Most of us understand weight training basics.
Pick up a heavy weight, do some sets and reps for different exercises and then try to do
more and more each day.
At some point, we start taking a more intermediate road for gains, and that road often leads
us to a something known as training to failure.
The concept is simple: You do as many reps as you can until you “fail” to do any
more.
This stance, championed by bodybuilding legends Dorian Yates and Mike Mentzer, is predicated
on the belief that, if you lift to failure, then you’re giving maximal effort in your
training, thus create maximal growth.
The most common definition of “failure” in the fitness world is lifting a weight to
the point where you are incapable of completing the concentric, positive phase of the lift,
such as the upward phase of a bicep curl, without breaking technique or needing assistance.
As one can imagine, this can be difficult to manage for some.
For the typical gym bro, this shouldn’t be much of a problem.
But for others, such as the boisterous beginner or the energetic elderly, two groups that
might not have the keenest eye for technique, failure training can pose an injury risk.
Heck, even well-seasoned lifters should think twice about going to failure on lifts such
as the squat, where it isn’t as easy to detect declining technique as it is for something
like lateral raises.
But, is the risk even worth it in the first place?
In short, it can be, but not at all necessary.
The current research on failure training is sparse, but we can assume some sort of stance
with the limited research.
In terms of strength gains, some research supports training to failure.
In a 2005 study, subjects training to failure improved their bench press max twice as much
as subjects using a volume-equated non-failure protocol.
The catch, though, is that the failure group also had twice as much rest between sets,
which can allow for greater performance.
The non-failure group also worked with a submaximal load.
Had they worked with a heavier weight, things might have been different.
But there is still some merit, as we do see greater peak EMG amplitude when training to
failure, a sign of greater muscle motor unit activity and developmental stimulus, especially
in strength-oriented heavy lifting.
But, the catch for any study showing benefits to strength is that subjects were always experienced
lifters.
Once we flip towards untrained or beginners, the strength benefits seemingly disappear.
In 2006, one study (squat) found that, with matched intensity and volume, previously untrained
men had no additional benefits in strength with training to failure.
And more recently, in May of 2017, one study (curl) found no additional strength gains
in young previously untrained women training to failure than both a group matching volume
without failure and a group doing even less volume without failure.
And with this study, it’s also a good time to shift to the topic of muscle growth.
The failure training group and the group matching volume both improved muscle growth with statistically
insignificant differences between the two.
Same goes for a 2016 study (curl) with previously untrained men, where a failure training group
had roughly the same growth as a non-failure training group, even though the training to
failure group had greater volume.
With trained individuals, unfortunately, the research is even more shallow.
The only relevant conclusions we can draw is by looking at studies using concentric
failure as an end-point.
First, what we see with research that does NOT take reps to failure, using a heavier
weight almost always outperform lighter weights in terms of both strength and muscle growth.
But once we ramp up lighter loads all the way to failure, with as many as 35 reps per
set and compare it to heavy loads of about 12 reps to failure, both groups were on par
in muscle growth, but the heavier load still won in terms of strength adaptations.
But what we can learn from these studies is that pushing for more tension and towards
failure do indeed have potential positive effects to growth.
Now, if there is one point you can come away with this information, it’s this:
Training to failure, according to the current research, can be effective but not at all
necessary.
That’s not to say there’s no benefit.
There just hasn’t been any definitive proof that training to failure is needed to maximize
growth.
In the end, the same tune rings true.
Consistency and progression should be your first focus paired with ample recovery.
Speaking of recovery, one can also make the case that training to failure too often will
lead to slower recovery and ultimately overtraining.
Currently unproven, but any program that induces high chronic stress can lead to eventual symptoms
of overtraining.
Best practice is to use failure training sparingly, avoid going to failure on large compound exercises
such as squats and deadlifts, and avoid doing it for every set, as that can significantly
cut down volume.
In the end, the big picture is what matters.
Failure training has its place, but you certainly can live without it.
Share your thoughts on training to failure below!
Worth it or not worth it?
Let me know!
As always, thank you for watching!