Regarding training to failure.

[cockysprinter]

I've recently been considering if the signal to your brain to get your muscles growing is [...] simply the fact that the muscles are used vigorously.

im pretty sure this is the case (edited to show my intention). hypertrophy and strength gains are easily made with minimal soreness. also DOMS is not necesarily caused by microscopic tears in the muscle, it could be microtrauma to any number of soft tissues involved in the movement process.

 

[graedy]

I can just say, that form my personal experience training to failure works very well on some exercises (like chin ups) but like every method it doesnt work forever.
Good discussion btw. Keep it up.

 

[Eclypse]

also DOMS is not necesarily caused by microscopic tears in the muscle, it could be microtrauma to any number of soft tissues involved in the movement process.

Yeah, I've really got to get into the habit of saying that. Actually, now that I've typed that, I realize that my habit has prevented my consideration of DOMS as damage to anything more than the "muscles." Hmm...time to reference my books again.

According to Bryant and Green, DOMS "is most likely the result of very small tears in the connective tissues that hold individual muscle fibers together within the belly of the muscle, as well as some tearing of the membrane of the muscle cells." (25) They explain again, under a section written by another contributor, that DOMS "is most likely the result of microscopic tears in the muscle or connective tissue." (250) Both sections are written by men with Ph.D.'s.

Unfortunately, the latter quote is less specific than the former, which made me hunt down the definition for connective tissue. Per Bryant and Grant, under yet another contributor, "connective tissue is composed of...structures including tendons, ligaments, and fascia," (307), fascia defined as "a sheet or band of fibrous tissue that lies deep to the skin or forms an attachment for muscles and organs." (547)

Upon consulting an anatomy book, fascia is illustrated to directly connect to tendons and overlay the entire muscle, holding the "individual muscle fibers together within the belly of the muscle" spoken of originally. However, the membrane covering the cell, as mentioned in the first example, is referred to as the sarcolemma (Applegate, 124).

What this all boils down to is that DOMS is, possibly, from damage to the ligaments, tendons, or any part of the muscle from the fascia down to the myofilaments. The amount of blood flow to these tissues is directly linked to their healing capacity. Applegate describes that "an artery and at least one vein accompany each nerve that penetrates the epimysium," the layer of tissue directly beneath the fascia. "Branches of the...blood vessels follow the connective tissue components...so that each muscle fiber is in contact with...one or more minute blood vessels." (125) So, it seems that the fiber has the capacity to heal throughout. DOMS could promote muscular development per the popular theory.

However, tendons and ligaments do not. As defined, DOMS may damage these tissues, which would inhibit muscle growth. Tendons must grow in strength with the muscles they are associated with; if they do not, they may eventually snap under the stress the muscles impart on them.

So, it seems that DOMS may inhibit or promote the strengthening process, depending on which tissues are damaged. I wouldn't say that the methods that promote DOMS are ineffective in strength promotion outright; I've done too much strengthening, accompanied by DOMS, to be able to swear to that. However, the bodybuilding method has shown to be effective, eschewing muscle failure and presumably DOMS.

Perhaps the methods that promote DOMS work because they include the sets or reps beforehand which mimic bodybuilding techniques, but haven't been strictly contraindicated due to the broad border between DOMS and strains and sprains. It's interesting, nonetheless, and I will be doing my best to prevent DOMS in an experiment on myself.

Let's hear what everyone else thinks.

Works Cited​

Bryant, Cedric X. and Daniel J. Green, eds. ACE Personal Trainer Manual. San Diego: American Council on Exercise, 2003.

Applegate, Edith J. The Anatomy and Physiology Learning System. W.B. Saunders Company, Second Edition. (incomplete listing due to book damage)

 

[Henry Swanson]

That sort of makes sense to me though because whenever I suffer from DOMS, it's never really in the belly of the muscle but closer to the insertion points.

 

[Ted-P]

Gotta ease back on maximal lifting for awhile.

 

[prometheus]

Very interesting reading on this thread, some very insightful contributions. So basically, I'm deducing from what's been said that in regard to training to failure, at the moment, the jury is still out on this one.
What I mean is that while it may benefit certain individuals under certain conditions, it doesn't seem to be a prerequisite for experiencing growth.
From a personal point of view, I've played around with weight ttraining on and off over many years, without seeing much in the way of gains, when I first started training around twenty odd years ago, yes, I'm an old bastard, much of the 'advice' around in those days seemed to revolve around doing basically full body workouts two or three times per week, I even recall reading a bok on weight training which suggested that atrophy would occur with in 72 hours of inactivity, they proposed you workout the same muscle groups within 72 hours to prevent the muscle from wasting away, for some reason.. I didn't seem to gain the Ramboesque physique I was looking forward to by following such advice.
These days, the general concensus (as I understand it) is that such a routine would seriously inhibit growth by not allowing sufficient recovery time.

Now, I'd like to add a few kilos or so, not looking to develop into Mark Coleman or anything, just a few extra kilos would be good, so basically I'd like to ask the more knowledgeable chaps around here the following;

As a 'beginner' looking for some extra mass, would a programme involving NOT training to failure on each excercise be a good way to go ?

Also, in at least some of the more recent articles and discussions that I've found on growth, there seems to be a fair body of belief that training each muscle group only ONCE in each given week is a 'good' way to train as this allows adequate recovery time etc.
Now, would many experienced trainers here agree with this, is it likely that with good diet, as well as training each muscle group just once a week that you could expect to make noticeable gains
Ant thoughts would be appreciated.
Thanks chaps

 

[groo]

Training to failure doesn't train you to fail.

It stresses your CNS very much so. Much more than the actual muscles are getting stressed. Your muscles recover well before your CNS does [in # of days]. So by training to failure all the time either your CNS is overtaxed because you are not resting long enough for it to recover or your muscles are undertrained becaues you wait for your CNS to recover. [I am talking about rest days/recovery]

So with HIT style programs you either :

a) Burn out CNS

or

b) Don't train your muscles hard enough to have optimal growth because you have too much rest time needed from training to failure all the time.

 

[krellik]

Urban and Enrophy!! Come and bring order to this thread!! No seriously a lot of good stuff to read in here, but seriously I like to hear some of the "avoid failure" proponents come in and give some thoughts..

 

[cockysprinter]

However, tendons and ligaments do not. As defined, DOMS may damage these tissues, which would inhibit muscle growth. Tendons must grow in strength with the muscles they are associated with; if they do not, they may eventually snap under the stress the muscles impart on them.

So, it seems that DOMS may inhibit or promote the strengthening process, depending on which tissues are damaged. I wouldn't say that the methods that promote DOMS are ineffective in strength promotion outright; I've done too much strengthening, accompanied by DOMS, to be able to swear to that. However, the bodybuilding method has shown to be effective, eschewing muscle failure and presumably DOMS.

tendons generally have a much larger capacity for tension than muscles, and their strengthening usually happens naturally along with normally training. however, steroids can have the effect of muscle growth outsripping tendon/ligament strengthening, which has been seen in many bodybuilders. so yes its possible for tendons to snap, but almost never happens under normal conditions.

i didnt mean DOMS is ineffective for hypertrophy training, but that hypertrophy can be done without DOMS. using myself as an example, i have worked hypertrophy while training as a sprinter, because inducing DOMS is a huge no no when youre a sprinter/hurdler.

to the other posters,
whether or not you train to failure may be a product of your goals. training to failure is not good on a regular basis for strength. thats because at high intensities (80+%) cns strain is an issue. also, cementing the proper motor patrterns is important and other things as well. failure and cns stress are not driectly correlated, its intensity and volume that are directly correlated with cns stress. for hypertrophy, failure is different because if you go bodybuilding style you a) use lower intensities, and b) are training a metabolic response, not a cns response.

 

[Eclypse]

tendons generally have a much larger capacity for tension than muscles, and their strengthening usually happens naturally along with normally training.

Where did you learn this? Nothing personal; I'm big on proof and references, particularly since I'm a personal trainer and the reason people listen to me is because I know the meaning behind the things I tell them. I don't claim to be an expert on the growth rates of connective tissues, either; it just seems that if tendons strengthen at a rate to accomodate the muscles, they would either have to perpetually be ahead by design, or they would match the muscles' growth rate. The latter seems more logical...

As a 'beginner' looking for some extra mass, would a programme involving NOT training to failure on each excercise be a good way to go ?

The general consensus is yes. Hopefully it's not the same kind of general consensus as there used to be about spot training. :icon_neut

Also, in at least some of the more recent articles and discussions that I've found on growth, there seems to be a fair body of belief that training each muscle group only ONCE in each given week is a 'good' way to train as this allows adequate recovery time etc.

That's interesting, and if what groo says is right, I'd say it's definitely the way to go. I used to do this kind of training, too, and I got some pretty good results. I was also doing six sets on the muscles at 4-6 reps each; not something I'd recommend for a beginner. That high of intensity can cause problems with your muscles and connective tissues and so on. Since mass is your goal anyway, go for 8-12 reps on your sets.

However, if the one-day-a-week program would still work as well, I don't know. Am I "too strong" for that kind of thing? There are so many factors that go into exercise: single vs. multiple sets, recovery time between workouts for CNS vs. muscular recovery, failure or exhaustion, different strength levels... I'm on a seemingly perpetual quest to see what combination is the most effective, hence why I'm trying a different program now. I'll tell ya, though, the prospect of only having to do a muscle group once a week is high on my list. It was cool back then. I got the idea from a coworker of mine who was much bigger than I was and still getting a good deal of success.

Gugh! If I wasn't trying to figure this other style of exercise out, I'd be pretty tempted to go back to the once-a-week deal, especially now that I'm reviewing my progress around that time. Then again, since I'm trying to figure out the best kind anyway...

Your muscles recover well before your CNS does [in # of days].

Where did you learn this, and how many days does it take to recover?


And, back to the general forum...

So, how is it that the CNS is taxed by exercise? I mean, it's basically just a bunch of nerves and things, right? The nerve fires, the muscle responds, or is too weak to respond fully, and the chain continues. Did someone learn this from a scholastic source, and if so, where from? I also think that the concept of "training the CNS to accept failure" is odd, at best, and so I'd love to see some proof there, too.

 

[prometheus]

Hi Eclypse, thanks for the response, it's good to hear that you had positive results when training the once a week 'system'.
As I've already said, I don't actually 'know' that much about training, just heard a number of different views down the years but the once a week idea seems to be quite popular, so I imagine there must be at least some merit in it.
Only one way to find out how it'll work I suppose, I'll have to get around to giving it a go and see how things progress.
Good stuff, I'm enjoying this thread.

 

[AxeGrinder]

hmmm, interesting stuff....it always feels like I'm cheating myself when I dont do my max, but hell, if it works it works, I try it from now on...