Training to Failure

[Donald Lee]

Casey Butt wrote about training to failure here:

http://www.weightrainer.net/training/failure.html (WFS)

He concluded with this:

In my experience, how a trainee reacts to specific training protocols is strongly influenced by body type:

Ectomorphs and small-boned endomorphs do not respond well to high intensity, infrequent training routines that involve regular training to failure. For them, the failure effort imposes an extended period of neuromuscular system inhibition and recovery. In addition, the muscle growth stimulus that they receive from such training is either insufficient to produce significant growth during the extended recovery period or it is offset by other factors such as excessive muscle damage and consequent degradation, and higher resting cortisol levels. (Prolonged excessive training to failure often causes adrenal insufficiency in these types of trainees.) Additionally, the less robust joint structures of small-boned individuals do not tolerate heavy loading as well as larger boned individuals. Small-boned trainees may gain strength, initially, with such training routines, but do not typically gain much muscle size. For these individuals, training to failure must be used sparingly, on higher rep sets only, or on sets of less stressful exercises (i.e. isolation exercises).


Mesomorphs and large-boned endomorphs, on the other hand, often react well to heavy training to failure. For them, training to failure produces a sufficient growth stimulus to "carry" them through the recovery periods of both the nervous system and the connective tissues/joint capsules, and to overcome any increases in catabolic hormone levels. And for mesomorphs who possess above average nervous system recovery abilities and particularly robust joint structures, these recovery periods may not be signifcantly extended. For these people, training to failure regularly may be the optimal choice. It should be noted however, that such individuals are typically those considered to be very gifted for bodybuilding.

[Chris Mason]

Donald, what that guy wrote in the quote above is pretty much muscle magazine bunk that has been around forever. The "hard gainer" (read skinny person) not being able to tolerate high intensity training to failure is simply not accurate.

[Donald Lee]

I don't think he's saying they can't handle it at all, but that it's that they can't handle as much of it or that it's not as optimal for them. I usually don't prescribe to most of the "hardgainer" stuff, but Casey Butt is the one guy whose stuff I read.

[Chris Mason]

Originally Posted by Donald Lee

I don't think he's saying they can't handle it at all, but that it's that they can't handle as much of it or that it's not as optimal for them. I usually don't prescribe to most of the "hardgainer" stuff, but Casey Butt is the one guy whose stuff I read.

I'll agree with the less volume argument, but not the latter.

The guy may be great, I am just commenting on that particular quote.

[Robert Fabsik]

Chris--hearing of your HIT history and now being heavily involved in Westside, wondering what critiques you'd give HIT knowing what you know now and what strengths you like about it. Figure since HIT is a big advocate of failure training, it might help in this thread.

HIT--"High Intensity Training"--is boiled down to work out as hard as you can to get the necessary training stimulus (don't go beyond), then rest and recover.

Typical program--Full Body 2xweek, focus on compound exercises for 1-2 sets to failure, often minimal time between sets. Volume usually under 20 total sets.

[Chris Mason]

Well, I always did more of a early Mentzer and or Yates form of HIT. True HIT did not work for me (1 set to failure x 12 exercises done 3 or less times per week).

I always trained to failure with relatively low volume - 4-5 working sets for larger muscle groups and 2-4 for smaller ones. I mixed low rep compounds with higher rep secondary exercises.

Frankly, the main difference between what I did for years and Westside is conjugate variety and speed work.

[Damien Archambault]

[quote=George Marrtinez;1054654]Well, all the studies suggest leaving something in the tank will make you stronger, and I'd certainly agree to that extent with barbells, and heavy weight training. Body weight movements are slightly different, I think you have a much greater ability to recover from them in my personal experience. I usually warm with 20+ pullups, and then do sets of 5 for 20-40 sets, and push-ups for 8 sets of 25, dips for 12,10,8,6,4,2. I just continue doing pull-ups not the point of failure, but where I feel like I have 3-5 left in the tank, which is near failure. I find I can usually do a bit more every workout. I enjoy these workouts a lot more than weighted pull-ups even though I've worked up to 85lb dumbbells pull-ups as singles, because I really like the feeling of taxing myself, and it enables me to drink more vodka and maintain body composition. But, then again I'm kid size, and even with with 85 pounds hanging from me it's only about a 245 pull. Just experiment, research is one thing, but everyone's body responds differently to different training.[/QUOTE

OK, I like the the way your thinking