Training till failure?

How often do you train till muscle failure...if at all?

I'd like to hear your opinions on the advantages and disadvantages of this.

Someone knowledgeable in the correlation of failure, CNS, and muscle recovery want to help enlighten me?

Thanks.

As for me:

I actually like the feeling of waking up the next morning and not being able to move so I'll train to muscle failure maybe once a week, but I think much more than that could be detrimental to strength gains and recovery so I'll usually train close to, but not till form failure or get a spot once my form fails.

Hi there,

I am by no means an expert on the subject in any way but I personally don't train to failure for two reasons:

Firstly, I'm fairly new to Gymnastic Strength Training™ so I feel training to failure inhibits my ability to perform 100% from there on for the rest of my routine.

I'm pretty sure it is harder to recover from.

That said, I have read about some people who train that go to failure on rare occassions.

I personally keep a few seconds away from failure with isometric holds, or 1-2 reps if an exercise.

Hope this helps. Thanks

Hi

I personally train till form is compromised, however this for me tends to be at about the same time as failure. However i try to avoid total failure, but unfortunately i dont always listen to my advice, old habits die hard (having a bodybuilding background)

Training till failure is most effective in developing hypertrophy. This is because this does the most amount of structural damage to the muscle fibers. This is essential for hypertrophy as it stimulates the necessary body responses to elicit muscular growth. However this is not always very effective in recruiting new, motor units, and it most certainly doesn't

effectively train the working motor units firing rate.

Bodybuilders usually train till failure, with sets of about 10-15, with a load that is about 75-85% of 1RM. They will train 1-2 body parts at a time and give ample time for recovery, which can be about 3-4 days per body parts to recover. This makes sense as the muscles need a couple of days to recovery from the intense beating they get from such a training scheme.

This on the other hand would be impractical for athletes, who for 1 need to manage their weight to strength ratio, have to train skills (gymnastics being a good example). Having legs that are useless for 3 days because they are so sore if not very productive.

So the obvious advantage gained is that their muscles grow in size, but not necessarily proportionally in strength (as strength is a function of muscle cross-sectional area, fiber type %, # of active motor-units, and their firing rate). This explains why weightlifters are not as bulcky as bodybuilders but are able to handle amazing weights and lift them over their heads. It is also a good reason as to why most athletes do not look or want to look like body builders. Their training goals are different, and body buildinng and powerlifting are the only sports where Hypertrophy is a regular focus of training, and even in powerlifting hypertrophy is cycled with pure strength training.

To train the CNS, you need a more plyometric training method, where the emphasis is on power (relatively heavy weight about 60% of 1RM, at high velocities) rather then absolute strength. Hence why athletic training (gymnastics included) is so different to weightlifting, and bodybuilding.

Hi Valentin,

Thanks for that informative and well written post. I wonder if you would mind expanding on it with:

a) Your take on how low-rep 'pure strength' training fits in regarding firing rates, motor-unit recruitment and effects on CNS.

b) The extent of carry-over from plyometric training to strength, and strength to plymetric work as well?

That would then cover hypertrophy, power, strength, and the relationships between them in the same thread - which a number of people (myself included) would probably find very useful.

Many thanks,

George.

P.s. Hope this mild hijacking of your thread is OK, ts00nami?

im interested as well if he's willing

[=

Hi George

Good questions. This is the problem with physiology, everything is one big mesh, and things never work independently, which is why its so hard to accommodate for all variables, but also part of our great adaptive nature.

Your take on how low-rep 'pure strength' training fits in regarding firing rates, motor-unit recruitment and effects on CNS.

As i said in earlier post, hypertrophy is largely a result of muscle adapting to the load by increasing in cross-sectional area (the mechanisms don't really matter in this post). However even with low rep rep training there is very little muscle damage/breakdown (for lack of better term), so there must be other mechanisms at play. Predominantly, strength gains come as a result of either motor-units recruitment, or increase in firing rates, or a combination of both, and a small contribution from hypertrophy. However this only happens by working at maximal intensity. Hence why doing low reps, at a medium intensity (so like 70% of 1RM) yields poor results.

In the initial stages of any training program results are mainly the result of improved neural adaptations, as the brain learns how to generate more force from a given amount of contractile tissue. This is continues of after the initial quick gains, just much slower. ESPECIALLY in experienced athletes.

The extent of carry-over from plyometric training to strength, and strength to plyometric work as well?

Humm this is a good question. I have read studies that show that strength training has a positive carry over effect with regard to power training, but plyometric (specifically) training independently doesn't carry-over anywhere near as well to strength. A combination of both, does show to have a decent results but not ideal.

This natuaraly makes sense, given that a certain level of strength is needed before one can effectively engage in plyometric training. We have all heard that you have to be able to squat 1.5times body weight before you can engage in plyometric exercise, so thinking along the lines of this rule of thumb/guideline it does makes sense.

Plyometric training predominantly improves the neurological mechanisms for performance improvements of specific actions, such as rebounding, throwing, jumping etc...but these are very specific movements (velocity of contraction, duration, joint ROM etc). Because plyometric training like power training requires maximal effort, with medium resistance and low repetition (=2 - 6 reps), it makes sense that it does not improve hypertrophy a great deal, or carry over to strength gains. But rather its purpose is to train the body to effectively make dude of the strength it available to the individual.

I hope this helps

Thanks Valentin, it's a great help!

That all ties in with my rather basic understanding of the concepts, and is a clear and concise explanation for any number of interested people to get their teeth into. Thanks for sparing some of your weekend to help out.

Cheers,

George.