especially depending on the exercise, leaving 1-2 RIR produces excellent gains - allows for more training - less overall fatigue and is much easier to track progress.
Doing sets of 5 where 10 is failure, I'd still lose reps after a few sets - I'd probably fail to get 5 on the fourth set with two minute rests. I'd say for most exercises I'd need about twenty minutes for full recovery after a set of 10 to failure. With 2 RIR it might be ten minutes. With 5 of 10 it might be five minutes. I think people who can recover quickly after failure are slow-twitch dominant and/or don't have a nervous system that really lets them go to failure.
BullShiiat... you simply need to insert more rest days.
Thank you
thank you
Simple rule is unless you have years of experience already going to failure to know where that point is to accurate assess RIR just train to failure. Early in lifting career risk of injury is very low and will respond better to close to failure than experienced lifters. Stop overdoing volume, increase intensity, and increase recovery time. This equation never fails and never will.
insightful commentary
Makes sense ESP for guys like me who want some health benefits and strength but do not wanna over-work or strain too much.
One set, taken to true momentary muscular failure, is all you need. Save time and live your life.
Another obvious thing about reducing the risk of injury, especially if you train alone and like to go to failure, is to get the safeties in a power rack and in the machines you might use in the right place.
Nice one
Super interesting study! Thanks for breaking it down Layne! I love that each individual was their own control to eliminate genetic variation as a confounding variable.
I do wonder if Cross Education was considered as a reason for the results being equal, and how you would design a study to work around that. I know CE is more of a CNS adaptation, but I wonder if it could influence hypertrophy results in a study like this.🤔
Until last year I used to train to failure. I found that really training to failure was very tough psychologically. Backing off a bit has made working out much more enjoyable.
I ramp up to failure with the same rep range till I get like an RPE of 9 on the last set. Has worked wonders for me.
One nitpick about your commentary on the study design: it is not the within-subjects design that accounts for potential sex differences in training response, the within design mostly serves to reduce the model residuals, it is the type of hierarchical analysis that they used which allows for random effects terms to be utilized for both individual intercepts and slopes, handling the inherently nested data structure they would have had. In fact, very good stats approach, should have reported WAMBS QC process results, but very solid. Light years beyond what I typically see in our field.
Totally agree with your take on RCTs vs Meta-analyses. Sometimes one RCT really is better because a Meta-analysis might just be compiling evidence from a lot of poor quality studies.
A good rule of thumb is go to failure for isolation exercises safely. Leave a few reps for compounds that have a risk of killing you. Going to failure on isolations is a good thing imo since it always teaches you what true effort feels like.
"leave two in the tank" for reps is a good rule of thumb I learned from the mind pump guys.
Training to failure is flirting with injuries. I'm 45, it ain't for me anymore. I can't have injury time anymore.
Good video! Personally I have always known these results. Simply due to volume mattering the most. If one does the first set already to failure, too much is taken away from the 2nd and 3rd (sometimes even 4th) set. Only the last set, if even that, should be done to failure (even that is away from the next set/movement).
I take the best of both worlds and train as a failure
What about when you train a limb, you get a stimulus for both. I remember an old study indicated so.
So, I'm not sure about the way control was designed here.
Very interesting
Training to muscular failure harder than last time! 💪😳
Wow, this is exactly what I do. If I'm doing three sets, I'll leave 2-3 RIR on the first set, 1-2 RIR on the second set, and then to failure on the third set. It just seems like common sense.
Depending on the exercise - e.g. incline dumbbell press - I might try a drop set after the third. Leave NOTHING on the table!
For the algorithm.....
Depends on what you're trying to achieve. I think training to failure is more for mental gains than physical ones.
Hopefully more studies will be done like this, so we can eventually have enough material for a meta-analysis. 😎
FOOORREEE……..the algorithm
What are your thoughts on going beyond failure? E.g., forced reps, partials, dop sets, etc.
Equating volume load is a little problematic because the rep that goes to failure may take longer and will require more energy than the other reps.
Also, one important point is that all trainees were training to failure on many sets per week. This could have systemic effects either positive or negative.
Idk if you read comments but i need to ask this. For strength training (not powerlifting) is it smarter to do bench (for example) with no eccentric control (so you don't get any unnecessary fatigue, and therefore myb get 1 more rep) and to FULLY pause at the bottom so you are not riding the momentum, and then just focusing on concentric (your weakest part, which determents how strong you actually are)? The other option would be to bounce at the bottom so you get to "lift" (move) more weight which is good for strength development (heavy weight would develop strength faster than light weight right?) all this would be in smth like 2-4rep range @RPE8
Pull-ups, I think, are the best way to figure out what training to failure feels like. It’s blatantly obvious when you hit it. Obviously, plenty of other exercises, but I always think about “training to failure” when hitting my last ego-diminishing pull-up. Check- got it. 😂
Yeah I'd say pull ups decline in reps the most, full stretch at the bottom though, not partials lol
I'm a nurse currently working 60 hrs/wk. I'm getting really good at failing to train. My central nervous system is shot to smithereens.
Going at or beyond expected failure on a a 5rep set is pretty straight forward: if you struggle on 4 or 5, you might get 1 more maybe, but unlikely get 2. On the other hand if you embarque on a set of expected 10, 12 or 15, you can most likely do a few more reps when pushed hard be a friend or coach, even more so on a 20r set. The more you lean towards endurance, the more you can keep pushing beyond.
I’d be interested to see if they gave them more rest between sets of failure if that’d make a difference to increase volume load.
Where do I sign up to participate in such well-designed studies?
The one factor not considered was the difference in recovery required when training all out to failure.
I’m 64 and have trained for 45 years. I’ll take the last set of an exercise to total failure. This will be a drop set or 3 sec pause and hit the set to finish. Seems to work well even at my age.
I've been bodybuilding 5+ decades. This study forgot the most important aspect of gains. If you're training to failure, or not, it doesn't matter if you're not steadily increasing the weight you're training with over the 8 weeks.
Question for this community:
One thing that Dr. Norton said at the end is we should try to train to failure to see what it feels like, so we know what it feels like.
Is there a safe way of doing this if we typically do not train with a gyn partner?
Good video and sounds like overall a good study. I have to wonder though if the side trained to failure should have had a further reduction in volume? One of the arguments of training to failure is that you've produced enough of a stimulus in a reduced number of sets to warrant less frequency and volume. I personally train two sets to complete failure on my exercises and have been noticing great growth and strength increases. Anecdotal, I know. But my training frequency and volume is quite a bit less than when I trained multiple sets a few reps shy of failure, and I feel like I've notice greater growth with less time in the gym but hard training sessions.
Exactly what I was thinking. Most HIT advocates don't hit a muscle more than 10 sets a week. Most rir guys train up to 20 sets per muscle/week. I'd like to see a study with that real world comparison and see if there is a difference in muscle gains. Even more interesting would be for the test subjects to have only ever trained in one of those ways and to switch for the study to the other style. If they lose, gain, or maintain muscle after a few months, it would really help give us more insight.
Finally, someone with sense!
Btw 1-2 sets per failure, not ten; that would by physiological suicide.
@biolayne1 What were the rest period between sets in the study? I see that they used 2 minutes and 5 minutes rests in the "Pre - testing" to establish starting weights.
This is why occasional AMRAPs are great. Maybe like twice a year. It reminds me what failure feels like and I can callobrate my RPE.
Hey Layne, did they account for rest periods ?
I remember going to failure on the bench press one time and I was completely dead afterwards. I slept the rest of the day. It’s not a pleasant feeling.
For most of us progressive overload is more important than overloading our CNS and overtraining our muscles....
listen too your body period.
Going to failure also means you have to recover from this intensity , there is no way someone can train the next day after performing a true failure program ! It may take 2 to three days ! But this is the misconception or not understanding how the body heals, there is a lot to learn about when you train to failure that is growing larger muscles...
Do we know if less to-failure reps (eg27) are more productive than more not-to-fail reps(32)? Is it purely down to volume? Would less reps and more sets to increase volume be even better?
Since when do you train 10:31 to failure on the Squat ? Looking for a serious injury.
Would something like the overall training effect impact results? What I gather from this is one leg is trained with a greater intensity 0 RIR and less volume since subsequent reps declined and the other a “lesser” intensity 1-2 RIR and more volume. Would the 0 RIR stimulus impact the overall training effect? It’s like training only one leg while the other heals from injury kind of thing where the non trained leg keeps some size. I wonder what the results would have been if the failure group did like 50% of their typical training volume. The argument I think for the failure people is you would need only one maybe two sets.
6:08 he finally gets to the point
When I train to failure, my form of the 2, 3 reps are all screwed up.
I've always only went to failure on last sets. Wierd that people do failure sets prior or never do them
Really interesting study. I would imagine the big difference in leaving RIR comes in people who are pushing the bleeding edge in terms of recovery.
People who are working out three times a week, it probably doesn’t matter. Five or six times a week, leaving RIR matters a lot. And seven days a week, you are doing it wrong.
Train close to failure each set. 8-12: sets per wk per bodypart. Compound is always better than iso. Same as it ever was.
I train one set to Mentzer.
Speaking for myself only, if/when I train to failure I don't progress as well due to preexisting injuries (some of which are overuse related) getting in the way of consistency. When I reduce the weight and stop a few reps shy of failure I'm able to lift more consistently and with less overall pain. My injuries and age related recovery decline are part of this equation of course. Looking back on my exercise history I would have likely been better served by more intelligent program design and less intensity and volume overall.