Going to failure VS chasing the pump VS volume

[robrandazzo]

I know science based bodybuilding puts emphasis on volume and not going to failure on every set. Perhaps 1-3 reps in reserve per set (RIR) and only going to failure on your last set, last workout of a training block, or on small muscle groups like the side delts.

This is what I've been doing but I feel that I don't really get sore in my back after a few weeks of starting a training block. My training block starts at 5 sets per session (per muscle group) and I increase up to 10 sets per session. I do 2 sessions for each muscle group a week. PPL - PPL - Rest

However, when I really push to failure and beyond (with partials) every set I get a good pump and soreness from just doing very little volume. Even just 4-6 sets per session.

Does anyone have any first hand experience where they experiment with both and what were your results?

If you know any good articles/videos about this please share them too! Thanks

 

[dawn16]

@robrandazzo Soreness is not an indicator of muscle growth.

Not all science based bodybuilding subscribes to the RP theory.

Do what you enjoy or what interests you (within reason), see how your body responds, and go from there.

 

[comyn7]

@robrandazzo First off, soreness doesn’t necessarily indicate growth, it indicates a novel stimulus. If you’re not used to training to failure it will cause you to get more sore.

That said, the issue with RIR training is that in order to accurately gauge RIR, you have to train to failure for a while and understand what it feels like on different movements. Most people, especially if they’re relatively inexperienced, that think they’re training 1-3 RIR are actually more like 6-4 RIR.

You’re doing your own experiment right now, and it sounds like you feel like you’re getting a better workout training to failure. Continue doing this for a few months and see if you grow more (assuming diet is conducive to growth).

If you end up having recovery issues or otherwise are not enjoying it, you’ll be in a better position to go back to RIR training with a better ability to gauge your true RIR.

 

[dawn16]

@comyn7 Good advice. I never got on with the RIR stuff so I mostly train to failure but I give my self deloads and plenty of rest. Seems to be working pretty well

 

[ladayer]

@robrandazzo I Just watched an RP video on stimulus to fatigue ratio, the idea is those last reps to failure the actual stimulus you gut is outweighed by the crazy fatigue (maybe why you get more sore). The extra fatigue could interfere with the next workout, lowering overall volume.

 

[johntristan]

@ladayer I suppose if one hack squats 6 plates like the RP guys, fatigue becomes an issue. I'm far from those numbers and fare better pushing to failure on many sets

 

[nocalove]

@robrandazzo Just train to 0-1 RIR

It should keep you well aware of where your true failure is, because you will get there often (but not always)

It is true though, at least for me, that pushing to absolute failure before the final set really screws with it

 

[kukla]

@robrandazzo Don't think about this stuff too much.

I don't think your volume is low. 5-10 sessions per muscle, 2x week is not really low.

I would say this: IF you are able to do what you are doing (training all out) for 4-6 sets a BP 2x week consistently (not: "on 2 weeks off 4 weeks"), then you don't have an issue. Assuming you are getting results.

What the "science" is saying, is what most people have known for a long time. This is why experience and anecdote DO matter.

This is it:

Best results come from HARD training done at SOME level of volume (for most people).

vs.

Results come from THE HARDEST training done at MINIMAL volume.

It's pretty simple.

The issue with "training to failure", is in the context of those who think/thought "intensity" (effort) was the primary driver of muscular response. It is a logical theory based on a false premise.

The problem with Training to Failure, is that non-muscular fatigue (systemic/joints/tendons) seems to increase exponentially at 1 RIR vs 0 RIR. Going "past" failure really amplifies this.

You will hear people say "you can train hard, or you can train long". That's true. It doesn't follow that training as hard as possible as briefly as possible gets optimal results.

So, a decent AMOUNT of HARD training will give you the best results. Most people. Which we have known for at least 100 years.

Something I notice about many people who advocate training all out (including some of the biggest gurus).... they are ALWAYS or WERE always taking layoffs. In my mind, if you only need 1 set done to failure every week, then you have no excuse to not be 1. in the gym and 2. in shape.

I'm saying that because, if you REALLY can maintain your training intensity with your volume, and it works best for you, then do it.

Not sure how experienced you are, but you may find as you get stronger you take more and more out of yourself each "all out" set.

The above is based on experience, having done HIT in several forms, running gyms, and training people.

 

[markwilliams]

@kukla What ur opinion on Sam sulek style, a few hards sets to failure and partials.

 

[remas]

@markwilliams Never seen a full rep in his videos.

 

[kalee81]

@markwilliams a Sam Sulek question in natural body building group is a funny one, lol

 

[markwilliams]

@kalee81 Geared and natural training isn’t all that inherently different. Individual differences have just as much of an impact. If you’re eating and sleeping well, no reason it isn’t sustainable. Try it and see how it goes. Plenty of natty lifters use high intensity training methods.

There is a reason a lot of people train like this that have phenomenal physiques. Cuz it works.

I do not understand how this BS of 2-3 RIR and doing full body workouts became popular. Id be bored outta my damn mind just going through the motions. No pro or truly competitive bodybuilders that anyone could name work out like that. And no, training on gear and as a natty is not that different.

 

[hawwah]

@robrandazzo I personally have found low volume, high intensity has yielded me the best results but honestly do what you enjoy. Don’t over complicate it and just train hard.

 

[drgary777]

@robrandazzo Going to failure for the vast majority of people is usually leaving a lot of RIR. I have never trained with a person I couldn't push to at least another 1-3 reps on top of their personal "failure" point.

In my anecdotal experience, the stronger I get the less feasible training to true muscular failure really is. If I train to muscular failure I am mentally fatigued at all times, I can manage 6-10 sets a week/muscle group with a true 1-3RIR and recover for about 8 weeks before I need a deload. To put it into perspective, at 1-3RIR I should be at the point where any distraction or lack of focus whatsoever will cause me to fail my rep. I won't post numbers as they're irrelevant, but I want to stress that this is at elite strength levels; within hypertrophy rep ranges; because it makes a huge difference.

Carrying on from my last comment, when my strength levels were beginner-intermediate, I found pushing to true muscular failure not only easier, but also less fatiguing. 10-20 sets/week per muscle group was sustainable for months on end.

My suggestion is always to attempt true failure training, just so you can see what that actually means. I've trained with a lot of people who have never done this and they are almost always 5+RIR at the very least, often more. I want to emphasize that all of this is in the context of good technique, all I ever got from my powerlifting lift the most weight possible experimentation was joint pain. The more you train close to failure, the more skilled you'll become at resisting technique breakdown which just means the ability to push even closer to failure.

TLDR: Train to failure for an extended period if you haven't before. Train with RIR once strength levels become too high to manage fatigue with failure training.

 

[jordanconnect]

@robrandazzo Volume is overrated. Probably because steroid users train that way and just tell what works for them.

3-5 proper hard sets per body part weekly is plenty for growth.

 

[miles44]

@jordanconnect Correct! 3-5 proper hard sets is plenty for growth. But you're basically going to the gas station every week and filling your tank to 3/4 full. Sure, you have gas but you could have easily just filled the tank full, why leave that 1/4 empty? By only doing 5 sets weekly you will make progress, I just guarantee you could make MORE progress by increasing it. The goal is to do as much volume as you can possibly do without it interfering with your workouts.

 

[deejayjr]

@jordanconnect Completely wrong. Doing 10 sets is about double the growth. 15-20 sets isn't twice that of 10 but it's still more. After 20 you start getting major diminishing returns which is why 10-20 sets is the general recommendation and has been for a long time.

 

[jess1]

@deejayjr Training doesn’t work like that. There isn’t hard rules like you make it seem.

 

[aleks_p]

@deejayjr There is so much wrong with this comment that I almost didn't even reply to it.

Nunber of sets doesn't matter at all if you're not pushing hard enough. Doing two sets of 6 to absolute failure gets you more stimulus than 4 sets to 10 with multiple reps left in the tank.

There's also a cap to how much stimulus you can handle at once before the returns start diminishing, just flat out stop, or does more harm than good.

"10-20 sets is the general recommendation and has been for a long time" ignores every single bit of evidence and scientific progress that has been made since the 70s (maybe slight hyperbole, but the point stands).

 

[jordanconnect]

@deejayjr Maybe 10-15 is ok if you don't go to failure and beyond.