Oh, how we all love to push ourselves to the very limit. When the last rep is moving slower than a snail. Yet we ask our spotters not to touch the bar, because ‘we got it’. We push on until the muscles burn and our heart rate is skyrocketing. It’s an exhilarating feeling. It gives us a sense of accomplishment and satisfaction to know we did our best.
In addition to the feeling, many trainers also advise training to failure. The claim is that this results in a higher degree of muscle damage and thus greater muscle hypertrophy. It has been advocated by many lifters and bodybuilders as well.
I hate to break it to you, but we might be wrong about this belief. Researchers have found that if the volume is equated, hypertrophy is greater for the people who do not train to failure. Volume is the total number of repetitions in a given time for a particular muscle group. This means if the same amount of work is being done, maybe with an additional set to make the number of repetitions in the workout the same, it is better not to push to failure. This is because both scenarios produce the same results for muscle size.
Adding fuel to the fire, training to failure requires a significantly higher recovery time, which will negatively affect the intensity of the subsequent workout. The other possibility is taking longer breaks between two workouts of the same muscle groups, reducing the frequency. Either way, it does not benefit in the long run.
Every rule has an exception, and so does this one. When we are dealing with lighter loads, it is better to push to failure. A load can be considered light if you can perform more than 15 repetitions of an exercise with it. This is recommended due to a slower rate of muscle recruitment with light loads. It might also be easier for us to misinterpret our lifting capacity when we perform higher repetitions and do not finish closer to failure, leading us to miss the mark for effort completely.
Strength gains have a clear bias, however. Before knowing this bias, let us understand the principles of strength adaptations. To specifically work on this parameter of physical performance, we need to push higher loads for fewer repetitions, with the longest inter-set breaks that you have ever seen. Putting a few numbers, the plan includes a load of 80–95% of the 1 Repetition Maximum (1RM), to be lifted for two to six repetitions and repeated for two to six sets. The rest intervals are usually between three to five minutes. The first concern when dealing with such heavy loads is safety. Of course, the risk of injury will be minimised if the lifter has enough energy to rack the weights with satisfactory control.
Strength improvements do not require training to failure. For reasons not fully understood, when we do not equate the volume, not training to failure appears to be beneficial. A few studies also tell us that there are no significant drawbacks even if you do take it to failure. This leaves the option of personal preference. I apologise if this makes things more confusing, so let me simplify the conclusion. If you are aiming for hypertrophy with heavier loads, don’t train to failure in consideration of the higher recovery time. If you are using lighter loads, train till failure to ensure good motor unit recruitment. If you are aiming for strength, do not train to failure. If you want to keep the volume high, it doesn’t really matter if you train to failure or not. So choose well and stay on top of the game.
In addition to the feeling, many trainers also advise training to failure. The claim is that this results in a higher degree of muscle damage and thus greater muscle hypertrophy. It has been advocated by many lifters and bodybuilders as well.
I hate to break it to you, but we might be wrong about this belief. Researchers have found that if the volume is equated, hypertrophy is greater for the people who do not train to failure. Volume is the total number of repetitions in a given time for a particular muscle group. This means if the same amount of work is being done, maybe with an additional set to make the number of repetitions in the workout the same, it is better not to push to failure. This is because both scenarios produce the same results for muscle size.
Adding fuel to the fire, training to failure requires a significantly higher recovery time, which will negatively affect the intensity of the subsequent workout. The other possibility is taking longer breaks between two workouts of the same muscle groups, reducing the frequency. Either way, it does not benefit in the long run.
Every rule has an exception, and so does this one. When we are dealing with lighter loads, it is better to push to failure. A load can be considered light if you can perform more than 15 repetitions of an exercise with it. This is recommended due to a slower rate of muscle recruitment with light loads. It might also be easier for us to misinterpret our lifting capacity when we perform higher repetitions and do not finish closer to failure, leading us to miss the mark for effort completely.
Strength gains have a clear bias, however. Before knowing this bias, let us understand the principles of strength adaptations. To specifically work on this parameter of physical performance, we need to push higher loads for fewer repetitions, with the longest inter-set breaks that you have ever seen. Putting a few numbers, the plan includes a load of 80–95% of the 1 Repetition Maximum (1RM), to be lifted for two to six repetitions and repeated for two to six sets. The rest intervals are usually between three to five minutes. The first concern when dealing with such heavy loads is safety. Of course, the risk of injury will be minimised if the lifter has enough energy to rack the weights with satisfactory control.
Strength improvements do not require training to failure. For reasons not fully understood, when we do not equate the volume, not training to failure appears to be beneficial. A few studies also tell us that there are no significant drawbacks even if you do take it to failure. This leaves the option of personal preference. I apologise if this makes things more confusing, so let me simplify the conclusion. If you are aiming for hypertrophy with heavier loads, don’t train to failure in consideration of the higher recovery time. If you are using lighter loads, train till failure to ensure good motor unit recruitment. If you are aiming for strength, do not train to failure. If you want to keep the volume high, it doesn’t really matter if you train to failure or not. So choose well and stay on top of the game.
Comments
Post a Comment