Train to Failure? Why Not Train for Success?

Share your favorite approaches to stay active, fit and healthy.

Moderators: JeffN, f1jim, carolve, Heather McDougall

Train to Failure? Why Not Train for Success?

Postby vgpedlr » Mon Oct 30, 2017 1:46 pm

If you've seen the classic film Pumping Iron you've seen Arnold and the gang training to "failure" as in when the muscle just can't do any more. If you've spent any time with bodybuilder types then you have heard of the many ways they have increasing intensity, to train to failure and "force" the muscles to grow. No pain, no gain, right?

Who wants to practice failure? Doesn't practicing success make more sense? Since adherence is the main obstacle for both exercise and this WOE, why not reinforce success?

Competitive strength athletes rarely train to failure. Their workout logs are careful progressions until contest day. Then they go all out and see what happens, while having the confidence from all their hard work in preparation.

Little and often over the haul, consistency trumps everything else.
User avatar
vgpedlr
 
Posts: 4502
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 4:17 pm
Location: NorCal

Re: Train to Failure? Why Not Train for Success?

Postby GlennR » Mon Nov 13, 2017 8:52 am

Who wants to practice failure? Doesn't practicing success make more sense? Since adherence is the main obstacle for both exercise and this WOE, why not reinforce success?


I think a bit of this is just semantics. I train to "failure" but I think any workout where I top my previous workout, either in weight lifted or reps done, as a rousing success. In fact, I find it highly motivating to pass my own benchmarks. One thing going for it is pure simplicity, your goals are apparent and as easy to determine as your last workout. Just do a bit more.
Glenn
GlennR
 
Posts: 728
Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2014 1:17 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Train to Failure? Why Not Train for Success?

Postby vgpedlr » Mon Nov 13, 2017 10:11 am

Training to "failure" means training to "momentary muscular failure" meaning the muscle is unable to contract again. It's a popular bodybuilding technique. It's also totally unnecessary. Competitive strength athletes don't train this way because it's too risky. They may occasionally "miss" a rep, or try for a new 1RM, but that is very different from forcing muscles to fail over many sets in a workout. I also think it is a psychological disadvantage to reinforce failure. Better in my mind to stop a set while it's still a success.

If such training works for someone, by all means keep at it.

But too many people think that you HAVE to beat yourself up with exercise otherwise it won't work.

That's just not true.
User avatar
vgpedlr
 
Posts: 4502
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 4:17 pm
Location: NorCal

Re: Train to Failure? Why Not Train for Success?

Postby GlennR » Mon Nov 13, 2017 10:56 am

Failure is usually defined as the inability to do one more rep with good form, not the inability to contract the muscle again. I find it both safe and effective. I do reps slowly with no cheating and only until I can no longer do a rep with good, steady form. I think changing up any workout strategy from time to time is useful and I think there's no doubt that many people abuse the "train to failure" paradigm.

In any case, I like alternating my workouts every six to eight weeks so don't always go to failure but it is my principal training routine. Really, all I was trying to communicate is that I find it motivating rather than demotivating.
Glenn
GlennR
 
Posts: 728
Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2014 1:17 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Train to Failure? Why Not Train for Success?

Postby vgpedlr » Mon Nov 13, 2017 2:30 pm

Perhaps it is semantic. To me, if the desired movement cannot be performed, then enough muscle fibers are unable to contract and that is failure. In any case, it is a very different feeling from "leaving one or two reps "in the tank" as I suggest.

As I wrote before, if you enjoy it by all means keep at it.

Some people can recover from that sort of intensity, but many cannot. I've seen too many people over the years struggle and suffer, only to become exhausted and frustrated. They burn out, give up, and end up hating exercise, thinking they HAVE to exercise that hard. I wish I would have figured this out years ago. I would be so much stronger today if I had done "little and often" over the long haul. Consistency and frequency trump everything else.

You don't have to beat yourself up to get stronger, fitter, or healthier.
User avatar
vgpedlr
 
Posts: 4502
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 4:17 pm
Location: NorCal

Re: Train to Failure? Why Not Train for Success?

Postby Chumly » Tue Nov 14, 2017 5:05 pm

This reminds of the "Boot Camp" workout I tried some years ago. Five days a week of pushing yourself (or having someone yell at you) to run faster, do more reps, and interval training. It got to the point where I was almost always in pain and several times had to take breaks because during my efforts I wasn't paying proper attention to form and pulled a muscle or something. I will never do that again. I'm currently trying to walk more, do yoga, hike and body weight exercise along with some weight training and cycling. I definitely don't have the pain that I did in Boot Camp.

Michael
Chumly
 
Posts: 1374
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2008 11:05 am
Location: Atlanta, Georgia

Re: Train to Failure? Why Not Train for Success?

Postby vgpedlr » Wed Nov 15, 2017 10:27 am

I've never been attracted to "boot camp" style workouts or crossfit for precisely the reasons chumly mentions. I know I would self destruct quickly. There is certainly a time nd place for such intensity, for "metabolic conditioning," and some people enjoy them. If you can keep it up long term, great. My sister likes boot camp exercise. But she has never kept it up for more than a few months at time.

Little and often over the long haul yields results.

Consistency and frequency trumps everything else.
User avatar
vgpedlr
 
Posts: 4502
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 4:17 pm
Location: NorCal

Re: Train to Failure? Why Not Train for Success?

Postby roundcoconut » Wed Nov 15, 2017 10:58 am

I’m TOTALLY on board with this actually!

It’s funny, but at risk of sounding like a priss, I honestly don’t like to have to re-do my hair or make-up after the treadmill. I don’t break more than a very light sweat when I walk, but I’m finding that I can get a LOT of heart rate going, even at that. (I can get my heart rate to about 120, if you believe the handheld sensors of my treadmill.)

It’s nice to have validation for the moderate-intensity stuff! I honestly believe it builds and builds, even though it’s unglamorous. (No one makes an ad campaign out of people doing light- to moderate-intensity walking. Not exactly the stuff of glory!)

It strikes me that the bootcamp-style crowd may get some arrogant pleasure from emerging from their workouts dripping with sweat, but that sets the bar really HIGH, and that could easily mean that a believer in that school of exercise might abstain from exercise altogether on a day where they feared they couldn’t reach those intensity levels. So perhaps that is how people like your sister drop out of bootcamp-style workouts?
User avatar
roundcoconut
 
Posts: 2530
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2014 11:55 pm

Re: Train to Failure? Why Not Train for Success?

Postby slider1 » Thu Feb 01, 2018 2:17 pm

"Train to Failure" is as old (and outdated) as Arnold. Strength training (power lifting) is scientific today. It involves one "optimal" training day a week and then plenty of rest (recovery time). Most work out too often!

Bodybuilding (on Arnold's level) is about steroids, protein supplements, and other drugs. I can't think of any way that relates to "training for success."

Bodybuilding is not about health. It's anything but. It's not about strength, either. The bulky-beefy guys are the ones who drop out first in any type of strength challenge using bodyweight. A thin woman can usually hang from a bar by the strength of her finger grip longer than a pumped-up bodybuilder. The thin guys beat the pumped up bodybuilder, too. He's just not as strong as he looks; certainly not strong enough to carry his weight through strength challenges. Bodybuilders don't train for strength. Their goal is muscular size and shape. Too often, at any cost!

Health isn't about strength, or even about being thin. Lots of thin folks are unhealthy. Good health results from a certain lifestyle. That means not eating meat & dairy & processed foods & oils. Avoid those commercial foods, and instead eat a starch based diet, and your odds of being healthy go up exponentially. Add some cardio and some strength training and you won't athrophy as you age. When you stop being physical that sends a message to your brain you are "old". I'd rather be "old & fit" than "old & passive".
slider1
 
Posts: 25
Joined: Sun Jul 13, 2008 9:36 am

Re: Train to Failure? Why Not Train for Success?

Postby slider1 » Thu Feb 01, 2018 2:25 pm

vgpedlr wrote:. Some people can recover from that sort of intensity, but many cannot. I've seen too many people over the years struggle and suffer, only to become exhausted and frustrated. They burn out, give up, and end up hating exercise, thinking they HAVE to exercise that hard..


Intensity, as you call it, is ideal for maximizing strength. No one can work out too intensely. It's not possible. The problem is most don't rest long enough between intense workouts. The body cannot build new muscle fiber, let alone rest up for the next intense workout. Americans are at least fifty years behind the old Soviet Union in strength training technique. They beat us in the Olympics, regularly, by resting sufficiently between intense workouts.
slider1
 
Posts: 25
Joined: Sun Jul 13, 2008 9:36 am

Re: Train to Failure? Why Not Train for Success?

Postby DanTheYogi » Fri Feb 02, 2018 9:29 am

slider1 wrote:
vgpedlr wrote:. Some people can recover from that sort of intensity, but many cannot. I've seen too many people over the years struggle and suffer, only to become exhausted and frustrated. They burn out, give up, and end up hating exercise, thinking they HAVE to exercise that hard..


Intensity, as you call it, is ideal for maximizing strength. No one can work out too intensely. It's not possible. The problem is most don't rest long enough between intense workouts. The body cannot build new muscle fiber, let alone rest up for the next intense workout. Americans are at least fifty years behind the old Soviet Union in strength training technique. They beat us in the Olympics, regularly, by resting sufficiently between intense workouts.



Hi slider1

I am curious what kind of strength training regimen you would recommend, including supporting evidence?
DanTheYogi
 
Posts: 122
Joined: Thu May 18, 2017 7:47 am
Location: Austin, TX

Re: Train to Failure? Why Not Train for Success?

Postby GlennR » Tue Feb 06, 2018 5:39 pm

Study results on a go to volitional failure...

There was a heavy lifting group, and a light lifting group. All workouts supervised - exercise until volitional failure, or until they couldn't do another repetition. They came in four times a week for 12 weeks.

The big takeaway is that they both got big and strong; that is, they got just as big and just as strong. The take-home message is that it's not so much about the load that you lift with or any certain exercise variable. Instead, it's about: are you exercising and lifting weights with a high degree of effort? Are you exercising until failure, or until you can't lift anymore?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/news/new-mcmaster-study-says-you-can-lift-small-and-get-big-1.3677384

A new study at McMaster University suggests lifting lighter weights is as effective as lifting heavier weights, as long as you do it enough to tire you out.

This contradicts conventional wisdom around strength training where lifting heavier weights is seen as the fast track to getting jacked.

Rob Morton, a co-author of the study along with Professor Stuart Phillips and Sara Oikawa, talked to the CBC about the study.

Rob Morton, graduate student in kinesiology at McMaster University
Q: This study is saying lighter weights can be just as effective as heavier weights when you're lifting to gain muscle and build strength. Can you tell us about the study?

A: We took resistance-trained guys — so, guys who had been lifting weights pretty seriously for about two years — and we divided them into two groups.

There was a heavy lifting group, and a light lifting group. We supervised all the guys. Each time they came in and we'd make sure, and this is the key point, that they'd exercise until volitional failure, or until they couldn't do another repetition. They came in four times a week for 12 weeks.

The big takeaway is that they both got big and strong; that is, they got just as big and just as strong. Our take-home message is that it's not so much about the load that you lift with or any certain exercise variable. Instead, it's about: are you exercising and lifting weights with a high degree of effort? Are you exercising until failure, or until you can't lift anymore?

Q: Should these results be encouraging to people who are just starting out with weight training?

A: Yeah, there was a study before ours, and that was in untrained participants. So, guys who weren't necessarily big weightlifters. And, same thing: you can lift with heavy and light; the caveat is that when you exercise — if you're going to use light weights — you need to do it just as if you're using heavy weights. You really need to push yourself. You need to fail or to reach that point of exhaustion.

Q: Your study only focused on men. How do these results apply to women?

A: I don't think it would be any different for women. There's plenty of research to suggest that women respond relatively the same as men — relative to their muscle mass and bone structure as is. So, no difference I would presume.

Q: To what extent are trainers already giving this advice — or to what extent would they have to, or should they, start changing their advice that they're giving to people in this area?

A: I think that most trainers would understand this principle and would be ok with it. But I think the real implication is that, if in a certain week or a certain phase of your training period that you want to decrease the load — or in a certain population, like aging people — you don't want them to be under really, really heavy loads all the time.

I think this is just a proof of principle to say, that's okay, you can lift light weights with the exact same results. There's no worry if you have to take weights off the bar, or get different dumbbells, or whatever it is.

Q: Some people are saying they've heard this before from various trainers. Is it possible these findings aren't challenging conventional thinking as much as you would have thought?

A: I definitely think there are trainers that do this. But the governing bodies that put out recommendations for these trainers, and I won't mention them, but they do say: if you're going to increase your strength, you want to lift eight repetitions. If you want to increase your muscle mass, you've got to be between six to 12. If you want to increase your endurance, you've got to be greater than 12.

So, I don't doubt that some trainers know this or already practice this way, but I do know that the governing bodies, the ones that give those trainers their certifications — we challenge those bodies for sure.

Q: In terms of getting peer reviewed and replicating these results, what would it take for this conclusion to become scientifically accepted as the new normal?

A: I think we're there. The study itself is published, so it's gone through the peer review. But we've also had two other studies released before this.

We've had one paper go out that measured acute muscle growth, and ... muscle protein synthesis. So that was kind of our first hit.

Then we came out again in the untrained group of guys, and that was a "within subjects" study — the right leg versus left leg. And then this we think was the nail in the coffin so to speak: that we took 50 guys, they all had training experience, and one group did one thing and another group did another thing, and we showed it again.

So I think our hope is that now we've gained the attention that this principle — this, "no substitute for hard work," this "effort is king" approach is going to start taking flight, even in the scientific community.
Glenn
GlennR
 
Posts: 728
Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2014 1:17 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Train to Failure? Why Not Train for Success?

Postby Skip » Sun Feb 18, 2018 4:13 pm

GlennR wrote:The big takeaway is that they both got big and strong; that is, they got just as big and just as strong. The take-home message is that it's not so much about the load that you lift with or any certain exercise variable. Instead, it's about: are you exercising and lifting weights with a high degree of effort? Are you exercising until failure, or until you can't lift anymore?


If this is true, and I tend to believe it is, then you can back down on the amount of weight you lift while increasing the reps and get equivalent strength as long as you push to the exhaustion/fatigue point.

Have there been any updates or further studies in this regard? This study came out in July of 2016, maybe there are some more up to date ones?

Thanks

PS this brings back to mind a previous related discussion we had at
viewtopic.php?f=17&t=56753&start=15#p574609
"The fundamental principle of ethics is reverence for life" Albert Schweitzer
User avatar
Skip
 
Posts: 2230
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2010 9:19 am


Return to Exercise and Fitness

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests



Welcome!

Sign up to receive our regular articles, recipes, and news about upcoming events.