Bodybuilding.net - Bodybuilding Forum

Darkhorse · #1 06-08-2006, 10:27 AM

"HIT" WITH A "HAMMER"

Frederick C. Hatfield, Ph.D., International Sports Sciences Association

To avoid being HIT with a HAMMER, I feel compelled to make these two important disclaimers before I begin writing:

As long as whatever form of training you're using doesn't hurt you, it's "good." Even if it keeps you from achieving your maximum potential, it's better than no training at all. So, on a scale of good, better, best, training according to the tenets of HIT theory is "good."

As long as whatever type of training equipment you're using doesn't hurt you, it's "good." Even if it keeps you from achieving your maximum potential, it's better than no training equipment at all. So, on a scale of good, better, best, training with Hammer equipment is "good."

Now, my tongue-in-cheek inclusion of the good folks at the Hammer equipment welding facility is merely that: Tongue-in-cheek. Actually, Hammer's inventor was none other than Arthur Jones. His son took over the company and made Hammer equipment a success story. So much so, in fact, that Life Fitness bought the company! The point is that Hammer, like Nautilus (Arthur's first foray into the wonderful world of weights), is frequently touted as the equipment of choice for the Hit Men. Me? I like BOTH companies' equipment no more or less than I like the rest of them. In fact, each has some unique merits, as do many others.

Recall the seven laws of weight training from most sport scientists' perspectives. Here they are:

The Law of Individual Differences: We all have different abilities and weaknesses, and we all respond differently (to a degree) to any given system of training. These differences should be taken into consideration when designing your training program.

The Overcompensation Principle: Mother Nature overcompensates for training stress by giving you bigger and stronger muscles.

The Overload Principle: To make Mother Nature overcompensate, you must stress your muscles beyond what they're already used to.

The SAID Principle: The acronym for "Specific Adaptation to Imposed Demands."

The Use/Disuse Principle: "Use it or lose it" means that your muscles hypertrophy with use and atrophy with disuse.

The GAS Principle: The acronym for General Adaptation Syndrome, this law states that there must be a period of low intensity training or complete rest following periods of high intensity training.

The Specificity Principle: You'll get stronger at squats by doing squats as opposed to leg presses, and you'll get greater endurance for the marathon by running long distances than you will by (say) cycling long distances.

Many of the current "systems" of training offer nothing new, and they often violate one or more of the seven "grand daddy" laws. If you are to understand my critique of HIT theory (below), you will have to be familiar with the seven laws. I recommend that you re-read the article on these laws if the synopsis above isn't enough.

HIT History

It all started back in the early seventies with Arthur Jones of Nautilus fame. Arthur's chief mission, of course, was to sell equipment. His marketing plan was brilliant. My interpretation of his plan was that in order to sell his equipment (which for the day was quite expensive) he had to create a religion for the masses. To create a religion he needed 1) churches, 2) disciples, 3) a bible, and 4) clergy.

A scientist (Ellington Darden) inspired by God (Jones) wrote his bible, and (much later) a strength coach named "Moses" Matt Brzycki put the Ten Commandments from that bible into lay language. The Ten Commandments are presented below.

Then he paid a bunch of guys to follow the gospel (their test results were later incorporated into the bible). Later, a chosen few of them became his disciples.

The churches came next (Nautilus gyms sprang up all over the place... most are dead now, their respective flocks having flown the coop upon realizing that they were not making it to the promised land quickly enough -- in my humble opinion).

His clergymen (gym owners) LOVED Arthur because he had really neat looking equipment and a way for them to rustle their clients in the front door and out the back real fast by convincing them that one set to failure was "the way."
To support the notion that HIT is a Pagan religion, let me quote the word as it is written in the HIT page of the internet by one of his high priests, Matt Brzycki:
"To some--including me--Jones was years ahead of his time and full of brilliant, revolutionary ideas about exercise; to others, he was the devil incarnate. One thing that everyone seems to agree upon was that he was abrasive, outspoken and brutally candid."

Old timers like me recall that the most popular movies of the day were 20,000 Leagues Under The Sea and The Time Machine. Arthur got the name "Nautilus" from one movie (his offset cam, copied from German physical therapy equipment of the mid 1800s, looked like a cross-sectioned conch shell), and the design from the other movie (his first machines were curiously reminiscent of the "Time Machine").

Yes. Arthur's business plan was brilliant, and it was carried out even moreso. It's no wonder that the religion has persisted to this day, so stauchly converted were his disciples.

Meet some of the HIT Disciples:

There is a small (but utterly vocal) band of Arthur Jones disciples who have, since the early seventies, clung desperately to the oft discredited notion that one high intensity set to failure is all you need to achieve your maximum potential in growing stronger or bigger. In fact, the contemporary biblical interpretation (below) admits that one may profit from three sets, although one set is just as good as three. I say "desperately" for good reason. These guys (who like to call each other "HIT Jedi") invested their hearts and souls (and, quite often, funds from their respective organizations) in the superiority of both Jones' equipment and his theories on how best to use it. Others have been or are "sponsored" by Arthur. It almost seems as if they are afraid of losing face (if not their jobs) if they were to back away from the tenets of the HIT theory now, despite the huge volume of scientific studies discrediting many of its tenets.
From a social-psychological view, it's utterly fascinating to watch the HIT men scramble. It brings to mind the great movie, "Lord of the Flies," in which a bunch of shipwrecked boys, left to their own devices, created a sort of Pagan society amongst themselves. Some of the Jedi who are more vocal than most, having written many passionate articles or books on their own cute little variants of the old Jones theory, bear mention. How they refer to each other as "Jedi" (which, I'm assured, means "priest") is yet more proof that HIT is a Pagan religion. I must say, however, I admire their zeal for lifting (albeit at a sub-par level)!

Meaning to cast no dispersion on these well-meaning gentlemen by identifying them to the readership of this website, and acknowledging that not all those listed may care to admit to, and in fact vehemently deny their Pagan beliefs (until after the cock crows), here they are in alphabetical order (this is neither an exhaustive listing, nor is it mine -- it came from their web site):

Matt Brzycki (strength coach at Princeton University);
Ellington Darden, Ph.D. (Jones' longtime science advisor);
Ken Leistner, D.C. (New York chiro who runs a gym there);
Ken Mannie (strength coach at Michigan State);
Stuart McRobert (publishes a "Hardgainer" newsletter);
Mike Mentzer (now deceased, former bodybuilder who fabricated his own "Heavy Duty" interpretation of Arthur's disproved tenets);
Dan Riley (strength coach of the Washington Redskins);
Rob Spector (keeper of a HIT web site); and
Wayne Westcott, Ph.D. (a YMCA fitness director)
Kim Wood (strength coach of the Cincinnati Bengals)
The Jedi also claim as disciples, bodybuilding converts such as Dorian Yates, Ray Mentzer and Casey Viator.
Just as Protestants split from Rome, some Jedi have gone their own way to create their own denominations of the HIT religion. The religious wrinkles provided by the various denominations after their split from Rome are quite interesting reading. I mentioned Mike Mentzer's "Heavy Duty" system of training in a previous article in this series -- really no different than HIT with a few funky (read: "mystical") wrinkles added.
There's also the "Superslow" system created by the Protestant HIT Jedi Ken Hutchins, who actually provides a fitness trainer certification in his system (which can be yours for as little as $495.00). His peculiar wrinkle to HIT theory has to do with friction. Says he:

"When you pull a trigger on a rifle or gun, you're supposed to pull with a slow, steady squeeze to the rear - if you jerk the trigger than the shot will be off. Same thing when lifting weights - each repetition should be a slow, steady squeeze of the muscle with no jerking.

"...if an exercise has little friction, it's better to use a longer negative as you don't get the "partial respite" that you would from an exercise with lots of friction."

Utter nonsense, of course...a topic for a future article, I'm afraid (space constraints, you know). Now I'd like to introduce you to the HIT commandments and some pointed comments on each relative to the seven grand daddy laws.

The Ten HIT Commandments according to Jedi Brzycki:

1. Train With A High Level Of Intensity.
"Intensity," according to HIT dogma, "relates to the degree of the "inroads"--or amount of fatigue--you've made into your muscle at any given instant. In the weight room, a high level of intensity is characterized by performing an exercise to the point of concentric muscular failure: when you've exhausted your muscles to the extent that you literally cannot raise the weight for any more repetitions. Failure to reach a desirable level of intensity--or muscular fatigue--will result in little or no gains in functional strength or muscular size. After reaching concentric muscular failure, you can increase the intensity even further by performing 3 to 5 additional post-fatigue repetitions. These post-fatigue reps may be either negatives or regressions and will allow you to overload your muscles in a safe, efficient manner."
There is no question that going to failure can constitute a more "intense" workout. But, in the real world -- in the gym -- intensity is so much more than that. Webster defines intensity as having or showing the characteristic of strength, force, straining, or (relative to a bodybuilder's focal point) other aspects of his or her effort to a maximum degree. The words intense and intent both have the same Latin root, intendere "to stretch out." If one is intent on doing something, he does so, by definition, with strained or eager attention -- with concentration! That intensity of effort is largely a function of the mind is not this writer's opinion. It is true by definition as well as by practical usage of the word! "Intensity" is increased by:

amplification of mental effort -- getting "psyched"
approaching your training with a burning passion, as though it were your LIFE
adding reps
adding weight (this is the common definition of intensity)
decreasing rest between reps
decreasing rest between sets
increasing the number of exercises per body part
increasing the total number of exercises or body parts trained at one session
increasing the number of training sessions per day
increasing the speed of movement
increasing the amount of work done at the anaerobic threshold (maximum pain tolerance)
increasing the amount of eccentric work your muscles are required to perform.
Perhaps most importantly, going to failure is NOT a prerequisite to adaptation!

The SAID Principle is violated by the first commandment of HIT. Their idea is to go to failure all the time, but certain "specific" training objectives mitigate against it (e.g., speed training). And, the GAS Principle, which states that there must be a period of low intensity training or complete rest following periods of high intensity training, is violated. These guys go to failure all the time!

Darkhorse · #2 06-08-2006, 10:28 AM

2. Attempt To Increase The Resistance Used Or The Repetitions Performed Every Workout.
"...every time you work out you should attempt to increase either the weight you use or the repetitions you perform in relation to your previous workout. This can be viewed as a "double progressive" technique (resistance and repetitions). Challenging your muscles in this manner will force them to adapt to the imposed demands (or stress)."

The SAID Principle is violated. Sometimes, lighter weights done rapidly is required. And sometimes heavier weights done for 3 reps is required. (If your training requires that you go to failure with a weight that's so heavy you can only do three reps, you are BEGGING for a MAJOR injury if that takes you to failure!) The GAS Principle is also violated. Alternating periods of high versus low intensity is a better way to go. If you wait until total recovery is accomplished in any given muscle, atrophy place.

3. Perform 1 To 3 Sets Of Each Exercise.
"...numerous research studies -- which I once again am probably viewed as dreaming up--have shown that there are no significant differences when performing either one, two or three sets of an exercise..."

Yep! You're dreaming pal! Dr. Richard Berger (my mentor during my doctoral studies at Temple) years ago showed that there IS a significant improvement in gains with three sets as opposed to one. Other studies have shown the same results. Nowadays, many athletes (bodybuilders included) do as many as 10 or more sets. Even Arthur Jones --the original HIT man --showed that people with white, fast-twitch muscles require fewer reps, sets and workouts per week than people with predominantly red, slow-twitch muscles.

Apparently, all HIT men are white muscle fiber guys? I think not! So, while none of the seven laws are violated here, some (especially the overload principle and the SAID principle) are not being applied to their maximum potential.

4. Reach Concentric Muscular Failure Within A Prescribed Number Of Repetitions.
"Repetition ranges differ from body part to body part and from coach to coach. In the course of training hundreds of collegiate athletes over the past eleven years, these are the ranges I usually assign: 15 to 20 (hip exercises), 10 to 15 (leg exercises) and 6 to 12 (upper body exercises). Other HIT strength coaches are pretty much in that neighborhood, with a few electing slightly lower ranges but not less than six."

Woah! You guys should be blushing on this one! The SAID principle is quite specific in recognizing that not everyone is alike. Not everyone responds in the same way to any given rep/set scheme. Look again at my response to Commandment Three.

5. Perform Each Repetition With Proper Technique.
"A quality rep is performed by raising and lowering the weight in a deliberate, controlled manner. Lifting a weight in a rapid, explosive fashion is ill-advised for two reasons: (1) it exposes your muscles, joint structures and connective tissue to potentially dangerous forces which magnify the likelihood of an injury while strength training, and (2) it introduces momentum into the movement which makes the exercise less productive and less efficient. Lifting a weight in about 1 to 2 seconds will guarantee that you're exercising in a safe, efficient manner. It should take about 3 to 4 seconds to lower the weight back to the starting/stretched position."

First, I grow weary of the HIT business of being "safe." Where in the book does it say that going slow and deliberate with a heavy weight is safer? I think otherwise. And, certainly, these slow, deliberate movements are not as effective as other methods in many instances. SOME reps are well performed in the manner described above. However, this commandment clearly disregards the importance of cheating movements, explosive lifting (e.g., the Olympic lifts), and many other techniques of lifting. Further, slow, deliberate movements are nowhere NEAR as effective for forcing an adaptive response in connective tissues as are more explosive (and yes, often "ballistic") movements. So much for their claim to "safety!" Deinhibition of the Golgi tendon organ's protective feedback loop can be moved back far more effectively with controlled ballistic movements than with slow, deliberate movements. Clearly, this commandment is in violation of the Overcompensation, Specificity and SAID principles.

6. Strength Train For No More Than One Hour Per Workout.
"If you are training with a high level of intensity--and you should--you literally cannot exercise for a long period of time. ...Training with a minimal amount of recovery time between exercises will elicit a metabolic conditioning effect that cannot be approached by traditional multiple set programs. Don't ask me why cause I've been makin' all this stuff up as I go along."

Ol' Jedi Brzycki continues to put his sandalled foot on top of his golden tongue. Here, I think (one can't really tell) he's claiming that doing one set of squats, then one set of benches, then one set of pulldowns, then one set of curls, and one set of 3, 4, 5 or so additional exercises, and you're outta the gym. C'mon!

Clearly, this commandment is in violation of the Overcompensation, Specificity and SAID principles. Re-read my response to Commandment Three. People are DIFFERENT!

7. Emphasize The Major Muscle Groups.
"The focal point for most of your exercises should be your major muscle groups (i.e. your hips, legs and upper torso)."

Oh? Have we lost sight of training weaknesses first? Bodybuilders know this instinctively. Most athletes do as well. Clearly, this commandment is in violation of the Specificity and SAID principles.

8. Whenever Possible, Work Your Muscles From Largest To Smallest.
"Exercise your hips first, then go to your legs (hams, quads and calves or dorsi flexors), upper torso (chest, upper back and shoulders), arms (biceps, triceps and forearms), abs and finally your low back."

Duhhhhh! Am I missing something? In the Eighth Commandment, you told us NOT to focus on smaller muscles! In addition to violating one of your own commandments, this commandment is in violation of the Specificity and SAID principles.

9. Strength Train 2 To 3 Times Per Week On Nonconsecutive Days.
"...a period of about 48 to 72 hours is necessary for muscle tissue to recover sufficiently from a strength workout. A period of at least 48 hours is also required to replenish your depleted carbohydrate stores. ...Performing any more than three sessions a week can gradually become counterproductive due to a catabolic effect. This occurs when the demands you have placed on your muscles have exceeded you recovery ability. Recovery time is adequate if you continue making gains."

Sometimes 48-72 hours is sufficient, and sometimes it's not. Depending upon the muscle involved it may be less or it may be more. Remember:

Big muscles take longer to recover than smaller ones
Fast twitch muscles (your "explosive" muscles) take longer to recover than slow twitch muscle fibers ("endurance" muscles);
Guys recover faster than girls;
You recover faster from slow movements than from fast movements;
You recover faster from low intensity training than from high intensity training.
The older you get, the longer it takes to recover
By carbohydrate stores, do you mean glycogen? Not 48 hours...something closer to 2 or 3 hours!
I, and every athlete I've ever trained, often trained twice a day! The Russian athletes do, the Bulgarian weightlifters train 3-6 times a day! And, even if there were (as Bryzcki put it) a "catabolic" effect, wouldn't that call for a "periodized approach to training?

Grand daddy laws violated with this one are the SAID, GAS and Specificity Principles.

10. Keep Accurate Records Of Your Performance.
"Records are a log of what you've accomplished during each and every strength session. Record keeping can be an extremely valuable tool to monitor progress and make your workouts more meaningful. It can also be used to identify exercises in which a plateau has been reached."

OK. I'll give the HIT men this one.

On the other hand, HIT folk will have to use their logs to refer back more often than other (non-HIT) trainees. They're bound to be hitting plateaus a lot more than others.

Jedi Bryzcki ended his "Sermon On The Web" with these words:

"Don't be misled by the brevity or simplicity of a program that calls for one set of an exercise done with a high level of intensity. Strength Coach Ken Mannie has stated that HIT is "the most productive, most efficient and without a doubt, the most demanding form of strength training known to man [and woman]." Of course, I read that in Nautilus magazine. And Mannie was drunk at the time."

Need I say more?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sidebar:
HIT Jedi Matt Brzycki posted these gems in the HIT Web Site:

"...HIT received a lot of attention--and created quite a controversial maelstrom--in 1970 with the publication of numerous articles written by Nautilus founder Arthur Jones. Although Jones didn't invent HIT, there's no question that he certainly was the one who popularized it and formally suggested guidelines and principles for its use.

"Jones has mellowed with age but I got some laughs a few months ago when I saw him insult a group of unsuspecting sportsmedicine people with his trademark brash comments and demeanor. Anyway .

"...what was seen was rarely a pretty sight. In fact, it was kinda ugly. Rarely were more than two sets of an exercise performed--and never more than three. You really couldn't do much more anyway. The level of intensity suggested by Jones was performing each exercise to the point of muscular failure.

"If you were too exhausted to crawl--which was sometimes the case--you were physically grabbed and dragged to the next exercise. Jones' opinion of an acceptable level of intensity might best be summed up with one of his many colorful quotes: "Have you ever vomited as a result of doing one set of [biceps] curls? If not, then you simply don't know what hard work is. Ahh, those were the days."

Darkhorse · #3 06-08-2006, 10:30 AM

HIT....... or Miss?
By: Louie Simmons

Many readers may not realize that I am involved in the training of pro-football teams and many college football and basketball teams. For example, the Kansas City Jayhawks and Utah Utes are heavily influenced by our training as it relates to speed strength. Two of the pro- football teams are the Green Bay Packers and the New England Patriots. Not a bad group to be associated with, huh? I also talk to a head strength coach that has been affiliated with a winning tradition in the NFL who tells me, although he is ashamed to admit it, that he has linemen coming into the league that can't vertical jump 19 inches or squat 300 pounds. He related to me that these players are from "high-intensity training" (H.I.T.) schools and that this type of weight program is making his job next to impossible.

A pro-lineman told me while I was at their camp that when he was placed on the H. I.T. program in college, his team was the top 5th school his senior year. He thought he was strong until the combines. When he got only 12 repetitions with 225 pounds, he was embarrassed. He was picked by a pro-team that utilized our training and that has an excellent strength coach. In 2 years this lineman did 17 reps with 315 pounds. He made a remark that machines and H.I.T. were useless. This got back to his old college team, who immediately banned him for life from their weight room. Gee, what a pity.

At Westside, we thought we would do some research on H.I.T. So Dave Tate and myself looked into this, I must say, misguided method. What is their viewpoint? Where was their research taken from? Why is it loved by some and despised by others?

First let's look at the concept of intensity. Apparently H.I.T. views it as a feeling, like a pump, a term bodybuilders made popular. Is it a scientific term? No. Is a bodybuilder quick or explosive? No. If you know a converted bodybuilder who powerlifts, he almost always lifts well under what he appears to be able to do. Why? He has trained only the muscle, not the central nervous system. That is why smaller ball players are almost always faster and many times stronger based on percent of bodyweight. Bodybuilders develop no reversal strength or starting or accelerating strength. Any sport coach will tell you that acceleration is paramount in sports.

A. S. Prilepin suggested that to achieve the proper intensity, one should use the rep/set scheme shown in the table, to ensure the greatest development of speed and strength. He discovered that if 7 or more reps were performed at 70%, the bar speed slowed and power decreased. The same holds true when using 80% or 90%; once one goes above the rep range shown, the bar slows, which translates to less power. Doing fewer or more lifts than Prilepin suggests will cause a decrease in training effect.

Number of Reps for Percent Training:
Percent Reps per set Optimal Total Range
55-65 3-6 24 18-30
70-75 3-6 18 12-24
80-85 2-4 15 10-20
90+ 1-2 7 4-10

Along the same parameters are the findings of Dr. Tamas Ajan and Prof. Lazar Baroga. They describe the zones of intensity as follows: 30 to 50% is low intensity; for speed-oriented sports; 50 to 85% is medium intensity; for force-oriented sports such as weightlifting; 85 to 95% is high intensity, for weightlifting and other sports; 1 00% and above is maximum and over-maximum Intensity, for the development of absolute strength.

Most authors who have studied strength as a physical quality examine it in four forms: absolute, speed, explosive, and strength endurance. The latter, strength endurance is basically all the H.I.T. program can possibly build. Strength endurance is characterized by a combination of great strength and significant endurance. It is needed by athletes who must compete for a prolonged period of time (3 to 4 hours) without diminished work capacity.

Well H.I.T. may increase endurance, but it does not promote great strength; in fact, it eliminates it completely by neglecting the other three elements of strength: absolute, speed, and explosive.
Dave Caster showed me an interesting paper, Strength, Power and Speed in Shot Put Training, by Dr. Poprawski, Director of the Sport High Performance Institute in Toronto and former coach of world shot put champion Edward Sarul. First, Poprawski realized the importance of intensity zones as described by Prilepin and the importance of using one weight percentage per workout. For example, weights of 50 to 75% were used for training speed and power. Much like our training, this training is based on a true max of, let's say, 500,600, or 700 pounds. Poprawski realized that a shot put always weighs 16 pounds; therefore he found that it was best to use one weight for a particular workout and to focus on increasing bar velocity rather than heavier weight to increase power. What was the key element for success? Speed, speed, and more speed.

Sarul was tested against other superior throwers, and while some could lift more weight, he was far ahead in tests of bar speed during the snatch and squats of 1 and 3 reps. His advantage in speed and the development of power was directly achieved by increasing bar speed, while the others fell behind from lifting too slowly. What does this tell us? Fast is good; slow is second team.

H.I.T. proponents use a lot of machines. This is truly a mistake. No stability can be developed. Most machines work on the peak contraction theory. Let's look at the pec machine. If you load a pec machine to the max, starting the movement requires a max effort, which is very difficult and dangerous. Yet at the finish, where the most weight can be lifted because of accommodating resistance, machines show their downfall.

More importantly, let's consider the strength curve. Take the case of two 700-pound deadlifters. One may blast the weight off the floor to near lockout and then fight the last 3 to 4 inches. The second may have difficulty starting the bar off the floor, pick up speed, and lockout easily. What does this illustrate? In the real world of strength these two lifters have quite different strength curves. If these same two lifters were to use a machine, only one would receive any benefit from that machine, because the machine has a predetermined strength curve. That's a 50% chance the machine won't work for you. Also, a machine will not build stability. The only good thing about a facility full of machines is that the instructor could be a moron and it won't make any difference.

Darkhorse · #4 06-08-2006, 10:33 AM

Here's a bunch of studies about how multiset periodization is vastly superior to HIT. Science shows that only one set to failure only stimulates 20-30% of muscle fibers; it bogs down the psuedo-science that you only need one intense set to fatigue all the fibers.

Actual science.

1) Schlumberger A, Stec J, Schmidtbleicher D.J Strength Cond Res. 2001 Aug;15(3):284-9.
(2) Paulsen G, Myklestad D, Raastad T. J Strength Cond Res. 2003 Feb;17(1):115-20.
(3) Rhea MR, Alvar BA, Ball SD, Burkett LN. J Strength Cond Res. 2002 Nov;16(4):525-9.
(4) Kraemer WJ, Ratamess N, Fry AC, Triplett-McBride T, Koziris LP, Bauer JA, Lynch JM, Fleck SJ.Am J Sports Med. 2000 Sep-Oct;28(5):626-33.
(5) Kraemer, W.J., Newton, R.U., Bush, J., Volek, J., Triplett, N.T. and Koziris, L.P. (1995). Varied multiple set resistance training produces greater gains than single set program. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 27, S195.
(6) Kramer, J. B., Stone, M.H., O'Bryant, H.S., Conley, M.S., Johnson, R.L., Nieman, D.C., Honeycutt, D.R. and Hoke, T.P. (1997). Effects
of single versus multiple-sets of weight training: Impact of volume, intensity and variation. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 11, 143-147.
(7) Stone, M.H., Plisk, S., Stone, M.E., Schilling, B.K., O'Bryant, H.S. and Pierce, K.C. (1998). Athletic performance development: volume load - 1 set vs. multiple sets, training velocity and training variation. Strength and Conditioning, 20, 22-31.
(8) Stone, M.H., Chandler, T.F., Conley, M.S., Kramer, J.B. and Stone, M.E. (1996). Training to muscular failure: Is it necessary? Strength Conditioning, 18, 44-48.
(9) Edstrom L & Grimby L (1986) Effect of exercise on the motor unit. Muscle & Nerve 9:104-126
(10) Siff M C (2000) "Supertraining" Fifth Edition; Supertraining Institute
(11) Source: Brian P. Hamill, "Relative Safety of Weightlifting and Weight Training," _Journal of Strength Conditioning Research, Vol. 8, No. 1(1994): 53-57
(12) Siff M C (2002) "Facts and Fallacies of Fitness" Fifth Edition, Denver USA

Darkhorse · #5 06-08-2006, 10:34 AM

"It takes two years to meet your genetic potential??"

A link to one at pubmed:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q..._uids=14971985

The full text is in the February 2004 issue of the Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research as it states. I can post most it if you'd like to see. They reference 63 studies in it.

Of the 39 studies they used, 21 studies showed single sets "Until Failure" as opposed to "just fatigue" or whatever. Even though over half the studies used HIT style principles, multiple sets still won out.

Darkhorse · #6 06-08-2006, 10:36 AM

Quote from IA:

Agreed throughout bodybuilding:

1.His basic premise that most bodybuilders overtrain is CORRECT!
2.His basic premise that doing less will result in better gains for MOST people is CORRECT!
3.The basic principles of muscle stressors and adaptation is CORRECT!
4.His ideas about exercise selection and execution are well thought out.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disagree

5.The routines given work GREAT for many people.......for a short time, and then quit working......no explanation is ever given how to get past this.
6.His diet recommendations are past the point of belief and just DON’T work.
7.His statement that we all as humans share the same physiology and thus all require the same loading protocol is just the lamest thing I can imagine. And the sad thing is a very long time ago, I read it and believed it. Pretty stupid.

There is nothing wrong with very low volume training providing you respond to it, but the way Mike presented it, just gets one started down the path and then leaves them stranded. I knew alot of experienced trainees try this and fail.

Mentzer's HD2 template basically had quirky frequency setups in his routine. For legs and back, he would have you work out once every 12 days. But the upper torso would be worked twice over a 8 day period, and then given a 8 day layoff.

What this usually meant was that both the back and legs were significantly deconditioned session to session. This, in addition to working with new PRs for legs and back, would guarantee significant microtrauma during each session. And because we're talking about a very low volume one-shot, it's not likely the muscle's resistance to future bouts would have been adequately developed anyway. Thus, each growth response would have been very significant and possibly sustained longer than the 36-48 hour window.

It should also be noted that cardio was strongly frowned upon with his program. The HIT conventional wisdom at the time was that cardio ate up gains, not only glycogen storage. Here, this was somewhat true. Due to HD (and 3-way split routines were designed in general) very, very strong reliance upon a significantly deconditioned state to elicit growth, any amount of serious physical activity would significantly hurt potential gains. Looking back, it's probably the rise of the MWF split in the 90s that begun really demonizing cardio as this mass-eater. (Metzner) We all know that is bullshit because all you need to do is to take in more calories than you expand doing cardio to continue to grow.

The other thing is, general arm and upper torso gains, strength or sizewise, were not that great with HD2. People usually saw great gains in the back and leg work, but the arms were the first to taper a bit. In fact, I think the static contractions were introduced mostly to bump up arm development. (Though to his credit, Mentzer recommending hitching the stretch reflex in his movements too.) And again, the conventional wisdom was that, well, arms are a smaller bodypart and need more time to grow. And some people later on reasoned that arms didn't grow that much because the frequency was higher-than-optimal in his given template. People noticed that it was harder to continuously increase their bench press on HD2 whereas the legs and backs flew right by.

The problem was two-fold in his arm exercises. He chose peak contraction-style exercises, movements like lateral raises and tricep pushdown, which can induce a lot of stress (thus slowing down strength gains), but is often no better if not inferior to the bench press and other movements in producing microtruama.

Darkhorse · #7 06-08-2006, 12:49 PM

Training to Failure?

Killer article by Lyle McDonald re: training to failure

Quote:

Why go to failure?

The question of how much stimulation (and what type) is sufficient to
cause maximal/optimal muscle growth is one that does not have an easy
answer. Many groups and individuals feel that going to the point of momentary
muscular failure (or beyond with certain techniques) is the key to causing
muscular adaptation. That is, taking the muscle to the point of attempting
the momentary impossible is the key ingredient to muscular failure.

There have been several schools of thought as to why going to failure is
necessary. One of those is the simple microtear theory wherby the muscle
literally undergoes physical tearing. Various individuals feel that going
to the point of ischemic rigor (where the muscle essentially locks up) causes
minute tears to occur in the muscle during the eccentric phase (the
lowering phase of a weight training movement) and that is the stimulus
for growth. If true, this is incedentally why the eccentric point of the
movement is both critically necessary for growth (for the most part)
as well as the cause of the majority of muscle soreness. That is, since
the tearing occurs during the eccentric portion, it seems reasonable to conclude
that one must perform an accentuated negative to get increases in size and
strength. Proponents of this theory offer as evidence the fact that
muscles stressed in a concentric only method do not undergo growth
consistently and that the eccentric portion of the movement has been
shown to be the stimulus for growth. However, they also feel that negative
only movements (which are often used to increase the intensity of
training since more weight can be lifted with eccentric vs concentric
contractions) do not work as well as combined concentric/eccentric
lifting as the concentric is necessary to 'prime' the muscle in some way
for the above mentioned microtears.

Now we do know that heavy training (especially eccentric contractions)
cause an increase in biochemical markers of muscle damage which lends
some support to the theory that muscle damage is a key stimulus for
growth. But, even this brings up the question of just how much muscle
damage is needed to stimulate optimal growth. This is not a question
that anyone is even close to answering at this point and I have a feeling
that it may depend on the person and their genetics (which might explain
why some individuals can grow from greater amounts of training while
others overtrain with anything but the least amount).

Now, at this point in time, there is not adequate data to say exactly what
it is about lifting a weight X number of times that causes it to grow. Various
other theories have been offered instead of the above including ATP depletion
(which, at least during high intensity cycle ergometry has not been shown to
occur), CP depletion (which, if correct would argue against creatine loading),
decreased blood flow (which occurs as a result of near maximal muscular
contractions which cause capillaries near the muscle to collapse), increased
blood flow (i.e. the pump theory of growth), muscle ischemia (oxygen
deprivation but we don't see huge muscles in individuals who spend lots
of time at high altitude) and the simple tension/metabolic work
theory (covered in great detail in a seminal review article by
Goldspink et. al.) that argues that forcing the muscle to do high intensity
work is the prime stimulus for growth.

Now we also know that involuntary high intensity contractions (like with
electrical simulation) does not cause growth except in very untrained or
injured inviduals. So, not only does there seem to be a need to perform
high intensity muscular work, it has to be generated by a person's own
nervous system to be effective.

Ok, so why failure? Is there anything special about going to muscular failure
which might be the primary stimulus for growth. Other than the microtear
theory which mandates failure so that the tears can occur, none of the above
theories seem to require going to failure. And, it may be that tearing can
occur without going to failure seeing as it does occur with downhill running
(which forces the muscle to contract eccentrically as well). But, we know
that long distance running doesn't spur muscle growth so there must be
something else going on.

Let's say you're lifting a load that puts you above the threshold to recruit
100% of your motor units (about 8RM for upper body movements and 15RM
for lower body movements). And, let's further say that you are performing
an upper body movement with your 8RM. Well, strict proponents of the
failure theory would argue that you must perform 8 reps to achieve growth
and that stopping short of this would not generate any growth. But, if
you were to stop this set at 7 reps (knowing with 100% accuracy that
it was your 8RM) you would achieve almost 100% of the (take your pick
here) ATP depletion, CP depletion, decreased blood flow, increased blood
flow, oxygen deprivation or time under tension. So, the question still
remains: Why failure?

Let's take as an assumption that the critical component to muscle growth
is simply the time spent under high tension (supported by ample evidence
as presented by Goldspink et. al.) and that other factors (those listed above
as well as hormonal factors) are secondary in nature but may increase the
adaptations seen. Several groups suggest specific set
times like 60-90 seconds (HIT advocates although the times change
>from source to source), 20-60 seconds (strength coach Charles Poliquin),
Superslow (generally 60 seconds per set in 4 slow 15 second reps) which lends
at least anecdotal evidence that some minimum time under high tension
may be a pre-requisite to simulate size and strength increases. I don't
think we can say with complete accuracy what that time is for
optimal strength or size gains but let's take for granted now that some
minimal time is necessary. Or, put a better way, slamming out 8 reps in
8 seconds with your 8RM will in all likelihood not achieve the same
level (or type) of adaptation as doing 8 reps in 48 seconds with your 8RM.
Although the rep count is the same, the total time under tension (and
presumably other factors like ATP depletion et. al.) will not be the same.

Ok, so still why failure? Assuming that stopping an 8RM set at 7
reps will achieve most of the time under tension that doing the final
rep will, why push to 8 reps? I mean, that 8th rep hurts like hell and
in the case of movements like squats and deadlifts, it may cause injury
due to form breakdown so why not stop just short of that point if we
can get similar results from it? Let me digress before I answer that
question.

Is there any evidence to the contrary in terms of the need for failure
to spur muscle growth in either the scientific or anecdotal world?
Yes, there is. We have at least one excellent example of how growth can
occur without going to failure (or even including an eccentric motion
in your lift). And that is the Olympic lifters. While many individuals
will bitch and moan about how useless the Olympic lifts are and how
dangerous they are, you cannot deny that they are some
massively muscled individuals. Having seen Wes Barnett (one of
the current US Heavyweight lifters), I can vouch for his extreme
muscularity. Not that he's as big as even the smallest pro bodybuilder
but he's built considerable muscle with the Olympic lifts. Now, Olympic
lifters can't go to failure in their lifts as it will disrupt their technique.
Also, the primary Olympic lifts (clean and jerk, snatch, etc) do not contain
an eccentric movement. And, even on movements like squats and such, most
Olympic lifters move rather quickly so there is no accentuated negative
movement in their training. Now, I don't want to give everyone the
impression that Olympic lifting is the most effective, most efficient, or
safest way to get bigger muscles since I don't think it is. But, the fact that
these individuals (who again lift very quickly, don't go to failure since
it's not feasible with the types of lifting they are doing, and don't
perform slow eccentric movements) show muscular hypertrophy throws
a bit of a wrench in the simple theory of "You must go to the point of
muscular failure in X seconds with a slow eccentric to achieve growth."
To achieve optimal growth? Well, that's a different question entirely.

Additionally, if you look at tradesmen who perform heavy manual labor,
you often see large scale muscular hypertrophy caused by much lower than
maximal work. However, their work requires large amounts of submaximal
work (time under tension) which also seems to stimulate growth.

So, we have at least two data points that show growth to occur without
muscular failure occurring. And, any theory which can't adequately
explain all data points needs to be revised. So, I'm revising it here.

Now, there is one more interesting observation that can be made from
Olympic lifters which is their generally large total training volumes
(at least when compared to systems like HG and HIT and such).
Since they rarely perform more than 3-5 reps per set and the reps are
very short (less than 1 second generally), they tend to perform lots
and lots of sets. We've all heard of the Bulgarian's training 3-6 times per
day but each session was very short, these individuals were genetically
superior, and they were most likely taking steroids so they are not
the best example. But, at the Olympic training center, the Junior
Olympic team lifters frequently train twice daily. So, although each
set is minimal in length and there is no accentuated eccentric, it may
be possible that these lifters make up for it with a large total time
that their muscles are under tension. In any event, it does make quite
a big hole in the theory that failure is the primary stimulus for growth
since it's obviously not. The story, as they say, thickens.

Now, I hate to bore you with this but Dave told me I better back up the
above argument with some numbers rather than just give a hand-waving "OL's
may perform similar amounts of total work" argument. So here goes but
we have to make some major simplifying assumptions or the math will
be impossible. Let's compare 'Typical HG Training' over the course of
a year to a 'Typical OL Training' in terms of total time under tension.

Let's assume a fairly advanced HG routine made up of squats, a pull
and a push (ignoring abs and calves in terms of total training volume).
Let me make a few simplyfying assumptions here:

1. All exercises are worked for 2 sets of 8. Yes, I know it's not the optimal
range for legs and many won't do two work sets all cycle but let me go with
it to simplify the calculations.
2. The individual trains twice per week all year round. Which is not going to
happen with movements like squats if you're training hard as we all know.
3. The individual's rep speed is a constant 5 seconds total for
concentric and eccentric (since I have never seen anyone really lift with
a 2 up, 4 down as suggested by HIT. I lift slowly but I can't even do 2/4).
4. We ignore warmup sets below 70% in terms of total volume (i.e. most
of them).
5. All sets are to failure. Again, this discounts the runup in most HG
cycles but I don't want to deal with the math.

So, You've got 3 exercises/workout *16 total reps/exercise which is 48 reps
240 seconds/workout. In 52 weeks, at two workouts/week, we have 104
workouts. So, total time under tension for this HG workout is
104 workouts * 240 sec/workout = 24,960 seconds per year that the
muscles are kept under high tension (above 80% of max) which may stimulate
growth.

Ok, onto the OL's. A couple of simplifying assumptions (which are most likely
incorrect). *BTW, the 10,000 rep number came from a friend of Dave's who
says he uses that value with his high school athletes. I have no idea
what kind of total volume Elite OL's actually use. The 10,000 value
also does not include warmups below 70% of 1RM.*

1. Rep speed is 1 second for the Olympic lifts themselves and related
movements (C&J, snatch, hang clean, power clean, jerk, etc.)
2. Rep speed is 2 seconds per rep for accessory stuff like squats, front
squats, SLDL, overhead press, etc.
3. Total training volume is divided 50/50 between primary and accessory
lifts.

So, 10,000 reps of which 5,000 are primary at 1 sec/rep = 5,000 seconds.
5,000 reps of accessory reps at 2 sec/rep = 10,000 sec. Even still, this only
total 15,000 total seconds of time under tension and even that's not accurate
as all the time during the primary lifts is not spent with the muscles under
tension due to momentum. But, I don't want to dig out my calculus book to
figure this out with total accuracy.

So, for a HG workout, we have 24,960 total seconds of work/year and for
OL's we have 15,000 total seconds of work/year. Are these values close enough
to give similar results? I would posit that the HG workout will give greater
mass gains in the short run due to more time under tension. But, 15,000 secs
is a lot of work no matter how you cut it and could explain why OL's, despite
breaking all the other sacred rules of gaining muscle do so: their total time
is fairly significant. Also, in all likelihood, the value for the HG trainee
is overestimated (since it would be rare for a trainee to do 2 work sets
every week of every cycle for a year) and the value for the OL is
underestimated (if we assume that elite OL's, who probably aren't
indicative of the average lifter anyway, would do more than 10,000
total reps per year). So, the numbers may be closer than they seem.

Ok, back to the original gist of this article.

I'm going to take the stance here that the primary stimulus for
growth is the time under tension that a muscle undergoes (or
total metabolic work performed or whatever. They are ultimately
identical in concept but differ semantically) as I think it's
best supported by the data. Hopefully I've made the point that failure
is not the critical component to growth although it may be a component
with the example of the Olympic lifters. So, why failure?

Two reasons I think.

#1: One of the big criticisms of periodization schemes is the rather large
time spent working submaximally. I happen to agree with this criticism.
Strictly periodized training programs (by that, I mean programs that
lay out the weight, sets and reps an athlete is to do in advance) leave out
one critical component which is daily variation. That is, let's say I've
measured my 10RM in the squat some time ago and, based on that, I'm
scheduled to do some percentage above or below it for a certain
number of reps (based on the relationship between percentage of max
and the number of reps one should be able to do). Well, what if I'm
feeling really good one day and can get 12 reps with a weight I could
previously only do 10? Or I'm feeling really bad and can only get 8
reps? I'm screwed is what. I'll either be working far below my maximal
potential or forcing myself to work outside my current limits which
could cause overtraining or, worse, injury. And, as much as I gripe
about HIT, I think that the double progressive system has a lot going for
it in that it avoids this problem entirely. If instead of saying I'm to do
10 reps and stop no matter what I set a range of 8-12 reps (or 4-8 or
whatever rep range I'm in at the time), I can simply accomplish whatever
I'm maximally capable of at the time ensuring I'm working at that intensity
range (if desired) regardless of daily variations.

This is how I periodize my programs by the way. HIT and periodization
are not mutually exclusive. I might have clients of mine do the following:
12-15 reps double progressive to failure for 4 weeks or more
8-12 reps double progressive to failure for 4 weeks or more
4-8 reps double progressive to failure for 4 weeks or more
rest and repeat.
Low volume periodized HIT. And they said it couldn't be done.

So, one good reason to work to at least concentric failure is to ensure
that you are working at maximum capacity instead of at some pre-
determined level which may or may not reflect daily variations.

#2: Going to failure maximizes time under tension/total metabolic
work which I argue is the primary stimulus for growth. When you
consider that failure may occur at any one of 7 sites along the
path from brain to muscle, I find it awfully naive to say that
failure (whose cause we can't even identify and which may be
different for different set times) is the primary stimulus for
growth. Obviously, going to failure in 2 reps (about 10 seconds at 5sec/rep)
will most likely have a different cause than going to failure in
15 reps (75 seconds assuming 5sec/rep). But, let's say we're
working towards size gains and let's assume for now that 8-12
reps (40-100 seconds or so per set) is the optimal range (for
the record, I don't think it is but that's another dicussion for another
day). Going to failure within that range (irrespective of how we feel
that day of training) will maximize the time spent under tension.
It's great for me to say in theory that stopping a 10RM set at 9
reps will stimulate growth. I think it would. But, that's only useful
if you know your 10RM weight on any given day. Since we can't know
without testing it every single day to take into account variations
in physical ability (and which would negate the whole point anyway since
you've already done a set to failure) all we can do to maximize
time under tension (also assuming here also that maximum time under
tension = optimal time under tension) is take a given set to failure during
any given training session.

(Oh, before I forget, some individuals who are in very good touch with their
muscles are able to pretty much know when they are getting close to failure.
Considering that certain movements (deadlifts come jumping to mind) cannot
be trained to complete failure safely, for those movements stopping
the set just short of failure (i.e. if you 'know' that you've got only 2 more
reps
in you you just do 1 more) is probably not a bad idea and will still net
you some growth. You might make up for the lack of failure by performing
a second set (to increase total time under tension) or not, it just depends
on the person, their genetics, etc.) or not.

And, that, my friends, hopefully answers the question of "Why failure?"
To be honest, I remain unconvinced that going to momentary muscular
failure is the only way to get growth as we have examples of individuals
who have rather large muscles without every going to failure. Might it
be the most efficient way to get growth? That's a horse of a different
color as the saying goes and not one I'm ready to tackle right now. But,
it's certainly not the only way.

Lyle McDonald, HB (which stands for Human Being which I am, you and
everyone else are. So forget about putting all those letters after your
name as they don't really impress anyone but you and your mom anyway.)

P.S. Please send any comments on this piece via email a I don't log on here
often. Thanx.

Darkhorse · #8 06-08-2006, 12:58 PM

The Final Rep: Re-evaluating the Practice of "Training to Failure"

Written by Charles I. Staley, B.Sc., MSS

Quote:

The notion of "training to failure" is perhaps one of the most revered practices in the modern bodybuilder's toolbox. But interestingly, this training method seems unique to bodybuilding. In other iron sports, such as Olympic weightlifting, powerlifting, and throwing, athletes develop enormous levels of muscle mass without training to failure, at least not in the way that most bodybuilders would define it. This observation, coupled with the fact that many elite-level bodybuilders do not embrace this practice, warrants a second look at this concept.

Birth of a Paradigm
Many credit Arthur Jones (the inventor of Nautilus equipment) with developing and popularizing the one set to failure paradigm. Jones argued that bodybuilders should work to the point of momentary failure, using one set per exercise/per session, rather than using multiple sets of multiple exercises. But Jone's commercial success may been potentiated by a long-standing tradition among young trainees (particularly men) who, in the absence of qualified supervision, regularly trained to failure as an intuitive way of obtaining objective feedback about their progress. Whenever an additional rep could be performed with a given weight, the trainee was psychologically reinforced, which further entrenched this habit.

Unfortunately, it also reinforced poor exercise form and the tremendous frustration that set in when, after several months of monotonous training, the inevitable plateau set in. This frustration then paved the way for numerous ill-conceived commercialized training systems that emerged over the past several decades. The result is an endless cycle of unsupervised trainees switching from one miracle method to another, in an endless search for the "perfect program."

Before we criticize Jones or the authors of the many programs available today, it may be necessary to revise our expectations of what a training method should and shouldn't do. Remember that nearly any training method can be effective, at least temporarily, for the following reasons:

1) Beginners will make short-term progress with any training method, provided they aren't injured in the process.

2) Many people train in a very monotonous manner, rarely changing acute exercise variables such as choice of exercise, order of exercise, rest periods, and load (volume and intensity). When such a person changes programs, they will progress, at least temporarily.

Conversely, NO training program is perfect because:

1) Everyone is different. No two people respond exactly the same to a given program.

2) The body will eventually accommodate to any program, and when it does, you hit a plateau.

The conclusion that might be drawn from these points is that all methods can be viewed as "tools" which have a certain degree of utility when used in the proper proportion and in the right context. The problem is when a proclamation is made that "This is the perfect program for all people all of the time!"

DEFINITIONS
A significant impediment to discussing this issue is the lack of consistent working definitions for several terms which are germain to the discussion at hand:

What is "Training to Failure"?

The very definition of "training to failure" needs considerable clarification. Does it mean concentric failure? Eccentric failure? Inability to complete another repetition in good form? (and what is "good form?") Inability to maintain the desired tempo (speed of execution)? Are we referring to failure of the cellular, or neural system? Failure of the stabilizers, or prime movers?

For the purposes of this discussion, "training to failure" describes training in a manner where each set is continued to the point where further concentric repetitions "in good form" cannot be completed under the lifter's own volition. Second, the notion of failure is inexorably linked to the magnitude of effort and ability to withstand pain and fatigue- both of which are subjective qualities.

What is "Good Form?"
While the amount of resistance, number of sets and reps, etc., constitute the quantitative element of training, good form (or exercise technique) can be seen as the qualitative element. Exercise technique includes range of motion, tempo, and control over the resistance being lifted. For the sake of variation, bodybuilders should plan for regular variations in tempo and range of motion. Such variations help to break through strength and hypertrophy plateaus. Control, however, should never be sacrificed, especially for the purpose of "eeking out" another repetition. For the sake of this discussion, "good form" will be defined as "exercise performance which is consistent with pre-determined objectives concerning range of motion, tempo, and control of the resistance." Using this definition, it is not considered bad form to lift a weight through a partial range of motion, as long as you pre-determined that the repetitions would be performed in that manner. On the other hand, if you planned to do parallel squats, and start losing depth due to fatigue, this would be considered bad form. Similarly, if you plan for a certain tempo (duration of each repetition) or even rest period, it would be considered bad form to alter these parameters in the middle of a workout.

What is Intensity?
Sports scientists and bodybuilders often assign two very different meanings to this term. In the sports sciences, intensity is usually defined as the difficulty of the work performed, expressed as a percentage of 1RM (One repetition maximum), or an athlete's maximum poundage for a single repetition for any given lift. Using this definition, if an athlete has a 1RM of 400 pounds in the leg press, a set performed with 350 pounds is more "intense" than a lift performed with 300 pounds, regardless of how many reps were performed, how close the set came to failure, or how much mental effort was applied.

Most bodybuilders, on the other hand, define intensity as the magnitude of effort applied to a task. Using this definition, a leg press of 300 pounds might be more intense than a set with 350 pounds, if a greater effort was applied to that set.

For our purposes then,we will distinguish between "extrinsic" intensity (or, the magnitude of the external load) and "intrinsic" intensity (or, the magnitude of effort applied against that load). It's important to recognize that extrinsic intensity is objective, and intrinsic intensity is subjective. In other words, we can measure the weight on the bar as a percentage of maximum, but when someone claims that they "went to failure," we have to take his or her word for it.

Objectives and Methods of Training
For bodybuilders, the object of training is muscular hypertrophy. The methods used to accomplish this objective are dictated by various training principles, most notably the principle of progressive overload. Fatigue, and occasionally failure, are unavoidable by-products of these methods. Viewing fatigue and/or failure as an objective of training (as many bodybuilders do) is masochistic and counterproductive.

The hallmarks of successful training are long-term consistency and progression. But progression must be gradual- very gradual- if it is to be consistent. Many athletes insist on always taking a set to utter failure, even if it's not necessary to achieve a new personal record. But these same athletes neglect to project these gains into the future, which reveals the impossibility of continuing these gains. As an example, if you manage to put 5 pounds a week on your squat, this equates to 20 pounds a month, and 240 pounds a year. If this could be continued for even three years, you would be a national level powerlifter, with size to go along with it! A better approach is to achieve very small increases in load on a regular basis, even though you won't reach failure. These smaller increases are easier for the body to adapt to, and recuperate from. Taking each and every set to complete failure is like trying to run a marathon at sprint speed- after a very short period of sprinting, you'll have to slow down considerably, if you expect to finish the race.

The Downside of One Set to Failure
As stated earlier, few training practices or techniques are good or bad in the absolute sense. Most often, it's a matter of application and context. Performing all sets to failure (or, trying to) is particularly problematic, for the following reasons:

1) Insufficient training volume for hypertrophy development

Many studies have confirmed that metabolic changes associated with muscular hypertrophy are best instigated through loading by high volumes, whereas neural adaptations are best brought about through high intensity loads.

Training volume is calculated in pounds lifted per unit of time. If you plan to lift a certain weight for 5 sets of 5 reps, only the last set would approach concentric failure- if you went to failure on the first set, the subsequent sets would have to be performed with significantly less weight. This decreases volume, which can negatively impact muscular hypertrophy. International strength coach Charles Poliquin observes that for any two athletes on the same basic program, the athlete who uses a higher volume will have greater hypertrophy. This observation may be due in part to increased levels of anabolic hormones which are associated with multi-set (as opposed to single set) training.

A second factor to consider with respect to the training load is that there is a limit to how long you can achieve progressions in intensity, but increases in volume can be achieved for a much longer period. For example, after about 9-10 years of solid training experience, you'll arrive at (or very close to) your maximum lifts (1RM's). Past this point, it becomes nearly impossible to increase the training load through increases in intensity. It's much more feasible at this point to increase training volume (by adding reps and/or sets). In this way, you can continue to make gains in muscle mass.

2) Injury potential, both acute and chronic, increases

Noted exercise scientist Paul Ward warns that training to failure results in ischemic reperfusion, or oxygen deprivation, followed by oxygen perfusion. This results in massive free-radical damage to DNA and cell membranes.

International Sports Sciences Association co-founder Dr. Sal Arria cautions that many soft tissue injuries occur when failure terminates a repetition in mid-stroke. "When the weight on the bar exceeds the muscle's ability to lift it, something has to give and usually, it's the musculotendonous junction." One of the most important functions of a spotter is to stay alert and keep the bar moving in order to avoid such injuries, according to Arria.

According, to powerlifting legend Fred Hatfield, if fatigue is so great that stabilizers and synergists (which typically tire faster than the prime movers) become too fatigued to allow maintenance of proper form, you're asking for trouble.

3) Potential for overtraining increases

Louie Simmons, well-known coach to many elite-level powerlifters finds that taking sets to failure "has an ill-effect on the central nervous system," which delays recovery. Simmons is noted for producing scores of high-ranked lifters with relatively low-intensity training

4) Regular failed attempts lead to a reduction in a lowering of the Golgi Tendon Organ (GTO) excitation threshold. Successful lifts which are above what the body is used to will raise the excitation threshold of the Golgi Tendon Organ, while failed attempts tend to lower it. What this means in bodybuilding parlance is that the more often you miss a lift, the more likely it is that you'll miss it again in the future.

Is Training to Failure Necessary?
Clearly, it is not. The overriding concept is that, like all training methods, training to failure is a tool. No tool should be used all the time for all applications. But used judiciously, it can be a useful training method. Any training program which plans for progressive resistance, consistency, and variation is likely to produce success.

Recommendations
1) Plan and document your training. If your best effort in the bench press is 225 for five sets of five repetitions, your goal should be to surpass that effort- either by getting five more pounds for 5x5, or by getting a greater volume with the same weight. When you do, you'll progress, even if you don't go to failure on each and every set. Keeping a training log is a must in order to know what barriers you're trying to surpass. Use one!

2) Use and apply strictly defined technique parameters for yourself. Cheating (by utilizing co-contraction from non-targeted muscles) only encourages inefficient movement patterns, poor posture, and potentially, injuries. Your technique on the last rep should be identical to the technique you use on the first repetition.

3) Progress is a function of gradually increasing your training load over time- not how "trashed" you feel after a workout.

4) Careful attention to acute program variables can have a big impact on how much volume you can comfortably tolerate. Here are two examples:

a) Muscles can be worked more thoroughly by first training in an unstable environment (i.e, free weights) which challenge the stabilizers, and then moving to a stable environment (i.e, machines). To test this for yourself, first do a set of dumbbell bench presses to fatigue. Next, load a barbell with the same weight, and immediately do a set. You will find that you can lift this weight, despite failure on the DB bench. Next, go to a machine bench press, load it with the same weight, and you'll find that you can continue even further. This phenomenon is an example of "stabilizer failure"; meaning that the motor cortex will limit neural drive to the prime movers when it senses that the body is unable to stabilize a load. This phenomenon has vast implications for the majority of trainees who primarily work prime movers through machine exercises only.

b) Because fatigue is specific5, greater workloads are possible if sets of contrasting exercises are performed back to back, as opposed to finishing all sets for a particular exercise before proceeding to the next. As an example, if you plan to perform bench presses and lat pulldowns in the same session, sets 1,3,5, etc., would be bench presses, and sets 2,4,6, etc., would be lat pulldowns. The more distant the two muscle groups are from one another, the greater the reduction in residual fatigue. Still another method of reducing fatigue is to alternate between low repetition sets, which fatigue primarily the nervous system, with high repetition sets, which fatigue primarily the metabolic system. The low repetition sets facilitate greater neural drive, which carries over to the high repetition set, allowing a greater overall workload to be performed.

c) Except for beginners, a linear progressions of training load, where the athlete attempts to add resistance each and every workout, result in early stagnation and loss of improvement. A more productive approach is a "three steps up, one step down approach" which allows for periodic regeneration and continued improvement.

5) For hypertrophy development, remember that muscles consist of more than just contractile fibers. Use a variety of repetition ranges to stimulate all elements of the muscle cell- including sarcoplasmic volume, capillary density, and mitochondria proliferation. (sarcoplasmic hypertrophy)

6) It is especially important to recognize the qualitative components of a good set- elements such as the feel, control, and overall mastery of the movement. Over-reliance on achieving the maximum number of repetitions at any cost is an invitation to injury and long-standing technique errors. A useful guideline is "Once you find yourself cheating, you're already beyond failure!"

7) Stick to conventional or "basic" training methods until they no longer yield results. If your neuromuscular system experiences every strength training method known to science in your first year of training, what will you do when you hit a plateau? Save "advanced" methods, such as partial repetitions, eccentric training, and ballistic methods for later, when you're advanced.

Training to Failure: Traditional and Revised Definitions
The majority of trainees define training to failure as continuing a set of repetitions (including both the concentric and eccentric portions of the rep) until no further repetitions are possible without a considerable erosion of form, or assistance from a partner, or both. Frequently, after concentric failure is reached, the trainee will continue the set, either by cheating (utilizing co-contraction from additional muscle groups), or with the help of a partner by either 1) completing a certain number of eccentric-emphasized reps, 2) performing "forced reps" (ie., utilizing help on both the concentric and eccentric portions of the reps), or performing "strip sets," meaning, the partner continues to reduce the weight on the bar until no further repetitions can be completed.

Other authors have rightly pointed out the fact that failure is specific to fiber type. As an example, you may select a heavy weight, and reach failure after performing 3 repetitions. While no further repetitions are possible with this weight, it would still be possible to lower the weight (as in a strip-set) and continue even further.

Olympic lifters terminate their sets when the ideal tempo and/or coordination erodes beyond acceptable parameters. For this reason, Olympic lifters rarely if ever utilize spotters, even on their heaviest maximum attempts, since (at least in theory) the worst thing that can happen is that the last rep will be slower than desired.

Is One Set Really Enough?
Many proponents of the "one set to failure" method justify their claims by suggesting that one set is sufficient to recruit a maximal number of motor units. While this may be true (although there is little solid data to support this statement), this approach assumes that simply recruiting a motor unit once is sufficient to fatigue it, which is a prerequisite to hypertrophic adaptations. For beginning trainees, it may be that single exposures to a training stimulus are sufficient to provoke an adaptation. But athletes with even moderate experience are likely to require multiple exposures (sets) in order to fatigue the target motor units9. Hypertrophy of other biological tissues is accomplished not by stressing the tissue close to its limits, but by applying a stress which is slightly beyond what it normally encounters. Bone, as an example, hypertrophies when a force equalling approximately one-tenth it's breaking point is applied. This example supports the contention that gradual progression is the ideal method for achieving muscular growth.

Darkhorse · #9 06-08-2006, 01:00 PM

http://www.mindandmuscle.net/content/page-238.html
Lifting to fail? With ref

http://www.drsquat.com/index.cfm?act...e&articleID=20 Dr Fred Hatfield

http://www.muscletalk.co.uk/article-...ertraining.asp CNS fatigue from failure training

http://www.strengthcats.com/CPworkingtofailure.htm Poliquin, training to failure

http://www.charliefrancis.com/index....=25&Itemi d=2 article about HIT vs reg training in sports

http://www.cbass.com/KevinDye.htm Hit advocate stops training to failure

http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/sisco2.htm Pete Sisko, training to failure not necessary. Including why the last rep is not nec the most productive

http://www.timinvermont.com/fitness/failure.htm Training to failure not necessary

http://bodybuilding.com/fun/wade2.htm Natural BB talks about why failure training is not necessary

http://www.myodynamics.com/articles/failure.html failure training not nec including refs.

http://www.redwhiteandbluefitness.co...ShowPage/31534 article about CNS with refs

http://staff.washington.edu/griffin/failure.txt Killer article by Lyle McDonald re: training to failure

http://www.deepsquatter.com/strength/archives/ls12.htm Louie Simmons

http://www.drdarden.com/readTopic.do?id=394848 failure training owned on HIT site no less

_Wolf_ · #10 06-10-2006, 07:45 AM

awesome post....can it be made into a sticky so that it doesnt get lost...?

Anuj

Bodybuilding.net - Bodybuilding Forum

Getting HIT with a Hammer