So you think all of those negative effects will kick in because of one extra rep -- the one that goes to failure? I doubt it. As for stopping just short of failure, that requires some judgment, which, admittedly, someone who's been doing it for a while can reasonably estimate. But going to actual failure removes subjectivity. And I find it relieves the daily stresses of life like nobody's business. But I do agree that you can't do a lot of volume at that kind of intensity.
That's an EMG study. And an interesting finding. Here are the results of a few somewhat more dated studies: ...For example, Rodney et al. (1994) reported significantly greater gains (41.2% to 19.7%) in dynamic strength when training to muscular failure compared to sub-maximal sets of exercise. Similarly, Schott et al. (1995) reported significantly greater gains in isometric strength when training to failure compared to stopping the exercise short of failure (24.9kg to 14.3kg), and Drinkwater et al. (2005) reported significantly greater dynamic strength gains (9.5% to 5%), and also peak power for a bench press throw exercise when training to muscular failure compared to not training to failure (40.8W/10.6% to 25W/6.8%). Notably Folland et al. (2002) reported no significant difference in strength increase between a training time of around 7 minutes (to failure) and 25 minutes (not to failure), suggesting that the same strength gains could be achieved in approximately 30% of the time by training to momentary muscular failure. Overall, therefore, the evidence suggests that individuals should be encouraged to train to momentary muscular failure, as this appears to maximize muscle fibre recruitment and leads to greater improvements than sub-failure training. https://www.mikementzer.com/smith_fisher.html You had suggested doing more volume to compensate for not going to failure. As you may have read elsewhere in this forum I had posted research showing that a single set to failure is as effective as multiple sets. But the following excerpt from the same above link encapsulates it well: The number of sets is one of the most controversial issues in resistance training, and one of the most well-researched. Reviews, such as those conducted by Carpinelli and Otto (1998) and Smith and Bruce-Low (2004), have concluded that one set per exercise produces optimal results. In the Carpinelli and Otto paper, they found that single sets produced optimal results in 33 studies out of the 35 they reviewed. In contrast, Peterson et al. (2004, 2005) also analyzed this issue and claimed that multiple sets were superior. However, their own data clearly did not support their conclusions as in fact there was no statistically significant difference between the effect sizes of the different training volumes (see Carpinelli’s excellent 2009 article for a discussion of this issue). Overall, therefore, the weight of evidence strongly supports the...one set to failure approach. There have been more recent studies confirming these findings.
The negative effects build as you start doing reps. But they build exponentially. That last rep to failure can double the amount of negative effects but only increase muscle activation (which is linear) a bit more than the previous reps. So from a cost benefit point of view, it ain't worth doing. Btw, it's not what i think, there's research that shows this ...but i would have to dig it up. You do make a very good point re how do you judge going short of failure. It is quite difficult to do. Some days you are stronger and can do more reps, other days less. It's just experience, i suppose.
I workout 4 to 5 times a week for about an hour a time. I don't think that's a big deal tbh. 5 hours (say 6 hours if you include commute time) a week? The average person in America watches 4 hours of TV a DAY! For you, instead of increasing number of sets, you can simply increase your intensity i.e. increase the weight.
I would really have to see some solid research showing that all this takes place during the last rep to believe it. But I do agree that full intensity at high volume and/or frequency would be a toxic combination over time.
That's great, but why would I want to spend more time than I have to in order to optimize results? If you're doing it right and making it meaningful, then doing more than necessary unnecessarily increases the risk of overuse injury of the joints and overtraining. The various symptoms you listed in an earlier post sound more like the consequences of overtraining than just doing an extra rep to failure for a limited number of total sets on an infrequent basis. I went from working out 3 times a week doing a split routine for a total of 7.5+ hours per week up until the mid-2000s, after which time I reduced to full body workouts twice a week that still totalled 5 or so hours a week, to my present frequency of twice a week, about 40 minutes each time, excluding cardio which I tack on at the end. There is no way I'm going back to the old ways of the old days. Even when I was younger and was able to tolerate higher volume at full intensity, going to the gym eventually became a chore. I would be more tired during the day, and I suffered bouts of insomnia from time to time. I also had more frequent joint discomfort from overuse. Presently, I look forward to working out. I now enjoy working out more than I ever have, and I've been doing it for over 40 years. And I sleep better. In accordance with the size principal, intensity has more to do with effort than it does with poundages: http://www.cbass.com/Carpinelli.htm http://www.cbass.com/LiftingWithEffort.htm
3x per week might be fine for muscle building, assuming you are taking in excess calories to support that, but for me at this stage of the game, I don't want any more size. I want to keep the size I have and lose fat, and I find that I need more workout sessions that just 3 per week to accomplish this, so based on trial and error, 5 workouts per week seems to be where it's at for me.
Yes, I agree that trial and error is the way to go, guided by a bit of research, of course. Are you doing any cardio these days? I ask because I recall from an earlier workout thread that has since been closed, that you mentioned upping the cardio frequency a while back, but reported that you gained more fat when you did so: https://www.elitetrader.com/et/thre...le-and-losing-fat.224077/page-34#post-3559582 And so, I'm curious to know what frequency, if any, you found to work best for you.
One thing I've definitely learned is that "cardio" doesn't have to be on some dedicated machine sitting in a gym somewhere. The main cardio that I do is playing basketball with my son a couple times per week, or possibly also doing some yard work depending on the time of year. I exert myself just as much doing those activities as I would on an elliptical machine, and the basketball or yard work is a lot more fun for me. So a great week for me would be five whole-body workouts, each lasting 30 minutes, plus one or two 30-minute sessions of basketball with my son. Sometimes it just doesn't work out like that though. Some weeks, like those when my son is enrolled in flag football, I can only squeeze in 3 workouts because I have to run him all the way on the other side of town for practice right during the time frame I would normally be working out. So I've definitely become more flexible over the years in terms of what I can realistically accomplish, fully understanding that family obligations might require me to do certain things at times that aren't so convenient for me. But hey, I'm in better shape than most guys my age, and to me the fam is worth getting sidetracked for anyway.