Failure
- Thread starter Leandros
- Start date
Yes, you should reach MMF (momentary muscle failure) on each set, which is the basic principle of overload. If you are doing 3 sets of 10, the weight should be enough to take you to failure, even on the first set... if your recovery time is adequate, you should be able to complete 10 reps on your second and third sets as well. If you find you are unable to reach 10 reps (8 or 9 is ok but 6 or 7 is not), readjust your recovery between sets...
Mogwai said:Yes, you should reach MMF (momentary muscle failure) on each set, which is the basic principle of overload. If you are doing 3 sets of 10, the weight should be enough to take you to failure, even on the first set... if your recovery time is adequate, you should be able to complete 10 reps on your second and third sets as well. If you find you are unable to reach 10 reps (8 or 9 is ok but 6 or 7 is not), readjust your recovery between sets...
I disagree. There is no set-stone-principle that states you must use a weight in which you will reach failure.
For example, Genius, how do you determine what weight you will use for say dumbbell presses, 3 sets of 10?? (Assuming you don't have your exact 1RM percentage)...What would you say to someone to help them find the right weight for this number of reps? Would you say something like "choose a weight that won't allow you to do 2 or more reps properly"? or "choose a weight so that the last couple of reps are difficult" or something of the sort?
Gentlemen,
Once you have reached "muscular failure" on the first set (which should be the only set) to do another set is just a waste of time. Why? You've already accomplished your goal of stimulating the growth mechanism when you trained to "failure."
Do you think 3 sets are good? Well then, why stop there? Why not do 12 sets....I'm being facitious.
The point is this. Anymore exercise than what is required for stimulating growth is counter-productive. Therefore, 1 set to failure is all that is required.
And as far as your "principle overload" is concerned, you will grossly overtrain your muscles if you think that it take sets on top of sets to accomplish this.
Once you have reached "muscular failure" on the first set (which should be the only set) to do another set is just a waste of time. Why? You've already accomplished your goal of stimulating the growth mechanism when you trained to "failure."
Do you think 3 sets are good? Well then, why stop there? Why not do 12 sets....I'm being facitious.
The point is this. Anymore exercise than what is required for stimulating growth is counter-productive. Therefore, 1 set to failure is all that is required.
And as far as your "principle overload" is concerned, you will grossly overtrain your muscles if you think that it take sets on top of sets to accomplish this.
Last edited:
First of all, I'm female, so not your gentleman, thanks.
I did not advocate 3 sets as a rule, or even a guideline, I was simply using it as an example. I never said it takes set upon set to accomplish overload, and no, I have never been victim of overtraining.
I absolutely agree that much research has shown that one set of an exercise is enough to promote gains in strength and hypertrophy. However, studies also show that, while single-set training is appropriate for untrained individuals, "higher volumes are necessary to promote further gains in strength, especially for intermediate and advanced resistance-trained athletes" (Baechle, Thomas R., Earle, Roger W. Essentials of Strength Training and Conditioning).
Multiple sets will provide additional results because of the higher training volume (which is calculated by multiplying the number of sets by the number of repetitions times the amount of weight lifted). And, no, these sets do not always HAVE to be taken to failure and results will be seen nonetheless, just because of the increase in volume. My point to Leandrofu was to ensure that the weight lifted provided enough of an overload to stimulate the musculoskeletal system.
I hardly believe I could get results from single-set training at this point in time, nor could many of my clients. Volume is an important part of the periodization of training, and inherently, this plays on the number of sets, reps, and weight lifted.
Be careful in the way you address people's knowledge and opinions in your posts. There are many different approaches to training employed by different trainers who have different philosophies. Many times, none are ABSOLUTELY right or wrong. This is a discussion board, and you may state your opinion as such without giving the impression that you are absolutely right and others are wrong. But as far as your single-set training, I personally don't believe it is enough, for the reasons stated above. And you don't see me telling you that you will grossly undertrain your muscles if you think 1 set is enough.
I did not advocate 3 sets as a rule, or even a guideline, I was simply using it as an example. I never said it takes set upon set to accomplish overload, and no, I have never been victim of overtraining.
I absolutely agree that much research has shown that one set of an exercise is enough to promote gains in strength and hypertrophy. However, studies also show that, while single-set training is appropriate for untrained individuals, "higher volumes are necessary to promote further gains in strength, especially for intermediate and advanced resistance-trained athletes" (Baechle, Thomas R., Earle, Roger W. Essentials of Strength Training and Conditioning).
Multiple sets will provide additional results because of the higher training volume (which is calculated by multiplying the number of sets by the number of repetitions times the amount of weight lifted). And, no, these sets do not always HAVE to be taken to failure and results will be seen nonetheless, just because of the increase in volume. My point to Leandrofu was to ensure that the weight lifted provided enough of an overload to stimulate the musculoskeletal system.
I hardly believe I could get results from single-set training at this point in time, nor could many of my clients. Volume is an important part of the periodization of training, and inherently, this plays on the number of sets, reps, and weight lifted.
Be careful in the way you address people's knowledge and opinions in your posts. There are many different approaches to training employed by different trainers who have different philosophies. Many times, none are ABSOLUTELY right or wrong. This is a discussion board, and you may state your opinion as such without giving the impression that you are absolutely right and others are wrong. But as far as your single-set training, I personally don't believe it is enough, for the reasons stated above. And you don't see me telling you that you will grossly undertrain your muscles if you think 1 set is enough.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
There is only one universal principle when it comes to exercise science. They has to be. Just like in medicine. Otherwise, doctors could not make any type of diagnosis, pescribe medicine, perform surgeries, or what have you. The human body is the human body. And we cannot say there is are a million procedures when it comes to removing an appendix. Also, remember, exercise science is derived from medical science.
Much of the information you are stating Mogwai is incorrect. But you seem to be upset with the fact that it's different from to what your theory states. But you should'nt be upset. In essence, you should hear what I have to say before you make your angry remarks at me. You might learn a thing or two.
Now, having said that. Let me also ask why should I have to "be careful" of the truth. If you disagree with what I say, that's your perogative. But you seem to be the one that thinks she knows more than what she really does.
If I seem arrogant, forgive me. These are not my intentions. But when you are confident in what you believe this is the attitude that I portray - assurance.
You say you are a persoal trainer, but so am I. I'm saying this not to boast but only to tell you what I've seen in the hundreds of people I've trained through the course of years. And volume training eventually leads to no where. It's a known fact.
If you want to quote doctors, so can I. If you want references, I can give them to you. But you know what? Why should I? Your already SET on what you believe.......so have ad it!
I hope you will not dislike me because of this post, but if you do, that's your choice. I will not hold it against you or anyone else who might back you up.
There is only one universal principle when it comes to exercise science. They has to be. Just like in medicine. Otherwise, doctors could not make any type of diagnosis, pescribe medicine, perform surgeries, or what have you. The human body is the human body. And we cannot say there is are a million procedures when it comes to removing an appendix. Also, remember, exercise science is derived from medical science.
Much of the information you are stating Mogwai is incorrect. But you seem to be upset with the fact that it's different from to what your theory states. But you should'nt be upset. In essence, you should hear what I have to say before you make your angry remarks at me. You might learn a thing or two.
Now, having said that. Let me also ask why should I have to "be careful" of the truth. If you disagree with what I say, that's your perogative. But you seem to be the one that thinks she knows more than what she really does.
If I seem arrogant, forgive me. These are not my intentions. But when you are confident in what you believe this is the attitude that I portray - assurance.
You say you are a persoal trainer, but so am I. I'm saying this not to boast but only to tell you what I've seen in the hundreds of people I've trained through the course of years. And volume training eventually leads to no where. It's a known fact.
If you want to quote doctors, so can I. If you want references, I can give them to you. But you know what? Why should I? Your already SET on what you believe.......so have ad it!
I hope you will not dislike me because of this post, but if you do, that's your choice. I will not hold it against you or anyone else who might back you up.
Last edited:
I don't understand how you believe that I seem to think I know more than what I really do. As stated, I express my opinion on the subject, an opinion that, as you, I am confident about and portray with "assurance". I enjoy this forum because I can help other people and learn some things from other professionals (preferably those who don't insult me).
I do not advocate volume training as an absolute and only means of achieving any results. This seems to be what you think I am saying. But I don't believe that there is only one way to train the human body, as there is to remove an appendix. Apples and oranges, really.
Had you brought up your single-set theory without as much arrogance, I might have been more tempted to actually discuss and debate it with you. But since you seem to be saying that my opinion is just that, and that yours is the truth ("why should I have to be careful of the truth"), I am going to assume that your "passion" for your theory leaves you a little less open-minded about the theories and opinions of others, at least mine.
I do not dislike you, but I do not wish to discuss this any further with you....since, you know, according to you I know everything, right? (What can I say, that's a pretty viscious accusation and I take offense.) Hmmm, maybe I do dislike you just a little bit for that insult. Don't worry, I will surely get over it...
I do not advocate volume training as an absolute and only means of achieving any results. This seems to be what you think I am saying. But I don't believe that there is only one way to train the human body, as there is to remove an appendix. Apples and oranges, really.
Had you brought up your single-set theory without as much arrogance, I might have been more tempted to actually discuss and debate it with you. But since you seem to be saying that my opinion is just that, and that yours is the truth ("why should I have to be careful of the truth"), I am going to assume that your "passion" for your theory leaves you a little less open-minded about the theories and opinions of others, at least mine.
I do not dislike you, but I do not wish to discuss this any further with you....since, you know, according to you I know everything, right? (What can I say, that's a pretty viscious accusation and I take offense.) Hmmm, maybe I do dislike you just a little bit for that insult. Don't worry, I will surely get over it...
Last edited:
Mogwai said:
Okay, I see where the misunderstanding occured. For strength, I agree that taxing the CNS system and pushing to or further than failure is probably the best option. For strictly hypertrophy and bodybuilders, however, going to failure is NOT the best principle to follow. Frequent workouts are better for bodybuilding than high volume, infrequent workouts. Pushing to failure every set will require a large amount of recovery time, thus leaving a long period in which the muscle has not been worked. Have you heard of HST? You are using weights less than your 10rm for the majority of the time. In HST you are adding weight each workout until you reach your 10rm on the last 10 rep workout, then you start again with your 5rm and do the same. You do not ALWAYS have to use a weight that is your 10rm if you are doing sets of 10. Besides, if you are doing a set that is your 10rm, and you cannot pushout ONE more rep on your last set, you should decrease in strength by the next set. I know if I do a set of 10 with my 10rm, there will be no way I can push out 10 more reps on the next set, no matter what the length of recovery time is.
As for the 1 set to failure principle. I don't buy into it. If you actually believe you can achieve all of your goals by doing one set to failure of every exersize then go for it.
From what i got. I should work myself to failure at least, i am going to go further for the following reason: I have a high metabolism and for some reason i am having a hard time getting the soreness feeling the day after from just doing three sets of failure. I also do not like to give too much rest time between sets, yet i do on some days.
Mogwai, let there be no hard feelings among us. Accept my apology if I have offended you. However, let me just say that
being open-minded as you say, is VERY dangerous. In fact, this is the reason why so many bodybuilders are confused.
Let me use another example, if I may. Let's say you go for surgery and the staff ask the doctor "how much anethesia should we give this patient," and the surgeon replied, "Well, I don't know...let's keep an open mind on this one." What you do? My guess is that you would quickly get off the table and run for your life! This is the reason why there must be a certainty when it comes to exercise science - otherwise, you will WASTE precious, precious time.
Genius, you can't change the laws of nature. And what you are doing is violating them with that type of training. But as far as "buying into it" - you don't have to. Remember, you will be the one that has to deal with his own consequences, not I.
Also, I agree that pushing to failure "every" set WILL require more recovery - But I never said to do that - ONE set is all that is needed. This is what I stated. Why are you doing more sets? Is it better? Why only 3 sets of 10? Why not do more if hypertrophy is the issue? Right?
Note, when you do "a set" you make an inroad into your recovery ability. When you do another set you make a "deeper" in road. Therefore, leaving very little left over for the growth production to occur. So you see, it's counter-productive to continue with this regimine - it's also a waste of time.
In the beggining, you may get away with this volume approach, but eventually your gains will come to a halt. This is why many professionals turn to steroids. This is why "high-intensity training" is so logical.
Let me also add that if everyone is "different" when it comes to training, then why do these authorities advocate the same amount of sets for everyone - the traditional 3 sets of whatever. Where is the logic in this? One set is sufficient - not more, only because you need to do a set to complete a workout.
One must realize that it's really not "one set" if you really analyze it. For example, let's say your doing a set of reverse-grip pulldowns for 10 reps to failure. In essence, there is the "positive" (bringing the weight down) there is the "static" (holding the weight in the contracted position) and there is the "negative" (bringing the weight back to the initial position). So you see, in actuality, you've really done 30 units of work if you don't like the title, "one set."
As far as training to failure, the concept is this: Carrying a set to a point where your forced to utilize 100% of your momentary abilility is the single most important factor increasing size and strength. Working to this "point of failure" when another rep is impossible despite the greatest effort, ensures that you pass through the "break over point."
If you were to pick up a 60 lb barbell and did one rep, would you grow? Of course not. It's the last impossilbe rep (possibly the last one) that will stimulate an increase. Agreed? So, this why you MUST get to that point (as I just mentioned) - not stopping at 10 reps when you can probably do another rep or two.
It is not just I who believe this theory of "one set to failure" but many who have experienced it for themselves. Even professional bodybuilders - Aaron Baker, Dorian Yates, and the late Mike Mentzer to name a few.
I myself, have trained bodybuilders and I've seen the results of my clients by following this simple principle. Last year alone, I performed over a thousand training sessions with clients and they are STILL making progres with their workouts. How many people can say that?
Leandrofu, if you need more information, visit my web-site and look at the ARTICLES Link:
However, let me just say thatbeing open-minded as you say, is VERY dangerous. In fact, this is the reason why so many bodybuilders are confused.
Let me use another example, if I may. Let's say you go for surgery and the staff ask the doctor "how much anethesia should we give this patient," and the surgeon replied, "Well, I don't know...let's keep an open mind on this one." What you do? My guess is that you would quickly get off the table and run for your life! This is the reason why there must be a certainty when it comes to exercise science - otherwise, you will WASTE precious, precious time.
Genius, you can't change the laws of nature. And what you are doing is violating them with that type of training. But as far as "buying into it" - you don't have to. Remember, you will be the one that has to deal with his own consequences, not I.
Also, I agree that pushing to failure "every" set WILL require more recovery - But I never said to do that - ONE set is all that is needed. This is what I stated. Why are you doing more sets? Is it better? Why only 3 sets of 10? Why not do more if hypertrophy is the issue? Right?
Note, when you do "a set" you make an inroad into your recovery ability. When you do another set you make a "deeper" in road. Therefore, leaving very little left over for the growth production to occur. So you see, it's counter-productive to continue with this regimine - it's also a waste of time.
In the beggining, you may get away with this volume approach, but eventually your gains will come to a halt. This is why many professionals turn to steroids. This is why "high-intensity training" is so logical.
Let me also add that if everyone is "different" when it comes to training, then why do these authorities advocate the same amount of sets for everyone - the traditional 3 sets of whatever. Where is the logic in this? One set is sufficient - not more, only because you need to do a set to complete a workout.
One must realize that it's really not "one set" if you really analyze it. For example, let's say your doing a set of reverse-grip pulldowns for 10 reps to failure. In essence, there is the "positive" (bringing the weight down) there is the "static" (holding the weight in the contracted position) and there is the "negative" (bringing the weight back to the initial position). So you see, in actuality, you've really done 30 units of work if you don't like the title, "one set."
As far as training to failure, the concept is this: Carrying a set to a point where your forced to utilize 100% of your momentary abilility is the single most important factor increasing size and strength. Working to this "point of failure" when another rep is impossible despite the greatest effort, ensures that you pass through the "break over point."
If you were to pick up a 60 lb barbell and did one rep, would you grow? Of course not. It's the last impossilbe rep (possibly the last one) that will stimulate an increase. Agreed? So, this why you MUST get to that point (as I just mentioned) - not stopping at 10 reps when you can probably do another rep or two.
It is not just I who believe this theory of "one set to failure" but many who have experienced it for themselves. Even professional bodybuilders - Aaron Baker, Dorian Yates, and the late Mike Mentzer to name a few.
I myself, have trained bodybuilders and I've seen the results of my clients by following this simple principle. Last year alone, I performed over a thousand training sessions with clients and they are STILL making progres with their workouts. How many people can say that?
Leandrofu, if you need more information, visit my web-site and look at the ARTICLES Link:
Last edited:
LOL, and here I always thought being open-minded was a GOOD thing. Gil, I am not a doctor, nor do I wish/claim to be. Apples and oranges again, I do not think there is only one infallible way to train the human body that works for EVERYONE and ALL THE TIME. My post was about failure, not about how many sets is right or wrong. This debate could last forever. There are instances in which multi-set training will give results, and part of the periodization process might involve eventually falling into high intensity training. Keeping that in mind, I have visited your website to read up on that theory (being the open-minded individual that I am )....
I am still reading, so I will ask should any questions come up.
Thanks.
)....I am still reading, so I will ask should any questions come up.
Thanks.
I checked the website, and from what i see is that i used to workout correctly. Until someone told me i wasn't working out for long enough. I wish Jp would give his two cents so i can get a broader perspective. Right now, i'm just talking with people that have gotten results and asking them how they reached that. I would never have began to question my routine, but i simply stopped getting sore the day after. Especially when i workout my shoulder.
Tell me if this is bad.
Shoulder/Back Day"
Shoulder Press (Front and Behind Neck)
Arnold Press
Shrugs
Upright Rows
Dead Lifts
Bent Over Rows
Lat Bar
I do three sets in each, and i usually fail on the last two. Mostly because i want to keep endurance and speed by lifting lighter on the first two. I usually add five pounds after each set, and stop on my max.
Does the speed of me lifting really affect muscle growth?
Shoulder/Back Day"
Shoulder Press (Front and Behind Neck)
Arnold Press
Shrugs
Upright Rows
Dead Lifts
Bent Over Rows
Lat Bar
I do three sets in each, and i usually fail on the last two. Mostly because i want to keep endurance and speed by lifting lighter on the first two. I usually add five pounds after each set, and stop on my max.
Does the speed of me lifting really affect muscle growth?
Mogwai said:LOL, and here I always thought being open-minded was a GOOD thing. Gil, I am not a doctor, nor do I wish/claim to be. Apples and oranges again, I do not think there is only one infallible way to train the human body that works for EVERYONE and ALL THE TIME. My post was about failure, not about how many sets is right or wrong. This debate could last forever. There are instances in which multi-set training will give results, and part of the periodization process might involve eventually falling into high intensity training. Keeping that in mind, I have visited your website to read up on that theory (being the open-minded individual that I am
I am still reading, so I will ask should any questions come up.
Thanks.
Amen. EVERYONE is different and everyone will gain off of different routines. Good...very good statement. HIT. You are an HIT advocater Gil, I, and I'm sure everyone else on here can see that. I am advocater of frequent workouts with exersizes taken a few reps short of failure. This works best for me, not HIT. HIT did work, but not as well as frequent workouts combined with reps take short of failure. How can you argue that? If a different training style worked better for me than HIT then that style is BETTER for me than HIT is it not? HIT is not the only way to train. You are living in a glass box just like many beginner lifters are. Afraid of change. You made gains off of a certain training style/routine and are now afraid to venture out to what may provide for you better gains.
By the way, I never said that in HIT you take mulitiple sets to failure. I stated that you take every set to failure. If you are doing 6 different exersizes, then you are taking every set to failure correct?
I've often read and re-read, with lack of any adequate proof (references or personal experience lacking) that some of the strongest olympic lifters/power lifters very RARELY train to failure.
As far as training failure is concerned, I believe the more often you train to failure, the more likely you are to be overtraining or increasing the time needed for the body to recover. I am a fan of this type of training style/method that I've read from Ian King:
week 1: light weight that when the set is completed, you've room for 3-5 repetitions. You are also allowing for the weight to be increased in week 2.
week 2: weight is increased and the amount of repetitions are performed so that there is room for 1-3 more repetitions and still room for weight increase.
week 3: weight increase, knock your socks off, go to failure.
Yet another method...