Training to failure is something that’s brought up time and time again when talking
about strategies to maximize them muscle gainz and strength.
After all, going to failure means giving it your best effort, which one would assume would
give the best results.
In my video on training to failure a few years back, however, I concluded that research suggests
training to failure, although can be effective, wasn’t always necessary, especially for
large, compound exercises like squats and deadlifts.
But the problem with the past video was that not much direct research existed then, particularly
in the case of muscle gains in resistance trained subjects, like those of you that have
been going to the gym for a while.
But now, we’ve come across a new training-to-failure study, which, lo and behold, looked directly
at muscle hypertrophy in resistance trained men.
If we’re lucky, we’ll leave with a better answer to the question:
Will training to failure improve muscle growth?
First, a word from today’s sponsor…
ME, just me.
After hearing some of your… eh not-so-stellar experiences with the old PictureFit Teespring
merch store, I’ve decided to launch a brand new PictureFit store that I’ll be running
personally.
Everything is now gonna go through me so that I can ensure you guys get the best product
and the best service possible.
This is gonna be a completely whole new start.
I’ll dig into this a bit more later but if you ever wanted to support me and the content
and wanna keep fighting the good fight for the truth in fitness, then come check out
the new shop at picfitshop.com ! Thank you.
Now onto the study.
In this study, 15 resistance trained men were split into two different training groups for
10 weeks training 3 times a week.
The first training group utilized a “relative intensity” training protocol, where the
amount of weight used was a percentage relative to the maximal load for any given amount of
sets and reps.
For example, if a subject is estimated to bench press 220 pounds maximally for 3 sets
of 10, then during the actual experiment, they will lift a submaximal percentage instead,
like 90% of 220, or roughly benching 200 pounds.
This ensures that these subjects do NOT reach muscular failure while maintaining high volume.
The second group would then be the group reaching failure.
These subjects trained with a load estimated to reach muscular failure in the final set
at a certain amount of reps.
For example, if the prescribed protocol was to train with an RM zone of 3 sets of 8 to
12 reps, then it was necessary that the load is heavy enough for the subject to FAIL on
the third and final set within that 8 to 12 rep range.
If subjects didn’t fail in that range, be it they did less or more reps, the weight
is then adjusted for subsequent sessions to ensure that they do.
In short, one group didn’t train to failure and another did and both performed a similar
amount of total work volume.
The observation of this study was in multiple muscle-based outcomes.
The researchers not only looked into general muscle growth, but also changes in specific
muscle fibers, type 1 and type 2, muscle thickness, and changes in relevant muscle proteins, like
mTor.
But enough about the study design, which certainly seemed pretty thorough, let’s get onto the
results.
For changes in type 1 and type 2 muscle fibers cross-sectional area, the non-failure training
group was the only group to reach statistically significant increases in both fiber types.
Anatomical cross-sectional area also favored non-failure training, but with statistically
significant improvements for both groups in terms of muscle thickness.
But on both a whole and single-fiber level, it was very clear that non-failure training
led to better hypertrophic adaptations.
Now, why is that?
According to the researchers, the difference is, quote, “possibly due to a lack of recovery
allowed by virtue of consistently training to failure in the RM group, rather than insufficient
stimuli.”
They supported the notion of lacking recovery being the issue by referencing past studies
demonstrating that failure training can delay neuromuscular performance by up to 24 to 48
hours post-exercise.
In essence, training to failure hurts your recovery.
Hurting recovery thus hurts your gains.
Now if we piece the findings of this new study together with the findings of the studies
in the previous video, then the conclusion honestly doesn’t change much.
Training to failure can still be effective in sporadic uses as long as recovery isn’t
hindered.
But there are other factors, like volume and intensity, that are much more important.
As far as the answer specifically to, “will training to failure improve muscle growth
and only muscle growth,” It looks like it’s leaning towards… nah, not really.
In the end, you’re probably better sticking with less training to failure, more volume,
*more picturefit videos*, and of course, more recovery.
Hey, once again, if you have the time, please come check out the new PictureFit shop at
picfitshop.com.
If you find value in my content, learn something new from it, or just simply enjoy my poor
drawing skills, then please consider supporting me through the PicFit shop.
I’ve been researching and developing the new store the past few months to make sure
you’re getting only top-notch products.
You’re gonna feel good rocking the merch at the gym or really anywhere else, and it’s
a good way to showcase your support for not only me, but also your support for unbiased
and objective health and fitness information.
And honestly, that’s the most important thing to me in the world and that’s what
the new brand launch is all about.
If that’s something you wanna be a part of, then check out picfitshop.com.
Cash in on that pre-order discount.
Support ya triangle boy, and frankly thank you for even just watching my stuff.
Other than that, like the video if you enjoyed it, share it with your failure-training loving
friends, and as always, thank you for watching and GET YOUR PROTEIN!