T Nation

Performance Based vs. Fatigue Based

I’m sure everyone here has heard of EDT, maybe not max-stim. The idea being to increase work load over time while avoiding fatigue (and failure) the end result in mind being hypertrophy. In my knowledge no-one has or has attempted to build an Olympia status physique using a method like this.

Then on the other side we have conventional bodybuilding protocol in which at least one set per muscle group goes to failure, usually proceeded by sets that ramp up toward the final heavy set. As has been discussed many times, this is the method that the largest bodybuilders all seem to use.


The reasoning behind the auto-regulatory method is that if work load is kept constant (using both methods) then the avoidance of cumulative fatigue improves recovery (over the common method) allowing the muscle to be worked with greater frequency theoretically leading to greater hypertrophy. However there are those who will dispute this saying that the effect of cumulative fatigue (the kind that causes a set to fail, reps to slow down etc.) is in part responsible for inducing hypertrophy.

The reasoning behind the common method is that as muscle fibers are fatigued from slow to fast that failure ensures the use of all fibres and that metabolic responses to cummulative fatigue make this method superior for inducing hypertrophy. However there are others who dispute this claiming that muscle fibres do not engage according to this pattern and that CNS fatigue limits the use of motor units, while metabolic responses to cumulative fatigue inducing excercise (in the sense that has been discussed) are not linked to hypertrophy.


So the question is, if you had 2 twins, and put them on nearly identical plans with the intention of getting them to olympia status, and both performed identical workouts except that one avoided fatigue and failure by inserting rest in between reps as opposed to inbetween sets. Who would be bigger at the end of 10 years (everything else being equal).

And the second question is. If the scenario is the same but our “rest-pause/EDT” guy did a greater volume of work assuming his recovery is better. Who would be bigger.

This is just polling opinion as I don’t think we really have the scientific knowledge to know what is better just yet though the anecdotes stand in favor of the common method anyway, but all the same I’m bored and interested in what people have on their minds regarding this.

For now I’ll be continuing my assessment of the common method, which I thought I’d mention just in case anyone thought I was suffering from paralysis by analysis.

Well if you truly kept everything equal, then the guy that didnt avoid fatigue would likely be bigger and/or have lower bf.

But, the guy that DID avoid fatigue in reality, would likely achieve a higher volume, either by greater sets, reps, or load, or some combination of the three. Not to mention frequency would also be another possible progression.

This is why EDT should be superior to many other methods of training. That doesn’t mean it is the only type of training that should be done, because it doesn’t develop the metabolic type endurance that can have some size benefits. But it workes very well to lay down some strength and mass.

Another method thats interesting me now, is the TUT method. Not to be confused with tempo training, but instead similar to Ct’s “superman sets”. It just makes a lot of sense to me that when not training directly for strength, the tension time of a set, or total sets of a workout is the major stimulus. Much like HIIT training on a bike, you can play around with the working/recovery intervals on resistance training to get similar benefits.

[quote]Gumpshmee wrote:
I’m sure everyone here has heard of EDT, maybe not max-stim. The idea being to increase work load over time while avoiding fatigue (and failure) the end result in mind being hypertrophy. In my knowledge no-one has or has attempted to build an Olympia status physique using a method like this.

Then on the other side we have conventional bodybuilding protocol in which at least one set per muscle group goes to failure, usually proceeded by sets that ramp up toward the final heavy set. As has been discussed many times, this is the method that the largest bodybuilders all seem to use.


The reasoning behind the auto-regulatory method is that if work load is kept constant (using both methods) then the avoidance of cumulative fatigue improves recovery (over the common method) allowing the muscle to be worked with greater frequency theoretically leading to greater hypertrophy. However there are those who will dispute this saying that the effect of cumulative fatigue (the kind that causes a set to fail, reps to slow down etc.) is in part responsible for inducing hypertrophy.

The reasoning behind the common method is that as muscle fibers are fatigued from slow to fast that failure ensures the use of all fibres and that metabolic responses to cummulative fatigue make this method superior for inducing hypertrophy. However there are others who dispute this claiming that muscle fibres do not engage according to this pattern and that CNS fatigue limits the use of motor units, while metabolic responses to cumulative fatigue inducing excercise (in the sense that has been discussed) are not linked to hypertrophy.


So the question is, if you had 2 twins, and put them on nearly identical plans with the intention of getting them to olympia status, and both performed identical workouts except that one avoided fatigue and failure by inserting rest in between reps as opposed to inbetween sets. Who would be bigger at the end of 10 years (everything else being equal).

And the second question is. If the scenario is the same but our “rest-pause/EDT” guy did a greater volume of work assuming his recovery is better. Who would be bigger.

This is just polling opinion as I don’t think we really have the scientific knowledge to know what is better just yet though the anecdotes stand in favor of the common method anyway, but all the same I’m bored and interested in what people have on their minds regarding this.

For now I’ll be continuing my assessment of the common method, which I thought I’d mention just in case anyone thought I was suffering from paralysis by analysis.[/quote]

No one trains olympians this way (submaximal load method) because no olympians now train this way. The reason being that the submaximal load method (lifting moderate resistance with moderate reps) is insufficient for improving intramuscular coordination and is not optimal for strength gains. The only small upside is that a muscle with a larger cross-sectional area is generally stronger than an equal muscle of less area, but, at the olympian level, muscle size isn’t the problem, improving intramuscular coordination and maximizing maximal force production is, and these two problems are better addressed using the maximal effort method.

Pyramiding (i’m assuming you are addressing this) has been excluded in Olympic training since the 80s because it is not optimal for strength gain.

It’s hard to say both the Repeated Effort Method and Submaximal load method are supposed to be, in theory, equally good for hypertrophy.

When I refered to Olympia, I meant the Mr. Olympia competition, not the olympics, sorry for the confusion.

Just to make it clear I am talking about bodybuilding. If we were talking about olympic performance training then I would agree with you on several accounts.

What we’re discussing here are people’s thoughts concerning what the results of two identical trainees would be (as far as maximal hypertrophy is concerned) if one avoided the cumulative fatigue of sets performed to failure, but maintained the load and volume (weight x reps) or had greater volume due to better recovery.

An example:

Both trainees use an upward pyramid protocol including warump sets (in the same way that a lot of big bodybuilders do). Both perform the same number of reps with the same amount of weight, but one of them avoids failure or fatigue by interspersing his rest between his repetitions.

The second example is where we suppose that this allows our second trainee to do greater volume with heavier loads, and perhaps with greater frequency. Now who’s results would be better?

This all depends on whether you believe that the condition of excercise leading to “the burn” or to failure is more productive to hypertrophy than greater work load within one’s recovery capacity.

The one who ate more.

If they were forced to eat enough to sustain maximum muscular growth, that at first glance the failure twin would be bigger.

Only because training failure and true muscular failure are two different things. If a person trains to their percieved failure they will learn how to push themselves harder, past failure.

Now if you had a real way to make somebody trained past their max, but below their true muscular failure the non-failure twin would be bigger. Because he would accomplish more volume. Given you kept him from overtraining.

This is assuming your talking about after puberty.

Dude, this is the BB’ing forum. When he said “Olympian” did you really think he meant olympic lifters?

God no, what would possibly lead anyone to think that? :stuck_out_tongue:

Here are a couple of problems I personally see with the EDT method:

  1. Because you do not ramp up to a top weight, you will not be able to use as much weight as if you did. And if you tried to, you would likely injure yourself.

  2. Because you must wait until you reach a target goal of total reps before increasing load, your load progression will be slower than the traditional method

  3. How do you know that you are actually pushing your body as hard as it can go (causing overload) if you are purposely avoiding fatigue?

  4. Efficiency. Let’s see I can do one all out set (after ramping up) to produce growth, or I can do 20 sets where I am trying to avoid fatigue (which I will still eventually encounter, but having wasted a crap load more time doing it). Hmmmm…now which makes more sense?

If You want my opinion (and that’s all it is, because I never plan on actually doing such an experiment, and I doubt anyone else will either), the one who does the traditional BB’ing method will be bigger and stronger because of the above mentioned reasons.

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:

That One Guy wrote:
No one trains olympians this way (submaximal load method) because no olympians now train this way. The reason being that the submaximal load method (lifting moderate resistance with moderate reps) is insufficient for improving intramuscular coordination and is not optimal for strength gains. The only small upside is that a muscle with a larger cross-sectional area is generally stronger than an equal muscle of less area, but, at the olympian level, muscle size isn’t the problem, improving intramuscular coordination and maximizing maximal force production is, and these two problems are better addressed using the maximal effort method.

Pyramiding (i’m assuming you are addressing this) has been excluded in Olympic training since the 80s because it is not optimal for strength gain.

It’s hard to say both the Repeated Effort Method and Submaximal load method are supposed to be, in theory, equally good for hypertrophy.

Dude, this is the BB’ing forum. When he said “Olympian” did you really think he meant olympic lifters?

Gumpshmee wrote:
For now I’ll be continuing my assessment of the common method, which I thought I’d mention just in case anyone thought I was suffering from paralysis by analysis.

God no, what would possibly lead anyone to think that? :stuck_out_tongue:

Here are a couple of problems I personally see with the EDT method:

  1. Because you do not ramp up to a top weight, you will not be able to use as much weight as if you did. And if you tried to, you would likely injure yourself.

  2. Because you must wait until you reach a target goal of total reps before increasing load, your load progression will be slower than the traditional method

  3. How do you know that you are actually pushing your body as hard as it can go (causing overload) if you are purposely avoiding fatigue?

  4. Efficiency. Let’s see I can do one all out set (after ramping up) to produce growth, or I can do 20 sets where I am trying to avoid fatigue (which I will still eventually encounter, but having wasted a crap load more time doing it). Hmmmm…now which makes more sense?

If You want my opinion (and that’s all it is, because I never plan on actually doing such an experiment, and I doubt anyone else will either), the one who does the traditional BB’ing method will be bigger and stronger because of the above mentioned reasons.[/quote]

Agreed on all accounts.
Btw, all successful BB training methods are based on performance.
You need to lift more/do more reps than last time.
There is no other method that produces results significant enough for bbing.

Authors just love to twist words/ideas around, don’t they.

For purposes of isolating variables I’m just comparing a failure using bodybuilders’s routine (deriving the reps and loads from his workout) and having the other guy perform the same reps with the same loads. EDT and a Mr. Olympia competitor’s routine are separated by too many variables.

So if our tradtional bodybuilder does a warmup set of 20 with 45 lb dumbells then our non failure guy would do the same, but he may insert rest between each rep or break it up into two sets of 10 separated by 15 seconds of rest or whatever other configuration.

If our bodybuilder curls 90 lbs 8 times, throws in 2 forced reps, takes 10 seconds, and throws a few more reps in, then we’ll have our non failure guy do the same number of reps with the same weight, avoiding failure however he chooses. (Keeping in mind this is a twin study.)

Now if we find that the non failure guy can continue doing more work after this we will proceed to have him do so only then.

Based on your response it would appear that you believe that reaching failure in and of itself is a growth indicator (in collaboration with a reasonable amount of volume), and you could argue in your favor that the non-avoidance of failure might lead (though I don’t know if this conclusion has been scientifically found) to greater work capacity in the long term meaning that the non failure guy may fail before the failure-guy even while attempting to avoid it, but this might not be the case.

It would seem that going for failure in one set total per muscle group has been shown not to be optimal (HIT). So failure in the absense of volume or a least warmup (or priming if you rather) is not itself the greatest determinant of growth.

The question here really is, given that the two are seemingly inversely proportional, which is a greater determinant: failure, or volume. Does failure arrise in part due to or give rise to a metabolic effect that helps to maximize muscular hypertrophy which volume alone at equal loads cannot accomplish, or does the optimization of work output (within one’s recovery capacity) determine the maximum degree of muscular hypertrophy if equal to or greater than the work-output accomplished by the failure seeking trainee?

If you’ve used EDT and are happy with the results then that’s really the only thing that matters.

I myself have used it in the past and found it enjoyable, but didn’t stick with it for long enough (because reserving BOTH the squat rack and bench press, other big ticket pieces of equipment, for 15 minutes at my gyms is almost impossible if you train by yourself) of to say if it worked or not.

Your situation may be entirely different than mine.

Either way, here is a critique Brian Haycock made of GVT that I find is also relevant to EDT. Of course both are unique programs, but the ideas behind BH’s arguments can also be considered when examining EDT.

http://www.hypertrophy-specific.com/HSreport/iss03/index.html#art_1

[quote]
A lot of people ask me, “If HST is the best way to train, why do guys claim they made gains using other routines?” I tell them that any routine that incorporates some principle(s) that is known to be necessary for hypertrophy is going to produce some level of change to their muscle. This is common sense. The same goes for a routine that I hear mentioned now and again called German Volume Training (GVT).

GVT is a high-volume light-weight training system that focuses mainly on “strength-endurance” or fatigue. GVT, though specific to increasing short-term endurance, can produce some hypertrophy in as much as it adheres to any of the known principles of hypertrophy.

Let’s go over some hypertrophy-specific principles and see how GVT stacks up.

For simplicity, I am going to quote Charles Poliquin. He did not invent GVT, so I don’t want to give the impression that I am in any way critiquing Charles. I’m only critiquing the method. I’m just quoting Charles because he did a good job summarizing the method. His comments will appear in italics.

The Goal of GVT
As to people’s question about whether GVT is hypertrophy-specific, we must take a look at the goal of GVT. The clearly stated goal of GVT is to complete 10 sets of 10 reps without reducing the weight. So right from the beginning we see that the goal of anyone using GVT is not hypertrophy, but endurance of strength in the 10 rep range.

The Principle of Specificity
IF GVT adheres to the principle of “Specificity”, GVT will have to stick with high volume and significantly light weights in order to condition your body to be able to perform 10 sets of 10 reps without reducing the weight load. And this is in fact what GVT does. “You want to begin with a weight you could lift for 20 reps to failure if you had to. For most people, on most exercises, that would represent 60% of their 1RM load.”

So rather than using “load” or “muscle tension” which is a principle specific to hypertrophy, GVT uses fatigue to increase the “difficulty” of lifting a light weight, thereby making it “feel” heavy. Inducing fatigue is a principle specific to endurance.

The Principle of Progressive Load
GVT does use the principle of progressive load however. According to Poliquin, “Once you’re able to do 10 sets of 10 with constant rest intervals, increase the weight on the bar by 4% to 5%, and repeat the process.” So although GVT does not incorporate heavy weights, it does increase the light weights from time to time. Unfortunately, because of the use of fatigue as GVT’s primary stimulus, the muscle is at the mercy of the nervous system. Unless you get stronger, which is a known neurological mechanism, the muscle will never be subjected to an increase in tension, and thus will not experience a hypertrophy-specific stimulus.

The Principle of Training Frequency
Due to the significant demands placed on the central nervous system (CNS) a GVT workout can’t be completed but every 5 days. “Because this is such an intense program, it’ll take you longer to recoverÅ one training session every four to five days per body part is plenty.” Now the consequences of too infrequent training are not all or none. It is a matter of degrees. Sure, it’s not ideal for hypertrophy to train once every 5 days. But it works just fine for CNS recovery, and considering the goal of GVT, which is strength-endurance, it makes perfect sense.

The Principle of Adaptation (resistance to the stimulus)
GVT training in its pure form does not take this factor into consideration. Nor has any training routine until the time of HST. Without Strategic Deconditioning, continued gains in size come glacially slow, or stop all together. After all, adaptation is the body’s way of preventing any externally applied stimulus or environment from affecting the body. Homeostasis must be maintained if the body is to survive. So, over time, any stimulus grows weaker and weaker until it no longer elicits a response from the body unless that stimulus is increased in magnitude, or it is removed for a time to allow the body to “un-adapt” and become sensitive to that stimulus once again.

All right, I think it is pretty clear that GVT is not “specific” to hypertrophy. However, it does utilize one principle of hypertrophy, namely progressive load, and thus will induce some hypertrophy if an individual is just beginning or is sufficiently deconditioned.[/quote]

[quote]Gumpshmee wrote:
For purposes of isolating variables I’m just comparing a failure using bodybuilders’s routine (deriving the reps and loads from his workout) and having the other guy perform the same reps with the same loads. EDT and a Mr. Olympia competitor’s routine are separated by too many variables.

So if our tradtional bodybuilder does a warmup set of 20 with 45 lb dumbells then our non failure guy would do the same, but he may insert rest between each rep or break it up into two sets of 10 separated by 15 seconds of rest or whatever other configuration.

If our bodybuilder curls 90 lbs 8 times, throws in 2 forced reps, takes 10 seconds, and throws a few more reps in, then we’ll have our non failure guy do the same number of reps with the same weight, avoiding failure however he chooses. (Keeping in mind this is a twin study.)

Now if we find that the non failure guy can continue doing more work after this we will proceed to have him do so only then.

Based on your response it would appear that you believe that reaching failure in and of itself is a growth indicator (in collaboration with a reasonable amount of volume), and you could argue in your favor that the non-avoidance of failure might lead (though I don’t know if this conclusion has been scientifically found) to greater work capacity in the long term meaning that the non failure guy may fail before the failure-guy even while attempting to avoid it, but this might not be the case.

It would seem that going for failure in one set total per muscle group has been shown not to be optimal (HIT). So failure in the absense of volume or a least warmup (or priming if you rather) is not itself the greatest determinant of growth.

The question here really is, given that the two are seemingly inversely proportional, which is a greater determinant: failure, or volume. Does failure arrise in part due to or give rise to a metabolic effect that helps to maximize muscular hypertrophy which volume alone at equal loads cannot accomplish, or does the optimization of work output (within one’s recovery capacity) determine the maximum degree of muscular hypertrophy if equal to or greater than the work-output accomplished by the failure seeking trainee?[/quote]

You are completely over-analyzing this.
Failure is merely used as an indicator that you did all you (momentarily) could on your work set(s).

The real point is to increase weight/reps in the hypertrophy rep-ranges every time you train.
This is what gets you big.
Food is factored in because it is not possible to increase poundages in the hypertrophy range significantly and consistently without adequate food-intake.

Early HIT wasn’t so bad and worked to some degree… It was when frequency was reduced to once every two weeks (or whatever) that it stopped working entirely.

If you ever noticed, regular bb training is usually 3 exercises per bodypart, pyramiding up over 3-however many sets you need to one all-out set. This method is used by almost every successful bodybuilder, with some variations here and there.

The only other method that has produced significant results (i.e. has turned people into heavies and superheavies) is the modern way to go about past-failure training: Yates’ style, DC, …

Rep ranges and split organization vary no matter the method.

Both ways of training have many things in common… And there is nothing else on the face of this planet that has gotten anywhere close to these methods in regards to getting determined individuals huge.
To sum both methods up:
You get bigger by getting stronger for reps on one or two all-out sets.

The other stuff is trivial.

I’m, always amazed when people invent those outer-space routines that will have your strength-for-reps move up at snails pace, if at all.
Then they need to change their entire routine every 4 weeks to keep going and whatnot, as well as do plateau-busters while still being beginners… No wonder, considering the way they train and eat.

Once again I will reiterate, though I mentioned EDT as an example in my first post this is not a comparison of that method to another. This is a thought experiment which seeks to analyze the continuum of failure vs. volume and gather people’s thoughts on the relevancy of these interplaying variables specifically regarding the stimulation of optimal muscular hypertrophy.

It’s interesting that you bring up Bryan Haycock’s work. His hypertrophy-specific-training (HST) leans more toward the principle of failure avoidance for reasons he goes into depth about.

To keep this going you would have to introduce “too many variables”.

There is a curve for the two concepts that would intersect at the optimal way to train. Both sides try to approach this curve but they come from two different directions.

As far as warm up goes, there is no set way to warm up. If your benching 405 and have average recovery ability, 1 set of 135x10 is just as easy as 1 set of 125x20. Do not confuse it with this new bullshit theory rotating around of ramping up weight to 1 “work” set.

True Failure would cause injuries, what you think of as failure for the most part is just where the person gives up.

[quote]Gumpshmee wrote:
For purposes of isolating variables I’m just comparing a failure using bodybuilders’s routine (deriving the reps and loads from his workout) and having the other guy perform the same reps with the same loads. EDT and a Mr. Olympia competitor’s routine are separated by too many variables.

So if our tradtional bodybuilder does a warmup set of 20 with 45 lb dumbells then our non failure guy would do the same, but he may insert rest between each rep or break it up into two sets of 10 separated by 15 seconds of rest or whatever other configuration.

If our bodybuilder curls 90 lbs 8 times, throws in 2 forced reps, takes 10 seconds, and throws a few more reps in, then we’ll have our non failure guy do the same number of reps with the same weight, avoiding failure however he chooses. (Keeping in mind this is a twin study.)

Now if we find that the non failure guy can continue doing more work after this we will proceed to have him do so only then.

Based on your response it would appear that you believe that reaching failure in and of itself is a growth indicator (in collaboration with a reasonable amount of volume), and you could argue in your favor that the non-avoidance of failure might lead (though I don’t know if this conclusion has been scientifically found) to greater work capacity in the long term meaning that the non failure guy may fail before the failure-guy even while attempting to avoid it, but this might not be the case.

It would seem that going for failure in one set total per muscle group has been shown not to be optimal (HIT). So failure in the absense of volume or a least warmup (or priming if you rather) is not itself the greatest determinant of growth.

The question here really is, given that the two are seemingly inversely proportional, which is a greater determinant: failure, or volume. Does failure arrise in part due to or give rise to a metabolic effect that helps to maximize muscular hypertrophy which volume alone at equal loads cannot accomplish, or does the optimization of work output (within one’s recovery capacity) determine the maximum degree of muscular hypertrophy if equal to or greater than the work-output accomplished by the failure seeking trainee?[/quote]

You are talking in hypothetical terms, but have no idea/experience about/with the variables involved.

You also now are not talking about EDT vs. traditional lifting methods, but have invented some sort of hybrid traditional system/original rest-pause type of program.

Once again, you have the problem of efficiency. Let’s play devil’s advocate and say that both programs produced the same level of mass/improvement. One is still going to take considerably longer than the other to perform, making it less time efficient (and depending on who you are talking to, may start to involve some hormonal variables). So why would anyone want to do the longer method?

It’s the load progression (progressive overload) and the excess calories that are most important for improvement. Going to failure simply ensures that you have indeed pushed your muscles to their limit (and could not have performed more reps).

[quote]Gumpshmee wrote:
Once again I will reiterate, though I mentioned EDT as an example in my first post this is not a comparison of that method to another. This is a thought experiment which seeks to analyze the continuum of failure vs. volume and gather people’s thoughts on the relevancy of these interplaying variables specifically regarding the stimulation of optimal muscular hypertrophy.

It’s interesting that you bring up Bryan Haycock’s work. His hypertrophy-specific-training (HST) leans more toward the principle of failure avoidance for reasons he goes into depth about.

[/quote]

There’s the word “quote” (in red) on the lower right of each post. Click on it to quote said post.

Makes it easier to see what/whom you are addressing.

shut up and lift more?

[quote]jp_dubya wrote:
shut up and lift more?[/quote]

One could put it like that, too.

Cephalic_Carnage,

Haha, I know, but some of the posts are long enough as it is.

Sentoguy,

From the outset I did mention EDT, but then I segued into my comparison of said hypothetical method (in the interest of isolating variables), so I never intended this to be a discussion of EDT though I may not have made that completely clear, for which I apologize.

Could not agree more about load progression and calories, though it is important to be specific about what kind of load progression as the strongest (1 RM max wise) athletes do not necessarily have the greatest muscular hypertrophy (which you are no doubt aware of, but that is another variable I don’t want to get into).

As far as efficacy is concerned however the rest periods may total the same, depending on how the rest is distributed between reps. For if there is rest between the individual reps then there doesn’t need to be as much rest between the sets.

I suppose the real test would be to curl conventionally with one arm and time how long it takes to reach a predetermined volume. And to curl with the proposed method in a way that allows you to reach the same volume in as little time as possible while avoiding a deterioration in performance (and to time this method as well).

If 2 sets of 10 takes 3 minutes and 30 seconds to complete (1 minute rest periods ,45 second sets) meaning that a repetition takes on average 4.5 seconds to complete meaning we can throw as much as 6 seconds in between each rep (keeping the total time equivalent), but possibly less than 6 seconds. Using this setup we could determine whether one method or the other allows greater recovery with equivalent loads volume and work density.

If recovery or avoidance of fatigue is better with the (rest pause) method then there may be a case made for equal or better efficacy.

As for the following statement: “Going to failure simply ensures that you have indeed pushed your muscles to their limit (and could not have performed more reps”

Others might dispute this and say that Going to failure ensures that you have pushed your central nervous system to it’s limit denying the muscles the ability to perform a greater work load. But again it could be argued that Central Nervous System failure is required to induce the strength adaptions needed over time to facilitate progressive overload, though others would disagree with this. Or it could also be argued that failure triggers a metabolic reaction which is important for hypertrophy.

jp_dubya,

Despite the outcome of this discussion I am in the process of training in the traditional method, and plan on giving it a long trial run before switching things up. I just like to talk a lot in between.

{Edit)

Sentoguy,

Or perhaps by the statement “Going to failure simply ensures that you have indeed pushed your muscles to their limit (and could not have performed more reps.” You mean that going to failure helps determine that you are working in the correct rep range (10 RM, 15, RM, 5 RM, etc.) and assists in determining the rate of progressive overload.

If that is the case I would agree that as a measure of performance capacity it can be useful to go to failure from time to time, but if failure is detrimental to maintaining the highest rate of recovery then it may not be essential for optomising workload (within one’s recovery capacity) if failure does not itself contribute an overwhelming factor to the optomization of muscular hypertrophy.

This is however assuming that a maximal workload over time (within recovery capacity) guarantees a maximal hypertrophic response assuming that all else is equal.

I have never seen a lifter make substantial progress on programs designed to avoid “training to failure”.

BlueCollarTr8n,

Off the top of my head Douglas Hepburn’s training protocol’s avoided “training to failure”. My knowledge of Bodybuilders and their individual methods is not wide enough to say if there are those who avoid training to failure and achieve a high degree of development or not.

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:

Dude, this is the BB’ing forum. When he said “Olympian” did you really think he meant olympic lifters?

[/quote]

awww cmon, anyone could’ve done it