The next book is finally OUT!!! Really proud of how it turned out. It has completely new information, as I've learned quite a bit about training since the first one. It's focused on improving your hypertrophy-training process and breaking plateaus. It includes an almost SEVEN HOUR audiobook, which I decided to record myself rather than outsourcing. Feedback has been excellent so far. I don't do sponsored videos or have ads on the channel, so I really appreciate the support. I really is YOU who keeps the channel going! Can grab a copy below if it sounds like something you'd be interested in! www.verityfit.com/product-page/resurrecting-your-gains-finding-your-muscle-growth-formula
@@nicholasingratta423 I'm familiar, but I'm not aware of very compelling evidence, anecdotal or scientific, to support it. I don't use them. But I think occasionally taking a 1-2 week break is probably a good idea for mental health and structural integrity.
I am starting to notice growth in my arms and shoulders now that I am pulling those 7-8 second grinders at the last set and making those faces of permanent constipation.
Facts. You can't rely on a study to tell you exactly how many sets to do or how intense to train. Pick a program, train hard, and be consistent. As you get more advanced, you just do what works for you. 💪
well the advice "just train hard" is based on the belief that failure actually is beneficial, which is exactly the topic we're currently debating so 😅 I feel like you're basically saying science is overrated while referring to the current scientific understanding of how hypertrophy works.
I honestly believe science *is* overrated for hypertrophy. The two things that have been beneficial for me are anecdotes & self-experimentation. Why not use the experience of your fellow lifters who are big & actually know what failure is? I am deeply disappointed at these studies of ppl who won't go to actual failure. Do you even want gains or not? I've been getting away with pretty low volume on bench. Simply by making sure I go to failure. I can't imagine how much time I'd waste doing 40 sets/week just bc I wasn't training hard enough. Can't take these studies at face value. Never trust normies...
I like the mental aspect of going to or close to failure. Not doing that leaves me disappointed in myself, it feels like I'm training half-assed whether or not leaving reps in reserve is optimal.
I agree. Failure tells me that the set is done. It's psychologically very satisfying. I have a feeling that people who like to go to failure also like to work out. I think the people that have trouble being motivated don't go very hard and are uncomfortable doing so.
@@Durzo1259 It's probably because of higher volume or too short rest between body parts. If you go to failure 100% of the time at your age, something else has to give. Either less volume or more days rest. Im 56, and I've found I actually do better ( more gains, less pain) with low volume but 100% effort each set. Some exercises I only do one set. But that one set it brutal. And I don't do any weight I can't get at least 10 solid, strict form reps with. Sub 6 rep training is way too hard on my connective tissue.
most people dont even know what their "reserve" is to accurately gauge reps in reserve. so really "training to failure" is the best way to gauge not only how many reps you have in the tank but also taht feeling of approaching failure (which i bet most people avoid cause of some fear)
This is why I started using a rep goal system. It’s just easier to track and progress on and also pushes you to train to failure to beat the reps from the last workout.
I'm completely with you on this one. The more I learn about how science is done in this field, as well as how different individual responses are to basically anything training related in the studies, the less I feel that the results actually tell us very much about the real world.
@@Div_Ann that's sick bro, I have quite low bf% most of the time and very happy with my physique overall but never measured over 16 inch. Arms are pretty much the only part I've kinda always wanted to improve more than others hehe
"Youre not gonna grow less just because the number on your training log is lower" FINALLY someone said it. Your gains come with consistency - and so will you if you buy Geoffrey's book
Spartan Tom Hanks speaks wisdom again! I've totally overtrained many many times. Now I listen to my body... Sometimes I'm up for more, sometimes not. Sometimes I push myself when I'm not feeling it, but not often. Finding your own sweet spot is vital... (No, not that sweet spot). Now at 8 sets per week, 1 RIR mostly.... Doing ok. Thanks again for a great video!
The most obvious problem with "5 reps in reserve" is HOW COULD YOU KNOW you've got another five reps in you, as opposed to two or eight? I can sort of tell when I've got another two reps in me but even that's dubious. Sometimes I think you can do another three and then I fail on the next one. Sometimes I think I can't do another rep and then I can do two more. The number of reps you COULD HAVE done is impossible to know.
Exactly. Five reps to failure is so far from failing that you're really saying you stopped just because you felt like it. And if everyone in the study is doing that, it's a moving target and a completely worthless study.
Having been watching you for awhile now, by far your best attribute is your willingness to learn and revisit your shibboleths. You’re very opinionated, which makes you fun and interesting, but you also grow those opinions over time. These sorts of videos are probably among your most valuable.
I just train everything to absolue failure 1 time a week because I enjoy training to absolue failure and dont care about optimal results. Shocker I've gotten amazing results.
I remember Jeff Nipard made a video a while ago about RPE vs Failure. And most of the studies he cited stated that the results are very similar. My takeaway was that might as well go to failure to make sure that I am getting as much as possible out of my training.
A little bit more volume helps keep the anxiety/depression symptoms at bay so I stick with it. Though I'm talking 15 - 20 sets a week so nothing crazy.
I've been experimenting more with upping frequency for lagging body parts rather than just adding more and more volume. This has been getting me some good gains for my arms, especially biceps. Previously was going push-pull-legs and putting all triceps volume on push day, biceps volume on back day. Taking some of those sets and adding into an extra arm day has been a game changer. I know about what my weekly MRV is for those movements, especially triceps where my elbows really can't take it past a certain point, but now I'm getting more "fresh" sets. I don't do this on my pressing days, but on my pulling days also found that starting with a biceps movement didn't hinder the amount of weight on back exercises at all, but I was able to do 5-10 lb more on dumbell curls each set and 10-15 on barbell compared to when I put my biceps work after back. This is the specialization concept Isratel talks about. Either way, I'm a scientific minded guy, it's part of my career and has been part of my make-up for a long time. It doesn't take much education to realize how poor quality much of the exercise science protocols are, and the generalizability does not apply to advanced lifters at all. I respect the people who were involved with this meta-analysis/review combo they just put out, but I don't have to read it to know that I'm not learning anything new. They've been spouting this anti-failure propaganda for years now, it gives them something to talk about and publish about, give more people PhDs. In academia, it's publish or die mentality. Taking what works for the average, forever n00b-early intermediate crowd and trying to apply to you or me, seasoned guys in our 30s who have tried dozens of protocols over the years, is just not logical. For what it's worth, I don't take my heavy barbell movements to failure unless I'm testing strength, but pretty much everything else is fair game. I probably wouldn't take an RDL to failure out of fear of tearing a hammy, but leg curls should be taken to failure pretty much all the time. This is of course if you're focused on hypertrophy. If you're more focused on strength, you probably want an upward trajectory of intensity over time to get the adaptations you want.
I recently introduced some new movement patterns into my program and I do them 3x per week 2 sets per session and not even close to failure. I'm improving session to session. For patterns that I'm practiced in, some I do beyond failure and some 1-2RIR, etc. These are improving month to month. Examples: Pull-ups - to failure (0 RIR) Bicep curls - beyond failure (-2 RIR) RDL/good morning - not to failure (1-2 RIR) Chest fly (new pattern) - not even close to failure (5+ RIR)
In my opinion, intensity by going to failure is the only way to grow. The body only grows when it has a reason to. RIR is playing it safe and does not place a high enough demand on the body to require adaptation for future stress. We grow from triumphing adversity/a threat. "What doesn't kill you makes you stronger"... RIR is not a threat warranting a reason for adaptation and evolution.
I personally didn't train to failure as an experiment and hated it. I felt like a failure not training to failure. It was very lame when I knew I could do more, so for me it might be a little bit mental as well 🤣. But in seriousness I notice more over time in muscle gain when I do train to failure from my own anecdotal "unreseached" opinion.
I trained 2-4 RIR for an entire year and got the best results of my life & felt less grouchy and it pissed me off!! LOL. All that balls to the wall work for no reason. Now I just switch up the styles every few months.
@@PornEqualsHappiness whatever works for you. I just enjoy training to failure with about 4 - 6 sets per exercise. Often it means I have rep dropoffs on the last 2 sets. I find it fun, but can also admit it's pretty taxing and can be too much sometimes if my diet isn't on point
@@Madchris8828 Failure Training is my fav type of training it's just too bad my body doesn't agree 😆 Anyway if your training isn't fun for YOU why bother doing it is my philosophy!
I think an interesting topic would be to list all the training peculiarities (as you insightfully put it) that a lifter might adopt to customise his training closer to his hypertrophic goals. What actions are categorised as peculiarities in training? It is an interesting topic for a video potentially titled maybe , something like "How to customise your training according to your needs" .
True or not, some people need to train to failure, if only to see that they are capable of doing more. Looking like moving an object and doing a real set of curls are two things I think most people don't know the difference between.
Coming back to this video after a while, it’s one of your absolute best. I haven’t seen one natty who floats at RPE 7-8 90% of the time and looks above average. Every single one of us who is advanced pushes as hard as they can, all the time and on pretty much every exercise where it isn’t inherently dangerous to do so
Going to be a freshman in college this year at Arkansas, majoring in exercise science and I really hope to be able to do a study addressing this in some capacity, because lmao when I train with friends and they go to “failure” it literally is at least 2-3rir Not like some college student study is going to do much but hopefully there could be some decent data lol
The issue is always in the application. I agree with you, the participants that fit the inclusion criteria are more like 2-3 years of proper training and with intensity levels likely not close to failure. There are multiple definitions of failure and perceptions, too - a lot of people will continue to do partials after they've failed in the full range. Nothing wrong with that, just very different.
I've done everything for my calves, but 6 month ago i started to do EVERY set of calves beyond failure, and after 15 years of training they are finally growing!!!. Training to failure team forever here 💪💪.
nothing will blow up your shoulders like those last couple of halfway lateral raises after failing to get full rom. its been helping me a ton lately as well
@@Ty-oe4dr This is facts, it is literally what I've been doing!!! My shoulders were completely flat until I started doing those, I have a good side pop now. I have some crap dumbbells at home about 3-4kg I think. I just time myself for 5 minutes and I keep going for as many side raises as I can, (10s rest every 50-60s, and never going all the way down between reps) the first reps are full rom but it quickly starts looking like more of an isometric tbh. I used to do side raises with 14kg! My shoulders are bigger now with 3-4kg "half reps". I wouldn't believe it if I hadn't experienced it.
Do you know what the new ego lifting is? It's super stiff, overly locked down form and taking 4 RIR as technical failure, making poor gains and then egotistically thinking that's the best expression of your genetic response because everyone else has to be on gear.
I used to do a shit ton of volume for my legs and got decent results. Basically had sore hamstrings 24/7 and ultimately ended up pulling my left one pretty badly on a warm up set of RDLs. Now that I've reduced my volume drastically I'm making so much more progress.
Failure should be at least concentric failure. Eccentric or isometric failures are optional. Concentric failure itself has two stages. First is form/technical failure where you stop as soon as your rep deviates from first rep technique. But it leaves a lot in the muscle that is not yet fatigued sufficiently. Second stage comes when you still continue with the set despite form deviation provided that you can still maintain mind muscle connection, and technique is still under safe range. For example, not rounding the spins or shoulders, etc. Here you are better able to maximally stimulate and fatigue the muscles.
"You can either train hard, or train for a long time, but you can't do both." - Jeff Cavalier ...Even a broken clock is right twice a day. As you stated, 45 sets a week per muscle group means they ain't training hard at all. I do about 50 sets TOTAL, for my whole body, and I'm making significant gains, even as an intermediate lifter. But I'm definitely staying in the >2-3 RIR range, particularly on isolations. Taking those side laterals to near failure is a gamechanger.
I agree there so many variables that is all comes down you personally I'm in the camp of the oldschool saying from Lee haney: "Exercise to stimulate, not to annihilate." Quality minimum sets per body part that is intense enough to stimulate muscle growth and you'll find out the minimum sets of certain exercise and body part you can also put body parts on back burner maintenance volume to keep size and focus a specific area prioritize volume there ull find this out overtime.
I have definitely taken a similar route, I disregard (not completely) the science and go with what works for me. I will watch videos from influencers such as yourself, and read things, and take certain things and give it a try, but it definitely seems like the science just cannot get account for all variables very well, like you said, everyone has a different idea of failure.
The literature on qualitative vs quantitative methods may be interesting here. Because of the differences between individuals and the huge number of variables that are impossible to control for adequately, I think "anecdotal" evidence and personal experience are the more valid methods for studying hypertrophy.
I think one of the issues with these studies is time frame. 2RIR per set per exercise over the course of 10+ years amounts to thousands of reps in reserve.
I think your conclusions are a very mature and sensible response to applicability of research. Blindly following the science without understanding how and why research is undertaken is fruitless. Better to find similar individuals who have been successful and find out how they have been successful.
Thanks for this one! I found your channel a couple months ago and it’s really encouraged me to train with maximal effort. I only have three days a week in the gym, so I’ve got to make them all count. Because of you I’ve made it my goal to push myself harder than anyone else in the gym and to try to do as much as I can with the time I’ve got.
Glad to see you are coming round to more of a “less is more mind set” in terms of total weekly volume. I must admit I have found the recent trend in the natty community for more and more volume, more than slightly baffling. As for exercise studies, most of them are poorly constructed, biased, involve untrained individuals or simply confirm what has been known by lifters since the pre-steroid era. The novice/early intermediate period should be used as a trainee’s experimental period where he or she works out what their body responds to. They can then use that data to make progress. A study of only one participant is really all that is needed.
Agreed. If you can do 8 weekly sets for Quads and still make gains thats great and everyone should experiment with low volume. But just copypasting random set numbers because "high volume/low volume is the way" just sounds dogmatic. No. Your personalized volume is the way. And knowing what to look for is key. Pump, soreness, fatigue, disruption after the session.. and based on those indicators you can add or subtract sets. But there are also so many ways to increase the stimulus. Its not just sets. People keep focusing on number of sets instead of lookong at what kind of sets they are. You can slow down the eccentric, add pauses, increase ROM, decrease ROM, or use intensity techniques like myoreps and dropsets. Also all kinds of inplements like bands, chains, different bars and handles. I believe all of it can have huge implications on your personal volume landmarks.
@@Anandfulness I suspect many people know they are not training with enough intensity, so simply try to compensate with more volume. Why? It’s easier. But ultimately probably less effective.
Science is a good way of letting us know why things work. On Joe Rogan's podcast Pavel Tsatsouline stated there is still so much we don't know about building muscle.
I think Bruce Lees analogy about the punch is dead on here. Generally, people overcomplicate muscle building. Just get in there, work your ass off, recover, do it again and maintain this cycle consistently for years.
The human body is so complicated and sports science is very new and still small so I'm not surprised there are serious definition and research quality problems.
I'm right there with you. When I heard about the meta-analysis I had already dismissed it as another study that isn't going to tell any of us shit. The way I see a meta-analysis is different than most people. It means you take a bunch of studies that can't really tell you very much, then you mash them together so that there is more to look at that doesn't tell you very much. A study that actually finds something, would stand on its own. The signal would be strong enough that you wouldn't have to put it in a meta-analysis. Science has hard limits. It's a very cumbersome, and expensive dummy proofing system that just can't be used the way it needs to be used to do what we want it to do for us. Every human alive uses experience, rationalism, and even speculation in their day to day life Moreso than science. Yet people seem to think using either of the three within their limitations is inferior to using science. That's what leads to people extrapolating research beyond what it is even capable of establishing. The scientific method should be fully executed before a finding carries the prestige of science. In hypertrophy training, it almost never is.
Effort and volume being exchangeable always struck me. My volume for basically everything except back is relatively low, and I always wake up sore the next day. I've sometimes wondered whether I should be doing more volume, but I already push really hard on all my sets and it hasn't steered me wrong yet. Even before I started lifting seriously I always trained to failure, it just felt right to me. It doesn't make sense to stop a set before you're challenged.
As long as you're making visible gains every year, that is awesome. And now when your training starts slowing down, you can just add a couple sets a week, and keep making tons of gains. Training intensity should be the first lever you pull, and you got that sucker down
Also, doesn't training to failure feel good? Like I fuckin love it, it's raw as. When you're pushing yourself to the limit, you can really let loose, push out all the stress of a long day/get pumped for the day and be ready for more. I don't need bull testicles to feel primal, I just need to work hard.
The only reason the research shows high volume to be superior is because they are training so far away from failure. Go look at how Brad Schoenfeld does a set to “failure”, he easily has 5 reps left in the tank still. And he’s the guy that’s conducting all of this research. Lyle McDonald was 100 percent spot on with his criticisms of the research.
have you ever considered trying to coordinate an informal (or formal idk) study of your own with conditions/participants more representative of intermediate/advanced lifters? i bet you’d have enough connections to coordinate something like that if it was interesting to you
Yeah, the best way I notice the affects of training closer to failure/to failure is on different lifts. There are just some lifts I feel more comfortable going all out on and they are usually the ones I see the best progress with. Because I dont have the ability to set up safeties for my bench press, I bench press much more conservatively, usually like 2-3 RiR. On my rows I go all out, absolute failure to the point that I just cant move the weight. I feel like my rowing strength is much more impressive than my benching strength because of that (but I'm also more "built" for pulling than pressing, so who knows)
Great video from the man who is his own hypertrophy experiment. Love the way you’re prepared to try new approaches. To be honest I’ve often thought you should try lower volume so very interested to see what you think in due course. I’ve done high volume in the past but I’m very much in a low volume phase at the moment and feel like it’s right for me at this time
Thanks for posting. Chasing sets is very stressfull honestly. Like chasing an exact protein number. In my novice opinion effort is superior like you are saying
Pretty much with you on this one. The research in this side of the field as far as programming goes is definitely very spotty and folks like Schoenfeld pretty much run it. Although research has its importance, with stuff like this its definitely best to take things with a big grain of salt. Not to mention the fact that during analysis of all this data they may have collected, there could be some ommittance of participants/data either because of error during the analysis or just removing it just because. If you're an intermediate or more advanced lifter, there's probably a good chance you don't need to be paying too much attention to these studies, especially the untrained ones. As for the trained ones, there's still the issue of quality years being put into training. While they may have been training for 5 years, perhaps only 1 or 2 years of that have been good, consistent, hard training. Looking TOO deep into the science all the time is a sure fire way to probably keep you spinning your wheels.
Once I saw the video of Brad Schoenfeld doing a set to “failure”, I never took his research seriously again. He easily has 5+ reps left in the tank. It’s no wonder his studies show better gains up to 45 sets per week, when you’re training with no intensity you’re going to NEED to do a ton of sets.
I just do as many reps as I can on each set for the most part. I dont force myself to complete a rep, if it's not there it's not there and the set is done. Just listen to your body.
Ive said this for years...why would I want to train to failure??? I wanna train to success! REALLY. I have found consistency and stopping 2 reps or so to failure made huge improvements in my body because Im natural...so I recover much faster this way and I can lift more weight this way as well...I just dont burn out during my workout...DONT BE A FAILURE
That's a bit if a nothing burger statement... you can't have success without failure. If you want to train with reps in the tank then that's fine but living by a quote that makes no sense is a sure fire way to huff copium and leave gains on the table.
If you think about it logically the super high volume thing makes literally zero sense. Either a muscle gets worked or it doesn’t. Once youve already hit a muscle hard with a few sets then it has been worked thoroughly. Hammering it with another 35 sets would not only be pointless it would also be dangerous
This might sound stupid but are you planning on releasing a video on bracing/breathing while lifting at some point? Just thought it would be super interesting and helpful to have that type of video come from you. Keep up the great work!
For 2 years i've been training like a puss, focusing on "recovery" and when I started going to failure on (almost) all my sets, doing partials, drop sets, myo reps etc.. my gains exploded after only 6-7 months now
Interesting. I used to train like a “bro” with plenty of techniques to increase the difficulty of a set like partials, myo reps, drop sets, etc. The last two years I’ve made more gains than ever by focusing on recovery and actually lifting heavier. I find myself being more of a pussy when I implement those aforementioned techniques - it’s almost an excuse to go lighter because the burn/intensity has been increased. Anecdotally, adding 40kg+ to my squat has done more for my legs than doing drop sets to failure on a leg extension.
One thing I've learned for sure is that studies on "untrained individuals" are completely worthless for any serious lifter. You could smack an untrained individual and they'd probably gain some muscle lol. Also Schoenfeld research is pretty sus in general. My proxy for failure is literally reaching 0% velocity on the concentric. If I complete a super hard rep where my rep speed is down to 10%, I'll still lower it and push at the bottom for a few seconds to really "fail" against the weight. This type of effort is what builds results for naturals, and ensures you recruit as many motor units as possible. Of course this isn't done for every exercise, as fatigue needs to be managed. Maybe half the sets have this, try less or more depending on one's work capacity (which should increase over time).
I think the best way to train is whatever helps you keep progressively overloading your main compounds over time while also taking time to fluff up the muscles with a bit of hypertrophy isolations.
Geoff, interesting video, I agree with all of it. Yeah, 5 RIR is far too much. You asked if at 12:37 if it's still better than 1 set to failure. I would say no. Failure for sure imposes the stimulus to grow muscle. 5 RIR no matter how many sets does not guarantee a stimulus, based on my own experience after a few years of lifting. (During noobie gains phase yes, not training to failure produced something). But for experienced lifters, training to failure is better, PLUS it saves time.
Thank you! I've recently unsubscribed from a lot of fitness influencers who do "science explained" videos, etc. I find they get me too much in my own head instead of actually doing the work/finding what works for me.
There is a video of Brad Shoenfeld going to failure himself. It is nothing of the sort. He could have done at least 5 more reps. It's actually total cringe. If he is running his studies like he works out, he is not testing to momentary muscle failure.
It may not always come down to reps in reserve if you can make the earlier reps in a set harder by flexing antagonistic muscles or by exerting forces that are not in direct line with the load (like pulling the handles together on a hammer strength machine, or by adjusting your body position to make the earlier reps harder, and then using a more favorable position to keep going (mechanical drop sets) or even by using compensatory acceleration and peak contractions on reps.
Great Video buddy, everybody's genetics are differently and so should train to how your body reacts.I do 1set to failure, but I do a drop set and squeeze out as much as I can.
One is the end-user viewpoint, the other one is an engineering viewpoint. For the end-user, alarm signals go off when you can't do the move anymore. The Engineer gets cautious when a single element doesn't function at peak efficiency. :) I would guess that scientists would pick the engineering approach. Most bodybuilders would probably pick the other :)
I don't train to failure because I think it's superior. I just get off on it! It feels great, and it creates a nice quantifiable ending to a set. Without failure I wouldn't know when to stop! ;)
Volume gives you linear progress and intensity gives you vertical progress. I look at it as a stairwell, volume is the horizontal step and intensity is the vertical back of the next step up the stairwell. As you progress your body wants to do the same work but with less energy (this is efficiency). You have to change the intensity to keep the stimulus for growth going. Also, as you get stronger, you get more efficient at destroying your muscle, therefore it's wise to lower the volume as you increase intensity. Too much volume depletes your resources and can lead to training injuries specifically the tendons which are slower to heal than muscle.
I was doing 8 exercises per session training 2x a week, I injured my shoulders doing a bench press after a PR on my OHP, 2 months out of the gym, I decided to do 3x a week but only 4-5 exercises per session, I'm feeling MUCH better.
Рік тому+1
As a beginner I went from 16 weekly sets of back to like 24 weekly sets I think. By the end of the 2nd week, I couldn't even feel my back during a lat pulldown no matter how slow I did the negative, it was all forearms... I went back to 16 and all good now again, don't know if it correlates tho. As a side note, from all these videos on YB and so on, I think the best approach as a beginner is just to lift, sleep and eat. When you a beginner, as GVS mentions, all muscles are gonna grow very easily. When you're intermmediate/advance I guess you need to be more focused, precise and efficient
Рік тому+1
I train until someone needs to help me; I remember 2 months ago that when doing incline barbell press, I shame-of-roll'd every single set above 8 reps, I think that's my definition of "failure"
This is a subject that gets over complicated, and I found myself overthinking it for a while. The “fuck around and find out” mentality works great when you’re tracking your training.
This is one of the best videos Geoffrey has ever recorded. It took me a while to figure out how to train hard. When I took charge of my programming and learned that not every muscle group required the same amount of volume my gains really improved. My Shoulders and arms simply needed way more volume than my hamstrings. Squats and bench press I take to 1 RiR and take everything else to failure.
I do 4 to 5 working sets on quads a week and am now seeing more growth then ever. All working sets are to pure failure with forced reps and maybe a drop set. Obviously I do warm up sets for exercises but i am definitely seeing more results than when i did more sets with less intensity.
According to Professor Andy Galpin a good routine for hypertrophy is: 10 sets, per body part, per week. 90% of sets close to failure, within 2 reps. Only 10% of sets per week to total momentary muscular failure. He goes on to say that more sets per week, up to 20, can induce more hypertrophy, as long as you can recover of course. He states that above 25 sets, the research is lacking. 30% to 80% of 1RM is hypertrophic. What occurs to me is that steroids' are the variable that's not mentioned in the high set data. In terms of if the participants were ingesting steroids' or not. I'm not sure you can rely on simply asking them and not preforming blood tests. The other thing that occurs to me, is that all of these studies are with minimal participants and very short duration. To me, such studies are barely statistically significant. I'm 65, and it amuses me that 30 years ago when I was at my peak, and studying hypertrophy, all of the same contradictions existed then as now. Seems to me that we can pay attention to the research, but at the same time we need to be our own scientists and find out what works for us as individuals.
I have a hard time not training to failure and I always end up not being able to complete my straight sets. I may hit 10, then 9, then 6 and this is with plenty of rest. On the days I am able to hold a rep in the tank, I can do more tonage with less rest in between and subjectively, I feel like I'm more recovered for my next session. Maybe training to failure is better if you have more time to rest between sets and more time between workouts, but I tend to struggle with lower frequencies. That said, it's hard to stop myself from going off program and doing more in a set when I feel like I can.
The next book is finally OUT!!!
Really proud of how it turned out. It has completely new information, as I've learned quite a bit about training since the first one. It's focused on improving your hypertrophy-training process and breaking plateaus. It includes an almost SEVEN HOUR audiobook, which I decided to record myself rather than outsourcing.
Feedback has been excellent so far. I don't do sponsored videos or have ads on the channel, so I really appreciate the support. I really is YOU who keeps the channel going!
Can grab a copy below if it sounds like something you'd be interested in!
www.verityfit.com/product-page/resurrecting-your-gains-finding-your-muscle-growth-formula
24.99 and not 249.99 ??? Have you not learned anything from Greg ? ;)
I enjoy listening to the audio with the book. It actually keeps me focused. great book!
Are you familiar with mtor reset ? Team 3d alpha has videos about it
@@RickyRyan I mean if I compare it to most fitness products ($60 for a 4 page bench program pdf!) it's probably worth that much lol
@@nicholasingratta423 I'm familiar, but I'm not aware of very compelling evidence, anecdotal or scientific, to support it.
I don't use them. But I think occasionally taking a 1-2 week break is probably a good idea for mental health and structural integrity.
I am starting to notice growth in my arms and shoulders now that I am pulling those 7-8 second grinders at the last set and making those faces of permanent constipation.
Constipation=key
Im on a cut and getting better results than when I was bulking. Used to keep 1-2 RIR but never felt sore or fatigued and my body never needed to adapt
@@wavetime3651 I go to 1 or 2 RIR on first 2 sets. Last set always to failure.
Train to failure or forever be one.
That's an unnuanced take but yea I can get behind that.
@@GVS "erm thats an unnuanced take" ☝️🤓
@@callmeacutekitten8106 😳😳😳
Real.
Failing to win is not a sin..
Facts. You can't rely on a study to tell you exactly how many sets to do or how intense to train. Pick a program, train hard, and be consistent. As you get more advanced, you just do what works for you. 💪
great advice
well the advice "just train hard" is based on the belief that failure actually is beneficial, which is exactly the topic we're currently debating so 😅 I feel like you're basically saying science is overrated while referring to the current scientific understanding of how hypertrophy works.
Also pick up the right gear. You know, the hot sauce, the one with pumpy flavour.
I honestly believe science *is* overrated for hypertrophy.
The two things that have been beneficial for me are anecdotes & self-experimentation. Why not use the experience of your fellow lifters who are big & actually know what failure is?
I am deeply disappointed at these studies of ppl who won't go to actual failure. Do you even want gains or not?
I've been getting away with pretty low volume on bench. Simply by making sure I go to failure. I can't imagine how much time I'd waste doing 40 sets/week just bc I wasn't training hard enough. Can't take these studies at face value.
Never trust normies...
@@texasbeaver8188 yes but in the end of the day, what matters is who's got the juice?
I always train to failure to replace the emotional pain with physical.
This is the way
This is how we true heterosexual men "cry".
Based chad
Better than therapy.
I like the mental aspect of going to or close to failure. Not doing that leaves me disappointed in myself, it feels like I'm training half-assed whether or not leaving reps in reserve is optimal.
failure is fun, i go ti i literally cant move the weight....rir equals boredom. its all out or why bother...just gotta be safe is all
I agree. Failure tells me that the set is done. It's psychologically very satisfying. I have a feeling that people who like to go to failure also like to work out. I think the people that have trouble being motivated don't go very hard and are uncomfortable doing so.
this is exactly how i feel
Maybe it's because I'm 37 and workout 5 days a week, but I can't train *right* to failure or I'll be nowhere near recovery by next workout.
@@Durzo1259 It's probably because of higher volume or too short rest between body parts. If you go to failure 100% of the time at your age, something else has to give. Either less volume or more days rest. Im 56, and I've found I actually do better ( more gains, less pain) with low volume but 100% effort each set. Some exercises I only do one set. But that one set it brutal. And I don't do any weight I can't get at least 10 solid, strict form reps with. Sub 6 rep training is way too hard on my connective tissue.
most people dont even know what their "reserve" is to accurately gauge reps in reserve. so really "training to failure" is the best way to gauge not only how many reps you have in the tank but also taht feeling of approaching failure (which i bet most people avoid cause of some fear)
Best way is to learn the right way.
This is why I started using a rep goal system. It’s just easier to track and progress on and also pushes you to train to failure to beat the reps from the last workout.
Dynamic double progression has been my go to on anything but the big 3. It's auto regulated but also gives you a goal to push towards.
@@DCJayhawk57 agree with you too, Sean N had a great vid about it
This! 💪
@@dingickso4098 but u do need to track ur reps tho how else would you know if ur progressing?
@@adityaprabhu5158 Sean nalehwkawhajanji
I'm completely with you on this one. The more I learn about how science is done in this field, as well as how different individual responses are to basically anything training related in the studies, the less I feel that the results actually tell us very much about the real world.
Unless they studied you, the results of the study are irrelevant to you.
The evidence is in my yoked af biceps
Loled, fax
Hell yeah buddy
Facts. Funnily enough, I just measured at 17" today (pumped)!
@@Div_Ann that's sick bro, I have quite low bf% most of the time and very happy with my physique overall but never measured over 16 inch. Arms are pretty much the only part I've kinda always wanted to improve more than others hehe
Don't train to failure, train to success 💪
ive been saying this for years! love it!!
lol that's one of those slogans that sounds neat when you first read it but then you realise it doesn't actually mean anything
@@sevourn bullshit...It means EVERYTHING...Think
So one rep max on every single workout?
I always trained to one rep shy of success
"Youre not gonna grow less just because the number on your training log is lower"
FINALLY someone said it. Your gains come with consistency - and so will you if you buy Geoffrey's book
I’ll come if I buy his book? Well I’m doing No Nut November so I better not
The coolest part about lifting is that failure = success!
Spartan Tom Hanks speaks wisdom again!
I've totally overtrained many many times. Now I listen to my body... Sometimes I'm up for more, sometimes not. Sometimes I push myself when I'm not feeling it, but not often. Finding your own sweet spot is vital... (No, not that sweet spot).
Now at 8 sets per week, 1 RIR mostly.... Doing ok.
Thanks again for a great video!
The most obvious problem with "5 reps in reserve" is HOW COULD YOU KNOW you've got another five reps in you, as opposed to two or eight? I can sort of tell when I've got another two reps in me but even that's dubious. Sometimes I think you can do another three and then I fail on the next one. Sometimes I think I can't do another rep and then I can do two more. The number of reps you COULD HAVE done is impossible to know.
Exactly. Five reps to failure is so far from failing that you're really saying you stopped just because you felt like it. And if everyone in the study is doing that, it's a moving target and a completely worthless study.
Having been watching you for awhile now, by far your best attribute is your willingness to learn and revisit your shibboleths. You’re very opinionated, which makes you fun and interesting, but you also grow those opinions over time. These sorts of videos are probably among your most valuable.
Why would you say shibboleths? I'm extremely angry after reading this
I just train everything to absolue failure 1 time a week because I enjoy training to absolue failure and dont care about optimal results. Shocker I've gotten amazing results.
I remember Jeff Nipard made a video a while ago about RPE vs Failure. And most of the studies he cited stated that the results are very similar. My takeaway was that might as well go to failure to make sure that I am getting as much as possible out of my training.
A little bit more volume helps keep the anxiety/depression symptoms at bay so I stick with it. Though I'm talking 15 - 20 sets a week so nothing crazy.
Anxiety and depression are for betas
I've been experimenting more with upping frequency for lagging body parts rather than just adding more and more volume. This has been getting me some good gains for my arms, especially biceps. Previously was going push-pull-legs and putting all triceps volume on push day, biceps volume on back day. Taking some of those sets and adding into an extra arm day has been a game changer. I know about what my weekly MRV is for those movements, especially triceps where my elbows really can't take it past a certain point, but now I'm getting more "fresh" sets.
I don't do this on my pressing days, but on my pulling days also found that starting with a biceps movement didn't hinder the amount of weight on back exercises at all, but I was able to do 5-10 lb more on dumbell curls each set and 10-15 on barbell compared to when I put my biceps work after back. This is the specialization concept Isratel talks about.
Either way, I'm a scientific minded guy, it's part of my career and has been part of my make-up for a long time. It doesn't take much education to realize how poor quality much of the exercise science protocols are, and the generalizability does not apply to advanced lifters at all. I respect the people who were involved with this meta-analysis/review combo they just put out, but I don't have to read it to know that I'm not learning anything new. They've been spouting this anti-failure propaganda for years now, it gives them something to talk about and publish about, give more people PhDs. In academia, it's publish or die mentality. Taking what works for the average, forever n00b-early intermediate crowd and trying to apply to you or me, seasoned guys in our 30s who have tried dozens of protocols over the years, is just not logical.
For what it's worth, I don't take my heavy barbell movements to failure unless I'm testing strength, but pretty much everything else is fair game. I probably wouldn't take an RDL to failure out of fear of tearing a hammy, but leg curls should be taken to failure pretty much all the time. This is of course if you're focused on hypertrophy. If you're more focused on strength, you probably want an upward trajectory of intensity over time to get the adaptations you want.
Friggin triceps man. I always feel tendon-limited
Experimenting wins, in any case. Research just gives the statistically best starting-point and points out stuff that will probably not work.
I recently introduced some new movement patterns into my program and I do them 3x per week 2 sets per session and not even close to failure. I'm improving session to session.
For patterns that I'm practiced in, some I do beyond failure and some 1-2RIR, etc. These are improving month to month.
Examples:
Pull-ups - to failure (0 RIR)
Bicep curls - beyond failure (-2 RIR)
RDL/good morning - not to failure (1-2 RIR)
Chest fly (new pattern) - not even close to failure (5+ RIR)
In my opinion, intensity by going to failure is the only way to grow. The body only grows when it has a reason to. RIR is playing it safe and does not place a high enough demand on the body to require adaptation for future stress.
We grow from triumphing adversity/a threat. "What doesn't kill you makes you stronger"... RIR is not a threat warranting a reason for adaptation and evolution.
I personally didn't train to failure as an experiment and hated it. I felt like a failure not training to failure. It was very lame when I knew I could do more, so for me it might be a little bit mental as well 🤣. But in seriousness I notice more over time in muscle gain when I do train to failure from my own anecdotal "unreseached" opinion.
I trained 2-4 RIR for an entire year and got the best results of my life & felt less grouchy and it pissed me off!! LOL. All that balls to the wall work for no reason. Now I just switch up the styles every few months.
Same here. If I don't train to failure I don't grow
@@PornEqualsHappiness whatever works for you. I just enjoy training to failure with about 4 - 6 sets per exercise. Often it means I have rep dropoffs on the last 2 sets. I find it fun, but can also admit it's pretty taxing and can be too much sometimes if my diet isn't on point
@@Madchris8828 Failure Training is my fav type of training it's just too bad my body doesn't agree 😆 Anyway if your training isn't fun for YOU why bother doing it is my philosophy!
I think an interesting topic would be to list all the training peculiarities (as you insightfully put it) that a lifter might adopt to customise his training closer to his hypertrophic goals. What actions are categorised as peculiarities in training? It is an interesting topic for a video potentially titled maybe , something like "How to customise your training according to your needs" .
True or not, some people need to train to failure, if only to see that they are capable of doing more. Looking like moving an object and doing a real set of curls are two things I think most people don't know the difference between.
Coming back to this video after a while, it’s one of your absolute best. I haven’t seen one natty who floats at RPE 7-8 90% of the time and looks above average. Every single one of us who is advanced pushes as hard as they can, all the time and on pretty much every exercise where it isn’t inherently dangerous to do so
Checking in as a member of the anecdotal lifting gang!
Going to be a freshman in college this year at Arkansas, majoring in exercise science and I really hope to be able to do a study addressing this in some capacity, because lmao when I train with friends and they go to “failure” it literally is at least 2-3rir
Not like some college student study is going to do much but hopefully there could be some decent data lol
Excellent video, essentially agree with everything here .
The DB OHP rep from 11:18 to 11:32 was Excellent. I'm guessing no reps in reserve. Well done.
The issue is always in the application. I agree with you, the participants that fit the inclusion criteria are more like 2-3 years of proper training and with intensity levels likely not close to failure. There are multiple definitions of failure and perceptions, too - a lot of people will continue to do partials after they've failed in the full range. Nothing wrong with that, just very different.
All future studies should be done on lifters like you!
I've done everything for my calves, but 6 month ago i started to do EVERY set of calves beyond failure, and after 15 years of training they are finally growing!!!. Training to failure team forever here 💪💪.
I lowered my volume over time. I still mostly use the volume landmarks approach, but definitely legs have considerably lower volume now.
Volume and going to and way beyond failure is what broke my "newbie gains plateau" after years of being stuck.
nothing will blow up your shoulders like those last couple of halfway lateral raises after failing to get full rom. its been helping me a ton lately as well
@@Ty-oe4dr This is facts, it is literally what I've been doing!!! My shoulders were completely flat until I started doing those, I have a good side pop now.
I have some crap dumbbells at home about 3-4kg I think. I just time myself for 5 minutes and I keep going for as many side raises as I can, (10s rest every 50-60s, and never going all the way down between reps) the first reps are full rom but it quickly starts looking like more of an isometric tbh.
I used to do side raises with 14kg! My shoulders are bigger now with 3-4kg "half reps". I wouldn't believe it if I hadn't experienced it.
gotta thank you as one of the first youtubers to call out the studies with "volitional failure" in an earlier video
Yea the term itself is laughable, I'm not sure how anyone signed off on that.
Do you know what the new ego lifting is? It's super stiff, overly locked down form and taking 4 RIR as technical failure, making poor gains and then egotistically thinking that's the best expression of your genetic response because everyone else has to be on gear.
I used to do a shit ton of volume for my legs and got decent results. Basically had sore hamstrings 24/7 and ultimately ended up pulling my left one pretty badly on a warm up set of RDLs. Now that I've reduced my volume drastically I'm making so much more progress.
This pretty much confirmed the same conclusion that i came to myself. In the end, you do what works for you. Everyone is different.
Failure should be at least concentric failure. Eccentric or isometric failures are optional.
Concentric failure itself has two stages. First is form/technical failure where you stop as soon as your rep deviates from first rep technique. But it leaves a lot in the muscle that is not yet fatigued sufficiently.
Second stage comes when you still continue with the set despite form deviation provided that you can still maintain mind muscle connection, and technique is still under safe range. For example, not rounding the spins or shoulders, etc. Here you are better able to maximally stimulate and fatigue the muscles.
"You can either train hard, or train for a long time, but you can't do both."
- Jeff Cavalier
...Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
As you stated, 45 sets a week per muscle group means they ain't training hard at all. I do about 50 sets TOTAL, for my whole body, and I'm making significant gains, even as an intermediate lifter. But I'm definitely staying in the >2-3 RIR range, particularly on isolations. Taking those side laterals to near failure is a gamechanger.
I love this time of year. Failure debate season 🎄
I agree there so many variables that is all comes down you personally I'm in the camp of the oldschool saying from Lee haney: "Exercise to stimulate, not to annihilate." Quality minimum sets per body part that is intense enough to stimulate muscle growth and you'll find out the minimum sets of certain exercise and body part you can also put body parts on back burner maintenance volume to keep size and focus a specific area prioritize volume there ull find this out overtime.
I have definitely taken a similar route, I disregard (not completely) the science and go with what works for me. I will watch videos from influencers such as yourself, and read things, and take certain things and give it a try, but it definitely seems like the science just cannot get account for all variables very well, like you said, everyone has a different idea of failure.
The literature on qualitative vs quantitative methods may be interesting here. Because of the differences between individuals and the huge number of variables that are impossible to control for adequately, I think "anecdotal" evidence and personal experience are the more valid methods for studying hypertrophy.
I think one of the issues with these studies is time frame. 2RIR per set per exercise over the course of 10+ years amounts to thousands of reps in reserve.
I think your conclusions are a very mature and sensible response to applicability of research. Blindly following the science without understanding how and why research is undertaken is fruitless. Better to find similar individuals who have been successful and find out how they have been successful.
Thanks for this one!
I found your channel a couple months ago and it’s really encouraged me to train with maximal effort.
I only have three days a week in the gym, so I’ve got to make them all count. Because of you I’ve made it my goal to push myself harder than anyone else in the gym and to try to do as much as I can with the time I’ve got.
I'll always train to failure not only because I see results from doing so but it also strengthens your mind.
Glad to see you are coming round to more of a “less is more mind set” in terms of total weekly volume. I must admit I have found the recent trend in the natty community for more and more volume, more than slightly baffling. As for exercise studies, most of them are poorly constructed, biased, involve untrained individuals or simply confirm what has been known by lifters since the pre-steroid era.
The novice/early intermediate period should be used as a trainee’s experimental period where he or she works out what their body responds to. They can then use that data to make progress. A study of only one participant is really all that is needed.
Agreed. If you can do 8 weekly sets for Quads and still make gains thats great and everyone should experiment with low volume. But just copypasting random set numbers because "high volume/low volume is the way" just sounds dogmatic. No. Your personalized volume is the way. And knowing what to look for is key. Pump, soreness, fatigue, disruption after the session.. and based on those indicators you can add or subtract sets. But there are also so many ways to increase the stimulus. Its not just sets. People keep focusing on number of sets instead of lookong at what kind of sets they are. You can slow down the eccentric, add pauses, increase ROM, decrease ROM, or use intensity techniques like myoreps and dropsets. Also all kinds of inplements like bands, chains, different bars and handles. I believe all of it can have huge implications on your personal volume landmarks.
@@Anandfulness I suspect many people know they are not training with enough intensity, so simply try to compensate with more volume. Why? It’s easier. But ultimately probably less effective.
Science is a good way of letting us know why things work. On Joe Rogan's podcast Pavel Tsatsouline stated there is still so much we don't know about building muscle.
There's nothing new in lifting, it's all been done before.
Don't blindly believe mainstream science
I think Bruce Lees analogy about the punch is dead on here. Generally, people overcomplicate muscle building. Just get in there, work your ass off, recover, do it again and maintain this cycle consistently for years.
7:30 “Outsourcing your Intuition” pretty much sums it up
The human body is so complicated and sports science is very new and still small so I'm not surprised there are serious definition and research quality problems.
I'm right there with you. When I heard about the meta-analysis I had already dismissed it as another study that isn't going to tell any of us shit. The way I see a meta-analysis is different than most people. It means you take a bunch of studies that can't really tell you very much, then you mash them together so that there is more to look at that doesn't tell you very much.
A study that actually finds something, would stand on its own. The signal would be strong enough that you wouldn't have to put it in a meta-analysis.
Science has hard limits. It's a very cumbersome, and expensive dummy proofing system that just can't be used the way it needs to be used to do what we want it to do for us. Every human alive uses experience, rationalism, and even speculation in their day to day life Moreso than science. Yet people seem to think using either of the three within their limitations is inferior to using science. That's what leads to people extrapolating research beyond what it is even capable of establishing. The scientific method should be fully executed before a finding carries the prestige of science. In hypertrophy training, it almost never is.
Effort and volume being exchangeable always struck me. My volume for basically everything except back is relatively low, and I always wake up sore the next day. I've sometimes wondered whether I should be doing more volume, but I already push really hard on all my sets and it hasn't steered me wrong yet. Even before I started lifting seriously I always trained to failure, it just felt right to me. It doesn't make sense to stop a set before you're challenged.
As long as you're making visible gains every year, that is awesome. And now when your training starts slowing down, you can just add a couple sets a week, and keep making tons of gains. Training intensity should be the first lever you pull, and you got that sucker down
Also, doesn't training to failure feel good? Like I fuckin love it, it's raw as. When you're pushing yourself to the limit, you can really let loose, push out all the stress of a long day/get pumped for the day and be ready for more. I don't need bull testicles to feel primal, I just need to work hard.
Do both and see how close you get to post op Ronnie Coleman
The only reason the research shows high volume to be superior is because they are training so far away from failure. Go look at how Brad Schoenfeld does a set to “failure”, he easily has 5 reps left in the tank still. And he’s the guy that’s conducting all of this research. Lyle McDonald was 100 percent spot on with his criticisms of the research.
People dont realise how powerful saying "I dont think that anymore" is.
have you ever considered trying to coordinate an informal (or formal idk) study of your own with conditions/participants more representative of intermediate/advanced lifters? i bet you’d have enough connections to coordinate something like that if it was interesting to you
I think the most I could do would be surveys, anything else conducted remotely wouldn't really be viable.
Yeah, the best way I notice the affects of training closer to failure/to failure is on different lifts. There are just some lifts I feel more comfortable going all out on and they are usually the ones I see the best progress with. Because I dont have the ability to set up safeties for my bench press, I bench press much more conservatively, usually like 2-3 RiR. On my rows I go all out, absolute failure to the point that I just cant move the weight. I feel like my rowing strength is much more impressive than my benching strength because of that (but I'm also more "built" for pulling than pressing, so who knows)
Great video from the man who is his own hypertrophy experiment. Love the way you’re prepared to try new approaches. To be honest I’ve often thought you should try lower volume so very interested to see what you think in due course. I’ve done high volume in the past but I’m very much in a low volume phase at the moment and feel like it’s right for me at this time
Thanks for posting. Chasing sets is very stressfull honestly. Like chasing an exact protein number. In my novice opinion effort is superior like you are saying
Pretty much with you on this one. The research in this side of the field as far as programming goes is definitely very spotty and folks like Schoenfeld pretty much run it. Although research has its importance, with stuff like this its definitely best to take things with a big grain of salt. Not to mention the fact that during analysis of all this data they may have collected, there could be some ommittance of participants/data either because of error during the analysis or just removing it just because. If you're an intermediate or more advanced lifter, there's probably a good chance you don't need to be paying too much attention to these studies, especially the untrained ones. As for the trained ones, there's still the issue of quality years being put into training. While they may have been training for 5 years, perhaps only 1 or 2 years of that have been good, consistent, hard training. Looking TOO deep into the science all the time is a sure fire way to probably keep you spinning your wheels.
Once I saw the video of Brad Schoenfeld doing a set to “failure”, I never took his research seriously again. He easily has 5+ reps left in the tank. It’s no wonder his studies show better gains up to 45 sets per week, when you’re training with no intensity you’re going to NEED to do a ton of sets.
I just do as many reps as I can on each set for the most part. I dont force myself to complete a rep, if it's not there it's not there and the set is done. Just listen to your body.
Ive said this for years...why would I want to train to failure??? I wanna train to success! REALLY. I have found consistency and stopping 2 reps or so to failure made huge improvements in my body because Im natural...so I recover much faster this way and I can lift more weight this way as well...I just dont burn out during my workout...DONT BE A FAILURE
That's a bit if a nothing burger statement... you can't have success without failure. If you want to train with reps in the tank then that's fine but living by a quote that makes no sense is a sure fire way to huff copium and leave gains on the table.
@@sweetcheex bullshit
If you think about it logically the super high volume thing makes literally zero sense. Either a muscle gets worked or it doesn’t. Once youve already hit a muscle hard with a few sets then it has been worked thoroughly. Hammering it with another 35 sets would not only be pointless it would also be dangerous
This might sound stupid but are you planning on releasing a video on bracing/breathing while lifting at some point? Just thought it would be super interesting and helpful to have that type of video come from you. Keep up the great work!
I absolutely love this channel. Thank you for providing amazing information to the masses that want to be better and stronger!! 💪❤️🏋️♀️
For 2 years i've been training like a puss, focusing on "recovery" and when I started going to failure on (almost) all my sets, doing partials, drop sets, myo reps etc.. my gains exploded after only 6-7 months now
Interesting. I used to train like a “bro” with plenty of techniques to increase the difficulty of a set like partials, myo reps, drop sets, etc.
The last two years I’ve made more gains than ever by focusing on recovery and actually lifting heavier. I find myself being more of a pussy when I implement those aforementioned techniques - it’s almost an excuse to go lighter because the burn/intensity has been increased.
Anecdotally, adding 40kg+ to my squat has done more for my legs than doing drop sets to failure on a leg extension.
I dont get how finding closeness to failure is so hard. When I get to failure I physically cannot lift another rep
Great video. Geoff not just a hunk but also a great critical analyser of studies
Beard is looking great, dude.
One thing I've learned for sure is that studies on "untrained individuals" are completely worthless for any serious lifter. You could smack an untrained individual and they'd probably gain some muscle lol. Also Schoenfeld research is pretty sus in general.
My proxy for failure is literally reaching 0% velocity on the concentric. If I complete a super hard rep where my rep speed is down to 10%, I'll still lower it and push at the bottom for a few seconds to really "fail" against the weight. This type of effort is what builds results for naturals, and ensures you recruit as many motor units as possible. Of course this isn't done for every exercise, as fatigue needs to be managed. Maybe half the sets have this, try less or more depending on one's work capacity (which should increase over time).
Thanks for speaking up on this. "Show me the study" stick-figure bros rile me up.
I think the best way to train is whatever helps you keep progressively overloading your main compounds over time while also taking time to fluff up the muscles with a bit of hypertrophy isolations.
Actually very interesting. Its very hard to quantify what failure is and make any conclusions from these studies
Yeah no offense but I've never treated Brad's finding very seriously. Great channel sir
Absolute top tier content. GVS, you're the man.
Geoff, interesting video, I agree with all of it. Yeah, 5 RIR is far too much. You asked if at 12:37 if it's still better than 1 set to failure. I would say no. Failure for sure imposes the stimulus to grow muscle. 5 RIR no matter how many sets does not guarantee a stimulus, based on my own experience after a few years of lifting. (During noobie gains phase yes, not training to failure produced something). But for experienced lifters, training to failure is better, PLUS it saves time.
Thank you! I've recently unsubscribed from a lot of fitness influencers who do "science explained" videos, etc. I find they get me too much in my own head instead of actually doing the work/finding what works for me.
Im tired of lazy research, you really have to read the studies fully yourself before anyone reaches conclusions.
Or maybe just train and find what works for you.
@@johndonson1603 Yeah I have fortunately found that for me programming wise.
This type of content is the best Geoffrey
6-9 sets per week always worked well for me.
Also keep in mind that the Schoenfield high volume study only works in specialization routines.
There is a video of Brad Shoenfeld going to failure himself. It is nothing of the sort. He could have done at least 5 more reps. It's actually total cringe.
If he is running his studies like he works out, he is not testing to momentary muscle failure.
It may not always come down to reps in reserve if you can make the earlier reps in a set harder by flexing antagonistic muscles or by exerting forces that are not in direct line with the load (like pulling the handles together on a hammer strength machine, or by adjusting your body position to make the earlier reps harder, and then using a more favorable position to keep going (mechanical drop sets) or even by using compensatory acceleration and peak contractions on reps.
Great Video buddy, everybody's genetics are differently and so should train to how your body reacts.I do 1set to failure, but I do a drop set and squeeze out as much as I can.
One is the end-user viewpoint, the other one is an engineering viewpoint.
For the end-user, alarm signals go off when you can't do the move anymore.
The Engineer gets cautious when a single element doesn't function at peak efficiency. :)
I would guess that scientists would pick the engineering approach. Most bodybuilders would probably pick the other :)
4-6 sets to failure per muscle 1 x week . Was doing 8-10 and now I’m getting the same or better results with half volume
13:25 goddamn you were fighting demons
I don't train to failure because I think it's superior. I just get off on it! It feels great, and it creates a nice quantifiable ending to a set. Without failure I wouldn't know when to stop! ;)
Its that feeling of actively hitting my physical limit that entices me aswell
Volume gives you linear progress and intensity gives you vertical progress. I look at it as a stairwell, volume is the horizontal step and intensity is the vertical back of the next step up the stairwell. As you progress your body wants to do the same work but with less energy (this is efficiency). You have to change the intensity to keep the stimulus for growth going. Also, as you get stronger, you get more efficient at destroying your muscle, therefore it's wise to lower the volume as you increase intensity. Too much volume depletes your resources and can lead to training injuries specifically the tendons which are slower to heal than muscle.
I was doing 8 exercises per session training 2x a week, I injured my shoulders doing a bench press after a PR on my OHP, 2 months out of the gym, I decided to do 3x a week but only 4-5 exercises per session, I'm feeling MUCH better.
As a beginner I went from 16 weekly sets of back to like 24 weekly sets I think. By the end of the 2nd week, I couldn't even feel my back during a lat pulldown no matter how slow I did the negative, it was all forearms... I went back to 16 and all good now again, don't know if it correlates tho.
As a side note, from all these videos on YB and so on, I think the best approach as a beginner is just to lift, sleep and eat. When you a beginner, as GVS mentions, all muscles are gonna grow very easily. When you're intermmediate/advance I guess you need to be more focused, precise and efficient
I train until someone needs to help me; I remember 2 months ago that when doing incline barbell press, I shame-of-roll'd every single set above 8 reps, I think that's my definition of "failure"
This is a subject that gets over complicated, and I found myself overthinking it for a while. The “fuck around and find out” mentality works great when you’re tracking your training.
This is one of the best videos Geoffrey has ever recorded. It took me a while to figure out how to train hard. When I took charge of my programming and learned that not every muscle group required the same amount of volume my gains really improved. My Shoulders and arms simply needed way more volume than my hamstrings. Squats and bench press I take to 1 RiR and take everything else to failure.
I do 4 to 5 working sets on quads a week and am now seeing more growth then ever. All working sets are to pure failure with forced reps and maybe a drop set. Obviously I do warm up sets for exercises but i am definitely seeing more results than when i did more sets with less intensity.
i failed on 5x3 bench for the 1st time last week, had to crawl out from under the bar (was using safety rack)
According to Professor Andy Galpin a good routine for hypertrophy is:
10 sets, per body part, per week. 90% of sets close to failure, within 2 reps. Only 10% of sets per week to total momentary muscular failure.
He goes on to say that more sets per week, up to 20, can induce more hypertrophy, as long as you can recover of course. He states that above 25 sets, the research is lacking.
30% to 80% of 1RM is hypertrophic.
What occurs to me is that steroids' are the variable that's not mentioned in the high set data. In terms of if the participants were ingesting steroids' or not. I'm not sure you can rely on simply asking them and not preforming blood tests.
The other thing that occurs to me, is that all of these studies are with minimal participants and very short duration. To me, such studies are barely statistically significant.
I'm 65, and it amuses me that 30 years ago when I was at my peak, and studying hypertrophy, all of the same contradictions existed then as now. Seems to me that we can pay attention to the research, but at the same time we need to be our own scientists and find out what works for us as individuals.
I have a hard time not training to failure and I always end up not being able to complete my straight sets. I may hit 10, then 9, then 6 and this is with plenty of rest. On the days I am able to hold a rep in the tank, I can do more tonage with less rest in between and subjectively, I feel like I'm more recovered for my next session. Maybe training to failure is better if you have more time to rest between sets and more time between workouts, but I tend to struggle with lower frequencies. That said, it's hard to stop myself from going off program and doing more in a set when I feel like I can.