Training to Failure Revisited

DZ said:

JMW said:

Another interesting perspective ...

"Bench press training that leads to repetition failure induces greater
strength gains than nonfailure training in the bench press exercise
for elite junior team sport athletes."

Drinkwater EJ, Lawton TW, Lindsell RP, Pyne DB, Hunt PH, McKenna MJ.
Training leading to repetition failure enhances bench press strength
gains in elite junior athletes. J Strength Cond Res. 2005
May;19(2):382-8.

The two groups were lifting the same total number of reps and the same
weight. It was (6 reps x 4 sets) vs. (3 reps x 8 sets) with the weight
they could lift about 6 times when fresh.

Which would seem to approximate, as closely as possible, an "all else
equal" protocol, yes?

Quoted message said:

So of two non-optimal setups
the first is better.

Which leaves an undefined "optimal" setup that could be used across
the board, yes? And you can provide that definition?
--

JMW
http://www.rustyiron.net

In article <[email hidden]>, JMW

Quoted message said:

DZ said:

JMW said:

Another interesting perspective ...

"Bench press training that leads to repetition failure induces greater
strength gains than nonfailure training in the bench press exercise
for elite junior team sport athletes."

Drinkwater EJ, Lawton TW, Lindsell RP, Pyne DB, Hunt PH, McKenna MJ.
Training leading to repetition failure enhances bench press strength
gains in elite junior athletes. J Strength Cond Res. 2005
May;19(2):382-8.

The two groups were lifting the same total number of reps and the same
weight. It was (6 reps x 4 sets) vs. (3 reps x 8 sets) with the weight
they could lift about 6 times when fresh.

Which would seem to approximate, as closely as possible, an "all else
equal" protocol, yes?

Quoted message said:

So of two non-optimal setups
the first is better.

Which leaves an undefined "optimal" setup that could be used across
the board, yes? And you can provide that definition?

2-3 reps for multiple sets (5-8) at 85-90% of 1RM. (1RM is defined by
training 1RM during current training, not competition). Vary overall load
and intensity by day, week and cycle. Duh.

It's been studied - a lot.

--
Keith

Hobbes said:

JMW said:

DZ said:

JMW <[email hidden]> wrote:
> Another interesting perspective ...
>
> "Bench press training that leads to repetition failure induces greater
> strength gains than nonfailure training in the bench press exercise
> for elite junior team sport athletes."
>
> Drinkwater EJ, Lawton TW, Lindsell RP, Pyne DB, Hunt PH, McKenna MJ.
> Training leading to repetition failure enhances bench press strength
> gains in elite junior athletes. J Strength Cond Res. 2005
> May;19(2):382-8.

The two groups were lifting the same total number of reps and the same
weight. It was (6 reps x 4 sets) vs. (3 reps x 8 sets) with the weight
they could lift about 6 times when fresh.

Which would seem to approximate, as closely as possible, an "all else
equal" protocol, yes?

Quoted message said:

So of two non-optimal setups
the first is better.

Which leaves an undefined "optimal" setup that could be used across
the board, yes? And you can provide that definition?

2-3 reps for multiple sets (5-8) at 85-90% of 1RM. (1RM is defined by
training 1RM during current training, not competition). Vary overall load
and intensity by day, week and cycle. Duh.

It's been studied - a lot.

Hmmm ...

Although I'm not a big proponent of training to failure, I found the
study interesting. I found it interesting in the sense that it at
least tried to make a head-to-head comparison with a non-failure
protocol. And I am a big proponent of challenging dogma ... any dogma.

Therein lies my challenge to you, Keith. Simply put ... references,
please. And please don't cite books written by gurus and Eastern
European lifting coaches. I want to see studies with the described
periodization matched head-to-head against other protocols. What
Eastern European lifting coaches do to coax good performances out of
carefully selected genetic wonders is irrelevant. If it has, indeed,
"been studied - a lot," then it should be no problem to cite
peer-reviewed literature.

JMW said:

Another interesting perspective ...

"Another myth propagated by the bodybuilding world, which also began in
the early 80's, is the idea that one must train to failure. Nothing
could be further from the truth. This notion came about when High
Intensity Training (HIT) was being espoused as gospel. Mike Mentzer was
the leader of this movement, however was also insane. In his 1925
classic "Secrets of Strength", Earle Liederman wrote that, "a
strong man never overextends himself in training." Olympic lifters and
powerlifters have never trained to failure, yet always make significant
progress. Dr. Terry Todd, a world powerlifting champion often says if
you are training to failure you are training to fail. Training to
failure does nothing more than over stress the central nervous system
and increase the time it takes to recover from training. Although it
seems hardcore and intense it is generally not a good idea. In fact,
well respected strength coach Chad Waterbury has stated that taking as
little as one set to failure in a particular workout can extend the
recovery process by up to 48 hours. Always end sets with at least one
rep left in the tank."
http://www.strengthcats.com/JFroadtorecovery.htm

In article <[email hidden]>, "JMW"

Quoted message said:

Hobbes said:

JMW said:

DZ <[email hidden]> wrote:

>JMW <[email hidden]> wrote:
>> Another interesting perspective ...
>>
>> "Bench press training that leads to repetition failure induces greater
>> strength gains than nonfailure training in the bench press exercise
>> for elite junior team sport athletes."
>>
>> Drinkwater EJ, Lawton TW, Lindsell RP, Pyne DB, Hunt PH, McKenna MJ.
>> Training leading to repetition failure enhances bench press strength
>> gains in elite junior athletes. J Strength Cond Res. 2005
>> May;19(2):382-8.
>
>The two groups were lifting the same total number of reps and the same
>weight. It was (6 reps x 4 sets) vs. (3 reps x 8 sets) with the weight
>they could lift about 6 times when fresh.

Which would seem to approximate, as closely as possible, an "all else
equal" protocol, yes?

>So of two non-optimal setups
>the first is better.

Which leaves an undefined "optimal" setup that could be used across
the board, yes? And you can provide that definition?

2-3 reps for multiple sets (5-8) at 85-90% of 1RM. (1RM is defined by
training 1RM during current training, not competition). Vary overall load
and intensity by day, week and cycle. Duh.

It's been studied - a lot.

Hmmm ...

Although I'm not a big proponent of training to failure, I found the
study interesting. I found it interesting in the sense that it at
least tried to make a head-to-head comparison with a non-failure
protocol. And I am a big proponent of challenging dogma ... any dogma.

Therein lies my challenge to you, Keith. Simply put ... references,
please. And please don't cite books written by gurus and Eastern
European lifting coaches.

All eastern European John. Medeydev, Roman, Verkhoshanskey, etc. I
honestly don't know of any real good studies done with elite weightlifting
athletes since they won't do anything else. Pragmatic experience wins
here.

The eastern European research is poor from some perspectives and very good
from others. In terms of the scientific method it sucks. In terms of
having a huge pool of athletes who can control training variables it is
very good.

I don't have time to go through my books and pull out the referenced
studies (I'm taking two classes at intersession right now). But they
(Medeydev, etc.) do refererence studies to back up their claims.

--
Keith

DZ said:

JMW said:

DZ said:

JMW <[email hidden]> wrote:
> Another interesting perspective ...
>
> "Bench press training that leads to repetition failure induces greater
> strength gains than nonfailure training in the bench press exercise
> for elite junior team sport athletes."
>
> Drinkwater EJ, Lawton TW, Lindsell RP, Pyne DB, Hunt PH, McKenna MJ.
> Training leading to repetition failure enhances bench press strength
> gains in elite junior athletes. J Strength Cond Res. 2005
> May;19(2):382-8.

The two groups were lifting the same total number of reps and the same
weight. It was (6 reps x 4 sets) vs. (3 reps x 8 sets) with the weight
they could lift about 6 times when fresh.

Which would seem to approximate, as closely as possible, an "all else
equal" protocol, yes?

I think we can define exactly what is equal in this study: total reps
and weight. So I would ask a different question - why is it sensible?
First setup seems somewhat reasonable for hypertrophy training and the
increase in strength is expected via that route. But what is the
second one? Lifting 3 times of what can be lifted 6 times doesn't
sound like either hypertrophy or strength oriented approach
(insufficient reps for hypertrophy and insufficient weight for
strength).

Not quite. See below.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So of two non-optimal setups the first is better.

Which leaves an undefined "optimal" setup that could be used across
the board, yes? And you can provide that definition?

I cannot give a definition. But it is clear that the authors ignored
common strength-oriented routines. My understanding is that training
to failure is not specifically detrimental in terms of strength
adaptation. And perhaps that is what the article confirmed.

Staying away from failure has more to do with allowing sufficient
load at intensities high enough so that they are still beneficial for
strength training. There is also recovery time variable. Recovery time
is probably longer when training to failure, and fixing it equal for
two groups doesn't make sense.

I'm not dissing the study, especially that I don't have access to full
text of that journal. But I don't think it proves superiority of
training to failure. Perhaps the title is careful - training to
failure does result in strength increase.

Perhaps you should read the full text, or at least read the abstract
more closely. Not only were weights and total repetitions equal, but
the researchers made efforts to further equalize the routines. For
instance, rest periods between sets for the failure group were more
than twice as long as for the non-failure group (260 seconds vs. 113
seconds), thus providing some compensation equalize muscle fatigue.
That much was in the abstract. Furthermore, a bench throw on the
Smith machine was used to measure power at the end of the respective
routines to confirm an equalization of muscle fatigue.

I am not suggesting that training to failure is an optimal method. I
am suggesting that the doctrinal positions in this newsgroup have
grown stagnant, and that is largely because nobody is willing to
question them *and* produce countervailing evidence. [1] Maybe
somebody needs to shake that up every once in a while. And you know
I'm not shy about doing that.

[1] Links to pop fitness sites and pompous rants by kooks and trolls
like John Gohde and Blair P. Houghton don't count.

--

JMW
http://www.rustyiron.net

(Hobbes) said:

JMW said:

Hobbes said:

JMW <[email hidden]> wrote:
> DZ <[email hidden]> wrote:
> >JMW <[email hidden]> wrote:
> >> Another interesting perspective ...
> >>
> >> "Bench press training that leads to repetition failure induces greater
> >> strength gains than nonfailure training in the bench press exercise
> >> for elite junior team sport athletes."
> >>
> >> Drinkwater EJ, Lawton TW, Lindsell RP, Pyne DB, Hunt PH, McKenna MJ.
> >> Training leading to repetition failure enhances bench press strength
> >> gains in elite junior athletes. J Strength Cond Res. 2005
> >> May;19(2):382-8.
> >
> >The two groups were lifting the same total number of reps and the same
> >weight. It was (6 reps x 4 sets) vs. (3 reps x 8 sets) with the weight
> >they could lift about 6 times when fresh.
>
> Which would seem to approximate, as closely as possible, an "all else
> equal" protocol, yes?
>
> >So of two non-optimal setups
> >the first is better.
>
> Which leaves an undefined "optimal" setup that could be used across
> the board, yes? And you can provide that definition?

2-3 reps for multiple sets (5-8) at 85-90% of 1RM. (1RM is defined by
training 1RM during current training, not competition). Vary overall load
and intensity by day, week and cycle. Duh.

It's been studied - a lot.

Hmmm ...

Although I'm not a big proponent of training to failure, I found the
study interesting. I found it interesting in the sense that it at
least tried to make a head-to-head comparison with a non-failure
protocol. And I am a big proponent of challenging dogma ... any dogma.

Therein lies my challenge to you, Keith. Simply put ... references,
please. And please don't cite books written by gurus and Eastern
European lifting coaches.

All eastern European John. Medeydev, Roman, Verkhoshanskey, etc. I
honestly don't know of any real good studies done with elite weightlifting
athletes since they won't do anything else. Pragmatic experience wins
here.

The eastern European research is poor from some perspectives and very good
from others. In terms of the scientific method it sucks. In terms of
having a huge pool of athletes who can control training variables it is
very good.

I don't have time to go through my books and pull out the referenced
studies (I'm taking two classes at intersession right now). But they
(Medeydev, etc.) do refererence studies to back up their claims.

Sorry, Keith, but this is tanatmount to taking advice from the biggest
guy in the gym solely because he's the biggest guy in the gym.

I want science, not hero worship. I might also add that I have found
training to failure to provide the best strength gains for those who
are not absolute novices but still somewhat "beginners," or those who
are well-practiced in sport-specific training but not yet specifically
directed toward heavy weight training, such as those in the study I
mentioned. The practices of those who coach world-class Eastern
European weightlifters do not translate well for those groups.

--

JMW
http://www.rustyiron.net

JMW said:

And I am a big proponent of challenging dogma ... any dogma.

With the obvious exception of the anti-American,
pro-war crime, pro-torture, pro-terrorism bu$h
regime dogma which you constantly and repeatedly
suck down and then puke back up without question
or thought...

-

"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that
matter." -- Martin Luther King Jr.

"God told me to strike at al Qaeda and I struck them. And then
he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did."
-- George W. Bush

"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the
will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the
Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."
-- Adolf [censored]

"The tsunami was a wonderful opportunity to show not just the
US government, but the heart of the American people, and I think
it has paid great dividends for us." Condoleezza Rice

"One of the things we don't want to do is destroy the
infrastructure in Iraq because in a few days we're going
to own that country," - Tom Brokaw

Cost of probing Bill Clinton's sex life: $65 million.
Cost of probing the Columbia shuttle disaster: $50 million.
Funds assigned to independent Sept. 11 panel: $3 million.

http://www.commondreams.org/
http://www.truthout.org/
http://thirdworldtraveler.com/
http://counterpunch.org/
http://responsiblewealth.org/

"After all, it is the leaders of the country who determine
the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the
people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist
dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship.
Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the
bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to
do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the
peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country
to danger. It works the same in any country."
-- Hermann Goering, President of the Reichstag, Nazi Party, and
Luftwaffe Commander in Chief

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is
not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."
-- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)

"You know, when bu$h said that he's against nation building,
I didn't realize that he meant only the United States"
-- Al Franken

Don't let bu$h do to the United States what his very close
friend and top campaign contributor, Ken Lay, did to Enron...

In article <[email hidden]>, JMW

Quoted message said:

(Hobbes) said:

JMW said:

Hobbes wrote:
> JMW <[email hidden]> wrote:
> > DZ <[email hidden]> wrote:
> > >JMW <[email hidden]> wrote:
> > >> Another interesting perspective ...
> > >>
> > >> "Bench press training that leads to repetition failure induces

greater

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > >> strength gains than nonfailure training in the bench press exercise
> > >> for elite junior team sport athletes."
> > >>
> > >> Drinkwater EJ, Lawton TW, Lindsell RP, Pyne DB, Hunt PH, McKenna MJ.
> > >> Training leading to repetition failure enhances bench press strength
> > >> gains in elite junior athletes. J Strength Cond Res. 2005
> > >> May;19(2):382-8.
> > >
> > >The two groups were lifting the same total number of reps and the same
> > >weight. It was (6 reps x 4 sets) vs. (3 reps x 8 sets) with the weight
> > >they could lift about 6 times when fresh.
> >
> > Which would seem to approximate, as closely as possible, an "all else
> > equal" protocol, yes?
> >
> > >So of two non-optimal setups
> > >the first is better.
> >
> > Which leaves an undefined "optimal" setup that could be used across
> > the board, yes? And you can provide that definition?
>
> 2-3 reps for multiple sets (5-8) at 85-90% of 1RM. (1RM is defined by
> training 1RM during current training, not competition). Vary overall load
> and intensity by day, week and cycle. Duh.
>
> It's been studied - a lot.

Hmmm ...

Although I'm not a big proponent of training to failure, I found the
study interesting. I found it interesting in the sense that it at
least tried to make a head-to-head comparison with a non-failure
protocol. And I am a big proponent of challenging dogma ... any dogma.

Therein lies my challenge to you, Keith. Simply put ... references,
please. And please don't cite books written by gurus and Eastern
European lifting coaches.

All eastern European John. Medeydev, Roman, Verkhoshanskey, etc. I
honestly don't know of any real good studies done with elite weightlifting
athletes since they won't do anything else. Pragmatic experience wins
here.

The eastern European research is poor from some perspectives and very good
from others. In terms of the scientific method it sucks. In terms of
having a huge pool of athletes who can control training variables it is
very good.

I don't have time to go through my books and pull out the referenced
studies (I'm taking two classes at intersession right now). But they
(Medeydev, etc.) do refererence studies to back up their claims.

Sorry, Keith, but this is tanatmount to taking advice from the biggest
guy in the gym solely because he's the biggest guy in the gym.

I want science, not hero worship. I might also add that I have found
training to failure to provide the best strength gains for those who
are not absolute novices but still somewhat "beginners," or those who
are well-practiced in sport-specific training but not yet specifically
directed toward heavy weight training, such as those in the study I
mentioned. The practices of those who coach world-class Eastern
European weightlifters do not translate well for those groups.

Have you ever read Zatsiorsky, Medeyedev or any of the scientific writers?
I'd hardly restrict them to 'weightlifters' in terms of training
expertise. And they quote studies. But you seem to be of the mindset that
an eastern European study doesn't qualify as science. I don't see that.
Huge body of work there that can't be ignored.

Verkhoshansky has personally worked with over 250 olympic gold medalists,
primarily in weightlifting, track and gymnastics. You might call that the
biggest guy in the gym.

--
Keith

(Hobbes) said:

JMW said:

(Hobbes) said:

"JMW" <[email hidden]> wrote:
> Hobbes wrote:
> > JMW <[email hidden]> wrote:
> > > DZ <[email hidden]> wrote:
> > > >JMW <[email hidden]> wrote:
> > > >> Another interesting perspective ...
> > > >>
> > > >> "Bench press training that leads to repetition failure induces
> > > >> greater
> > > >> strength gains than nonfailure training in the bench press exercise
> > > >> for elite junior team sport athletes."
> > > >>
> > > >> Drinkwater EJ, Lawton TW, Lindsell RP, Pyne DB, Hunt PH, McKenna MJ.
> > > >> Training leading to repetition failure enhances bench press strength
> > > >> gains in elite junior athletes. J Strength Cond Res. 2005
> > > >> May;19(2):382-8.
> > > >
> > > >The two groups were lifting the same total number of reps and the same
> > > >weight. It was (6 reps x 4 sets) vs. (3 reps x 8 sets) with the weight
> > > >they could lift about 6 times when fresh.
> > >
> > > Which would seem to approximate, as closely as possible, an "all else
> > > equal" protocol, yes?
> > >
> > > >So of two non-optimal setups
> > > >the first is better.
> > >
> > > Which leaves an undefined "optimal" setup that could be used across
> > > the board, yes? And you can provide that definition?
> >
> > 2-3 reps for multiple sets (5-8) at 85-90% of 1RM. (1RM is defined by
> > training 1RM during current training, not competition). Vary overall load
> > and intensity by day, week and cycle. Duh.
> >
> > It's been studied - a lot.
>
> Hmmm ...
>
> Although I'm not a big proponent of training to failure, I found the
> study interesting. I found it interesting in the sense that it at
> least tried to make a head-to-head comparison with a non-failure
> protocol. And I am a big proponent of challenging dogma ... any dogma.
>
> Therein lies my challenge to you, Keith. Simply put ... references,
> please. And please don't cite books written by gurus and Eastern
> European lifting coaches.

All eastern European John. Medeydev, Roman, Verkhoshanskey, etc. I
honestly don't know of any real good studies done with elite weightlifting
athletes since they won't do anything else. Pragmatic experience wins
here.

The eastern European research is poor from some perspectives and very good
from others. In terms of the scientific method it sucks. In terms of
having a huge pool of athletes who can control training variables it is
very good.

I don't have time to go through my books and pull out the referenced
studies (I'm taking two classes at intersession right now). But they
(Medeydev, etc.) do refererence studies to back up their claims.

Sorry, Keith, but this is tanatmount to taking advice from the biggest
guy in the gym solely because he's the biggest guy in the gym.

I want science, not hero worship. I might also add that I have found
training to failure to provide the best strength gains for those who
are not absolute novices but still somewhat "beginners," or those who
are well-practiced in sport-specific training but not yet specifically
directed toward heavy weight training, such as those in the study I
mentioned. The practices of those who coach world-class Eastern
European weightlifters do not translate well for those groups.

Have you ever read Zatsiorsky, Medeyedev or any of the scientific writers?
I'd hardly restrict them to 'weightlifters' in terms of training
expertise. And they quote studies. But you seem to be of the mindset that
an eastern European study doesn't qualify as science. I don't see that.
Huge body of work there that can't be ignored.

Verkhoshansky has personally worked with over 250 olympic gold medalists,
primarily in weightlifting, track and gymnastics. You might call that the
biggest guy in the gym.

Zatsiorsky has authored a lot of biomechanical stuff, but mostly on
the biomechanics of grasping and finger movement; very little seems to
have been published by the others. Nobody seems to have done any
comparative studies on strength training protocols.

Those studies are out there, Keith. They may conform to the
conventional wisdom of the Eastern European gurus, and they may not.
Conventional wisdom changes, even in biomechanics. Remember the
introduction of the "Fosbury Flop" in the '68 Olympics? Weird, but
now everybody does it. If you scream "Heresy!" every time new
findings seem to be at odds with the current conventional wisdom, you
never learn anything.

I'm not trying to convince you that training to failure is a superior
protocol. I'm just suggesting that you open your mind.

--

JMW
http://www.rustyiron.net

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Another interesting perspective ...

"Another myth propagated by the bodybuilding world, which also began in
the early 80's, is the idea that one must train to failure. Nothing
could be further from the truth. This notion came about when High
Intensity Training (HIT) was being espoused as gospel. Mike Mentzer was
the leader of this movement, however was also insane. In his 1925
classic "Secrets of Strength", Earle Liederman wrote that, "a
strong man never overextends himself in training." Olympic lifters and
powerlifters have never trained to failure, yet always make significant
progress. Dr. Terry Todd, a world powerlifting champion often says if
you are training to failure you are training to fail. Training to
failure does nothing more than over stress the central nervous system
and increase the time it takes to recover from training. Although it
seems hardcore and intense it is generally not a good idea. In fact,
well respected strength coach Chad Waterbury has stated that taking as
little as one set to failure in a particular workout can extend the
recovery process by up to 48 hours. Always end sets with at least one
rep left in the tank."
http://www.strengthcats.com/JFroadtorecovery.htm

What is wrong with training to failure?

Training to failure directly inhibits voluntary strength. Basically,
training to failure fries your nerves (not the technical term ) and
prevents them from being able to contract the muscles for long periods
of time. So when one trains to failure and then waits until strength is
recovered to train a muscle again, oftentimes the muscle has long
recovered and is waiting for the nervous system to catch up.

The alternative to training to failure is HST (hypertrophy-specific
training) which was advocated by Bryan Haycock
http://www.hypertrophy-specific.com/hst_index.html

With HST, you training through soreness. Soreness is not harmful, and
people generally find that training a sore muscle will cause the
soreness to stop.

It is commonly misunderstood that muscle failure is the stimulus for
muscle growth. Unfortunately, this is not true! The tension on the
muscle is what actually causes growth
- Warren GL, Hayes DA, Lowe DA, Armstrong RB. Mechanical factors in the
initiation of eccentric contraction-induced injury in rat soleus
muscle. J Physiol. 1993 May;464:457-75

HST is based on physiologically sound principles not numbers. In short,
they are:

· Progressive load
· Training volume
· Training frequency
· Conditioning (Repeated Bout effect)/Strategic Deconditioning

So we are dealing with 4 basic issues, Load, Volume, Frequency and
Conditioning. Within these basic factors we have reps, sets, and rest.
HST differs from previous training methods in many aspects, but
particularly in how it incorporates knowledge of how the "cell"
physiologically responds to the training stimulus in its methodology.
Previous methods focus on effort (A.K.A Intensity), current voluntary
strength, and psychological factors such as fatigue and variety.

· The number of Reps is determined by the minimum effective load
(this changes over time based on Conditioning)
· The number of Sets is determined by the minimum effective volume
(this changes over time according to current load and Conditioning.)
· The Rest between sets is determined by the amount of time required
to regain sufficient strength to successfully achieve the minimum
effective Volume.
The Frequency (rest between workouts) is determined by the ability of
the CNS to recover sufficiently to maintain baseline "health"
indicators. It is also determined by the time course of genetic
expression resultant from the previous workout.
· The interval of Strategic Deconditioning (SD) is determined by the
time course of adaptation to the individuals maximum weight loads. In
other words, SD is required to reset growth potential after plateauing.
The duration of SD is determined by the level of conditioning attained
during the training cycle.

Mechanical tension on the protein structures of the muscle cells is the
primary stimulus for hypertrophy. This tension can elicit anabolic
processes with or without damaged to the cell membrane. However, some
damage to the cell membrane seems to be critical for the action of
autocrine and paracrine growth factors (FGF, IGF-1, etc). Without the
activity of these growth factors outside the cell there will be no
increase in myonuclei, and thus no significant increase the the volume
and/or number of the cells.

Some improvements in muscle cell function do occur even if the number
of myonuclei remains the same. These won't lead to significant
hypertrophy though. These improvements in muscle cell functional
capacity involve ERK1/2. This is the pathway activated most when you
get an intense burn and/or train to failure.

Muscle "activity" such as the typical repetition, and the metabolic
byproducts and change in the internal millieu of the cell also
"contribute" to hypertrophy, but only indirectly. Reps, and fatigue
activate signaling proteins and transcription factors that increase
protein synthesis. This increase in protein synthesis allows an
increase in crucial enzymes, receptors (yes even androgen receptors),
membrane and structural proteins. Remember that protein breakdown is
also accelerated so the net effect is most often merely a maintenance
of muscle protein levels. This is what goes on after each workout when
plateauing after years of training.

As mentioned, without the activity of IGF-1 and FGF outside of the
cell, satellite cells will not contribute significantly to hypertrophy.
The process is dependant on microtrauma at some degree.

Studies have shown that the ability of a given amount of tension to
elicit hypertrophy decreases over time in a given muscle. This is
because the same adaptive process that leads to muscle growth, also
leads to resistance to the stimulus of muscle growth. It has a lot to
do with the principle of homeostasis, in other words, the body will
always fight further change as it's changing.

Studies have shown too much microtrauma is a bad thing. The rapid
infiltration of immune factors (the primary cause of DOMS) actually
causes significant breakdown of muscle proteins and the death of some
cells.

Now, the ability of mechanical tension to cause microtrauma to the cell
membrane is dependant on the condition of the extracellular matrix. If
it is robust as a result of chronic strain, is will take an
unaccustomed load to induce any trauma. Your ability to apply this load
is dependant on your voluntary strength. Your body is able to protect
your muscle cells from microtrauma even when using max loads. It isn't
always able to protect tendons.

Anytime you do a set and it burns like crazy (painful burn) you are
creating the same conditions of the occlusion studies. In other words,
its not that the effects seen in this study don't happen without
cutting off the blood supply, they do depending on the type of set. I
would guess the vascular occlusion is increasing phosphorylation of
MAPKerk1/2. erk1/2 appears to be more sensitive to acidosis, and oxygen
radicals, both of which would be increased by lack of blood flow.
Although less of a contributor than p38, erk1/2 does appear to
contribute to hypertrophy.

Keep in mind that as a muscle contracts, it squeezes the blood out from
the blood vessels around it. That is why your blood pressure goes up as
large muscle groups contract (even clenching your fists actually raises
blood pressure). This is also why pilots learn to contract their
musculature to keep from passing out during high G-forces.

Contracting and relaxing a muscle acts like a blood-pump and plays a
role in proper function of the cardiovascular system during exercise.

As was mentioned earlier, if you can increase the level of metabolic
byproducts, decrease the pH and increase the level of oxygen radicals
you will "help" to stimulate hypertrophy. However, this is not
sufficient to elicit significant hypertrophy in the absence of
progressive loading. In other words, flexing your muscles until they
really burn won't really make you grow all that well. But combine it
with progressive load and you will facilitate growth.

For more information, go here:
http://www.hypertrophy-specific.com/hst_index.html
http://www.hypertrophy-specific.com/articles.html
http://www.hypertrophy-specific.com/cgi-bi...cgi?act=SF;f=13

In article <[email hidden]>,

Charles said:

However, whatever the merits of training to failure, it is not a
system that can be use indefinitely as it will inevitably lead to
injury.

Proof? I don't see why that has to happen.

Seth
--
Who cares? Shut up and lift. -- Watson (the pencil neck) Davis

On Thu, 26 May 2005 16:40:34 +0000 (UTC), [email hidden] (Seth

Breidbart) said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Charles said:

However, whatever the merits of training to failure, it is not a
system that can be use indefinitely as it will inevitably lead to
injury.

Proof? I don't see why that has to happen.

You are aware that I avoid scientific and medical explanations when a
more simple alternative is applicable. I just happen to know the
theory from past experience.

However, there are any number of 'experts' who will agree with my
uncomplicated assertion, who can be referenced by simply Googling:
Training to failure.

Here's an excerpt I found for you at:
http://www.strengthcats.com/finalrep.htm

"Noted exercise scientist Paul Ward warns that training to failure
results in ischemic reperfusion, or oxygen deprivation, followed by
oxygen perfusion. This results in massive free-radical damage to DNA
and cell membranes.

International Sports Sciences Association co-founder Dr. Sal Arria
cautions that many soft tissue injuries occur when failure terminates
a repetition in mid-stroke. "When the weight on the bar exceeds the
muscle's ability to lift it, something has to give and usually, it's
the musculotendonous junction" One of the most important functions of
a spotter is to stay alert and keep the bar moving in order to avoid
such injuries, according to Arria.

According, to powerlifting legend Fred Hatfield, if fatigue is so
great that stabilizers and synergists (which typically tire faster
than the prime movers) become too fatigued to allow maintenance of
proper form, you're asking for trouble."

In article <[email hidden]>,

Mr-Natural-Health said:

Training to failure directly inhibits voluntary strength.

Immediately afterwards, sure. But some people have discovered that
mere minutes later they're capable of a second set with _more_ reps,
at the same weight, than their first.

Quoted message said:

Basically,
training to failure fries your nerves (not the technical term ) and
prevents them from being able to contract the muscles for long periods
of time. So when one trains to failure and then waits until strength is
recovered to train a muscle again, oftentimes the muscle has long
recovered and is waiting for the nervous system to catch up.

Seems like something recovered pretty quickly.

Quoted message said:

The alternative to training to failure is HST (hypertrophy-specific
training) which was advocated by Bryan Haycock
http://www.hypertrophy-specific.com/hst_index.html

The only alternative? What about the umpty-million other methods
we've seen here?

Quoted message said:

With HST, you training through soreness. Soreness is not harmful, and
people generally find that training a sore muscle will cause the
soreness to stop.

People generally find that _weakly_ working the sore muscle (I
recommend half the weight used in the workout) will end the soreness
fairly quickly.

Quoted message said:

HST is based on physiologically sound principles not numbers. In short,
they are:

· Progressive load

Training to failure also used that.

Quoted message said:

· Training volume
· Training frequency

Training volume and Training frequency are not principles.

Quoted message said:

· Conditioning (Repeated Bout effect)/Strategic Deconditioning

So deconditioning is good when it's part of HST but bad when it
happens due to training to failure? Can you explain why?

Quoted message said:

So we are dealing with 4 basic issues, Load, Volume, Frequency and
Conditioning.

Are those issues or principles? They aren't numbers, according to you
(although measuring volume and frequency without numbers would be an
interesting trick).

Quoted message said:

· The number of Reps is determined by the minimum effective load
(this changes over time based on Conditioning)

Which is known how?

Quoted message said:

· The number of Sets is determined by the minimum effective volume
(this changes over time according to current load and Conditioning.)

Only it doesn't.

Other quoted stuff elided due to boredom.

Seth
--
Can I suggest that you just declare yourself the winner and shut up
and squat? -- Wendy Marsden

In article <[email hidden]>,

JMW said:

(Hobbes) said:

JMW said:

[email hidden] (Hobbes) wrote:
> "JMW" <[email hidden]> wrote:
>> Hobbes wrote:
>> > JMW <[email hidden]> wrote:
>> > > DZ <[email hidden]> wrote:
>> > > >JMW <[email hidden]> wrote:
>> > > >> Another interesting perspective ...
>> > > >>
>> > > >> "Bench press training that leads to repetition failure induces
>> > > >> greater
>> > > >> strength gains than nonfailure training in the bench press
>> > > >> exercise
>> > > >> for elite junior team sport athletes."
>> > > >>
>> > > >> Drinkwater EJ, Lawton TW, Lindsell RP, Pyne DB, Hunt PH, McKenna
>> > > >> MJ.
>> > > >> Training leading to repetition failure enhances bench press
>> > > >> strength
>> > > >> gains in elite junior athletes. J Strength Cond Res. 2005
>> > > >> May;19(2):382-8.
>> > > >
>> > > >The two groups were lifting the same total number of reps and the
>> > > >same
>> > > >weight. It was (6 reps x 4 sets) vs. (3 reps x 8 sets) with the
>> > > >weight
>> > > >they could lift about 6 times when fresh.
>> > >
>> > > Which would seem to approximate, as closely as possible, an "all
>> > > else
>> > > equal" protocol, yes?
>> > >
>> > > >So of two non-optimal setups
>> > > >the first is better.
>> > >
>> > > Which leaves an undefined "optimal" setup that could be used across
>> > > the board, yes? And you can provide that definition?
>> >
>> > 2-3 reps for multiple sets (5-8) at 85-90% of 1RM. (1RM is defined by
>> > training 1RM during current training, not competition). Vary overall
>> > load
>> > and intensity by day, week and cycle. Duh.
>> >
>> > It's been studied - a lot.
>>
>> Hmmm ...
>>
>> Although I'm not a big proponent of training to failure, I found the
>> study interesting. I found it interesting in the sense that it at
>> least tried to make a head-to-head comparison with a non-failure
>> protocol. And I am a big proponent of challenging dogma ... any dogma.
>>
>> Therein lies my challenge to you, Keith. Simply put ... references,
>> please. And please don't cite books written by gurus and Eastern
>> European lifting coaches.
>
>All eastern European John. Medeydev, Roman, Verkhoshanskey, etc. I
>honestly don't know of any real good studies done with elite
>weightlifting
>athletes since they won't do anything else. Pragmatic experience wins
>here.
>
>The eastern European research is poor from some perspectives and very
>good
>from others. In terms of the scientific method it sucks. In terms of
>having a huge pool of athletes who can control training variables it is
>very good.
>
>I don't have time to go through my books and pull out the referenced
>studies (I'm taking two classes at intersession right now). But they
>(Medeydev, etc.) do refererence studies to back up their claims.

Sorry, Keith, but this is tanatmount to taking advice from the biggest
guy in the gym solely because he's the biggest guy in the gym.

I want science, not hero worship. I might also add that I have found
training to failure to provide the best strength gains for those who
are not absolute novices but still somewhat "beginners," or those who
are well-practiced in sport-specific training but not yet specifically
directed toward heavy weight training, such as those in the study I
mentioned. The practices of those who coach world-class Eastern
European weightlifters do not translate well for those groups.

Have you ever read Zatsiorsky, Medeyedev or any of the scientific writers?
I'd hardly restrict them to 'weightlifters' in terms of training
expertise. And they quote studies. But you seem to be of the mindset that
an eastern European study doesn't qualify as science. I don't see that.
Huge body of work there that can't be ignored.

Verkhoshansky has personally worked with over 250 olympic gold medalists,
primarily in weightlifting, track and gymnastics. You might call that the
biggest guy in the gym.

Zatsiorsky has authored a lot of biomechanical stuff, but mostly on
the biomechanics of grasping and finger movement; very little seems to
have been published by the others. Nobody seems to have done any
comparative studies on strength training protocols.

Those studies are out there, Keith. They may conform to the
conventional wisdom of the Eastern European gurus, and they may not.
Conventional wisdom changes, even in biomechanics. Remember the
introduction of the "Fosbury Flop" in the '68 Olympics? Weird, but
now everybody does it. If you scream "Heresy!" every time new
findings seem to be at odds with the current conventional wisdom, you
never learn anything.

I'm not trying to convince you that training to failure is a superior
protocol. I'm just suggesting that you open your mind.

I'm open to new stuff. Training to failure isn't new - it has been
discussed over and over and over. As I've said in the past - I'm not
against it. It has it's place as a discrete training protocol. I am
against it as the 'only' way to train for all people for all time. If
the goal is protein degradation or to increase local endurance than
obviously it has it's place. For strength training as defined by 1RM
than obviously it isn't as specific, although there are still places.

I've gotten to where I am by challenging dogma, not accepting it. I'm
not aware of what is causing you to perceive what you are - perhaps you
are projecting the consensual opinion of the group to me.

I don't know of any kind of training that I haven't tried and my one
constant is that pretty much everything you see has some application for
someone at some stage in time.

--
Keith

Hobbes said:

JMW said:

(Hobbes) said:

JMW <[email hidden]> wrote:
> [email hidden] (Hobbes) wrote:
> > "JMW" <[email hidden]> wrote:
> >> Hobbes wrote:
> >> > JMW <[email hidden]> wrote:
> >> > > DZ <[email hidden]> wrote:
> >> > > >JMW <[email hidden]> wrote:
> >> > > >> Another interesting perspective ...
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> "Bench press training that leads to repetition failure induces
> >> > > >> greater
> >> > > >> strength gains than nonfailure training in the bench press
> >> > > >> exercise
> >> > > >> for elite junior team sport athletes."
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> Drinkwater EJ, Lawton TW, Lindsell RP, Pyne DB, Hunt PH, McKenna
> >> > > >> MJ.
> >> > > >> Training leading to repetition failure enhances bench press
> >> > > >> strength
> >> > > >> gains in elite junior athletes. J Strength Cond Res. 2005
> >> > > >> May;19(2):382-8.
> >> > > >
> >> > > >The two groups were lifting the same total number of reps and the
> >> > > >same
> >> > > >weight. It was (6 reps x 4 sets) vs. (3 reps x 8 sets) with the
> >> > > >weight
> >> > > >they could lift about 6 times when fresh.
> >> > >
> >> > > Which would seem to approximate, as closely as possible, an "all
> >> > > else
> >> > > equal" protocol, yes?
> >> > >
> >> > > >So of two non-optimal setups
> >> > > >the first is better.
> >> > >
> >> > > Which leaves an undefined "optimal" setup that could be used across
> >> > > the board, yes? And you can provide that definition?
> >> >
> >> > 2-3 reps for multiple sets (5-8) at 85-90% of 1RM. (1RM is defined by
> >> > training 1RM during current training, not competition). Vary overall
> >> > load
> >> > and intensity by day, week and cycle. Duh.
> >> >
> >> > It's been studied - a lot.
> >>
> >> Hmmm ...
> >>
> >> Although I'm not a big proponent of training to failure, I found the
> >> study interesting. I found it interesting in the sense that it at
> >> least tried to make a head-to-head comparison with a non-failure
> >> protocol. And I am a big proponent of challenging dogma ... any dogma.
> >>
> >> Therein lies my challenge to you, Keith. Simply put ... references,
> >> please. And please don't cite books written by gurus and Eastern
> >> European lifting coaches.
> >
> >All eastern European John. Medeydev, Roman, Verkhoshanskey, etc. I
> >honestly don't know of any real good studies done with elite
> >weightlifting
> >athletes since they won't do anything else. Pragmatic experience wins
> >here.
> >
> >The eastern European research is poor from some perspectives and very
> >good
> >from others. In terms of the scientific method it sucks. In terms of
> >having a huge pool of athletes who can control training variables it is
> >very good.
> >
> >I don't have time to go through my books and pull out the referenced
> >studies (I'm taking two classes at intersession right now). But they
> >(Medeydev, etc.) do refererence studies to back up their claims.
>
> Sorry, Keith, but this is tanatmount to taking advice from the biggest
> guy in the gym solely because he's the biggest guy in the gym.
>
> I want science, not hero worship. I might also add that I have found
> training to failure to provide the best strength gains for those who
> are not absolute novices but still somewhat "beginners," or those who
> are well-practiced in sport-specific training but not yet specifically
> directed toward heavy weight training, such as those in the study I
> mentioned. The practices of those who coach world-class Eastern
> European weightlifters do not translate well for those groups.

Have you ever read Zatsiorsky, Medeyedev or any of the scientific writers?
I'd hardly restrict them to 'weightlifters' in terms of training
expertise. And they quote studies. But you seem to be of the mindset that
an eastern European study doesn't qualify as science. I don't see that.
Huge body of work there that can't be ignored.

Verkhoshansky has personally worked with over 250 olympic gold medalists,
primarily in weightlifting, track and gymnastics. You might call that the
biggest guy in the gym.

Zatsiorsky has authored a lot of biomechanical stuff, but mostly on
the biomechanics of grasping and finger movement; very little seems to
have been published by the others. Nobody seems to have done any
comparative studies on strength training protocols.

Those studies are out there, Keith. They may conform to the
conventional wisdom of the Eastern European gurus, and they may not.
Conventional wisdom changes, even in biomechanics. Remember the
introduction of the "Fosbury Flop" in the '68 Olympics? Weird, but
now everybody does it. If you scream "Heresy!" every time new
findings seem to be at odds with the current conventional wisdom, you
never learn anything.

I'm not trying to convince you that training to failure is a superior
protocol. I'm just suggesting that you open your mind.

I'm open to new stuff. Training to failure isn't new - it has been
discussed over and over and over. As I've said in the past - I'm not
against it. It has it's place as a discrete training protocol. I am
against it as the 'only' way to train for all people for all time. If
the goal is protein degradation or to increase local endurance than
obviously it has it's place. For strength training as defined by 1RM
than obviously it isn't as specific, although there are still places.

I've gotten to where I am by challenging dogma, not accepting it. I'm
not aware of what is causing you to perceive what you are - perhaps you
are projecting the consensual opinion of the group to me.

I left the quote to the whole thread for a reason. Scroll back up.
Your first comment ended with the reference "Duh," thus implying that
the described routine was universally accepted as optimal, a given.
Now do you understand?

Quoted message said:

I don't know of any kind of training that I haven't tried and my one
constant is that pretty much everything you see has some application for
someone at some stage in time.

In general, I agree. My whole purpose in this thread was to put forth
the proposition that the unwanted [censored] child known as "training to
failure" may have some value after all.

--

JMW
http://www.rustyiron.net

On Thu, 26 May 2005 13:42:58 -0600, Hobbes <[email hidden]>
wrote in misc.fitness.weights:

un·der·state·ment [ ùnder stáytment, únder stàytment ] (plural
un·der·state·ments)

Quoted message said:

I don't know of any kind of training that I haven't tried

Steve Freides said:

JMW said:

Steve Freides said:

I don't disagree that you got the reaction you expected to get, and
that
your predictions were correct. I could post pictures of naked women,
or
any of a thousand other things, and get a predictable reaction as
well.
If you want people to reconsider a widely-held point of view, you
need
to offer a good reason for them to do so, and I don't think you have.
I
don't understand why you picked this particular study to try and
start a
discussion about.

Because, perhaps to your surprise, there's still one person in this
newsgroup who scans the journals. Note that the article is from May
2005. It was on a topic frequently discussed in MFW, and its
conclusion was at odds with the general consensus of many in MFW. Why
*wouldn't* I want to pick this study and start a discussion about it,
Steve?

The very first reply you received answered this question. You quote
from the article about its method of testing, which is clearly faulty.

DZ said:

The two groups were lifting the same total number of reps and
the same weight. It was (6 reps x 4 sets) vs. (3 reps x 8 sets)
with the weight they could lift about 6 times when fresh. So of
two non-optimal setups the first is better.

It's a classic "garbage in, garbage out" study, or "post hoc ergo
propter hoc" if you prefer.

And you didn't read any further in the thread, did you, Steve? Why
does that not surprise me?

Quoted message said:

The fact that a conclusion was offered in
the article doesn't make it anything other than published words. The
way the study was conducted needs to be scrutinized under the light of
common sense, which clearly the authors did not do, and DZ explained
this succinctly.

So succinctly, it appears, that you missed out on his statement that
he had not read the whole article. And naturally, you didn't read
further into that thread where some of those matters were addressed.

Quoted message said:

What I can't figure out is why you find the study's
conclusion worth discussing at all.

What I can't figure out is why I'm wasting my time discussing this
with you.
--

JMW
http://www.rustyiron.net

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

Quoted message said:

Steve Freides said:

JMW said:

Steve Freides wrote:
>
> I don't disagree that you got the reaction you expected to get, and
> that
> your predictions were correct. I could post pictures of naked
> women,
> or
> any of a thousand other things, and get a predictable reaction as
> well.
> If you want people to reconsider a widely-held point of view, you
> need
> to offer a good reason for them to do so, and I don't think you
> have.
> I
> don't understand why you picked this particular study to try and
> start a
> discussion about.

Because, perhaps to your surprise, there's still one person in this
newsgroup who scans the journals. Note that the article is from May
2005. It was on a topic frequently discussed in MFW, and its
conclusion was at odds with the general consensus of many in MFW.
Why
*wouldn't* I want to pick this study and start a discussion about
it,
Steve?

The very first reply you received answered this question. You quote
from the article about its method of testing, which is clearly faulty.

DZ said:

The two groups were lifting the same total number of reps and
the same weight. It was (6 reps x 4 sets) vs. (3 reps x 8 sets)
with the weight they could lift about 6 times when fresh. So of
two non-optimal setups the first is better.

It's a classic "garbage in, garbage out" study, or "post hoc ergo
propter hoc" if you prefer.

And you didn't read any further in the thread, did you, Steve? Why
does that not surprise me?

Quoted message said:

The fact that a conclusion was offered in
the article doesn't make it anything other than published words. The
way the study was conducted needs to be scrutinized under the light of
common sense, which clearly the authors did not do, and DZ explained
this succinctly.

So succinctly, it appears, that you missed out on his statement that
he had not read the whole article. And naturally, you didn't read
further into that thread where some of those matters were addressed.

Quoted message said:

What I can't figure out is why you find the study's
conclusion worth discussing at all.

What I can't figure out is why I'm wasting my time discussing this
with you.

If you have a point, make it. I've read this thread in its entirety so
far as I'm aware.

-S-
http://www.kbnj.com

Quoted message said:

--

JMW
http://www.rustyiron.net