Should we train until failure? | Brad Schoenfeld, PhD
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 19 ธ.ค. 2022
- Whether or not to train to failure - the inability to perform another repetition with proper form - has long been debated. Dr. Schoenfeld stresses the importance of lifting with a lot of effort but describes research that suggests failure training may not build hypertrophy and may even be detrimental to strength.
For most people, stopping a few reps short of failure may have better effects on maximizing strength; however, some failure training may be worthwhile for bodybuilders. In this clip, Dr. Brad Schoenfeld discusses balancing effort and rest to optimize muscle hypertrophy and strength gains.
Interview published on Dec 6, 2022
Watch the full episode:
• Dr. Brad Schoenfeld: R...
#exercise #protein #muscle - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
Intensity is more important than volume.
I am by no means a scientist, but my best advances made in the gym were training to failure while also focusing on the negative of the rep taking up to 10 seconds to complete the negative rep. In 6 weeks I took 4 inches off my waist AND gained 20lbs. Granted I had youth on my side, I ate up to 5 times a day and got plenty of rest. My favorite sets were 10-8-6-4 increasing weight every set and if I wasn't absolutely struggling to get to 4, I'd do another set. I also took my time in between sets, not an excessive amount but enough to where I felt I could just barely complete my next set.
N=1
@@retropygmyhe wasn't only training the negative he said he was focusing on slowing down the negative. Probably should of finished grade school "scientist"
@@retropygmy bro got his feelings hurt so bad he wrote a novel and then liked his own comment 😂☠️
@retropygmy slowing the eccentric on a cheat or assisted movement is fantastic, but to say controlling the negative on weights you can rep cleanly has no hypertrophic benefit over speedier eccentrics is definitely incorrect. Get out of the books, you need some work in the gym and on your social awareness. Anyone who claims expertise while demonstrating ignorance in their chosen field is either incompetent or a liar
One set to failure and take three or more days off to recuperate
😂😂😂😂😂
One set to failure, 6 days a week 😁. One dynamic stretching recovery day (not a "rest" day).
Everyone should be their own science project.
See what works for you, as everyone is different & responds differently.
Try training to failure & write down your results.
Train leaving some reps to spare & write down your results. Then do what gives you the fastest results.
When you start to hit a plateau - which you inevitably will - then try something different.
Godspeed on your BB journey. 💪
Exactly, this is interesting but we are all different so getting the "perfect" average of meta studies will always be a generative recommendation. For most people there #1 key issue is consistency in training. The next #2 issue is safe training and avoiding injuries - especially from training to max with free weights. Discussing training Efficiency x Risk x Motivation might be more relevant for the individual :)
@@jungtarcph
Yes - all good points. 👍
Additionally, there's:
Quality vs Quantity of Nutrition, Rest & Recovery & overall lifestyle including all the psychological aspects such as focus & visualisation.
As you've already alluded to, Body Building, just like most other things, is far more than just the sum of its parts. 👍
Great content and really appreciate the slides being included
Appreciate the nuances emphasised, especially that the role of research is as general guide, but personalised strategies for individuals is then necessary. ‘One size fits all’ tendency is at best inefficient, at worst harmful.
I’ve always used failure to refer to a state when I could not complete the motion without weight I.e. superset sets hitting failure at each weight down to zero
I have no research to back this up, but I would think the advantage of training to failure is that it requires fewer sets. For example, if you're doing 4 sets to pre-failure for a given exercise, training to failure would, intuitively at least, get you the same result in 1-2 sets. That has at least two advantages: 1) Less wasted time at the gym and 2) Less wear and tear on your joints/tendons/ligaments.
Actually the reverse would be true with respect to wear and tear on joints/tendons/ligaments. Tendons and ligaments respond to time under load and lighter weight for a longer duration does a lot more for developing their strength and size and consequently their ability to protect a joint from injury. If you compare the forearm tendons of a power lifter with those of an experienced climber you'll see that the power lifter's tendons haven't developed much at all. This is why in climbing the general wisdom is that it'll take about two years before you start to become less injury prone; the muscles will develop much faster than the tendons and ligaments and make it easier to overload the joints.
Informative and well presented as always. Thanks
You go to failure but do low volume. It’s great for people who have busy schedules and is a way to intensify and shorten the workout. If someone said to the average Joe you can build muscle in 20 minutes maybe not as much as someone smashing the gym 2 hours but you can still get results, with a busy schedule I’m taking HIT any day because it’s sustainable
Failure should be defined by the muscles inability to do any more work, that is, to move even a short distance without weight.
If failure is measured by the inability to complete one more rep in good form the muscle can still produce plenty of work in that state, assisted negatives, drop sets etc...
Focus on the muscle, the target muscle needs to be the reason for ending the set. Dont just put the weight in your hand and move it from point A to point B, grab the weoght and flex the target muscle as hard as possible to move the weight.
Going to less than failure is simply a way to undertrain. You almost always have more in reserve than you think you do and probably aren't training to failure even when you think you are. This is reality of mental weakness which we all have when we are tired or in pain.
His statement about following evidence based practice as opposed to research based practice is spot on. Science can be good or even great, but these days it has often become the cart before the horse, i.e. it has become didactic rather than observational and consequently many people think that if science hasn't proven something then it doesn't exist. The greatest scientists in history, Newton, etc., tried to understand (hypothesised) what they observed. They studied the world and hence were students of it, whereas the predominant attitude today seems to be one of a professor to the world. The latter is an arrogant approach and its hubris brings its own rewards, but they may not be what's expected. There's irony in there, and it's not hard to find at all.
Few sets to failure is the way.
All these people in here saying he's wrong 1) obviously didn't watch the entire video and get all the caveats he outlined 2) haven't been paying attention to the research for the last 15+ years.
light weight to failure
He says gen pop like he's been inside.
The myth is that Brad actually thinks he understands what going to failure actually is,
Hence all the research done in this area
Is invalid
True science contradicts what he’s saying you can tell he getting funded by certain corporate entities
problems is that most of people who claims to be working to failure were NOT! mind always give up before your muscles do!....so yes humans are very bad at measuring real "failure"