training to failure..

I'm confused about something. Some people say that they don't train to failure. Like they may do 6 reps on a weight, and stop there.
I always go to failure...on every set....between 6-8 reps...exept on squats, deads, and SLDL. Is this a good or bad thing?

I personally think it's a good thing...I don't understand how you can gain muscle and strength if you're not putting all your effort into every set.

maybe 6 reps is failure for them. Personally I work for that last rep. I never quit early. Well there was that time I felt something rip in my shoulder

I take every set to failure, and it's worked for me.

lol@goin big.

so going to failure is a good thing then?

Originally posted by Tank23
...so going to failure is a good thing then?

Yes. Provided you include enough time for full recovery. Workout too soon, and you short circuit the growth process.

HIT - I train full body workout, every exercise to failure, once every 5-7 days.

HST - training to failure not necessary (but may be done 1 workout within each 2 week mini-cycle), full body workout, 3 times a week.

so you use HIT and HST principals in you training? is that what you're saying?

and why are some people so scared of training to failure?

With the HST principle, You don't have to go to failure, but with the HIT principle, you have to go to failure each time.

I think, if you want to increase your strength, go with the HIT principle, but if you want to increase your mass, go with the HST.

BTW, with HST you will also increase your strength.

Originally posted by Tank23
and why are some people so scared of training to failure?

Careful...choosing to not train to failure =/= "scared of training to failure"

you can make gains either way.

going to faluire especially whne doing lower reps, can increase your recovery time greatly.

I really don't see how you would tear the muscle fiber sufficiently w/o training to failure... any thoughts?

We've had this debate a million times before; suffice it to say, failure doesn't magically "tear" the muscle fibers any more than a *sufficiently difficult* non-failure set.

As far as it being absolutely necessary, I say no. Useful with some training protocols, certainly.

to get the best of both worlds i say

do your first few sets (per muscle) normally, go to fatigue but not to failure

save the last two for failure with higher reps

failsafe way to get sore (the good kind)

if Doms theory is right then training to failure and beyond could be good !

did you grow with HST ??? does it work ?

Originally posted by GuitarPlayer
to get the best of both worlds i say

do your first few sets (per muscle) normally, go to fatigue but not to failure

save the last two for failure with higher reps

failsafe way to get sore (the good kind)

or do X weeks to faluire, then sub faluire for X weeks.

you can swap every week. or do a month of each.

Originally posted by Tank23
so you use HIT and HST principals in you training? is that what you're saying?

Yes.

I use the exact same workout and cycle through times of training for strength (HIT), and times of training for size (HST), and also while I'm cutting (Circuit style training).

Originally posted by Tank23
...why are some people so scared of training to failure?

Who knows?


P.S. IMO,

HIT, for strength, with size as a by product.

HST, for size, with strength as a by product.

Circuit training, for cardio vascular conditioning, those looking to tone muscles and lose fat, or newbies to get familiar with different aspects of the iron game, changing weights, proper form, etc.

guitar player: you said to do the first few sets normally, then do the last ones to failure. I don't like this idea, as your muscles will be fatigued and you will not be able to put 100% effort into that set, and you will hit failure sooner. Will this make a difference to increasing strength and/or size, or will both, guitar player's and my way be the same?

also: what is the big differences between the HST and HIT principles that make one target strength, and the other size??

I rep until I cannot get out another rep with good form. It takes a lot of time and practice to know whether or not you can get another one out, trust me, and its partly why I hate spotters.

I dont think you have to train to failure to grow, nor do I think that training to failure hurts you.
I've read so many articles on how the only way to grow is to o far beyond failure, like 5 reps past failure, but wouldnt that fringe on overtraining?

Originally posted by Tank23
also: what is the big differences between the HST and HIT principles that make one target strength, and the other size??

http://www.cyberpump.com/training/hitfaq/hitfaq4.0.html

http://www.hypertrophy-specific.com/hst_index.html

i really don't know

do what works for you!

everybody has different fast - slow twitch muscle fibers

just experiment

You can make gains without going to failure.

eg. look at garage mechanics, they do extremely high volume "sets" with their screwdriver and most have very large forearms.

I would suggest based on anecdotal evidence, however, that including failure at some point is more effective than not doing so. That being said, it could be every set (as in HIT training) or once every two weeks (as in HST). If you look at it, they are just two different paths to failure.

And it's been said a million times, the number one most important factor is progressive overload.

Training to "just before failure" but increasing weight/reps with each workout is going to be superior than training each set to failure but never adding pounds (although theoretically, the latter should mean that you are adding reps if you are eating/sleeping enough)

Originally posted by hemants


the number one most important factor is progressive overload.

:withstupi

word.

that can never be emphasized enough

ok, thanks alot guys

another question: i'm researching the HST principal...as it claims to provide exactly what i want: hypertrophy. In the sample workouts on the link Obadiah posted, for back they recommend chins and seated or bent over row (all W&N grip, whaever that means?). Why don't they recommend deads? Wouldn't this be neglecting lower back.

Originally posted by Tank23
another question: i'm researching the HST principal...as it claims to provide exactly what i want: hypertrophy. In the sample workouts on the link Obadiah posted, for back they recommend chins and seated or bent over row (all W&N grip, whaever that means?). Why don't they recommend deads? Wouldn't this be neglecting lower back.

I wasn't crazy about the workout they recommended, but the principles behind HST, IMO, are sound, so I applied them to my own routine. Consider this:

1 set of each exercise, in the order written, with 1 to 1 1/2 minutes rest between each:

squat
leg curl
leg extension
standing calf raise
lateral raise
seated cable row
incline press (30 degree angle)
chinup, close-grip, palms facing you
paralle bar dip
barbell curl
triceps pressdown
stiff-legged deadlift
hanging crunch
shrug
wrist curl

This is working quite nicely for me.