The whole point about failure being "sufficient stimulation" is flawed because of the reasons I mentioned above--
Originally posted by chris mason
Craig, Fred Hatfield is also known as Dr. Squat, the guy who was either the 1st, or one of the 1st to squat over 1000 lbs.
Let's take a different look at using these gentleman as our paradigms. First, and foremost, they all take lots and lots of steroids (and other drugs), so the rules of engagement are quite a bit different for them than for a natural trainee. The advantage of training to failure is that it allows the trainee maximal stimulation with minimal volume. Yes, gains can be made at 80-90% intensity levels (or training to 80-95% of failure), but to receive sufficient stimulation, one must perform more work by doing a greater number of sets. Now, a natural trainee has a limited capacity for the body to recover from physical exertion, especially near maximal or maximal exertion. So, if one must perform more work in order to properly stimulate the musculature when training at sub-maximal levels, one runs the risk of outstripping one's ability to recover from said exercise. On the other hand, by training to failure, a trainee can receive sufficient stimulation from fewer sets, thus leaving more energy for recovery, and hopefully, supercompensation. So, the training methodologies that work very well for doped trainees doesn't necessarily translate to a natural one. We must all try to remember that growth doesn't occur while training, it occurs while resting, and like any form of exertion, more exertion requires more recovery. Think of an extreme example, which requires more time for the body to recover, a 100m sprint, or a 3 mile run?
How about this, I am curious how Yates and Maddog train, how about it guys, how do you train, failure or not?