Regarding training to failure.

CoachB40 said:
The Army does believe in training to failure and they are absolutely wrong.

the US government is never wrong :wink:
 
CoachB40 said:
Delta didn't say that he agreed with them, but he is correct. The Army does believe in training to failure and they are absolutely wrong. Unfortunately there are people leading P.T. that have no clue what they are doing, they just do what their NCO's had passed onto them. In fact the master fitness trainer that I have had the pleasure of knowing(lmao) was a complete moron when it came to the gym. He always tries to come across like he knows, but he doesn't.

Maybe mate, but he's pulled the same 1 liner in a few other threads and its annoying as hell. He gets away with it in OT but I fail to see why he should here.
 
i try to do all my sets just barely to failure. sometime's i fail a little early. in other word's i try to use a weight so i fail just around 5, 10, or 20.
 
I train to failure in 2 exercises: handstand pushups and pullups...and I've only progressed. Of course, I only do that once every week or so...
 
It seems that training to failure is more suited to body-weight exercises. At least, that's the way it's portrayed.
 
I've read the training theory on it, and perhaps it's better for athletes, but the truth is bodybuilding-style hypertrophy is still more effective for laying on mass in a shorter amount of time. It's the potential strength trade-off that has me intrigued with this more sport-specific model that I may use for my next hypertrophy phase (instead of the traditional way that has always yieled me great results).

Sorry, but most guys overdo it. They go to failure on every set. If you only go to failure in the last set of a few of your exercises, you should be okay. It's the guys who want to go 5 reps beyond failure that get themselves into trouble.
 
The Army does not use training to failure to build muscle. It is used to build mental toughness. When the shit hits the fan I want people around me that are not going to quit.

Overall I'd give the Army PT system a grade of C+. I think they have moved in the right direction as far as implementing a system designed to reduce injuries. They still do things like mule kicks (jumping as high as you can and then kicking yourself in the ass) which make me wonder if they've lost their fucking minds. But they've also added a lot of GPP and energy system work, as well as hanging work ( chin ups, pull ups, legups, hanging shrugs) that I think is a great move.

The bottom line is a fucking slug could pass the APFT if they had half a goddamn heart. That said we have one fat ass SGT who smokes and cant pass a pt test to save her fucking life in my Plt. I hope to god she never actually deploys.
 
DeltaSigChi4 said:
The United States ARMY disagrees with Urban, you and whoever that Carnal guy is as well. Really.

E
We get it delta... the army is great, all knowing and all powerful. Anything they do must be right. They know everything about training, nutrition, recovery, fucking, education, and philosophy. If we would all train like soldiers enlisted in the army despite our goals, we'd be better off. Forget that they are not interested in peak strength, speed, or explosiveness, these things are clearly not important in any sport. train like a soldier today, succeed in everything tomorrow: you'll be smarter, stronger, faster, more powerful, your dick will get harder, you'll get more women, you'll get a promotion, your dog will love you, guys will want to be you, laser beams will shoot from your eyes and strike down those that would oppose you, a sixth sense will develop and exopse those who will betray you, back at your fortress you will head an empire of people who worship you and all will sing praises of your holy name.
 
Urban said:
laser beams will shoot from your eyes and strike down those that would oppose you, a sixth sense will develop and exopse those who will betray you, back at your fortress you will head an empire of people who worship you and all will sing praises of your holy name.

Yes, just like the necromongers.

chronicles_riddick_goths.jpg
 
Couple of things to say here...or a lot, if this goes as usual...

One, there are a few ways to consider muscle failure. Let's start with its companion term, muscle exhaustion. Muscle exhaustion is when you can still do 2 or so reps with good form. Muscle failure is...well, somewhere beyond that. Some types, at least, if not all.

I would consider muscle failure, on one level, to be the point where you have to get a spotter to help before you kill yourself by crushing your windpipe with your barbell. Let's call this "concentric failure." However, in doing a modified version of negative training I developed, your muscle can still continue. The muscle may not have anything left on the concentric movement, but you can still progress on the eccentric movement (click here if "concentric" or "eccentric" doesn't make sense to you). Your spotter helps you just enough to get the weight to your full ROM, then you struggle to control it, and keep it from killing you, on the way back. You repeat this process a few times. Usually, I could squeeze another 4 reps or so out of my clients before they became so weak that I didn't trust my own strength to be able to save them, conservatively. I suppose if I had another guy to help we could push my client further. Anyway, let's call this "eccentric failure."

However, there's also a little something referred to as "momentary muscle failure," which if I understand it correctly, is what happens when you're forced to pause for a half-second or so before you can finish out the repetition. Since you can usually get a few more repetitions out before concentric exhaustion, this seems similar to "muscle exhaustion," depending on your definition of form. Is form just your body alignment and movement pattern, or does it require fluid movement, also?

So, what's failure in terms of CNS problems? Momentary muscle failure, concentric failure, or eccentric failure? Further, how or why, exactly, does your CNS decide that it's being modified for failure? Didn't all the previous clean repetitions condition your CNS on the exercise, too?


Regardless, I followed some advice and stopped at the point of momentary muscle failure during my training yesterday. I was nowhere near as drained at the end of every set and could switch to other exercises much faster. The workout that normally takes me 60 minutes to finish only took me about 45 minutes to do. So, with the idea of bodybuilding in mind, in which you attempt to do the maximum volume possible, this was excellent. Usually, this is limited by the amount of time you have, and the overtraining boundary, which is 45-60 minutes of weightlifting.

Bodybuilding, though, concentrates more on hypertrophy, the increase of muscle size, and not necessarily a maximal lift or maximal strength, which uses both strength and endurance fibers in concert. A rep range of 8-12 espouses hypertrophy, as it targets the strength fibers nigh-exclusively, which react to training by size increase. Since endurance fibers don't really see much size increase, they are not focused on. Repetition ranges topping out at fewer than 8 recruit both strength and endurance fibers, and as such are much more exhausting, require longer recovery time, and allow for a lesser maximum volume per workout. So, bodybuilding is best suited for large muscle, which will be strong, though not as strong as if you'd been working the endurance fibers as well.
 
Urban said:
We get it delta... the army is great, all knowing and all powerful. Anything they do must be right. They know everything about training, nutrition, recovery, fucking, education, and philosophy. If we would all train like soldiers enlisted in the army despite our goals, we'd be better off. Forget that they are not interested in peak strength, speed, or explosiveness, these things are clearly not important in any sport. train like a soldier today, succeed in everything tomorrow: you'll be smarter, stronger, faster, more powerful, your dick will get harder, you'll get more women, you'll get a promotion, your dog will love you, guys will want to be you, laser beams will shoot from your eyes and strike down those that would oppose you, a sixth sense will develop and exopse those who will betray you, back at your fortress you will head an empire of people who worship you and all will sing praises of your holy name.


now your just being a silly billy


The twats been banned now atleast
 
Eclypse said:
Couple of things to say here...or a lot, if this goes as usual...

One, there are a few ways to consider muscle failure. Let's start with its companion term, muscle exhaustion. Muscle exhaustion is when you can still do 2 or so reps with good form. Muscle failure is...well, somewhere beyond that. Some types, at least, if not all.

I would consider muscle failure, on one level, to be the point where you have to get a spotter to help before you kill yourself by crushing your windpipe with your barbell. Let's call this "concentric failure." However, in doing a modified version of negative training I developed, your muscle can still continue. The muscle may not have anything left on the concentric movement, but you can still progress on the eccentric movement (click here if "concentric" or "eccentric" doesn't make sense to you). Your spotter helps you just enough to get the weight to your full ROM, then you struggle to control it, and keep it from killing you, on the way back. You repeat this process a few times. Usually, I could squeeze another 4 reps or so out of my clients before they became so weak that I didn't trust my own strength to be able to save them, conservatively. I suppose if I had another guy to help we could push my client further. Anyway, let's call this "eccentric failure."

However, there's also a little something referred to as "momentary muscle failure," which if I understand it correctly, is what happens when you're forced to pause for a half-second or so before you can finish out the repetition. Since you can usually get a few more repetitions out before concentric exhaustion, this seems similar to "muscle exhaustion," depending on your definition of form. Is form just your body alignment and movement pattern, or does it require fluid movement, also?

So, what's failure in terms of CNS problems? Momentary muscle failure, concentric failure, or eccentric failure? Further, how or why, exactly, does your CNS decide that it's being modified for failure? Didn't all the previous clean repetitions condition your CNS on the exercise, too?


Regardless, I followed some advice and stopped at the point of momentary muscle failure during my training yesterday. I was nowhere near as drained at the end of every set and could switch to other exercises much faster. The workout that normally takes me 60 minutes to finish only took me about 45 minutes to do. So, with the idea of bodybuilding in mind, in which you attempt to do the maximum volume possible, this was excellent. Usually, this is limited by the amount of time you have, and the overtraining boundary, which is 45-60 minutes of weightlifting.

Bodybuilding, though, concentrates more on hypertrophy, the increase of muscle size, and not necessarily a maximal lift or maximal strength, which uses both strength and endurance fibers in concert. A rep range of 8-12 espouses hypertrophy, as it targets the strength fibers nigh-exclusively, which react to training by size increase. Since endurance fibers don't really see much size increase, they are not focused on. Repetition ranges topping out at fewer than 8 recruit both strength and endurance fibers, and as such are much more exhausting, require longer recovery time, and allow for a lesser maximum volume per workout. So, bodybuilding is best suited for large muscle, which will be strong, though not as strong as if you'd been working the endurance fibers as well.

your going to make waves ~_~_~_~_~_~_~

very interesting read though! :)
 
No he's not, he said nothing unscientific. That was a great post, Eclypse, but concerning your eccentric method for training: I'm familiar with the eccentric method for maximum strength, not hypertrophy, although it has been noted that it produces greater hypertrophy than the other MxS methods (because eccentric contractions involve the greatest muscular tension).

But your post didn't specify whether you're using a supermaximal load- as you should- and the client is failing to begin the set, or whether you helped him reach his full ROM after already reaching failure with an (we can deduce) submaximal load? If you're doing the latter, I'd advise against it, because I have read it overtaxes the muscles and inhibits recovery time. And as you know, a decreased recovery rate is the bane of all progress in resistance training.
 
Thanks, Madmick; I appreciate the praise. The eccentric method takes advantage of the muscle's increased strength capacity, an additional 20% due to internal muscle friction, as the weights approach the ground. I don't know why increased friction would increase strength; usually increased friction hinders movement. I suppose this has something to do with the muscle lengthening under resistance, the outside force beating out the muscle's force, but...I don't get it entirely. Maybe the friction adds energy? I don't know. I simply accept that it's true, even though the reason is confusing. Can anyone make sense of this?

Digressing, the eccentric method works for whatever you want it to work for. It really depends on the repetition range, which governs how the muscle reacts to the exercise you do. Because the fibers engaged cannot defeat the force gravity imparts, there is more of a possibility of the fibers tearing under stress. As long as the tears are microscopic, that's fine; these tears are often theorized as the foundation for the strengthening process. So, if you do nothing but eccentric movements, you'll get a lot of that action. However, most people skimp out on the eccentric movement during lifting, hence they're only really working the muscle in one direction and method; once you start doing the eccentric movement appropriately along with the concentric, you get more bang for your buck.

I've recently been considering if the signal to your brain to get your muscles growing is the microscopic tear bit, or simply the fact that the muscles are used vigorously. There's a bit of research out there which details that one set is just as effective as multiple sets for strength progression, also, though it seems like all their studies are done with subjects with very minimal muscle mass in the first place. Not everyone carries out their sets the same way, either. Anyway, it seems that multiple sets would be more likely to tear the muscle fibers, and I can't say I've heard or seen much about experienced lifters getting much out of single sets.

Digressing again! The particular method I used was the submaximal type, where he plowed through his usual set and we did some "negative repetitions" at the very end. However, my client showed excellent progress with that method, which we used for only a few weeks. I don't suggest it as a regular thing since it requires a spotter for every exercise and beats your muscles to death, which can't be good for your immune system. It seems to be a great way to get that microscopic tear in fewer sets, though. Of course, with the level of muscle exhaustion, it will most assuredly cause a longer recovery time. Are you talking the recovery time in the session, though, or between sessions?
 
I was referring to the recovery time between sets. Ben Johnson wrote that the bulk of studies on hypertrophy revealed negative returns beyond 2 reps beyond failure. So if you do use 4-5 negatives after failing out concentrically, it would be best to do this only once and not to maintain a hypertrophy phase of this intensity for much longer than a few weeks, but it appears that's what you've done.

Anyways, concerning your question on "friction," it is this friction that is the reason the greatest intramuscular tension is achieved in the eccentric portion of a lift. Because the muscles are lengthening, there is a greater surface area shared along the cross-sectional; thus the greater friction, and the greater capacity for tension.

I realize you can utilize negatives in various types of lifting, my point was that many guys overuse negatives in hypertrophy and just generally go beyond failure way too much. Actually, Bompa recommends against going to failure at all during hypertrophy for athletes. I just don't see how this would be nearly as effective as more traditional bodybuilding methods.
 
madmick said:
Anyways, concerning your question on "friction," it is this friction that is the reason the greatest intramuscular tension is achieved in the eccentric portion of a lift. Because the muscles are lengthening, there is a greater surface area shared along the cross-sectional; thus the greater friction, and the greater capacity for tension.
That's awesome. I'm very impressed. Thanks for the info; now I just have to paraphrase and memorize it to spill it to my clients. Where did you learn that?

madmick said:
Actually, Bompa recommends against going to failure at all during hypertrophy for athletes. I just don't see how this would be nearly as effective as more traditional bodybuilding methods.
This is one of those things that was never clearly explained anywhere I looked. I see things the opposite way in my perspective; I can't see why traditional bodybuilding methods would be more effective than failure, as I learned that you have to "overload the muscle" to make it come back stronger. Now I suppose it depends on what the definition of overload is in that statement.

So, the main thought floating in my mind is that I wonder if it's the total volume lifted or the muscle tearing that causes the best increases. It's said so many times in my education that the tearing "may be," but so much of exercise is just theory anyway. =P So, I'm giving the former a shot.


As for everything else: right on.
 
SO we all agree that the US Army is made up of morons?
In their defence i dont think they have the time or patience to train everyone using powerlfiting and overload techniques. Simplest way to build up muslce is to tear it downa dn build it up stronger.....nothing really to do with teaching the CNS anything. I dont think they really care.
 
Eclypse said:
I can't see why traditional bodybuilding methods would be more effective than failure.

I can't see why either, but I do think it has been proven by the whole lifting tradition that failure is a sub-optimal way to induce both strength and mass gains.

Heck I was a HIT maggot for the first 3 years of my training life, I did negatives, forced reps, breakdowns, super sets, pre-exhaustion, the 2-4 Ellington Darden cadence, superslow, you name it.

I can tell you that although I saw some small gains, they were not even close to the gains i'm making now.

And I saw more strength gains than mass gains, so failure for hypertrophy seems like a bad idea to me.

If you feel the need to train to failure, do it. I just don't think you'll see much progress.
IMO it is only justified for people who have NO TIME and I've never met anybody that short on time that he could not line up two workouts/week with half-decent volume.
 
Also, I wanted to add that I was seduced to training to failure by the sheer logic of the thing. HITers have very good arguments and are very convincing sometimes with their dogmas like:

TRAIN FOR QUALITY, NOT QUANTITY
LESS IS MORE
WHAT DID YOU ACHIEVE WITH THE 3RD SET YOU DIDNT ACHIEVE ON THE FIRST ONE?

The real problem is: How good is an argument, be it uber-logical, that pushes you to doing something that JUST SIMPLY DOES NOT WORK!???

150 posts YaY
 
Back
Top