to fail or not to fail?

I don't know. I am sorry. Goodluck though., working out and all

Robert Marlow said:

I've seen a lot of conflicting stories about whether sets should be
performed to failure or not. I was wondering if people here could clarify
the situation for me.

If it depends on goals, my background is that my wife and I are training
for general strength and endurance. I'm also aiming to get benefits out of
weight training for martial arts. Right now we've been doing about 2 sets
of each exercise (after a warm-up exercise), each with the same weight and
aiming to fail between 8 and 15 reps on the second set only. We've been
doing that for about 4 weeks now and have seen about a 20% improvement in
the weight we can lift in that time. On the other hand, I haven't been
working to failure with leg presses but seem to be improving much more
rapidly with that exercise. I don't know whether this is because I'm not
working to failure or some other reason.

From what I've read, going to failure is hard on your CNS and your mind.
It can also lead to injury as form breaks down.

If it's working for you, and you're carefully spotted, maybe you're
okay? But if you think you might improve faster without working to
failure, why not give it a try?

Preacher said:

From what I've read, going to failure is hard on your CNS and your mind.
It can also lead to injury as form breaks down.

If it's working for you, and you're carefully spotted, maybe you're
okay? But if you think you might improve faster without working to
failure, why not give it a try?

Thanks. I'd heard about it being difficult on the CNS as well. I'm not
sure why, but when I first started researching weight training it seemed
everywhere spoke of training to failure as if it was common knowledge that
that was how to train. So that's how I trained. Now I'm finding more and
more people saying it's not the best way to train. I'm just looking for
some evidence either way. The CNS point is one I'll need to take into
consideration and look into more.

For anyone who does know conclusively that training to failure is a bad
idea, perhaps you could clarify it on the wikipedia entry which started me
on this track to begin with:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weight_Training
After you've explained it to me of course 🙂

The above article sources this one which seems to support what I've been
doing:
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0801/is_10_65/ai_n6237328
I'm confuzzled 🙁

(Preacher) said:

Robert Marlow said:

I've seen a lot of conflicting stories about whether sets should be
performed to failure or not. I was wondering if people here could clarify
the situation for me.

If it depends on goals, my background is that my wife and I are training
for general strength and endurance. I'm also aiming to get benefits out of
weight training for martial arts. Right now we've been doing about 2 sets
of each exercise (after a warm-up exercise), each with the same weight and
aiming to fail between 8 and 15 reps on the second set only. We've been
doing that for about 4 weeks now and have seen about a 20% improvement in
the weight we can lift in that time. On the other hand, I haven't been
working to failure with leg presses but seem to be improving much more
rapidly with that exercise. I don't know whether this is because I'm not
working to failure or some other reason.

From what I've read, going to failure is hard on your CNS and your mind.
It can also lead to injury as form breaks down.

"Hard on your CNS"? I doubt it causes any real problems for your
central nervous system. What it does is to train neural patterns that
are inconsistent with a successful, completed lift; that would not be
good for powerlifting. Beyond setting those neural patterns, any
central and local neural fatigue will be temporary, although that,
too, could interfere with training for maximum strength.

"Failure" may be beneficial for hypertrophy, though. A recently
published study found that going beyond maximal repetitions, past
failure into forced repetitions, led to slightly higher increases in
testosterone and free testosterone, moderately higher increases in
cortisol levels, and much higher increases in grow hormone levels,
than simply going to maximal repetitons. By the same token, isometric
strength dropped much faster after each set with forced reps, and
three days later, it was still below the isometric strength level of
those using maximal reps.

Simply put, going past failure into forced reps may be beneficial to
bodybuilders but not to powerlifters.
--

JMW
http://www.rustyiron.net

Quoted message said:

JMW said:

Simply put, going past failure into forced reps may be
beneficial to bodybuilders but not to powerlifters.

Not if it leads to increased injury due to breakdown in
form or direct damage due to exceeding the compressive
or tensile threshold of the structures stressed.

Conflating "lifting beyond one's capacity" and reps to
failure is not helpful.

Quoted message said:

I have seen more injuries coming as a result of training
to failure which then leads to long layoffs from the
need to recover from the injury.

Please detail the injuries you have personally seen as a
result of lifting to failure. You are starting to sound
like John Coates.

Quoted message said:

Slow steady gains by never training to failure is the surest
and safest way to both gain muscle and get stronger IMO.

Yes. It is not the only option. Some of your own practices
demonstrate that you recognize that.

Quoted message said:

Lifting too heavy too quickly and training to failure is
the surest way to get injured IMO.

"Lifting too heavy too quickly" and "training to failure" are
not the same thing. See above.

I reported findings from a study published in a recognized
journal:

Ahtiainen JP, Pakarinen A, Kraemer WJ, Hakkinen K. Acute
hormonal and neuromuscular responses and recovery to forced
vs maximum repetitions multiple resistance exercises. Int J
Sports Med. 2003 Aug;24(6):410-8.

I assume you can do the same regarding your claims.

JMW said:

"Failure" may be beneficial for hypertrophy, though. A recently
published study found that going beyond maximal repetitions, past
failure into forced repetitions, led to slightly higher increases in
testosterone and free testosterone, moderately higher increases in
cortisol levels, and much higher increases in grow hormone levels,
than simply going to maximal repetitons. By the same token, isometric
strength dropped much faster after each set with forced reps, and
three days later, it was still below the isometric strength level of
those using maximal reps.

Doesn't it beg the question to suggest that these slight increases in
hormonal levels will lead to significant differences in adaptive
response? If the premise is true, would this difference be offset by
the longer recovery period? How do these results compare to simply
increasing the intensity (or alternately, increasing the number of sets
performed)?

-Adam

Adam Fahy said:

JMW said:

"Failure" may be beneficial for hypertrophy, though. A recently
published study found that going beyond maximal repetitions, past
failure into forced repetitions, led to slightly higher increases in
testosterone and free testosterone, moderately higher increases in
cortisol levels, and much higher increases in grow hormone levels,
than simply going to maximal repetitons. By the same token, isometric
strength dropped much faster after each set with forced reps, and
three days later, it was still below the isometric strength level of
those using maximal reps.

Doesn't it beg the question to suggest that these slight increases in
hormonal levels will lead to significant differences in adaptive
response? If the premise is true, would this difference be offset by
the longer recovery period? How do these results compare to simply
increasing the intensity (or alternately, increasing the number of sets
performed)?

Read the article:

Ahtiainen JP, Pakarinen A, Kraemer WJ, Hakkinen K. Acute
hormonal and neuromuscular responses and recovery to forced
vs maximum repetitions multiple resistance exercises. Int J
Sports Med. 2003 Aug;24(6):410-8.

I'm not saying that it's the best, all-around program, or that it
should be used consistently. But it does jab a pointy stick at the
doctrine which says there's never any reason to go to failure.
--

JMW
http://www.rustyiron.net

In article <[email hidden]>, JMW

Quoted message said:

Adam Fahy said:

JMW said:

"Failure" may be beneficial for hypertrophy, though. A recently
published study found that going beyond maximal repetitions, past
failure into forced repetitions, led to slightly higher increases in
testosterone and free testosterone, moderately higher increases in
cortisol levels, and much higher increases in grow hormone levels,
than simply going to maximal repetitons. By the same token, isometric
strength dropped much faster after each set with forced reps, and
three days later, it was still below the isometric strength level of
those using maximal reps.

Doesn't it beg the question to suggest that these slight increases in
hormonal levels will lead to significant differences in adaptive
response? If the premise is true, would this difference be offset by
the longer recovery period? How do these results compare to simply
increasing the intensity (or alternately, increasing the number of sets
performed)?

Read the article:

Ahtiainen JP, Pakarinen A, Kraemer WJ, Hakkinen K. Acute
hormonal and neuromuscular responses and recovery to forced
vs maximum repetitions multiple resistance exercises. Int J
Sports Med. 2003 Aug;24(6):410-8.

I'm not saying that it's the best, all-around program, or that it
should be used consistently. But it does jab a pointy stick at the
doctrine which says there's never any reason to go to failure.

The article compares going to failure with forced reps.

And concludes basically that if you do forced reps you can't do as much
isometrically in the period after. So basically you are back to
specificity and still begs the question...

Is the neuromuscular response achieved (inhibition of isometric strength
following forced reps) desirable? For who?

I don't see a very sharp tip on your stick.

--
Keith

(Hobbes) said:

JMW said:

Adam Fahy said:

JMW wrote:

> "Failure" may be beneficial for hypertrophy, though. A recently
> published study found that going beyond maximal repetitions, past
> failure into forced repetitions, led to slightly higher increases in
> testosterone and free testosterone, moderately higher increases in
> cortisol levels, and much higher increases in grow hormone levels,
> than simply going to maximal repetitons. By the same token, isometric
> strength dropped much faster after each set with forced reps, and
> three days later, it was still below the isometric strength level of
> those using maximal reps.

Doesn't it beg the question to suggest that these slight increases in
hormonal levels will lead to significant differences in adaptive
response? If the premise is true, would this difference be offset by
the longer recovery period? How do these results compare to simply
increasing the intensity (or alternately, increasing the number of sets
performed)?

Read the article:

Ahtiainen JP, Pakarinen A, Kraemer WJ, Hakkinen K. Acute
hormonal and neuromuscular responses and recovery to forced
vs maximum repetitions multiple resistance exercises. Int J
Sports Med. 2003 Aug;24(6):410-8.

I'm not saying that it's the best, all-around program, or that it
should be used consistently. But it does jab a pointy stick at the
doctrine which says there's never any reason to go to failure.

The article compares going to failure with forced reps.

And concludes basically that if you do forced reps you can't do as much
isometrically in the period after. So basically you are back to
specificity and still begs the question...

Is the neuromuscular response achieved (inhibition of isometric strength
following forced reps) desirable? For who?

I don't see a very sharp tip on your stick.

Perhaps your powerlifter indoctrination prevents you from feeling it.
Do you ever think in different terms?

First, it does take more recovery time, but the payoff may be more.
The authors opined that the "forced rep (FR) protocol may produce
greater central and peripheral fatigue compared to maximum reps (MR)
where fatigue was caused mostly by peripheral factors." Recovery may
be longer because of the involvement of central fatigue, but that
central fatigue will be temporary.

In exchange, they considered that the "higher GH response in FR than
in MR indicate that the usage of the forced repetitions may be
beneficial for the development of muscle mass and muscle strength
during strength training." Thus, such a program may be useful for
bodybuilders seeking to improve muscular hypertrophy.

Not everyone is looking primarily at entraining optimum neuromuscular
patterns for executing a specific lift, Keith.
--

JMW
http://www.rustyiron.net

In article <[email hidden]>, JMW

Quoted message said:

(Hobbes) said:

JMW said:

Adam Fahy <[email hidden]> wrote:
>
>JMW wrote:
>
>> "Failure" may be beneficial for hypertrophy, though. A recently
>> published study found that going beyond maximal repetitions, past
>> failure into forced repetitions, led to slightly higher increases in
>> testosterone and free testosterone, moderately higher increases in
>> cortisol levels, and much higher increases in grow hormone levels,
>> than simply going to maximal repetitons. By the same token, isometric
>> strength dropped much faster after each set with forced reps, and
>> three days later, it was still below the isometric strength level of
>> those using maximal reps.
>
>Doesn't it beg the question to suggest that these slight increases in
>hormonal levels will lead to significant differences in adaptive
>response? If the premise is true, would this difference be offset by
>the longer recovery period? How do these results compare to simply
>increasing the intensity (or alternately, increasing the number of sets
>performed)?

Read the article:

Ahtiainen JP, Pakarinen A, Kraemer WJ, Hakkinen K. Acute
hormonal and neuromuscular responses and recovery to forced
vs maximum repetitions multiple resistance exercises. Int J
Sports Med. 2003 Aug;24(6):410-8.

I'm not saying that it's the best, all-around program, or that it
should be used consistently. But it does jab a pointy stick at the
doctrine which says there's never any reason to go to failure.

The article compares going to failure with forced reps.

And concludes basically that if you do forced reps you can't do as much
isometrically in the period after. So basically you are back to
specificity and still begs the question...

Is the neuromuscular response achieved (inhibition of isometric strength
following forced reps) desirable? For who?

I don't see a very sharp tip on your stick.

Perhaps your powerlifter indoctrination prevents you from feeling it.
Do you ever think in different terms?

Olympic lifter. I'm all about strength and power, baby!

:^)

But my point was the study doesn't really address _not_ going to failure.
In another study by the same authors they note that hypertrophy appears
tied into hormonal responses, which they note here aren't significantly
different with these protocols. And the forced reps appear to inhibit
short-term neurological efficiency of isometric strength production
anyhow.

So would they find the same hormonal response working to 80-90% with
increased recovery efficiency and opportunities for more frequent bouts of
training?

And then of course, the question becomes does the more frequent training
and possibly slightly less hormonal response offset the benefit of GH
increases, less frequent training and neural fatigue? I think that is a
good question.

Quoted message said:

First, it does take more recovery time, but the payoff may be more.
The authors opined that the "forced rep (FR) protocol may produce
greater central and peripheral fatigue compared to maximum reps (MR)
where fatigue was caused mostly by peripheral factors." Recovery may
be longer because of the involvement of central fatigue, but that
central fatigue will be temporary.

In exchange, they considered that the "higher GH response in FR than
in MR indicate that the usage of the forced repetitions may be
beneficial for the development of muscle mass and muscle strength
during strength training." Thus, such a program may be useful for
bodybuilders seeking to improve muscular hypertrophy.

Note in this study they say:

"Both loading protocols led to the great acute increases (p < 0.050.001)
in serum testosterone, free testosterone, cortisol and GH concentrations."

In the study

European Journal of Applied Physiology
Publisher: Springer-Verlag GmbH
ISSN: 1439-6319 (Paper) 1439-6327 (Online)
DOI: 10.1007/s00421-003-0833-3
Issue: Volume 89, Number 6
Date: August 2003
Pages: 555 - 563

Muscle hypertrophy, hormonal adaptations and strength development during
strength training in strength-trained and untrained men

Juha P. Ahtiainen A1, Arto Pakarinen A2, Markku Alen A3, William J.
Kraemer A4, Keijo Häkkinen A1

They note "The correlations between T and the changes in isometric
strength and in muscle CSA suggest that both serum basal testosterone
concentrations and training-induced changes in acute testosterone
responses may be important factors for strength development and muscle
hypertrophy."

And make no conjectures at all about GH factors.

Quoted message said:

Not everyone is looking primarily at entraining optimum neuromuscular
patterns for executing a specific lift, Keith.

Not saying they do, John. I'm merely saying that this study compares
failure to going beyond failure and doesn't really address not going to
failure. I think your point that going to failure and beyond may have
implications for hypertrophy is a good one. Certainly some bodybuilders
have made good use of these methods. (Dorian Yates comes to mind.)

I just don't think the study shows anything conclusively in regard to
this. And where the some bodybuilders who have made good gains with
failure are used as an example I suspect the training enduced hormonal
response is mild compared to what they are taking in other forms. So it
seems to be a rather dull stick is all I'm saying.

--
Keith

(Hobbes) said:

In article <[email hidden]>, JMW

Quoted message said:

(Hobbes) said:

JMW <[email hidden]> wrote:
>
> Adam Fahy <[email hidden]> wrote:
> >
> >JMW wrote:
> >
> >> "Failure" may be beneficial for hypertrophy, though. A recently
> >> published study found that going beyond maximal repetitions, past
> >> failure into forced repetitions, led to slightly higher increases in
> >> testosterone and free testosterone, moderately higher increases in
> >> cortisol levels, and much higher increases in grow hormone levels,
> >> than simply going to maximal repetitons. By the same token, isometric
> >> strength dropped much faster after each set with forced reps, and
> >> three days later, it was still below the isometric strength level of
> >> those using maximal reps.
> >
> >Doesn't it beg the question to suggest that these slight increases in
> >hormonal levels will lead to significant differences in adaptive
> >response? If the premise is true, would this difference be offset by
> >the longer recovery period? How do these results compare to simply
> >increasing the intensity (or alternately, increasing the number of sets
> >performed)?
>
> Read the article:
>
> Ahtiainen JP, Pakarinen A, Kraemer WJ, Hakkinen K. Acute
> hormonal and neuromuscular responses and recovery to forced
> vs maximum repetitions multiple resistance exercises. Int J
> Sports Med. 2003 Aug;24(6):410-8.
>
> I'm not saying that it's the best, all-around program, or that it
> should be used consistently. But it does jab a pointy stick at the
> doctrine which says there's never any reason to go to failure.

The article compares going to failure with forced reps.

And concludes basically that if you do forced reps you can't do as much
isometrically in the period after. So basically you are back to
specificity and still begs the question...

Is the neuromuscular response achieved (inhibition of isometric strength
following forced reps) desirable? For who?

I don't see a very sharp tip on your stick.

Perhaps your powerlifter indoctrination prevents you from feeling it.
Do you ever think in different terms?

Olympic lifter. I'm all about strength and power, baby!

:^)

But my point was the study doesn't really address _not_ going to failure.
In another study by the same authors they note that hypertrophy appears
tied into hormonal responses, which they note here aren't significantly
different with these protocols. And the forced reps appear to inhibit
short-term neurological efficiency of isometric strength production
anyhow.

So would they find the same hormonal response working to 80-90% with
increased recovery efficiency and opportunities for more frequent bouts of
training?

And then of course, the question becomes does the more frequent training
and possibly slightly less hormonal response offset the benefit of GH
increases, less frequent training and neural fatigue? I think that is a
good question.

I don't think they really looked at the long-term effect, and they
noted that it needs to be studied. But the potential is there.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

First, it does take more recovery time, but the payoff may be more.
The authors opined that the "forced rep (FR) protocol may produce
greater central and peripheral fatigue compared to maximum reps (MR)
where fatigue was caused mostly by peripheral factors." Recovery may
be longer because of the involvement of central fatigue, but that
central fatigue will be temporary.

In exchange, they considered that the "higher GH response in FR than
in MR indicate that the usage of the forced repetitions may be
beneficial for the development of muscle mass and muscle strength
during strength training." Thus, such a program may be useful for
bodybuilders seeking to improve muscular hypertrophy.

Note in this study they say:

"Both loading protocols led to the great acute increases (p < 0.050.001)
in serum testosterone, free testosterone, cortisol and GH concentrations."

But note that all hormonal responses were higher for the FR protocol
than for the MR protocol. They did not find greater increases in
testosterone levels that were deemed statistically significant, except
for total testerone during the particularly exhaustive leg press
sessions. Still, the total T and free T levels were higher FR than
for MR. See Fig. 4.

Quoted message said:

In the study

European Journal of Applied Physiology
Publisher: Springer-Verlag GmbH
ISSN: 1439-6319 (Paper) 1439-6327 (Online)
DOI: 10.1007/s00421-003-0833-3
Issue: Volume 89, Number 6
Date: August 2003
Pages: 555 - 563

Muscle hypertrophy, hormonal adaptations and strength development during
strength training in strength-trained and untrained men

Juha P. Ahtiainen A1, Arto Pakarinen A2, Markku Alen A3, William J.
Kraemer A4, Keijo Häkkinen A1

They note "The correlations between T and the changes in isometric
strength and in muscle CSA suggest that both serum basal testosterone
concentrations and training-induced changes in acute testosterone
responses may be important factors for strength development and muscle
hypertrophy."

And make no conjectures at all about GH factors.

The effects are almost certainly additive. And note my above comment
about testosterone levels still being higher for FR than for MR

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Not everyone is looking primarily at entraining optimum neuromuscular
patterns for executing a specific lift, Keith.

Not saying they do, John. I'm merely saying that this study compares
failure to going beyond failure and doesn't really address not going to
failure. I think your point that going to failure and beyond may have
implications for hypertrophy is a good one. Certainly some bodybuilders
have made good use of these methods. (Dorian Yates comes to mind.)

I just don't think the study shows anything conclusively in regard to
this. And where the some bodybuilders who have made good gains with
failure are used as an example I suspect the training enduced hormonal
response is mild compared to what they are taking in other forms. So it
seems to be a rather dull stick is all I'm saying.

I wasn't addressing this to untested bodybuilders. Keep in mind that
powerlifters and Olympic lifters were also notorious for exogenous
androgen use before testing started. In fact, a look at the USAPL
site will demonstrate that many still do are, despite the testing.

They may need to be more fussy about training regimens if they want to
pass the urine test. And forced reps may be a tool to consider.
--

JMW
http://www.rustyiron.net

Hobbes said:

In article <[email hidden]>, JMW
<[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>Read the article:
>
>Ahtiainen JP, Pakarinen A, Kraemer WJ, Hakkinen K. Acute
>hormonal and neuromuscular responses and recovery to forced
>vs maximum repetitions multiple resistance exercises. Int J
>Sports Med. 2003 Aug;24(6):410-8.

Quoted message said:

In the study

European Journal of Applied Physiology
Publisher: Springer-Verlag GmbH
ISSN: 1439-6319 (Paper) 1439-6327 (Online)
DOI: 10.1007/s00421-003-0833-3
Issue: Volume 89, Number 6
Date: August 2003
Pages: 555 - 563

Muscle hypertrophy, hormonal adaptations and strength development during
strength training in strength-trained and untrained men

Juha P. Ahtiainen A1, Arto Pakarinen A2, Markku Alen A3, William J.
Kraemer A4, Keijo Häkkinen A1

Hey, do you guys (or anyone) have full copies of these articles you
could email me?

-Adam

In article <RlIXd.66533$t46.37733@trndny04>, Adam Fahy

Quoted message said:

Hobbes said:

In article <[email hidden]>, JMW
<[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>Read the article:
>>
>>Ahtiainen JP, Pakarinen A, Kraemer WJ, Hakkinen K. Acute
>>hormonal and neuromuscular responses and recovery to forced
>>vs maximum repetitions multiple resistance exercises. Int J
>>Sports Med. 2003 Aug;24(6):410-8.

Quoted message said:

In the study

European Journal of Applied Physiology
Publisher: Springer-Verlag GmbH
ISSN: 1439-6319 (Paper) 1439-6327 (Online)
DOI: 10.1007/s00421-003-0833-3
Issue: Volume 89, Number 6
Date: August 2003
Pages: 555 - 563

Muscle hypertrophy, hormonal adaptations and strength development during
strength training in strength-trained and untrained men

Juha P. Ahtiainen A1, Arto Pakarinen A2, Markku Alen A3, William J.
Kraemer A4, Keijo Häkkinen A1

Hey, do you guys (or anyone) have full copies of these articles you
could email me?

Available on Springer if you have access.

--
Keith

Adam Fahy said:

Hobbes said:

In article <[email hidden]>, JMW
<[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>Read the article:
>>
>>Ahtiainen JP, Pakarinen A, Kraemer WJ, Hakkinen K. Acute
>>hormonal and neuromuscular responses and recovery to forced
>>vs maximum repetitions multiple resistance exercises. Int J
>>Sports Med. 2003 Aug;24(6):410-8.

Quoted message said:

In the study

European Journal of Applied Physiology
Publisher: Springer-Verlag GmbH
ISSN: 1439-6319 (Paper) 1439-6327 (Online)
DOI: 10.1007/s00421-003-0833-3
Issue: Volume 89, Number 6
Date: August 2003
Pages: 555 - 563

Muscle hypertrophy, hormonal adaptations and strength development

during

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

strength training in strength-trained and untrained men

Juha P. Ahtiainen A1, Arto Pakarinen A2, Markku Alen A3, William J.
Kraemer A4, Keijo Häkkinen A1

Hey, do you guys (or anyone) have full copies of these articles you
could email me?

I'd be happy to email you copies of these papers and several other
related to this topic if you desire. But I need an email address. Or
you can contact Keith; he has my email address at work.

Also, this very topic was recently discussed in depth on Lyle's forum,
if you are interested in a platform with a wider viewpoint.

Hobbes said:

In article <[email hidden]>, JMW

Quoted message said:

(Hobbes) said:

JMW <[email hidden]> wrote:
>
> Adam Fahy <[email hidden]> wrote:
> >
> >JMW wrote:
> >
> >> "Failure" may be beneficial for hypertrophy, though. A

recently

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> >> published study found that going beyond maximal repetitions,

past

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> >> failure into forced repetitions, led to slightly higher

increases in

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> >> testosterone and free testosterone, moderately higher

increases in

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> >> cortisol levels, and much higher increases in grow hormone

levels,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> >> than simply going to maximal repetitons. By the same token,

isometric

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> >> strength dropped much faster after each set with forced reps,

and

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> >> three days later, it was still below the isometric strength

level of

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> >> those using maximal reps.
> >
> >Doesn't it beg the question to suggest that these slight

increases in

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> >hormonal levels will lead to significant differences in

adaptive

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> >response? If the premise is true, would this difference be

offset by

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> >the longer recovery period? How do these results compare to

simply

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> >increasing the intensity (or alternately, increasing the number

of sets

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> >performed)?
>
> Read the article:
>
> Ahtiainen JP, Pakarinen A, Kraemer WJ, Hakkinen K. Acute
> hormonal and neuromuscular responses and recovery to forced
> vs maximum repetitions multiple resistance exercises. Int J
> Sports Med. 2003 Aug;24(6):410-8.
>
> I'm not saying that it's the best, all-around program, or that

it

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> should be used consistently. But it does jab a pointy stick at

the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> doctrine which says there's never any reason to go to failure.

The article compares going to failure with forced reps.

And concludes basically that if you do forced reps you can't do as

much

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

isometrically in the period after. So basically you are back to
specificity and still begs the question...

Is the neuromuscular response achieved (inhibition of isometric

strength

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

following forced reps) desirable? For who?

I don't see a very sharp tip on your stick.

Perhaps your powerlifter indoctrination prevents you from feeling

it.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Do you ever think in different terms?

Olympic lifter. I'm all about strength and power, baby!

:^)

But my point was the study doesn't really address _not_ going to

failure.

Quoted message said:

In another study by the same authors they note that hypertrophy

appears

Quoted message said:

tied into hormonal responses, which they note here aren't

significantly

Quoted message said:

different with these protocols. And the forced reps appear to inhibit
short-term neurological efficiency of isometric strength production
anyhow.

So would they find the same hormonal response working to 80-90% with
increased recovery efficiency and opportunities for more frequent

bouts of

Quoted message said:

training?

And then of course, the question becomes does the more frequent

training

Quoted message said:

and possibly slightly less hormonal response offset the benefit of GH
increases, less frequent training and neural fatigue? I think that is

a

Quoted message said:

good question.

There are several issues here:
1. comparing methodology: and given Kraemer and Hakkinen's reputations
for biases, conclusions (and thus interpretations) of their studies
have to be carefully considered.
2. muscle adaptation, including hypertrophy, is an accrued event. Acute
and chronic response can be considered independently and
synergistically. Regardless, the end result is the product of acute and
repeated bouts, plus the local and systemic environment. The acute
response changes depending on the preceeding bouts.

What ultimately matters is the pattern of responses over time, and as a
whole (i.e. overall system, not just one hormone independently). That
includes systemic hormonal environment. Thus an acute bout response is
often different than those of repeated bouts over a period of time.
Which the above study does not reflect. Measurement of hormone levels
after an acute bout of exercise will not/does not reflect the pattern
over time, which is ultimately what matters most. Thus, extrapolations
from this are very limited.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

First, it does take more recovery time, but the payoff may be more.
The authors opined that the "forced rep (FR) protocol may produce
greater central and peripheral fatigue compared to maximum reps

(MR)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

where fatigue was caused mostly by peripheral factors." Recovery

may

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

be longer because of the involvement of central fatigue, but that
central fatigue will be temporary.

In exchange, they considered that the "higher GH response in FR

than

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

in MR indicate that the usage of the forced repetitions may be
beneficial for the development of muscle mass and muscle strength
during strength training." Thus, such a program may be useful for
bodybuilders seeking to improve muscular hypertrophy.

Note in this study they say:

"Both loading protocols led to the great acute increases (p <

0.050.001)

Quoted message said:

in serum testosterone, free testosterone, cortisol and GH

concentrations."

Quoted message said:

In the study

European Journal of Applied Physiology
Issue: Volume 89, Number 6
Date: August 2003

Muscle hypertrophy, hormonal adaptations and strength development

during

Quoted message said:

strength training in strength-trained and untrained men

Juha P. Ahtiainen A1, Arto Pakarinen A2, Markku Alen A3, William J.
Kraemer A4, Keijo Häkkinen A1

They note "The correlations between T and the changes in isometric
strength and in muscle CSA suggest that both serum basal testosterone
concentrations and training-induced changes in acute testosterone
responses may be important factors for strength development and

muscle

Quoted message said:

hypertrophy."

And make no conjectures at all about GH factors.

And the only physiological processes that exercise-induced GH release
is relavant to are fat loss and gluconeogenesis. Endurance training
elicits a huge GH release; are they 'big'? No. They sure are lean,
though. More studies than not (good ones, that is) demonstrate that
exercise-induced GH is not correlated with hypertrophy and/or increases
in muscle mass. So, in that context, the GH response is irrelevant.

The other issue to consider that the fatigue/forced-rep protocol is
high stress induction. What they demonstrated was a stress response
model: high GH and cortisol release, transient increase in testosterone
and catecholamines (they didn't measure those, but I know they were
elevated as well), and I'm sure other stress-related paramters
increased as well, such as cytokines, etc. It's a classical stress
response. And you can't repeat that frequently without overtraining. So
then you'll see any benefits in anabolism take a nose-dive.

As I mentioned to you over breakfast, there are many things they didn't
look at: patterns in hormonse levels over time, binding proteins, diet
influence, etc. For instance, stress will increase clearance of many
hormones, so you see a transient spike followed by a nose-dive below
baseline after a short period of time; the ratio of
cortisol:testosterone, which also changes over time as cortisol
clearance rates differ from T's rate, so cortisol remains elevated over
time wherease T does not, etc.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Not everyone is looking primarily at entraining optimum

neuromuscular

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

patterns for executing a specific lift, Keith.

Not saying they do, John. I'm merely saying that this study compares
failure to going beyond failure and doesn't really address not going

to

Quoted message said:

failure. I think your point that going to failure and beyond may have
implications for hypertrophy is a good one. Certainly some

bodybuilders

Quoted message said:

have made good use of these methods. (Dorian Yates comes to mind.)

I just don't think the study shows anything conclusively in regard to
this. And where the some bodybuilders who have made good gains with
failure are used as an example I suspect the training enduced

hormonal

Quoted message said:

response is mild compared to what they are taking in other forms. So

it

Quoted message said:

seems to be a rather dull stick is all I'm saying.

Very dull stick. There's more to refute the 'benefit' of failure over
other training protocols as well. For example, as I mentioned to you
the other day, muscle CSA (and protein synthesis) was demonstrated to
increase post-training (high intensity eccentric group and group of
moderate intensity using both concentric and eccentric movements)
despite absence of fiber damage in the muscles worked in either group
(refutes both assertions of requisites training to failure and muscle
damage).

The only benefit I can see from training to failure is increased motor
unit and/or fiber recruitment, which is also debatable. The explanation
suggested by many researchers for the bodybuilding phenotype is 1)
bypertrophy of both Type I and II fibers, 2) a predisposition of
weightlifters who have a greater ratio of Type I to Type II fibers to
bodybuild. THus training to failure may induce preferential hypertrophy
of the Type I fibers as well as their type II fibers. This was
explained very nicely in an excellent review, which I might be able to
find, or not...

We discussed a lot of these points in the thread I referred to.

Ciao

elzinator said:

Adam Fahy said:

Hobbes said:

In article <[email hidden]>, JMW
<[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

>>> Read the article:
>>>
>>> Ahtiainen JP, Pakarinen A, Kraemer WJ, Hakkinen K. Acute
>>> hormonal and neuromuscular responses and recovery to forced
>>> vs maximum repetitions multiple resistance exercises. Int J
>>> Sports Med. 2003 Aug;24(6):410-8.

Quoted message said:

In the study

European Journal of Applied Physiology
Publisher: Springer-Verlag GmbH
ISSN: 1439-6319 (Paper) 1439-6327 (Online)
DOI: 10.1007/s00421-003-0833-3
Issue: Volume 89, Number 6
Date: August 2003
Pages: 555 - 563

Muscle hypertrophy, hormonal adaptations and strength development
during strength training in strength-trained and untrained men

Juha P. Ahtiainen A1, Arto Pakarinen A2, Markku Alen A3, William J.
Kraemer A4, Keijo Häkkinen A1

Hey, do you guys (or anyone) have full copies of these articles you
could email me?

I'd be happy to email you copies of these papers and several other
related to this topic if you desire. But I need an email address. Or
you can contact Keith; he has my email address at work.

Also, this very topic was recently discussed in depth on Lyle's forum,
if you are interested in a platform with a wider viewpoint.

Yay, you're back!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 🙂
--
-Larry

Elzi made my head explode again.

JIm

Jim said:

Elzi made my head explode again.

JIm

More or less:

1) GH alone doesn't make you hyooge.

2) Frequently training to failure is counterproductive for most
people, unless maybe you're a genetic freak.

-----------
Proton Soup

"And all this peace has been deceiving,
I need some wind to get me sailing"

"Jim" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Elzi made my head explode again.

JIm

I know what you mean - she is a man among men!