@harpazo777 Yeah, thanks. Just wanted to make sure haha
New "RIR 1-2 vs RIR 0" Study - Similar gains
- Thread starter livingme7
- Start date
@harpazo777
I'm not ashamed to admit that I cannot reliably get 0 RIR on quad movements every workout. This shit is brutal. That's the one where Im happy to stay 1-2 RIR
I'm not ashamed to admit that I cannot reliably get 0 RIR on quad movements every workout. This shit is brutal. That's the one where Im happy to stay 1-2 RIR
unshakeablefaith
New member
@helen2002 And like I’ve always said, the “go to failure bro” lifters just lift until it gets uncomfortable 
@harpazo777 Same. I also train 1 RIR for almost all free weight compounds and 0 RIR on every last set.
@harpazo777
Are you referring to that tingly feeling in your brain when you go close to failure on leg press? I hate that. I find that this stopped happening when I train leg press deeper into leg/full body day after I work up a sweat. It's like my CNS gets lubricated. So as long as you haven't done quads earlier in the session. Or else your quads will be going to failure easier (though in your case, if you feel like you're quads are not getting worked enough with leg press, then doing leg extensions before leg press might actually help grow your quads more.)
Thing is I don't train to actual failure on leg press like 90+% of the time but my quads get sore for days anyways so as long as the volume is sufficient. So as long as you're getting those quad DOMS like me, I'm pretty sure your quads are going to grow. Though DOMS is not a requirement for a muscle to grow. Maybe once your quads are developed to a certain level, two legged leg press is no longer useful if you're running into CNS failure before quads.
I have worse luck with barbell back squats. I am on the verge of passing out before my quads tap out on those. Whereas on leg extensions, my quads tap very easily. But like another poster said, if you take a breather, you can go again on leg extensions and actually not be at true failure. Leg extensions for whatever reason are the kind of movement where if I tap out as soon as it becomes unbearable for 3 sets, I'm not getting quad DOMS. But I get quad DOMS consistently with leg press so as long as I do 3 sets close enough to failure.
Are you referring to that tingly feeling in your brain when you go close to failure on leg press? I hate that. I find that this stopped happening when I train leg press deeper into leg/full body day after I work up a sweat. It's like my CNS gets lubricated. So as long as you haven't done quads earlier in the session. Or else your quads will be going to failure easier (though in your case, if you feel like you're quads are not getting worked enough with leg press, then doing leg extensions before leg press might actually help grow your quads more.)
Thing is I don't train to actual failure on leg press like 90+% of the time but my quads get sore for days anyways so as long as the volume is sufficient. So as long as you're getting those quad DOMS like me, I'm pretty sure your quads are going to grow. Though DOMS is not a requirement for a muscle to grow. Maybe once your quads are developed to a certain level, two legged leg press is no longer useful if you're running into CNS failure before quads.
I have worse luck with barbell back squats. I am on the verge of passing out before my quads tap out on those. Whereas on leg extensions, my quads tap very easily. But like another poster said, if you take a breather, you can go again on leg extensions and actually not be at true failure. Leg extensions for whatever reason are the kind of movement where if I tap out as soon as it becomes unbearable for 3 sets, I'm not getting quad DOMS. But I get quad DOMS consistently with leg press so as long as I do 3 sets close enough to failure.
frustratedhusband
New member
@livingme7 5 rir is more hypertrophic than people think. I think that the last set of (almost) every exercise you do should be to failure to give some insight in how to gauge rir, the rest at 3-0.
@frustratedhusband Oh yes, if effective reps is true then it's the last 12 or 14 reps not the last 5
@livingme7 I don’t think people should really worry abt RIR unless they’ve been training for like over half a decade. Even then it’s still easier just to go to failure and call it rather than worrying abt RIR.
In an extreme deficit I can see avoiding the extra accruing fatigue to be beneficial but other than that I don’t see any applicable point in RIR just yet.
Similar gains sure, but I don’t wanna worry abt if I had more than 1-2 in the tank.
In an extreme deficit I can see avoiding the extra accruing fatigue to be beneficial but other than that I don’t see any applicable point in RIR just yet.
Similar gains sure, but I don’t wanna worry abt if I had more than 1-2 in the tank.
@minhphat I agree that people shouldn't be doing RIR early on. I think it takes a decent amount of experience to develop the knowledge of how much you truly do have in reserve, and the only way to know that is to train to failure anyway. So yeah, after years of lifting, you probably have a good feel for your body, but you don't have that until you're experienced with it.
Plus, failure is when the bitch doesn't move anymore. Failure isn't when it hurts to keep going. And a lot of people, especially early on, stop when it hurts to keep moving. Unless you've been in sports where coaches/teammates have pushed you further/harder than you thought you could go or if you're just a little fucked in the head and enjoy the hurt, then you might not even know how it feels to actually fail.
Plus, failure is when the bitch doesn't move anymore. Failure isn't when it hurts to keep going. And a lot of people, especially early on, stop when it hurts to keep moving. Unless you've been in sports where coaches/teammates have pushed you further/harder than you thought you could go or if you're just a little fucked in the head and enjoy the hurt, then you might not even know how it feels to actually fail.
timelesstim
New member
@marisela Fully agree with this and I think this is partly why everyone is so fixated on lengthened partials right now. I think lots of people probably didn't go near failure for years, then saw Sam Sulek doing loads of lengthened partials. They imitate him and unwittingly train to failure for the first time, see gains, and then attribute those gains to the lengthened partials rather than the fact that they are now training to failure for the first time.
unshakeablefaith
New member
@timelesstim Sam doesn’t do lengthened partials. His ROM floats between the lengthened and shortened position. Look at his pull-downs, never fully stretches and never touches the bar to his chest.
timelesstim
New member
@unshakeablefaith Oh, fair enough. Maybe Sam was not the right example then. But there are many fitness influencers currently doing and hyping lengthened partials.
@timelesstim That's because that's what a bunch of recent studies are showing. Studies have shown some instances of lengthened partials being more effective than full ROM. After twenty years of the ROM police it's kind of a revolution going on at the moment with the lengthened partials.
timelesstim
New member
@timelesstim https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33977835/
Here you go
the full ROM group did not gain the most muscle. Instead, the stretch-only group gained the most muscle.
Also this
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30580468/
From here
https://mennohenselmans.com/stretch-mediated-hypertrophy-rom/
Here you go
the full ROM group did not gain the most muscle. Instead, the stretch-only group gained the most muscle.
Also this
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30580468/
From here
https://mennohenselmans.com/stretch-mediated-hypertrophy-rom/
timelesstim
New member
@joncrank
Definitely some interesting stuff but I think quite a bit more research would be needed. For starters the sample group is 45 untrained people which is really not ideal - especially given the existing hypothesis that SMH only applies to untrained people.
It also trained only the leg extension and only up to 100 degrees flexion, which arguably isn't much of a stretch.
I think it would be equally reasonable to say this study just tells us that the, in a leg extension, the quads have their best leverage between 100 - 65 degrees.
I think for this research to be revolutionary it would need to be carried out on trained subjects, train multiple exercises, and put more emphasis on actually stretching the muscle, because in my view 100 degrees on leg extension isn't really a stretch.
As for the meta analysis - looks like it's looking at isometrics? Haven't read the whole thing though.
Definitely some interesting stuff but I think quite a bit more research would be needed. For starters the sample group is 45 untrained people which is really not ideal - especially given the existing hypothesis that SMH only applies to untrained people.
It also trained only the leg extension and only up to 100 degrees flexion, which arguably isn't much of a stretch.
I think it would be equally reasonable to say this study just tells us that the, in a leg extension, the quads have their best leverage between 100 - 65 degrees.
I think for this research to be revolutionary it would need to be carried out on trained subjects, train multiple exercises, and put more emphasis on actually stretching the muscle, because in my view 100 degrees on leg extension isn't really a stretch.
As for the meta analysis - looks like it's looking at isometrics? Haven't read the whole thing though.
@minhphat Yeah, people seem to dig into the subject a little bit too deep imo. I do think people should have some knowledge about the difference in results being very very similar. A lot of guys i see in the gym do partials after every set to "really burn out the muscle". So basically RPE 12 every set. I don't think that's a smart idea for the average gym goer. That will increase fatigue by a lot and i think it drastically decreases performance on the next sets.