Failure Optimal for Hypertrophy

It likely would since you wouldn’t have to use as much weight to be effective. So while you would be able to place the muscles under maximum tension the joints and ligaments would not be traumatized which would decrease the overall negative stress of the exercise.

First off, I love how you’re always evolving!!

a) In the studies, is it the same muscle fibers growing growing in the 3x30% to failure vs the 3x80% to failure. Does it have something to do with the fiber-makeup? On another related note, what about a classic example of cyclists with huge thighs? (I know that the top-athletes are VERY efficient and skilled squatters/weight lifters usually and have a genetic disposition).

b) It just seems unreasonable that it is THE ONLY trigger. Some coaches incorporate daily high-frequency movements, such as split squats shying from (movement and contractile) failure and see hypertrophy. But expanding from that -
Is it then a question about individual motor-unit failure then forcing hypertrophy of the connected fibers - thus why we still see hypertrophy (but far from optimal) if you always shy away from failure. And contractile failure simply fatigues more motor-units and why 3 sets is better than 1 set can be extrapolated from that.
And as far as I understand 3 sets is not necessarily 3 sets of the same exercise.

c) And then what makes 3 most optimal? The study only did 1 set and 3 sets. The even wrote: “The results from our study also suggest that additional training volume in the form of more sets may result in greater muscle hypertrophy;” - So what makes 3 better than 4, better than 5? The (in)ability to recover? The law of diminishing returns? Disabling your ability for a higher frequency?

d) What about eccentric/concentric? Albeit going to failure on concentric only movements are harder, there seems to be a difference in that and eccentrics.

e) What are some good examples of isolation exercises for each muscle-group that are not moving into the compound-movement-territory? It seems that the choice is individual, as to what you can accomplish with one exercise in regards to contractile failure. I must say getting my head around this is challenging because we have often and mostly strived after: the bigger the exercise the better approach. It would be awesome to see some video work.

f) And which direction do you see yourself going now? Knowing your body of work, some great concepts are going to be developed!!

All very interesting Christian, hats off for your approach to it all.

An interesting article. I had to keep checking the by line to make sure it wasn’t actually written by Ellington Darden:grinning:. This study should come as no surprise really. Some of the more recent bodybuilding greats (Dorian Yates, Ronnie Coleman, etc.) were known for taking sets to brutal failure and beyond. And despite all of the juice, the results speak for themselves.

I did HIT for years and my experience bears out what Mr. Thibaudeau says regarding this type of training not being optimum for big compound movements. I was walking around very “beat up”. Controlled reps to failure sounds like it would be very safe, but when applied to compound movements, it really isn’t. Using the bench press as an example; we would expect that some lifters would fail in the triceps first and some in the pecs based on training history and individual morphology. But what if your subscapularis or pec minor or some other smaller muscle responsible for scapular stability fails first? Your prime movers keep right on going, but your body is now unstable under load. Injury is imminent.

Also, it’s a rare person who can take a set of squats to true failure. Everytime I did it, I suspect I was faking. Your subconscious has a strong aversion to being crushed like a bug. Squats AND Deadlifts involve such a complex ballet of muscle contraction to keep your legs aligned and your spine from collapsing in any number of directions, that they are both really dangerous near the failure “barrier”.

It’s nice to see some of the old HIT ideas getting some love in the press. There certainly is something to it. I wonder if some of the old Nautilus studios (what few are left) will see a bump in membership based on this article?

Thanks Mr. Thibaudeau for bringing it to our attenton.

[quote=“Norcient, post:22, topic:213612”]
a) In the studies, is it the same muscle fibers growing growing in the 3x30% to failure vs the 3x80% to failure. Does it have something to do with the fiber-makeup? [/quote]

I actually had that same interrogation myself. I actually debated that issue myself (at first I wasn’t convinced by the idea of failure making every weight equally as effective). And Dr. Steele sent me a study showing that various loads to failure led to the same ratio of hypertrophy across al the fiber types. In other words going to failure with a light weight led to the same TYPE of hypertrophy as a higher load to failure.

[quote=“Norcient, post:22, topic:213612”]
On another related note, what about a classic example of cyclists with huge thighs? (I know that the top-athletes are VERY efficient and skilled squatters/weight lifters usually and have a genetic disposition). [/quote]

There is more than one way to stimulate growth. The release of local growth factors is one. A high production of lactic acid and producing force while in an hypoxic (lack of oxygen going into the muscle) are those of the things that increase the release of growth factors. Track cyclists and speed skaters do a lot of work in an hypoxic or near-hypoxic state and produce a lot of lactic acid, which can create hypertrophy.

Then we shouldn’t forget that they DO train with weights too.

[quote=“Norcient, post:22, topic:213612”]
b) It just seems unreasonable that it is THE ONLY trigger. Some coaches incorporate daily high-frequency movements, such as split squats shying from (movement and contractile) failure and see hypertrophy.[/quote]

It’s not the only trigger of course. But for isolation exercise it is the most effective and efficient (takes less volume) one. As I mentioned in my article I wouldn’t train to failure on compound lifts, so to get maximum growth from these movements you will normally need a higher load as well as more total sets. And of course there is the example of the release of local growth factors.

I think that the best way to stimulate hypertrophy is “exercise dependant”… in other word there is no “universally best” way to stimulate growth, but there is a best way for each type of exercise.

[quote=“Norcient, post:22, topic:213612”]
c) And then what makes 3 most optimal? The study only did 1 set and 3 sets. The even wrote: “The results from our study also suggest that additional training volume in the form of more sets may result in greater muscle hypertrophy;” - So what makes 3 better than 4, better than 5? The (in)ability to recover? The law of diminishing returns? Disabling your ability for a higher frequency? [/quote]

More total sets could indeed lead to more total growth. From having experimented myself, when I experimented I found that if I do 3 sets of the same exercise to failure I’m fine but if I try to do a 4th set I’m just not “in it”… I am not able to force myself to have the same quality of effort for some reason. The odd thing is that if I switch to another exercise for the same muscle I can go hard again.

If I use rest/pause (which I do exclusively now) I can do 1 or 2 sets. If I attempt a 3rd one the performance drop, quality of muscle contraction and focus just drops significantly.

Now someone who is slow twitch dominant might be able to handle more sets per exercise. But personally I prefer to do 1 or 2 rest/pause sets and pull all the stops then do 3 or 4 and know that I might lose something by subconsciously holding back.

If I want more volume I prefer to simply do more exercises for the same muscle. But I normally avoid doing more than 6 total rest/pause sets for a muscle.

[quote=“Norcient, post:22, topic:213612”]
d) What about eccentric/concentric? Albeit going to failure on concentric only movements are harder, there seems to be a difference in that and eccentrics. [/quote]

I agree. I use some methods where I go to concentric, isometric and eccentric failure in the same rest/pause set. But I normally only one such set when I use this method.

Furthermore the type of contraction/rep is the second most important element IMHO. And it’s actually a very close second to hitting failure. You want to perform the repetitions so that target muscle stays under maximal tension the whole time. What we want is to have the muscle squeeze out every inch of movement during the reps. This means avoiding acceleration during the rep. The best way to describe how you perform the reps is “smooth” or “constant speed”. The lifting portion of the rep should take you about 2 seconds to complete and you should focus on flexing the muscle as hard as possible at every single point in the range of motion. The eccentric/lowering portion should be done either under control is about 2 seconds or slowly (about 5 seconds) depending on the method.

If you perform you reps using too much acceleration on the way up you will lose a lot of the stimulus from the set. Yes you will use less weight with the “smooth/constant speed” style of repetition. But if you go back to my failure article you will see that the load used doesn’t matter when it comes to stimulating muscle growth as long as you hit failure.

That relates only to the rep type used with the failure model of course.

[quote=“Norcient, post:22, topic:213612”]
e) What are some good examples of isolation exercises for each muscle-group that are not moving into the compound-movement-territory? It seems that the choice is individual, as to what you can accomplish with one exercise in regards to contractile failure. I must say getting my head around this is challenging because we have often and mostly strived after: the bigger the exercise the better approach. [/quote]

It is totally individual. It’s the exercise on which YOU feel the better contraction in the target muscle.

Keep in mind that my training is not ONLY isolation work to failure. I also do a lot of Olympic lifting and work on the big basics, but these are not do to failure or with light weights.

A combination of Olympic lifting with submaximal weights (but still challenging) working on crispness and speed, big basic strength lifts done with for low reps (2-3) NOT to failure but fairly heavy and isolation work done to failure. I believe that this will give the best overall physique and performance.

I’ve done it once on squats. After I read the “Super Strength” book by Randy Strossen which talked about “Breathing squats” (doing 20 reps on squats with your 10RM without being allowed to rack the weight). That was one of the worst experience of my life and I knew right there and then that if I had to do that every week I would stop training!

And as I mention in my article if you hit “failure” on these big lifts it will likely be due to the sum of the forced produced by all the muscles involved being insufficient to lift the weight NOT to any of the muscles involved hitting contractile failure.

CT,
WhIle reading the new article, I immediately thought of the New Layer System. Because of the layer system design it seems to match up well with the premise of this article.
Your thoughts .

Thanks for the comprehensive answers. It certainly elucidates it much more.

Just FYI I have been almost solely using your training concepts over the last 5 years with some inspiration here and there from other great coaches. I’ve followed HPmass, sled-training, layer style, power look, all the indigo-programs, 6-weeks to superhero, neural workouts, rings and deadstop movements… and so on.

  • (fearing doing too much): When you say you do 1-2 rest-pause sets. Is that per exercise or per muscle group? I assume (which I shouldn’t) that one set is: Do reps to failure - pause 10-15sec - do reps to failure = 1 set. (Not DC rest-pause style - but whatever works for the individual I suppose).
    So for triceps on muscle days you could do something like push-down 1 regular set to failure, triceps-extensions with 1 rest pause set - potentially 2 and 1 regular set of triceps kickbacks to failure?

CT says
“A combination of Olympic lifting with submaximal weights (but still challenging) working on crispness and speed, big basic strength lifts done with for low reps (2-3) NOT to failure but fairly heavy and isolation work done to failure. I believe that this will give the best overall physique and performance.”

There it is boys and girls, the magic sauce if there ever was a thing…

This could be interpreted as layers system with one or two isolation assistance exercise at end right

Interesting. isolation failure work first and then compound heavy. I am doing layers now, and I want to give that a good run before I change up, but this would be an interesting approach. Curious where and how I would keep SGHPs.

Well I don’t usually like to jump ship on my current training regimen before the complete program is finished, but I don’t see why I should bother finishing it when I have these concepts that need to be incorporated into it.
I’m sure this will be a great shock to my muscles, as previously I’ve been going to failure very rarely during my gym sessions.

Pulling some of your previously suggested training methods/splits from another thread, I plan on doing the following:
DAY 1 - CNS day 1 (one upper body push and one lower body) Bench, Dead
DAY 2 - Pressing muscles hypertrophy (3 shoulders and 2 triceps exercises)
DAY 3 - Pulling muscles hypertrophy (2 lats, 1 mid-back, , 2 biceps exercises)
DAY 4 - CNS day 2 (one upper body push and one lower body) OHP/SGHP, Squat
DAY 5 - Legs/Traps hypertrophy (2 leg exercises, 2 traps exercises) ← To failure
DAY 6 - Pressing muscle hypertrophy (3 chest exercises, 2 triceps exercises)
DAY 7 - OFF

During my hypertrophy days I would be training until failure for any isolation exercises I perform.

Thanks again for your ongoing contributions.

No because they are not all done on the same day. And as I wrote in the article, the failure model is best used with isolation exercises.

In fact there is nothing about what I said that is even remotely close to layers.

This makes sense, ok.

I don’t understand why this kind of “failure training” can’t be done on the same day as heavy lifting.

If I usually do heavy Bench Press for 4-5 sets of 4-6 reps, then EZ Bar Skullcrushers as isolation for triceps (say, 5 sets of 10 reps), what’s wrong with interpreting this article to mean I could instead just do 3 sets of Skullcrushers to failure? Or 1-2 sets to failure with rest-pause?

I.e., why can’t I just sub in this new “failure training” where I previously did isolation work? As opposed to totally reworking a training split (into separate “CNS” and “muscle” days)?

  1. What do you think of compound machine movements for going to failure. Meaning take something as a machine press where stability is taken out of the movement and with slow and controlled mind muscle connection one focuses on the pectorals (also using more bodybuilding style technique of not locking out the elbows to avoid he triceps or going all the way down to negate the delts).

2)I know you hate Frankensteining routines but do you feel this may have any application in the layer program? I know there article says some isolation work is OK was wondering if double stimulation would be too much… Doing the isolation work the following day.

  1. been tinkering with some ideas in my head:
    A) isolation failure double stimulation for the previous days work
    B) heavy compound work usually barbell related.
    ?b2? Supplemental Assistance work related to B
    C) carries

It can. I even gave the example of Paul Carter’s training.

I personally separate my days but that fits my schedule and orientations.

[quote=“AbsoluteBoxer, post:34, topic:213612, full:true”]

  1. What do you think of compound machine movements for going to failure. Meaning take something as a machine press where stability is taken out of the movement and with slow and controlled mind muscle connection one focuses on the pectorals (also using more bodybuilding style technique of not locking out the elbows to avoid he triceps or going all the way down to negate the delts). [/quote]

Yes that is fine. Lat pulldowns and seated rows are also good examples.

[quote=“AbsoluteBoxer, post:34, topic:213612, full:true”]
2)I know you hate Frankensteining routines but do you feel this may have any application in the layer program? I know there article says some isolation work is OK was wondering if double stimulation would be too much… Doing the isolation work the following day.[/quote]

I personally use the double stimulation approach. I actually build my training schedule in pairs… one day is big lifts the next day is isolation to failure for the muscles involved, Which is why I do not work in “weeks” for my own training.

But using the layer system approach for the heavy days would be way too much.

In which circumstances is it best to use failure-based double stimulation vs light pump double stimulation (like your DS article)?

CT, what do you mean when you say “rest/pause” in this thread. Surely not the “cluster set” style of rest pause training, right?

Rest/pause is a method or type of method (I am writing an article about many of its variations) where you go to failure, then rest 10-15 seconds and continue the set going to failure again with the same weight.

A rest/pause set can have several “mini-sets” (in the example above there are 2 mini-sets divided by a 10-15 seconds pause)

As always, fascinating. Looks like that Dorian Yates guy was onto something… :grinning:

CT, thinking of Yates-failure-injury cycle, what precautions would you use during a diet/contest prep. to avoid getting injured on the sets to failure? Or you think that “isolation-failure” is not prone to injuries as much as “compound to failure”? Or would you just “stop at failure” and won’t go beyond failure?

Thanks in advance!