Performance Based vs. Fatigue Based

Bigger Stronger Leaner Competitive Bodybuilding
21

[quote]Gumpshmee wrote:
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.
[/quote]

Ok, then let’s forget EDT completely.

Load progression has nothing to do with rep range.

Again, I don’t know what your understanding of how BB’ers actually train is, but just about all of them ramp up to a single top set per exercise.

If both individuals are going to ramp up to a top weight (and they pretty much have to, or else one will not be able to use the same amount of weight), the one who is trying to avoid fatigue is going to take longer to complete all of the reps, there is just no way around that.

This is especially true the closer one gets to their working weight. Sure, the person who is splitting their sets up might be able to rest a little less between sets, but as the weight gets longer, the rest between reps will need to increase and the frequency of their breaks.

Then comes the question, how little fatigue are they willing to accumulate?

Really it’s just too much useless over-complication and paralysis by analysis to worry about. If you really want to try to turn BB’ing into advanced calculus go right ahead, but this thread is starting to hurt my head.

And…where are all of their hugely muscular trainees who have the current Mr. Olympia crop shaking in their shoes awaiting their imminent domination of the BB’ing circuit?

Yes, partly it does.

But what I meant was simply what I said, no need to dissect that statement any further. If I fail at 12 reps with a weight, then I know that I could only get 12 reps with that weight. If I stop shy of failure (either because I am purposely avoiding failure, or because I reached an arbitrary number of reps), then how do I know how many I could have got with that weight? I don’t.

Also, like I said, you need to force your body to do more than it has done before, otherwise no need for it to adapt (build muscle). If I purposely stop short of what my body is capable of, why would it waste valuable energy building an extremely high energy consuming tissue (muscle)? The body likes to find the easiest, most efficient way to do things, adding very metabolically taxing tissue is the last thing it wants to do. You have to force it to.

Again, could you do this with lots of submaximal sets, eventually culminating in a final maximal set? Yes. But, isn’t that pretty much the same thing the traditional method does, only with much more useless overcomplication and with more time?

Again, just take a quick look around at some really big guys on youtube, or even here at T-Nation. How many of them train like you are suggesting in this thread, and how many of them regularly train to failure using a “traditional” BB’ing format? Do they really look like training to failure has hurt their ability to progress/build muscle?

Case closed.

22

Well, all that I meant was that load progression at various intensities (% of 1 RM) has different results. Progressing one’s 10 RM by working in that range is not necessarily the same as progressing one’s 1 RM.

If the accumulation of fatigue throughout a set is linear meaning that fatigue accumulates regardless how the volume is broken up then there may be a case for this. This however might not be the case.

To pin this variable down we’ll say “when the repetition slows down” the set is terminated (apologies for referencing EDT).

But the question is if one has to perform more in a set to failure, or if performing a greater number of reps one day than the next (no matter how it is achieved) constitutes the same progression.

Perhaps it would be simpler to think only in terms of the final set then. Only using fatigue management techniques upon reaching the last set in order to perform an ever increasing volume at that intensity. The question is does it matter if the bodybuilder in question curls 1x10 with 90lbs to failure or 2x5, or 10x1 with 90 not to failure. And if the bodybuilder progresses by performing 11 reps in one set the next time or just adds another rep to his total volume (or for that matter, adds many reps to his total volume due to greater recovery).

I agree there is no sense in denying that their method obviously produces results, but at the same time I know that adherence to one method without considering alternatives guarantees that regardless of whether or not other more efficient or productive methods exist, they will not be tested, and this is probably because of the “risk” involved in trying something against the grain that might end up being a waste of time or giving suboptimal results.

I suppose the most outstanding question here is: Does failure play an important role in the determination of performance for the purpose of facilitating progressive overload conducive to maximal hypertrophic gains, or does it not?

Anyway, I have enjoyed the discussion so far.

23

I like this discussion as well, and dont feel that you are overanalyzing anything. This is a very important concept and having a clear understanding of it will greatly increase one’s results.

If you were to compare the two possibilities, they would be two extremes. Option A would be training to fatigue with one or more sets, while option B would be avoiding fatigue with one ore more sets.

In order to get results with either method, youve gotta push yourself to adapt. If you dont progress in some way theres no reason for your body to adapt. ((For example: If you were to compare 3x10 and 10x3 and used a 10rm for both protocols and kept all other variables the same, the 3x10 would likely be much more beneficial))

But in the real worlds, you wouldnt keep everything equal if you were doing sets of 3. You might increase the weight, or decrease the rest periods, etc.

EX: 3x10 with 100lbs and 60 sec rest

OR

10x3 with 130lbs and 45 seconds rest.

Both options can be beneficial and have different implications.

The reason I make this point, is that I believe you were initially trying to compare similar training paramters but with or without the presence of fatigue or failure. If your going to keep everything the same, exept take longer to do the same amount of work (from rest-pause etc.) then you are obviously going to get less results.

I think to really understand the implications of a different training method, you have to look at all the variables:

Frequency
Intensity (including load, and failure vs. non-failure)
Volume (sets, reps, TUT, etc.)
Rest
Density

Usually to make a comparison you would want to keep everything equal and only change one variable, but this doesn’t work in the real world. The whole point of taking a longer rest break might be so you can increase the load. There would be no reason to increase the rest breaks but not increase the load. Anyone of the variables can be seen as a dependant variable or independant variable.

I believe the key to all of this is that there is more than one way to build muscle or increase performance. And, for the most part an increase in muscle and an increase in performance are directly related.

Another hypothetical situation might be: Comparing three groups. A - strength training only (avoiding fatigue), B - bodybuilding (going for fatigue), C- both strength and bodybuilding. I believe that group C will always be on top.

This is the cardinal rule of training. “Everything works, but only for so long.”

I noticed something similar lately. As i mentioned earlier, ive been experimenting with TUT for resistance training. I am now alternating strength sessions of less than or equal to 5 reps, with timed sessions.

But heres what ive really came to realize after only a few sessions:

There are four main variables and they are all inversely related.

  1. Working interval duration
  2. Rest interval duration

  3. of intervals

  4. Load (including speed, weight, and tension)

The goal of a workout would ideally be to raise the total amount of tension endured. This can be achieved by increasing 1,3,or 4. And lastly the rest intervals will have an effect on the density. If you truly understand the 4 variables and how to modify then, you’ll be able to greatly improve both total tension, and density.

For example: today I did 20 second working sets, with 40 second recovery sets on pushups. I was only able to achieve 4 sets. My total TUT was 80 seconds. Pushups are easy to use as an example, because we are less likely to play around with the load. Next time, I would like to be able to do a greater number of sets. I feel the biggest limiting factor in me performing more sets was the buildup of lactic acid. I basically have two options to achieve more sets. I can either decrease the duration of working sets, or increase the rest intervals. I believe that its more efficient to avoid fatigue, than to recover from fatigue, so next time I will do 15 second working sets, and 40 second rest intervals. If this allows me to achieve 6 sets, this will be a total of 90 seconds TUT which would be an improvement IMO.

But to go further, there will likely be times, when i’ll go with 25 or even 30 second working intervals, or decrease the rest intervals. I might do 15 seconds work, with only 20-30 seconds of recovery, to try to induce fatigue more. I dont expect to be able to do the same amount of work with greater fatigue per set, but I believe it will lead to possative adaptations even with less TUT. Maybe as a result of greater density.

This is a really interesting topic, and I think it needs greater explanation by some of the experts in the field. After looking at it thus far, I think taking a performance based approach is much easier to keep track of the variables. I also know that fatigue is the stimulus that our bodies respond to, and fatigue is directly related to the different training variables mentioned above. Whether training to fatigue, or avoiding fatigue, the key is to understand it, and not just blindly go for it or avoid it.

24

[quote]dankid wrote:
I like this discussion as well, and dont feel that you are overanalyzing anything. This is a very important concept and having a clear understanding of it will greatly increase one’s results.

If you were to compare the two possibilities, they would be two extremes. Option A would be training to fatigue with one or more sets, while option B would be avoiding fatigue with one ore more sets.

In order to get results with either method, youve gotta push yourself to adapt. If you dont progress in some way theres no reason for your body to adapt. ((For example: If you were to compare 3x10 and 10x3 and used a 10rm for both protocols and kept all other variables the same, the 3x10 would likely be much more beneficial))

But in the real worlds, you wouldnt keep everything equal if you were doing sets of 3. You might increase the weight, or decrease the rest periods, etc.

EX: 3x10 with 100lbs and 60 sec rest

OR

10x3 with 130lbs and 45 seconds rest.

Both options can be beneficial and have different implications.

The reason I make this point, is that I believe you were initially trying to compare similar training paramters but with or without the presence of fatigue or failure. If your going to keep everything the same, exept take longer to do the same amount of work (from rest-pause etc.) then you are obviously going to get less results.

I think to really understand the implications of a different training method, you have to look at all the variables:

Frequency
Intensity (including load, and failure vs. non-failure)
Volume (sets, reps, TUT, etc.)
Rest
Density

Usually to make a comparison you would want to keep everything equal and only change one variable, but this doesn’t work in the real world. The whole point of taking a longer rest break might be so you can increase the load. There would be no reason to increase the rest breaks but not increase the load. Anyone of the variables can be seen as a dependant variable or independant variable.

I believe the key to all of this is that there is more than one way to build muscle or increase performance. And, for the most part an increase in muscle and an increase in performance are directly related.

Another hypothetical situation might be: Comparing three groups. A - strength training only (avoiding fatigue), B - bodybuilding (going for fatigue), C- both strength and bodybuilding. I believe that group C will always be on top.

This is the cardinal rule of training. “Everything works, but only for so long.”

I noticed something similar lately. As i mentioned earlier, ive been experimenting with TUT for resistance training. I am now alternating strength sessions of less than or equal to 5 reps, with timed sessions.

But heres what ive really came to realize after only a few sessions:

There are four main variables and they are all inversely related.

  1. Working interval duration
  2. Rest interval duration

  3. of intervals

  4. Load (including speed, weight, and tension)

The goal of a workout would ideally be to raise the total amount of tension endured. This can be achieved by increasing 1,3,or 4. And lastly the rest intervals will have an effect on the density. If you truly understand the 4 variables and how to modify then, you’ll be able to greatly improve both total tension, and density.

For example: today I did 20 second working sets, with 40 second recovery sets on pushups. I was only able to achieve 4 sets. My total TUT was 80 seconds. Pushups are easy to use as an example, because we are less likely to play around with the load. Next time, I would like to be able to do a greater number of sets. I feel the biggest limiting factor in me performing more sets was the buildup of lactic acid. I basically have two options to achieve more sets. I can either decrease the duration of working sets, or increase the rest intervals. I believe that its more efficient to avoid fatigue, than to recover from fatigue, so next time I will do 15 second working sets, and 40 second rest intervals. If this allows me to achieve 6 sets, this will be a total of 90 seconds TUT which would be an improvement IMO.

But to go further, there will likely be times, when i’ll go with 25 or even 30 second working intervals, or decrease the rest intervals. I might do 15 seconds work, with only 20-30 seconds of recovery, to try to induce fatigue more. I dont expect to be able to do the same amount of work with greater fatigue per set, but I believe it will lead to possative adaptations even with less TUT. Maybe as a result of greater density.

This is a really interesting topic, and I think it needs greater explanation by some of the experts in the field. After looking at it thus far, I think taking a performance based approach is much easier to keep track of the variables. I also know that fatigue is the stimulus that our bodies respond to, and fatigue is directly related to the different training variables mentioned above. Whether training to fatigue, or avoiding fatigue, the key is to understand it, and not just blindly go for it or avoid it.
[/quote]

God no, it’s him…

I’m still trying to figure out whether you’re a troll or just completely lost. Likely both.

25

[quote]Gumpshmee wrote:
Load progression has nothing to do with rep range.

Well, all that I meant was that load progression at various intensities (% of 1 RM) has different results. Progressing one’s 10 RM by working in that range is not necessarily the same as progressing one’s 1 RM.
[/quote]

Yes, but again, the % of 1RM has nothing to do with progressing in load. I’m not saying that the rep range is irrelevant, just that I never mentioned rep ranges, nor are they in any way tied to the theory of increasing weight on the bar.

Again, this all sounds well and good in theory. But in actual application, if someone is going straight through their sets, and another person is taking breaks during their sets, then the one taking breaks is going to take longer to finish all of their sets. This is especially true the more taxing the sets become (the heavier the weight on the bar gets).

How much must it slow down? Are you going to bring a metrinome with you to the gym so you know exactly how long each rep takes and then stop the set when your rep has slowed down 33.4237813485942145764165%? Or are you going to stop when the rep becomes a grinding blood vessel bursting struggle to complete? At that point it would be pretty damn close to failure anyhow, and you wouldn’t really be avoiding fatigue now would you? You might as well just go to failure at that point.

Also, what if the reps start out fairly slow (even when trying to lift fast)? Should you just not do the set? Or do a cluster of singles?

Here is the thing though, most (not all, but most) people aren’t going to focus on doing a greater number of reps as their primary goal. Their goal is to add weight to the bar. Adding reps is only done when one cannot add weight to the bar while still hitting their target rep range. It is a method to help bridge the gap towards being able to lift a heavier weight.

And as I said before, if you are pushing yourself to your limit (failure), then you know exactly where you stand with that weight. If you fall below the rep range, then you’ll need to do more reps next time. If you wind up in the middle of the rep range, then you’ll add some weight next time. If you surpass the rep range, then you’ll add more weight next time.

If you purposely stop before this point, then how do you know where you stand with that weight? Maybe you could have got it 6 times, maybe 9, you don’t really know.

Yes, it matters. Not only from a time management standpoint, but also from a physiological standpoint. I could go into more detail about this, but I’m not going to. I’ll just say that fatigue can be very beneficial if you are trying to recruit your FT fibers. I’ve got a research paper saved on my PC which explains more clearly what I am talking about, but it’s in PDF format and I don’t really want to copy and past the whole damn thing into this thread.

If you want to view the paper yourself, here it is. Tim Henriques was kind enough to post it during a long winded discussion we had in CW’s “Fast to Big” article discussion thread.
http://jn.physiology.org/...t/90/5/2919.pdf

I understand the want for progress and finding an even better way to do things, I thought like that too at one point. The thing is, that the method currently being practiced is very effective. As the old saying goes, “if it aint broke, don’t fix it”. People who use the traditional method (and of course eat and rest enough) don’t have any problems getting big and strong, because quite simply the method works. There really is no need for an overhaul.

Notice that the lifters (both on this site and in the real world) who have been at this for a while (and are about making noticeable progress) always preach the basics. They (we) are always trying to simplify things as much as possible. They’ve been at this for a while and realize that the more complicated you make things, the less likely you are to see results. It’s the impressionable newbies with their new found enthusiasm that wind up trying to focus on every little minutia and wind up turning training into some sort of math problem from hell.

Every now and then you’ll get a newbie who listens and makes great progress (Mega Newb would be a prime example). But more often than not, a lot of newbies get side tracked by all of the scientific jargon that gets tossed around, and all of the complicated (and often times contradictory) programs that are all over the web.

Failure can play an important role in both mental and physical improvement.

[quote]
Anyway, I have enjoyed the discussion so far.[/quote]

The thing is, I’ve already been in a lot of very scientific abstract discussions on this forum over the years. While I feel I can still hold my own in this regard, at this point in time I really don’t want to waste the time/energy to do so. It really doesn’t matter all that much (unless you are planning on becoming an exercise physiologist, or teacher) in the grand scheme of things.

And to be honest, I’d suggest that you save the energy thinking about this stuff and put it into your training/diet. I know it’s tough (I was where you are once), but listen to all of us more experienced guys when we say that your best bet is to focus on the basics, model successful people who have come before you, and make everything as simple as possible when it comes to training and diet.

26

From the outset I did suggest that work load (and it’s constituent variables) could be increased if recovery was improved due to management of fatigue, so we agree on a number points.

I would be vary interested to see whether or not fatigue avoiding strategies could be as effective for bodybuilding as they are for strength development. Chiefly, Douglas Hepburn’s programs as illuminated by the forum member Twiceborn proved that you can be the first man to bench 500 drug-free (military pressing 420 and DLing 800) while training in a way that avoids fatigue accumulation for it’s sake (and anyone will attest that if you do 5 reps with your 5 rep max or 5 singles with the same weight and rest interspersed, the feeling of fatigue is different though the work is the same).

That at least settles that progressive overload (and I don’t think there was a doubt in anyone’s mind) is possible without seeking failure at the end of a set.

Would progressive overload in the so called “hypertrophy range” (or ranges rather as muscle groups will be found to respond differently) be just as effective without coming to the failure at the end of each set?

Would avoidance of failure in this way positively effect recovery with enough significance to allow greater training volume or frequency with the net effect of inducing a higher rate (or at least equal rate) of muscular hypertrophy?

No one with the dedication to be a giant seems to have tried probably for apprehension that as it hasn’t been tested to their level, it might not work.

However, my proposal relies on the assumption that there is room to optimize work load (it’s possible that additional work load would suffer from the law of diminishing returns) and the assumption that failure does not in and of itself promote hypertrophy inducing affects (meaning that if two twin bodybuilders had completely equivalent muscular strength and endurance measures (X RMs) when tested, but one of them used no failure sets, they would have equivalent size all else being equal (diet etc.)).

It may come across as though the thought of avoiding failure comes from the fear of overtraining, but if failure limits the extent to which the muscle can be trained optimally (if this is in fact the case), then it is the fear of undertraining due to the need for excessive recovery due to CNS fatigue (if it is indeed possible to stimulate the muscles further for increased hypertrophic effects by avoiding this fatigue).

It is really a question of whether or not failure is an indicator of increased hypertrophic stimulation or decreased hypertrophic stimulation.

27

Well to put this to the test one could do 2 sets of an excercise of choice to failure seperated by 1 minute of rest. Then later under equal conditions do 4 sets adding up to the same volume this time separated by 30 seconds of rest. If the qualitative extent of fatigue is the same on the final set for both trials there may be a case to be made that fatigue accumulates in a linear fashion.

[quote]How much must it slow down? Are you going to bring a metrinome with you to the gym so you know exactly how long each rep takes and then stop the set when your rep has slowed down 33.4237813485942145764165%? Or are you going to stop when the rep becomes a grinding blood vessel bursting struggle to complete? At that point it would be pretty damn close to failure anyhow, and you wouldn’t really be avoiding fatigue now would you? You might as well just go to failure at that point.

Also, what if the reps start out fairly slow (even when trying to lift fast)? Should you just not do the set? Or do a cluster of singles?[/quote]
I think the application of this advice usually refers to when the speed of the repetition becomes slower than the first repetition.

[quote]Yes, it matters. Not only from a time management standpoint, but also from a physiological standpoint. I could go into more detail about this, but I’m not going to. I’ll just say that fatigue can be very beneficial if you are trying to recruit your FT fibers. I’ve got a research paper saved on my PC which explains more clearly what I am talking about, but it’s in PDF format and I don’t really want to copy and past the whole damn thing into this thread.

If you want to view the paper yourself, here it is. Tim Henriques was kind enough to post it during a long winded discussion we had in CW’s “Fast to Big” article discussion thread.
http://jn.physiology.org/...t/90/5/2919.pdf[/quote]
It’s a shame that the pdf link isn’t working for me. This is the kind of thing I was looking for.

I will have to read the discussion to hear both sides.

[quote]I understand the want for progress and finding an even better way to do things, I thought like that too at one point. The thing is, that the method currently being practiced is very effective. As the old saying goes, “if it aint broke, don’t fix it”. People who use the traditional method (and of course eat and rest enough) don’t have any problems getting big and strong, because quite simply the method works. There really is no need for an overhaul.

Notice that the lifters (both on this site and in the real world) who have been at this for a while (and are about making noticeable progress) always preach the basics. They (we) are always trying to simplify things as much as possible. They’ve been at this for a while and realize that the more complicated you make things, the less likely you are to see results. It’s the impressionable newbies with their new found enthusiasm that wind up trying to focus on every little minutia and wind up turning training into some sort of math problem from hell.

Every now and then you’ll get a newbie who listens and makes great progress (Mega Newb would be a prime example). But more often than not, a lot of newbies get side tracked by all of the scientific jargon that gets tossed around, and all of the complicated (and often times contradictory) programs that are all over the web.[/quote]
Fair enough. I’m just the curious sort that has to know “why”? But I’ll leave it at that.

I’m interested in the specific how’s and why’s. There are many assertions out there in the strength and conditioning world that are taken as truth without the empirical data to support them.

[quote]And to be honest, I’d suggest that you save the energy thinking about this stuff and put it into your training/diet. I know it’s tough (I was where you are once), but listen to all of us more experienced guys when we say that your best bet is to focus on the basics, model successful people who have come before you, and make everything as simple as possible when it comes to training and diet.[/quote]As I’ve mentioned training and nutrition are in place. At the moment due to my particular circumstances I’ve been testing the “traditional” method and intend to do so for a long period of time before switching things up. The energy I put forth to think about these things I do out of leisure. Knowing how stuff works, including excercise physiology is a passion of mine I guess, and at times I do have to put my foot down to keep it from interfering with consistency.

So I suppose my next stop is the Fast to Big article discussion thread.

28

[quote]Gumpshmee wrote:
I’ve been testing the “traditional” method and intend to do so for a long period of time before switching things up. The energy I put forth to think about these things I do out of leisure. Knowing how stuff works, including excercise physiology is a passion of mine I guess, and at times I do have to put my foot down to keep it from interfering with consistency.
[/quote]

Mind giving us some detail about your current training and your strength gains from month to month?

29

[quote]
It is really a question of whether or not failure is an indicator of increased hypertrophic stimulation or decreased hypertrophic stimulation.[/quote]

It could be either.

If all else is equal, failure would be an indicator of increased hypertrophic stimulation.

But, if you avoided failure, and as a result were able to do more sets, then failure might be an indicator of decreased hypertrophic stimulation.

I think what everyone says about sticking to the basics makes sense, but it isn’t necessarily good advice for you. You’ve already made it clear that you understand progressive overload. This is the most basic and MOST important principle of training. Understanding fatigue as it relates to progressive overload is very important, and I think the reason you haven’t gotten a clear answer, is that nobody so far really understands it.

IMO, fatigue per set is a great indicator of progress, and stimulus. But you also have to think about fatigue per workout.

Like I said, a greater fatigue will ALWAYS be a greater stimulus for growth if all else is held equal. If two twins lift 200lbs for bench press. Twin A has a 300lb max, while twin B has a 250lb max. If they both do 10 reps, twin B will likely have greater fatigue, and greater stimulus for growth. If you were just looking at one individual (yourself) and held all else equal but compared fatigue vs. non-fatigue for ONE SET, the fatigue set would be greater stimulus, because it would be the result of greater work.

I think the thing everyone is missing, is that the purpose of avoiding fatigue isn’t to avoid fatigue. The purpose of avoiding fatigue is to allow more total work. Which is in itself a method of progression. Whether or not this is a greater stimulus for growth I cant really say. (ex: I do one set of max reps for pullups and get 15. Then next week, I do 4 sets of 5 with 30 seconds rest in between. I increased my workload by 25%.) And like I said, who knows whether this is a greater stimulus or less stimluls, because many of the variables have changed. The volume was increased, but at the expense of density.

Another point to consider, is what is causing fatigue, and what is different when you avoid it. Depending on the weight you are using and the length of your sets, fatigue is likely a result of both phosphogen availability and lactic acid clearance. Now i’ll admit that I dont really know why reaching failure would cause such a great depletion of these substances.

Im guessing the problem is with “the pump”. Maybe a pump will inhibit the recovery of your phosphagen stores, and decrease the speed in which lactic acid is removed from your muslces. Although im not sure why, avoiding fatigue is much more efficient than recovering from fatigue. This is why stopping a couple reps short of failure will allow you to take shorter rest breaks, use more weight, or do more sets. But “the pump” and lactic acid do also have important benefits for growth. This is why I recomended that both going for fatigue and avoiding fatigue are important.

Lastly. It seems like your debating the advantages/disadvantages of failure training vs. non-failure training. But the title of the thread suggests your initial intent was performance based vs. fatigue based. IMO the performance based approach should ALWAYS lead to greater results in the long run. A performance based approach is more indicative of progressive overload. The sole purpose is to progress. Whereas the fatigue based approach focused more on internal feelings which may not necessarily be a form of progression. This is why you see guys in the gym that haven’t grown in forever, and are stuck at benching 225. They wonder why they haven’t grown, because they are constantly doing sets of 225 to failure. But the performance based individual will win out in the long run. They’ve ignored the “failure seeking” mindset, and are now repping with sets of 300+. If this is what you are contemplating then just know that a performance based approach is superior because it leads to greater progressions.

***All this theory would be based on the average individual. If looking at someone with great genetics, and/or roids, then things would likely be different.

30

Lordy lordy lordy. Will this ever stop?

[quote]dankid wrote:
blah blah BS BS blah BS blah
[/quote]

31

[quote]Gumpshmee wrote:
BlueCollarTr8n,

Off the top of my head Douglas Hepburn’s training protocol’s avoided “training to failure”. [/quote]

Well, a major communication problem can result when people use the word “failure” in different ways, where the hearer or reader takes the meaning as being one thing when the speaker or writer meant another.

Some use “failure” to mean in fact failing, in fact trying to do another rep and despite straining mightily at it, after a few seconds discovering it ain’t going nowhere and lowering the weight.

This method of training really burns out the CNS and is avoided by most lifters. It is however believed in by some HIT devotees.

Others use “training to failure” to mean that in the set, as many reps as can be performed are performed, and if great will is required to do that then so be it. Despite failure not having occurred, they call this training to failure.

Most actually train this way. I think it is much more sensible and productive. Repeatedly (happening in many sets) trying to lift a weight that cannot in fact be lifted can IMO be very counterproductive instead of helpful.

On the second definition, most certainly Hepburn trained to failure. in the later singles performed by his method, or later triples according to the program, performing an additional rep is impossible. As many reps as could be done are done.

But did he strain futilely at weights that no longer could be lifted or advise others to do the same? No. So in that sense, if using the word that way, then what you say is indeed the case. Depends on how one uses the word.

(Which is why I avoid using that word. But it’s hopeless to expect others to avoid it on account of the ambiguity – people in general don’t worry about this. For example, people continue to use the expression “if not” despite the fact that about half of them mean “but not” when they say it and about half mean the exact opposite, “or even,” and it’s not always possible to tell from context which is meant. Yet the expression remains popular, as will the expression “training to failure,” unfortunately.)

32

Sentoguy, (if you’re still around)

I gave the fast to big discussion thread a read and at that point in time you seemed to be supportive of the notion that the DE and RE methods might at least have equivalent benefits for the purpose of bodybuilding. It seems as though your thoughts may have shifted on this matter and I wouldn’t mind knowing specifically what might have convinced you otherwise (if this is in fact the case).

Bill Roberts,

I plan on giving Hepburn’s Programs a serious trial run down the road, but as of yet I cannot attest to whether or not performing singles with a weight in the vicinity of one’s 3 RM with complete recovery between singles puts the lifter close to achieving failure on the later singles (or triples) though this may be the case for highly advanced lifters.

For singles using something closer to a 1 RM I would agree that there would be a point where (no matter how much rest in between within reason) no more singles could be perfomed at that load.

Now as the lifter progresses the weight over time perhaps the load he is using increases at a slightly greater rate than his 1 RM, meaning that at some point a day comes when another rep cannot be added, in which case it would be time to switch programs according to Hepburn’s method.

It was my impression that the programs advanced the lifter at such a glacial rate that progress (though slow) was intended never to stall, and that the lifter would improve his chances of avoiding injury by not pursuing gains in an “excessively” agressive fashion.

I once mused to myself that in a way these programs seemed like the “tai-chi” of strength training, haha.

I wonder if a program similar to Hepburn’s with the goal of hypertrophy as the primary goal could be developed that produces results on par with the traditional method.

33

Well, I surely cannot say for others, but my first trial of the Hepburn method as explained by Twiceborn, there was no way I could have gotten two reps on the later singles.

It also sounded from Twiceborn’s description that he would find it impossible. At least it sounded that way to me.

In fact, it sounded as if in many cases with the Hepburn method by the last scheduled single can’t do another even after a rest period. That would clearly mean, in those instances, definitely being unable to do a second rep as part of that last scheduled set.

34

Oh, ok. That’s slightly different from what I thought you were saying earlier. I thought you meant that no more than the daily allotment of singles could be done, not that the later singles could not be made into doubles. Makes sense to me now.

I’m wondering more and more if the principles of microloading that hepburn is talking about could be applied to bodybuilding. Say a workout in which you warm up to the working weight (assumed to be in the area of one’s 8 rep max for ease of example) and do 5x5 one day, 1x6, 4x5 the next, and so on. This would again be going with idea that instead of having abrupt leaps in strength and stalls now and then, the gains would trickle down at a steady rate.

Something to look into maybe.

35

I like to think my application of the Warman progression method (as I call it, having learned of it from his articles: I don’t know if he invented it) to bodybuilding accomplishes this.

Namely, a cycle might be for example for 7 weeks, with most exercises starting with a weight that is just a little higher than was done for 2 sets of 9 last time (or, if this is the first time, a weight that can be done for this now), and ends with a weight just a little higher than can presently be done for 2 sets of 3.

The weight increases equally each weight as one rep is dropped each week.

So for example if presently able to do 2 sets of 3 at 290 lb, and if believing it realistic to add 10 lb to this in 7 weeks (overall that may be too fast a pace, e.g. an advanced lifter is not going to gain 70 lb per year each year for the next 5 years on this exercise they are now doing for 290) then the next cycle would look like:

Week 1: 9 reps, 180 lb (for example)
Week 2: 8 reps, 200 lb
Week 3: 7 reps, 220 lb
etc.
Week 6: 4 reps, 280 lb
Week 7: 3 reps, 300 lb

The next cycle might start at 185 and build up to 305, let’s say.

So simultaneously the stimulus is substanially different every week, varying rep ranges are worked through, and loading can be increased only very slowly, rather than having to jump at least 2.5 lb per workout or what have you as occurs with simply adding weight.

Also, as with the Hepburn method, it’s not necessary and usually isn’t the case to be blowing out circuit breakers (so to speak) on an ongoing basis. If the second set is just ridiculously easy on the last rep, then it could be improvised to add another rep, and improvised to maybe knock the next week up by an unexpected extra 2.5 lb, but generally speaking the program is kept up with without it having to be do-or-die on last reps in general. It’s routine for the last rep of each 2 sets to have been the last rep that could be accomplished with proper form, but usually it doesn’t take burning up the wiring, so to speak, to get it.

Note, those that like to lead into work sets with lighter sets, instead of devoting that time to the planned-weight sets of another exercise, could do that I expect. I just don’t have to do that and get nothing from it. But I expect it could be done, though at the cost either of extra time or fewer sets done at maximal and very-near-maximal effort and of number of exercises done.

36

[quote]Gumpshmee wrote:
From the outset I did suggest that work load (and it’s constituent variables) could be increased if recovery was improved due to management of fatigue, so we agree on a number points.

I would be vary interested to see whether or not fatigue avoiding strategies could be as effective for bodybuilding as they are for strength development. Chiefly, Douglas Hepburn’s programs as illuminated by the forum member Twiceborn proved that you can be the first man to bench 500 drug-free (military pressing 420 and DLing 800) while training in a way that avoids fatigue accumulation for it’s sake (and anyone will attest that if you do 5 reps with your 5 rep max or 5 singles with the same weight and rest interspersed, the feeling of fatigue is different though the work is the same).
[/quote]

It most certainly is possible to get strong by way of avoiding fatigue (though even Westside guys like Dave Tate utilize the RE method to help them put on muscle mass to allow for maximal absolute strength). In fact, if maximal strength (in the low rep range) is what you’re after, then training in ways that avoid fatigue (at least some of the time) are a great way to get there.

We aren’t talking about a single rep though (as you yourself mentioned earlier). We’re talking about increasing strength in a moderate rep range (anywhere from probably 4-20 reps depending on the individual and muscle group). If you want to do that, then training like BB’ers do has proven to be the best way to go about getting there.

Here is the thing though, according to Zatsiorsky (who pretty much everyone quotes when talking about the physiology of building muscle) a muscle fiber must not only be recruited, but also fatigued in order for it to be stimulated to grow. So, if you want to grow, you must fatigue. Could avoiding fatigue allow for a greater work load? Maybe. But would that greater workload necessarily mean greater results? I say no.

The thing is, because you are not fatiguing (and are actually trying to avoid doing so) your muscle fibers more with the increased work load, it will not stimulate more growth. You aren’t really working any harder than if you just took a single set to the limit, in fact you might actually be working less hard, so you aren’t stressing your muscle fibers any harder.

Like I said, could you potentially cause fatigue with such a method? Yes, but you would basically wind up doing the same thing just taking more time.

I don’t know about that. There are tons of people on this site who proclaim CW’s brilliance (and to be fair I do think he has some innovative ideas and is a successful performance coach), yet they never wind up showing their results (either via picture or video). There are a couple who do (Push, Marqaos, that guy in the RMP forum) who I do respect their results. So I’m not saying that such training is useless of ineffective. But I am saying that I haven’t seen any elite level guys who train this way (or credit the majority of their mass to this type of training, even if they switched later on)

I’m also not saying that everyone who does the traditional method will wind up looking like an olympia competitor either, but you do see plenty of pics/videos of those guys around the net with impressive physiques.

Did you read that research paper I linked to? Because if you had you’d have realized that training to failure does have hypertrophy producing effects. First it fatigues the muscle fibers (which is essential for growth), second…read the paper yourself if you want to find out.

[quote]
It may come across as though the thought of avoiding failure comes from the fear of overtraining, but if failure limits the extent to which the muscle can be trained optimally (if this is in fact the case), then it is the fear of undertraining due to the need for excessive recovery due to CNS fatigue (if it is indeed possible to stimulate the muscles further for increased hypertrophic effects by avoiding this fatigue).

It is really a question of whether or not failure is an indicator of increased hypertrophic stimulation or decreased hypertrophic stimulation.[/quote]

Again, this is a question that only someone who was lost in a theoretical understanding of training would ask (and don’t feel too bad, I once thought like this too). Just take a quick look on youtube or, here just check out this thread and then tell me that you think that training to failure limits hypertrophy:
http://www.intensemuscle.com/9478-dc-trainee-gallery.html

37

[quote]Gumpshmee wrote:
Sentoguy, (if you’re still around)

I gave the fast to big discussion thread a read and at that point in time you seemed to be supportive of the notion that the DE and RE methods might at least have equivalent benefits for the purpose of bodybuilding. It seems as though your thoughts may have shifted on this matter and I wouldn’t mind knowing specifically what might have convinced you otherwise (if this is in fact the case).
[/quote]

I woke up. I thought CW’s theory (and at this point that’s all that it is) made sense from my understanding of kinesiology. So, I went around and observed (and tested it on both myself and on a few clients) to see if in fact what he was saying actually held water in the real world. Some of it worked, but a lot of what he was saying in that article didn’t hold true (like the 15 seconds total set time).

I am not arguing that the ME method could have benefits for BB’ing. There are a number of BB’ers who started out as powerlifters and wound up doing fairly well for themselves (Johnnie Jackson, Ronnie Coleman, need I say more). I’m also not arguing that the RE method is beneficial (this IS the traditional training to failure method). The DE method I think would only be beneficial for either helping someone learn how to recruit their HTMU’s, or to a powerlifter who lacked speed strength.

I’m still not saying that trying to lift the bar as fast as possible (on the concentric) isn’t beneficial. I do think that is beneficial. But, really that’s still just an over-complication (and in some ways a response to the whole tempo training craze) of how you would naturally just lift something. You wouldn’t purposely try to go slow (unless you had previously been told to), you would contract your muscles as hard as you could and lift the object (if it was anywhere even close to heavy).

38

[quote]tribunaldude wrote:
Lordy lordy lordy. Will this ever stop?

dankid wrote:
blah blah BS BS blah BS blah

[/quote]

Tell me about it…

39

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
Gumpshmee wrote:
Sentoguy, (if you’re still around)

I gave the fast to big discussion thread a read and at that point in time you seemed to be supportive of the notion that the DE and RE methods might at least have equivalent benefits for the purpose of bodybuilding. It seems as though your thoughts may have shifted on this matter and I wouldn’t mind knowing specifically what might have convinced you otherwise (if this is in fact the case).

I woke up. I thought CW’s theory (and at this point that’s all that it is) made sense from my understanding of kinesiology. So, I went around and observed (and tested it on both myself and on a few clients) to see if in fact what he was saying actually held water in the real world. Some of it worked, but a lot of what he was saying in that article didn’t hold true (like the 15 seconds total set time).

I am not arguing that the ME method could have benefits for BB’ing. There are a number of BB’ers who started out as powerlifters and wound up doing fairly well for themselves (Johnnie Jackson, Ronnie Coleman, need I say more). I’m also not arguing that the RE method is beneficial (this IS the traditional training to failure method). The DE method I think would only be beneficial for either helping someone learn how to recruit their HTMU’s, or to a powerlifter who lacked speed strength.

I’m still not saying that trying to lift the bar as fast as possible (on the concentric) isn’t beneficial. I do think that is beneficial. But, really that’s still just an over-complication (and in some ways a response to the whole tempo training craze) of how you would naturally just lift something. You wouldn’t purposely try to go slow (unless you had previously been told to), you would contract your muscles as hard as you could and lift the object (if it was anywhere even close to heavy).[/quote]

Sentoguy:

On the fatigue thing- let’s say you are measuring progress by your last work set taken to failure (using Rest pause depending on the exercise). It sounds like what you are saying is that even though you may be adding weight to the bar on consistently on that last work set, it is still necessary (to grow) for you to fatique the target muscle(s) with the ramping/warm up sets? Is this what you are saying?

I train this way and usually expend some effort on my warmups (maybe even a few grunts and a breaking of sweat) but I’m definitely leaving something in the tank to break my PR. What are your thoughts on this conundrum (focusing on the last set vs. making sure that there is enough accumulated fatigue over all sets to ensure growth)?

Thanks in advance.

40

[quote]Gumpshmee wrote:

It’s a shame that the pdf link isn’t working for me. This is the kind of thing I was looking for.

I will have to read the discussion to hear both sides.
[/quote]

Didn’t see this post prior to responding.

You can’t view the pdf link?

Damn, well like I said, I’m not going to copy and paste that whole, very long, article on this thread. So, hopefully you can get that link to work for you.

Here is what I would consider to be the crucial table in that article (I’ll have to type it out because I don’t think I can paste tables into a reply):
TABLE 1: Number of active motor units observed during the peak and plateau phase of the first, middle, and last contraction in the fatigue series
First Middle Last
Subject Plateau Peak Plateau Peak Plateau Peak
A 2 8 5 11 7 12
B 2 5 3 7 6 8
C 5 11 8 12 8 12
D 3 8 4 11 4 11
E 2 4 3 11 3 12
Average 2.8 7.2 4.6 10.4 5.6 11
Percent 25.5 65.5 41.8 94.5 50.9 100

Basically what this table demonstrates is that as the reps went on (and fatigue accumulated) more and more MU’s (muscle fibers) were called into play. The article also shows that MU’s do not “drop out” (as in stop firing) as fatigue accumulates. Every MU that was firing during the first repetition of the set was still active during the final repetition of the set.

Because we know that fatigue is necessary for muscular growth (zatsiorsky), and that at the end of a set to fatigue all available MU’s will be recruited (from the article above), taking a set to failure (fatigue) will result in all of the required elements for muscular growth. However, avoiding fatigue (by whatever method you want to try) does not.