You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Going to failure VS chasing the pump VS volume
- Thread starter robrandazzo
- Start date
@robrandazzo Tbh I just do 2 maybe 3 sets to failure personally and have gotten great results compared to volume RIR etc, if you hit failure there’s no question then of did I do enough
@robrandazzo Personally, the science has led me to do 1-2 sets to failure, 2-3 movements per muscle group, twice a week, and I've been getting huge.
I spent years chasing the pump, leaving reps in the tank, doing ridiculously high amounts of volume and it got me mediocre results.
While I don't agree with everything he says, Paul Carter is my guru and he's changed my entire lifting style for the better.
I spent years chasing the pump, leaving reps in the tank, doing ridiculously high amounts of volume and it got me mediocre results.
While I don't agree with everything he says, Paul Carter is my guru and he's changed my entire lifting style for the better.
robrandazzo
New member
@robrandazzo Yeah I don't understand this at all. Maximum pump for me IS training to failure (not 100% ultimate true mechanical metabolic failure whatever the fuck) on as many sets as I can tolerate.
So if you're properly chasing the pump. I.e. going for the fatest most skin tearing pump possible you absolutely are wrecking yourself.
Anything less than this method of chasing the pump means your chasing like 70% pump.
I'm on TRT I've used gear. I've used every single pump product. From cialias to viagra to creatine to everything that goes into any imaginable pre-workout to anadrol pre-workout.
And I've done years training natty with none of this.
You're half assing or in otherwords NOT chasing the pump of you're not reaching failure utilizing slow temp rep pacing at a moderate intensity across multiple sets.
An example 60 reps as few sets as possible. It's arbitrary, it really depends on the muscle the intensity/volume you can tolerate.
But we'll just say tricep rope downs or hammer curls. First set is 15 reps. We're talking like 6-8 second it burns like a motherfucker reps. And by your 8-10 set you're doing 5 reps before you literally can't do the 6th rep.
THIS is chasing the pump. Idk how the fuck anybody else does it, so excuse my language but nothing will put literal stretch marks and growth faster on you're body than doing this. Natty or not the method doesn't change. Your "supplements" just enhance how long you can go at it. And how fat you're end pump will be.
But to say chasing the pump doesn't result in hypertrophy is bullshit. And to claim its somehow different than regular hypertrophy training. It's largely like 80% the same. Because if you're doing you're hypertrophy training at an intensity and volume that will lead to growth the pump is literally inevitable. And if you focus specifically on the pump. Its the same shit.
Once you hit failure. But dif your 60 reps or whatever. Then you drop set until you hit 5 pounds all the way from 60 or whatever and are literally fucking crippled. Then you start doing partial reps or isometric holds whatever is more appropriate for the exercise.
Literally this IS both the most optimal hypertrophy and pump chasing method. But as far as hypertrophy specifically ignoring your pump, volume/intensity/fatigue have to be balanced.
You can't literally obliterate your arms like that 3 days a week.
After a while you can only manage that level of brutality once a week.
And obviously this doesn't apply to squats or deadlifts.
You can attempt high volume squats and deadlifts like 531 BBB if you're a psychopath and want to risk your back.
Not trying to be an asshole. I'm pointing out that hypertrophy and chasing the pump when done correctly ARE largely the same exact thing. Powerlifting and doing high intensity low volume is the exact opposite and a different camp. But once you start dropping the weight and increasing reps and sets but maintaining a certain closeness to failure and you're not momentum swinging reps but doing them slow and controlled. This IS the same as the most optimal way to chase the pump.
I know this is getting extremely redundant and you're all free to try and tell me I'm wrong and argue this whatever. But utilizing hypertrophy techniques such as partial reps and drop sets after reaching failure and your main set goals to further tear the fibers up or whatever were calling it now IS the same thing as the most optimal way to chase the pump.
So I really wish we'd get off this chasing the pump doesn't build muscle bullshit. Because you're not chasing the pump correctly or doing your hypertrophy correctly if you think they're 100% two different animals. There's like an 80% overlap in volume rep range techniques intensity between the two. It's an absurd thing to say chasing the pump doesn't do shit.
I literally look like the Michelin man with an absurd alpha swole walk after hitting pull day. And that's not me being an egotistical asshole. That's how inflated my lats are afterwards, as in i cant put my arms down closer to my sides. And my backs huge.
Watch how Kai Greene or alot of other guys hit arms for hypertrophy and BB. Drugs aside that's EXACTLY what you do for chasing the pump. It's the same thing as his hypertrophy.
I'm just over this but the research paper said bullshit. Vast majority of training research papers are on beginners or elderly people because they're trying to prove a drug or supplements results. Then the other ones that aren't are on poor sample sizes have poor setups. I.e. people of differing body weights heights BF levels. Etc. Most of them are poorly controlled.
Read the papers, keep them in mind. Take them with a grain of salt and look at what's consistent between everyone bigger and stronger than you. Drugs and natty. Look at what they consistently do. Prioritize this and then supplement that with research.
Keep in mind chasing the pump does NOT mean you ignore progressive overload. And you're an idiot if you think that's what it means.
Chasing the pump means you've made the metabolic demands temporarily so great that your body had to dilate every blood vessel in the tissue to force more nutrients energy, blood oxygen and glycogen into the tissue. And you're a fool if you somehow think that isn't hypertrophic.
Chasing the pump for this very reason also increases vascularity and vein size in that area as an adaptation so that it can more efficiently be fueled in the future. Which also allows it to recover and grow faster from enhanced nutrient delivery.
To make your metabolic demands so great that your body has to maximize blood forced into it, mean doing hypertrophic training techniques such as drop sets to failure after your main progressive overload sets. Doing partial reps after initial failure. Doing isometric holds or slow releases after failure.
It basically involves beating the fuck out of the muscle and when it fails. You lower the weight until you can do it again. You're trying to maximize the failure. Until you can't curl a 5 pound dumbell after you did your 50 pound hammer curls.
If you're trying to chase the pump by just doing 10 easy reps for 10 easy sets. Then yeah you're doing it wrong and you're receiving no stimulus from that.
I'm not gonna say anything else. Go downvote me because the research says. Hypertrophic training maximally and chasing the pump maximally are the same thing are largely two parts of the same animal. 80% overlap. The other 20% is some people do not train to failure and then dropset and continue to destroy themselves in that manner. Some people strictly do 3x10 sets or whatever and this isn't the most conducive to pump chasing.
Obviously as you're 1rm goes up you have to use a lower starting % of 1rm because of the CNS fatigue. (Yes CNS fatigue, go dropset 200 pound cable rows all the way to 5, every bar of weight 0 rest inbetween, youll be exhausted soaked in sweat and your back will be ripping out of your shirt)
And to say chasing the pump style of training is bullshit. Then you have the wrong picture of what that actually means in your head.
So if you're properly chasing the pump. I.e. going for the fatest most skin tearing pump possible you absolutely are wrecking yourself.
Anything less than this method of chasing the pump means your chasing like 70% pump.
I'm on TRT I've used gear. I've used every single pump product. From cialias to viagra to creatine to everything that goes into any imaginable pre-workout to anadrol pre-workout.
And I've done years training natty with none of this.
You're half assing or in otherwords NOT chasing the pump of you're not reaching failure utilizing slow temp rep pacing at a moderate intensity across multiple sets.
An example 60 reps as few sets as possible. It's arbitrary, it really depends on the muscle the intensity/volume you can tolerate.
But we'll just say tricep rope downs or hammer curls. First set is 15 reps. We're talking like 6-8 second it burns like a motherfucker reps. And by your 8-10 set you're doing 5 reps before you literally can't do the 6th rep.
THIS is chasing the pump. Idk how the fuck anybody else does it, so excuse my language but nothing will put literal stretch marks and growth faster on you're body than doing this. Natty or not the method doesn't change. Your "supplements" just enhance how long you can go at it. And how fat you're end pump will be.
But to say chasing the pump doesn't result in hypertrophy is bullshit. And to claim its somehow different than regular hypertrophy training. It's largely like 80% the same. Because if you're doing you're hypertrophy training at an intensity and volume that will lead to growth the pump is literally inevitable. And if you focus specifically on the pump. Its the same shit.
Once you hit failure. But dif your 60 reps or whatever. Then you drop set until you hit 5 pounds all the way from 60 or whatever and are literally fucking crippled. Then you start doing partial reps or isometric holds whatever is more appropriate for the exercise.
Literally this IS both the most optimal hypertrophy and pump chasing method. But as far as hypertrophy specifically ignoring your pump, volume/intensity/fatigue have to be balanced.
You can't literally obliterate your arms like that 3 days a week.
After a while you can only manage that level of brutality once a week.
And obviously this doesn't apply to squats or deadlifts.
You can attempt high volume squats and deadlifts like 531 BBB if you're a psychopath and want to risk your back.
Not trying to be an asshole. I'm pointing out that hypertrophy and chasing the pump when done correctly ARE largely the same exact thing. Powerlifting and doing high intensity low volume is the exact opposite and a different camp. But once you start dropping the weight and increasing reps and sets but maintaining a certain closeness to failure and you're not momentum swinging reps but doing them slow and controlled. This IS the same as the most optimal way to chase the pump.
I know this is getting extremely redundant and you're all free to try and tell me I'm wrong and argue this whatever. But utilizing hypertrophy techniques such as partial reps and drop sets after reaching failure and your main set goals to further tear the fibers up or whatever were calling it now IS the same thing as the most optimal way to chase the pump.
So I really wish we'd get off this chasing the pump doesn't build muscle bullshit. Because you're not chasing the pump correctly or doing your hypertrophy correctly if you think they're 100% two different animals. There's like an 80% overlap in volume rep range techniques intensity between the two. It's an absurd thing to say chasing the pump doesn't do shit.
I literally look like the Michelin man with an absurd alpha swole walk after hitting pull day. And that's not me being an egotistical asshole. That's how inflated my lats are afterwards, as in i cant put my arms down closer to my sides. And my backs huge.
Watch how Kai Greene or alot of other guys hit arms for hypertrophy and BB. Drugs aside that's EXACTLY what you do for chasing the pump. It's the same thing as his hypertrophy.
I'm just over this but the research paper said bullshit. Vast majority of training research papers are on beginners or elderly people because they're trying to prove a drug or supplements results. Then the other ones that aren't are on poor sample sizes have poor setups. I.e. people of differing body weights heights BF levels. Etc. Most of them are poorly controlled.
Read the papers, keep them in mind. Take them with a grain of salt and look at what's consistent between everyone bigger and stronger than you. Drugs and natty. Look at what they consistently do. Prioritize this and then supplement that with research.
Keep in mind chasing the pump does NOT mean you ignore progressive overload. And you're an idiot if you think that's what it means.
Chasing the pump means you've made the metabolic demands temporarily so great that your body had to dilate every blood vessel in the tissue to force more nutrients energy, blood oxygen and glycogen into the tissue. And you're a fool if you somehow think that isn't hypertrophic.
Chasing the pump for this very reason also increases vascularity and vein size in that area as an adaptation so that it can more efficiently be fueled in the future. Which also allows it to recover and grow faster from enhanced nutrient delivery.
To make your metabolic demands so great that your body has to maximize blood forced into it, mean doing hypertrophic training techniques such as drop sets to failure after your main progressive overload sets. Doing partial reps after initial failure. Doing isometric holds or slow releases after failure.
It basically involves beating the fuck out of the muscle and when it fails. You lower the weight until you can do it again. You're trying to maximize the failure. Until you can't curl a 5 pound dumbell after you did your 50 pound hammer curls.
If you're trying to chase the pump by just doing 10 easy reps for 10 easy sets. Then yeah you're doing it wrong and you're receiving no stimulus from that.
I'm not gonna say anything else. Go downvote me because the research says. Hypertrophic training maximally and chasing the pump maximally are the same thing are largely two parts of the same animal. 80% overlap. The other 20% is some people do not train to failure and then dropset and continue to destroy themselves in that manner. Some people strictly do 3x10 sets or whatever and this isn't the most conducive to pump chasing.
Obviously as you're 1rm goes up you have to use a lower starting % of 1rm because of the CNS fatigue. (Yes CNS fatigue, go dropset 200 pound cable rows all the way to 5, every bar of weight 0 rest inbetween, youll be exhausted soaked in sweat and your back will be ripping out of your shirt)
And to say chasing the pump style of training is bullshit. Then you have the wrong picture of what that actually means in your head.
@robrandazzo I have a pet theory (that has been voiced by others as well) and that is that you'll get used to going to failure after a while. Studies are short and wouldn't observe this, but it's been true for me and others I know...
Going to failure isn't that taxing- when you are used to it.
Going to failure isn't that taxing- when you are used to it.
d00dlypeach
New member
@rachel_44 Truly. I feel bad if I don't go to failure.
savedsoul2010
New member
@d00dlypeach I also fail on sets a lot (bar literally falls on me) but everyone on the internet claims we have no idea what true failure feels like so I guess we have to unlock super Saiyan or start seeing tunnel vision to stop leaving 6-10 RIR?
@robrandazzo
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.
Some extra things to note
I know science based bodybuilding puts emphasis on volume and not going to failure on every set.
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.
Some extra things to note
- Pump doesn't matter (at all), this is calcium ion and blood flow to the muscle and can vary based on a whole bunch of factors, none of which show mechanical tension.
- Volume is still too high in most routines. There's no benefit to going more than 4-6 sets per session for a muscle group assuming proper intensity and rest.
- If you train at 3 RIR a few things are guaranteed
- You often will be 5+ RIR as it's extremely hard to judge, especially if you're new.
- You'll need to do more volume to achieve the same stimulus as just training to failure, likely accumulating more fatigue and getting worse results.
sugarcookies
New member
@helen2002
Got a link?
There was a meta analysis in May this year (the biggest so far) which ended that whole silly debate.
Got a link?
@sugarcookies The debate has not been settled. Listen to Menno Henselmans break down training to failure and this non peer-reviewed meta analysis:
@helen2002 So you have no arguments against Menno’s analysis?
Do you always ignore evidence if it doesn’t fit your preconceived conclusions?
Do you always ignore evidence if it doesn’t fit your preconceived conclusions?
@deejayjr Here's the evidence I'm aware of.
4-5 large studies and meta analysis that shows a clear benefit from training to failure. With the largest that I've linked above that includes pretty much all those prior studies and shows an extremely clear trend towards 0 RIR versus 3-4 RIR with a lot of participants achieving very poor muscle growth in the high RIR group.
I'm not listening to some random person speak in a youtube video from a reddit comment.
Present your citation/analysis if you want to challenge the evidence I've already presented or get out. Thanks.
I'd also recommend you don't base your training principles off random youtube videos or podcasts.
4-5 large studies and meta analysis that shows a clear benefit from training to failure. With the largest that I've linked above that includes pretty much all those prior studies and shows an extremely clear trend towards 0 RIR versus 3-4 RIR with a lot of participants achieving very poor muscle growth in the high RIR group.
I'm not listening to some random person speak in a youtube video from a reddit comment.
Present your citation/analysis if you want to challenge the evidence I've already presented or get out. Thanks.
I'd also recommend you don't base your training principles off random youtube videos or podcasts.
@helen2002 If you think Menno Henselmans is some random youtube guy then your analysis of this meta analysis has no value whatsoever.
What makes your interpretation of this meta more valuable than Mennos?
What makes your interpretation of this meta more valuable than Mennos?
@deejayjr Present your evidence that contradicts this meta or stop embarrassing yourself.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
Also that big meta hows a direct exponential relationship with muscle hypertrophy towards 0 RIR, there's no "interpretation", it's just data.
How someone should train based on that data is open to interpretation. You can try and make an argument for high RIR with more volume to make up for the REDUCED hypertrophy from 3-4 RIR versus 0-1 RIR if you like.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
Also that big meta hows a direct exponential relationship with muscle hypertrophy towards 0 RIR, there's no "interpretation", it's just data.
How someone should train based on that data is open to interpretation. You can try and make an argument for high RIR with more volume to make up for the REDUCED hypertrophy from 3-4 RIR versus 0-1 RIR if you like.
@helen2002 Menno breaks down exactly why this meta analysis has flaws and limitations and why the curve doesn’t match previous metas.
Also like I’ve said before, this meta has not been peer reviewed so reading into this too much might not be accurate.
Also like I’ve said before, this meta has not been peer reviewed so reading into this too much might not be accurate.
@deejayjr I have no issue with Menno or any valid criticisms, I welcome them. That's how science works, we seek to prove ourselves wrong to best find the truth.
The problem is you saying to watch a video/podcast to present your claim. That's not how it works. You need to present the argument or citation and you can reference the video as a source, I'm not going to go and watch a random video if you haven't given a reason as to why that's not a complete waste of time.
I'm pretty sure I'm aware of almost every main study that's focused on training to failure and even if this 2023 meta didn't exist the evidence is still clearly in favour of training to at least 0-2RIR.
The only place people seem to differ is the programming overall for eg, is it better to train with more volume at 3-4 RIR to make up for the lower stimulus? You can make that argument but the data doesn't back it very well so far. The literature would suggest that doing that is going to achieve similar effective reps but due to the amount of reps performed, there will be a greater overall fatigue costs from calcium ion build-up etc versus doing it in fewer sets. Impacting the amount of effective reps achieveable.
The problem is you saying to watch a video/podcast to present your claim. That's not how it works. You need to present the argument or citation and you can reference the video as a source, I'm not going to go and watch a random video if you haven't given a reason as to why that's not a complete waste of time.
I'm pretty sure I'm aware of almost every main study that's focused on training to failure and even if this 2023 meta didn't exist the evidence is still clearly in favour of training to at least 0-2RIR.
The only place people seem to differ is the programming overall for eg, is it better to train with more volume at 3-4 RIR to make up for the lower stimulus? You can make that argument but the data doesn't back it very well so far. The literature would suggest that doing that is going to achieve similar effective reps but due to the amount of reps performed, there will be a greater overall fatigue costs from calcium ion build-up etc versus doing it in fewer sets. Impacting the amount of effective reps achieveable.
@sugarcookies https://sportrxiv.org/index.php/server/preprint/view/295
Think this is the one. It's quite long so just stick to the summary curves to see the hypertrophy and strength benefits from proximity to failure.
Even in a lot of the other studies prior to this (2019 meta etc) there was a benefit in the data and the researchers concluded there wasn't a benefit from really poor reasoning.
Think this is the one. It's quite long so just stick to the summary curves to see the hypertrophy and strength benefits from proximity to failure.
Even in a lot of the other studies prior to this (2019 meta etc) there was a benefit in the data and the researchers concluded there wasn't a benefit from really poor reasoning.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 0
- Views
- 1
- Replies
- 2
- Views
- 10
- Replies
- 6
- Views
- 13
- Replies
- 8
- Views
- 10
- Replies
- 16
- Views
- 17
- Replies
- 6
- Views
- 18
- Replies
- 10
- Views
- 21