Going to failure VS chasing the pump VS volume

[sugarcookies]

@helen2002 I think you should be careful about jumping to the conclusion that this study "ends that whole silly debate". The authors themselves state:

[...]caution is warranted when interpreting the present analysis due to its exploratory nature. Future studies deliberately designed to explore the continuous nature of the dose-response effects of proximity to failure in large samples should be considered.

In short, it can't be conclusively said that training closer to failure is objectively better for muscle hypertrophy.

Interestingly too, one of the authors of that study, Michael Zourdos, has written in the past about direct studies on this subject that indicated that going to failure doesn't really make a meaningful difference in hypertrophy compared to leaving up to 5RIR.

 

[helen2002]

@sugarcookies Sure, but the trend over the past 10 years has been leaning this way. This is the biggest study that makes a good effort to isolate hypertrophy from strength also, and shows a very clear exponential gain with training to failure based on all that info.

But even prior studies like the big one in 2019 still showed a benefit from failure training despite the conclusion saying it wasn't significant, it was bad interpretation.

In short, it can't be conclusively said that training closer to failure is objectively better for muscle hypertrophy.

There's more than enough that show that training to failure is superior, but I'm not going to dig them all out in this thread.

that going to failure doesn't really make a meaningful difference in hypertrophy compared to leaving up to 5RIR

Yet this study and a whole bunch of others show the exact opposite. There's a ton of data for the effective reps model of 4 - 6 reps showing training to 5 RIR is complete and utter dogshit.

I think anyone who actually trains 5 RIR will

1. Not actually be training 5 RIR since it's been shown we are extremely bad at estimating it, even if well trained. And so it will often be 6-7 RIR.
2. Will get pretty mediocre results compared to proper training and probably shouldn't be listening to people who can't read scientific studies well.

 

[sugarcookies]

@helen2002

Sure, but the trend over the past 10 years has been leaning this way.

Hardly. Two systematic reviews from just last year(Grgic et al. and Refalo et al.) concluded that there was no difference in muscle hypertrophy between going to failure and not going to failure.

Other studies seem to conclude that there's only a very minor benefit, at best, to going to failure.

But even prior studies like the big one in 2019 still showed a benefit from failure training despite the conclusion saying it wasn't significant,

You mean the one by Vieira et al.?

If so, Menno Henselmans seems to think it falls in line with past research in that there's little to not benefit to going to failure when training for hypertrophy. Doubly so if one is running a mid-to-high volume routine.

it was bad interpretation.

According to whom?

There's more than enough that show that training to failure is superior, but I'm not going to dig them all out in this thread.

Sure, if you want to get technical, some studies indicate that it's superior, but only just. You might not even notice whatever difference may be there.

Yet this study and a whole bunch of others show the exact opposite. There's a ton of data for the effective reps model of 4 - 6 reps showing training to 5 RIR is complete and utter dogshit.

I've looked at studies done by Eric Helms, Eric Trexler, Michael Zourdos, Brad Schoenfeld and multiple articles by Menno Henselmans. They're all big boys in fitness research.

All of it says that, at best, there's only a very minor advantage to going to failure, and that advantage is likely to be overshadowed by the load of extra fatigue it induces.

If you like training to failure and find it working for you, more power to you. But suggesting that it's necessary or that not going to failure is "dogshit" doesn't seem to fall in line with the current literature.

 

[helen2002]

@sugarcookies Can you link one from last year that apparently showed no benefit? What was the RIR?

The last 2-3 meta's have shown a small benefit but it's increasing. This latest one that I linked is the biggest and makes a much stronger effort than in the prior ones (that used beginner lifters impacting results, that used stregth included etc) to isolate hypertrophy training. And just look at it, it's not a small difference

It's exponential as you get to 0.

At the end of the day we can all train the way we want and anything works over enough time.

As of right now, the research is very clearly on the side of training to failure. And by that I don't mean partial reps gassing it, it's more 0-2 RIR instead of 3-4.

But suggesting that it's necessary or that not going to failure is "dogshit" doesn't seem to fall in line with the current literature.

To clarify I didn't say not training to failure was dogshit. I don't do it on every exercise.

I said training 5 RIR is dogshit unless you're a complete beginner on his first week in the gym, and I don't even think the 3RIR zealots would disagree. We have an evidence based effective reps model that's between 4 - 6 RIR being the only stimulative reps so many 5 RIR sets are literally 0 stimulus when you factor in error.

 

[sugarcookies]

@helen2002

Can you link one from last year that apparently showed no benefit? What was the RIR?

Grgic et al. and Refalo et al.

They're both review studies, and I can't find an overview of the RIR for the included studies. In the limitations of the review by Refalo et al., they mention that results may be influenced by "current set termination methods".

This latest one that I linked is the biggest and makes a much stronger effort than in the prior ones (that used beginner lifters impacting results, that used stregth included etc) to isolate hypertrophy training. And just look at it, it's not a small difference

Sure, if you look at the max RIR vs 0, but looking at something more realistic, like 5RIR vs 0, the difference is minimal.

It's exponential as you get to 0.

I assume that's hyperbole, since the authors themselves call it a linear relationship.

At the end of the day we can all train the way we want and anything works over enough time.

Absolutely!

To clarify I didn't say not training to failure was dogshit. I don't do it on every exercise.

That's my mistake, then.

I said training 5 RIR is dogshit unless you're a complete beginner on his first week in the gym, and I don't even think the 3RIR zealots would disagree. We have an evidence based effective reps model that's between 4 - 6 RIR being the only stimulative reps so many 5 RIR sets are literally 0 stimulus when you factor in error.

There's no evidence that only that range is stimulative; only that it's more stimulative. 10 RIR is still stimulative, just much less so.

And it's true that beginners suck at predicting RIR which means that that kind of training will be much less valuable for them. However, as one gets more experience, the RIR prediction gets better. So a more experienced trainee could stay at 3-4RIR and still see pretty much the same growth as someone who went to failure, if they wanted.

 

[helen2002]

@sugarcookies

So a more experienced trainee could stay at 3-4RIR and still see pretty much the same growth as someone who went to failure, if they wanted

I really don't know what "science" you think you are following but the data absolutely doesn't support this.

3-4 is not even close to being equal to training to failure.

I'll refer you to the large meta analysis I've already linked that has some individuals showing almost double muscle growth from 0 RIR versus 3-4 RIR with an extremely clear trend.

I'm not beating a dead horse anymore though, thanks for the contribution but let's disagree. I'll train to failure and you can do fantasy sets at 5 RIR that may or may not be doing anything.

 

[kukla]

@helen2002

Maybe from misinterpretations 5+ years ago. The science is clearly pointing to training to failure for hypertrophy now with low-moderate volumes at that intensity. There was a meta analysis in May this year (the biggest so far) which ended that whole silly debate.

Do you have a link to that study? Because I haven't seen it and the studies pointing AWAY from failure TOWARDS high volumes are very recent. First is 2022, 2nd is 2023

e.g. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2095254621000077

This one is of note since the RIR was 4-6 vs. 0-1. https://physoc.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.14814/phy2.15679

 

[helen2002]

@kukla https://sportrxiv.org/index.php/server/preprint/view/295

Most of the others on failure have fairly big problems. This is the biggest ever conducted and it's extremely clear that training to failure is important to maximise hypertrophy and NOT training to failure is important to maximise strength gains.

 

[kukla]

@helen2002 Thanks for linking that. I think you are conflating "close to failure" with "failure". Big difference. There is also the context of "training to failure" or "intensity as the primary determinant of hypertrophy".

I know about that study. Respectfully, it doesn't say what you are saying it does and it does not evidence: The science is clearly pointing to training to failure for hypertrophy now with low-moderate volumes at that intensity.

I don't think many people doubt that you need to train HARD in general for hypertrophy (3 RIR or less)....that doesn't prove that training to 0 RIR is "optimal".

Here is the conclusion: CONCLUSION The dose-response relationships between estimated proximity to failure and strength gain appears to be different from that with muscle hypertrophy. Strength gains seem to be negligibly impacted by the proximity to failure in which sets are performed at a given load, while muscle hypertrophy improves as sets are terminated closer to failure. However, the quality of overall model fits was modest and the width of the uncertainty intervals of all estimates suggest many dose-response shapes are compatible with the current analysis, particularly upon the addition of future data. Considering these results and the RIR estimation procedures used, the exact relationship between RIR and muscle hypertrophy and strength remains unclear. Researchers and practitioners should be therefore be cautious interpreting the findings of the present analysis.

The study concluded: Training to failure does not help with strength training. Training CLOSE to failure seems to benefit hypertrophy training. One has to be careful drawing conclusions.

I don't think many people doubt that you need to train HARD in general for hypertrophy (3 RIR or less)....that doesn't prove that training to 0 RIR is "optimal".

The study also suggests:

For example, only volume-equated studies (i.e., either set or repetition equated) were included in the present analysis. While training closer to failure resulted in superior muscle hypertrophy outcomes, these results may change if participants could modify the number of sets performed to align with their recovery capacity. As training to failure results in greater acute fatigue [103,104], training with a greater number of RIR could allow for more weekly sets and could impact longitudinal strength and muscle hypertrophy outcomes.

That contradicts the "pointing to lower volumes" assertion.

"Close to failure" is MUCH different than "to failure" in the context of performing sufficient volume, and frequency.

The REAL evidence of the studies that I have seen evidence away from "intensity" as being the ONLY driver of hypertrophy, so ones workouts should be arranged to optimize how hard you do each set.

Train hard to induce an effect. The volume creates the magnitude of the effect, with diminishing returns as volume is added.

vs.

Training as hard as possible each set to create both effect and magnitude. Volume is a negative factor.

 

[helen2002]

@kukla You can set "close to failure" or "failure" as a whole bunch of different things.

The data shows an exponential increase in hypertrophy the closer you get, per set.

Does this mean you should train 0 RIR for everything? No. But it does show that 0 RIR has more stimulus per set than 3 RIR etc.

Can you achieve the same stimulus by doing more sets at 3-4 RIR to make up for the lack of intensity? Maybe, but there's at least one study where that isn't the case.

--

The real problem with anyone trying to do 3 RIR for hypertrophy is the massive margin for error resulting in many very low simulative sets which are actually 5-6 RIR, even in experienced lifters.

--

And of course, stretch gains don't benefit form training to 0 RIR at all, the data shows the opposite.

 

[kukla]

@helen2002 I agree, you can set "failure" or "close to failure" in different ways.

As you say, MANY of the "failure" protocols in fact are not to "failure" (cannot perform the last rep you try)-some are loss of velocity, some are "form breakdown", and some are "would miss the next rep". "Failure' to me, for the sake of discussion, is going to involve a missed rep a huge majority of the time.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think "if you approach failure you will die"...my context is "training to failure as the MAIN factor that produces results", e.g. HIT variants. Where "momentary effort" is pretty much the ONLY factor that matters, and routines need to optimized to allow this. Volume in fact is seen as not only "not important", but avoided as a negative factor. Extremely low volume. Extremely low frequency.

The data shows an exponential increase in hypertrophy the closer you get, per set.

This is from the study you cited: Considering these results and the RIR estimation procedures used, the exact relationship between RIR and muscle hypertrophy and strength remains unclear. Researchers and practitioners should be therefore be cautious interpreting the findings of the present analysis.

When volume is equalized, there is no difference between 0RIR and 1-2RIR.

But...when you compare low volume 0RIR with higher volume

 

[helen2002]

@kukla

When volume is equalized, there is no difference between 0RIR and 1-2RIR.

Yes agreed generally across the whole routine. On paper there is still a difference at each reduction in RIR however as per the data.

Training to where you would fail next 1-2 reps as a general rule allows you to do enough volume and frequency for a majority of people to optimize your results.

Here's where I disagree. A lot of movements are perfectly capable of pushing to 0 RIR for that extra bit of stimulus.

The real problem is the inability to accurately gage RIR. Maybe in a very experienced lifter, most people need to train as close to failure as possible for probably at least a year in under to understand what that actually even means. I see it all the time in gyms, people stopping sets well before the velocity starts to reduce considerably, they aren't productive sets.

 

[kukla]

@helen2002 It is hard to judge RIR. I don't think there is much need to. I just look at it as "keep one in the tank".

We likely agree that the "RIR" has gotten out of hand as a "thing". I don't know anyone that trains looking for 5 RIR intentionally on a working set. It reminds me of concepts in Psychology that they teach as "info" when it is just kind of common sense. I "go" to 1-2 RIR but that is in retrospect.

I can train each body part essentially everyday when doing that, doing essentially full body each day. EVEN doing Rest/Pause and drop sets, as long as I cycle my workouts.

I see it all the time in gyms, people stopping sets well before the velocity starts to reduce considerably, they aren't productive sets.

They are productive sets-possibly not as productive as possible for hypertrophy at least. For strength/power/speed...maybe.

A lot of movements are perfectly capable of pushing to 0 RIR for that extra bit of stimulus.

We do disagree because I don't think there is any more stimulus vs. keeping 1 in the tank. It certainly doesn't matter as much on cable crossovers vs. Bent Rows though. Probably not going to make that much of a difference in terms of isolation exercises, but if training frequently it isn't going to help overall.

To anticipate a comment/question, this works THE BEST for me. Training to failure less frequently doesn't work as well, so it isn't "you can do that, or you can train to failure and train less".

I hear people talk about "efficiency". Efficient and Optimal are two different things. Efficiency is result/time. Optimal is simply result.

 

[robrandazzo]

@helen2002 I disagree with some of your points.

The first being your point about a pump not mattering at all.
All professional bodybuilders (science based and gym bro types) that I've seen talk about getting a good pump in their workouts. I know this is just anecdotal evidence but if you just think about it, it's more likely they are on to something.
Also, mechanical tension is not the only stimuli for muscle growth. There is metabolites and cell swelling which has somewhat of a relationship with a 'pump'. So there is scientific explanations for that too. It's not just gym bro myth.

Secondly, saying there is no benefit of doing more than 4-6 sets per session has no benefit is a crazy claim. How are you making this claim?
There are studies showing that doing more sets provided more growth. However, there are diminishing returns, higher recovery requirements, and nervous system fatigue, etc.

 

[aleks_p]

@robrandazzo To your first point, "the pump" isn't an indicator of a good workout, or of growth. I can get a pump from squeezing a stress ball for 5 minutes, but that's not going to help my gains at all. There may be some truth to the pump helping to get the nutrients to the muscles, but IIRC, even that's been more or less debunked. Also, cellular swelling is a temporary effect, so it's not related to actual muscle growth. Unless you're thinking of sarcomeres, which actually matter in this situation.

To your second point, you have to remember that we're looking for effective reps when discussing sets. The last 5 reps before failure are the most stimulating in regards to mechanical tension (which is the driver behind growth), so if you're training at a lower intensity and staying away from failure, then you will need more sets to reach the ceiling for your reps. However, if every set is taken to failure, then you'll only need 4-5 movements, 2-3 sets per session (assuming an upper/lower split) to see maximal or near-maximal growth from each session. Higher volumes, using less effective rep schemes, cause a build up of calcium ions and lactic acid, which is what makes you sore and takes up valuable resources for recovery.

 

[mike230]

@robrandazzo Depends on what you mean by "as little as 4-6 sets per session."

Do you mean, per muscle group? I get fantastic pumps from 4 sets per muscle group per session and I move up a set every week if it stops. I stick to around 2-3 sets shy of failure until the second to last week where I go to failure to make sure I'm sandbagging myself. Even RP advocates going to failure the last week at least so you know where to set the bar next meso.

Some people say soreness isn't an indicator of growth - and it isn't by itself. However, I don't subscribe to that. Soreness, for me, has always been an indicator of growth, but not the indicator of growth. It's a good gauge for when I've done too much. Sometimes, I won't be healed in time for the next session of that muscle group - That's a decent gauge I may have went to hard or something was wrong with the rest of my week that I didn't recover correctly. However, if I've upped the volume and DIDN'T get sore (which happens sometimes by the 3rd or 4th week of my meso) that actually means I did entirely too damn much volume and my next session with that muscle may just shit out completely. I've had it happen with my bench; I wasn't sore after the last big session, and I completely shit the bed because that muscle group was just too fatigued.

I've had the same shit happen with a pump. I pushed too hard, and my pump was gone. No soreness afterwards. Still improved though (with occasions where I actually went BACKWARDS because of the fatigue cost)

The best indicator of growth is that you hit that next session (or even the next time you do that specific exercise) and you've gone up in weight or reps. Unless you're just too fatigued the next time you work the muscle, any increase in volume/intensity means you had some sort of muscle growth, assuming you're past the point of just neurological adaptations.

Either way, the main reason places like RP and Jeff Nippard advocate for NOT going to failure every session (if at all) or even past it is simple: The gains you get from it are incredibly small, and the fatigue cost is a lot higher. There's also injury risk and all that not-fun shit. However, not everyone is the same and not everyone has to do that shit.

 

[stevens86]

@robrandazzo Lifting for less than a year at 46 after a long hiatus off cycling and recently into more hypertrophy style training the RIR is still something I am working on. So different than any Olympic lifting I did many moons ago when a d1 athlete

I like it and results so far but still working through it. I also don’t know the proper rep ranges for different exercises. Doing more research on that as well.

Good problem to have as lots of fun not necessarily doing powerlifting style.

 

[robrandazzo]

6-10 sets a week or a session? 6 sets a week seems quite low no?

I do have a good gauge of RIR since I try to test my strength by going all out to see if rep count has improved.

Your point makes sense tho. When people aren't that strong yet, going to failure isn't as taxing

 

[scw43]

@robrandazzo Follow Paul Carter. liftrunbang1 on Instagram. He will dissuade you of your “science says high volume, 3 RIR” notions.

 

[aleks_p]

@scw43 I don't know why you're being down voted for this. I've followed him for two years, and grown more by following his advice than I have in the decades before.