How close to failure should you train?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 28 чер 2024
- A recent meta-analysis has shaken up the fitness community by concluding that you should train pretty much to failure every set. That seems to be the conclusion. If you read the results at face value. And this has also led to a resurgence of the effective reps model. So in this video, I'd like to cover that meta-analysis, the science of how close to failure you should train, and also go into associated terms like junk volume.
Chapters
00:00 Introduction
00:26 Effective reps model
03:33 Greg Nuckols's critique
04:19 Paul Carter's response to Greg's critique
07:22 New meta-analysis
13:33 Why are these results odd?
16:44 Previous meta - Refalo et al.
18:47 Why is the effective reps model flawed?
22:53 Two previous meta-analysis - Vieria et al., Grgic et al.
24:30 Studies on the topic - Martorelli et al., Da Silva et al.
26:02 Conclusion - does volume matter?
29:11 Outro
References
The Chris Beardsley effective reps model: / what-is-training-volume
Greg Nuckols’ critique: www.strongerbyscience.com/eff...
New meta: www.researchgate.net/publicat...
Refalo et al.: link.springer.com/article/10....
A motor unit-based model of muscle fatigue: journals.plos.org/ploscompbio...
Muscle fiber activation study: onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/a...
Individual responses for muscle activation: www.mdpi.com/2075-4663/3/4/26...
Vieria et al. meta: pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33555...
Grgic et al. meta: www.sciencedirect.com/science...
Martorelli et al. study: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...
Da Silva et al. study: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...
- Check out my free email course for my most popular content: mennohenselmans.com/subscribe
#mennohenseelmans #trainingtofailure #exercisescience #bodybuilding #hypertrophytraining #trainingvideos #exercisescientist #strengthtraining #strengthandconditioning - Наука та технологія
Greg Nuckols seems like a nice guy who has spent a lot of time giving away great information for lifters with a reasonable viewpoint that provides real world ways to use the information. You have to be a real jerk to take shots at Nuckols.
Exactly.
I agree with your point however I do remember him attacking Bret Contreras and Alan Aragon when they were at their lowest so for that reason I don’t like the guy. I think it was a display of his true character
@@NaturalOzMuscle I've followed Greg for years. Never seen Nuckols attack Aragon or Contreras with personal attacks. Or anyone else for that matter. Critique their work, sure. But that is not an attack, but an honest assessment of their work. So not sure what you're talking about. The main guys I've seen engage in personal attacks in Fitness are Lyle McDonald who has a crazy temper and Mike Israetel when he is provoked in some way.
@@azulsimmons1040 he absolutely did
Well we already know that Contreras is a shithead irl and has some questionable research. Alan Aragon is better at the job, but he also had a lot of sexual harassment allegations that he casually brushed off until finally making a very lackluster apology when he was backed into a corner a few years back. Basically blamed all of his wrongdoings on alcohol and said that he would stop drinking lmaooo
it's always interesting to see the freak outliers in these studies. the person who made the best gains was about 7 RIR and the one with the worst gains was 2 RIR.
the reason I find these interesting is that no matter what the research can show through trends everyone is individual.
Also, thank you for pointing out that 0 RIR does not logically imply failure, but rather the last rep you could have successfully completed. We all know 0 RIR is used to indicate failure, so there's not actual vagueness, but my inner logician shakes his fist angrily whenever I see it.
“This is supposed to be a straight line” got me😂
Bro this is insane, cannot imagine more detailed explanation to the topic, thanks a lot. There are tons of social media account that posted referencing this meta analysis and directly concluded that you must train to failure and watching your video it's obvious that it's not a must, just a preference. You can still make up all those reps with additional sets. Thanks again for this top video🙌
Paul doesnt seem like a likeable person or interested in an honest debate 😂
Appreciate the deep dive on this topic.
Super helpful analysis Menno. I strongly prefer lower volume (fewer sets) closer to failure than extra sets further from failure. Ultimately progressive overload is key and for me, adding weight and/or reps trumps additional sets. Adding sets is unsustainable and creates session duration issues. Adding weight and reps is still adding volume of sorts of course but it’s more manageable in my opinion. But agree that the there’s more than one way to skin the cat😂
100% An approach that seems to becoming more common is to use RIR/RPE on heavy compounds and then push the intensity on isolation/machine movements which bridges the gap and is more time/focus efficient for a lot of people who don't want to grind for 2 hours a session. 100% a preference thing though as consistency, enjoyment and sustainability is more important for success than hypothetical optimums and those factors vary wildly from lifter to lifter.
@@TheGreektrojanam.das^
Great breakdown Menno, awesome work
An absolutely brilliant breakdown of studies.
Incredible explanation as Always Menno
Thanks a lot ❤
So much good data here I almost missed the horizontal flip at 9:18. Keep up the great work Menno!
This was a really well-made video! Thanx!
Loved all the info in this video. Taught me a lot. Thanks man!
Really good stuff. Well done. Thank you.
Terrific info! Thanks!
Nice to see you discussing the different meta's in the same video. You're far from alone with regards to Chris and Paul. I also don't understand why anyone would follow or request the opinion of people that behave in such a manner. The fact that PC routinely misquotes the research (paraphrasing) "upper traps are slow twitch dominant", "lat's don't use the rib cage" for example makes it even harder to understand. Also, Paul isn't tall, probably just below average height...
That's why those two work together
Unfortunately, I fell into that trap too. He's just really popular on TikTok/amongst the youth so at face value you think he's giving you high-level content but then you dig a bit deeper and see that he's really just pushing his bias extremely hard, constructing a narrative, and is kind of an asshole to everyone in his comments even when they ask normal genuine questions???
Thanks for your content btw! Been getting really into biomechanics lately and am considering signing up for the biomechanics course so I can expand my learning on exercise and anatomy. (coming from someone who has zero background in exercise science. (Just a recreational lifter/enthusiast).
excellent analysis. quick note: whatever Chris Beardsley's model is, wherever I've seen his programming recommendations, they look like the chart at 17:03, i.e., sets with 2 RIR.
Very good points!
Very enlightening, thank you!
Fantastic! This was what i was waiting on! Thanks
This is why Menno is the best resource available for interpreting the data. I took statistics in undergrad and graduate school, and I still can't retain all the concepts. It is rather complex. Menno's explanation at 27:00-29:00, among other points, is top-notch.
Yea it's unfortunate that a lot of studies in exercise science are just poorly designed/analyzed in 2023 still. They should definitely make statistics more of a core component of exercise science related degrees, especially since statistics drives like all of the new research in the field lol
Thanks Menno, your analysis is so detailed, knowledgeable and understandable. Your the best!
This is fantastic, thanks very much for putting this out! I have to say, for practical programming, the effective reps model can still be helpful as a simplified guidance if you modify it. I feel if you were to choose a cut off at about 7 reps (i.e. 8RIR would equate "no gains"), not 5, it would probably resemble a linear fit of the red curve you showed. That would still be a simplification, but probably acceptable for practical programming.
26:58 - This is my issue with these studies these days. It doesn't just mean that volume doesn't matter, it sort of implies that nothing matters at all. Failure? Non failure? Far from failure? 6 RIR? All good! Now, the fact that volume didn't matter here either is kinda new, but I like it lol. I'm waiting for that one study where it will turn out that even lifting doesn't matter.
27:10 - that said, saying "we know more sets stimulate more growth" is also something that is potentially a bit strong, no? I mean, it stimulates more growth if you were still at that point in your individual volume-tolerance curve, but if youre someone who responds better to lower volumes, we would expect it to even potentially backfire.
Anyway, I'm typing up an email to request a podcast interview with you now! :D pls pls comeeeee
You gotta be able to recover from the volume for sure, yes, but if any training program variable matters, it's volume in the research.
Can’t wait to listen to that interview!
@@menno.henselmans I have my theory as to why that is, but I'd love to run it by you:) And btw I definitely don't think that volume doesn't matter haha
An interview with Abel would be awesome Menno!!! Dude is one of the best interviewers out there (along with Steve Hall). I’m a low volume guy there days and also have real issues with the whole volume drives Hypertrophy thing. Doesn’t reflect my experience of late and I’ve done super high volume in the past.
Well, there was that one study where exogenous testosterone + exercise trumped exercise alone...
ik waardeer het harde werk dat je in deze hulpzame videos steekt
Great discussion. I've always attributed my lifelong "failure to progress" to advanced fitness to the fact that I don't have the attitude/drive that I assumed others to have; thinking they can get themselves to train at failure threshold continuously year in year out, whereas I can manage a few sets that way for a few weeks, but eventually, it gets too daunting and I just go back to moving weights around intermittently and being content with the middling results I get.
This information encourages me to seek out alternative approaches that are not only more sustainable from my psychological standpoint, but supported by decent evidence and a real incentive to pay attention to what I'm doing and come up with strategies that may be helpful, and not just assume I'm one of the few who didn't do some p90x program or equivalent for 3 months and obtain that next level of fitness.
This is very good information, and I appreciate Dr. Mike heading me your way. Cheers!
People have widely differing recovery times…you could have up to 7days to three weeks to recover…try recovering more…people are addicted to working out
@@ohno837 I would also like to add that ingesting sufficient/proper nutrition is also a very important factor in addition to adequate rest.
See,
This is what I've been seeing both anecdotally or with people that follow the science and their personal results. It's kind of split, higher intensity or higher volume both work.
I can't get myself to do volume training. My body just hates it. But the Mentzer extreme failure work feels absurd too.
I've found a more moderate version of HIT with a heavy set/back off set, 7 exercises/full body/ 3x's a week, agnostic about failure but close it most of the time. And my results have been remarkable. I'm sure a high volume approach would work just as well too.
That's what I do. Full Body 2-3 times a week. 6-8 exercises. Top set 6-8 reps, back off set 10-12 reps, leaving 1 rep in reserve on compound and to failure on isolations.
This works great for me, I wouldn't change it no matter what the studies say
@@jakemaxwell2800 That's a great way to train, for sure
I've always used volume to build endurance, then as I progress, I reduce volume and replace with intensity to reach the higher level of both hypertrophy and strength. Once I plateau on volume, then I go HIT until I plateau, and vice versa.
Very good video Menno
Ty for showing some of the actual data!
Now it’s time to switch from Heneman’s principle To Henselman’s principle
Thanks for the video lots of good information and a great review of this topic. A Big point in favor of staying a 3-5 RIR may be that this enable lifter to do so much more volume in comparaison to the failure group due to good recovery that they will experience better gains overall.
This and also you get to train with a lot better technique, essentially practicing good technique. Better technique over time means you‘re able to get more out of every rep you‘re doing. Probably not as important for biceps curls, but when I started lifting it was totally a thing that you’d benchpress to failure and friends would take some weight off with their fingers to allow you to get one or two more reps which were absolutely ugly. Of course this didn’t really build or reinforce good technique. On the other hand: I don’t know anyone who would squat or barbell bench press to failure without a spotter or safety bars...
@@timgerber5563 I totally agree with you. Even with spotter i have almost never Seen someone go true failure in squat
I don’t get it? To get stronger you need to lift higher loads. If you leave 5 reps in the tank, you can’t do many reps. How does this increase volume? Cluster sets x1@5.
@@LeinonenHannudoing more sets?
The effective reps model is also based on the involuntary reduction of the contraction speed.
This involuntary reduction is higher the last reps, so we would expect a non linear increase of the stimulus, just like in the meta.
but the bar speed slow down happens according to effective reps starting around the 5th rep. 3 effective reps should be majority of the stimulus unless you are saying last 2 reps provide double the stimulus and should be pursued.
Very comprehensive, thank you) Thats quite embarrassing really. I made quite alot of training programms for clients, based on effective reps model in a few last years. Not to mention i trained for years with this model in mind. Obviously, it works, but it seems leaving more reps in a tank also works, and with less fatigue.
But this is like...eating too much protein, just to be sure, i guess. Also we should keep in mind that even trained individuals misjudge their approach to failure alot.
Thats why going to failure once in a while may be a good Idea, just to remember where failure is.
Anyone with any common sense will see through that bully. Humanity sometimes tst tsk tsk. Thx for the video Menno.
quite helpful. my training experienece fits to that. when I was younger, I went pretty hard, most time with around 1 rep to failure, but almost never to complete failure (in the evening I had football training and just could afford to be to destroyed). specially since corona and the influence of social media, Im going almost every workout to failure (bad conscious; did I really do enough?!). Gains are pretty similar then before, but Im sore almost all the time and it wasnt like that before. ofc age can play a role (but probably not much, still under 30) and Im doing less cardio (but still weekly), everything else is pretty similar.
Thanks
Just being very picky - the three should be closer to the five than to the zero on the x-axis, rather than being equally close to them.
thank you
Gotta say, I'd take issue with the curve fitting on that metastudy proximity to failure data. It might pass a statistical test, but I'm not sure by how much. There is a lot of scatter in the data, which is also meta data, thus at least somewhat subjective. I do whole body training 0 to 2 reps from failure, because Henneman's size principle.
I’ve always said liftrunbang was a proper bad gimp
Great vídeo!!!!
The last part , your conclusion really shows how profesional and real evidende based means. It is not black or whithe , and people dont have to be so close minded and try to convince others that how they enjoy to train is the best way. There are plenty of ways to train, and plenty of examples of people who got jacked training in diferent styles.
In my opinion the most importan factor is enjoyment, i belive that there is a huge placebo effect, and if someone enjoys going to failure, belives it is the best way , great, go for it. But do not try to rationalize and convince others that your way is proven to be better. Theres plenty of dogma, and i you like to train in certain way, just say " i like it" instead of "my way is the best "
re 24:26 You don't do more reps in failure training, you do more weight, to fail at the target count.
Hi Menno ! So what do you think of Myoreps that Mike israetel proposes ? If you count the number of reps you don’t get a very high number don’t you ? Still effective for hypertrophy ?
Cheers
Not only did we get a massive dose of Science, we also got a great Paint demo...I'm sold.
I think that it's kinda strange that the nuance that Beardlsey clearly has when presenting his model is lost on Menno, and the model itself isn't actually presented (even Chris's infographic promoting effective reps was a much more detailed version of the one in the Medium article). Effective reps isn't only concerned with Henneman's size principle "and" motor unit recruitment (they refer to the same thing), but motor unit recruitment/the size principle and mechanical tension vis the force-velocity principle.
Chris has also suggested that in one context or another, effective reps may be as high as 7 (total newb; or 8 for untrained seniors) or as low as 3-4 (perhaps for some advanced lifters on some exercises), and that "5" is an average that holds true for most contexts over a training career. Furthermore, the model doesn't indicate that there will be absolutely 0 gains beyond 5 RIR (which doesn't follow from physiological first principles), but that gains will begin to dramatically depreciate and be so negligible as to not be a factor in practical training, or requisite volume will need to be so high (how many sets at 5-6RIR/week will need to be done?) that other factors like time, but esp. accumulating fatigue, efficiency within a set, also render it impractical.
So the curve in the meta is what's expected on the model, and most (not all, but most) of what the brilliant G. Nuckols wrote in his article agrees with it. I think if the two could sit down for a long conversation, the agreement would be significant.
Practically speaking, the sets that allow you to get as many effective reps as possible (i.e., sets at 85% 1RM or above, done in a state of low fatigue to 2-0 RIR, at a frequency of once every 3 - 6 days) will work out for most people to be about 5-12 sets per week per muscle group, likely increasing over the course of a training block not for the sake of adding sets per se, but when reps cannot be added workout-over-workout, in order to increase total n number of high tension, high recruitment reps.
Chris has very good physiological rationale behind his model, and the model continues to show its predictive/explanatory power in the presence of new evidence. For most people, most of the time, programming 3-4 training days per week where they are doing 3-4 working sets per muscle group for 3-4 exercises at a high intensity (pragmatic defn of proximity to failure) will allow them to use RIR as a measure of effort (rather than RPE), allow them to get stronger, and allow them to lift in less time (maybe 3-4 hours if training per week) than otherwise would be prescribed. It is difficult, from a physiological perspective and study perspective, to imagine a scenario in which doing 3x the volume and training for 3x the time will yield an appreciably higher amount of gains. It also has the likely benefit of improving tendon stiffness over against higher rep, higher volume, RIR training.
There are remaining questions that complicate any model, or any clean, simple presentation of a model (like in the infographic shown), but those complexities are not really relevant from a pragmatic training perspective.
So I don't get the beef. This isn't HIT. It isn't controversial. It isn't making a "resurgence" from a particular camp. It's just a good model that most would agree with at the end of the day. It's parsimonious, simple, not ad-hoc, and has high explanatory power, about everything you want in a good scientific theory. What;s more, did the new meta really disconfirm it? Maybe new questions will come up, but it is hard to believe that the effective reps model is a paradigm in crisis.
Really well said.
Sufficient tension magnitude is probably what's most critical to the stimulus quality of repetitions. Imho
There's something a bit icky about using RTFs to estimate muscle growth. If I'm training at 5RM to 1RTF, then I've cut the last 20% of the training, whereas if I'm training at 10RM to 1RTF, I'm cutting down 10%. Could this difference be the reason the meta is so noisy? Perhaps the points would align better if plotting RTF/RM instead of RTF... this of course would have implications on the way RTF is being used, but I think it's worth a shot
Interesting math, but I don't think it works like that. It's more like the science says: regardless of the rep range used, if u go 1RIR/RTF u are still reaching 90-100% of gains.
The "noisy" (ha) meta could be explained by (people's) different definitions of failure... 🤔🤷♂
Putting failure reps in the context of more volume is the most insightful take on the topic I ever heard. Volume is always expressed in sets, but what about total reps as measure of volume? I understand TUT, but what I don't get is why it doesn't appear to be cumulative if I do like 10 sets of 2 with a 5 - 7 rep max weight. Never far from failure, but never failing. I understand that it's good for strength, but don't understand why each of those reps isn't the same as every last few reps in a set of 10. Or is it that those reps are as effective as the last few reps of a longer set, but isn't ideal if hypertrophy is the goal?
Menno, would you say this information seems to validate the way the vast majority of bodybuilders train? That is, they train with a lot of sets per body part, but only the last 1-2 are close to or at failure. This would seem to suggest that they make up the lack of super hard sets by doing numerous sets that are less intense. (There's also something to be said for lots of warming up if you're quite strong, particularly as age increases)
Can you do a video on myoreps and where they stack up?
My thoughts… if I train to failure 4-5 times a week for months on end.. I will burn out and volume would eventually have to go down or I’ll have to rewrite my program. If I train at 3-2 rir… as long as volume is equated… I can grow the same or better if I do more volume which I predict will happen because I can maintain my training and end up doing more volume. Wouldn’t the latter be better. It’s more sustainable than failure training and I get just about the same robust gains as failure without all the fatigue to make me wanna deload or stop training. I feel like this just logically makes sense and that’s why it confuses me… how people will willingly train to failure? Am I right to think like this. It just makes total sense from this video and in my own training to just train shy of failure because volume really is king… am I wrong?
My exact thinking after this video. Especially with squats and leg presses that take so much out of me. I'm rewriting my program, adding more sets spread out over the week and managing intensity better. No more dreading leg days. Going to keep failure training for some isolation exercises as it's not nearly as fatiguing. This will make training more enjoyable and sustainable.
I'd love for you to discuss high frequency training... like in your opinion could I work out every day doing just 2 sets per body part (call it 15 sets a week total), would that be the same / better / not as good if I did 5 sets 3x a week?
As if I'm just doing 2 a day, I could go hard in those 2 sets everyday, and probably be recovered ready to go the next day again... but I wouldn't be able to go as hard if doing 5 sets in 1 session.
I've actually done a routine like this for a bit, i didn't train every single day but i was doing full body 4-6 times per week and was getting very consistent PRs and just felt overall more recovered. Each set also gives you diminishing returns when done within 1 session so i do believe there's some valid upsides to running a program like that
25:24 from a practical matter, I think this time-efficiency aspect is interesting. I guess that also training 3 sets (to failure) vs. 4 sets with a nonzero RIR has a higher risk of injury. (Curious if some studies do show correlations between training to failure and higher injuries - which would be at least what sounds intuitive)
For context: I personally train closer to failure these days as my time is heavily limited with 3 young children and work 😅. So I chose time vs. risk consciously.
I assume that if I were 75+ yo (I'm 43), it would probably be wiser to choose more sets and a higher RIR (?) 🤔
Lets say you do a topset of 9 RPE and backoff sets 5x5 @9 RPE. Would it be almost the same as doing topset @9 and doing two reps less to make it 5 sets of x3@7. Why would doing less reps increase strength more?
Paul just shows the fragile ego of typical gym "bros," and also... the philosophical inconsistency.
If I don't like a results of a body of evidence: apply every bit of constructive criticism possible.
If I do like the results of a body of evidence: take the results at face value.
Yep Paul is a real piece of work. He has a one dimensional approach to lifting, if you don't lift exactly as he says you should, you are doing it wrong or not 'optimal' Whenever people point out his inflammatory responses to everyone he hides behind his iron wall of 'muh science' as if his cherry picking of data to fit HIS bias' makes it ok to act like a scumbag
Ego tripping and too much tren
How many sets per week per muscle group? What is the base line of each? And how to count the volume? Is it by sets 3-5 RIR? To be honest if a lifter is always doing 0-2 RIR will develop aches and pains if train like this year round,
Hey menno, is there any evidence to confirm more sets with 2-3 RIR is less fatiguing than fewer sets all the way to failure?
I think for compound exercises 1-2RIR seems to be sweet for me whilst failure and even sometime past failure/intensity techniques on smaller exercises like machine lateral, rope pushdown, cable curl aren't gonna fatigue me much more but do give more gains since I'm doing more effective reps
Yep, there's solid evidence to back that up.
How are effective sets affected by rest times? Lets say my cardio is no longer the limiting factor after 1 minute and 30 seconds after doing a set of 12 reps and I do another set with the same load and get 8 reps, but if I rested 3 minutes I would have gotten 9 or 10 reps? Does that matter if those sets were ended at the same RIR of let's say, 1? If I rest shorter without cardio or synergistic muscles being limiting factors and get less reps than resting longer, should I just make up for the lost volume with an additional set? As long as all my sets are taken within 2 RIR in the effective hypertrophy range (no less than 5 reps), would that be virtually optimal? Thanks!
I’m here
In practical terms, do you ever recommend your clients train with reps in reserve? It's quite hard to track progression with it.
Just set a target RIR, if u are gaining weight then strength will increase
Yes, especially for strength development, but I completely agree that for many people primarily interested in muscle growth, doing going AMRAP without intentionally hitting failure can be more efficient and practical for tracking.
My wife is a doctor and she looked also to reps , in Japan . Where we life new research show , it not the number or reps but the time you spend . So 45 sec ,, is the best . If you look what is told people say 12 rep 3 sec down and 1 sec up so 48 sec ,, then during the exercise you can hold your breath because lifting doesn’t use oxygen in the blood . So slow and heavy rep is good or light and may , as long you do it for 45 sec , ik hoop dit help, mij vrouw zeg dat het een rommeltje is met die research paper over weightlifting. Ze is een Japanese doctor .. greets from Japan henri
Chris and Paul need to sort their ego’s out 🤦🏽♂️
One thing that anecdotal evidence and clinical evidence shows us and will probably continue to show us is that the closer you train to failure, the less volume you need and the further you train from failure, the more volume you need. Thing is that most people grossly underestimate their "point of failure" so for most trainees, training with more volume will give better results, period.
Can someone help me with understanding this. I have been psychopathically training to failure always and I have seen significant muscle gains but almost no strength gains on exercises like bench, usually I am in the 5-8 rep range. This I think makes sense according to what Menno states from the unpublished study. So what should I do to get better results?
How about training muscles like the calves which probably need more intensity?
Calves and abs have a lot of Type 1 fibers. I would think higher reps are more ideal, i.e. 10-20 but don't take my word for it.
What if you considered # of reps to failure as a percentage of reps for the whole set left in the tank? Two reps left out of seven would be different than three left out of twenty??
10:07 nah it’s only detrimental if you treat it like volume training. Volume is not the driver of muscle growth, mechanical tension and intensity of effort is. Volume only works because you tire out your muscles enough to get close to failure and recruit the fast twitch muscle fibers. And getting close to failure or going to failure is what makes muscle grow the biggest and strongest. Why do volume when you can skip all that nonsense and go straight to failure? Going to failure recruits all available motor units in a muscle, which is actually best for strength. You also don’t need multiple sets for a muscle when training to failure, you only need 1 set if you actually go to failure.
Training to failure results in much more fatigue. Not everyone wants or can handle that. That's when more volume further from failure can compensate. And really, 1 set to failure is all one needs??? That's completely wrong. There's about twice as much growth going from 5 to 10 sets per week. And that's not even close to maximum growth. You should update yourself on the latest science about volume.
@@H3aby84that’s why you focus on recovery instead of hammering in more sets. You only train again when you’re fresh and ready to go, you could train a muscle once a week on this method if the fatigue bothers you. When you use HIT bodybuilding principles you only have to pay attention to recovery since training to failure is maximum stimulus for growth. Those sets on volume training aren’t standardized and are random. It’s different in every individual with different people training at different intensities depending on how much they can handle when they do their sets. 1 set is more than enough for maximum growth if taken all the way to failure. I’d recommend checking out Jay Vincent, Drew Baye, and Dr. Doug Mcguff on exercise science. This channel and MANY others are misinformed or using outdated principles for muscle growth. You’re wasting your precious time and energy at the gym doing more sets than is required for what you want. If you want to save time and reach your genetic limit faster, and more efficiently I highly urge you to watch on learn on those channels I recommended.
@@H3aby84I do 90s under constant tension til failure, it's pretty dang good. You probably could do a partial set after that but damn one to actual proper failure plus hold until eccentric failure.. it's a lot. Plus you can just do more per week because it's that much quicker to do per workout.. for the average person I think this is a decent approach. Full body, one long set with constant tension, to failure.
I think that quantifying failure proximity by RIR is plain wrong.
We should count % of RIR: a set of 10 reps with a 20rm weight (10rir) is closer to failure compared to a set of 2 reps with a 5rm weight. (3rir).
What do you think @menno henselmans😮
Is there an optimal time under tension?
“time under tension” is bullshit dude, you don’t get better or worse stimulus necessarily simply from set duration
We’re just going to ignore that one outlier at 12:08?
But how does this reconcile with the idea that if you don't go to failure on the earlier sets, you can do more overall volume on all your subsequent sets overall. That's all just wasted volume and all that matters is the reps that are near failure?
These case studies typically have to many grey areas with crucial variables not addressed in real world training scenarios which leave them rather hollow in regards to being absolute or the end all be all . And another note is that 99.9 percent of people that would benefit with the fractional if that moderate gains from adherence to the exact protocols via these case studies are not on or going to be on the levels where the marginal gains will even be noticeable vs keeping some basic fundamentals on point and staying consistent. It’s funny that the vast majority of all the extremely science based geeked out to the max so called experts do not have physiques that are otherworldly with the plethora of all of the cutting edge science and case studies being applied to their training. Where there are guys in prison that do calisthenics and eat a sub par diet but have physiques that dwarf the vast majority of fitness experts and enthusiasts in the free world . And they adhere to basic fundamentals and principles. Train with serious intensity and solid forms techniques and mechanics with quality tension on the muscles,get the meals in rest repeat .
A theory that cannot be disproven (i.e. violates the falsifiability principle) is definitionally unscientific, as falsifiability is a tenet of a good scientific theory.
23:00 A truth old as time... Meta-analysis: shit comes in, shit comes out.
Training far away from failure is a lot harder to standardize. I wouldn't be able to estimate that I'm 8 reps from failure correctly. But 3 or two reps is a lot easier.
Once you have reached failure in a certain rep range you have triggered the mechanism for growth …you have now damaged the muscle and it needs to repair and grow…when you do more sets to failure you are not just damaging it more and it needs more time to recover…this is why high volume naturals burn out…look at the strong men of the 1900’s not the 1940’s they were already on steroids…but Eugene Sandi’s and Liederman used heavy weights …low reps and low sets….very few high rep sets
12:17 So you go to 0RIR/10RPE, get 0.45. You keep 2, and get 0.3. But AFTER THAT, if you keep 6, you still get something VERY CLOSE to 0.3. Considering we have historically viewed training optimally in the 2RIR/8RPE range, that study sure shows something different - either you go tits up, or you skate through with 4-5 RIR. Obviously that is a standardized trend-line, so subject-based variance can come to play. 17:02 aligns more with what I've heard you, Dr. Mike, Jeff and many others talk about. Train close to failure, don't necessarily try to hit it.
I look forward to seeing science continuously improve on this, wonder how much we can optimize the process in the end, i.e. how accurate can we get with these analyses.
I'll just play it safe and go to failure. Easy to measure that. Best to put in the effort than not put in enough. I try to keep 60-90s of constant tension before positive failure. Reps are an arbitrary number, difference between 1rir and 4rir might be speed of reps. Just go to failure, recruit all the muscle fibres, fast twitch also get the most size and also the last to be recruited.
Why am I so confused by the image being inverted around 16:50
👍👍👍
I only train the last five effecitive reps and skip the first ineffective 5 ;)
I do high reps sometimes and train to failure, sometimes I do heavier weight and train to failure and sometimes I do both and do not go to failure.😂
So Mike Mentzer is 100 procent wrong ?
And if u have talked somewhere about his method pls share a link , thank you very mush sir.
How do you measure 20 RIR?
Thanks for this. Sometimes when the science get's "deep", it is helpful to take a step back and look at reality. Sprinters don't train to failure. Sprinters spend very little time doing effective reps. Ditto gymnasts. Therefore, they would have no muscle growth? Boxers... Olympic lifters... To avoid the "but they train with weights...." look at the ones from the 50s.
I feel like the bb/fitness world is in a bit of a hypertrophy bubble. There's a heavy emphasis over arguing about a couple of RIR in highly specific ranges, when fatigue management is by far more important. The individual to individual variation in response is huge, leading to large amounts of noise in the data, as well as poorly generalizable anecdotes.
Study is important, to create benchmarks, but being overly tribalistic on matters where optimal on average is optimal for very few individuals seems quite daft.
Sprinting isn't far off from training to failure, if you've ever tried an all-out sprint like your life depends on it. Your legs get pretty damn weak by the end of it. For gymnasts, lot of those moves at first will be so hard they can't hold it, ergo to failure?
@@mikafoxx2717 No one is suggesting that you don't need to train hard my friend. "Hard", "High effort" or "Difficult" is not "Failure". No one is suggesting that if you hit failure you will die. The idea is that using "training to failure" as THE result producing variable is not correct. Sprinting is an all out effort that is not performed until failure or even close to it. It is distance limited, not effort limited. Max speed hardly drops once reached until the end. In gymnastics, people "fail", but they don't train with the goal of "failure", so it is rare. In the case of not being able to do a move, that would be akin to missing a 1RM attempt. In Eastern Bloc countries, where the State could and would have athletes train optimally in terms of difficulty and frequency, hard, frequent training was the norm. Not "to failure". There is some context here...there are (were) training programs that insisted one must train to failure, and that workout frequency and volume be constructed around allowing this. Every few years this methodology pops up as "the" way to train. If you like training to failure, have at it. If you have to limit your volume and frequency to enable it, you might not be training optimally.
I used to follow Paul Carter about 10 years ago. He had a lot of good things to say imho. Then I lost track for a while and at some point he suddenly surfaced on T-Nation. A lot of his shit that sometimes comes up in my feeds is just downright toxic and hostile now. That man has changed for the worse.
It looks like any minimum lifting will stimulate muscle growth
So, does that mean that training far from failure will never tax the type II fibers?
So If I train till absolute failure on all of my working sets, how many sets should I do per a muscle group per week? let’s say biceps for example? chest?
start with 2 sets and see how fast you recover.
You should be recover with 2 rest days so you can work out again on the 3rd day
You only need 1 set a workout for biceps, and at most 2 sets a week for biceps if you’re training to failure. I’d let the muscle recover 3 days at least before hitting it again. You only really need 1 set to failure and 1 exercise for a muscle group when you go to failure. As far as a split. I like to do chest, triceps, shoulders Monday, Back, Biceps, forearms, traps on Wednesday, and Legs, Calves, abs on Friday. Every day in between is a rest day. If you want to hit the same muscle twice a week you could do full body. Full body Monday then another full body Friday. You can overlap and take as many rest days as you need but it’s usually 3-4 days of rest. Check out Jay Vincent’s channel for top quality information.
@@naturalgains4229 you can’t be more wrong here
-
Why?
and i quote ‘more volume is associated with more hypertrophy to a certain point’
-
in other words, more volume is good, but at one point your muscles tap out, so there’s a threshold
-
1 set a week will be enough to maintain gains, not gain.
-
that being said, the relationship between volume & hypertrophy is NOT linear
@@naturalgains4229 that amount sits around 4-6 sets per muscle group per week, can even go up to 8 for some individuals
@@naturalgains4229 you gotta understand something, when we say ‘low volume high intensity’; we’re speaking about lowER volumes, as in lower than what you usually see
How many sets? Is one set to failure enough?
I’m pretty sure as long as you hit anywhere around 8-12 sets per muscle group per week then you’re good.
The more sets the better.. at some point, there'll be a peak and then it's just down hill
Since training volume matters, doing just one set means you will have to grind it out which I don't think many people can do
What I do with my quad training is 2 exercises to near failure so I only have to do it once a week. But it's much harder
@@jeffreybankers3988 How about isometrics to failure? Will that lead to muscle growth and does that count like a set?
Yes 1 set to failure is enough. That’s all I do actually. The most I would hit a muscle is twice a week but you can definitely just hit a muscle once a week going to failure. You’d want a lot of rest days about 3 or 4 depending on your recovery ability. Here is my split. Monday-chest, triceps, shoulders. Wednesday-Back, traps, forearms, biceps Friday-legs, abs, calves. Every day in between is a rest day. Keep in mind you only need 1 exercise for a muscle group and 1 set for an exercise when going to failure. So for Monday I would do machine chest press, incline chest press, shoulder press, tricep extensions on cables. For back I would do dumbbell shrugs for traps, lat pulldowns, machine back rows, barbell bicep curls, supinated barbell forearm curls. Legs I would do leg press, hamstring curls on a machine, calf machine, abdominal crunch machine. And that’s about it. If you want to train twice a week you would do full body on Monday and Friday with those exercises, and at-least 3 to 4 days of rest before hitting them again, you don’t have to keep it all constrained into 1 week if you need more rest. Keep in mind you don’t have to use those specific exercises, they’re just the most efficient, easiest and time saving for me. You can use any exercise variation you want because exercise variation doesn’t matter when training to failure but you do not need extra exercises for a muscle.
I try to train to failure because I realize that a part of me is giving up early and I actually end up at like 1.5 rir
At tha case of Martorelli, the 3 sets of failure group gained 17,5% of muscle thickness after 10 weeks and the equilized volume group (4*7) gained 8,5%. 17,5% vs 8,5% and the conclusion is that the difference was not significant. Am I missing something or is double progress not significant enough?
Nothing odd there, if you train to failure second last and failed rep becomes a struggle, you activate as much your muscle fibers as you can and reps will become slow. So you are for much longer time under maximal stress.
However training to complete failure is mentally very hard, very few can actually do it. Fortunately you can get results from easier sets also but you must have hard reps anyway. If you have none it is just warming up sets and your gains will be very small or it is just waste of time
What does mean going to failure? Eccentric, concentric? Because going to eccentric failure is another world compared to going to concentric failure...
Let me give an example on a bench press:
-you can bench 50kg
-you can hold 75kg
-you can do controlled negatives with 100kg
Everyone talk about going to failure, but defining which failure would be very helpful.
If you're at concentric failure, eccentric failure won't be much long after, even with the same weight. Just keep trying to lift even if it won't move, then it'll eventually pretty much drop after some point or you give up because of the intense burn in fighting to hold
@@mikafoxx2717 That's true, but going to concentric or to eccentric failure differs in rest days approach, periodization practice...
With concentric failure I can go to the gym 5 times a week w/o a problem
With eccentric (every set) failure I can not do more than 3times/week gym time
Nice mental gymnastics by Paul Carter. Big L by him. His critique has no power.
Not sure why the guy is so determined to personally attack people. I guess he just wants to stand out in that way. I've gotten some good info from him on exercise selection but he's really off-putting with how he loves to burn bridges at every opportunity.
Paul Carter is a 🤡. Arrogant obnoxious and a juicer.
@@Ask-Ali Nope. So someone sent me this video and here's my response. I do not like Greg. He threw Bret and Alan Aragon under the bus and tried to white knight himself during a significant time of misfortune for both of them. I have no problem debating these issues but Greg isn't worth the time because he actually doesn't understand them despite he (and Menno too I suppose) thinking he does. So he will always be Fat Greg to me and I think he's a little weasel of a human. This isn't even getting into the years he was plagiarizing Alex Viada and Chris Duffin either. Oooops. Sorry man, it isn't about my "insecurity" it's about me not liking Greg as a human.
That comment is like years ago. Like YEARS. See my comment below. Menno really missed the mark here.
@@paulcarter9546 cannot see your comment
You know the real science about to take place when he cracks out the MSPaint 🤣
Can't we all just get along?
For the algorithm.
So one set to failure doesn’t work?
How did Bayesian cable curls get their name? I know you are responsible for this.
He used to have a brand called Bayesian Bodybuilding.